Abstract
The History of Niketas Choniates, covering the period of Byzantine history from 1118 to 1206, is one of the acknowledged masterpieces of medieval Greek historiography.1 Not the least masterly of its features is its full and nuanced portrait of the emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143-80). In itself, the appraisal seems neutral, for the author has both good and bad to say about Manuel and his policies. However, in comparison with the other literary sources for Manuel's reign the histories of John Kinnamos and William of Tyre, and the numerous prose and verse encomia celebrating the emperor's achievements Choniates is highly critical. Whether this criticism is as accurate or as fair as most modern scholars, seduced perhaps by Choniates' sophistication, seem to have assumed2 must be disputed elsewhere. My present concern is with the general principles on which Choniates' disapproval is based. These principles are apparent in three passages of his work. Firstly, in Book I of his section on Manuel, in pointing out that Manuel's early generosity did not last, he observes: when he came to manhood, he ruled more autocratically (archikoteron), treating his subjects not as free men, but as if they were servants who belonged to him by inheritance.3 Later, in Book IV, after describing how two of the emperor's cousins fell foul of him, Choniates launches into a tirade against the envy of rulers in general, who feel themselves threatened if any of their subjects excel:
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
