|
Konstantinos Moustakas
University of Crete, Department of History and Archaeology, Rethymno, Crete, Greece;
moustakas@uoc.gr
The Context of Chalkokondyles’ and Kritoboulos’ Writings
Michael Kritoboulos and Laonikos Chalkokondyles have been considered as
Historians of the
Fall of Constantinople
, even though their work does not primarily focuses on the fall of Byzantium,
but on the history of the Ottomans. Actually, they are Byzantine writers of Ottoman history,
and their texts stand as complementary the one to the other. They also write in a pro-ottoman
perspective, that is openly expressed by Kritoboulos and more discreetly by Chalkokondyles. In
so far as Kritoboulos is concerned, he is known to have composed his
History
while a resident of
Ottoman Constantinople, moreover, he directly addressed it to sultan Mehmed II. In the case of
Chalkokondyles, however, his whereabouts when he composed his
Demonstrations of Histories
are
quite obscure, and until recently he was believed to have composed it either in Italy or in Venetian
Crete. By taking into account evidence that suggests that not only Kritoboulos, but Chalkokondyles
too, composed his text as a resident of Constantinople, the two authors’ associations, and the
influences that can be detected in their work, we establish the context in which they wrote.
Maja Nikolić
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, Serbia;
genoveva011@gmail.com
John Argyropoulos’
Paramythetikos
to Constantine XI Palaiologos
on His Mother Helene Palaiologina’s Death
John Argyropoulos’
Paramythetikos
to Constantine XI Palaiologos on his mother Helene
Dragaš Palaiologina’s death (in Serbian historiography known as the only Byzantine Empress of
Serbian background) is one of the four monodies written on this occasion. Whereas three of the
monodies, i.e. of George Scholarios, John Eugenikos and George Gemistos Plethon, were published,
translated into Serbian and given historical comments, Argyropoulos’
Paramythetikos
has not yet
been the subject of researchers’ interests.
Nevertheless, John Argyropoulos’
Paramythetikos
is noteworthy for several reasons. First
of all, it could be a significant source providing us with some new data on Helene Palaiologina’s
biography, which are in general very scarce. While the other three encomiasts are rather restrained
187
in designating the Empress’s origin, Argyropoulos remarks that she belonged to the
genos
of
emperors. This information could suggest her imperial background either in connection to the
Serbian emperor Stefan Dušan, through her possible grandmother Theodora, or to the Komnenoi
of the Empire of Trebizond. In the case of the latter, it would be another indirect information to
testify to her father’s second marriage with the princess of Trebizond, Eudokia Komnena.
However, since Argyropoulos wrote another
paramythetikos
and dedicated it to Constantine’s
brother, the emperor John VIII Palaiologos, one can notice that these texts, except for the first four
pages in Lampros’ edition, are completely identical, differing in some details narrating exactly the
afore mentioned biographical data. This raises a question whether these testimonies could be taken
as credible information on the past or whether they are just simply literary figures in the service of
the rhetorical conception of the author. Still, their adjustment and contextualization suggest that
these testimonies, although imprecise, are basically not incorrect. The fact that these two texts are
almost identical also indicates that the first one, composed on the occasion of John VIII Palaiologos’
death, was not publicly delivered, which accords with generally negative political atmosphere and
feelings towards the late unionist emperor.
This implies that not only these two texts should be observed in mutual context, but the other
two Argyropoulos’ texts of the same aim as well: a monody on the death of John VIII Palaiologos
and even
Basilikos
dedicated to Constantine XI.
Paramythetikos
to Constantine XI could be valuable and remarkable testimony in a wider
social context of the time in which it was composed. Namely, it contains parts from which looms its
author’s sharp personality as a critic of the social phenomena of the late Byzantium, known from his
other famous work,
Comedy of Katablatas
.
Finally, all of the four mentioned texts, which are the only ones of rhetorical nature in Argyropoulos’
opus, reveal the political attitude of author himself and his apprehension of time and space in which he
lived. Since Argyropoulos was supporter of the Union of the Churches, a comprehensive analysis of all
of his rhetorical works could make a significant step in a more thorough evaluation of one of the most
apparent discords in the Byzantine society: between the supporters and the opponents of the Union.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
