Anna Komnene's Use of Personal Intrusion in the Alexiad THESIS

Home , Alexiad, Anna Komnene, Hypatos, Michael Psellos

Anna Komnene’s Use of Personal Intrusion in the Alexiad

THESIS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Jessica Doyle, B.A.

Graduate Program in History

The Ohio State University

2012

Master's Examination Committee:

Timothy Gregory, thesis advisor

Nathan Rosenstein, program advisor

Gregory Anderson

Jessica Doyle

2012

Abstract

This thesis examines Anna Komnene and her use of authorial intrusion in the

Alexiad. The goal is to demonstrate that Anna’s intrusions represent a conscious and deliberate attempt to construct her own persona, and therefore legacy, for posterity.

Based on an extensive analysis of the Alexiad as a primary source, I argue that Anna’s intrusions defending her role as historian and lamenting her misfortune allow the author to portray herself as both an admirable historian and dutiful daughter, roles Anna specifically chose to emphasize. Much of the previous scholarship on Anna focuses on her gender, often to the exclusion of her other characteristics. The present study places

Anna within the tradition of Byzantine historiography to demonstrate her emulation of her predecessors as well as her innovations. Drawing from cultural and intellectual developments which arose during the so-called Byzantine “humanism” of the 11th and

12th centuries, Anna effectively incorporates these concepts as she creates her personality through her intrusions.

Vita

2004 ...... Red Hill High School, Bridgeport, Illinois

2008 ...... B.A. History, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, Indiana

2010 ...... Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Classics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

2010 to present ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Fields of Study

Major Field: History

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Vita...... iii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Background of Anna’s Life and Times ...... 4 Chapter 3: Overview of Authorial Intrusion ...... 10 Chapter 4: Historiography of Anna and her Alexiad ...... 14 Chapter 5: Personal Intrusions in the Alexiad ...... 22 Chapter 6: Anna’s Justification of her Role as Historian ...... 29 Chapter 7: Anna’s Lamentations ...... 40 Chapter 8: Conclusion...... 51 Bibliography ...... 53

Chapter 1: Introduction

In the preface to the Alexiad, Anna Komnene1 establishes her purpose for undertaking the history of her father when she writes:

But the tale of history forms a very strong bulwark against the stream of time, and to some extent checks its irresistible flow, and, of all things done in it, as many as history has taken over, it secures and binds together, and does not allow them to slip away into the abyss of oblivion.2

This passage calls the reader’s attention to the importance of history writing in general and Anna’s particular rationale behind authoring the Alexiad. The events and personalities of the past will inevitably be lost, unless they are preserved for the future by diligent historians. By writing the history of her father’s reign, Anna ensures that his memory will survive. Although this is her explicitly stated intent, Anna’s text ultimately serves a greater, and more personal, goal. In addition to asserting her intent to preserve her father’s legacy, Anna also introduces in the preface what will prove to be a common thread running throughout her narrative: maintaining authorial presence to express

1 For a helpful and succinct overview on Anna and the Alexiad, see A. Laiou, “Introduction: Why Anna Komnene?” in Anna Komnene and her Times, T. Gouma-Peterson, ed. New York: Garland Publishing (2000), 1-14. 2 Alexiad Preface I.1, p.3: Ἀλλ' ὅ γε λόγος ὁ τῆς ἱστορίας ἔρυμα καρτερώτατον γίνεται τῷ τοῦ χρόνου ῥεύματι καὶ ἵστησι τρόπον τινὰ τὴν ἀκάθεκτον τούτου ῥοὴν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ γινόμενα πάντα, ὁπόσα ὑπερείληφε, ξυνέχει καὶ περισφίγγει καὶ οὐκ ἐᾷ διολισθαίνειν εἰς λήθης βυθούς. Note: All Greek footnotes are from Vaticanus gr. 1438 (ca. a. 1565) Teubner 1884, and all translations and page numbers are from E. Dawes’ translation, New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc, 1957 1 personal emotion.3 Toward the end of this section, Anna exclaims, “having written so far, dizziness overwhelms my soul, and tears blind my eyes,” and continues a few paragraphs later, “now I will wipe away my tears and recover myself from my sorrow and continue my task.”4 Anna’s personality and emotions are unmistakable in passages of this type.

The author consistently includes them throughout her text, even though these digressions do not directly advance the course of the narrative. Through the use of such first-person intrusions into the larger text, Anna is able to establish herself as a consistent presence in her narrative. An analysis of Anna’s frequent use of authorial interjection demonstrates that this technique ensured that Anna, like her father, would not be lost to the “stream of time” by providing her with the agency over the creation and preservation of her own legacy. Through authorial intrusions purporting to defend her role as a historian and emotional interjections both praising and lamenting various aspects of the narrative, Anna is able to establish a cohesive persona in which she presents to the audience an individualized, but carefully constructed, version of herself for posterity.

In this thesis, Anna’s use of personal intrusion is carefully examined in its proper social, historical and historiographical context. Beginning with Chapter II, Anna’s life is considered in light of the political and social climate of the 11th and 12th centuries in

Byzantium, with a particular emphasis on the humanistic developments of the period.

Chapter III provides a general overview of the use of authorial intrusion, particularly by

Byzantine historians, as well as the application of individualization and personalization to

3 See below Chapter III, overview on authorial intrusion 4 Alexiad Preface IV.1, 4: Ἐγὼ δ' ἐνταῦθα γενομένη σκοτοδίνης ἐμπίπλαμαι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ῥείθροις δακρύων περιτέγγω τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς…. Ἀποψήσασα οὖν τὸ δάκρυον τῶν ὀμμάτων καὶ ἐμαυτὴν ἀναλεξαμένη τοῦ πάθους τῶν ἑξῆς ἕξομαι 2 the genre of history writing. Chapter IV outlines the major historiographical approaches taken by historians of Anna and the Alexiad, beginning with Buckler in the early 20th century and culminating with the collection edited by Gouma-Peterson one hundred years later. Chapter V outlines my approach and criteria for examining personal intrusion in the

Alexiad, as well as introduces the categories for analysis: Anna’s justification of her role as historian and Anna’s lamentations. Chapters VI and VII present each of these categories in turn, focused on the examination of numerous relevant passages. Through this analysis, it is also my intention to provide an interpretation of Anna which incorporates, but is not limited by, gender and feminist theory. Recent scholarship on

Anna has been dominated by such analysis, and while this has served to reinvigorate study of Anna and the Alexiad, it has simultaneously caused an overly narrow preoccupation with gender at the expense of Anna’s other unique qualities and characteristics. The present analysis seeks to integrate these issues while focusing on

Anna’s roles as historian and daughter in order to provide a broader understanding of

Anna as an individual.

Chapter 2: Background of Anna’s Life and Times

Anna Komnene, a Byzantine princess, was born on December 1, 1083. As the eldest daughter of Emperor Alexios I and Irene Doukaina, Anna enjoyed a position in the highest strata of Byzantine society. While still an infant, Anna was betrothed to

Constantine Doukas, son of Maria of Alania.5 The young man was to be the heir to the

Byzantine throne, with Anna as empress. In 1087, however, a son was born to Alexios and Irene, effectively replacing Constantine as heir. This event marked a difficult experience for young Anna, as she was passed over in favor of a direct male heir. Anna eventually married a young aristocrat named Nikephoros Bryennios, with whom she would have four children. Some historians speculate that Anna, aided by her mother, continued to vie for the throne through her husband following the death of her father. In any case, her brother John succeeded his father Alexios to the throne. Following the death of her husband, Anna retired to the convent of Kecharitomene, where she stayed until her death around 1153-4. It was during her time in the convent that Anna, as a widow and removed from the imperial circle, is thought to have produced her great contribution to history by composing the Alexiad.6

5 Maria of Alania was the wife of Nikephoros III Botaneiates, Byzantine emperor before Alexios I. Maria supported the coup in favor of Alexios to secure succession for her son, Constantine Doukas. 6 D. Smythe. “Middle Byzantine Family Values and Anna Komnene’s Alexiad,” in Byzantine Women: Varieties of Experience 800-1200, ed. Lynda Garland. 125-39 (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 125-6. 4

Anna’s achievement as an author was undoubtedly dependent upon her education.

Because she came from a family that was not only wealthy but also imperial, she received an education which rivaled most of her male peers, and likely surpassed that of other women at the time. Anna probably received the majority of her instruction from private tutors, as was customary for a child of her status. In her Alexiad, Anna does not specifically mention attending formal school, which she would be unlikely to have omitted due to the importance she placed on education.7 Anna’s education included subjects such as Latin, grammar, logic, religion, natural science and medicine, in addition to philosophy and rhetoric.8 While learning the classical Greek language, Anna also studied Greek historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybios, and the great epic poet, Homer. Anna’s classical education during childhood laid the foundation for later endeavors and a continued interest in learning. After retiring to the convent, Anna was able to further her intellectual development by studying Aristotle and Plato with the most learned men of the time.9 It is especially significant to note that during this period of renewed intellectual interest Anna composed the history of her father’s reign.10

7R. Dalven, Anna Comnena, (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1972), 75. 8J. Ward, Women in Medieval Europe 1200-1500, (New York: Pearson Education, 2002), 17. M. Thiebaux, The Writings of Medieval Women: An Anthology, (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994), 228. A. Kazhdan and A. Wharton Epstein. Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 121. 9R. Browning, “An Unpublished Funeral Oration on Anna Comnena”, Aristotle Transformed. Richard Sorabji, ed, (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1990), 397-8. 10 In the Alexiad, Anna states that she is writing her history under the third successor following her father (Preface III, VI.2.6). Magdalino has argued that the Alexiad also contains interpretations of the First Crusade which support the argument that Anna wrote in light of her experience during the Second Crusade under Manuel I: P. Magdalino, “The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes of the Mid-Twelfth Century in the Alexiad,” in Anne Komnene and Her Times, ed. T. Gouma-Peterson, (New York: Garland Publishing, 2000), 15-44. 5

Anna lived in Constantinople in the 11th and 12th centuries, and her experience was greatly shaped the social and political circumstances of her time. Anna’s father,

Alexios I, ascended to the throne in 1081, as a result of a military coup.11 Following the

Battle of Mantzikert, the Byzantine Empire was plague by years of civil war during which various emperors were overthrown. As the new ruler of an empire in disarray,

Alexios enacted numerous reforms which served to stabilize and strengthen the

Byzantine Empire as a whole. One such example was his reform of the currency and taxation system, which led to economic improvement and urban revival.12 Perhaps the most significant development under the Komnenoi, instigated by Alexios I, was the increased importance of the imperial family and the development of a new “aristocratic consciousness.”13 In this hierarchy, power was derived from family connection rather than access to public office. This is perhaps most evident in the creation of a new level of court titles, located above the previously existing structure, and filled by the emperor with his extended family.14 The shift to this type of aristocracy had cultural implications in addition to political effects. Among other things, a greater significance was attributed to birth and lineage, and the new military aristocracy was represented by the extended imperial family.15 Anna’s identity and world-view were largely shaped by her

11 P Stephenson. “The rise of the middle Byzantine aristocracy and the decline of the imperial state,” in The Byzantine World, ed. Paul Stephenson, 22-33. (New York: Routledge, 2010), 27. 12 Stephenson, “The rise of the middle Byzantine aristocracy and the decline of the imperial state,” 28, M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A political history. (New York, Longman, 1984), 132-3, T. Gregory, A History of Byzantium. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 274. 13 Stephenson, “The rise of the middle Byzantine aristocracy and the decline of the imperial state,” 22. 14 Stephenson, “The rise of the middle Byzantine aristocracy and the decline of the imperial state,” 27, Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A political history, 126. 15 Gregory, A History of Byzantium, 274, Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 102-4 6 membership in and identification with this class, and her aristocratic and royal lineage is reflected in her Alexiad.

The cultural components of the rise of the military aristocracy reflect a larger progression towards a kind of ‘humanism’ in the 11th and 12th centuries, similar to the phenomenon in the contemporary west.16 In western Europe, the so called “twelfth century renaissance” was characterized by a renewed interest in classical Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle, and its application to theology, as well as the revival of

Roman civil law and Latin classics.17 This increased intellectual awareness served as a significant forerunner for the humanism which would develop in 14th century Italy.18 In

Byzantium, similar intellectual developments emerged in the 11th century, which emphasized “the holy man and the philosopher, the mystic and the humanist, who, in their different ways, underlined the importance of individual experience.”19 This renewed focus on the individual manifested itself in most aspects of Byzantine society.

Innovations in both art and architecture reflect “a growing sense of individualism or, perhaps more commonly, ‘family individualism’.”20 Art and literature similarly featured an interest in the natural world in addition to the ideal, as both artists and authors

16 As an introduction, see P. Lemerle, Le premier humanism byzantine, Paris, 1971. 17 C.H. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, (Cambridge, 1927) presents an in-depth cultural analysis of this phenomenon, followed by more recent scholarship on the subject: R.W. Southern, Medieval humanism and other studies (Oxford, 1970); John D. Baldwin, The scholastic culture of the middle ages, 1000-1300 (Massachusetts, 1971); Rodney Thompson, ‘John of Salisbury and William of Malmesbury: currents in twelfth-century humanism,’ in: The World of John of Salisbury, ed. M. Wilks (Oxford, 1984), 117-27; R.W. Southern, Scholastic humanism and the unification of Europe. Vol. 2, Foundations (Oxford, 1995) and Scholastic humanism and the unification of Europe. Vol. 2, The heroic age (Oxford, 2001) 18 P. Renucci, ‘The Italian renaissance an outgrowth of the twelfth-century renaissance’, in: The twelfth- century renaissance, ed. Young (New York, 1969); W. Ullmann, Medieval foundations of renaissance humanism (London, 1977) 19 Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204, 90 20 Gregory, A History of Byzantium, 277 7 increasingly presented more nuanced renderings of their subjects than the stock images favored in earlier centuries.21 These developments further contributed to more prominent focus on the personality of the author or artist in their works, characterized by a new self- awareness and enhanced level of emotion.22 These concepts were utilized specifically by the historians of the period in “the development of personality and the way individuals interacted with the circumstances in which they found themselves.”23 Anna therefore should be viewed in this context, as a historian increasingly aware of the role of the individual, the importance of family and the creation of personalities within narrative.

Anna owes significant debt not only to the broad cultural and intellectual atmosphere in which she lived, but more specifically to the influence of Michael Psellos.

Psellos is perhaps most well known for writing his Chronographia, but he was also the author of works of theology, philosophy and poetry. Psellos played a significant role in the revival of classical learning in Byzantium, due in large part to his own extensive education and his subsequent position as hypatos of philosophers. Anna herself praises the “renowned Michael Psellos” warmly: “through his natural cleverness and quick intelligence… he had reached the summit of all knowledge, was thoroughly acquainted with Greek and Chaldaean literature and grew famous in those days for his wisdom.”24 It is clear that Anna read and drew inspiration from Psellos, especially his technique of infusing his narrative with individualism and personality. For these reasons, Psellos

21 Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 206 22 Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 220 23 Gregory, A History of Byzantium, 279, Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 199 24 Alexiad V.VIII.3, 133: διὰ φύσεως δὲ δεξιότητα καὶ νοὸς ὀξύτητα… εἰς ἄκρον σοφίας ἁπάσης ἐληλακὼς καὶ τὰ Ἑλλήνων καὶ Χαλδαίων ἀκρι βωσάμενος γέγονε τοῖς τότε χρόνοις περιβόητος ἐν σοφίᾳ. 8 represents perhaps the most significant individual to employ and help develop the ideals which defined Byzantine ‘humanism,’ which would heavily influence Anna in writing the

Alexiad.25

25 For Psellos in general, see A. Kaldellis, The Argument of Psellos’ Chronographia (Leiden, 1999) 9

Chapter 3: Overview of Authorial Intrusion

It is through the rise of humanism and the increased focus on individuals that the

Alexiad begins to take on increased meaning. Anna most prominently embraces these trends in her pronounced tendency to enter the narrative in the first person, in the form of an emotional intrusion. Personal or authorial intrusion is defined by Macrides

(paraphrasing Scott) as “both explicit authorial intervention and, more generally, the authors’ personal orientation to their subject.”26 For the present study, I will restrict the majority of my analysis to the former, explicit authorial intervention, or where the author presents him or herself into the text in the first person. The use of this type of authorial interjection is present throughout Greek historiography. Scott rightfully points out its use by Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon specifically, explaining that “the classical historian intrudes into his history only to give his qualifications for dealing with his subject and occasionally to mention his own experience where other evidence is lacking.”27 This type of intrusion is easily recognized in Byzantine historians as well.

However, the primary difference between classical authors and their Byzantine counterparts is that the predecessor “does not have a personal stake in the subject matter,

26 R. Macrides, "The Historian in the History" In FILLELLHN Studies in Honour of Robert Browning. Edited by C. Constantinides et al. 205-24. (Venice: 1996), 206 27 R. Scott. “The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography,” In Byzantium and the Classical Tradition: University of Birmingham, Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, 1979, eds. M. Mullet and R. Scott, 61-74 (Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, 1981), 63 10 or, if he does, it only comes in on the fringes of his work.”28 Scott is here emphasizing the detachment which characterizes classical Greek historiography, in opposition to the later Byzantine authors who frequently dealt with subject matter directly connected to themselves and who therefore felt a greater responsibility to defend narrative choices.

Therefore the most striking innovation in Anna’s use of authorial intrusion is her personal, emotional connection to her subject. Although like her classical predecessors

Anna is defending her role as historian, she is also simultaneously reiterating and emphasizing her role as imperial daughter of Alexios.

Byzantine historiography took a decisive turn in the 11th c. In previous centuries, historical writing largely took the form of annals or chronicles, a chronological compiling of significant events. This approach to history lacked a cohesive narrative independent of the sequence of events. As a consequence, individuals were relegated to a secondary position and deemphasized. In the 9th and 10th centuries, historians were eager to appear objective by minimizing their direct involvement in their narratives and their personal connection to their subject.29 Psellos represents a transition in this technique by incorporating a personal element into his histories. Major characters became the focal point of the narrative in place of chronological events.30 This approach reflects larger trends present in Byzantine society. As mentioned above, the 11th and 12th centuries experienced a renewed interest in individuals and human behavior, particularly in art and

28 Scott, “The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography,” 63 29 Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 220 30 Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 204-5 11 literature.31 Moving beyond ideal portraits, artists and authors began to depict individuals with personal and unique characteristics. This is evident in the Alexiad, where Anna combines notions of the stereotypical, ideal emperor with a more nuanced presentation of her father. Alexios is described thus: “His broad shoulders, muscular arms, mighty chest, in fact his generally heroic appearance, evoked in the multitude the greatest admiration and pleasure. From his whole person emanated beauty and grace and dignity, and an unapproachable majesty.”32 This idealistic portrait is balanced by Anna’s consistent effort to humanize and individualize her father, such as when she describes her father enduring pain and illness.33 By combining idealized imagery with more mundane details, Anna creates a more detailed and personal presentation of the emperor. Remarkably, this holds true for her portrayal of lesser characters, including some enemies of her father.34

Alexios’ opponent Bohemond is described in similarly glowing terms, with particular emphasis on his physical appearance: “In the whole build of the body he was neither too slender nor over-weighted with flesh, but perfectly proportioned and, one might say, built in conformity with the canon of Polycleitus.”35 Anna comments on his character and endurance in her account of Bohemond faking his own death, in which he traveled with a dead bird in his coffin.36 Anna’s expressions of both admiration and repulsion at this feat

31 See Chapter II for more on Byzantine humanism 32 Alexiad III.III.2, 76: Τῶν τε ὤμων ἡ εὐρύτης καὶ τῶν βραχιόνων τὸ στερρὸν καὶ τῶν στέρνων ἡ προβολὴ ἡροϊκὰ πάντα καὶ ὅλως εἰς θάμβος καὶ τέρψιν τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐκκαλούμενα. Τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ ὥραν εἶχε καὶ χάριν καὶ βάρος καὶ ὄγκον ἀπρόσιτον. 33 Alexiad XIV.IV 34 Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 214-5 35 Alexiad XIII.X.4, 347: τὴν ὅλην ἕξιν τοῦ σώματος οὔτε περιεπτισμένος οὔτε περιβριθόμενος ταῖς σαρξίν, ἀλλ' ὡς ἄριστα κεκραμένος καὶ οἷον εἰπεῖν κατὰ τὸν Πολυκλείτειον κανόνα ἐνηρμοσμένος· 36 Alexiad XI.XII.3 12 further enhance the reader’s understanding of Bohemond, and reflect Anna’s interest in individual personalities, which provides a recurring theme throughout her narrative. 37

Following Psellos, Anna represents the culmination of a tradition of increased focus on the individual in history. While this necessarily most often refers to the individuals serving as the subject of the narrative, it can effectively be applied to the author as well. In this sense, the Byzantine historian creates a self-conscious and deliberate presentation of him or herself within the narrative itself. This is possible subtly through the author’s specific interpretations of and approaches to events being described, but more explicitly through direct intervention in the text, such as through authorial intrusion. Jenkins identified three crucial characteristics of Byzantine histories produced from the mid 10th century onwards: the reign of an emperor was used instead of longer eras as the basis for historical narration, each reign was carefully judged and interpreted by the author, and reigns were presented through a combination of biography, encomium and history.38 Anna’s Alexiad falls near the end of this tradition and provides an important example of the unique nature of Byzantine historiography. By writing the history of her father Alexios’ reign, Anna effectively presents a focused, individualized and personal account complete with her own perspective, enhanced by the praise and lamentation characteristic of encomium and biography.

37 For an overview of this development, see also Ljubarskij, Jakov N. “Man in Byzantine Historiography from John Malalas to Michael Psellos,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992), 177-86 38 R. Jenkins, “The Classical Background of the Scriptores Post Theophanem,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954): 11-30, Scott, “The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography,” 70 13

Chapter 4: Historiography of Anna and her Alexiad

Although today Anna’s text is considered an important source for Byzantine historiography, its value has previously been questioned. The Alexiad and Anna herself were notably disregarded by Edward Gibbon in his The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776), in which he refused to accept Anna as a historian and disregarded her importance as a source, specifically critiquing that “an elaborate affectation of rhetoric and science betrays in every page the vanity of a female author.”39

Gibbon’s criticism of Anna’s writing was likely influenced by his inability to read the

Alexiad in its original Greek, which limited his ability to fully appreciate her writing style. The first thorough analysis of Anna Komnene and her Alexiad was published in

1929 by Georgina Buckler, who analyzed the text as a valuable primary source both of

Byzantine historiography and of Anna.40 Buckler’s Anna Comnena: A Study remains an important analysis of the Byzantine author. Something between a monograph and an encyclopedia and lacking a coherent thesis running throughout, this study certainly goes beyond simply cataloguing the various aspects of Anna and the Alexiad. Divided into sections (Anna as Personality/Character/Historian/Writer), the text attempts to place

Anna within each of her many roles. Such distinctions are helpful for focusing

39 Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: abridged, 423. 40 Buckler produced her monograph at a time when Byzantine studies became popular, enhanced by the increased significance attributed to Byzantine finds at archaeological sites such as Korinth. See K. Kourelis, “Byzantium and the Avant-Garde: Excavations at Corinth, 1920s-1930s,” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Vol. 76, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2007), pp. 391-442 14 individually on each aspect of Anna as a person, but they can also over-simplify the matter. When one is considering Anna as an historian, her writing style and personality are necessarily important components. How she chose to express herself cannot be separated from her subject matter and this approach provides the best means for understanding and appreciating Anna’s biases and motivations.

Even in this early analysis of Anna, Buckler points out the author’s emotional writing style. Buckler’s judgment of Anna, however, portrays the historian’s affectation in a decidedly negative light. The divisions in Buckler’s monograph betray her prejudice: within one of the four broad sections, “Anna as a Personality,” Buckler includes a subsection titled “Her Self-Pity.” Within this segment, Buckler describes Anna’s emotional intrusions thus: “we cannot gauge the depth of feeling beneath her hysterical bombast. One thing is, however, self-evident; if, as experience teaches, great sorrows are dumb… then Anna’s were emphatically not great except in her own self-centered, self- satisfied mind.”41 Buckler is rightly emphasizing some of the most important elements of

Anna’s self-intrusion, but these aspects are presented in unnecessarily negative terms, placing emphasis and importance on the writing styles of classical antiquity over those of later Byzantine authors such as Anna. Buckler’s choice of language betrays her disregard for this method of writing. Regardless of the lack of value in this type of digression for

Buckler, she still identifies the two categories where this technique is most prominent. In her final section, titled “Anna as a Writer,” Buckler states: “And it is natural that we should find her specially bombastic and specially given to rhetorical flourishes when she

41 Buckler, Anna Comnena, 46. 15 is concerned in self-conscious fashion with the weighty matter of her own woes… Other places where we find her faults of style in an exaggerated degree are the various occasions where she eulogizes her father…”42 The two categories presented here reflect the two most prominent and significant occasions on which Anna emotionally inserts herself into the text. This must not be viewed as “bombastic,” “self-centered,” and

“exaggerated,” however; in her assessment, Buckler, working within the “high-style”

British scholarship of the 1920s, has failed to adequately interpret Anna’s interjections, and therefore failed to appreciate their significance.

Various articles were published following Buckler’s monograph, but it was not until Thalia Gouma-Peterson edited a compilation of essays on Anna Komnene in 2000 that a new, substantial contribution was made to scholarship on Anna specifically. This collection of essays examined Anna and the Alexiad from various perspectives, particularly by employing feminist theory and analyzing the interaction between gender and history/literature. This was unquestionably a welcome addition to the field, and it contains many new important insights on the subject. Almost all the essays included focus on some aspect of Anna’s gender (either positively or negatively). Utilizing the work of feminist historians and employing gender theory has allowed Gouma-Peterson and other methodologically similar historians to extract meaningful information from the

Alexiad which transcends Anna as an individual. Emerging scholarship on Anna

Komnene most recently has continued to be dominated by issues relating to her status as a woman and how this affected her position in Byzantine culture, but more specifically,

42 Buckler, Anna Comnena, 499 16 her role as a historian. By incorporating gender-focused scholarship with other approaches and theoretical frameworks, it is possible to advance the perception and understanding of Anna as more than a victim of her gendered existence; in other words, while Anna’s gender certainly did influence her choices, it should not be viewed as the only, or perhaps even the most important, factor.

Viewed as a Byzantine historian, rather than simply as a woman historian, Anna

Komnene falls within a historiographical tradition stretching well back into the classical period. Various elements of this tradition have been identified in the Alexiad, and have been treated by numerous scholars. Buckler catalogued Anna’s use of classical allusions, particularly Homer.43 Scott analyzed how such allusions were common components of

Byzantine historiography but often served a distinct purpose, not necessarily connected to their original meaning. For example, Scott emphasized how Byzantine authors made use of well-known, classical stories as propaganda: the audience was expected to recognize these allusions, which would therefore add credibility to the author’s account. 44

Additionally, Scott examined the use of authorial intrusion in Byzantine historiography, emphasizing that this practice can be traced to the beginning of Greek historiography, but the main contribution by Byzantine historians was the extent to which the author maintained a presence in their text. Influenced by Scott’s scholarship, Macrides approached the issue of personal intrusion by Byzantine historians, in order to “contribute to a better understanding of the nature of the authors’ ‘partiality’, as well as to examine

43 G.Buckler, Anna Comnena, 197-201. 44 For the Byzantine use of authorial intrusion as a type of propaganda, see R. Scott. “The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography,” and “Text and Context in Byzantine Historiography,” in A Companion to Byzantium, ed. Liz James. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: 251-62. 17 the “authors’ view of the purpose and significance of history writing.”45 To do this,

Macrides focused in particular on Michael Psellos’ Chronographia and Anna’s Alexiad, discussing their individual techniques as well as their similarities. Macrides in fact argues that Anna and Psellos “are more like each other than they are like other Byzantine historians,”46 based primarily on their use of personal intrusion.

In her analysis, Macrides provides a useful comparison of Psellos and Anna, which helps demonstrate in what ways Anna might have been influenced by her predecessor. According to Macrides, Psellos intervenes in his text for two main reasons: to emphasize his involvement with emperors and in imperial affairs and to describe his method and approach to writing history.47 Although seemingly aware of the traditional

“rules” of history, Psellos consistently breaks them through his digressions.48 These intrusions allow Psellos to draw attention to the “act of writing, to the power of the author making history” (author’s emphasis).49 In this way, Macrides argues, Psellos used himself as a framing mechanism, effectively ensuring that he would be the central figure in his history. This was accomplished by the frequent use of authorial intrusion, by which

Psellos draws the reader’s attention to his personal involvement in the events he describes, as well as his historical method and approach. By emphasizing his pronounced presence in the text, Psellos redirects the focus from his stated subject matter to the author himself.

45 R. Macrides, "The Historian in the History," 209 46 Macrides, "The Historian in the History", 211 47 Macrides, "The Historian in the History", 211-2 48 Macrides, "The Historian in the History", 213 49 Macrides, "The Historian in the History", 216 18

In her use of authorial intrusion, Anna was operating within a framework familiar to both Classical and Byzantine historians, including Psellos. Anna, however, continued to modify this technique by increasing both the frequency of her intrusions and the level of emotion displayed. Previous scholars have recognized Anna’s prominent use of intrusion and provided various interpretations. Buckler addressed the issue of emotional intrusions in her monograph, asking “How far did Anna, with the parade of emotion… approve of pathos in the writing of history?”50 Buckler points out that Anna, while superficially claiming to abide by the distinction between ἱστορία and συγγραφή, ultimately is judged by modern scholars to have fallen “into both the historiographical sins which she herself deprecates, artificial rhetoric and sentimentality.”51 It is evident that Buckler, like many subsequent scholars, recognized the tension between Anna’s expressed intentions and her outcome in the Alexiad. Buckler, however, seems to interpret Anna’s intrusions at face value; in other words, Buckler does not appear to acknowledge the possibility that Anna’s manifest purpose for intruding in the text

(defending her method, bewailing her fate) might mask underlying agendas.

Subsequent scholars of Byzantine authorial intrusion recognized the complexity surrounding these interjections. Reinsch examined Anna’s debt to Psellos and her emphasis on emotion, remarking that “no other author makes the emotions that arise in a given passage the very subject of the account in such an intense way and in so many

50 Buckler, Anna Comnena, 241. 51 Buckler, Anna Comnena, 241, 243. The distinction between ἱστορία and συγγραφή as drawn by Eustathius (De Thess. Urbe capta, P.G. 136, cols. 9 sqq.) 19 passages.”52 Reinsch, however, took a decidedly feminist approach in her interpretation and argued that Anna’s gender is ever-present in her history, and that because she was a woman, becoming a historian was her only means of asserting authority.53 Gouma-

Peterson’s analysis in the same collection supports such a theory.54 She argues that Anna was continually bound by the limitation imposed by her gender categories: Anna’s various roles, including daughter, princess, widow, and historian, represent gendered categories in which Anna was inscribed. Using Anna’s descriptions of her mother and grandmother to determine Anna’s perception of gender roles,55 Gouma-Peterson argues that writing the Alexiad, and especially inserting herself into the narrative, allowed Anna to transgress her gender boundaries. The usefulness of Anna’s personal intrusions to both women’s and gender historians can best be summarized by Gouma-Peterson:

Anna’s troubles, woes, and lamentations intersect with Alexios’s official history, introducing a gendered female consciousness and feeling within a predominantly male- centered world of great deeds and confrontations. It is precisely the documentation of the intersections of Anna’s various engendered identities and of her acute self-consciousness, already established in the preface, that make the Alexiad such an informative record of a medieval woman’s life.” 56

52 D. Reinsch, “Womens’ Literature in Byzantium? -- The Case of Anna Komnene." Translated by Thomas Dunlap. In Anna Komnene and Her Times, 83-106. Thalia Gouma-Petersen, ed. New York: Garland Publishing (2000), 95 53 Reinsch, “Womens’ Literature in Byzantium?,” 96, 101 54 T. Gouma-Peterson, “Gender and Power: Passages to the Maternal in Anna Komnene’s Alexiad,” in Anna Komnene and her Times, T. Gouma-Peterson, ed. New York: Garland Publishing (2000), 107-124 55 In an earlier study, B. Hill also examined Anna’s descriptions of her female relatives, focusing on what values Anna emphasizes in these women. The author concludes that Anna’s goal was to become an imperial wife and mother, in order to exercise authority in the joint public/private sphere of Byzantine society, as her mother had. Although this text also claims to take a feminist approach, I would argue that it lacks Gouma-Peterson’s nuanced interpretation based in gender theory. Hill, Barbara. Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025-1204: Power, patronage and ideology. (New York: Longman, 1999), esp. pps. 187-198. 56 Gouma-Peterson, “Gender and Power,” 113 20

By inserting herself consciously within the text, Anna calls attention to the dichotomy between male and female gendered categories and succeeded in giving herself a voice in her text. The approach of both Reinsch and Gouma-Peterson has provided scholars with a new perspective on Anna and the Alexiad by considering the significant limitations imposed by gender.

While the aforementioned lines of argument undoubtedly have merit, they succeed more in explaining the effect of Anna’s intrusions than in interpreting their purpose. Macrides addressed such an issue in her article exploring authorial intrusion described above. Just as Psellos used his personal intrusions as a framing device for his history, Anna followed this model to draw attention to herself as a writer and a personality within her history.57 Macrides proposes that the main purpose for this practice was to provide credentials or methodology, but “the impetus for self-insertion came from other sources and served other purposes or needs.”58 This statement begins to approach the heart of the matter, and Macrides further argues that Anna also included her intrusions to emphasize her relationship with her father. The culmination of the scholarship on Anna’s digressions still begs the question: did Anna conceive of an overarching purpose to her frequent and emotional personal intrusions, and if so, what was her intention?

57 Macrides, “The Historian in the History,” 218 58 Macrides, “The Historian in the History,” 224 21

Chapter 5: Personal Intrusions in the Alexiad

In an article titled “‘Writers’ Intrusion’ in Early Byzantine Literature,” Ljubarskij provides a useful overview of the practice of authorial interjection. Perhaps most significant is a set of criteria which can be used for recognizing and categorizing an author’s intrusion in historical writing. The four factors taken into consideration by

Ljubarskij are: “immediate self-presentation of the author, direct comment on events and persons (deviating from the narrative), emotional evaluation of events and persons

(epithets and adverbs), and references to sources (author’s interest in trustfulness)”.59

Anna’s intrusions represent all of these categories. In analyzing her presence in the

Alexiad, Ljubarskij argues that the text is characterized by the author’s “unity of attitude.” This is presented in contrast to authors such as Psellos, who tended to change their presentation of themselves to suit particular circumstances or agendas. Anna, however, unifies the entire Alexiad through her cohesive method of intrusion, particularly in expressions of mourning.60 In his analysis, Ljubarskij’s goal was to break down the intrusions to determine to what extent they represent the historical figure and to what extent they are personas created by the author. In response to earlier scholars who relied on intrusions primarily for autobiographical details, Ljubarskij’s interpretation of

59 J. Ljubarskij, “ ‘Writers’ Intrusion’ in Early Byzantine Literature,” XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Major Papers, (Moscow, 1991), 435. 60 Ljubarskij, “ ‘Writers’ Intrusion’ in Early Byzantine Literature,” 444. 22 intrusions such as Anna’s is that “the emotional approach in some cases cannot reveal the individuality, sometimes it even conceals the author’s personality.”61 In other words, overly emotional interjections might actually mask personal opinions, rather than illuminate them. I would argue, however, that for the purposes of the present analysis, it matters little whether the personality which Anna presents is “true” in an autobiographical sense; rather, the reader must recognize that Anna presented herself in precisely the way she chose, therefore establishing the agency for maintaining her own legacy through her writing. Additionally, Ljubarskij is right to see a “unity of attitude” in

Anna’s intrusions. The cohesion provided by Anna should however not simply be reduced to “expressions of mourning;” a detailed analysis of Anna’s authorial interjections will show that their primary unity is visible in Anna’s consistent personalization of herself as an author.

In order to facilitate analysis, I have divided Anna’s use of personal intrusions into two broad categories: instances relating to her method and role as a historian, and occasions where Anna is praising or lamenting events related to her family.62 The first of the two categories is most representative of traditional reasons for authorial intrusion.

Extending back into the Classical tradition, historians often interjected in the midst of the narrative to explain sources or defend digressions.63 Anna, however, tends to take advantage of this common practice, and use it as a way to enter the narrative more frequently than might seem necessary. It is clear from this type of digression that Anna is

61 Ljubarskij, “ ‘Writers’ Intrusion’ in Early Byzantine Literature,” 339 62 This division is by necessity artificial, as Anna herself provided no such division. It is my hope that such an approach will help make an analysis of the passages more manageable. Additionally, this division emphasizes Anna’s apparent internal tension between her conflicting roles as historian and daughter. 63 See examples of intrusion in the classical period in Chapter III above 23 concerned with the possibility that readers will believe she has falsified information, and the intrusions are often used by Anna to insist upon her adherence to the truth. Regardless of Anna’s overt intentions behind such statements, they allowed her authorial entrance into the text. This practice is closely related to Anna’s second type of intrusion, those involving significant emotional displays, usually related to her family members. Because

Anna frequently grieved or praised different individuals in the Alexiad, she consistently appears concerned that she will be accused of partiality and that her account will not be taken seriously. This is perhaps not an unwarranted fear, for her emotional interjections are frequent and do permeate the narrative which they interrupt. Anna, therefore, seems aware that her passionate digressions will be recognized by her audience and she makes no apparent effort to limit their inclusions, rather she takes advantage of any opportunity to insert herself into the text.

This division of Anna’s authorial intrusion into two categories additionally reveals two important aspects of Anna’s character which she chooses to present to the audience: dutiful daughter and skilled author. Because the vast majority (if not all) of the author’s intrusions represent these two facets of Anna, it is clear that she viewed them as especially significant components of her identity. By focusing on defending her role as a historian on the one hand and emphasizing familial connections on the other, Anna is able to provide her audience with a precise picture of how she wishes to be viewed.

Towards the very end of the text, when she is at her most emotional in describing the death of her father and lamenting her own fate, Anna herself indicates her motivation and justification for her approach:

But indeed I remember some words of my father’s which disparaged history-writing, but incited one to elegies and lamentations. For I often heard him, and once I even heard him checking the Empress, my mother, when she ordered wise men to write a history, and thereby hand down to posterity his labors and all his conflicts and trials, saying they had better lament over him and deplore his misfortunes.64

This passage is revealing for a number of reasons. On the surface, it purports to outline what Anna believed her father, Alexios I, would expect from a proper history of his reign.

In his opinion as presented by Anna, the author should both relate the narrative of events and lament or praise these events, as the situation required. Anna explicitly claims that her father reportedly “disparaged history-writing, but incited one to elegies and lamentations.”65 According to Anna, Alexios was apparently most concerned that the readers of a history describing his reign should appreciate the emotional impact of the events more than the simple cause and effect of a traditional history. The careful reader must question whether Alexios actually advanced this particular position, or whether

Anna herself has attributed these opinions to her father of her own accord. Whether or not

Alexios actually said these things, Anna’s inclusion of this particular quote emphasizes her dual concerns, respected historian and respectful daughter, which feature predominantly in her intrusions.

64 Alexiad XV.XI.1-2, 419: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἀναμέμνημαι καὶ λόγων τινῶν πατρικῶν τῆς μὲν ἱστορίας ἀπαγόντων, εἰς δὲ τοὺς θρήνους καὶ τὰς ὀλοφύρσεις παρακαλούντων. Ἤκουον γὰρ καὶ τούτου πολλάκις, ἤκουον τὴν μητέρα καὶ βασιλίδα ἀνακόπτοντος ἐπιτάττουσαν τοῖς σοφοῖς διὰ τῆς ἱστορίας τοῖς ἐςὕστερον παραπέμψαι τοὺς ἐκείνου πόνους καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ἆθλα ἐκεῖνα καὶ τὰ σκάμματα, μονῳδεῖν δὲ ἐπ' αὐτῷ καὶ κλαίειν τὰ συμπεσόντα οἱ δεινά. Οὔπω γὰρ ἔτος ἓν πρὸς τῷ ἡμίσει διελήλυθεν ἐξ οὗπερ τῆς ἐκστρατείας ἐπανελήλυθεν 65 Alexiad XV.XI.1 419: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἀναμέμνημαι καὶ λόγων τινῶν πατρικῶν τῆς μὲν ἱστορίας ἀπαγόντων, εἰς δὲ τοὺς θρήνους καὶ τὰς ὀλοφύρ σεις παρακαλούντων. 25

Reading the Alexiad with these motivations in mind suggests that Anna does not simply mention this opinion of her father in passing, but rather that she took his admonition to heart and attempted to live up to his ideal. However, considering the nature of Anna’s authorial interjections, it seems just as likely that Anna presents this opinion of her father (true or not) to support her own agenda. Because she is writing the history of her father’s reign, it seems that Anna is eager for Alexios to approve of her methods, or at least for the audience to believe he did. Her personal intrusions do include abundant lamentation, just as she expressed her father would have wanted. There appears to be a degree of tension, however, between Anna’s methodology and her father’s supposed ideal. While Anna does include both narrative and emotional intrusions, her other type of interjection, those defending her role as historian, betray Anna’s internal conflict. On the one hand, she clearly desired to live up to her father’s model for the account of his life, but on the other hand, she was aware of the established rules of history writing and strove to be a part of this respected tradition. Anna’s numerous digressions defending her historical method can therefore be viewed alongside her emotional intrusions as her attempt to justify her actions as both a good historian and a respectful daughter, and more importantly, to emphasize this portrait of herself to her audience.

Recording her father’s legacy for posterity according to his specifications was clearly an important goal for Anna. Her Alexiad ensured that all subsequent generations would be aware of the details of Alexios’ reign. But thanks to Anna’s personal intrusions, details of her own life and opinions survive as well. This cannot have been accidental.

Anna’s desire to live up to her father’s ideal historian does not explain all of her

26 excessive interjections. Had she simply been trying to prove herself a worthy author for the task, the vast amount of personal detail which Anna provided seems excessive. She clearly wanted her personality to be visible and her voice to shine through her narrative.

By reading the Alexiad with particular focus on the author’s intrusions, one can begin to interpret the text not only as Anna’s attempt to preserve her father’s legacy, but her own as well. Prevented from attaining the throne which she so desired, Anna was left with little recourse to establish herself in any position of authority66. By writing her father’s history to preserve his memory and by including numerous personal interjections, Anna was able to preserve her own memory and establish her own legacy. Because Anna was not a significant actor in many of the events she describes, her authorial intrusions serve an important function: they establish Anna as a central personality in the narrative.67

Throughout the Alexiad, it is obvious that Anna is at pains to emphasize her relationship to her father at every chance in order to provide legitimacy to her own quest for a legacy.

In the following paragraphs, through an examination of a number of Anna’s personal intrusions, I wish to demonstrate that Anna’s ever-present personal judgments were the author’s way of establishing a visible personal presence throughout the narrative in the hopes that she too, and her view of events, would be remembered by later generations.

Perhaps the most effective way to understand Anna and her personal intrusions is by analyzing many of her interjections in the context of the narrative. These passages illustrate how Anna was able to include a personal presence within the larger history, and

66 See T. Gouma-Peterson, “Gender and Power,” for an interpretation on how Anna’s authorship of the Alexiad was her only recourse to escape the limitations imposed by her gender 67 Psellos also used his texts to frame himself as a central personality, see Macrides, “The Historian in the History,” esp. pps. 211-18 27 they demonstrate that she did this in order to create and maintain a carefully constructed personal legacy alongside her father’s. Because the emotional authorial intrusions can be approached more systematically divided into two categories, those in which Anna justifies her role as an historian and those in which Anna laments familial matters, it will be beneficial here to analyze the passages according to this division. This method will allow the reader to get a sense of the high frequency of Anna’s intrusion, and to understand the importance these interjections, both for Anna herself and for the modern reader of the Alexiad.

Chapter 6: Anna’s Justification of her Role as Historian

Anna’s defense of her role as historian permeates the narrative. One need not go too far into the first book to find this type of passage. Already in Book I, Anna introduces what becomes prevalent in the Alexiad: entering the narrative as historian and commenting on various events and people, and continuously justifying her choices and actions. Because of this, the reader is able to recognize how seriously Anna undertook her task of writing the Alexiad. Of primary concern to Anna is the potential charge that she has corrupted her account in some way by including too many digressions and personal opinions, especially regarding her family. Anna counters this potential criticism by informing the reader that she is aware of the possibility by asserting that she does not wish to “confuse this history by mingling monodies on [her] sufferings with historical narration.”68 This overt desire to avoid over-emotion is a constant conflict in the Alexiad.

Anna herself points out this issue towards the end of Book I, where she reiterates her purpose in writing the history, the central figure of the narrative, her father.69 Striking a balance between familial devotion and objective historical narration proved challenging

68 Alexiad I.XII.3, 31: ἵνα μὴ τὰς μονῳδίας τῶν ἐμῶν ἀναμιγνῦσα ταῖς ἱστορικαῖς διηγήσεσι τὴν ἱστορίαν συγχέοιμι. See also Buckler 241-3 on Anna’s combination of history and narrative. 69 Alexiad I.XVI.9, 43: Καιρὸς δὲ ἤδη τραπέσθαι πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν τοὐμοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ὅπως καὶ ἐξ οἵων ἀφορμῶν εἰς τὸ βασιλεύειν ἐλήλυθε, διηγήσασθαι. Οὐ γὰρ τὰ πρὸ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτῷ ἐσκεψάμην ἐρεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅσα βασιλεύων κατώρθωκεν ἢ ἐξήμαρτεν, εἴ γε τέως σφαλέντα τοῦτον εὑρήσομεν ἐν ἅπασι δι' ὧν βαδιούμεθα. Οὐ γὰρ ὡς πατρὸς φεισαίμην, εἴ γέ μοι παρασταίη τι τῶν ἐκείνῳ μὴ καλῶς πεπραγμένων, οὐδὲ διὰ τὴν ὑποτρέχουσαν ὑποψίαν, ὅτι πατήρ ἐστι, περὶ οὗ ξυγγράφομεν, τὰ κατορθώματα τούτῳ παραδραμούμεθα. Ἐν ἑκατέροις γὰρ ἀδικήσομεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Ἐμοὶ γὰρ τοῦτον ἐχούσῃ σκοπόν, ἄνωθεν καθάπερ πολλάκις εἴρηται, ὑπόθεσις ὁ πατὴρ καὶ βασιλεὺς ὑποβέβληται. 29 for Anna, and at times she seems rather defensive of her choices. This is especially the case when it comes to praising family members. Discussing her grandmother, Anna states: “Had I preferred writing a laudatory article instead of a history, I could have greatly lengthened my story by different tales about her as I made plain before.”70 Here

Anna is drawing a distinction between a laudatory article and a history, and because she has chosen to write the latter, justification is necessary for the numerous intrusions and digressions. Once the path of history was chosen, Anna remained rather diligent in its practice, recognizing and justifying any deviation from what she called the “laws of history.”71 Anytime the author does make a digression, she consciously returns focus to the main history, introduced by a transition such as this: “But I must bring back my story to the point where it broke off, and keep it within the due lines of narration.”72 Statements of this type show that Anna was eager to keep within what she viewed as the accepted rules for history writing, but at the same time she was unwilling to simply leave out personal details and emotions relating to her family. Her desire to include πάθος forced

Anna to navigate a sort of middle ground between the two genres of history and narration, adhering to what she deemed appropriate history writing on the one hand and refusing to neglect herself and her family on the other.

Anna’s intrusions defending her role as historian represent one side of the portrait she paints of herself. As the author of her father’s history, Anna feels she has undertaken

70Alexiad III.VIII.11, 89: Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐγκωμιάζειν προειλόμην, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἱστορίαν ποιεῖν, ἐπὶ πλέον ἂν ἐπαφῆκα τὸν λόγον τοῖς περὶ τούτων διηγήμασι, καθάπερ φθάσασα ἐδήλωσα· 71 Alexiad XV.XI.2, 419: Ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ τὸ τῆς ὑποθέσεως ἐκβιάζει μέγεθος, φιλοπάτωρ τε ἅμα καὶ φιλομήτωρ ἐξ αὐτῶν σπαργάνων γεγενημένη θεσμοὺς ἱστορίας ὑπερεκπίπτειν ἔρχομαι διηγησομένη, ὅπερ οὐ πάνυ τι βούλομαι, τὴν τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος τελευτήν. 72Alexiad IX.VII.1, 226: Ἀλλ' ἐπανακτέον τὸν λόγον αὖθις ὅθεν ἀπερρύη καὶ καθ' εἱρμὸν ἑκτέον τῆς διηγήσεως. 30 a serious responsibility, but also a great honor. By calling attention to her role and defending herself against any potential critics, Anna is also taking advantage of opportunities to remind the reader that she is the author. In fact, the frequency of this type of intervention suggests that Anna is eager to create this type of opportunity, perhaps more often than necessary. Anna’s role as author and historian provided her with a significant level of personal agency, and its full potential is realized only through the intrusions which allow Anna to create and manage an individual identity through the narrative. Anna’s intrusions defending her objective historical approach specifically allow her to emphasize her role as author and historian.

In one such intrusion in Book XIV, Anna’s concern for proper historical method is articulated. Anna is particularly explicit about the fact that she gathered a large amount of information from first-hand experience: “Part of my history I derive from my own memory… most I gathered first hand.”73 Anna is conscious of accusations that she may be accused of bias due to her position as participant and direct relation of her subject, therefore she is careful to assert that she has corroborated her information with accounts from “men from whom I can learn of things which they happen to have heard of from others, or my father’s intimate friends.”74 Using this material, Anna defends her history thus:

73 Alexiad XIV.VII.5, 381: Τὰ μὲν οὖν, ὡς εἶπον, παρ' ἐμαυτῆς ἔχω, τὰ δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ξυστρατευσαμένων τῷ αὐτοκράτορι ποικίλως περὶ τούτων μανθάνουσα καὶ διά τινων πορθμέων εἰς ἡμᾶς διαβιβαζόντων τὰ τοῖς πολέμοις ξυμβεβηκότα, μάλιστα δὲ καὶ αὐτοπροσώπως περὶ τούτων διηγουμένων πολλάκις ἤκουον τοῦ τε αὐτοκράτορος καὶ Γεωργίου τοῦ Παλαιολόγου. 74 Alexiad XIV.VII.6, 382: Καὶ οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀφανεστέροις ἐξέσται τῶν ἀνθρώπων παρ' ἡμᾶς φοιτᾶν, μὴ ὅτι γε δι' ὧν μανθάνειν εἴχομεν, ἅπερ παρ' ἄλλων διακηκοότες ἐτύγχανον, καὶ τοῖς τοῦ πατρὸς οἰκειοτάτοις. 31

I judged the truth of my history from them by comparing and examining what I had written with what they told me, and what they told me with what I remembered from having often heard the accounts both from my father himself and from my paternal uncles. From all these sources I wove the whole fabric of my truthful history.75

In this digression, Anna has outlined her personal standards undertaken while writing her history. The primary purpose of this is to dissuade potential critics of her role as both daughter and historian of her father, especially those who might be unconvinced that

Anna could be impartial. The explanation of her methodology serves an additional purpose, however: it allows her to re-emphasize her personal connection to the royal family and the events she describes. By stressing that her material came from first-hand experience or personal commentaries with others involved, Anna is reminding the reader that she should be remembered as more than a historian and author, but as an important figure in her own right. Personal intrusions, including this one concerning her sources and methodology, allow Anna’s voice to be heard independent of her narrative. In this example, Anna emphasizes both her skill as a historian and her unique qualifications for her task, specifically her relationship to the primary participants and her access to historical data.

A few examples of the ways which Anna handled specific digressions and incorporated them into her larger narrative will demonstrate how she was able to use intrusions to emphasize certain aspects of herself as an individual. In Book VI, Anna

75 Alexiad XIV.VII.7, 382: καὶ ἐτεκμηράμην ἐξ αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς ἱστορίας ἀλήθειαν, συμβάλλουσα καὶ παρεξετάζουσα τὰ παρ' ἐμαυτῆς ἱστορούμενα πρὸς τὰ παρ' ἐκείνων λεγόμενα καὶ τὰ παρ' ἐκείνων πρὸς τὰ παρ' ἐμαυτῆς, ἅπερ αὐτὴ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τε τοὐμοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν πρὸς πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς ἐμοὶ θείων ἠκηκόειν πολλάκις. Ἀφ' ὧν ἁπάντων τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἅπαν σῶμα συν εξυφαίνεται. 32 makes a digression about astrology, seemingly unimportant to the overall narrative. She introduces it thus: “and if I may be allowed to make a short break in the course of my history, the following are the facts about astrological prophecies.”76 This technique of immediately signaling a digression and attempting to justify it by providing a rational for its inclusion is a common feature in the Alexiad. Anna continues:

“I do not mention this for the sake of boasting, but to prove that during my father’s reign many of the sciences made great progress, as he honored both philosophers and philosophy itself, but towards this teaching of astrology he showed some hostility, I believe because it intended to make people of a guileless nature reject their faith in God and gape at the stars.”77

This passage makes it clear that even overtly unrelated digressions often relate directly to

Anna’s father. Anna uses opportunities such as this to praise her father and include her own opinion on various topics. In the example above, Anna includes a digression about astrology in order to praise her father directly, but also, and perhaps more significantly, to present her own view regarding the importance of philosophy and religion. Intrusions such as this one are prevalent in the history, and are definitively set off from the larger narrative using a framing device which includes the introduction quoted above, and concluded with a transitional statement like the following: “But now let us return to the point in our history where we abandoned it, otherwise we shall be thought to be star-

76 Alexiad VI.VII.2, 148: Καὶ ἵνα τι βραχὺ παραδράμωμεν τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἱστορίας μικρὸν ἀποστάντες, οὕτως ἔχει τὰ κατὰ τοὺς χρησμούς. 77 Alexiad VI.VII.3, 149: Ταῦτα δὲ γράφω οὐκ ἐπιδείξεως ἕνεκα, ἀλλ' ἵνα ἐνδειξαίμην ὅτι ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος τούτου πολλαὶ τῶν ἐπιστημῶν εἰς ἐπίδοσιν ἐληλύθεισαν τιμῶντος τοὺς φιλοσόφους καὶ φιλοσοφίαν αὐτήν, εἰ καὶ πρὸς τὸ μάθημα τοῦτο τῆς ἀστρολογίας δυσχεραίνων πως κατεφαίνετο, οἶμαι, διότι τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν ἀκεραιοτέρων ἀφίστασθαι ἀνέπειθε τῶν ἄνωθεν ἐλπίδων καὶ κεχηνέναι τοῖς ἀστράσιν. 33 gazers, obscuring the main theme of our history with the names of astrologers.”78 In the course of this aside, like many others, Anna is able to accomplish two distinct things.

First, she demonstrates her commitment to proper historical method by clearly indicating that she has deviated from the narrative. Second, she manages to make an apparently random digression directly related to her father, including direct praise, and she makes her personal opinion of the matter evident. The power and importance of Anna’s intrusions and digressions should be apparent from this example, but it is useful to examine additional instances in which Anna even more explicitly expresses her personality.

In a collection of intrusions in Book X, Anna addresses the issue of her decision to include a listing of “barbaric” names. Her initial justification includes a reference to

Homer: “Let no one find fault with me for introducing these barbaric names which are a stain on the style of my history; for not even Homer disdained to mention Boeotians and certain barbarian islands for the sake of accuracy in his history.”79 Here she claims a desire to maintain her position within the classical historical tradition by adhering to accuracy over “style.” A short while later, however, Anna states: “Though I much desire to do so, I cannot detail the names of the leaders. For my speech is paralyzed, partly because I cannot articulate these strange names which are so unpronounceable, and partly because of the number of them. And, why indeed should we endeavor to recount the names of such a multitude, when even the men who were present were soon filled with

78 Alexiad VI.VII.6, 150: Ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς γε ἐντεῦθεν πάλιν ὅθεν ἐξεληλύθειμεν ἀναστρέψωμεν, ἵνα μὴ δοκοίημεν μετεωρολέσχαι τινὲς καὶ τοῖς ἐξ ἀστρολογίας ὀνόμασι τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἱστορίας καταζοφοῦντες. 79 Alexiad X.VIII.1, 254: Καὶ μεμφέσθω μηδεὶς ἡμῖν τοιούτοις χρωμένοις ὀνόμασι βαρβαρικοῖς καὶ ἀφ' ὧν ἔστι τὸ ὕφος τῆς ἱστορίας καταμιαίνεσθαι· οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδ' Ὅμηρος ἀπηξίωσε Βοιωτοὺς ὀνομάζειν καί τινας βαρβαρώδεις νήσους διὰ τὴν τῆς ἱστορίας ἀκρίβειαν. 34 indifference at the sight?”80 This seems to indicate that while Anna would prefer to include as much detail into her narrative as possible, whenever she is unable to do so, she will justify her actions in another way. The fact that she deems it necessary at all to defend her inability to provide the names of the barbarian leaders is revealing. This allows Anna to insert her voice into a passage that otherwise would be devoid of any authorial personality. Anna is so concerned with portraying herself as a competent historian that she takes advantage of any opportunity to insert herself into her narrative to explain her actions and provide personal commentary. This becomes even more evident in a passage concluding the account containing the barbarian names:

“I had got as far as this and as toiling with my pen about the time of lamp-lighting, when I noticed that I was dozing a bit over my writing, as the subject was losing its interest. For when it is absolutely necessary to make use of the barbarian names and to narrate various successive events, the body of my history and the continuity of my writing is likely to be cut up into paragraphs; but my kind readers will bear me no grudge for this.”81

This passage is significant for the degree to which Anna inserts herself into the text. By describing the time of day and the fact that she was about to fall asleep, pen in hand,

Anna paints a vivid picture of herself as a writer. Admitting to almost napping while writing her history seems almost to be an odd confession, since it could be taken either as being caused by her working so diligently or by boredom. Anna herself states that the

80 Alexiad X.X.4, 263: Τὰς δὲ τῶν ἡγεμόνων κλήσεις καὶ προθυμουμένη περ ἐξειπεῖν οὐ βούλομαι. Ναρκᾷ γάρ μοι ὁ λόγος τὸ μέν τι βαρβαρικὰς φωνὰς ἀπαγγέλλειν ἀδυνατούσῃ διὰ τὸ ἄναρθρον, τὸ δέ τι καὶ πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος ἐκείνων ἀποβλεπούσῃ. Καὶ ἵνατί τοσούτου πλήθους κλήσεις ἀπαριθμεῖσθαι πειρώμεθα, οὓς καὶ οἱ τότε παρόντες ἀκηδίας ἐπληροῦντο ὁρῶντες; 81Alexiad XIII.VI.3, 337-8: Ἐνταῦθα δὲ γενομένη καὶ πρὸς λύχνων ἁφὰς τὸν κάλαμον ἐπισύρουσα, μικρὸν πρὸς τὴν γραφὴν ἐπινυστάζουσα ἐπαισθάνομαι τοῦ λόγου ἀπορρέοντος. Ὅπου γὰρ βαρβαρικῶν ὀνομάτων ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀπαιτεῖται χρῆσις καὶ ἀλλεπαλλήλων ὑποθέσεων διήγησις, τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ τὸ συνεχὲς τῆς γραφῆς κατ' ἄρθρα ἔοικε διακόπτεσθαι· καὶ οὐ νέμεσις τοῖς γε εὔνως ἐντυγχάνουσι τῇ γραφῇ. 35 subject was “losing its interest,” either to herself as author or potentially to her future readers. In either situation, this provides what is typically a rare glimpse into the mind of the author. In Anna’s case, however, such insight is not uncommon. At the end of this passage, Anna also addresses her audience indirectly, gently encouraging their support.

Such direct interaction between author and reader further enables Anna to transcend her text. A passage such as this, which does not directly enhance the narrative in any meaningful way and could easily be omitted, is very common in the Alexiad and is a strong example of Anna’s desire to insert herself into her history whenever possible.

Anna’s task as historian is complicated by the subject of her account. Because she is writing about her own father, Anna is driven by a desire to navigate between objectivity and personal attachment to her father. Both allow her to readily enter the text in order to emphasize this goal. At times in the Alexiad, Anna explicitly defends both her subject and approach, and insists that she does not let personal motivation interfere with producing an accurate account of her father’s reign:

But perhaps someone who has lighted upon this history and readers so far will say that my tongue has been corrupted by nature. But verily that is not so… I most certainly do not describe and write of these things in order to favor my father. And, wherever I perceive that my father made a mistake, I unhesitatingly transgress the natural law and cling to the truth, for though I hold him dear, I hold truth dearer still.82

82 Alexiad XIV.VII.3, 380: Ἀλλ' ἴσως τις ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου γενόμενος καὶ ἐντυγχάνων τῷ συγγράμματι δεδεκασμένην εἴποι τῇ φύσει τὴν γλῶτταν… οὐκ ἔγωγε χαριζομένη τὠμῷ πατρὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ λέγω καὶ γράφω. Ἥ γε καὶ ὅπη τὸν πατέρα σφαλλόμενον ἴδοιμι, ἄντικρυς καὶ παραβαίνω τὸν νόμον τὸν φυσικὸν καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐξέχομαι, φίλον μὲν καὶ τοῦτον ἡγουμένη, φιλτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔχουσα. 36

Anna is insistent that she has remained faithful to the truth while still honoring the memory of her father. The importance of this issue is evident in the fact that Anna breaks her narrative to explain her position and assure the reader that her intentions are not colored by her unique relationship with her subject. This is particularly interesting because Anna also supports her claim to be an accurate historian by explaining that she acquired much of her information firsthand: “And as a rule I was with my father and mother and accompanied them. For it was not my lot to be kept at home and brought up in the shade and in luxury.”83 This statement does provide some merit to her account, but it also allows Anna portray herself as an observer and a participant in the events she describes, and not simply the individual recording them for posterity. By emphasizing her own role as a close relation of the emperor, Anna allows herself to become a part of her history in a more meaningful way. The reader of the Alexiad is forced to consider Anna as a historical figure, as a member of the royal family, instead of simply a narrator existing outside the text she has written. In this way, Anna produces for herself a tangible connection to her father’s legacy and therefore begins to create one of her own.

Anna’s closeness to her father permeates her history, and the author’s attention to the subject and its potential issues provides the reader with a greater understanding of

Anna’s opinion on how she ought to approach her topic. Anna provides this disclaimer to potential critics: “if we shall occasionally find him unsuccessful in the course of the long stretch we are to traverse, I should not spare him for being my father if anything he did struck me as not well done; nor shall I gloss over his successes to avoid the under-current

83 Alexiad XIV.VII.4, 381: Τὰ μὲν γὰρ πλείω καὶ ἡμεῖς συνῆμεν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῇ μητρὶ συνειπόμεθα. Οὐ γὰρ ἦν τὸ ἡμέτερον τοιοῦτον οἷον οἰκουρικὸν καὶ ὑπὸ σκιὰν καὶ τρυφὴν στρεφόμενον. 37 of suspicion that it is a daughter writing about her father, for in either case I should be wronging truth.”84 Maintaining an objective position and a balance between factual narration and critique was of significant concern to Anna, and she was aware that as the daughter of Alexios, she would be especially subject to criticism. In order to minimize this suspicion, Anna claims “I often treat my father’s doings in a cursory way, neither amplifying them or investing them with sentiment.”85 This appears to be a rather empty claim, especially in light of the numerous occasions of praise or lamentation, as will be discussed in the following section. The importance of this statement and the previous ones, however, exists in the possible motivation for their inclusion in the first place. Each time Anna attempts to justify her position and actions, Anna enters the text in the first person and reminds the reader of her identity and purpose. Without these intrusions, the author would become irrelevant as his or her own voice and identity would be absorbed by the narrative.

Anna’s personal view of her identity can be summed up in a statement she makes in the Alexiad: “though a historian, I am a woman and the most honorable of the

Porphyrogeniti and Alexius’ eldest scion.”86 By categorizing herself as a historian, a woman and a member of the royal family Anna is able to define her character and present it to her readers as she wishes to be portrayed. Anna is concerned not only with being

84 Alexiad I. XVI.9, 43: εἴ γε τέως σφαλέντα τοῦτον εὑρήσομεν ἐν ἅπασι δι' ὧν βαδιούμεθα. Οὐ γὰρ ὡς πατρὸς φεισαίμην, εἴ γέ μοι παρασταίη τι τῶν ἐκείνῳ μὴ καλῶς πεπραγμένων, οὐδὲ διὰ τὴν ὑποτρέχουσαν ὑποψίαν, ὅτι πατήρ ἐστι, περὶ οὗ ξυγγράφομεν, τὰ κατορθώματα τούτῳ παραδραμούμεθα. Ἐν ἑκατέροις γὰρ ἀδικήσομεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 85Alexiad IV.VIII.1, 113: Μηδὲ γὰρ βουλομένη τὴν ἱστορίαν ὕποπτον θεῖναι πολλάκις παρατρέχω τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς μήτε αὐξάνουσα μήτε πάθος περιτιθεῖσα. 86 Alexiad XV.IX.1, 415: ὅτι συγγραφεὺς ἔγωγε γυνὴ καὶ τῆς πορφύρας τὸ τιμιώτατον καὶ τῶν Ἀλεξίου πρώτιστον 38 remembered, but with influencing how she is remembered by reminding her readers of the significant roles she has filled in her lifetime. By referring to herself as “Alexios’ scion,” Anna is again connecting herself to her father, and therefore to her history as a whole. It is this connection that provides Anna the greatest potential for establishing a continued legacy and Anna is quick to take advantage of opportunities to exploit and emphasize her unique relationship to her father, and therefore her unique qualification to write his history. Anna’s intrusions also reflect her stated identity: by entering the text primarily to discuss issues of historical method and to emphasize her place in the royal family, Anna is reiterating this conception of her identity throughout the narrative.

Although there certainly existed more to this individual than these two facets, they are what Anna chose to portray and emphasize, and by doing so, enabled her to create a cohesive, although self-consciously limited representation of herself.

Chapter 7: Anna’s Lamentations

As with personal intrusions justifying Anna’s role as historian, emotional interjections, especially concerning family members, are prominent in the Alexiad. In fact, one needs look no further than the preface to encounter such an interjection.87 It becomes clear that Anna’s constant defense of her historical method is not without merit, as she does not appear to attempt to mask her emotional connection to her subject. By evaluating a selection of this type of intrusion, a more precise image of Anna’s personality, or at least the way in which she chose to present herself, becomes apparent.

Therefore it is necessary to look at the ways in which Anna portrays her relationship with her parents, and her own opinions and feelings related to her family and her plight especially. As with the previously analyzed category, Anna’s emotional intrusions are inserted carefully and deliberately. They should not be viewed as the “vanity of a female author,” as Gibbon suggested, but rather as an attempt by Anna to humanize and individualize the faceless historian hidden behind the text. The expression of emotion within the narrative reminds the reader that Anna, although the unseen author, should be viewed as an actual individual with a personal stake in the events she describes. As with intrusions justifying her role as a historian, Anna highlights her emotional involvement

87Alexiad Preface IV.1-4, 4-5: Anna laments the death of her husband and her own subsequent misfortunes 40 with the events and characters in her narrative both in order to maintain an active presence and to assert her own voice and opinions.

Perhaps the most poignant example of Anna emphasizing her status as a member of the royal family is her account of her own birth. She recounts the event (although she was involved she could not be said to have been a witness) in a manner indicative of her high level of esteem for her parents, using language which suggests that she viewed her birth as a significant event in her father’s history as a whole. The emphasis, however, is placed on her love of her parents from the beginning of her life:

And at dawn on a Saturday a female child was born to them who was exactly like her father, they said; that child was I… even in the womb I felt that affection for my parents which was manifested so conspicuously in the future. For afterwards as I grew up and reached years of discretion I became sincerely devoted to my mother and equally to my father. And many can bear witness to this fact, above all those who know my history. And further testimony to it are the many struggles, anxieties and even dangers which I suffered because of my deep love for them, as I spared neither my honor, money, nor even my life; for devotion to them so fired me that I even risked my life for them several times.88

It is not controversial to argue that the birth of his first child was undoubtedly an important event in Alexios’ life, and therefore merits mention in his history. What is less conventional, however, is the extent to which Anna elaborates on her personal feelings in

88 Alexiad VI.VIII.1-2, 151: Κατὰ δὲ τὸ περίορθρον (σάββατον δὲ ἦν) τίκτεται τούτοις παιδίον θῆλυ ἐμφερές, ὡς ἔλεγον, κατὰ πάντα τῷ πατρί· ἐγὼ δὲ ἄρα ἦν τοῦτο… τὸ δέ γε τῆς βασιλίδος ἐπίταγμα πέρας εἰλήφει, ὅπερ κἀν τῇ γαστρὶ τὴν εἰς τὸ μέλλον πρὸς τοὺς γειναμένους εὔνοιαν ἀριδήλως ὑπεσημαίνετο. Καὶ γὰρ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰς ἡλικίαν ἐπιδεδωκυῖα καὶ ἀπολαβοῦσα τὸ φρονοῦν καθαρῶς φιλομήτωρ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἐγεγόνειν καὶ φιλοπάτωρ. Καὶ μάρτυρες τοιούτου τοῦ ἤθους εἰσί μοι πολλοὶ μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἤδη δὲ καὶ πάντες ὁπόσοι τἀμὰ γινώσκουσι, προσεπιμαρτυρούντων αὐτοῖς καὶ τῶν πολλῶν μου ὑπὲρ τῶν γονέων ἄθλων καὶ καμάτων καὶ τῶν κινδύνων ἐκείνων, εἰς οὓς ἐμαυτὴν διὰ τὸ πρὸς ἐκείνους φίλτρον ἐνέβαλον, ἀφειδήσασα μὲν καὶ τιμῆς καὶ χρημάτων καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ζωῆς. Οὕτω γὰρ τὸ πρὸς αὐτούς με φίλτρον ἐξέκαεν ὡς καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν ψυχὴν δι' αὐτοὺς προέσθαι πολλάκις. 41 this passage. She takes this opportunity, when she has occasion to enter the narrative for a legitimate reason, to expound upon her love for her parents and the peril it often caused her. Anna even claims that her familial devotion was worth more to her than her life. The sentiment expressed in this passage serves as a solid paradigm for what persists as a common theme in the Alexiad: Anna’s interjection of her own emotions, feelings and opinions whenever possible. At one point, she addresses this potential issue with the statement “I trust I may be allowed to praise my own relations when the nature of the circumstances demands it.”89 I would argue, however, that Anna does not simply restrict herself to situations that “demand” her to interject; rather she takes any opportunity where her personal opinion might be marginally relevant to insert herself into her narrative by means of expressing her emotions. In this way, Anna enables herself to be ever-present in his history, and therefore in the mind of her reader.

Although her father is the main subject of her history, Anna also emphasizes her relationship to and admiration for her mother. This was Anna’s way of presenting herself as a dutiful daughter in all respects, but it also allows the reader a glimpse into what Anna deemed to be admirable qualities for a woman.90 One interesting virtue which Anna compliments in her mother is the latter’s modesty: “And so the Empress, my mother, the image of dignity, the temple of holiness, did not only dislike showing her arm or eyes to the public, but did not even like her voice to be carried to unaccustomed ears. Such a

89 Alexiad III.I.3, 72: καὶ οὐ νέμεσις, εἰ τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἐπαινοίην ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀναγκαζομένη φύσεως. 90 See T. Gouma-Peterson’s use of Anna’s descriptions of her mother and grandmother as examples of the maternal, or ideal woman, in “Gender and Power” 42 wonderful example of modesty was she!”91 Anna’s decision to comment on her mother’s modesty is an interesting choice, considering Anna herself might be seen as stepping outside the accepted bounds of modesty when she expresses her emotions so overtly throughout her text. Particularly intriguing is the mention of her mother’s voice not reaching stranger’s ears: by writing the Alexiad and continually inserting herself in the text, Anna is doing precisely what her mother refused and transmitting her voice to a countless audience. Anna exhibits respect for her mother in this passage, and elsewhere even states that she was “often seized with wonder at her,”92 but this did not mean that

Anna felt compelled to abide by the standards set by her mother and other royal role models. Because Anna never reached the position of empress as her mother had, she was forced to explore other avenues to assert her authority and leave a legacy. The Alexiad ultimately served this purpose for Anna. While writing her father’s history, Anna also had opportunity to praise her mother, but found this presented similar potential for accusations of unwarranted praise: “I could have said a great deal about this Empress, were it not that a loved daughter’s testimony might have been suspected of falsehood and flattery of her mother.”93 Again it is clear that Anna is aware that as the daughter of her subject she could be subject to more intense scrutiny, but this does not deter her from revealing her opinions. This should be viewed as Anna’s insistence on keeping herself

91Alexiad XII.III.3, 305: Ἡ δὲ βασιλὶς καὶ μήτηρ ἐμή, τὸ τῆς σεμνότητος ἄγαλμα, τὸ τῆς ἁγιότητος καταγώγιον, μὴ ὅτι γε πῆχυν ἢ βλέμμα δημο σιεύειν ἠγάπα, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ φωνὴν ἐκείνης ἤθελεν εἰς ἀσυνήθεις παραπέμπεσθαι ἀκοάς· τοσοῦτον ἦν ἐκείνη χρῆμα θαυμάσιον εἰς αἰδῶ. 92 Alexiad V.IX.3, 135: Καί μοι πολλάκις θαυμάζειν ἐπῄει 93 Alexiad XII.III.10, 307: Καὶ πολλὰ ἂν εἶχον εἰπεῖν περὶ ταύτης τῆς βασιλίδος, εἰ μὴ τὸ θυγάτριον εἶναι ψεύδους παρεῖχεν ὑπόνοιαν καὶ ὅτι μητρὶ χαριζόμεθα. 43 involved in her history as an active and relevant figure, regardless of potential negative opinions that could result from her narrative choices.

Since the Alexiad is centered on the reign of Anna’s father, she has ample opportunity to discuss him and praise his deeds.94 The occasions when her flattery is most explicit will serve as examples of Anna’s often exceptional display of emotion regarding the emperor. Small mentions of approval of Alexios’ deeds are scattered throughout the narrative, but one instance in particular stands out for its extremity. In two separate places in her history, Anna compares her father to Jesus. This is especially remarkable considering Anna’s own devotion to her faith (which she mentions often). In Book XV,

Anna states: “And I say, audaciously perhaps, that the Emperor’s work can be compared with my Savior’s miracle.”95 This is no small comparison to make. Anna’s high opinion of her father is clarified by this blunt and stark comparison, which is elaborated thus:

Such was my father, the Emperor, on all occasions, and yet later on he met with much ingratitude from the whole world. Just in the same way our universal Benefactor was once treated, our Lord who rained down manna in the wilderness, gave food to men in the mountains and made them pass through the sea with dry feet, and yet later He was set at naught and insulted and beaten and finally condemned to be crucified by the impious.96

By comparing the misfortunes endured by her father to those endured by Jesus, Anna reveals an unmistakably high level of admiration for the emperor. The purpose of the similarity which Anna has drawn is to highlight the unfair treatment Alexios received in

94 Alexiad XII.V.1-2, 310 provides one example 95Alexiad XV.VII.5, 410: Καὶ τάχα τολμῶ καὶ λέγω, εἴποι τις ἄν, πρὸς τὸ τοῦ ἐμοῦ σωτῆρος θαῦμα 96 Alexiad XIV.III.6, 369: Τοιοῦ τος ὁ ἐμὸς πατὴρ βασιλεὺς ἐν πᾶσιν ἐφαίνετο, κἂν πολλῆς ἐςὕστερον τῆς ἐξ ἁπάντων ἀγνωμοσύνης ἀπήλαυσε, καθάπερ ποτὲ καὶ ὁ πάντων εὐεργέτης ὁ Κύριος μάννα βρέχων ἐν ἐρήμῳ, σιτίζων ἐν ὄρεσι καὶ ἐν θαλάττῃ ἀβρόχους διαβιβάζων καὶ ὕστερον ἀθετούμενος καὶ ὑβριζόμενος καὶ τυπτόμενος καὶ τέλος σταυρὸν παρὰ τῶν ἀνόμων κατακρινόμενος. 44 spite of the good he had done for his people, yet the reader cannot avoid questioning

Anna’s choice of analogy. Her selection is perhaps clarified in the passage immediately following the above comparison, in which Anna does not hesitate to express her precise feelings on the matter: “But as I write this my tears gush out before my words, and I long to speak of these men and make a list of the ungrateful, but I restrain my tongue and beating heart.”97 Anna’s emotions are so overwhelming to her that she cannot help but express them in full, and her comparison helps to serve that end. Few comparisons would be as powerful as the one she has chosen, and therefore the reader can begin to gain an appreciation for just how strongly Anna feels about her father. Her expression of πάθος can most significantly be viewed in this context as an excuse for Anna to enter the text as a personality, regardless of what she was actually feeling at the time. Here, as elsewhere,

Anna’s emotions are purposely presented to her audience in a way that emphasizes her role as loving and respectful daughter.

Anna is arguably at the pinnacle of expression, regarding her father or otherwise, at the very end of the Alexiad. This is where she describes the death of her father, and because he was the subject of her history, his death marks the conclusion of the narrative.

The words she chooses to describe her reaction to such a personal event are remarkable and serve as one of the most moving intrusions in Anna’s history:

But even to this day I am doubtful whether I am alive and writing this and recounting the Emperor’s death, and I put my hands to my eyes and wonder whether the events I am

97 Alexiad XIV.III.6, 370: Ἀλλ' ἐνταῦθα γενομένης προεκπηδᾷ μου τοῦ λόγου τὸ δάκρυον, καὶ σφύζω περὶ τούτων ἐρεῖν καὶ ποιήσασθαι τῶν ἀγνωμόνων κατάλογον, ἀλλὰ τὴν γλῶτταν ἐπέχω καὶ τὴν καρδίαν σφαδάζουσαν 45

relating now are not a dream, or if not a dream, whether it is not a delusion, and madness on my part, some strange and monstrous fancy.98

Anna’s grief in this passage cannot be ignored, as it is expressed in such vivid terms. The tragedy of her father’s passing caused Anna to lose hope in her own future, in part because her authority was directly dependent upon her relationship to her father. The loss of her father represented more to Anna than simply the loss of a loved one. Rather the death of Alexios proved to remove Anna from the royal spotlight. The ramifications for

Anna of the emperor’s death are expressed here in the author’s unwillingness to accept what has occurred and her inclusion of this raw emotion into what she herself argues is an objective historical narrative. Anna’s choice to include this type of intrusion suggests that she had larger considerations than simply producing a history, and that her own emotions should play a prominent role in emphasizing the events she describes. As a final farewell exclamation to her father, Anna proclaims “I have lost the shining light of the world, the great Alexios.”99 The emperor’s death impacted all who knew him, including his subjects, but for Anna it was a personal tragedy, and she is adamant that the reader understand how seriously she was affected by the death of the emperor, but more importantly, her father. Anna wants to be viewed as the grieving daughter, and she is insistent that the audience appreciate its magnitude. This emotional intrusion provides a moving finale to the narrative while simultaneously calling the reader’s direct attention to

98 Alexiad XV.XI.21, 426: Ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν καὶ νῦν ἀπιστῶ ἐμαυτῇ, εἴπερ ζῶ τε καὶ γράφω καὶ μνημονεύω θανάτου τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος, καὶ ἐπαφῶμαι τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ, μήποτε ἄρα ὄναρ ἐστὶ τὰ νῦν ὑφ' ἡμῶν ὑπαγορευόμενα, ἢ δέ γε καὶ μὴ ὄναρ ἐστὶν ἀλλ' ἔκστασίς τε καὶ παρακοπὴ καὶ πάθος περὶ ἐμὲ θαυμάσιον καὶ ἀλλόκοτον. 99 Alexiad XV.XI.21, 427: Ἀπεβαλόμην τοσοῦτον φωστῆρα τῆς οἰκουμένης, τὸν μέγαν Ἀλέξιον 46

Anna’s reaction to and opinion of the events which transpired. The reader cannot escape viewing Alexios’ death from Anna’s perspective, and therefore sympathizing with her as an individual, and a daughter.

By inserting raw, emotional reactions Anna maintains a degree of presence in her text, but Anna’s emphasis on her personal involvement in certain events allows her an event more direct role in the narrative. For example, in the following passage, Anna describes how she attempted to work with her mother to influence her father:

“Accordingly, when I saw how humbled he was by his misfortune, I tried to force my mother, as I was saying, in order that the men might perchance, be saved from the danger which stood so near them…. I went down and standing fearfully outside the doors, for I did not dare to go in, I tried to draw her out by signs.”100 Anna’s role is actually fairly insignificant, and had the actor been anyone else, the author would not likely have included this anecdote. Anna, however, missed no opportunity to prove that she had been present at many of the events she describes, and on occasion even participated in some degree. By placing herself into the narrative as a participant, and by describing her personal reaction to events that transpired, Anna is able to enter the text in a more meaningful way and potentially make an impact on the reader.101 Although this is a direct example, Anna emphasizes her ‘involvement’ through many of her intrusions. Even by

100 Alexiad XII.VI.7, 314: Ὁρῶσα ὁπόσον αὐτὸν ἐξεταπείνου ἡ ξυμφορά, ὅπερ οὖν ἔλεγον, ἐξεβιαζόμην τὴν μητέρα τὴν ἐμαυτῆς, εἴ πως τοῦ κινδύνου ῥυσθεῖεν οἱ ἄνδρες ἤδη τούτοις ἐγγύθεν ἐφεστηκότος. Σχολαιοτέραν γὰρ τὴν πορείαν οἱ σκηνικοὶ ἐποιοῦντο, χώραν πραγματευόμενοι συμπαθείας τοῖς μιαιφόνοις. Ὡς δ' ἐκείνη ἀπώκνει τὴν ἔλευσιν (καθῆστο γὰρ μετὰ τοῦ αὐτο κράτορος, οὗ τὰς πρὸς Θεὸν ἐντεύξεις κοινῇ ἐποιοῦντο ἐνώπιον τῆς Θεομήτορος), κατελθοῦσα καὶ ἔξω τῶν πυλῶν περίφοβος ἑστηκυῖα, ἐπεὶ μὴ ἀπεθάρρουν τὴν εἴσοδον, νεύμασι τὴν βασίλισσαν προὐκαλούμην. Καὶ δὴ πεισθεῖσα εἰς τὴν θέαν ἀνέρχεται, 101 Here Anna appears to be influenced by Psellos, who used himself as a framing device and emphasized his role in the events he described. See Macrides, “The Historian in the History,” 211-8. 47 entering the text in the first person and putting forth personal opinion or observations,

Anna is creating a role for herself in the narrative.

The two primary roles which Anna presents, those of historian and daughter, regularly compete: Anna’s desire to express her emotions within the narrative is often at odds with her attempt to follow proper historical method. While describing the death of her brother, she succinctly sums up this conflict: “My grief compels me to utter a lament over him; the law of history, however, again restrains me.”102 Because the entire history is not simply a series of lamentations, one following immediately upon another, it is evident that Anna did not completely succumb to her overwhelming emotions. She did, however, take advantage of particularly emotional episodes to insert herself and her sentiment into the text. In the same passage describing her brother, Anna laments:

But it is wonderful that nowadays nobody is changed, as they say happened in former days, into a stone or bird or tree or some inanimate thing, changing his nature into such things under the forces of great calamities… If this had been possible, the ills that have befallen me would very likely have turned me into stone.103

Such vivid imagery undoubtedly was intended to allow the reader to sympathize with

Anna and her plight. The reader is forced to picture Anna in this state: a woman so despondent that she would turn to stone if such a thing were possible. If nothing else, this passage draws attention to Anna and features her emotions more prominently than the death she is describing. As in her description of her father’s death, Anna needs the

102 Alexiad XV.V.4, 403: Μονῳδεῖν με τὸ ἐπὶ τούτῳ πάθος ἐκβιά ζεται, ἀλλ' ὁ τῆς ἱστορίας νόμος ἐκεῖθεν αὖθις ἀπείργει. 103 Alexiad XV.V.4, 403: Θαυμάζειν δὲ ἔστι πῶς οὐ γίνεταί τις καὶ νῦν καθάπερ καὶ πάλαι, φησίν, ἢ λίθος ἢ ὄρνις ἢ δένδρον ἤ τι τῶν ἀψύχων ὑπὸ μεγάλων κακῶν εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα τὴν φύσιν ἀμείβων… Εἰ γὰρ τοῦτ' ἦν, τάχ' ἄν με λίθον ἀπέδειξε τὰ συμπεσόντα δεινά. 48 audience to appreciate what she has been through, and empathize with her personally.

The significance of the deaths described takes on a new dimension when viewed from

Anna’s unique perspective, and by recognizing that the reader gains a greater understanding of and appreciation for Anna herself.

Anna often uses vivid language when describing her emotions in her personal intrusions. Unsurprisingly, many of these instances occur related to her father, and more specifically, his death. Even when discussing events from Alexius’ life, the author seems unable to escape from the painful memories associated with her father: “Indeed very often I recall my father’s successes, but I could have wept my life away in tears when recording and describing the many ills that befell him, and it is not without private lamentation and plaint that I quit the subject.”104 Anna then concludes this passage, “let my father’s woes be a subject of marvel and lamentation to me alone, and let us proceed with our history.”105 Her conflict is clear: by mentioning her personal and familial suffering, but then claiming it should remain private, Anna is drawing even more attention to the fact she introduced it into her history in the first place. Her personal intrusions are all the more effective because they are clearly set apart from the narrative as a whole, and therefore demand the readers’ attention.

Anna’s use of vivid, metaphorical language and careful placement of intrusions allows her to maximize her presence in the text. This literary approach, perhaps more suited to narrative than history, adds personality to events which otherwise might be

104 Alexiad IV.VIII.1, 113: Καὶ γὰρ ἂν πολλαχοῦ τῶν κατορθωμάτων τῶν πατρικῶν μεμνημένη καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτὴν ἀπεστάλαξα ξυγγράφουσά τε καὶ διηγουμένη, ἐν ὁπόσοις κακοῖς περιπέπτωκε, καὶ οὐδ' ἄνευ μονῳδίας καὶ θρήνου τὸν τόπον παρῆλθον. 105Alexiad IV.VIII.1, 113: Ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν πάθος τὸ πατρικὸν ἐμοὶ μόνῃ καταλελείφθω καὶ θαυμάζειν καὶ ὀλοφύρεσθαι, τὰ δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας ἐχέσθω. 49 presented in more detached terms. One of the most touching (and most cited) passages displays Anna’s ability to paint a picture for her readers which illustrates the depth of her pain as well as her resolve as a historian:

And verily the floods overwhelmed me and from that time until now, up to the very time that I am writing this history, the sea of calamities rushes over me and waves follow upon waves. But unconsciously I have been drawn to speak of my own troubles; now having returned to my senses, I will swim upstream again, as it were, and return to my first subject.106

The power of this particular intrusion is unmistakable. By stating that she has been

“unconsciously” drawn to speak about her personal misfortunes, Anna tries to persuade the reader that she is presenting a type of stream-of-consciousness narration, in which she is simply recording thoughts as they come to her. The elegance of her language and the carefully constructed metaphor, however, betray her motives. This personal intrusion, and other similar cases, are conscious efforts by Anna to leave a piece of herself with her readers and ensure that she will survive as more than Alexios’ daughter and historian, but as an individual, worthy of a legacy of her own. The emotion and focus on the role of the historian again capture Anna’s primary motive throughout her numerous intrusions: to present her audience with a carefully articulated and deliberate image of Anna as she desires to be imagined and remembered.

106 Alexiad XIV.VII.4, 381: Καὶ δῆτα καὶ ὑπερέσχε σαφῶς τὸ κλυδώνιον, καὶ ἔκτοτε καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν καὶ μέχρι οὗ τὸ σύγγραμμα τουτὶ γράφω ἡ τῶν συμφορῶν ἐμπορεύεταί μοι θάλαττα καὶ ἄλλα ἐπ' ἄλλοις καταλαμβάνει τὰ κύματα. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἔλαθον εἰς τὰς ἐμαυτῆς συμφορὰς παρασυραμένη· νῦν οὖν ἐπὶ νοῦν ἐλθοῦσα ἐπανανήξομαι καθάπερ ἀνάρρουν ποιησαμένη καὶ πρὸς τὰς πρώτας λαβὰς ἐπανέλθοιμι. 50

Chapter 8: Conclusion

Anna Komnene’s use of personal intrusion in the Alexiad, when viewed in the context of the humanistic developments of the 11th and 12th centuries in Byzantium, represents a conscious effect on the part of the author to assert her personal identity into her narrative. This practice reflects growing trends in both art and literature of the period in which the author or artist establishes him or herself as a central personality in their work. Building heavily from the influence of Michael Psellos, Anna is not exceptional in desiring to create and maintain a presence in her narrative; however, the cohesive and self-defined portrait which Anna paints of herself merits unique consideration. By constructing her intrusions within two broad categories, those where she defends her role as a historian and those where she laments or praises her family, Anna ensures not only that she becomes a central focus throughout her history, but also that her audience perceives a particular and expressive image of Anna as an honorable historian and dutiful daughter. It is clear from the numerous examples of these types of intrusions that Anna purposefully focuses her presence in the text on this portrayal. Anna’s agency as an author comes precisely from her ability to control her presentation of the events she describes, her family, and most importantly, herself as an individual.

As a woman, Anna’s identity can never be completely separated from her gendered experience and the limitations it imposed. Having lost all traditional avenues to 51 imperial and political authority, Anna devoted the end of her life to the endeavor with which she would finally achieve recognition. Anna’s role as an author is therefore necessarily influenced by her gender, but her achievement must not be reduced to her status as a woman or interpreted only in that perspective. Far from reflecting the vain and affected speech of a woman as Gibbon or Buckler might suggest, Anna’s intrusions portray an individual acutely aware of her unique position and opportunity to inflect her narrative with important person insight. As the author of the Alexiad, the history of her father’s reign, Anna was able both to honor her father in a unique and public way, and present herself as an accomplished author. Through personal intrusions, Anna entered her text in a meaningful way, established her own voice and individual personality, and ensured that her legacy would indeed survive the seemingly inevitable “stream of time.”

Bibliography

The Alexiad of Anna Comnena. Translated from the Greek by E. R. A. Sewter. Harmondsworth, Eng: Penguin Books, 1969. Angold, Michael. The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A political history. New York: Longman, 1984. Anna Comnena’s The Alexiad. Edited and translated by Elizabeth A. Dawes. London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1928. Browning, Robert. “An unpublished funeral oration on Anna Comnena.” Aristotle Transformed. Richard Sorabji, ed. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1990. Buckler, Georgina. Anna Comnena: A Study. New York: Oxford University Press, 1929. Chrystomides J. "A Byzantine Historian: Anna Comena," in Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds. D.O. Morgan, ed. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1982. Croke, Brian. “Uncovering Byzantium’s Historiographical Audience,” in History as Literature in Byzantium, Ruth Macrides, ed. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010), 25- 53. Dalven, Rae. Anna Comnena. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1972. Gouma-Petersen, Thalia, ed. Anne Komnene and Her Times. New York: Garland Publishing, 2000. Gouma-Peterson, T. “Gender and Power: Passages to the Maternal in Anna Komnene’s Alexiad,” in Anna Komnene and her Times, T. Gouma-Peterson, ed. New York: Garland Publishing (2000), 107-124. Gregory, Timothy E. A History of Byzantium. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Hill, Barbara. Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025-1204: Power, patronage and ideology. New York: Longman, 1999. ------“Vindication of the Rights of Women to Power by Anna Komnene,” in

Byzantinische Forschungen: Internationale Zeitschrift fur Byzantinistik, Walter E Kaegi, Jr, ed. (Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert, 1996), 45-54. Jenkins, Romilly J. H. “The Classical Background of the Scriptores Post Theophanem,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954): 11-30. Kazhdan, Alexander. Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Kazhdan, Alexander and Giles Constable. People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, Center for Byzantine Studies, Trustees for Harvard University, 1982. Kazhdan, Alexander and Ann Wharton Epstein. Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Linnér. Sture. "Psellus' Chronographia and the Alexias: Some Textual Parallels." Byzantinische Zeitschrift 76 (1983): 1-9. Ljubarskij, Jakov N. “Man in Byzantine Historiography from John Malalas to Michael Psellos,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992), 177-86. ------“New Trends in the Study of Byzantine Historiography,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993): 131-8. ------"Why is the Alexiad a Masterpiece of Byzantine Literature," in Anna Komnene and Her Times. Thalia Gouma-Petersen, ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, 2000): 169-86. ------“ ‘Writers’ Intrusion’ in Early Byzantine Literature,” XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Major Papers. Moscow, 1991. Macrides, Ruth. "The Historian in the History," in FILLELLHN Studies in Honour of Robert Browning. C. Constantinides et al, eds. (Venice: 1996), 205-24. Magdalino, Paul. “The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes of the Mid-Twelfth Century in the Alexiad,” in Anna Komnene and her Times, Thalia Gouma-Peterson, ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, 2000), 15-43. Mullet, Margaret and Roger Scott, Byzantium and the classical tradition: University of Birmingham, Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, 1979. Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, 1981. Reinsch, Diether R. "Womens' Literature in Byzantium? -- The Case of Anna Komnene,"

translated by Thomas Dunlap, in Anna Komnene and Her Times. Thalia Gouma-Petersen, ed. (New York: Garland Publishing , 2000): 83-106. Scott, Roger. “The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography,” In Byzantium and the Classical Tradition: University of Birmingham, Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, 1979. M. Mullet and R. Scott, eds. (Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, 1981): 61-74. ------“Text and Context in Byzantine Historiography,” in A Companion to Byzantium, ed. Liz James. (Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010): 251-62. Smythe, Dion C. “Middle Byzantine Family Values and Anna Komnene’s Alexiad,” in Byzantine Women: Varieties of Experience 800-1200, ed. Lynda Garland. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006): 125-39. Stephenson, Paul. “The rise of the middle Byzantine aristocracy and the decline of the imperial state,” in The Byzantine World, ed. Paul Stephenson. (New York: Routledge, 2010): 22-33. Thiebaux, Marcelle. The Writings of Medieval Women: An Anthology. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994. Ward, Jennifer. Women in Medieval Europe 1200-1500. New York: Pearson Education, 2002.