Institute of Sociology
of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology
of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Chernoglazov, D. A. (2025). Pravosudie, Tikha i rok: transcendentnye sily v “Istorii” Georgiia Pakhimera [Justice, Tyche and Fate: Transcendent Forces in the “History” of George Pachymeres]. Antichnaya drevnost’ i srednie veka, 53, 173–194.



Chernoglazov, D. A. (2025). Pravosudie, Tikha i rok: transcendentnye sily v “Istorii” Georgiia Pakhimera [Justice, Tyche and Fate: Transcendent Forces in the “History” of George Pachymeres]. Antichnaya drevnost’ i srednie veka, 53, 173–194.
ISSN 0320-4472
DOI 10.15826/adsv.2025.53.011
ÐÈÍÖ: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=87352354

Posted on site: 04.03.26

Òåêñò ñòàòüè íà ñàéòå æóðíàëà URL: https://journals.urfu.ru/index.php/adsv/article/view/9462/6398 (äàòà îáðàùåíèÿ 04.03.2026)


Abstract

George Pachymeres was an outstanding scholar and historiographer of the early Palaiologan period. Although his History, covering the second half of the thirteenth and the early fourteenth centuries, is well known to scholarship, so far it remains poorly studied. The present article analyzes George’s ideas about the driving forc es of the historical process. Pachymeres was a serious and thoughtful historian, who paid much attention to the disclosure of cause and effect relationships be tween events. At the same time, many facts, including key facts, he explained by the involvement of transcendent forces. The article identifies three supernatural forces that, according to Pachymeres, influence the course of history – God’s Prov idence, manifested most often as God’s wrath and justice, Tyche (Τύχη), and fate (μόρσιμον, μοιρίδιον, εἱμαρμένον). The functions of each of these forces in Pa chymeres’ historical narrative are identified, and the terminology is analyzed. It is demonstrated that although each of the supernatural forces plays its own role in the History, it is impossible to clearly delimit their spheres of action. Pachymeres’ views and statements are considered in the broad context of Byzantine histori cal thought. A number of features distinguishing his historical conception from the views of his predecessors Leo the Deacon, Michael Psellos, Anna Komnena, Niketas Choniates, etc. are pointed out. The hidden political polemics of George Pachymeres with George Akropolites is revealed.