As A. Yu. Mitrofanov shows, Anna Komnena, being a memoirist, not only created a gallery of portraits of prominent representatives of the Byzantine imperial dynasties, such as her father – Emperor Alexios Komnenos, her mother – Empress Irina Dukena, her grandmother – Anna Dalassena, the mother of her fiancé, her mother in-Law – Empress Maria of Alania, but, she, being a historian, outlined a number of ethnographic and political problems, which were faced by the Byzantine Empire at the end of the XIth century. One of these problems was the arise of the power of the Great Seljuks, who conquered under the standard (Bunchuk) of the sultans Togrul-bey (1038–1063), Alp-Arslan (1063–1072) and Malik Shah (1072–1092) Khorasan, Iran and vast areas from the Mediterranean Sea to Kashgaria, from the Caucasus to Yemen. Although the result of the Seljuk conquests was the appearance of the Seljuks in Byzantine Asia Minor and the rapid conquest of the peninsula, however, the feuds between the great Sultan Malik Shah and the Anatolian Seljuks pushed the Emperor Alexios Komnenos into an alliance with Malik Shah against the Sultanate of Rumia. Moreover, Alexios Komnenos had already used the help of the Seljuks during the war against Roussel de Bailleul – a rebellious Norman knight who tried to create his own principality on the territories of the ancient Byzantine “Armeniac” Theme in 1074.
A. Yu. Mitrofanov raises the question of the possible Mongolian origin of the Great Seljuk dynasty in the light of the military and political influence of the Khitan Liao Empire in Turkestan in a new way and gives interesting arguments in favor of this assumption. One of these arguments is the author’s thesis about the deliberate ignoring of the role of the Mongolian factor in the history of Central Asia, an ignoring which is characteristic of Soviet Oriental studies. This thesis of the author particularly is based on the opinion of the excellent archaeologist, ethnographer and artist M. V. Gorelik. Another argument of A. Yu. Mitrofanov is the original assumption that there is a literary influence of the Abulqasem Ferdowsi’s “Shahnameh” on the history of Seljuk from the “Malik-nameh” – a Seljuk epic of the XIth–XIIth centuries, which has been preserved in fragments thanks to the work of Mirkhond and some other late Eastern historians. For this remarkable discovery A. Yu. Mitrofanov also refers to the works of G. V. Vernadsky, who noted the spread of the Christianity among some Mongolian tribes in the XIth–XIIth centuries. The author A. Yu. Mitrofanov compares this phenomenon of the Christianity among some Mongolian tribes with the hypothesis of the Christian confession of some of the Seljuk’s sons, in particular, Mikail.
Furthermore A. Yu. Mitrofanov also examines in detail the fragments of the work of Anna Komnena, which were dedicated to the phenomenon of so called Byzantine imposture. According to A. Yu. Mitrofanov, one of the first examples of Byzantine imposture arrived at the end of the reign of Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (717–741) with the appearance of the impostor Pseudo-Tiberius Pergamenus, who declared himself the surviving son of Emperor Justinian II Rhinotmetos (685–695, 705–711). The name of Justinian’s II son was Tiberius and he has been murdered as a child of eleven years old in 711 in front of his grandmother – Empress Anastasia. Drawing on the research of Paul Speck and others[9], A. Yu. Mitrofanov suggests that the hypothetical story of the “Life of Leo” (*Vita Leonis) about the murder of Tiberius, which had been reproduced in the “Chronography” of Theophanes the Confessor, probably has been interpolated during the rebellion of Pseudo-Tiberius Pergamenus to uncover him.
According to sources of the “dossier” of George Synkellos, one of them is, for example, a hypothetical “History of Leo and Constantine” (*HL), which had been followed by Theophanes the Confessor in the narrative of Byzantine history after the year 718, Pseudo-Tiberius Pergamenus received the support of the Umayyad Caliph Hisham Ibn Abdal-Malik (723–743)[10]. Such reliance on external enemies of the Byzantine Empire was characteristic of later Byzantine impostors, to whom Anna Komnena was contemporary. That is why Mitrofanov examines in detail the fragments of Anna Komnena on the impostors Pseudo-Michael and Pseudo-Diogenes I Furthermore the Author mentions out of the Russian Chronicles the rebellion of the impostor Pseudo-Diogenes II “Devgenevich” and the rebellion of his son, the Pseudo-Prince Vasilko Leonovich.
Pseudo-Michael was a protégé of the Normans and Robert Guiscard personally; Pseudo-Diogenes I relied on the help of the Cuman Khan Tugorkan, while Devgenevich and Pseudo-Prince Vasilko enjoyed the support and official recognition of the Grand Duke of Kiev Vladimir Monomakh (1113–1125).
Vladimir Monomakh even related himself to the impostor Devgenevich by marring his daughter Maritsa to him. Their son was the impostor Pseudo-Prince Vasilko. On the basis of these undeniable historical facts, proved by A. Yu. Mitrofanov, the phenomenon of Byzantine imposture, which had been largely documented and described by Anna Komnena and other Byzantine historians, mentioned by the Author, proves to be an old and well known strategy of impostors on the byzantine imperial throne. This phenomenon is repeated by Russian political culture. This circumstance manifested itself many centuries later during the Time of Troubles (1605-1613) and during the reign of Empress Catherine the Great (1762–1796), and then influenced the formation of the phenomenon of Soviet leaders and Soviet totalitarianism.
A. Yu. Mitrofanov explores in detail the state of the armed forces of the Byzantine Empire and the Normans who were extensively documented by Anna Komnena, and he comes to the conclusion about the Westernization of the Byzantine military aristocracy in the era of the Emperor Alexios Komnenos. A. Y. Mitrofanov criticizes the views of some researchers who claim that Anna Komnena was not an author of an original work, but only treated the notes of her husband, Nikephoros Bryennios, who was well versed in military Affairs.
That is why A. Yu. Mitrofanov examines those notes of Nikephoros Bryennios. His investigations of these notes are proving, that Anna Komnena conducted her own independent research work and had access not only to the notes of Nikephoros Bryennios or the testimonies of the Bishop of Bari, as wrote Ya. N. Lyubarsky, but also to the lost memoirs of George Palaiologos and Tatikios.
The book of A. Yu. Mitrofanov “The Time of Anna Komnena” is not a dry scientific monograph, but a work, which is written in a living literary language. This book of A. Yu. Mitrofanov compares favorably with many modern publications on the history of Byzantium. From this point of view, it seems obvious that A. Yu. Mitrofanov seeks to imitate his main heroine – Anna Komnena.
One philosophe once said, God determines the longitude of the human life, but the latitude of the life is determined by the human person himself. Anna Komnena fully confirms these words, for the Porphyrogenita princess of the imperial byzantine family managed to accommodate an entire epoch of Byzantine history in her creative life…
Résumé
Le livre d’A. Yu. Mitrofanov «Le Temps d’Anne Comnène» est dédié à la réflexion sur le règne de l’empereur Alexis Ier (1081–1118) et sur son époque dans l’œuvre principale de sa fille, la princesse Anne Comnène (1083–1153/1154), connue sous le nom de l’«Alexiade». Comme l’a mentionné un byzantiniste éminent et historien de l’art Hans Belting, l’empereur Alexis Ier a été représenté par Anna Comnène comme une «icône vivante» (als lebende Ikone)[11]. Cependant, A. Yu. Mitrofanov prouve que malgré le désir d’Anna Comnène d’écrire une biographie élogieuse de son père, en réalité, l’«Alexiade» a largement dépassé le cadre de genre du panégyrique et elle est devenu un miroir de l’époque, dont le sort a largement déterminé le règne de l’empereur Alexis Ier. Anna Comnène a écrit l’«Alexiade» trente ans après la mort de son père et de la tentative infructueuse d’un coup d’état du palais, qui a conduit Anna Comnène à l’exil honorable dans le monastère de la Très Sainte Théotokos de Grâce «Kecharitomene». La princesse a écrit l’«Alexiade» pendant le règne turbulent de son neveu, l’empereur Manuel Ier Comnène (1143–1180), qui a essayé de transformer l’Empire Byzantin dans un hégémon militaire et politique, comme l’était l’Empire Byzantin à l’époque de l’empereur Justinien Ier le Grand (527–565) et de l’empereur Basile II le Bulgaroctone (976–1025), au prix d’efforts incroyables. D’après A. Yu. Mitrofanov l‘«Alexiade», écrite par Anne Comnène vers 1146–1148, était une sorte de testament politique à son neveu auguste et en même temps un manifeste d’opposition, qui était dirigé contre sa politique pro-latine. D’après A. Yu. Mitrofanov c’est la combinaison de biographie, de chronique historique et de manifeste politique actuel qui a fait l’«Alexiade» d’Anne Comnène le livre que Karl Krumbacher a appelé à juste titre «le meilleur travail historique que le Moyen Âge nous a laissé»[12]. Comme A. Yu. Mitrofanov mentionne, les certaines des intrigues de la cour, décrites par Anne Comnène, en particulier les relations amoureuses de l’impératrice Maria d’Alania et Alexis Comnène, trouvent des parallèles dans l’ouvrage du poète seldjoukide Fakhruddin Gurgani (XIme siècle), qui a écrit en persan, et d’après l’opinion de V. F. Minorsky qui s’est appuyé sur le roman chevaleresque parthe perdu[13].
9
10
12
13