International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Angeliki Papageorgiou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 
[e-mail]
Βάρβαρός τε καὶ τὰ πάντα ἄστοργος καὶ μηδὲν σεμνὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἔχει 
καταπροϊέμενος: 
The Image of Serbia and Milutin in Byzantine 
Historiographical Texts
Byzantine authors of narrative sources tend to draw vivid images of the Empire’s allies and 
enemies. Milutin (1282-1321) fitted both categories, given the fact that his policy towards Byzantium 
changed over time. The first reference to Milutin is in 1272, when Emperor Michael VIII approached 
Stephan Uros I (12434-1276) in order to form a marriage alliance between the Byzantine ruler’s 
daughter and young Milutin. Although this alliance never materialized, Byzantine historians seize 
the opportunity to produce a series of colorful characterizations both of Serbia and of its way of life.
The image the historiographers paint is based on the feeling of Byzantine supremacy. With that 
in mind, Serbia is pictured as an unwelcome, harsh place, rich though it may be. Its inhabitants are 
described as barbarians who, although competent on the field of battle, are ignorant of the proper 
mode of fighting. Milutin too is a barbarian, fickle, weary, unworthy of the emperor’s glory; and yet 
he is so strong and dangerous that he manages to marry the emperor’s daughter.
Bojana Pavlović
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute for Byzantine Studies, Belgrade, Serbia; 
[e-mail]
Nikephoros Gregoras on the Meaning and Perception of History
Byzantine historiography in general, as a continuity of historiographical genre conceived in 
antiquity, mainly dealt with the portrayal of events and deeds of the emperors and most prominent 
historical figures that shaped the history of the Empire. Stories about commendable achievements 
or, on the other hand, dishonorable and undeserving actions, about the change of fortune and the 
fickleness of human destiny were recorded in the works of Byzantine historians and have, therefore, 
been preserved for posterity. The didactic and educative role of these works was generally connected 
to the hope in a better and brighter future. Thus, historians perceived themselves as people whose 
duty it was to, guided by the hand of God, teach their contemporaries and future generations how 
to avoid mistakes of their ancestors and, therefore, build a better society.
This point of view was also expressed in the introductory part of the 
Roman History 
written 
by the 14
th
century Byzantine historian, Nikephoros Gregoras. He stated that he thought little of the 
mentioned historians’ self-perception, until he realized that his predecessors were utterly entitled to 
it. History is, according to him, a vivid and eloquent voice and it is truly a messenger of God’s majesty. 

---

179
It passes through centuries showing the past events to those that are yet to come, indicating, at the 
same time, the actions and achievements of people, showing what the wise men had philosophized 
about the nature of things, what they had understood and what not.
Perceived as one of the most magnificent of the Creator’s achievements, as well of man’s literary 
engagement, historical narrative was, therefore, intentionally chosen by the authors as the most 
appropriate “genre” for expressing their attitudes and views on the events and characters they wrote 
about. It is important to note that most of them wrote as eyewitnesses and active participants in the 
events of their time, which is a fact that is often denoted as 
autopsia 
in the modern historiographical 
works. The position of an auvto,ptij, thus, gave the writer a more active role within the narrative 
itself, enabling him to influence the immediate reception of his message. Accordingly, it was the 
author who, through his work, connected the past with the present. This can surely be said for the 
historical work of Gregoras who took as his starting point the year 1204, the fall of Constantinople 
in the hands of the Latins and carried the course of his narrative to the year 1356. His conception 
of history and apprehension of historical time and moments, as well as the difference in the way he 
viewed the past and the present will be analyzed from three main perspectives: perspectives of time, 
space and characters. In order to present the differences in the work and changes of the writer’s 
views two particular reigns will be in the focus of attention: that of Michael VIII Palaiologos and 
John VI Kantakouzenos.
The reigns of these emperors were chosen for reason. It has already been noticed that the two 
mentioned rulers embodied the imperial ideal as understood by Gregoras. Moreover, the times and 
political situation in which Gregoras described both of their reigns changed and so the narrator’s 
perceptions and apprehensions changed too. The time of Michael VIII Gregoras portrayed from 
certain temporal distance, whereas he was not only an eyewitness, but rather an active participant 
in the events of Kantakouzenos’ reign. The reasons for Gregoras’ writing were altered which also 
influenced the writer’s conception and apprehension of history and its course. The circumstances 
in which he wrote about the first Palaiologos were filled with certain hope in the better future (the 
reign of Andronikos III 1328-1341) and the events he presented were exhibiting Empire’s arousal 
and renewal. Contemporary events (those of Kantakouzenos’ reign), however, proved to be very 
unfortunate for himself as well as for the Empire and its prospective survival.