International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Boris Babić
University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Philosophy, Banja Luka,
Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina;
[e-mail]
Negative Perceptions about Byzantine Emperors 
in the Writings of Medieval Serbian Writers
This paper represents an attempt to consider negative perceptions of medieval Serbian writers 
about two Byzantine emperors. The first one was Andronicus I (1183-1185), representative of the 
Comnenus dynasty, while the other, Michael VIII (1259-1282), belongs to the Palaiologan ancestry.
During his short reign, which had a brilliant beginning and difficult ending, Andronicus I 
Comnenus did not commit any sins that caused skepticism of Serbian writers. However, Stefan 
Nemanjic and Domentijan, describes this ruler as a mad emperor, emperor of blood-letting and 
emperor of bloodshed. The cause of the terminological similarity between their descriptions certainly 
lies in the fact that Domentijan wrote his biography almost a half century after Stefan Nemanjic’s 
biography and that he took over a huge part of the text from his predecessor. In an attempt to clarify 
the cause of such writing, there is a question raised from where or from whom Serbian writers of 
the 13
th
century took the data about the last Byzantine emperor from the Comnenus dynasty. This 
dilemma becomes significant considering that none of the two writers was the emperor’s coeval. This 
implies that they could only obtain data about him indirectly. Their source was most likely Sava who 
was a monk on the Holy Mountain at that time and who later became the first Serbian Archbishop. 
He could learn about negative perceptions about Andronicus Comnenus from Emperor Alexios 
III Angelos or someone from his court surrounding. It is necessary to emphasize that Andronicus 
I Comnenus took anti-aristocratic course in the beginning of his reign and the Angelos family was 
affected by such a policy. Members of this family did not have much reason to like Andronicus 
Comnenus. The monk on the Holy Mountain Sava was many times in a position to get unreliable 
information on Andronicus I. He travelled several times in the last decade of the 12
th
century to 
Constantinople in order to obtain permission for building the Serb monastery Hilandar.
The literary character of Michael VIII, founder of the last Byzantine dynasty is very interesting 
from a medieval Serbian writer’s point of view. He was not liked by medieval writers, both Byzantine 
and Serbian, due to his politics of reconciliation with Rome and reunion of Churches in Lyon in 
1274. His religious policy was based on an attempt to preserve the restored Byzantine Empire 
from a new crusade from the West. However, the majority of medieval writers did not understand 
this political strategy and, therefore, this emperor was negatively described in their writings. For 
example, the stance of Archbishop Danilo II towards Emperor Michael VIII is extremely hostile 
with many harsh and insulting words. In the biography of King Milutin, Michael VIII was first 
unduly criticised for his campaign against Serbian kingdom in the last year of his reign. The Serbian 
writer never found out that his son and heir Andronicus II sent Tatar mercenaries to Serbia after 
the sudden death of Emperor Michael VIII. In the writing of the Serb Archbishop, the restorer of 
the Byzantine Empire was characterized as an abusive emperor, persuaded by the devil, similar to 

---

732
one foxy felon who deviated from light to darkness. I assume that monks from the Holy Mountain 
were those who exclusively transferred negative perceptions towards Emperor Michael VIII from 
Byzantine to Serbian literature. During his spiritual career, Danilo II visited the Holy Mountain 
several times and talked to them.