SOURCE: "Anna Comnena," in The Hibbert Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3. April, 1935, pp. 430-42.

[In the following essay, Jackson describes the cultural, political, and religious conditions of the Byzantine empire before and during Alexius's reign, summarizes the books of the Alexiad, and provides evidence that Anna strived for impartiality.]

Ladies who write history are not a phenomenon in our day, when the female sex has certainly achieved remarkable success in this field, notably in England. But almost as far down as the nineteenth century a woman as an historian was indeed a rara avis. When therefore a princess arose in the eleventh century to give the world an important record of one of the most momentous movements in human history she surely deserves the respectful attention of posterity. Such is Anna Comnena, who has scarcely received the credit she deserves from those who are prejudiced against her because of her sex, her family pride, and the pedantic vanity with which she exhibits her erudition. Nevertheless to those who have read the History of the father's reign, Anna Comnena leaves an agreeable impression of her personality.

In order to understand the circumstances under which this princess lived, studied and wrote, it is desirable to know the conditions under which her father Alexius Comnenus became Emperor, and the state of the Eastern Roman world over which he ruled. It is not easy to read Gibbon's skilful analysis of Byzantine history during the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, with his masterly touches illumined by epigram, and not to share his prejudices, especially as the story he relates is often obscure and almost always complicated. The fashionable judgment of his age was that the Greek Empire was throughout decadent both politically and intellectually, and that the imperial government was a gloomy tyranny of a court with an absurd ceremonial. Nothing, however, can be more misleading, though Gibbon's verdict is confirmed by Sir Walter Scott's description of Constantinople in his Count Robert of Paris, in which he contrasts the treacherous, lying Greeks with the manly, gallant Crusaders. But the history of the Roman Emperors in Constantinople shows that some of them were worthy to be compared with the best Roman Cassars, whilst none resembled the worst. They certainly did not spend their days in luxury and idleness in the Imperial City; on the contrary they were generally to be found on the frontier fighting Bulgarians in Europe, or Islamites in Asia. So far from ruling tyrannically over abject slaves, the Emperors had often occasion to submit to the demands of a formidable populace, whilst they themselves were not isolated from all other men but were surrounded by noble families, who, like the patricians of ancient Rome, considered themselves as at least equal to members of the imperial house. With the possible exception of the fierce Justinian II. (695-711) we

meet with no monsters of iniquity comparable to such Cassars as Caligula, Commodus or Heliogabalus. When an Augustus is condemned as incompetent, it is generally because, instead of attending to the business of the State, he was absorbed in an over-scrupulous performance of the duties of religion, or in literary pursuits.

In 867 Basil I., a Macedonian, ascended the throne of Constantinople. He had been famed as a tamer of horses; but seldom has any sovereign founded a dynasty of more remarkable men and women. It lasted till 1054, and witnessed the era of the greatest prosperity of the divided Empire. From 963 to 1025 a second Basil occupied the throne. Reared in the obscure luxury of a palace, this great Emperor appeared at the age of thirty-three as the most skilful warrior of his age, and from his victories over the formidable Bulgars was known as Bulgarotonos, the Slayer of Bulgarians. Under Basil II. the Empire reached the height of its power and influence. Patient in adversity and defeat, victorious in the end in all his campaigns, the relentless foe of official corruption, capable of great cruelty, but devoted to the interests of his subjects, this rough, honest and uncultured monarch ranks among the best rulers in the Roman world. On his death in 1025 his brother Constantine IX., who had been his passive colleague, reigned for three years, leaving his kingdom to his two elderly daughters Zoe and Theodora. Zoe was of an amorous temperament and always ready to take a fresh husband, as her own desire or regard for the welfare of the State prompted, whilst Theodora's asceticism made her averse to marriage. It says much for the people of Constantinople and their generous fidelity to the Basilian dynasty that each of Zoe's successive husbands was accepted as Emperor, but any sign of disrespect to her or to her sister Theodora was instantly observed and resented, and the mob of the city insisted on due respect being paid to "our mothers Zoe and Theodora." This is not the conduct of a degenerate populace groaning under tyranny.

The general condition of the Empire after Basil II. was far from satisfactory, as on all sides its enemies were threatening. The greatest peril was the appearance of the victorious Turks in Asia Minor, a people of Central Asia whose appearance wrought changes in the world of Islam as great as those it later effected in Eastern Christian Europe. The followers of the Prophet, though they moved their capital successively from Mecca to Damascus, and from Damascus to Bagdad, maintain much of the civilisation of both, and in some respects their culture surpassed that of the Greeks. But with the coming of the Turkish warriors who had adopted the faith of Islam, the power of ancient Califs or representatives of the Prophet declined till it became a mere shadow, and the Roman Empire had to reckon with a formidable Asiatic Power, more barbarous than the original followers of the Prophet. In 1071, the Emperor Romanus Diogenes was defeated and taken prisoner by the leader of the Selukian Turks, Ap Arslan, and from that day supremacy of Constantinople over Asia Minor was ended and the complete triumph of the Turkish nation in Eastern Europe was only a matter of time. Ten years later Anna's father Alexius Comnenus began his eventful reign. In 1083, two years after his accession, Anna was born in the purple chamber, where imperial mothers were confined and was able to claim that she was "born in the purple," the proudest boast of imperial nobility. But we must let her speak for herself.

I, Anna, daughter of two royal personages, Alexius and Irene, born and bred in the purple. I was not ignorant of letters, for I carried my study of Greek to the highest pitch, and was also not unpractised in rhetoric; I perused the works of Aristotle and the dialogues of Plato carefully, and enriched my mind by the '"quaterion" of learning.'

These few words show that Anna lived in highly civilised society. Born a royal personage, she was carefully educated and studied the best literature available. This is in itself a proof of the high degree to which the civilisation of the upper classes at any rate was carried in Constantinople. Nowhere else in this age is it conceivable that a lady even of royal birth could have had such an intellectual training. Our author was married to the Cæsar Nicephorus Bryennius, distinguished equally as a soldier, a diplomatist and a literary man. The imperial family was evidently remarkable for the refinement of its good manners: witness Anna's charming description of her mother, the Empress Irene. Nothing can better illustrate how perfect a gentleman her father Alexius Comnenus was than the story of the ill-behaved knight, Sir Walter Scott's Count Robert of Paris, who seated himself on the imperial chair. Instead of manifesting his just indignation at this impertinence, Alexius told the barbarian that if he wanted fighting he would get enough to satisfy him when he met the Turks, and strongly advised him to keep his troops by him when he met them. It must be borne in mind that the Emperor and all the Comneni were distinguished soldiers, and that the fault of his own brother Isaac and his grandson Manuel I. was that in battle they behaved more like knightly adventurers, or, as Anna would say, Homeric heroes, than as commanders of disciplined armies. Constantinople was in fact nearer in refinement of manners, education and organisation to the cities of our own day than any city in the semi-barbarous world of the Europe of the First Crusade. The inhabitants of Paris, London and even Rome resembled hordes of savages besides the people of the capital of the Christian East.

Anna Comnena must be judged by the fifteen books in which she has related the life of her father the Emperor Alexius, a summary of which with little or no comment will introduce the reader to a period of history with which few are familiar. Fortunately the book is accessible in a careful literal translation by Dr Emily Dawes, as the original is difficult to read even by those familiar with the Byzantine Greek of her age, owing to its florid style. Even with a good translation as a guide the unfamiliar names of nations, cities and individuals render the task of deciphering the narrative no easy one.

In Book I. Anna explains that her late husband Nicephorus Bryennius has related most of the early career of Alexius Comnenus, and tells of the war with a Frankish mercenary named Ursel, who was ultimately taken prisoner at Amaseia by the Romans after an agreement for his surrender by the Turks. Ursel was to all appearance deprived of his sight to satisfy the people of Amaseia, but was really sent to the Emperor Nicephorus Botaniates (1078-1081) unharmed. The scene then shifts to the shores of the Adriatic, whither Alexius had been sent as Domestic of the Schools against a Nicephorus Bryennius, who as Duke of Dyrrachium had rebelled. With a hastily gathered army of "Romans," Turks and Scythians Alexius suppressed the revolt, and was next sent to Thrace against another pretender called Basiliacus. For his services the Domestic was publicly proclaimed "Sebastos" = Augustus. The rest of the book is devoted to an account of the rise to power of Robert Guiscard the Norman and his son Bohemund, the most dangerous enemies of the Roman Empire.

Books II. and III. transport us to Constantinople, where the powerful family of the Comneni are driven to desperation by the intrigues of the unscrupulous advisers of the Emperor. Alexius and his elder brother Isaac, guided by their very able mother Anna Dalassena, raised a rebellion in which Nicephorus Botaniates was compelled to resign and to become a monk. Alexius became Emperor in 1081, conciliating his kinsmen and others by bestowing on them splendid titles of honour, and entrusting the direction of home affairs to his experienced mother. His attention was directed to the growth of the Turkish power in Asia Minor, but especially to the intrigues of Guiscard, who had set up a rival emperor in the person of an obscure individual whom he declared was the deposed Emperor Michael Ducas (1071-1078), now Bishop of Ephesus. At this juncture Alexius sought the alliance of the Germanic king (the Emperor Henry IV.) against Robert Guiscard and his ally Pope Gregory VII.

Book IV. is occupied with the siege of Dyrrachium by Guiscard, and its defence by the brave George Palæologus. Alexius advanced to the relief of the city, and suffered a disastrous defeat by the Normans, and narrowly escaped from falling into the hands of Guiscard's soldiers.

In Book V. Anna remarks that Alexius and Robert Guiscard were well matched as rivals both in arms and in political skill, Alexius having the advantage of being the younger man. But now the Emperor's financial troubles were greater than his military and he and his faithful brother, Isaac the Sebastocrator, resolved to raise money from the clergy. This was opposed by the Bishop Leo of Chalcedon, who also tried to revive the dispute about the images and was deposed. After much fighting with the Normans, Alexius returned to "the Queen of cities" in triumph. The book ends with an account of a Sicilian heretic named Italus, whose sophistry caused much excitement in literary circles. Isaac the Sebastocrator took an active part in refuting the errors of Italus, and induced him to recant his heretical opinions.

In Book VI. we are informed that Alexius did his best to suppress the Manichæans, as the descendants of the Paulicians were called; but, knowing their courage in war, he proceeded with great caution. Many of the heretics were reconciled to the Church, and their worst punishment was banishment to an island. A conspiracy against Alexius by one Travlos was detected and suppressed. The Venetians assisted the Emperor in the war with Bohemund. Robert Guiscard died at the time that Anna was born in the Purple Chamber. Several chapters are devoted to Turkish affairs. A Scythian invasion which approached the walls of Constantinople ends the book.

The Scythian invasion resulted in much desperate fighting, and at first Alexius was utterly defeated near Distra and barely escaped seriously wounded with his life. He redeemed the Roman captives and once more reorganised his army. The Scythian success tempted Izachas, a Turkish pirate, to raise a fleet and take several towns. At last he was compelled to sue for terms by Delassenus, a relative of the Empress Irene. The Scythians with their formidable war waggons were in the end defeated, and the seventh book ends with a note that Alexius was preparing to renew the contest.

In Book VIII. we find the Scythians at the very gates of Constantinople. Alexius defeated them, but had no little trouble owing to the plots hatched against him in his own family. This is relieved by the loyalty of his elder brother Isaac the Sebastocrator, who supported the Emperor, even though his own son John was plotting against his uncle.

Book IX. is mainly occupied by stories of plots against Alexius and by the story of the ingratitude of Nicephorus Diogenes, the son of the Emperor Romanus Diogenes who had been blinded and deposed after his defeat at Manzikart.

The tenth book contains matter of more interest to the reader than any of the earlier ones; for in it the Crusaders made their appearance. But before their arrival the Comans crossed the Danube and invaded the Empire, and a pretender to the Empire arose who claimed to be the son of Romanus Diogenes. The Turks at the same time overran Bithynia. Then came the Crusaders, first the disorderly army of Peter the Hermit (Peter of the Cowl) and finally the disciplined forces of the "Counts" as Anna calls them, with Ubus (Hugo), brother of the King of France. They actually attacked the walls of Byzantium on Good Friday and were repulsed by Anna's husband Nicephorus Bryennius—"my Cæsar" as she always calls him. At last Alexius induced the Frankish nobles to promise fealty to him and they cross the Propontis and enter Asia. Anna is convinced that Bohemund's object was not the Sepulchre but the overthrow of the Empire and the seizure of the capital.

The eleventh book finds the Crusaders in Asia; but after the capture of Nicæa we have little information how they reached Antioch, except that the Turks were utterly defeated at the battle of Dorylæum. Much is said of the ingenuity and treachery of Bohemund and his nephew Tancred.

Bohemund had pretended to be dead and had reached home ready once more to invade the Empire. There was trouble owing to Tancred's claim to make Antioch his own principality. Alexius in the twentieth year of his reign (A.D. 1101) once more took the field in Macedonia. He was suffering from gout and the Empress Irene now accompanied him on his expeditions. There was another plot to dethrone Alexius and set up a puppet Emperor, the Senator Solomon. Here again Isaac the Sebastocrator supported his brother. Again Bohemund crosses the straits and invades the Empire (Book XII.).

When we reach the last three books, which take us to the death of Alexius, Anna, though she is now able to relate events in which she was old enough to take an intelligent interest, is much less diffuse than before. She ends Book XII. and begins Book XIII. very artistically. Alexius had just come back from the chase when a special messenger arrived in haste, bowed his head and shouted that Bohemund had crossed the straits. Alexius heard the news calmly and remarked "Let's have luncheon and discuss things afterwards." Only one thing disturbed him: the Mother of God had not vouchsafed the customary miracle at Blachemac. However, after unusually protracted devotions, the miracle was duly wrought and everybody was happy. There was an exceptionally wicked plot to kill the Emperor, which delayed his departure against Bohemund for five days, and after this Anna gives a lively description of the repulse of the Normans, who with the most modern contrivances available were trying to capture Dyrrachium. Alexius now resorted to measures more dangerous than military operations by stirring up dissension among Bohemund's allies. Finally a treaty was arranged by "My Cæsar" between Bohemund and Alexius by which the Norman's position at Antioch was assured; and the terms set forth at great length.

Book XIV. relates that very soon after Bohemund had made peace with the Emperor he died. Tancred kept hold of Antioch and Alexius realised that all his efforts to help the Franks were met with ingratitude The Turks gave trouble again and were defeated by Alexius, who on his return to Constantinople in triumph was involved in trouble caused by the heresy of the Bogomils.

When we reach Book XV. of the Alexiad we find the Emperor a very sick man, but still with his troops fighting the Turks, not so much as a champion of the Cross as in the capacity of a ruler trying to suppress marauding invaders. Anna admits that her father was at this time bitterly criticised for his inaction; but he bided his time, and came out victorious in the end. Some space is devoted to an interesting description of the charities and educational institutions of Constantinople; and Anna condemns the instruction she herself received before she began her literary career. The last public act of her father recorded by Anna is his unmasking of the heresy of Basilius, the Bogomil. Without entering into detail, it is enough here to say that the sects which distracted the Empire were partly offshoots of Manichæan dualism and Paulician protests against the corruptions of the Church; that cruel persecution had turned many of their adherents into formidable rebels against the State; and that some of them attracted people by their outward, and perhaps genuine, severity of life. Needless to say, the orthodox suspected these Bulgarians, as they were called, of being guilty of all the abominations imputed to the ancient Gnostics, which Anna, as a woman and a high-born princess, refuses to describe. Basilius was invited to the table of Alexius, who professed a desire to understand his doctrines and held a long private discussion of them; a report of which was made by a stenographer concealed from view by a curtain. The Holy Synod, on receiving the information, condemned Basilius, who with his adherents was summoned to appear in the Hippodrome, and given the strange alternative of dying as Christians or as heretics. After a spectacular scene, none was executed, except Basilius, whose invincible firmness provoked the unwilling praise of Anna. We may suppose that this vindication of orthodoxy was regarded by Alexius' daughter as a triumphant and worthy conclusion of a glorious reign. Anna concludes her narrative with an account of her father's last illness, and the way in which in truly modern fashion the best physicians wrangled over his death-bed. When the great Emperor breathed his last she concludes the Alexiad.

If the foregoing summary of this book seems as tedious to read as it was to compile, it is necessary because it reveals so many sidelights of history, and dispels so many preconceived illusions.

As regards Anna herself, the perusal of her history leaves the present writer at least with a far better idea of her personality than can be gathered from many historians. Her frequent protestations that she is writing the story of her father's career without prejudice has led to the belief that she is no historian, but has constructed an imaginary description of an heroic Emperor. This belief is enhanced by the way in which she indulges in affected language and a pompous display of her own erudition. Yet it is evident that Anna genuinely endeavoured to tell her facts with impartiality.

When one realises the scope of Anna's history one sees plainly that her father's reign was exceptionally troubled. Civil war threatened him on every side, and the frontiers of his Empire were never free from the danger of irruption by alien hordes. The victory of the Turks in 1071 appears to have been less a triumph of Islam over Christianity than of barbarism over civilisation. When Alexius could engage Turkish troops in his army he never hesitated to do so, and he seems to have regarded some Sultans not so much as infidel enemies as rulers of a civilised people. Though a religious man concerned about the orthodoxy of his subjects, this Emperor was in no sense a Crusader. Constantly engaged as he was in military matters, he was by no means uniformly successful. His daughter records several defeats he sustained, and that on more than one occasion he had to flee the battlefield. Indeed, despite her inveterate classicalism, which sometimes makes her write as if she was describing an Homeric combat, Anna has the good sense to recognise that her father deserves more credit for his patience in defeat and his astuteness as a politician than as a military hero; and we are told that when he came out of a campaign triumphantly, the enemy often received a large subsidy. Not that Alexius, or any of the Comneni, were unwarlike or cowardly. Anna declares her father in one battle acted the part more of a common soldier than a general. But on the whole she depicts Alexius as one who for years doggedly persisted against adverse circumstances, neither elated by success nor daunted by defeat. Certainly she did not write simply to chant the praises of her father, and she declares she had consulted the best authorities at her disposal and learned all she could from such active participators in events as Alexius' most faithful and able partisan, George Palæologus.

Far from being uniformly dull by giving a dreary catalogue of events, our historian can be both lively and entertaining. She regards the Frankish adventurers as the worst enemies of the Romans; but this does not prevent her drawing favourable portraits of some of the most formidable foes of the Empire. Her accounts even of the pretenders who rebelled against Alexius are seldom characterised by bitterness. Sometimes she gives a good idea of sieges and military operations; and in describing the different armies and their weapons, she is evidently relying on expert information. Her account of how the faction of the Comneni overthrew the weak and incompetent government of Nicephorus Botaniates in Constantinople is really excellent, and gives a vivid picture of the revolution till the aged Emperor, wearied by his troubles, retires to become a monk, and declares that he objects to nothing except that in future he will not be allowed meat for his dinner. Anna introduces her readers to members of her family and entourage, and even makes them desire their personal acquaintance. There is the head of the great clan of the Comneni, Isaac the Sebastocrator, the elder brother of Alexius, conspicuous as a warrior against the Turks, and a theologian against heretics, but more remarkable for his loyalty to his imperial brother.

Two remarkable women appear in Anna's portrait gallery. Anna Dalassena, the mother of Isaac and Alexius, a strong masterful character, whom Alexius during his absence left in virtual control of the Empire, and his wife the Empress Irene, of whom a charming description is given. To her daughter Irene appears as the embodiment of female charm and virtue, gracious and capable of enduring the dangers and hardships of war when she attended her invalid husband when he was on a military expedition. As representing the clan of Ducas, Irene strengthened her husband's position as Emperor; but her union to him met with violent opposition from her mother-in-law, Anna Dalassena, who detested the Ducases. In truth the Empire in Constantinople was in constant dispute between the great rival houses of Ducas, Bryennius, Comnenus, and other powerful aristocratic families and their alliances and rivalries are not unlike those of the great Whig houses which ruled England in the days of the Hanoverian Kings.

Anna seems to have been the most devoted of wives; and there is little ground for supposing that her heart was touched by any Crusader, though she was not blind to the physical attraction of some of the warrior "Counts." Her husband Nicephorus Bryennius was by her account a truly remarkable man, more like an Italian prince of the Renaissance than a semi-barbarous champion of the Sepulchre. "My Cæsar," as she affectionately calls him, was more attractive than any Frank who intruded his rough presence into the polished society of Byzantium.

It has been truly maintained that Roman Constantinople never was mediæval; and this is borne out by Anna Comnena's history. Homer, Plato and the Greek classics are her text-books, and though she is a most orthodox Christian princess, the tone of the little she says of her religion is assuredly not that of the medievalism of Western Europe. We may take as an example her remarks on Latin Christianity. To her the conduct of Pope Gregory VII. is reprehensible; and she gives an account of his treatment of the envoys of Henry IV. which is as remarkable for her ignorance as for her complete lack of charity. Yet, despite her dislike of the Latin "barbarians," and the fact that the Eastern and Western Churches had parted company in 1054, she never blames them as schismatics or heretics. For harm done to the Crusades by the famous and enduring schism caused by the Patriarch Michael Cerularius we have little or no evidence in the Alexiad. What obsessed the mind of the author was the idea, justified by later events, that the object of the Latins was to seize Constantinople.

Every Emperor was interested in maintaining the orthodoxy of the Church, and as there was no head of the Eastern Empire for some time before Alexius, who was illiterate, the secular ruler at least was not incompetent to express an opinion on the meaning of the Faith; nor was there any lack of interest in philosophy in Constantinopolitan society. The two heretics Italus and Nilus are mentioned by Anna with contempt for their imperfect education and acquaintance with the principles of philosophy.

One cannot fail to be amazed at the absence of bitterness between the Eastern Christians and the Mohammedan Sultans. Turkish mercenaries are an important factor in the Roman armies and diplomatic overtures are made by and to the Sultan of Egypt with talks as to the desirability of a good understanding between the civilised Christian and Mohammedan Powers. Generally speaking the avarice and ambition of the Norman Christians appeared to be less endurable than the religious opinions of the Islamites.

But if there was, as compared with the rest of the world, little Christian bigotry in Constantinopolitan society, there was a good deal of practical religion. Great reluctance was shown to inflict the penalty of death even on traitors. The punishment of blinding was rarely resorted to by Alexius and once actually, as we have seen, it was pretended to have been performed on a dangerous enemy of the State, like Ursel, to satisfy the people of Amaseia who demanded it. From Anna's description of her grandmother Anna Dalassena and her mother Irene, the royal ladies of Byzantium were free from any reproach by the propriety of their behaviour. She actually tries to do justice to the bitterest enemies of her country and her family, yet she is evidently devoted to both. On the whole she leaves us with the impression of a highly cultured and affectionate woman anxious to be fair to all, a surprising figure to meet within the barbarous Europe of the twelfth century.

Anna Comnena is chiefly known by the appearance of her name in Sir Walter Scott's novel Count Robert of Paris, but the lady has been so transformed by the touch of the Wizard of the North as to be quite unrecognisable. She is introduced in the memorable scene when Edward, the Anglo-Saxon and Varangian soldier, is brought into the presence of Emperor and Empress. She reads an extract from her history which certainly does not appear in the Alexiad, and is represented as a blue stocking, past her first youth. When her husband Nicephorus Bryennius enters the presence, he appears as a supercilious dandy, frankly bored by his wife's erudition. But at the time of the arrival of the main army of the Crusaders (1197) Anna was in her fourteenth year, and Bryennius, a brave soldier and prudent diplomatist, was himself engaged in historical composition, an history which was continued after his death by his widow. Alexius is in the romance a stately but enfeebled figure, whereas he had still some twenty years of hard fighting and ingenious political strategy before him. A mysterious personage called Ursel is kept in the dungeons of Alexius and a conspiracy to make him Emperor is unmasked, whereas the only Ursel in Anna's narrative is a Frankish general captured by treachery by her father, before he became Emperor; and, as we have seen, blinded in pretence and sent to Alexius' predecessor Botaniates. Nicephorus Bryennius is made out to have been involved in this conspiracy; but when Alexius died he refused to entertain the idea of supplanting his son and successor John Comnenus. Finally Count Robert of Paris is called the ancestor of Hugh Capet, who died as King of France more than a century before the First Crusade.