Peter Frankopan

Byzantine trade privileges to Venice in the eleventh century: the chrysobull of 1092

The question of the grant by the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos of an extensive series of concessions to Venice in the late eleventh century has generated considerable attention among modern commentators. Of particular importance is the correct assessment of the date at which the generous privileges were awarded. Recent treatments of this subject have concluded that the traditional dating of 1082, which sets the Byzantine award in the context of the Norman attacks on Epirus of 1081–1085, is likely to be correct. This paper offers a rather different interpretation, arguing that the correct context for the concessions is in fact 1092. Moreover, it is stressed that this is the date provided on both the full versions of the chrysobull which survive in Latin translations. The paper sets out the case in support of this date on literary, palaeographical, numismatic and contextual grounds. Apart from having an impact on analysis of Byzantium’s relations with Venice in the eleventh century, this new interpretation also has important implications for our assessment of the Byzantine context for the First Crusade.

Turning Latin into Greek: Anna Komnene and the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi

This article examines the relationship between one of the most famous Byzantine sources, the Alexiad of Anna Komnene, and the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, written by William of Apulia at the end of the eleventh century. It shows that Anna not only had access to a substantial archive of material relating to the Normans of southern Italy, but also that the author drew extensively on William of Apulias account of the attacks of Robert Guiscard on Epirus in 1081–5. Multiple borrowings are identified, including a crucial case of mistranslation from the Latin into Greek, demonstrating that the Gesta lay at the heart of the Alexiads coverage of the Normans. It argues that Anna Komnene makes carefully judged variations from the southern Italian text, before suggesting that the latter was composed shortly before the Council of Bari (1098). It concludes with a suggestion that the contribution of William of Apulia is surreptitiously acknowledged by the Byzantine author.