BMCR 2009.04.11: Bourbouhakis on Macrides, George Akropolites

Ruth Macrides, George Akropolites. The History. Translated with an
Introduction and Commentary. Oxford Studies in Byzantium.  Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007.  Pp. 440; tables 5, maps 2.  ISBN
978-0-19-921067-1.  $130.00.

Reviewed by Emmanuel C. Bourbouhakis, Albert-Ludwigs University
Freiburg ([email protected])
Word count:  1459 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-11.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090411.html
-------------------------------

"What happened to history writing in...thirteenth century [Byzantium]?"
asks Ruth Macrides in the introduction to her extensively annotated
translation, the first into English, of George Akropolites' History.
The value of the question stems in large part from the unprecedented
circumstances Byzantine historians and chroniclers had to relate after
the fall of Constantinople in 1204. For the first time since its
consecration in 330 by the emperor Constantine, "New Rome" had been
forcibly dislocated into exile within its own empire, with power having
devolved to regional potentates and a Western, non-Orthodox ruler,
nominally allied with the Crusader states established in the East, in
control of Constantinople. Akropolites wrote the most important
surviving contemporary Byzantine account of the so-called 'Nicaean
empire', covering the period from 1203 to 1261, when the Byzantine
government, ousted from Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, gradually
reconstituted itself, re-asserted its rule over a much diminished
empire, and eventually took back the capital. His proximity to the
Byzantine government of his day accounts for both the richness of
detail and its deployment in a manner consistent with Akropolites' own
political needs.

Macrides' translation of the History forms the centerpiece of what is
effectively a larger study of Akropolites' historical work and of his
career. In addition to five genealogical tables and two maps, so the
reader can find his way across the far-flung geography of the
fragmented Byzantine empire and the manifold branches of its ruling
clans, Macrides has also written nearly one hundred pages of
introduction. Subsection within the introduction focus on a wide
variety of subjects pertinent to the understanding of Akropolites'
narrative, such as his possible sources as well as use of the History
by subsequent historians and chroniclers; questions of dating and
chronology; or the treatment of distinct ethnic or political groups,
such as the Turks or Latins.

Appended to the translation of each brief chapter of the History is a
brief summary of its contents (though for some reason these are placed
after the individual chapters, instead of before, where they might have
been more useful). Also appended to each chapter is a generously
detailed commentary keyed to the contents of the translation. Finally,
the volume is anchored by an ample bibliography as well as a robust
index. All told this amounts to just to a translation, but as full a
study of the History and its author as we are likely to see in a while.
Certainly any future study of Akropolites' History, as well as the
events which fall under its purview, will owe Macrides a substantial
debt.

The translation, based on the 1903 Teubner edition of Akropolites'
History by Heisenberg (reprinted in 1978 with some emendations by
Wirth),[[1]] is fastidiously accurate, in keeping with Macrides' pledge
"to be as close to the Greek as possible, providing a sense of
Akropolites' sentence structure, and reproducing his style" (xi). This
is as much of a one to one correspondence between Byzantine and English
prose as one may hope to find. It is greatly facilitated by
Akropolites' unfussy sentence structure and apparent
matter-of-factness. Historians as well as philologists working on this
period may be tempted to take issue with this or that rendering of some
turn of phrase or choice of words, but in most cases the difference
will be in degree or emphasis and not a matter of accuracy. Such debate
is translation's contribution to our understanding of texts, and
Macrides deserves the gratitude of her colleagues for having
judiciously rendered the contents of a work whose relative transparency
would seem to encourage a certain complacency about its precise meaning
and calculated stylistic effects. Simplicity of style, one is reminded
in reading Akropolites, is not an absence of style. His style is as
deliberate as the more opaque verbal arrangements of better known
Byzantine historians. As Macrides notes in her introduction,
Akropolites had received the best education in rhetoric and literature
available in his day. If he lacked the temperament (and probably
talent) of a Nicetas Choniates in composing bracing narrative history,
he nevertheless could have aspired to a more demanding narrative form.
The possibility that a paired down narrative style might be a better
vehicle for Akropolites' bias is among the interesting implications
brought out by the translation.

As part of her profile of the History, Macrides broaches the subjects
of language and narrative organization, though she limits the former to
matters of classicizing diction (pp.51-54) and defines the latter by
"principles of organization" and "chronological sequence" (pp.34-35).
One might have hoped for a more expansive definition of narrative
character in light of the significant consideration given to this
subject in recent studies of mediaeval historiography and of historical
writing more generally. Macrides herself, in fact, has previously
written about Akropolites' inconspicuous rhetorical artistry,[[2]]
effectively demonstrating how the formal elements of the History
underwrite the partisan verdict in favour of Michael VIII Palaiologos,
who had spared Akropolites in the culling that took place after the
removal of the Laskarid-Vatatzes dynasty, which had in fact promoted
Akropolites in the first place. Under the heading of "Kaiserkritik,"
Macrides identifies Akropolites' aim as an attempt to depict the
previous emperors as sufficiently, though not grossly, deficient so as
to warrant the supposed change ushered in by Michael VIII. Akropolites,
moreover, figures prominently in his own historical account in a bid to
distance himself from his former patrons through dramatic revisionism
of his political allegiances. The use of historiography to achieve both
a private and wider political purpose is noteworthy; as is the choice
of narrative style marshaled by Akropolites in pursuit of this. The
answer to the opening question, "[w]hat happened to history writing
in...thirteenth century [Byzantium]?" may well be found, as so often in
matters of historiography, at the intersection of form and content.

An English translation of Akropolites does not make it likelier that
the History will be assigned to undergraduates or read by
non-specialists. Interest in Byzantium, unfortunately never very high
to begin with, peaks at dramatic moments which dovetail with current
curricular interests. The aftermath of the crusades in the East has
never had a prominent place in the European historical narrative taught
in schools or university survey courses. For most people there is thus
little or no historical reference with which to frame the events and
figures in Akropolites' text. The price and probable short printing run
of such books, both persistent problems in rarefied fields like
Byzantine studies, will also discourage colleagues from adding it to
their syllabi. The real beneficiaries of the translation and its
remarkably thorough commentary will be fellow Byzantinists, both those
without sufficient proficiency in Greek who would normally not have the
time to delve into such a text, and many who may now use Macrides'
commentary as a virtual handbook for this period. If this thoroughness
occasionally reaches the point of distraction, as on pages with an
average of more than one note number per sentence, it is a concession
necessary to ensure that the greatest possible number of ambiguities or
questions about the text and its contents are resolved. Besides
assignation of dates and names, geography, abridged background of
relevant history, laws, and customs, there are glosses on technical
words as well as systematic cross-references between parts of the text,
citation of relevant scholarship and other sources relating to the same
events. Just as  important, Macrides notes events known only from
Akropolites, a matter of some significance in our own histories of the
period. Not a few Byzantinists, and possibly some Western
mediaevalists, will reap the benefits of this painstaking labour. What
is certain is that all readers of Akropolites' History, in Greek, or
any other language for that matter, will have to consult Macrides'
commentary from here on.

One minor problem, occasioned perhaps by the same desire for
thoroughness, is the dense presentation of the genealogical tables.
These attempt to place everyone mentioned in Akropolites' text, as well
as those whose identity may be surmised, in the familiar pattern of
marriage and offspring. It took me a few passes before I learned how to
read this. In a couple of cases there are unexplained lines which
simply trail off, or the descendant is not centred under the line (as
in the case of Eirene, daughter of Theodore Doukas, the second wife of
John II Asan of Bulgaria). Still, Oxford University Press should be
commended for its meticulous publication of such a work in this
promising series devoted to Byzantium. I began this review by quoting
the following question: "[w]hat happened to history writing
in...thirteenth century [Byzantium]?" Macrides has laid an important
keystone in the groundwork necessary for any answer. In the course of
doing so, she has also moved the bar up quite a few notches for this
sort of study.

------------------
Notes:


1.   Georgii Akropolitae Opera, ed. A. Heisenberg, 2 vols. (Leipzig
1903), reprinted with corrections by P. Wirth (Stuttgart, 1978).

2.   R. Macrides, "George Akropolites' rhetoric", in E. Jeffreys (ed.)
Rhetoric in Byzantium [Papers from the Thirty-fifth Spring Symposium of
Byzantine Studies, Exeter College, University of Oxford, March 2001]
(June 2003) 201-211.