|
Dušan B. Simić
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, Serbia;
dus.simic@gmail.com
The Civil War (1341-1347) in the Historical Work of Doukas
In this paper we have analyzed how and in what manner historian Doukas describes the civil
war in the Byzantine Empire from 1341 to 1347, devoting special attention to his perception of the
conflict, the terms which he used for it, his attitude toward its protagonists, as well as questions of
chronology and possible sources for his narrative. By studying his work, we discovered that he gives
very simplified and biased account of this conflict with much incorrectness, omitting to mention
numerous important persons and events. Moreover, he makes some material mistakes which, to all
appearance, are not consequences of an intentional distortion of facts but of his ignorance. Besides,
we have established that Doukas sees causes of this conflict primarily in hatred and envy of the
opponents of Cantacuzene among members of the Senate, because of his intentions to marry his
daughter to John V. Also, this historian sees the blame for the war in figure of the empress Anna
of Savoy. When it comes to the way in which Doukas perceives this conflict, we have concluded
that he comprehends it as a civil war. This conflict and what happened during it, Doukas sees as
God’s punishment for support of the Romans to the usurpation of Michael VIII. Concerning the
consequences of this war, he is aware of how much they were disastrous, not only for Byzantium
but also for other countries, since they opened door to Turkish penetration. He also realizes that
this war enabled the rise of Serbia and its proclamation of the empire. In his words, which show
Doukas’s awareness of the fatalness of this conflict certain
byzantonocentric
tendencies of this his-
torian are also reflected. By the analysis of his work, we have also found out that Doukas is very
inclined to John Cantacuzene, about whom he often writes in superlatives and tends to unburden
him of responsibility for outbreak of the war and events during it, especially cooperation with the
Turks. When it comes to the opponents of Cantacuzene, the extent of his odium towards them is
different. Thus, we can say that he has the most negative attitude towards Alexios Apokaukos, but
in the same time, the way in which he writes about him, betrays that Doukas was not fully aware of
importance of his role in this conflict. As for Anna of Savoy, although he blames her, among others,
for the war, it is noticeable that when writes about her, he doesn’t use a single abusive epithet, which
may tell something about his scruples and gives impression that this historian doesn’t place her in
the same category with others enemies of Cantacuzene. Concerning John V, Doukas writes about
him with undervaluation, emphasizing his youth and stressing that he was under the tutorship of
Cantacuzene, and in description of the later events, his attitude toward him becomes much more
negative and insulting. In connection with chronology of this conflict, he gives only few inaccu-
rate determinants of time. The most important of them concerns the
engagement
of Cantacuzene’s
daughter and Orhan. Despite the fact that neither Cantacuzene nor Gregoras mention in explicit
way this
engagement
, one may connect this data with the arrival of the envoy of Byzantine usurper
to sultan which agreed upon concluding of the marriage. When it comes to sources for his narra-
tive, we believe that material mistakes which Doukas made exclude the possibility that he based it
186
on works of Gregoras or Cantacuzene. To all appearance, as the
main
source for his description of
events he used some unknown lost source, inclined to Cantacuzene, whose author was probably not
in the center of events nor was he a contemporary of them. Also, it is not impossible that for some
specific details about the massacre after the murder of Apokaukos, he used as a
source
words of his
grandfather, Michael Doukas.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
