Chernoglazov, D.A. (2025). “Ne d lzhno protivit’sja polozhennomu svyshe opredeleniju”: promysl Bozhij v “Romejskoj istorii” Nikifora Grigory [“One shouldn’t oppose a decree that has been established from above”. God’s Providence in the “Roman History” of Nikephoros Gregoras]. Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology, 29, 601–619.

Òåêñò ñòàòüè íà ñàéòå æóðíàëà URL: https://tronsky.iling.spb.ru/static/tronsky2025-2/601.pdf (äàòà îáðàùåíèÿ 04.03.2026)

Abstract

Nikephoros Gregoras was an outstanding Byzantine scholar, thinker and historiographer of the 14th century. The task of this article is to characterize the role of divine Providence in Gregoras’ historical conception, reflected in his “Roman History”. It is demonstrated that, for Gregoras, the Providence of God is the primary, if not the sole, true force that shapes people’s lives and directs the course of history. The Providence rewards virtue, but more often punishessin, be it the sin of individuals or whole nations, with disasters that befall not only evildoers, but also virtuous people. God’s providence is omnipotent; it governs all events, perhaps even the will of people. Man is powerless before it. If someone does something bad and is forced to do so from above, this act is not considered their own and is not subject to censure. If someone tries to change their predestined fate, even if their intentions are noble, their efforts are doomed to failure. Gregoras paints a pessimistic picture of history that reflects the political situation of the empire in the mid-14th century. The changes in Gregoras’ position are traced. In his dispute with Matthew Kantakouzenos Nikephoros, contrary to his previous views, denies the existence of any ruling necessity (ἀνάγκη) in human affairs. He insists on the complete free will and self-determination of humans and asserts that they are solely responsible for the evil they commit. Gregoras’s perception of Providence is compared with that of other late Byzantine historians, such as Niketas Choniates, George Akropolites, George Pachymeres and John Kantakouzenos. While it is assumed that Gregoras and Kantakouzenos share a number of historical conceptions, Gregoras’ views seem to be quite original in comparison with the previous historiographical tradition.