The end of Anna Dalassena It is often maintained that women in Byzantium led lives of Oriental seclusion, guarded by eunuchs, such as were led by their Ottoman successors. But, though the Byzantines followed their Greek ancestors in requiring the ideal woman to be modest and self-effacing (+), there was in fact no govern- ment in the Middle Ages where ladies played so eminent and constant a role as in that of the Eastern Empire. Of these great princesses few struck contemporaries more forcibly than Anna Dalassena, the mother of Alexius Comnenus. Alexius Comnenus won the Imperial throne partly through his own merits, but largely also through the unflagging determ- ination and the sedulous intrigues of his mother. She had never forgiven her brother-in-law, the Emperor Isaac Com- nenus, for his abdication, which allowed the Crown to pass to the rival family of Ducas; and for over twenty years she had worked hard to restore the power of her clan. She received her reward. When her son became Emperor and was obliged, almost at once, to leave his capital to fight foreign invaders he issued a Golden Bull appointing her as regent with supreme powers in all matters concerning the judiciary and finance and stating that her powers were irrevocable and that in these two spheres her authority was equal to his own; nor could she ever be called to account for her actions (*), She was known by the title of Mistress, deoxoévn (*), — though it “U) See G. Buckien, Anna Comnena (Oxford, 1929), pp. 114-121, for the views of women’s position and duties held by Anna Comnena, herself a woman of great energy and independance. (2) ANNA ComNeENA, Aleziad, III, vi, ed. Leib, vol. L, pp. 119-22, gives the text of the Golden Bull. (3) ANNA ComNeNa, III, 11, vol. I, p. 110. Neither Anna nor any other writer mentions that Anna Dalassena was ever crowned. If she518, S. RUNCIMAN seems that she was never crowned Augusta, and therefore for ceremonial purposes ranked behind her hated daughter- in-law, Irene Ducaena. Anna Dalassena was well qualified to carry on the admi- nistration. Her grand-daughter, Anna Comnena, gives a portrait of her, which, even allowing for the writer's trem- endous family-loyalty, is consistent and convincing. It de- picts a woman of deep piety, austere in her personal life and relentiess against wrong-doers and evil-livers, of inde- fatigable energy and with a good head for business, and with the gift, rare both in her sex and her race, of expressing her- self concisely and to the point (). Nicephorus Bryennius bestows a similar eulogy on his grandmother-in-law (#); and even the hostile witness Zonaras admits her ability (’). But she was never a popular figure. To some extent this was to be expected. Anna Dalassena was determined to restore the Empire's financial position ; and on the whole she was success- ful. But a ruler who insists on rigid economy and who tries to abolish corruption, and who at the same time increases taxation is usually disliked both by the civil service and by the populace in general. She was moreover loathed by a powerful section of the aristocracy, led by the relatives of her daughter-in-law and by the Church, many of whose treas- ures she had confiscated. Ultimately her unpopularity was such that Alexius could no longer ignore it. Anna Dalassena retired from public affairs and spent the last years of her life in cloistered tranquillity. But when and under what circumstances her retirement took place cannot be known for certain. Of the Greek histor- ians, Zonaras alone mentions it, saying that she came to realize that his son was dissatisfied with her ; and, rather than let him have the embarrassing task of asking her to retire, had been crowned before Irene, it would have been impossible to omit the fact from the story, as the question of Irene’s coronation was bitterly disputed between Anna Dalassena and the Ducae (1) ANNA Comnena, II, vii-virt, pp. 123-27. (2) Nicernonus Bryenntus, Hyle, I, v, ed. Bonn, p. 19. (3) Jonannes Zonanas, Epitome Historiarum, XVIII, 24, ed. Bonn, vol. ITT, p. 746,THE END OF ANNA DALASSENA 519 she herself forestalled him by laying down her power. He says that this took place after the unsuccessful plot of Michael Anemas, that is to say, in 1105 (). Anna Comnena, whose History is remarkable for its tactful omissions, though she gives us the fullest details about ther grandmother's rise to power, says nothing at all about her fall. The last time that she refers to the old lady in her description of the revolt of the pseudo-Diogenes, in 1095. Anna Dalassena was at that moment staying in the Palace and used the powers given her in the Golden Bull to order the rebel’s arrest and blinding (2). But that is the only time that Anna Comnena mentions her grandmother since the early years of Alexius’ reign (*); and the wording suggests that Anna Dalassena was visiting the Palace but was no longer resident there. Anna Comnena further says of her: « 1 myself knew this woman for a short time and admired her » (*), Anna Comnena was herself born in 1084. If her grandmother had remained in the Palace till 1105 she would have known her for a long time. It seems clear from the words of the Alexiad that Anna Dalassena must have left the Palace before her grandchildren were grown-up and that she only saw them at rare intervals. We need not take seriously the date given by Zonaras. He tells us that Alexius was seventy when he died, in 1118 (°), whereas we know from a positive statement in the Alexiad that he was born in 1054 (*). He was one of his mother’s younger children (7). Anna Dalassena must therefore have been born (1) Zonaras, loc. cit. (2) ANNA ComnENa, X, rv, vol. I, p. 201. (3) Except for a casual and undated reference to her death, in con- nection with the prophecies of the Athenian Catanances (Jbid., VI, vit, vol. II, p. 59). (4) Ibid., TH, vir, vol. I, p. 129. (5) ZoNARAS, XVIII, xxrx, vol. IIL, p. 764. His wording is vague. «én €Bboprjxoved nov ta xdvea i) bre eyyotdra.» (6) ANNA ComNena, I, 1, vol. I, p. 9. He was fourteen in 1070, when Romanus Diogenes started on his campaign against the Turks. (7) He had two elder brothers, Manuel and Isaac; and at least two of his sisters, Eudocia, wife of Nicephorus Melissenus, and Theo- dora, wife of Constantine Diogenes, had been married for some years before 1081,520 S. RUN CIMAN about 1030, at the latest. It is unlikely that she played an actiev part in politics at the age of seventy-five. Moreover, it is clear from Anna Comnena’s account of the Anemas con- spiracy that by that time the Empress Irene possessed the chief influence at the Court (‘). Zonaras undoubtedly con- fused the date of Anna Dalassena’s death with that of ther retirement, which had taken place at least ten year previously. That is all that we hear from Greek sources of the fall of Anna Dalassena. But she is mentioned in Armenian writings. Samuel of Ani, who compiled his Chronological Tables to- wards the end of the x11 century, wrote of the Emperor Alexius, when accusing him of treachery towards the Franks: « May God give him the retribution that he deserves. For this prince was not a Christian, as many have attested, nor was his mother. And the Doctor Deacon has reported this in his book »(*). The Doctor Deacon was John the Deacon, who wrote in about the year 1140 a history of his times, which now is lost (*). In the thirteenth century the historian Kira- kos of Qantzak repeats the charge, saying of Alexius: « He was not a Christian, neither was his mother» (*). Unfortunately we cannot tell what was the evidence provided by John the Deacon to substantiate this charge. Matthew of Edessa, writing at about the same time as John, is more informati His story must be quoted in full. Just after he has described the victory of Alexius over the Petchenegs, which occurred in April 1091, and just before he describes the visit of the Ar- (1) Anna Comvena, XII, v-vt, vol. III, pp. 67-75. The Empress Irene was given the house of one of the conspirators, which she re- turned to his wife ; and she persuaded the Emperor to show mercy to the culprits. (2) Samuen or Ant, Chronological Tables, Armenian text, ed. Ten MtkeLtan, Vagharshabad, 1893, p. 120. (3) A list of John the Deacon’s works, extant and lost, is given in SonKIAs SomAx, Quadro della storia litteraria di Armenia (Venice, 1829), pp. 89-90. (4) Kirakos of Qantzak, extract in Armenian, with French trans- lation by Dutaunter, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, docu- ments arméniens, vol. I, p. 613. Brosser, Deux Historiens Arméniens (St-Pétersbourg, 1870), vol. I, p. 56, mistranslates the phrase « he was not a Christian either by his father or by his mother ».THE END OF ANNA DALASSENA 521 menian Patriarch Basil to Malik Shah, which took place in 1090, he says : « At this time there appeared in Constantinople an infamous heretic, who was a monk of Roman origin. He worshipped Satan as his god, and was followed by a black dog, to whom he addressed his prayers. He involved in his abominable errors a number of men and women in the pious city of Constantinople. Amongst his proselytes was the mother of the Emperor Alexius. This princess carried her outrageous perversity so far that she took a piece of the Holy Cross and hid it in one of her son’s sandals, in the sole, so that he should tread on it as he walked. God showed up this accursed heretic through his accomplices, who denounced him to Alexius. ‘The pious Emperor condemned him to be burnt alive and had ten thousand of his followers cast into the sea. He deprived his mother of her rank and drove her from the Court. These measures restored the tranquillity of the Empire » (1). The animosity shown by John the Deacon and his followers against Alexius is easy to understand. A « Chalcedonian ». Emperor who took an interest in theology was always dis- liked by the separated Armenian Church; and Alexius had taken action against the Monophysites at the time of the condemnation of the neo-Monophysite heretic Nilus, who had Armenian associates (*). It is possible that Anna Dalassena co-operated with Alexius in the suppression of Nilus’ heresy. It is also possible that the Armenian historians derived some of their information about the Imperial Court from members of the Ducas faction, which remained hostile to Anna Dalas- sena. It is noticeable that Matthew of Edessa speaks most eulogistically of the Emperor Michael Ducas (*). The Armenian (1) MarrHew or Epessa, Chronicle, CXXXIIL, (pp. 200-1 in Dulaurier’s translation, Paris, 1858), I have not been able to obtain a copy of the Armenian text. (2) ANNA ComNENA, X, 1, vol. II, pp. 187-89. These Armenians were clearly Monophysites, not Paulicians. Matthew of Edessa, CXXVIII, pp. 300-1, says that Alexius was virtuous and charitable except towards the Armenians, whom he hated and whom he wrong- fully wished to undergo re-baptism. (3) MarrHew of Evessa, CIX, p. 177: « This prince was good and522 S. RUNCIMAN Catholicus Gregory II seems to have visited Constantinople during that reign and to have been well received there. But Matthew’s account of Anna’s heres; explained away. Matthew derived his information about ( stantinopolitan affairs from various sources. When dealing specifically with the Crusades he used a Frankish source or sources openly hostile to the Greeks. He also seems to have used on occasion a hostile Armenian ecclesiastical source. But his attitude as regards internal affairs is not unfriendly towards Alexius; and except where Armenians and Franks are directly concerned, he shows no malice against the Greeks. His general knowledge of events at the capital is not bad, though he is occasionally inaccurate in detail (). Edessa, at the time at which he wrote, still had direct though occasionally interrupted communications with Constantinople; and Mat- thew must have had some informant who was in touch with affairs there, though the information often reached Matthew after a considerable delay. The heresiarch whom this passage fits best is Basil the Bogomil. Basil, whose doctrines definitely discouraged the veneration of the Cross, was the only heretic who was burnt by order of the Emperor and whose followers were all punished, — but by imprisonment for life and not by drowning (?) —. But Matthew is writing of an event that occurred about the year 1091; whereas Basil was condemned towards the very end of Alexius’s reign, after 1110, when Anna Dalassena was certainly dead. Of the other heresiarchs of the reign, John Italus, the neo-Platonist professor, in no had all the Christian virtues... He shone with the orthodoxy of his faith ». (1) For instance, he attributes a sinister role to the Empress Maia, because ‘she remarried so soon after the fall of her husband, Mi chael VII (ibid., CIX-CX, p. 178); and he believes that Nicephorus Melissenus actually reigned for four months in Constantinople (ibid., CXVII, p. 181). On the first point he probably recorded rumours current in Constantinople ; while Melissenus was for some time ac- cepted as Emperor by the troops in Anatolia, though he never held Constantinople. (2) ANNA ComNeNa, XV, viuix, vol. III, pp. 218-28. Basil’s condemnation is the last event that Anna records before her father’s death.THE END OF ANNA DALASSENA 523 way fits Matthews description ('); nor would Matthew use such abusive terms about Nilus, whose crime was his Armenian and Monophysite sympathies (2). There remains Blachernites, who was condemned in about the year 1094 (8). Blachernites was an ordained priest who had affiliations with the « Enthus- iasts », that is to say, the Massalians; and he made converts in many of the great houses of the capital. Like the Bogomils, the Massalians rejected the Cross, which they considered an object to be loathed rather than to be revered; and they were popularly supposed to worship Satan, whom they re- garded as the elder son of God (*). It would be easy for Mat- thew, writing at a distance of space and of time, to confuse Blachernites with Basil and attribute to the former the latter's dreadful fate. For it is clearly Blachernites to whom Matthew in fact refers. If there is any truth in Matthew's story, Anna Dalassena’s fall from power is connected with the heretical activities of Blachernites. The historian Gibbon sagely remarks that «calumny is more prone to exaggerate than to invent » (5), There must have been some basis, however slight, for Mat- thew’s story. We may remember Anna Comnena’s complete silence about her grandmother's later career. We may note that when she deals with other heresiarchs in her book, whether John Italus or Nilus or Basil, she plunges into details and gives full play to the theological education of which she was so proud. But Blachernites is dismissed in four sentences ; and the only theological detail given is that he consorted with Enthusiasts. We may wonder if perhaps she found the sub- ject somewhat embarrassing. On the other side it must be admitted that Zonaras does not breathe a hint’ of heretical (1) Ibid., V, vint-rx, vol. IL, pp. 32-40. (2) Ibid., X, 1, vol. II, pp. 187-89. (3) Zbid., p. 189. Anna says that Blachernites flourished ¢ soon after or, rather, about the same time» as Nilus, and tells of them just before she describes the revolt of the Pseudo-Diogenes. (4) For the Massalians or Enthusiasts, see AMANN’s article Messa- liens, in Vacant, Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, vol. X, coll, 792-95. (5) Grenon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter XLVII, on the Emperor Constantine Copronymus.524 S. RUNCIMAN complications when he tells of Anna Dalassena’s retirement, But, though Byzantine historians were very ready to criti- cize the ancestors of the Emperors under whom they lived ('), Zonaras, who was the Emperor Manuel I’s Drungarius of the Watch, while he might be ready to say that his master’s great- grandmother had been oppressive and unpopular, would hard- ly like to say that she had been mixed up with a peculiarly unsavoury heresy. His silence is a point in Anna Dalassena’s favour, but it is not a very strong point. It cannot counter- balance Matthew's positive statement, reinforced by Anna Comnena’s curious reticence, the discreditable story contained in the lost work of John the Deacon, and the known fact that Alexius was obliged to remove from power a mother to whom he was devoted and to whom he largely owed his throne. The priests of the Dualist tradition were almost all eloquent preachers and men of austere lives, religious teachers of a type that most easily impresses devout old ladies. It may be that Anna Dalassena began to patronize Blachernites be- fore she realized how heterodox were his doctrines. Or it may be that she herself had little to do with him but that the great houses which provided him with followers contained too many of her intimate friends. The details cannot be known ; but it seems certain that she was somehow too closely involved in his heresy. To the Mother of the Comneni Eastern Christen- dom owes a glorious dynasty of Orthodox Emperors. But she herself was doomed, to use the phrase of the poet Browning, to be sent « flying off to Hell with Manichee ». London. Steven Runciman, (1) E. g. The historians writing under Constantine VII, who follow the « Logothete » in freely criticizing Constantine's father, Leo VI.