Время Анны Комниной
Шрифт:
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 fianc'e, 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.
9
Speck P. Kaiser Leon III., Die Geschichtswerke des Nikephoros und des Theophanes und der Liber Pontificalis, T. I., Die Anf"ange der Regierung Kaiser Leons III, 19, Bonn, 2002, S. 115–187.
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.
10
Speck P. Kaiser Leon III., Die Geschichtswerke des Nikephoros und des Theophanes und der Liber Pontificalis, T. II., Eine neue Erkenntnis Kaiser Leons III, T. III., Die A und der Liber Pontificalis, 20, Bonn 2003, S. 513–514.
Pseudo-Michael was a prot'eg'e 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…
R'esum'e
Le livre d’A. Yu. Mitrofanov
11
Belting H., Bild und Kult, M"unchen, 1990, S. 572.
12
Krumbacher K., Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Ostr"omischen Reiches (527–1453). M"unchen, 1891. S. 78–81.
13
Minorsky V., Vis u Ramin: A Parthian Romance // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 1943–1946. Vol. XI. P. 741–763; 1947–1948. Vol. XII. P. 20–35; 1954. Vol. XVI. P. 91–92; “New Developments”. 1962. Vol. XXV. P. 275–286.
Comme A. Yu. Mitrofanov montre, Anne Comn`ene, en tant que m'emorialiste et contemporaine, a cr'e'e non seulement une galerie des portraits des repr'esentants 'eminents des dynasties imp'eriales byzantines, tels que son p`ere – l’empereur Alexis Comn`ene, sa m`ere – l’imp'eratrice Irene Dukena, sa grandm`ere – Anna Dalassena, sa belle-m`ere fianc'ee – l’imp'eratrice Maria d’Alania, mais, en tant qu’historienne, elle a d'ecrit un certain nombre des probl`emes ethnographiques et politiques, avec lesquels l’Empire Byzantin a 'et'e confront'e `a la fin du XIme si`ecle. L’un de ces probl`emes a 'et'e la naissance du pouvoir des Grands Seldjoukides, qui ont conquis sous l’'etenard («Bunchuk») des sultans Togrul-bey (1038–1063), Alp-Arslan (1063–1072) et Malik Shah (1072–1092) Khorasan, l’Iran et les vastes zones de la M'editerran'ee `a Kashgaria, du Caucase au Y'emen. Bien que le r'esultat des conqu^etes des Seldjoukides ait 'et'e l’apparence des Seldjoukides dans l’Asie Mineure Byzantine et la conqu^ete rapide de la p'eninsule, cependant, les querelles entre le Grand Sultan Malik Shah et les Seldjoukides anatoliens ont pouss'e l’empereur Alexis Comn`ene vers l’alliance avec Malik Shah contre le Sultanat de Rumia. De plus, Alexis Comn`ene avait d'ej`a utilis'e l’aide des Seldjoukides pendant la guerre contre Roussel de Bailleul – un chevalier normand rebelle qui avait essay'e de cr'eer sa propre principaut'e sur les territoires de l’ancien th`eme byzantin «Arm'eniaques» en 1074.
A. Yu. Mitrofanov soul`eve la question de l’origine mongole 'eventuelle de la grande dynastie seldjoukide `a la lumi`ere de l’influence militaire et politique de l’Empire Khitan Liao au Turkestan d’une mani`ere nouvelle et il donne des arguments int'eressants en faveur de cette hypoth`ese. L’un de ces arguments est l’ignorance d'elib'er'ee du r^ole du facteur mongol dans l’histoire de l’Asie Centrale, une ignorance, qui est caract'eristique pour les 'etudes orientales sovi'etiques. Cet argument de l’auteur, en particulier, est bas'ee sur l’opinion de l’arch'eologue excellent, l’ethnographe et l’artiste M. V. Gorelik. Un autre argument d’A. Yu. Mitrofanov est l’hypoth`ese originale, d’apr`es laquelle il y a une influence litt'eraire du “Shahnameh” d’Abulqasim Ferdowsi sur l’histoire de Seldjouk, pr'esent'ee dans le “Malik-nameh” – une 'epop'ee seldjoukide des XIme–XIIme si`ecles, qui est conserv'ee en fragments gr^ace au travail de Mirkhond et des autres historiens orientaux tardifs. Dans le cadre de cette d'ecouverte remarquable A. Yu. Mitrofanov se r'ef`ere 'egalement aux travaux de G. V. Vernadsky, qui a not'e la propagation du christianisme parmi certaines tribus mongoles aux XIme–XIIme si`ecles. L’auteur compare ce ph'enom`ene de la propagation du christianisme parmi les certaines tribus mongoles `a l’hypoth`ese de la confession chr'etienne des certains fils de Seldjouk, en particulier Mikail.