International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Aikaterini Andritsou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 
[e-mail]
Observations on Nikephoros Gregoras’ Literary Treatment 
of Written Sources in Roman History
The communication focuses οn aspects of Nikephoros Gregoras’ management of the historical 
material in his 
Roman History
. Gregoras promises to narrate briefly τὰ
 
μετὰ
 
τὴν
 
ἅλωσιν
 
τῆς 
βασιλευούσης
 
τῶν
 π
όλεων and picks out specific events to expand on. He draws on the content of 
various written sources and modifies it at will. Different literary techniques are employed in order 

---

180
to recreate historical episodes of the author’s choice: digressions, proverbs, dramatization, paradox, 
insertion of portraits and authorial intrusion serve to summarize or enrich the depiction of the 
historical events. The use of such techniques ultimately aims at adapting the given data according 
to the author’s and his audience’s literary preferences. The material examined here regards the 
period between the Fall of Constantinople to the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and its 
recapture in 1261. Gregoras’ sources for the passages under consideration are identified and the 
established relationship between the works of Gregoras’ immediate predecessors and 
Roman History
is investigated in terms of structure, content, kind of narrative and verbal expression. The above 
mentioned particular characteristics of historical narrative form an integral part of 
Roman History 
and reflect Gregoras’ literary contribution in Byzantine historiography.
Žarko Petković
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, Serbia; 
[e-mail]
Classical Authors in the 
Histories
of John Cantacuzenos – Two Examples
It is well attested that Byzantine authors were keen to show how well they were acquainted 
with classical literature and culture. In that manner, Euclides, one of the participants in Plato’s 
Theaetetus
, was mentioned at the beginning of John Cantacuzenos’ historical 
oeuvre
. According 
to Cantacuzenos, recent history of the Empire could be explained in different ways. Namely, the 
blame for the Civil War could be cast either on the grandfather (Andronicos II), or on the grandson 
(Andronicos III). Their deeds, continues Cantacuzenos, have double explication, as Euclides had 
demonstrated.
It had been – long ago – argued that Euclides is one of Socrates’ followers, or to be more 
precise, a friend and a pupil of the Athenian, present also during his dying hours. (Plato, 
Phaedo
, 59 
C). However, the question what is (true) knowledge (
Th
. 146 A), or the relativity of truth, pointed 
out by Cantacuzenos, is not linked to Euclides in Plato’s 
Theaetetus
, although he is mentioned in the 
dramatic frame of that dialogue. Relativity of truth is not linked to Euclides anywhere else in Plato’s 
work either. Therefore, bearing in mind that Diogenes Laertius described Euclides in his writing as 
“eristic” (2.106 --107), it should be assumed that Cantacuzenos was acquainted with Βίοι καὶ γνῶμαι 
τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ εὐδοκιμησάντω
, 
or with the treaties used by Diogenes Laertius (for example, 
Aleksandar Polyhistor, who is mentioned in Diogenes’s text).
The second example of the influence of classical literature on Cantacuzenos is to be found 
somewhat later in the narrative (1.36). Namely, Cantacuzenos writes that Andronicus III and 
himself - as Grand Domestic – requested the presence of Serbian envoy, monk Kalinikos, in order 
to discuss with him the alliance and friendship with the Serbian King (Milutin). The specific phrase 
Cantacuzenos used (
symmachia kai philia
) led us to postulate that he was an assiduous reader of 
Polybios or Appian, who were writers of choice among the Byzantine elite on the subject of orthodox 
version of Roman past and who themselves had frequently used that expression.

---

181
A further assumption is possible - an even more probable one. The same phrase (
symmachia 
kai philia
) is used by the author of the 
1 Maccabees 
(8.20). As it can be argued with certainty that 
Cantacuzenos was familiar with this text, it is inevitable to conclude that he should have been aware 
of that particular phrase as well. This does not, however, exclude the possibility that classical Greek 
authors, mentioned above, were read by the Byzantine Emperor.
It is noteworthy to point out that an expression used to denote a practical tool of Roman 
Republican diplomacy, reached a Roman Emperor more than 1500 years later - by means of a 
religious Hebrew text.

---