International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Francisco Lopez-Santos Kornberger
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; 
[e-mail]
The Reigns of Isaak I Komnenos and Constantine X Doukas 
in the 
Skylitzes Continuatus
: Just a Rewriting of Michael Attaleiates’ 
History
?
This paper analyses the depiction of emperors Isaak I Komnenos and Constantine X Doukas 
in the eleventh-century Byzantine historical narrative known as Skylitzes Continuatus (from now 
on SkylC). This analysis compares SkylC with other eleventh-century historical narratives and 
particularly with the History of Michael Attaleiates. The SkylC is one of the less studied eleventh-
century Byzantine historical accounts. Research on SkylC has mainly focused on the question of its 
authorship, a matter which is still uncertain.
The SkylC often appears as the continuation of John Skylites’ Synopsis Historiarum in the 
manuscripts and it seems to share some kind of bad reputation with it. Scholars usually praise 
other eleventh-century historical accounts such as the Chronographia of Michael Psellos and the 
History of Michael Attaleiates by underlining their subjective perception of the historical events, 
their mastering of different literary genres as well as their ability to hide a secret message in the 
narrative. Correspondingly, other eleventh-century histories appear as less original and mostly 
based on previous sources. Still, recent research on the Synopsis Historiarum such as Catherine 
Holmes’ contradicts these assumptions and exemplifies the profit of studying these less explored 
eleventh-century historical accounts.
The SkylC has been presented as a reworking of Attaleiates’ History; this paper examines 
critically this assumption. Large sections of SkylC are clearly based, if not copied, on the History; 
however, small but significant variations exist in SkylC in comparison with Attaleiates’ History. 
These details will be analysed and interpreted, not only as different ways of approaching the same 
issue, but also as possible elements which modify or even subvert the meaning of Attaleiates’ account. 
Assuming that it is possible that SkylC is a continuation of the Synopsis written by the same author, 
this paper attempts to understand whether the SkylC could act as a piece of propaganda in favour of 
Alexios Komnenos, just as Catherine Holmes argued for Skylitzes’ Synopsis. 

---

116
The accounts of the emperors Isaac I Komnenos and Constantine X Doukas are especially 
relevant for this analysis. Attaleiates account praised emperor Nikephoros I Botaneiates and depicted 
the previous ruler, Michael VII Doukas, as a tyrant who was rightfully dethroned by Botaneiates. 
An account favourable to Alexios Komnenos would probably depict Isaak Comnenos, Alexios’ 
uncle, in a rather positive fashion, whereas Isaak’s reign is heavily criticised by Attaleiates. Similar 
traits might be observed in the depiction of Constantine X Doukas: he belonged to the family that 
was dethroned by Botaneiates and criticised by Attaleiates, but the Doukai managed to ally with the 
Komnenoi during the reign of Alexios I. Other accounts such as Briennios’ Historical Material show 
how the author cares to praise the Komnenoi as much as their allied families, such as the Doukai.
Ultimately, this paper attempts to revalorize the SkylC as a literary work, which still needs to be 
studied in-depth. It will underline a possible propagandistic usage of this work in favour of Alexios 
Komnenos and his family. It might also be useful for further debates on the authorship and the style of 
the SkylC, leading to a more complete depiction of eleventh-century Byzantine literature and history.

---