NIKEPHOROS BRYENNIOS, ANNA KOMNENE

AND KONSTANTIOS DOUKAS.

A STORY ABOUT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

VLADA STANKOVIĆ/BEOGRAD

The life and deeds of Konstantios Doukas (1060 – 1081), the first porphyr-
ogenite born after an entire century, are described in a completely different
manner in the historical works of Anna Komnene and her husband Nikephoros
Bryennios. In an attempt to explain the reasons behind their different attitudes
toward this purple-born son of Emperor Constantine X Doukas, I will try to
address the following questions:
1. What significance – if any – did Nikephoros Bryennios and Anna
Komnene ascribe to Konstantios Doukas in their presentation of historical
events from the years 1070>s and 1080>s, and for which reasons?
2. Who was the bearer of legitimacy after the fall of Emperor Michael VII
Doukas and before the accession of Alexios Komnenos according to those
authors?
3. Can we determine their respective sources, or maybe more precisely,
would it be possible to establish whether they were inventing circumstances
under which the events took place, or if they had some earlier sources at their
disposal?
The known facts from the life of Konstantios Doukas were gathered by D.
Polemis in his mononograph on the family of Doukai.1 There is almost nothing
that could be added to Polemis> outline of the biography of Konstantios
Doukas from its factual side.2 However, if one observes closely the sources for
Konstantios> life, they may be divided into two groups:

1 D. Polemis, The Doukai. A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography: London 1968

(hereafter: Polemis, Doukai), no. 17, p. 48 – 53.
2 Polemis had neither recorded the discrepancy between the sources themselves nor
ventured into their deeper analysis. He also wrongly ascribed (Polemis, Doukai 51) to
Konstantios Doukas Alexios Komnenos> words to Nikephoros Botaneiates at the
moment when the success of the latter>s apostasy was becoming inevitable, see
NicFphore Bryennios, Histoire, ed. P. Gautier. Bruxelles 1975 (hereafter: Bryennios),
251. The evidence from the short monody by Michael Psellos, addressed to Konstantios>
older brother Andronikos, should also be added to the corpus of sources about
Konstantios: P. Gautier, Monodie inFdite de Michel Psellos sur le basileus Andronic
Doucas. REB 24 (1966) 153 – 170. It is therefore all the more confusing why G. T. Dennis
in his edition of the chrysobull of Michael VII for Robert Guiscard emended the
manuscript>s reading Konstantios with his conjecture Constantine (i. e. the son of
Michael VII) despite the conclusive remarks of Polemis, Doukai 49, note 8. The original
reading Konstantios should be, without doubt, maintained, cf. Michaelis Pselli Orationes
forenses et acta, ed. G. T. Dennis. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1994, Actum 5, 181, 151. About
the whole question of negotiations between Michael VII and Robert Guiscard, see now
170 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 100/1, 2007: I. Abteilung

– the first group is represented by the historical works of Michael Psellos,

Michael Attaliates, the continuator of Skylitzes and John Zonaras, regardless
of their mutual relations or interdependences;
– clearly apart from them stand the Material of History,3 the historical work
of the Caesar Nikephoros Bryennios, and, although of much lesser importance
regarding facts for the biography of Konstantios Doukas, the Alexiad of his
wife, Anna Komnene.
The distinction between these two groups of historical works is a qualitative
one: the authors of the first group offer facts from the life of Konstantios
Doukas, without connecting him in any way to the future emperor Alexios
Komnenos. Their narrative concentrates on the porphyrogenite Konstantios
Doukas himself, and the episodes from his life, especially his birth in the
Porphyra and his revolt against the emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates, which
took place probably in the spring of 1079.4
The circumstances under which Konstantios Doukas appears in Bryennios>
Material of History could not be more different: here he is exclusively
mentioned in connection with Alexios Komnenos, who was three or four years
older, and is always depicted as his close companion and intimate friend.
Konstantios Doukas does not have an autonomous role in this historical work –
his own biography was of no interest to the first Komnenian historian,
Nikephoros Bryennios.
Konstantios Doukas comes to the fore in Bryennios> History during the
crucial events from the years 1077 and 1078, exactly at the time when the rule
and power of his brother, Emperor Michael VII, was disputed by a series of the
rebellions both in the east and the west of the empire. However, his
appearance in Bryennios> narrative serves mostly to emphasize more strongly
the appearance of the real hero – Alexios Komnenos. The main significance of
Konstantios Doukas, according to Bryennios> depiction of him, was the fact

A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, Michael VII Doukas, Robert Guiscard and the Byzantine-

Norman Marriage Negotiations. Byzantinoslavica 58/2 (1997) 251 – 268, although the
author>s uncertainty regarding the “correct” form of Konstantios> name is unnecessary.
See V. Stanković, ;_]^Y^Y d GQaYTaQUd. 6S_\dgYyQ yVU^V S\QUQab[V `_a_UYgV (The
Komnenoi in Constantinople. The Evolution of a Ruling Family). Beograd 2006
(hereafter: Stanković, ;_]^Y^Y), 25 – 36, 203 – 204.
3 I hope to address the various problems concerning Bryennios> historical work in a
forthcoming article titled “Remarks on Nikephoros Bryennios> Hyle Istorias”, including
also the reasons why the translation Material of History or Historic Material should be
preferred to Material for History.
4 For the date of the rebellion of Konstantios Doukas, see D. Polemis, Notes on eleventh-
century chronology (1059 – 1081). BZ 58 (1965) 60 – 76, here 72 – 73, which was accepted
by J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations M Byzance (963 – 1210). Paris 21996, no. 110, p.
87 – 88.
 V. Stanković, Nikephoros Bryennios, Anna Komnene and Konstantios Doukas 171

that he represented the only heir of his brother, Emperor Michael VII Doukas.5
It is immensely important that Nikephoros Bryennios does not once mention
Constantine Doukas, the son of Emperor Michael VII and former fiancF of his
wife. Constantine Doukas did not receive any attention whatsoever from
Bryennios, whose entire narrative is constructed to show that in the year 1078
there was only one legitimate heir to the throne, only one person who could
rightfully claim the imperial crown for himself. According to Nikephoros
Bryennios that person was Konstantios Doukas!
Anna Komnene tells the story about the same period in a completely
different manner, with a much different focus. She mentions Konstantios
Doukas only after her father Alexios has become emperor, in a way that
suggests that she understood perfectly well his status and position, as well as
the importance of his birth in the Porphyra, even though she refused to
recognize his right to the throne.6 All of her attention was directed toward the
Empress Maria of Alania and the joint attempts of the Komnenoi, Alexios and
his older brother Isaac, to obtain her support as the best means toward
securing the success of their plan to overthrow Emperor Nikephoros
Botaneiates and to gain imperial power. Leaving aside Anna>s strange
vocabulary (such as the explicit designation of Alexios and Isaac>s fight
against Botaneiates as !postas¸a), her intentions were similar to those of her
husband: she wanted to stress that Alexios Komnenos did not violate or usurp
the “legitimate” right to the throne of the “legitimate” heir from the Doukai
family.7 The essential difference from her husband>s attitudes lies in the fact

5 Bryennios, esp. c. 21, 247 – 249, where Michael VII explicitly names his younger brother
Konstantios as his only heir. The departing emperor, according to Nikephoros Bryennios,
issued the official document as a confirmation of his decision. Gautier>s confusion over
Bryennios> information (Bryennios 248, note 1) is understandable: Bryennios> version is
not very comprehensive nor convincing, but unfortunately for modern scholars, it is
unique. The key to understanding Bryennios> data should therefore be sought in the
detailed analysis of the entire Material of History, its structure, narrative techniques,
portrayal of the main personalities, lexis, etc. in order to comprehend the author>s
intentions and attitudes. It is nevertheless obvious that the multidimensionality of his
work allows for a much greater variety of interpretations than is usually believed. His
description of the fierce temper of Konstantios Doukas (Bryennios, 235), for example,
could be understood as a corroboration of Konstantios> portrait as written by Michael
Psellos: Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bisanzio (Cronografia), ed. S. Impellizzeri, II 7,
15 (p. 380), but also as a reflection of the later pro-Alexian propaganda.
6 Annae Comnenae Alexias, ed. D. R. Reinsch/A. Kambylis. CFHB, 40. Berlin/New York
2001. 130 (IV 5, 3); 134 (IV 6, 7). Both mentions refer to the events directly preceding
the battle of Dyrrahion in October 1081, where Konstantios Doukas died.
7 Bearing in mind Alexios> intention to respect the legitimate right to the throne of the
members of the Doukai family, evident from the both historical works in question – even
if only as the best way to fulfil his own ambition – I believe that his adoption by the
Empress Maria should be dated after the failed rebellion of Konstantios Doukas (which
172 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 100/1, 2007: I. Abteilung

that for Anna the only bearer of imperial legitimacy was Constantine Doukas,
the son of Empress Maria and her own fiancF. Although Anna Komnene used
her husband>s history extensively for the events from the years 1077 and 1078,
she changed the character of Bryennios> narrative in such a way that
Konstantios Doukas, the legal and the only heir of Michael VII, was
completely erased from history in order to introduce the new bearer of
imperial legitimacy, her beloved fiancF Constantine Doukas. Anna Komnene
does not only name the latter explicitly as legitimate heir to the throne in the
Alexiad, but she also allows her emotions to take over her narration
completely in the passages devoted exclusively to Constantine Doukas,
underlining the noticeable sadness that overwhelmed her whenever she
recalled the missed opportunities of her own life.8

The relation between the historical works of Nikephoros Bryennios and Anna
Komnene represents one of the main fields of interest of contemporary studies
on Byzantine literature and Byzantine historical texts from the eleventh and
twelfth centuries.
A significant impetus for new research and new approaches to the mutual
relations between Bryennios> and Anna Komnene>s Histories was, without
doubt, the provocative article by J. Howard-Johnston,9 whose arguments were
in the meantime unanimously and rightfully disputed.10 Nevertheless, Howard-

took place at the earliest in the spring of 1079, cf. supra note 4), that is at the time when
the Doukai>s “legitimacy” inevitably passed from the defeated Konstantios to his young
nephew Constantine. Anna Komnene>s chronology of adoption (c. 1080) should
therefore be preferred to Bryennios>, who places that event at the very beginning of
the Botaneiates> reign, Bryennios 259; Alexias, 56 – 57 (II 1, 5).
8 Constantine Doukas as legitimate heir to the throne: Alexias, 49 (I 15, 2); 57 – 58 (esp. II
2, 1). The emotional descriptions (Anna>s “remembrance”) of Constantine: Alexias, 40
(I 12, 3 – 4); 88 (III 1, 3), Constantine as a representation of Eros (!); 184 – 185 (VI 8, 3),
Constantine as Alexios> co-emperor, and Anna Komnene herself, mentioned in the
official acclamations beside her fiancF Constantine. A complete and comprehensive
study of the Alexiad and an assessment of this historical work have yet to be written. For
Anna Komnene>s intrusion into her own narration see Ja. Ljubarskij, “Writers>
Intrusion” in early Byzantine literature. Rapports plFniers, XVIIIe CongrOs Interna-
tional des Ftudes byzantines. Moscow 1991, 433 – 456; R. Macrides, The Historian in the
History, in: C. N. Constantinides/N. M. Panagiotakes/E. Jeffreys/A. D. Angelou
(eds.), Vik´kkgm. Studies in honour of Robert Browning. Venice 1996, 205 – 224, here
217 – 220; Stanković, ;_]^Y^Y 123 – 125; 193 – 196, with special emphasis on the sensual,
sad, melancholic, female character of Anna>s intrusion into the narrative.
9 J. Howard-Johnston, Anna Komnene and the Alexiad in: M. Mullet/D. Smythe (eds.),
Alexios I Komnenos. Belfast 1996, 260 – 302.
10 See only the most important: Ja. Ljubarskij, Quellenforschung and/or Literary
Criticism. Marrative Structures in Byzantine Historical Writing, Symbolae Osloenses
73 (1998), especially 16 – 19. D. R. Reinsch, Women>s Literature in Byzantium? – The
Case of Anna Komnene, in: Th. Gouma-Peterson (ed.), Anna Komnene and Her Times.
 V. Stanković, Nikephoros Bryennios, Anna Komnene and Konstantios Doukas 173

Johnston>s exaggerated hypotheses raised many questions in regard to the

necessity of inner criticism of the historical works of the Komnenian era,
especially as to mutual influences and interconnections between the authors
and their respective works, as well as their ideological background. Many of
the above mentioned problems and topics have been studied in the recent
years, with special focus on the Alexiad, the historical masterpiece of Anna
Komnene. Through the studies and articles of, most importantly, Diether
Roderich Reinsch, the editor of the first critical edition of the Alexiad, but also
Paul Magdalino, Ruth Macrides, the late Jakov Ljubarskij and others, the
multidimensionality of the epic history of Anna Komnene has emerged in all
its complexity, showing at the same time the necessity of new approaches in
studying this voluminous text.11
And although it is not the main aim of this paper, it should also once more
become evident through the example studied above that Anna Komnene did
not just make simple stylistic or superficial changes to the text which she had
“inherited” from her husband, but that she had a “philosophy” and ideology
completely different from that of Nikephoros Bryennios, which left a
prominent trace in her historical work. Anna>s own attitudes and feelings led
her sometimes to bend the truth, or to willingly pass over some events – and in
this particular case, over some personalities and their role in the historical
events. Surely, Bryennios did much the same in his fictional stories, most of
which were recently analyzed by D. R. Reinsch.12 Although they were good
and often very reliable historians, both Bryennios and Anna Komnene had
more to tell than “just” facts and plain truth. We should not underestimate the
person behind the historian,13 especially when the authors were such prominent

New York/London 2000, 83 – 105, esp. 97 – 101. R. Macrides, The Pen and the Sword:
Who Wrote the Alexiad?, ibid. 63 – 82, esp. 64 – 71. Cf. D. R. Reinsch, Zur literarischen
Leistung der Anna Komnene, in: J. O. Rosenqvist (ed.), KEILYM. Studies Presented to
Lennart RydFn on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Uppsala 1996, 113 – 125.
11 I have in mind, in the first place, the series of articles by the editor of the Alexiad, D. R.
Reinsch: AuslQnder und Byzantiner im Werk der Anna Komnene, Rechtshistorisches
Journal 8 (1989) 257 – 275; Anna Komnene, eine gebildete Frau in Byzanz. Berliner
wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft, Jahrbuch 1999. Berlin 2000, 159 – 174; Die Zitate in der
Alexias Anna Komnenes, S¼lleijta 12 (1998) 63 – 74. Cf. A. Kambylis, Zum
„Programm“ der byzantinischen Historikerin Anna Komnene, in: D¾qgla. Hans Diller
zum 70. Geburtstag. Athen 1975, 127 – 146; P. Magdalino, The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes
of the Mid-Twelfth Century in the Alexiad, in: Gouma-Peterson (ed.), Anna Komnene
15 – 45.
12 D. R. Reinsch, O Mijgvºqor Bqu´mmior – ´mar Lajedºmar succqav´ar. in: B’ Diehm´r
Sulpºsio Bufamtim¶r Lajedom¸ar. D¸jaio, heokoc¸a, vikokoc¸a. Hessakomijg 26 – 28
Moelbq¸ou 1999. Thessalonike 2003, 169 – 177.
13 I intentionally refrained from broadening the studied topic by placing a stronger accent
on “modern literary theories” or entering into the discussion about the relation between
174 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 100/1, 2007: I. Abteilung

and important personalities as Nikephoros Bryennios and Anna Komnene.

Just because they expressed their attitudes in a subtle way, with nuances that
remain sometimes hardly noticeable, it does not mean that their message was
less strong, or even less clear, especially for their contemporaries. As became
evident with the new critical edition of the Alexiad and the study of its
manuscript tradition,14 the process of rewriting or changing the original text
began only a few decades after the Alexiad was written. This shows clearly that
the contemporaries were very careful readers, sensitive not only to peculiar or
exaggerated expressions, but also prepared to search for more indirect
messages and meanings hidden within the texts.
The entirely different place which the character of Konstantios Doukas
found in the couple>s respective historical works should help to prove their
totally different perspectives and ideas. In other words, the figure of
Konstantios Doukas served as a medium for the fulfillment of the author>s
own intentions, as a convenient means to convey a very important personal and
political message.

To summarize:
Nikephoros Bryennios and Anna Komnene present completely different
pictures of the situation within the family of the Doukai at the end of the reign
of Emperor Michael VII with regards to the question of his legitimate heir.
Whereas, for Nikephoros Bryennios, Konstantios Doukas was the only
legitimate heir to the throne, Anna Komnene connected the right to the
imperial crown exclusively to her fiancF, the son of Emperor Michael VII,
Constantine Doukas. While Anna>s attitude and her presentation of events is
understandable, bearing in mind that her main aim was to stress her own right
to the throne, and her precedence over her brother John, Nikephoros
Bryennios grants Alexios Komnenos the essential legitimacy of his accession
to the throne by connecting him closely with the only holder of imperial
legitimacy, Konstantios Doukas. Bryennios> motives for creating or trans-
mitting the idea of closeness between Alexios and Konstantios are not as
discernible as the sentimental reasons that often influenced the way in which
his wife, Anna Komnene, presented the historical events in her voluminous
history. Although the possibility that Bryennios distorted or invented some
circumstances in order to stress Alexios> right to the throne cannot be
completely excluded, it seems more likely that he had before him some older
source or sources. If that were the case, then it could be evidence for the very
early stages of the Komnenian ideology – or more precisely the Alexian
the author and the narrator, since I believe that in this case both Bryennios and Anna
Komnene had very practical reasons for presenting events in the way they did.
14 D. R. Reinsch, Zum Text der Alexias Anna Komnenes. J+B 40 (1990) 233 – 268,
esp. 245 – 247.
 V. Stanković, Nikephoros Bryennios, Anna Komnene and Konstantios Doukas 175

ideology – before the motif of the fusion of the Doukai and the Komnenoi
became the crucial element for the legitimacy of the ruling genos during the
reign of John II, and under the patronage of ex-Empress Irene Doukaina.15 The
best proof of the importance that Bryennios> text had for the strictly
Komnenian ideology was the insertion of the much later apologetic text in
front of his Material of History, in which the main motif was precisely the
Alexios> right (d¸jg) to the throne which he captured on April 1, 1081.
As an attempt to promote greater appreciation of the real persons behind
the masks of historians, I would like to suggest that there were more personal
reasons, or personal pride, involved in writing historical works in the twelfth
century Byzantium than we are perhaps prepared to accept or admit. I believe
that in Bryennios> portrayal of Konstantios as the legitimate heir of his brother
Michael VII and Anna>s descriptions of Constantine Doukas in the same way,
their long-standing personal and political quarrel became also quite apparent.

15 Cf. Stanković, ;_]^Y^Y 202 – 209.