BYZANTION Revue InTernaTionaue ves ETuves ByzanTines i f i i i i 2006 — Tome LXXVI VOLUME OFFERT AU PROFESSEUR | Edmond VOORDECKERS Publié avec laide financiére de la Fondation Universitaire de Belgique %152 S. S. FAROUK the period in question : (1) The final re-establishment of the icons, and (2) ‘The first Renaissance of Byzantine Humanism ('), refer also to that the supporters of theory of Big Silence had underestimated the value, efforts books and works of the writers of this period, and also the role they played, with the thought that these writers lived and wrote far away from Byzantium and in regions that already had devolved to the possession of Arabs. However, as Tomadakis observes : the intellectual Byzantium did not coincide never with the borders of Eastern Roman State ("), Cairo University. Soliman S. Farouk. (175) Idem, p. 72. (176) Towanaxis, SitAapos Butavtuwiv MecrOv vai Keyévo, p. 301 THE FALL OF NICAEA AND THE TOWNS OF WESTERN ASIA MINOR TO THE TURKS IN THE LATER 11" CENTURY : THE CURIOUS CASE OF NIKEPHOROS MELISSENOS, Nikephoros Melissenos was one of the most prominent figures in the Byzantine Empire in the second half of the 11* c. Important enough to have launched a serious bid for the imperial throne in 1080-1081, Melissenos came to be highly regarded and richly rewarded by the regime of Alexios I Komnenos, the man who effectively prevented Nikephoros from becoming Emperor himself in 1081. The purpose of this paper twofold : first, to consider whether Melissenos’ frustrated ambitions finally got the better of him during the reign of his rival - and brother-in- Jaw ~ and led to his disgrace ; and second, to examine whether the attri- bution of blame to this individual for the loss of a crucial part of Asia Minor by Komnenian histories of the 12* c. is fair and correct. We can assemble something about Nikephoros Melissenos’ career from the primary sources for this period. Curiously, Nikephoros does not make even the briefest of appearances in the histories of Kedrenos and Michael Attaleiates ('). We learn rather mote about him, however, from other sources — principally the Hyle Historias of Nikephoros Bryennios and above all the Alexiad of Anna Komnene (?). He features in short references in both the Epitome Historion of John Zonaras, and the histo- ry of Michael Glykas, who relies heavily on the account of the former for (1) George Kepaenos, Synopsis Historion, ed. 1. Bekker, 2 vols., Bonn, 1839 ; Michael Artatriates, Historia, ed. 1. Bexxtx, Bonn, 1853. (2) Nikephoros Brvewsios, Hyle Historias, ed. P. Gavizr, Brussels, 1975 16, p.85; Lil, p. 101; HILLS, p.239; 1V.31, p. 301; 1V.32, p. 303. Anna Kownene, Alevias, ed, D. Reinscitand A. KawyLis, Berlin, 2001, 11.8.-v, pp. 75~ 77; M9.i, pp. 77-78: T.104i, pp. 79-80 ; TALI, p. 82; L115, p. 83; HL.4i, p. 95; IV6ui, p. 132; VS.vii, p. 156; VIL3.vi, p.211 ; VIIL3.1, pp. 240-1 5 VIUL3iv, p. 242 ; VILA, p. 244 ; VIILS.ii, p. 246 ; X.2.vi, p. 286.154 P. FRANKOPAN his coverage of the late 11* and early 12". ). We also know of him from three letters which he received from Theophylact of Ohrid, one of which refers explicitly to correspondence which the cleric had received from Melissenos himself (}). From another, we learn that Theophylact had sent Nikephoros two hundred salted fish, presumably a delicacy local to the western Balkans (°). In addition to the literary references to Melissenos, there are a handful of lead seals which appear to have belonged to this figure, recording Nikephoros’ titles which he held before and during the reign of Alexios I Komenos. One gives Melissenos’ position as protoproedros and mono- strategos of the Anatolikon, a title which would seem consistent with ‘what we know about his support for the Emperor Michael Doukas during the revolt of Nikephoros Botaneiates (later Nikephoros II1) *). Three other pieces are perhaps more problematic, for the simple reason that they do not correspond with any written evidence. The three seals evidently belonged to the same individual, both because of the similarities of the titles recorded, but also because of similar style and indeed identical iconography. These variously record one Nikephoros Melissenos as hold- ing the positions of magistros and dowx of Triaditza, magistros and katepano of Triaditza and finally as magistros, vestarkh and katepano, with no toponmyn provided (’) ‘We do not know that our Nikephoros Melissenos — the person who had such prominent profile during the last quarter of the 11* c. ~ held (3) John Zonaras, Epitome Historion, eds. M. Pixoes and T, BorreR-Wonst, 3 vols., Bonn, 1841-1897, XVITL21, vol. 3, p. 732; Michael Gtykas, Biblos Khronike, ed. 1 Bekker, Bonn, 1836, p. 619. (4) P. Gautier, Théophylacte d’Achrida. Lettres, Thessalonica, 1986, pp. 389-393 ; also 157-159; 171-3. Also see S. Mastev, ‘Les lettres de ‘Théophylacte de Bulgarie & Nicéphore Mélissénos’, in REB, 30(1972), pp. 179- 186. (8) Gaur, Lettres, pp. 171-3, (©) V. Lauresr, La Collection C. Orghidan, Paris, 1952, p. 106, B. SkovLaTos, Les personnages byzantins de U’Alexiade > analyse prosopographique et synthése, Louvain, 1980, pp. 240-241, and below, pp. 4-5. (1) G. Zacos and A. Vestry, Byzantine Lead Seals, 2 vols., Basel, 1972, 1984, vol. 1 part 3, pp. 1481-1482 ; V, SHaNbRovskava, ‘Hexotopste HcTop- maeckue gerann “Anexcuasus” ux resarsl’, in Palestinski? Sbornik, 23 (4971), pp. 38-9; Zacos and Vecuey, Byzantine Lead Seals, vol.1 patt 3, pp. 1481-2, ‘THE CURIOUS CASE OF NIKEPHOROS MELISSENOS 155 command position(s) in the western provinces, and as such, the question arises as to whether these may not have belonged to a member of the fam- ily with the same first name. Certainly, other members of the family had held high-ranking positions in Byzantium in the 10* c. and earlier in the 11°, with one serving as bopéotex0g Tig Stiae«s or commander of the western armies in this period ('). Another, Michael Melissenos, held the unusual combination of titles of illoustrious and strategos, something known from a seal which is dateable on stylistic grounds to the second half of the 11° e. (). In other words, therefore, itis by no means impos- sible that there may have been another Nikephoros Melissenos from this, period who was the owner of these seals, an uncle or other close relative perhaps, but sharing the same first name ("). However, we can be sure that the pieces did in fact belong to the same Melissenos who came close to taking the throne in 1081 — even though the positions and duties which the seals record are not known from the literary sources. This is because of the survival of a pair of seals which belonged to Nikephoros’ wife, Eudokia Komnene. One of these clearly post-dates the coup of Eudokia’s brother, Alexios I Komnenos, recording Eudokia’s sibling relationship with the Emperor and bearing the legend Ocordxe RoAPer Eddonic. xau(o)agiooy xai ddedgh tod Paoth{os TH Konvnyf ("). The other, though, also belonging to a Eudokia Komnene and which to judge from its style, iconography and device can only have belonged to the same individual, refers to her as magistrissa ~ that is to say, the wife of the magistros (""). We know that Eudokia was married to Nikephoros Melissenos, and as far as we know had not been married to anyone previously (”). As such, then, it is reasonable to presume that (8) I. Toroanov, Hevamume om empamecuama ¢ Hpecsae, Sofia, 1993, nos. 161-2, pp. 88-90, P. Diaconu, Vers quelle date Léon Melissenos powvait-it Gire domestikos des scholes occidentales, in Revue des études sud-est européenes, 27 (1989), pp. 11-14. (9) Unpublished seal from the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, D.0.58.106.5666 ; see W. Stier, Die Byzantinischen Belisiegel in Osterreich, Vienna, 1978, p. 262. (10) For some comments on the rank of magistros, N. Orxonostrs, Les listes de préséances byzantines des n¢-x sidcles, Paris, 1972, p.294. Also here ‘A, Kazupax, Coyuatonetii cocmae zocnodemeyrowjezo kaacea Busaumu XI- XII ¢8., Moscow, 1974, p. 146. (11) Zacos and Vecusky, Byzantine Lead Seals, vol. 1 part 3, p. 1486. (12) Idem, p. 1485. (13) Below, pp. 160-162.