Heroes and Romans in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: The Material for History of Nikephoros Bryennios

by Leonora Neville

Nikephoros Bryennios' history of the Byzantine Empire in the 1070s is a story of civil war and aristocratic rebellion in the midst of the Turkish conquest of Anatolia. Commonly remembered as the passive and unambitious husband of Princess Anna Komnene (author of the Alexiad), Bryennios is revealed as a skilled author whose history draws on cultural memories of classical Roman honor and proper masculinity to evaluate the politicians of the 1070s and implicitly to exhort his twelfth-century contemporaries to honorable behavior. Bryennios' story valorizes the memory of his grandfather and other honorable, but failed, generals of the eleventh century while subtly portraying the victorious Alexios Komnenos as un-Roman. This reading of the Material for History sheds new light on twelfth-century Byzantine culture and politics, especially the contested accession of John Komnenos, the relationship between Bryennios' history and the Alexiad and the function of cultural memories of Roman honor in Byzantium.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

258 pages, Hardcover

First published September 28, 2012

About the author

Leonora Neville is the John W. and Jeanne M. Rowe Professor of Byzantine History at the University of Wisconsin Madison.

Reviews

[Anatolikon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is different from Leonora Neville's previous monograph, 'Authority in Byzantine Provincial Society, 950-1100' in its scope, topic, and approach to the sources, but 'Heroes and Romans' shares the earlier book's deep scholarship, solid argumentation, and intriguing conclusions. While Nikephoros Bryennios is not well known outside of specialist circles, his wife Anna Komnene is fairly well-known and generally has attracted most of the attention of scholars and the reading public for being the first woman in the western world to write a classicizing history and for recording the passage of the First Crusade through Byzantine territory, thus bringing her to the attention of western medievalists. As far as I'm aware, the only modern translation of the text is into French. Bryennios' history covers a much smaller period than Anna, and generally has been given little attention. In this book Neville argues that this lack of attention is unjustified because not only has Bryennios written a carefully structured and intricate piece of work, it helps set the 'Alexiad' in its context by exploring the Byzantine approach to classical Roman culture and the relationship between the two texts.

The central premise of the book is that Bryennios had a particular concept of classical Roman culture in mind, specifically on ideas of virtue and masculinity as they were transmitted to him by Greek historians of the Roman world, and that these ideas informed his history. Neville begins by noting that the major figures of the text, despite being enemies to each other, all come out as heroes. What she spends the bulk of the book arguing is how the classical references and the intellectual world constructed in the texts reflects upon the masculinity of these figures. This leads to a positive assessment of figures like Romanos Diogenes and Nikephoros Bryennios (the grandfather of the author) despite their ultimate lack of success in the civil wars of the 1070s since they struggled valiantly like good Roman men should. On the other hand, Neville argues that the text is highly critical of Alexios Komnenos for his underhanded and deceitful ways of winning. Alexios may have been the man who came out on top, but Bryennios' history implies that he is not a virtuous masculine figure such as Romanos Diogenes. However, this book is not purely literary analysis, and Neville frequently brings her conclusions one step further to apply them to historical problems. She dismisses Anna's role in the revolt of Bryennios, as this comes from Zonaras and Choniates and fulfils particular agendas for each of those authors. The revolt itself and how Bryennios may have actually had a leading role as a representative of the families who had found themselves marginalized by the regime of Alexios Komnenos. One of the later chapters of the book discusses the relationship between Anna and Bryennios, and while this will probably be standard reading on the problem for some time, Neville's approach and overall argumentation drives the last nail in the coffin of Howard-Johnston's useful but now rejected thesis that Bryennios wrote the 'Alexiad' (you can find the article in 'Alexios I Komnenos'.

My criticisms are minor. For a book on literary interpretation, Neville did an excellent job in remaining grounded in the material, and generally does not go too far in positing everything Bryennios wrote to the type of work, but there are occasional moments where it feels a bit strained. However, none of these are on major points and they do not detract from the book at all.As most of the book was a literary study it was rightly concerned with the text in question, and although Neville often brings in material from other sources to compare and contrast with Bryennios (or how Bryennios often deliberately misquoted his sources for a particular effect) it felt like much more could have been done. In particular I felt that Attaleiates' 'The History' was a surprisingly martial and visceral work by Byzantine standards, and given that Bryennios and Attaleiates are both mainly concerned with the 1070s I expected a little more contrast on their two views of Roman virtue. Neville's argument that Bryennios used a written work of John Doukas' is clear and well-argued, but I was much less convinced that he had work from George Palaiology, although to be fair Neville is not quite sure either. The only other major question I had was related to Bryennios tale of how mercenaries brought down the Abbasids. The book is convincing on this point, but I do wonder if Bryennios had made any covert references to Alexios' role in the calling of the crusaders and how this might fit in.

Ultimately, the complaints are minor or not complaints at all. Neville should be commended for writing an invigorating book which will be standard reading for 11-12th c. Byzantine historiography, Byzantine views of the classical world, 'the Alexiad', as well as the regime of Alexios I Komnenos. This is certainly one of the most important books in Byzantine Studies in recent years, and will certainly be read with profit for many years to come.

[Ruben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Based and Bryennios-pilled

[Eileen Iciek · Rating 5 out of 5]

So far as I know, there is no English translation of the history written by Anna Comnena's husband, Nikephoros Bryennios. So Leonora Neville's book (which includes many quotes) about it is the closest I've come to reading it.

The author has some great insights into the differences between Anna's history and view of her father, Alexios I Comnenus, in her "Alexiad", and Nikephoros' history and view of Alexios. [Note: the author has written a similar book on Anna's history, which I've also read and reviewed.] Neville's comments about the different cultural standards that each author played to really helped bring texture to my understanding of their era.

Nikeophoros' wiring apparently went to some length to praise John Doukas (Anna Comnena's great-grandfather); Nikephoros' own grandfather (also named Nikeophoros Byrennios); and Romanos IV Diogenes, for their "traditional Roman" military values - even though all three of them were defeated. Nikephoros contrasted them favorably against the "trickier" (and more successful) Alexios.

The one problem I had with Neville's analysis is that it gave short shrift to the family dynamics involved with Nikephoros' point of view. It was Anna Comnena's mother/ John Doukas' granddaughter, Irene Doukaina, who urged Nikephoros to write his history. Of course John Doukas would come out as a hero in that case! It was also going to be the case that Nikephoros' grandfather, whose revolt had been defeated by the young general Alexios, and who was subsequently blinded by the then reigning emperor, would also emerge as a tragic hero. I'm not sure how Romanos IV Diogenes made it in alongside John Doukas as heroic since it was Doukas family treachery that led to Romanos' defeat at Manzikert, and it was John's son/Irene's uncle who blinded Romanos, leading to that emperor's death. Must be some connection I haven't figured out yet.

After reading Neville's analysis, I came away thinking Nikeophoros Bryennios used his writing as a subtle "hit job" on a father-in-law he may have respected and feared, but never felt any affection for. If anything, and even though he never came out and said it directly, it seemed he felt like Alexios had tricked his way onto the throne and used tricks to keep it, rather than do it the "honorable old Roman way". Overall, Nikeophoros appeared to me to be a bit too defensive about his own family's successes/failures, as well as self-righteous and stuffy.

Overall, this was a worthy and readable addition to my shelves of Byzantine histories, and it will have to suffice until an English translation of Nikophoros Bryennios' history is published.

[Doğukan Barbaros · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bryennios precedes in this chronicle what his more illustrious wife Anna Komnene -herself the daughter of Alexios Komnenos- wrote in her Alexiad. Now the husband to the grand restorer's daughter obviously engages in a fair bit of brown nosing for the Komnenian regime in his portrayal of the events in those chaotic post-Manzikert years before the ascension of Alexios to the throne. Alright, Alexios was of course the heroic general and ruler to bring a change to the indecisive and disorganised state of the Byzantine Empire and vanquish the enemies all around the realm --but be sure that this chronicle still carries bias against him, plus the style isn't great either. He tries to imitate the style of Xenophon yet his diction is nowhere near the eloquence of Xenophon, being rather poorly organised and repetitive in points. For his sources, he takes a lot from Psellos and his inside-sources as he was a high ranking member of the Byzantine ruling class. He himself was engaged in the actual geopolitics of his time.

All in all, it's still a keystone for anyone wishing to learn about the years leading to and after the disastrous battle of Manzikert up until the time when Alexios I. Komnenos takes the steer. After that point you should read the Alexiad by Anna Komnene to continue with the manga lore. Oh and Attaliates is a good contemporary source too, a source written by someone much less professional than Bryennios was. Guess that about makes it. Read it.