International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Milan Vukašinović
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, Serbia; 
[e-mail]
Whose Ideology? Whose Rhetoric?
When discussing ideology in Byzantium, researches tend to present it as a monolith whole, 
spanning over, connecting and comparing different times, spaces and discursive levels. They also 
choose, more often than not, not to define this term before taking and applying it, whether as main 
topic of their studies or only as a side-wheel. Ideology tacitly blends in with rhetoric, even outside of 
rhetorical compositions, and what they both seem to represent is a series of false beliefs, that hand 
no practical purpose, but were dear to the medieval Romans, for some reason. Thus, what we usually 
get from the studies dedicated to ideology is a catalogue of the metaphors for the emperor that 
might have had a causal link to the society which produced them, but were completely disconnected 
from the social and political reality in a consequential string. For example, in the case of Nicaea and 
Epiros, we have a comparative collection of backstage whispers from different time spans, while the 
main narrative of state organization and conflicts was being developed in front of us.
To mend this misconception, I would like to suggest looking into the vivid ground of 
ideological negotiations in the so-called Nicaean Empire. The first step of research is to apply the 

---

630
discourse analysis to the Nicaean context and examine who had the approach to discourse and 
the possibility to shape the 
ideology
, as described above, of this state in formation. What was a 
patriarch, an emperor or a courtier 
allowed 
to say by the rules of the production of discourse, when 
they were writing a letter or delivering an oration? And what was the use of the elaborate image of 
the Emperor, if it was completely divorced from the political 
reality,
and available to only a narrow 
circle of courtiers?
The second step is comprised of the close look at the Nicaean orations and letters in search 
of the process of creating and negotiating ideological concepts between the public actors. Here, 
ideology is not understood as a row of representations and literary images, but rather as a consensual 
(though not always conscious) and dynamic substructure that enabled the production of those or 
any other discursive representations. I believe that the rereading of the writings of such powerful and 
productive figures as Michael Autoreianos, Germanos Nauplios, Theodor II Lascaris, Nikephoros 
Blemmydes and George Akropokites in this way shed light on discursive side of the power relations 
that were distributed in a network-like, reciprocal and non-hierarchical order. The dynamic context 
and the originality in organization that we often deny to Nicaea by seeing it only as a bridge between 
two Byzantiums, lies exactly in making those structures which surely existed before only more 
visible. In consequence, we might find a way out of the dead end of perpetual repeating the formulas 
of the imperial ideology and non-innovative political thought.