Talk:Anna Komnene

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Armitagegr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikisource Link

The Elizabeth Dawes translation of the Alexiad is now available on English Wikisource. I'm a wikipedia new and I don't know how to insert the link at the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.133 (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs major revision

While it's obviously researched to some degree, the article is plagued by leaps of logic, lack of appropriate objectivity, and claims lacking any form of citation. It reads more like a high school paper than an encyclopedia article.

I did some revision (maybe went a little overboard with pointing out where it needs citing), but it needs a lot of work. --Falkan 00:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I removed any of your changes, but the constant citation notes were extremely distracting (and sometimes unnecessary...I'm sure we don't need to cite the fact that she wrote the Alexiad...). Adam Bishop 00:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"One of the best novels about Anna Komene "I, Anna Komene" is written by Vera Mutafchieva, a Bulgarian writer and historian." Isn't that subjective? "As was customary for nobility in the medieval times, Anna was betrothed at infancy." I'm not sure it was that ubiquitous.... Umma Kynes 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Parts on the Claim to the Throne also need revision - half of every sentence is in quotations. Elavina —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I came to say this... why are there so many "quotes" around "words" in this section? Things can be paraphrased, without the distracting quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.117.112 (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Anna's children?

Some of the links for Anna Comnena's children lead to other, similary named but different persons of the Byzantine times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apavlides24 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Artificial" style

I find it awkward that the majority of the known writers of the Comnenian period are sometimes cited as writing in an "artificial" style, as Anna Comnena is in this article. It would be at least as accurate, if not more correct, to say that she used a writing style showing evidence of the breadth of education available in Constantinople especially to the nobility. Her style is a very solid style, as solid as any other author's of that period, if not more. After all, her work is following that of Nikephoros Bryennios and telling the parts of the two authors apart is quite difficult. It seems to be a style used in Constantinople by the educated nobility. It is neither helpful nor instructive to call her style artificial just because it most likely differed from the style of speech of the average uneducated Greek-speaker across the largish empire, which style of speech she had probably rarely come across herself. It would seem more "artificial" for the majority of European writers of that period for example to write in Latin, which after all was to some (e.g. Gerald of Wales or the Anglo-Norman texts) a foreign language, though these other authors are rarely accused of writing in an "artificial" style. Skamnelis (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Greeks have a high standard to live up to. In any case, get used to it; it is a pedantic style and people will continue to compare it unfavorably with other eras. — LlywelynII 02:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre passage

I'm fairly sure the original editor just miswrote something but

Additionally, Anna demonstrates her close familial ties in describing the scene when her mother, Irene, was pregnant, waiting for two days to give birth so that Alexios could be there.<ref>Komnene 2009, p. 167-168.</ref> Historian [[Angeliki Laiou]] states that Anna presents this “as evidence of the obedience she showed her parents,” and as a demonstration of her familial affection.<ref>Laiou 2000, p. 3.</ref>

currently makes no sense at all. Anna's mother Irene "delaying" her own pregnancy says nothing about Anna's character. Are we simply talking about Anna's pregnancy which she delayed out of filial duty? or what part did Anna play in Irene's pregnancy that justifies any statements about Anna's character? or is this a mistranslation about Irene showing obedience to her husband? — LlywelynII 02:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tote Dubes

Not sure how the EB’s "Her chronology especially is defective" turned into the article's current "For the most part, her chronology is sound" but (a) the new variant view needs a citation and (b) could also use an explanation of the errors which caused the EB to object and how scholars came to revise their estimation. — LlywelynII 03:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can this really be "unique"?

She wrote the Alexiad, an account of her father’s reign, which is unique in that it was written by a princess about her father.

It seems extremely far-fetched that she is the only princess in history to have done this. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If you can name other examples that make this not unique, then you can say it's not. But as far as I know, it is extremely unique for a woman to be a historian in that era, let alone an actual princess. I cannot name a single other example of this happening. Sgtspliff (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Propose that the article is moved to Anna Comnena

The article states "commonly Latinized as Anna Comnena", if this is so then the article should be moved to its commonly recognised name per the section UCRN in the article title policy. -- PBS (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on some new sources?

Hi! I'm a student and very new to Wikipedia. I've started working on a bibliography to get a sense of the Anna Komnene before I think about editing anything. Let me know your thoughts on it and if you have any other reading material I should look into. Thank you! :)

Sources (In Chicago style at the moment. I'll change them later).

Gouma-Peterson, Thalia. Anna Komnene and Her Times. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities, Vol. 2201. Garland Medieval Casebooks ; Vol. 29. New York: Garland Publishing, 2000.

Pizzone, Aglae. The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature : Modes, Functions, and Identities. 2014.th ed. Byzantinisches Archiv, V. 28. Berlin: DE GRUYTER, 2014. doi:10.1515/9781614515197.

BUCKLEY, PENELOPE. Alexiad of Anna Komnene. CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2017.

Neville, Leonora Alice. Anna Komnene : The Life and Work of a Medieval Historian. Onassis Series in Hellenic Culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Vilimonovic, Larisa. Structure and Features of Anna Komnene's Alexiad. Emergence of a Personal History. Central European Medieval Studies. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018.

Frankopan, Peter1, peter.frankopan@worc.ox.ac.uk. "Turning Latin into Greek: Anna Komnene and the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi." Journal Of Medieval History 39, no. 1 (March 2013): 80-99. Humanities Source, EBSCOhost(accessed February 22, 2018).

Neville L. "Lamentation, History, and Female Authorship in Anna Komnene's Alexiad." Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 53, no. 1 (2013): 192-218.

Smythe, Dion C. "Middle Byzantine Family Values and Anna Komnene's Alexiad." In Byzantine Women : Varieties of Experience 800-1200, edited by Lynda Garland,125-140. Publications for the Centre for Hellenic Studies, King's College, London, 8. Aldershot England: Ashgate, 2006. Armitagegr (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

These sources look good. 174.255.133.239 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Armitagegr (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

purportedly Anna Comnena's face

What is the source of this image? Where did it come from? And who says that it is Anna Komnene who is depicted? For, as far as I know, there is no contemporary or near-contemporary depiction of Anna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.209.154 (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Commons file gives the source as a website called IstanbulKadinMuzesi.org (“Women's Museum İstanbul”) which in turn sources it to a website called WomeninWorldHistory.com:

• WomeninWorldHistory.com gives no source information about the image. It’s is a WP:SELFPUB website (blog) written by an author who has a few publications on general Women’s Studies topics (not Byzantine art or history). It appears to be written as a homeschool or teacher-aid for high school kids!

• IstanbulKadinMuzesi.org: I can’t find any sources verifying the academic credentials of the “Women's Museum İstanbul” (“an online museum devoted to the role played by women in İstanbul”) and it, too, looks likely to be a general women’s studies SELFPUB blog project.

I don’t believe that either website is a WP:RS for saying what this image is. Neither website, in fact, describes the image as being Anna Komnene - it just appears on a webpage about her, without any caption. Pending someone putting forward a reliable source for it, I think the image should be removed from the article. DeCausa (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve replaced it with an image of a 12th century manuscript of the Alexiad. DeCausa (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The image should also be deleted on Commons, shouldn't it?--Phso2 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, I’m not very familiar with how things work there. DeCausa (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You go on the file's description page on commons, click on the bottom left "Nominate for deletion" then copy-paste what you wrote here as "reason to delete".--Phso2 (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@DeCausa: some insightful user has finally discovered where this picture really come from--Phso2 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s impressive! ‘Needle in a haystack’ to link the two.DeCausa (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Best known"

Is she really best known nowadays for trying to usurp the throne? I would guess millions of people know she wrote a book but have not studied her or her book to be aware of her trying to take the throne? Middle More Rider (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the first sentence describing her is pretty flaky. 'Hospital administrator' in the first sentence??? The first sentence should straightforwardly say that she was a "Byzantine princess and author of the Alexiad, an account of the reign of her father, the 12th century Byzantine emperor, Alexios I Komnenos." The second sentence could go on to reference her role in Byzantine politics. DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Likewise I agree. (Except I personally would always call a Roman a Roman, never Byzantine, unless talking about someone from Byzantium, pre-Constantinople.) Middle More Rider (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the bit about her trying to usurp the throne should be removed entirely from it's current place of prominence on the top of this article. The details listed are now highly debated and most of the sources don't seem to back up the claims that she was involved or that she lived out the remainder of her days in a convent. I know Leonora Neville's interpretation, which backs up the claim I'm currently making, is mentioned later on in the article, but I think the current way this is all presented implies that Anna definitely tried to usurp her brother, thus it's one of the first things mentioned about her, and it's just some fringe opposition historians who think this might not have happened. But that's not really the case. Also, in response to Middle More Rider, I don't know that it's really our place to debate this topic. Historians have decided on these labels and we just have to use them, thus she's a Byzantine princess. Sgtspliff (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"Mathematician"?

One of the categories that she's in is Category:12th-century Greek mathematicians. I don't know anything about her besides what I've just read in this Wikipedia article, so: Is this correct? The reason I ask is because the only seemingly related things in the article are a couple small sentences saying she was educated in mathematics, alongside a bunch of other subjects. Is the fact that she was educated in mathematics what's being used to claim that she was a mathematician?

If so, that seems pretty weak to me; a lot of people are educated in mathematics. Obviously that was a lot less true then than it is now, but I imagine that it was probably a pretty standard part of the education of Byzantine royalty and nobility, or even of large swathes of the upper classes in general? So I feel like (if this is the only reason she's in there), perhaps she should be removed from the category. On the other hand, if there's evidence for her being a mathematician beyond the simple fact that she was educated in mathematics, I feel pretty strongly that it should be referenced in the article and cited.

She's also in Category:12th-century Byzantine physicians, medicine being one of the other things the article says she was "educated in", but I bring this up as a contrast: The article itself does lend credence to the idea that she was a physician (e.g. she was in charge of a large hospital, and taught medicine there; she was considered an expert on gout). As far as I see, there's nothing similar in the article for the idea that she was a mathematician.

-Rwv37 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)