“First Seljuk of an Empire”: Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos in the works of

Michael Attaleiates and Nikephoros Bryennios.

In a cold winter morning in 1070, members of senate of Romanos IV Diogenes gathered in the
Chrysotriklinos of the Great Palace to meet a certain young man. Michael Attaleiates describes
this him in following words: “He looked young, but was of small stature like a pigmy, with
Scythian eyes and unpleasant, because this kin [i.e., the Turks] inherited from Scythians their
bad temper and ugliness. The emperor honored him with the title of proedros and after
contemplating not for a short time about joining him to the army against the Turks, spoke with
him about it.”

The anonymous young man, whose portrait Michael Attaleiates gave with such vividness was
probably a certain Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos, brother-in-law of the sultan of the Great Seljuks, Alp
Arslan. The aim of my paper is to investigate the evolution of his image in the Byzantine
sources, mainly in the works of Michael Attaleiates and Nikephoros Bryennios. Before passing
to the image itself, I want to make a note about the context.

Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos: context

A “young man with Scythian eyes” appeared in the Byzantine-Seljuk border zone towards the
end of the 1060s. At this time, the sultanate of the Great Seljuks was beginning to fill the
vacuum of power in the Near East. Toughril Bek turned a nomadic conglomerate into a more
“settled” sedentary state with a developed Persian bureaucratic apparatus. The sultan was
settling affairs in different regions with the help of his relatives: they made new conquests and
secured grazing lands for the tribal formations of the Seljuk Turks, which were imported from
Transoxiana. These tribal formations constantly expanded the border zone and already in 1050
reached the newly-acquired Byzantine provinces of Vaspurakan and Iberia.

Toughril Bek died childless in 1064. Two of his nephews – Alp Arslan and Sulaiman - and
Toughril’s brother Kutalmish contested for the throne of the sultanate. Kutalmish), if we are to
believe the Byzantine sources, even applied for Byzantine help but was rejected. Eventually Alp
Arslan managed to win the throne: surviving relatives were kept at a short chain at his court . In
1
1068, Alp Arslan undertook an expedition to secure grazing lands for the Seljuks at the upper
Euphrates: this place became “a Seljuk base” for the next two centuries. According to Claude
Cahen (whose authority remains uncontested in the field) his brother-in-law Erisgen decided to
break the connection with Alp Arslan and defected with a significant troop of Turcomans. If this
is the background to the story of Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos, let us now turn to his image or perhaps
better images.

Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos: image of Michael Attaleiates

In the work of Michael Attaleiates, Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos remains anonymous. He appears for

the first time as an opponent of young Manuel Komnenos (the elder brother of Alexios I
Komnenos). Romanos Diogenes assigned to Manuel Komnenos the title of protoproedros and
sent him against the Turks who ravaged Eastern Asia Minor. Attaleiates noted the talent of
Manuel Komnenos, who both mustered his troops and paid them in the right time (in eleventh-
century Byzantium a rare talent). Manuel Komnenos proceeded to Sebasteia, where he met
“the multitude of Turks”. It is very important to note that Attaleiates here and elsewhere
presents Turks as an “invincible” enemy: even a good strategos cannot defeat them.

That’s exactly was the fate of Manuel Komnenos when he met the force of Erisgen-
Chrysoskoulos near Sebasteia. “The Turks” (all in plural) played against the Byzantines the
stratagem of fake retreat. In the furious battle (Attaleiates underlines the ferocity twice) they
destroyed the Byzantine army and captured Manuel Komnenos. After some time Manuel
unexpectedly returned to Constantinople with his former captor as an ally:

“He had come, leading with him the above-mentioned chieftain [of the Turks], after left the
multitude of his own. And the reason was that sultan of Persia was hostile to him as rebel and
sent against him army and the generals. Being subjugated by fear he selected no other way
than to defect to the emperor of the Romans.”

Attaleiates ascribes to him Scythian eyes and outward appearance, which symbolizes his
Otherness: he could have seen him in person, but whether he really did see him remains an

2
open question. Romanos Diogenes, according to Attaleiates, bestowed on the Turkish prince
rank of proedros and took this newly acquired ally on his expedition against the Seljuk Turks.

This is the last time we hear of Erisgen in Attaleiates’ Historia. The whole episode is present in
the shortened form in Skylitzes Continuatus, reader and censor of Attaleiates in the Komnenian
era. The same holds true for Zonaras, who shortens it even more. Both writers did not feel the
need to modify the story about Chrysoskoulos or add new facts to it. The one who felt such a
need was Nikephoros Bryennios.

Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos: image of Nikephoros Bryennios

Nikephoros Bryennios was writing his family chronicle some 40 years after Attaleiates. His
sources remain vague. There is a kind of family legendarium behind this project. In some cases
he used Skylitzes as a source of the stories, but in general his narrative is rather independent.

Chrysoskoulos appears in Bryennios’ story also in direct connection with Manuel Komnenos.
Bryennios narrates in great detail the expedition of the protoproedros against the Turks. He
states that Turks were fighting under the command of certain Chrysoskoulos, “who considered
himself to be from sultan’s family and thought that he had power over the Persians.” Manuel
Komnenos and Chrysoskoulos met in battle, the Byzantine army was routed and Manuel
captured together with his gambroi. In captivity, Manuel, in a dialogue, convinced
Chrysoskoulos to come with him to Constantinople. Bryennios did not introduce direct speech
of his hero here (as later his wife would sometimes do) but rather retells the exchange between
the two. In Bryennios’ wording, Manuel captured Chrysoskoulos with the power of the words.
They both arrived at Constantinople and the emperor bestowed honors and presents on both
of them.

The Turkish leader accompanied Manuel Komnenos on the spring campaign against the Turks.
The Byzantine general died not far from Constantinople and Anna Dalassene mourned over him
in Bryennios. The death of Manuel Komnenos shook both emperor Romanos Diogenes and
Chrysoskoulos. Bryennios states that the Turk was close to follow him (Ὁ δὲ Χρυσόσκουλος
μικροῦ δεῖν καὶ συναπῆλθεν αὐτῷ), but did not die. In this small, but tense episode Bryennios
3
obviously states, that older brother of Alexios was revered by insiders (emperor) and outsiders
(Chrysoskoulos).

The Seljuk chieftain disappears from Bryennios narrative for another eight years and more than
two books of modern edition. His next appearance is in 1078 during the rebellion of Nikephoros
Botaneiates against the Doukai. According to Bryennios, the rebellious Nikephoros Botaneiates
joined to himself warriors from the eastern themata and Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos. Turkish
chieftain saved the whole plot in the crucial moment: when Botaneiates advanced to Nicaea he
found himself surrounded by Turks loyal to Michael Doukas. It was Chrysoskoulos who
negotiated with them. “Thereafter) he negotiated with them and persuaded them to take
money and return. Thus he allowed them [the army of Botaneiates] to pass to Nicaea”—states
Bryennios. This negotiation/interaction is the last one about which we know. Bryennios is silent
about him for the rest of his unfinished work. His wife and continuator, Anna Komnene did not
include any episode about Chrysoskoulos in the Alexiad. The role of “Turk negotiated into
alliance” is inherited by a certain Tutachos, and the role of Manuel Komnenos – by his brother
Alexios.

Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos: conclusion

The two preserved glimpses at the same Seljuk chieftain differ considerably from each other.
Michael Attaleiates described Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos as an object of manipulation, a man from
the outside with an awful appearance, but of high rank. In his narrative the Seljuk chieftain did
not have a chance to speak or to make any decisions: he acted as a symbol of the invincible
power, the Seljuk Turks, who were behind him. Actions of protoproedros Manuel Komnenos
look be good and positive: he was at least able to cope with this awful Scythian-like people and
bring their leader to imperial service. Thus, Attaleiates introduced Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos in the
narrative for two reasons: to underline the invincibility of the Seljuks (who later defeat
Romanos Diogenes) and to show the Komnenoi (who are able to deal with the Turks) in a good
light and probably also to show, that he was aware of the meeting between Turk and emperor.

4
For Nikephoros Bryennios, the narrative function of Ersigen-Chrysoskoulos was completely
different. He gave a Byzantine name or nickname (“golden scabbard?”). Erisgen-Chrysoskoulos
able to defeat the Byzantines and acted with some reason. When his friend Manuel Komnenos
died, Chrysoskoulos nearly died with him: one can read it as an excessive emotion of barbarian,
but this is still an emotion . Finally, Chrysoskoulos demonstrated his ability not only to be a
pawn in the games of others but his ability to take matters into his own hands it was his
intervention, that saved the rebellion of Nikephoros Botaneiates from failure near Nicaea.
Bryennios used the image of Chrysoskolos not only to show diplomatic abilities of Komnenoi.
He uses the Turk as a weapon of critic against Botaneiates, who was securing his power with
Seljuks, eunuchs and some other outsiders, possibly Slavs (Borilos and Germanos).

For Attaleiates, the Seljuks were still invincible and nameless raiders from the end of the world.
By the twelfth century, they had become neighbors of Byzantium and entered into the complex
relations with the empire. Bryennios gave to his Seljuks the names and permission to act with
reason. The works of Attaleiates and Bryennios represent two different modes of understanding
and apprehending the Seljuks by the Byzantine writers.

Russian formalists of third generation as Yury Lotman would label such modes as a “closed type
of narrative” to “open type of narrative”. Using the terminology suggested yesterday by
Leonore Neville, I would call these two modes as a “lockative” literature of pre-Komnenian
period (the literature, which looks inside the culture and existent order) and the “utopian
literature”, which challenged the borders and was interested in the outsiders. In twelfth
century “lockative” literature was still in it’s place, but “utopian” literature was already on the
way. I tried to demonstrate it on the example of Seljuk prince from Khurasan named Erisgen
and his many images.