ПОРТРЕТИ ВИЗАНТИЈСКИХ ЦАРЕВА XIV ВЕКА Јован V Палеолог и Јован VI Кантакузин – литерарни антиподи Дукине историје
PORTRAITS OF THE BYZANTINE EMPERORS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY John V Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos – Literary Antipodes in Doukas’ History

Summary/Abstract: The work of the Byzantine historian Doukas (c. 1400–1470), one of the four “historians of the fall,” known among scholars as Historia Turcobyzantina, was written as a kind of lament for the dying Empire of the Romans, yet, at the same time, it is woven with the author’s unflinching hope of a convinced Roman loyalist and patriot that the Ottoman tyranny would come to an end, albeit only with the disappearance of the Palaiologan dynasty. Carrying such historiographic apeiron, Doukas’ tale begins in the biblical fashion – with the Genesis, which is of course fairly concise, then unfolds and very dynamically it reaches 1341, when the narration becomes an account of the Turco-Byzantine history in a minute detail, abruptly ending in 1462. Doukas’ work written in 45 chapters is fraught with picturesque accounts of the Byzantine society which is described as being of degraded dignity because of the previous sins and ceaselessly sustaining the pressure by the Ottomans tightening the rope around Constantinople. The largest part of the Historia Turcobyzantina is dedicated to the so-called ‘long fifteenth century’ and equated with the period of reigns of the last three Byzantine emperors. Doukas, although perhaps feeling unladen to write his concise works on the fourteenth century after the ‘fall of 1453,’ keeps with the literary manners of the Palaiologian era, in which the Byzantine emperor was routinely extolled as a political ideal of wisdom, whether actual or desirable, concurrently, he is constantly seeking causes for the decline. Through this methodological approach and by stringing the events of the previous century, Doukas forms succinct narrative portraits of rulers. At the same time he did not remain untouched by secondary accounts and susceptive form of the aforementioned descriptions; this is visible already in the second chapter which notes the Paleologoi genus and the two namesake Byzantine emperors – two antipodes: John V Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos, where the former one inherited the throne due to the premature death of his father Andronicus III (1328–1341), while the latter one is presented to the reader as the one who raised the juvenile emperor John V (παιδαγωγούμενος παρὰ κυρίου Ἰωάννουτοῦ Καντακουζηνοῦ). Although it is superfluous to point out that the personalities of both Roman rulers are well-known in Byzantine studies, it is evident that neither the primary sources nor concise medieval studies bestowed a lot of kind words upon John Palaiologos as basileus, and even fewer upon his personal qualities and character. On the other hand, John Kantakouzenos, although a writer himself, in his own memoirs wrote of himself as a historically tragic hero. The works of his fellow writers often attributed to him the traits of the ideal administrator capable of providing his homeland with the blessing of peacefulness and prosperity, while in historiography he is recognized as one of the outstanding historical figures of the late Byzantine era. Not surprisingly, Doukas’ perception of them is no different. By changing the two emperor’s names, Doukas inscribes a sharp borderline between the characters worthy of the imperial office and those who do not deserve it, are not able to wield it, and simply cannot be emperors. Tersely said, ability and personal qualities of a ruler are reflection of politeia’s strength. This kind of consideration in Byzantine historiography stems from a rich, millenniumlong literary heritage of understanding the ruler (κάτοπτρα ηγεμόνος). The historian Doukas, rather utopian and quite alike his peers from the fifteenth century, followed the literary tradition and sought the ideal model for an emperor through figures graced by the office, both from the past and more immediate present. Looking at contemplations by the Byzantine literati of the fourteenth century, particularly the standpoint by Demetrios Kydones and Nicholas Kabasilas, one can notice that the facets of an ideal ruler are well rounded up: prudence, wisdom, justice, courage/andreia – unavoidably complemented with confessional attributes: philanthropia and piety. It comes as a little surprise that the same qualities are discussed in the fifteenth century as well, although accompanied with the revival of the ‘philosopher-emperor’ and ‘law-keeper’ syntagm borne by each of the last three Palaiologan emperors. The political heritage that considered the emperor as the νόμος εὔψυχος, was preserved through the insistence on the ruler’s care for the common wellbeing (τῶν κοινῶν) which could come about only through the emperor’s education and personal virtues. Although this premise reached its peak with the thought of Georgius Gemistus Plethon or Bessarion, the political and thoughtful paradigm from the late Byzantine literary epoch is assembled in the philological portraits assigned to the emperors during the twilight of the empire, and it is inextricably tied to the protection of the homeland and its people. Succinct lines of Doukas’s peers illustrate well this notion, even when they appear unexpected. When glorifying the figure of John VIII, Michael Apostoles underlines primarily the trust he instilled into his subjects, while John Argyropoulos, when greeting Constantine XI, emphasizes that his subjects saw the new light of freedom in him; conversely, Critobulus finds a wise and responsible emperor in the Sultan Mehmed II. Following the ‘long imperial heritage,’ Doukas applies this finely conceived thesis in his succinct expression while forming the literary portraits of John Palaiologos and John Kantakouzenos. With a moving image of a degrading and pitiful state of the empire caused by the civil wars from the mid fourteenth century, Doukas compendiously illuminates the following: childhood, adolescence and adulthood of John V passed by, he grew old, and fell in a state of lethargy (μεθ᾽ ὅσης ναρκότητος); whereas, towards the sensible (ἀνδρί συνετῷ) and highly belligerent (πολεμικὰ μαχιμωτάτῳ) John Kantakouzenos, the glorious bloom of his generation, there was a twinge of envy due to the fact that he had stirred up hatred among the Romans (Rhomaioi); for those who are virtuous are envied the most (καὶ γὰρ φθονοῦσι μᾶλλον τοῖς μᾶλλον ἐπ᾿ ἀρετῇ προιοῦσιν). Unequivocally, Doukas finds his ideal ruler from the past in John Kantakouzenos, whose prudence and ingenuity could be compared only to that of Manuel II Palaiologos. “I am of the opinion,” Doukas is convinced when justifying Kantakouzenos’ courage to revolt in defense of his dignity, that “God hardened his heart.” Thus entering into the field of psychological descriptions of his characters, Doukas finds the driving force of history in divine providence, but with a more nuanced emphasis on a subjective factor. In other words, this grim period of the Byzantine polity, when the evil Fortune (οὐκ ἀγαθὴ τύχη) of the Romans sowed hatred and gave birth to envy, cried in Doukas mind for the reign of Kantakouzenos, who was a brave man, the most belligerent in war, prudent when prudence was needed. Emphatically pragmatic in portraying Kantakouzenos’ attributes, Doukas understood the process of history as a common endeavor of man and god; its outcome was hope, although filled with constant changes brought upon the Byzantines by the bad Fortune. Nothing is immutable, except for the past. Focusing primarily on recent events that ended the existence of the Byzantine state, Doukas comes back to the unavoidable question of the imperial idea and permanently revives the awareness of the causes of the decline borne out by the civil strife between the supporters of the two families. Although certainly with irony, Doukas highlights even oligarchy as a possible form of governing the state by the namesake emperors. In the realm of theory, this concept was not unknown in the late Byzantine period; already a century earlier, Demetrios Kydones insisted that the two ‘Johns’ must be unified in their actions, like father and son. Kydones’s choice, just like Doukas’, clearly was Kantakouzenos, because, as claimed by Kydones, no one could take better care of the state and of John Palaiologos, than his father and emperor, John Kantakouzenos. The unsuccessful diarchy brought about intolerance on an immense scale against Kantakouzenos, founded on lies by the regency in Constantinople. Doukas transmits the message which was allegedly sent to John VI, that if he was to comply with the command of the triumvirate from the capital, he would meet “the darkness that comes from blindness before death.” This led the historian to conclude resignedly through the words of Kantakouzenos’s comrades that “political power is in the hands of base and worthless men,” while misfortunes and everyday disarray “resulted in the barbarians and the rabble prevailing over the Roman.” Doukas’ experience reaches further idiomatic culmination “when the high and the mighty are abased, the weak and the low are exalted”. “Sovereignity”, therefore, as the historian writes, “belongs to an immature” which is “barely able to use its mind and tongue in games and stuttering.” Contrasted with John Kantakouzenos, who was an ideal leader (ἀρχηγός) and ruler (ἡγεμών), vigorous, belligerent and reasonable, stood a ruler who “became insolent and indulged in sin” particularly after the end of the civil strife in 1347. Kantakouzenos was the only one who “saw that the fortunes of the Romans were in dire straits”. Another civil war which followed few years later placed a monk’s robe on Kantakouzenos, which also unfortunately ends his active and present role in the political life of Byzantium in Doucas’ account. The narration about John V soon comes to an end as “he was bedridden, half-dead, so to speak, from gluttony, excessive drinking, and luxurious living”. It seems that despite the direct assaults and tirade of humiliating literary insults addressed to John V, this image of emperor’s incompetence remains Doukas’ powerful argument to carve through his narration an epitaph for a still living emperor: “he was very stupid, incapable of negotiating any issue”. The impression remains that Doukas places John V along the most despised figures of his history and of the Byzantine history in general. With his literary portrayal of the two emperors from the fourteenth century, Doukas clearly inscribes the subtle borderline between the precedence of the Byzantine basileus and its antipodes which are not truly worthy of the elevation; he deprives them of the crucial quality an emperor must possess – prudence. Doukas’ quick-witted mind and devotion to the Byzantine state still deserves a great attention and a careful reading of scholars.

• Details
• Contents