theinquisitxor's review against another edition
4.0
I chose the topic of Anna Komene for my Medieval History course paper. I've always kinda known about who Anna was, but researching this topic has brought me to a whole other level understanding, and I also got to finally read her history, The Alexiad, which has been on my tbr for a while now. Anna was a Byzantine Princess in the late 11th century and early 12th century. She is most known for her book that she wrote about the reign of her father, as well as her attempted usurpation of her brother. She would not have been able to do any of this without the education she received. This is a remarkable education of a woman of this time, and Anna was someone who clearly loved learning and valued her education above almost all else- which is something I can admire about her.
Her Alexiad is the story of her father, Emperor Alexois I. It follows the conventions of ancient Greek writing and Anna tried very hard to emulate the Iliad. I do not know a whole lot about Byzantium, so parts of this history went completely over my head and these parts I merely skimmed. Other parts were incredibly interesting and such a wonderful insight to how Anna thought and her personality shines through on many occasions. She loved Aristotle, formed her own literary circle with her husband that had some of the most prominent intellectuals in Constantinople and read works deemed too immoral for women to read. A lot of people may tell you that she studied in secret at night and read Homer by candle light, but there is no factual proof of this. She was a princess and heir to her father for several years, so it is a great possibility that she was allowed such an extensive education.
My paper goes into detail about the education she received and what she studied. It also discusses how Anna most likely did not care too much about societal gender barriers growing up as a Princess because everything was automatically assumed to her. It would't be until later when she was writing her history in semi-exile that she would have to address the problem of a gender barrier as a woman writer. She surpasses this barrier masterfully, and this is mainly due to her extensive training in rhetoric. Her education is the reason why she is still being studied today and she will probably always remain one of my favorite historical people.
Her Alexiad is the story of her father, Emperor Alexois I. It follows the conventions of ancient Greek writing and Anna tried very hard to emulate the Iliad. I do not know a whole lot about Byzantium, so parts of this history went completely over my head and these parts I merely skimmed. Other parts were incredibly interesting and such a wonderful insight to how Anna thought and her personality shines through on many occasions. She loved Aristotle, formed her own literary circle with her husband that had some of the most prominent intellectuals in Constantinople and read works deemed too immoral for women to read. A lot of people may tell you that she studied in secret at night and read Homer by candle light, but there is no factual proof of this. She was a princess and heir to her father for several years, so it is a great possibility that she was allowed such an extensive education.
My paper goes into detail about the education she received and what she studied. It also discusses how Anna most likely did not care too much about societal gender barriers growing up as a Princess because everything was automatically assumed to her. It would't be until later when she was writing her history in semi-exile that she would have to address the problem of a gender barrier as a woman writer. She surpasses this barrier masterfully, and this is mainly due to her extensive training in rhetoric. Her education is the reason why she is still being studied today and she will probably always remain one of my favorite historical people.
nwhyte's review against another edition
3.0
http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1730453.html
it is a history of the reign of the Byzantine emperor Alexius I by his daughter Anna. Gibbon is (as so often) unfairly scathing about this book, saying that "an elaborate affectation of rhetoric and science betrays on every page the vanity of a female author". It's not that bad, but it's not that great either; if you're not especially interested in the events of the late eleventh century and early twelfth century at that end of the Mediterranean, you can skip it in good conscience.
I did take several things away from it. First off, the importance of the Norman invasion of Sicily and Calabria: Anna is completely obsessed with Robert Guiscard and especially his son Bohemond, who starts off as a thorn in the side of the Byzantine empire, conquering chunks of Albania, Macedonia and northern Greece, and ends up ruling Antioch after the success of the First Crusade. Bohemond is an rather impressive figure (see especially Anna's description in 13.10) who seems to be somewhat forgotten by posterity.
Second, as a lapsed historian of science, I was interested in Anna's account of these things. She has quite a long rant (6.7) about how wrong astrology is, but also writes on the one hand of her father tricking the Scythians into submission because he knew that an eclipse was about to take place, and on the other hand (twice) of important strategic decisions being made by writing the alternatives on two pieces of paper, praying over them all night, and then implementing whichever option is selected by the priest (one at 10.2, can't find the other). So she actually favours both astronomical knowledge and superstitious grounds for decision-making, and it's a bit surprising to me that she doesn't buy the combination.
Third, towards the end she starts reflecting on the fact that she is writing the history because she is effectively locked away from the rest of the world in a convent and has nothing else to do, and also on how she reconstructed the sequence of events from first-person accounts of her own relatives and of former soldiers who had become monks. It's a rather welcome glimpse of how the history book was actually written, and also makes one feel sorry for this talented woman who fell out with her younger brother and so was banished from public life.
it is a history of the reign of the Byzantine emperor Alexius I by his daughter Anna. Gibbon is (as so often) unfairly scathing about this book, saying that "an elaborate affectation of rhetoric and science betrays on every page the vanity of a female author". It's not that bad, but it's not that great either; if you're not especially interested in the events of the late eleventh century and early twelfth century at that end of the Mediterranean, you can skip it in good conscience.
I did take several things away from it. First off, the importance of the Norman invasion of Sicily and Calabria: Anna is completely obsessed with Robert Guiscard and especially his son Bohemond, who starts off as a thorn in the side of the Byzantine empire, conquering chunks of Albania, Macedonia and northern Greece, and ends up ruling Antioch after the success of the First Crusade. Bohemond is an rather impressive figure (see especially Anna's description in 13.10) who seems to be somewhat forgotten by posterity.
Second, as a lapsed historian of science, I was interested in Anna's account of these things. She has quite a long rant (6.7) about how wrong astrology is, but also writes on the one hand of her father tricking the Scythians into submission because he knew that an eclipse was about to take place, and on the other hand (twice) of important strategic decisions being made by writing the alternatives on two pieces of paper, praying over them all night, and then implementing whichever option is selected by the priest (one at 10.2, can't find the other). So she actually favours both astronomical knowledge and superstitious grounds for decision-making, and it's a bit surprising to me that she doesn't buy the combination.
Third, towards the end she starts reflecting on the fact that she is writing the history because she is effectively locked away from the rest of the world in a convent and has nothing else to do, and also on how she reconstructed the sequence of events from first-person accounts of her own relatives and of former soldiers who had become monks. It's a rather welcome glimpse of how the history book was actually written, and also makes one feel sorry for this talented woman who fell out with her younger brother and so was banished from public life.
ellisknox's review against another edition
3.0
This is our one great source on the life of Emperor Alexius I and one of our important source for the First Crusade. I have on occasion made it part of the required reading for my Crusades course, so I've read it multiple times.
manwithanagenda's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.0
An intimidating read. I'd given up on this several times before now and this time I only got over a major hump by it being the only book on hand when I had to spend a night waiting in the emergency room. The book can often become less a narrative and more a numbing parade of seiges and names. I find it difficult to imagine why anyone would want to become emperor at all, you would never have a moment's peace.
Dry or not this is still an immensely valuable source of information on the First Crusade and the conflicts between the West and the near East in this critical time period. Because Anna as the eldest daughter of the Emperor was there and at the center of power. Luckily, too, it does reward the casual reader. Anna, despite her frequent protestations otherwise, is biased towards her golden parents and can be over-the-top in her condemnations and defenses, but that is what made parts of 'The Alexiad' come alive.
Reading this makes it clear how very different, how very Roman, the Byzantines still were and how vast the gap between them and what was becoming Europe really was. and there are often reminders that this history wasn't written by your average chronicler, but by a woman exiled to a remote island monastery, cut off from everything and everyone she knew. The reasons for this are vague: a backfired bid for power, a broken promise. She also slips several anecdotes, usually while defending her parent's characters, that reveal the personality behind the names and deeds. My favorite was when she described a conversation she had with her mother about a particularly dense theological writer: Anna can make no headway with it, but her mother reassures her of its value. A simple story, but real in a way that doesn't often survive nearly 900 years.
This has sat on my shelf for a long time. I bought it around the time I decided I would be studying history in college. Isaac Asimov had referred to Anna and 'The Alexiad' in his 'Constantinople: The Forgotten Empire'* and I had been intrigued, so it was a pleasant surprise to come across it. Bookstores still amaze me. An ultimatum to read every book I owned or get rid of it supported by many breaks is what finally got me through the book. This book does offer something to the casual reader but they will have to work hard to get through to it.
*Asimov's junior histories are a nice read if you can find them. Even considering how old they are, the straight-talking narrative and emphasis on facts (and sources) makes them worthwhile.
Dry or not this is still an immensely valuable source of information on the First Crusade and the conflicts between the West and the near East in this critical time period. Because Anna as the eldest daughter of the Emperor was there and at the center of power. Luckily, too, it does reward the casual reader. Anna, despite her frequent protestations otherwise, is biased towards her golden parents and can be over-the-top in her condemnations and defenses, but that is what made parts of 'The Alexiad' come alive.
Reading this makes it clear how very different, how very Roman, the Byzantines still were and how vast the gap between them and what was becoming Europe really was. and there are often reminders that this history wasn't written by your average chronicler, but by a woman exiled to a remote island monastery, cut off from everything and everyone she knew. The reasons for this are vague: a backfired bid for power, a broken promise. She also slips several anecdotes, usually while defending her parent's characters, that reveal the personality behind the names and deeds. My favorite was when she described a conversation she had with her mother about a particularly dense theological writer: Anna can make no headway with it, but her mother reassures her of its value. A simple story, but real in a way that doesn't often survive nearly 900 years.
This has sat on my shelf for a long time. I bought it around the time I decided I would be studying history in college. Isaac Asimov had referred to Anna and 'The Alexiad' in his 'Constantinople: The Forgotten Empire'* and I had been intrigued, so it was a pleasant surprise to come across it. Bookstores still amaze me. An ultimatum to read every book I owned or get rid of it supported by many breaks is what finally got me through the book. This book does offer something to the casual reader but they will have to work hard to get through to it.
*Asimov's junior histories are a nice read if you can find them. Even considering how old they are, the straight-talking narrative and emphasis on facts (and sources) makes them worthwhile.
More...