Hm, I think Judith Tarr and Theophanu would be a good match, and I see I can get the book as an ebook for less than 2 Euros, so I'll aquire it!
This sound super interesting and... I'm gonna have to wait until I'm through the German podcast and starting this one to hear the story, huh? :PP (*)
The German podcast also has soap opera among royals galore. I mean, you're only three Emperors away of Henry IV, husband to Bertha (who he may or may not have seen as a sister) and then Adelheid/Eudoxia/Praxidis, she who accused him of a horrible sex life at the papal court. And before that, there's the "Three Popes with one Stroke" episode featuring Henry III deposing those three (and we get some juicy accounts about their scandals first) and starting a series of goody two shoes Popes, which is good for the church but really bad for his son. While Bamberg local hero Henry II does not have scandals to offer, he has another fierce Empress for a wife, Kunigunde, and he's the one European royalty can thank (ahem) for pointing the Church towards relations in the fourth degree or what not being incest and thus an impediment for marriage. (Not for his own marriage! He was very uxorious. But the definition of incest was a hobby of his. What can I say, he was educated as a priest for some years before his fate changed to his being able to become a Duke after all.)
Speaking of fierce Empresses, as you know all about original Adelheid the Empress, she who ruled even as a grandmother, you can see that making her into a pining semi-hysterical damsel is as bewildering an authorial decision as making Voltaire boring, can't you?
Gerbert d'Aurillac
Whereas when I got to the relevant podcasts, I thought, ah, that's the guy Mildred nominated as who Voltaire wanted to be. (French intellectual idol of young King who also accepts him as political mentor.) :)
Excellent, and same here (less than $2), so I shall read it too, eventually -- even if it's as boring as Publishers Weekly said, my sense is that Tarr is usually pretty good with her historicity (or at least noting when she's diverged), so I shall learn something, at least!
I confess that I have been paying more attention to the soap opera bits in any case, so I'm excited at the teasers for more :)
Speaking of fierce Empresses, as you know all about original Adelheid the Empress, she who ruled even as a grandmother, you can see that making her into a pining semi-hysterical damsel is as bewildering an authorial decision as making Voltaire boring, can't you?
I can indeed! I trust Tarr to do better than that :P
....Better than that, but Adelheid is the relentlessly mean and jealous mother-in-law in three quarters of the book, until Otto II. dies, at which point she becomes a respectable tough old bird and worthy ally. It just about works as a pov thing, there's only one of those in the novel (not Theophanu but her bff and cousin, who hates Adelheid for being relentlessly mean to Theophanu, though she later once the two ally grudglingly admits Adelheid has good qualities, too), but this is not a novel for Adelheid fans.
As you can deduce, I've now read it, and basically I liked it, it's well told, and most characters, including the main villain (Henry the Quarrelsome of course) aren't one note but layered, but alas for historicity, Judith Tarr seems to have based her novel on sources that were published in the 1960s. And research marches on. This unfortunately means two key premises of the book can't have happened, to wit: in the novel, Theophanu the HRE is actually the daughter of Theophano the Byzantine Empress and her first husband, the Emperor Romanos. Her bff and cousin (or rather, aunt), our true heroine and the title character, nicknamed Aspasia (as her birth name is also Theophano) is a sister of Romanos, and the daughter of the previous Emperor Constantine. (Which makes her literally born in the purple.) Theophano the Byzantine Empress is at the start of the novel on to her second marriage, to Nikopheros Phokas, brilliant General and lousy Emperor, and as Tarr is basing this on 1960s sources, Theophano the Byzantine Empress is absolutely guilty of arranging the murder of Nikopheros with her lover John Tsimitikes, who then ditches her, offering her as a scapegoat to the Patriarch, so he can be crowned by same. Tarr's novel has John (I.) Tsimitikes also kill Aspasia's (fictional) husband Demetrius for good measure, so she hates him. Now, current research has Theophanu the HRE being the niece of John Tismitikes, daughter of his sister, and thus not born in the Purple or having grown up in the palace at all, which makes for a completely different childhood than her being the daughter of Theophano the Byzantine Empress and Romanos and co-raised by Aspasia. This isn't Judith Tarr's fault (in the 1960s, "maybe she was the daughter of Romanos and Theophano" was still a theory for Theophanu the HRE), and John's coup plus Nikopheros' murder makes for a great suspenseful opening chapter, but it still means that the backstory is completely wrong (as far as we know today) and can't have happened.
Later on, when young Theophanu talks John the Ursurper into picking her to give to Otto the Great's emissaries for his son, there's also the problem that while John was more diplomatic than Nikopheros and did hand over one of his relations for the purpose of good relationships and diplomatic recognition of his newly gained status by Otto, it's doubtful that he would have sent not just one genuine Byzantine Princess to the Germans but two, since he okays Aspasia coming with her. Especially since the now widowed Aspasia could legitimize any alternate claimant. That's what I mean about two key premises being historically unlikely.
The novel itself, though, as a novel is very readable, and I suspect the Publisher's Weekly reviewer would have been fine had it been set among the Tudors or in another English history setting they were familiar with, instead of one that was new and requiring accordingly more attention. Gerbert the future Sylvester II is a key supporting character, and gets a couple of great scenes.
I'm reading it right now! (I'm a little less than halfway through.) Gerbert is great!
-is it non-historical for Adelheid to be a mean/jealous mother-in-law? I actually am having fun watching Adelheid, especially knowing what comes next -- and, I mean, I can understand it; from Aspasia's point of view, even though she isn't sympathetic towards Adelheid specifically, we do see through her eyes some of how hard it is to be a woman in power. ...Though I can see how it might not be so fun if one was a big Adelheid fan.
-Did Otto II really send Adelheid to Burgundy like in the book? (This may have been one of the podcast things I missed.)
-Ooh, thank you for pointing out how knowledge has changed! I hadn't thought of how Aspasia going as well isn't likely.
-Wait, remind me, what do people now think of Byzantine Empress Theophano and the likelihood she arranged the murder of Emperor Nikopheros?
-I got the impression from the podcast that Otto the Great was less great than he was sort of going around making unforced errors but was also really, really lucky. Whereas this book seems to buy in to the "great" part.
-I also got the impression from the podcast that the odds were good Theophanu might have been sent back or sent to a convent or otherwise disposed of, and that she was likely to have been terrified, whereas this Theophanu is all "cool! I'm gonna be HRE!"
The novel itself, though, as a novel is very readable, and I suspect the Publisher's Weekly reviewer would have been fine had it been set among the Tudors or in another English history setting they were familiar with, instead of one that was new and requiring accordingly more attention.
That makes a lot of sense. I don't find it boring!
is it non-historical for Adelheid to be a mean/jealous mother-in-law?
Honestly, we don't know. There's one contemporary chronicler, Odilo of Clurry, who says Adelheid and Theophanu did not get along (which made their later team-up so surprising), though of course the others, writing during the regency and later in Otto III's reign, would also have a vested interest in presenting them as harmonious. If you wanat to see the two women as hostile, you can also make an educated guess from Adelheid remaining in Italy most of the time during Theophanu's life time, and rarely venturing beyond the alps for co-hosting a diet, but then again, this makes total political sense - Adelheid was the one with the Italian connections, who knew all the power players and kept them in line! So basically, anything from "disliked each other intensely" to "tolerated each other" to "got along fine" is possible. But of course, in a novel you need drama and obstacles to overcome, so I wasn't exactly surprised that Adelheid was presented as an antagonist of Theophanu's pre Otto II's death. However, note that the novel omits as characters both her daughter Mathilde, the abbess of Quedlinburg, who in fact will play an important role in Operation Save Little Otto And the Regency and her daughter Emma (from her first marriage) - omitting the later, as said in the afterword with an apology, also ommitts an important reason for the possible temporary fallout between Otto II and Adelheid, because Emma was married to King Lothar of France. Her brother-in-law Charles accused her of adultery with a bishop; both Emma and the bishop were cleared of the suspicion in front of a diet, but if they hadn't been, Emma could have died. (Or at the very least ended up imprisoned.) Charles fled to, drumroll, Otto II's court, and this according to the podcast version was one very likely reason why Adelheid left for Burgundy. Judith Tarr, like I said, mentions this in the afterword too, but by leaving this out, and showing Adelheid as a mother exclusively in the context of being dominating and jealous vis a vis Otto II of course makes a deliberate characterisation choice. If she'd been shown getting along well with her daughters, and being protective about one of them, she would have been a more sympathetic character even before the big turnaround.
Did Otto II really send Adelheid to Burgundy like in the book? (This may have been one of the podcast things I missed.)
She did leave for Burgundy. The podcast has this being her choice, not Otto's, and likely in anger over the Emma-Charles matter. What annoyed me more is that she's presented as having been in leage with Henry the Quarrelsome at this point, which, no, I don't think anyone ever said she was. It also causes a slight continuity problem because later in the novel Adelheid says Henry just isn't capable of being Emperor (as opposed to local ruler of a fiefdom), so firstly, if novel!Adelheid thought and knew this, why did she support him earlier, and secondly, no matter how angry she is about Theophanu's influence, Otto II is her legacy. If Henry got on the throne, the dynasty Adelheid just founded with Otto the Great would have been dead upon arrival. No way.
Wait, remind me, what do people now think of Byzantine Empress Theophano and the likelihood she arranged the murder of Emperor Nikopheros?
With the caveat that "people" is Anthony Kalldellis and Robin the "History of Byzantium" podcaster, the thing is, John I. Tsimitzikes needed a scapegoat, immediately, so the Patriarch of Constantinople would crown him. So blaming Theophano came in handy. Also, years later, when Theophano's son Basil finally became Emperor in fact and not just in name, he had to duke it out with the Phokas family first, with Bardas Phokas, specifically, who was another nephew of Nikepheros Phokas. Since the Phokas family hardly could deny Basil was in fact the rightful Emperor, son of Romanos, grandson of Constantine, already crowned as a toddler (he'd been Emperor in name through the reigns of both Nikepheros and John; officially, they were co-Emperors; in fact, the main reason why Theophano married Nikepheros was to assure her sons would remain alive and would get a chance at ruling, because you have to recall Nikepheros was an incredibly popular general who'd scored major victories, and he would have become Emperor at this point in all likelihood no matter what, but if it had been through an coup and an usurpation, chances were little Basil and Constantine would have ended up castrated at best, dead at worst). But the Phokas could wage a propaganda war through presenting Basil's mother as this evil low born woman and adultress who'd organized the murder of their guy. (Especially since Basil did have his mother brought back from the island/monastery into which she'd been banished once he had rid himself of the last co-regent and assumed power himself. He was standing by Mom, in other words, and she died in the palace.) Leo the Deacon, the main source for blaming Theophano, was writing in the Basil versus the Phokas family fights.
None of this means Theophano couldn't have been complicit, mind. The graphic novel I recently read did have her co-organizing the death, but it also gave her sympathetic motivations - not only is Nikepheros a great general but a lousy Emperor who manages to go from folk military hero to hated by almost everyone in just a few years because he has no idea of how to do anything but leading armies, he's also intending to make his family, the Phokas clan, the next dynasty, renege on his promise and get rid of Theophano's sons, so she simply strikes first. (And then finds herself double crossed by John Tsimitzikes and Basil Lekapantos the Eunuch, but the later does promise to keep her sons alive, as they are also his nephews.) It's another case of "we just don't know", due to less than reliable sources.
I got the impression from the podcast that Otto the Great was less great than he was sort of going around making unforced errors but was also really, really lucky. Whereas this book seems to buy in to the "great" part.
Yep. I guess that's another thing that happens if your sources come from the 1960s. As Mildred said, Otto proves that more than one German ruler called "the Great" could have been the defeated instead if he'd been less lucky at key points in his reign. :) (Otto definitely had his shares of miracles of the House of , well, not Brandenburg.)
I also got the impression from the podcast that the odds were good Theophanu might have been sent back or sent to a convent or otherwise disposed of, and that she was likely to have been terrified, whereas this Theophanu is all "cool! I'm gonna be HRE!"
Not least because of the possible birthdates for Theophanu, Judith Tarr chooses the oldest - which makes her 18 when she marries - while the podcast and for that matter other sources go with the youngest, which makes her 13 to 14 years age when she comes to Italy. Plus, again, completely different background. If Theophanu is 14 years old and NOT born to the purple, if her best claim to royalty is being the niece of a recent ursurper, John, then she is most likely scared of being sent back, no matter how brave a face she puts on things. If Theophanu is 18 and the daughter of Emperor Romanos II, well, she has a completely different standing and not much to fear, even if she was born before Romanos became Emperor (but when he was an Emperor's son). She can count on being very much wanted by the Ottonians.
(I haven't finished yet -- but I'm getting there!)
However, note that the novel omits as characters both her daughter Mathilde, the abbess of Quedlinburg, who in fact will play an important role in Operation Save Little Otto And the Regency and her daughter Emma (from her first marriage)
Aw! Yeah, I see what you mean -- it would have been nice to have that as well. I do feel like, more so than I remember in her other novels, this one has been doing a lot of telling-not-showing... like, I felt that we had to take Aspasia's close relationship with Theophanu on faith a lot.
If Henry got on the throne, the dynasty Adelheid just founded with Otto the Great would have been dead upon arrival. No way.
Oh good, I'm glad you said this, because this was confusing me as to why she was supporting Henry! (I figured I had just missed a large whack of the podcast, because, uh, I do that sometimes.)
It just makes no historical sense for any version of Adelheid to support Henry the Quarrelsome against her son, even if we assume she hated every vibre of Theophanu's being and was seething in resentment. Her son is her future. At this point he doesn't yet have a son of his own, and like I said, if she backs Henry, then her dynasty is ended, there will be no heritage of her her blood left to the world, and this mattered to a medieval ruler. (By contrast, a scenario where she does nothing in the regency struggle and/or tries to get the regency exclusively for herself against Theophanu would have been possible, if you also assume she trusts in the Quarrelsome not killing little Otto.)
Now I do have a suspicion for the reason for this plot twist, which reminded me a bit of a similarly bewildering (in terms of history) plot invention in the movie Le Roi Danse, which is about Louis XIV and Lully and is deliciously homoerotic, but not only wipes out brother Philippe from existence but lets Anne of Austria, Louis' mother, conspire with an evil cousin of his against her son and back said cousin for the throne. Now firstly, of course in historical reality if Louis had died young Philippe the Gay would have become King, not some cousin, and that's why he doesn't exist in this film (which laudably does not want to vilify a homosexual character). Secondly, Anne wasn't just close to her oldest son, she fought for him in the uprising of the nobility that dominated Louis XIV's childhood. Again, he was her future and justification of life. Backing some Bourbon cousin because Louis is into ballet and doesn't listen to her politically anymore would not only have been majorly ooc for the real Anne but would have made no political sense whatsoever.
In both cases, I think the reason why the authors go for the Mean Mom option is this: buying sympathy for the son. With Louis, it's that all powerful rulers are really hard to sympathize with, and the film starts when Louis isn't a child anymore, so the one time in his life where you can present him as being in danger and threatened is already over. But as with curent day stories about rich men, there's always the mean unloving parent option. Usually it's the father, but even a movie taking plenty of liberties can't keep Louis XIII around, otherwouse one of our main characters wouldn't be Louis XIV, he'd be the Dauphin. So poor Anne has to be it.
Meanwhile, with Otto II., the problem for Tarr possibly was that she wanted readers to like him, to be a worthy spouse. Now Otto II. wasn't a bad guy, but he wasn't, as the podcast points out, as lucky as his father, which meant he didn't have any grand battles or political achievements to feature in the story. And "sided with wife against Mom" alone evne if you write Adelheid as relentlessly mean still doesn't cut it. But if he doesn't just have his cousin but his own mother against him and sends her away after having seen through her plot and defeated it, he's both sympathetic and has accompolished something.
this one has been doing a lot of telling-not-showing... like, I felt that we had to take Aspasia's close relationship with Theophanu on faith a lot.
They don't have many actual scenes together, it's true. I think that's another reasonw hy Theophanu had to be the daughter of Romanos II and Theophano instead of John Tsimitzikes' niece, so that she could have shared her childhood with Aspasia and the reader can buy their closeness with the backstory in mind. Evidently if the two had only just met when Theophanu gets married, Theophanu is the niece of Aspasia's enemy and they still have no more scenes post marriage, their closeness would not work at all.
But if he doesn't just have his cousin but his own mother against him and sends her away after having seen through her plot and defeated it, he's both sympathetic and has accompolished something.
That makes a lot of sense as to why the book did that even though it doesn't make historical sense. Poor Otto II, even in the book Theophanu's all "well, he isn't his dad, is he?" Lol.
I've finished, finally! I liked it with of course all the caveats above -- I feel like she did a better job investing me in the characters in some of her other books. I was also, okay, not expecting it to end with Aspasia and Ismail breaking up! (Of course Ismail couldn't stay and she couldn't leave, but I was hoping that they'd have a long-distance relationship or something!)
One thing I thought was kind of, idk, unknowingly (at least to the characters in the book) tragic is that so much is made of how the Ottos understand the idea of empire, and the Henrys don't, but of course Otto III never makes it to establishing that empire. Though I suppose that's why the book ends with Aspasia getting the training of little Henry. (I did really like that deal with Henry as a novelistic solution, even if it wasn't historical.)
I liked it for the same reason. Before the scene where Henry the Quarrelsome makes that deal with Aspasia for Henry our Bamberg Champion, I was wondering whether Judith Tarr just counted on 99% of her potential English speaking readers not knowing that Otto III will die as a very young man and without a child of his own, but no. Also, it makes the Quarrelsome a more interesting antagonist and more in line with his historical counterpart who after all did stop rebelling at this point and did urge little Henry to not follow into the Henrician footsteps and be faithful to his cousin instead. (Which future Henry II was.)
I don't know how far you are with the podcast, but Henry II was also married to a fabulous smart and tough lady, Kunigunde. (And when they didn't have any kids refused to do the blaming-the-woman thing but remained married and true to her.) So you could say that in the novel's world, he imprinted on Aspasia in the sense of valueing these qualities in a woman instead of being vexed by them/fearing them.
I was also, okay, not expecting it to end with Aspasia and Ismail breaking up! (Of course Ismail couldn't stay and she couldn't leave, but I was hoping that they'd have a long-distance relationship or something!)
I can't think of a known historical Christian/Muslim romance/marriage where one of the two parties did not convert. Now, Judith Tarr made Aspasia atypically relaxed about her religion (especially for a Byzantine princess - seriously, argueing theology was every Byzantine's favourite past time, and not just the imperial famamilies, or, to whote Gregory of Nyssa:
"The whole city [of Constantinople] is full of [arguments about Theology], the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing."
She may have thought that them actually staying together for good was too much. Also, let's not forget: Otto III? REALLY intense about being in a Christian Emperor. Super intense. If Ismail had still hung around at that point, it would not have meant good things for him, is what I'm saying.
but Henry II was also married to a fabulous smart and tough lady, Kunigunde. (And when they didn't have any kids refused to do the blaming-the-woman thing but remained married and true to her.)
Yes! I have gotten there! (I'm at the end of the Ottonian season, listening to the Q&A right now.) Kunigunde is excellent, and I love that he explicitly didn't blame her (seems very rare for this era??)
So you could say that in the novel's world, he imprinted on Aspasia in the sense of valueing these qualities in a woman instead of being vexed by them/fearing them.
Oh, I love that idea!
If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing."
:D This is great.
If Ismail had still hung around at that point, it would not have meant good things for him, is what I'm saying.
Ohhhhh. Wow. Yeah, I... can see why she had to have him go.
Not just for this one. *eyes Henry VIII of England*
Go you, for finishing the Ottonian season. If and when you and Mildred make it to Germany, and I get to show you Bamberg, we can do to the magnificent tomb of Henry and Kunigunde in our cathedral.
Details:
I'm of course very pleased Dirk the podcaster raved about how beautiful Bamberg is. (And it really made a stunning difference that Bamberg the city got the legacy of both Henry and Kunigunde, due to their childlessness. Mind you, we also lucked out that there was minimal war destruction in WWII, as opposed to Nuremberg which is just 60 km away and got 95% of its buildings bombed into smithereens so they had to be rebuild.)
Here's a baroque statue of Kunigunde, strategically placed on one of the main bridges:
Something you can't take a picture of is one of the most beautiful medieval manuscripts, the Apocalypse created for Henry II at Reichenau which the Bamberg Library owns; it has some of the best known Ottonian illuminations. In so many ways, the city still is the legacy of Henry and Kunigunde to the world.
Not just for this one. *eyes Henry VIII of England*
What I was thinking!
Kunigunde was also one of my favorite parts of the podcast, and if I ever make it to Bamberg, you will have to show me the sites in person! In the meantime, I shall enjoy your pictures.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: A few replies from the last post
This sound super interesting and... I'm gonna have to wait until I'm through the German podcast and starting this one to hear the story, huh? :PP (*)
The German podcast also has soap opera among royals galore. I mean, you're only three Emperors away of Henry IV, husband to Bertha (who he may or may not have seen as a sister) and then Adelheid/Eudoxia/Praxidis, she who accused him of a horrible sex life at the papal court. And before that, there's the "Three Popes with one Stroke" episode featuring Henry III deposing those three (and we get some juicy accounts about their scandals first) and starting a series of goody two shoes Popes, which is good for the church but really bad for his son. While Bamberg local hero Henry II does not have scandals to offer, he has another fierce Empress for a wife, Kunigunde, and he's the one European royalty can thank (ahem) for pointing the Church towards relations in the fourth degree or what not being incest and thus an impediment for marriage. (Not for his own marriage! He was very uxorious. But the definition of incest was a hobby of his. What can I say, he was educated as a priest for some years before his fate changed to his being able to become a Duke after all.)
Speaking of fierce Empresses, as you know all about original Adelheid the Empress, she who ruled even as a grandmother, you can see that making her into a pining semi-hysterical damsel is as bewildering an authorial decision as making Voltaire boring, can't you?
Gerbert d'Aurillac
Whereas when I got to the relevant podcasts, I thought, ah, that's the guy Mildred nominated as who Voltaire wanted to be. (French intellectual idol of young King who also accepts him as political mentor.) :)
Re: A few replies from the last post
I confess that I have been paying more attention to the soap opera bits in any case, so I'm excited at the teasers for more :)
Speaking of fierce Empresses, as you know all about original Adelheid the Empress, she who ruled even as a grandmother, you can see that making her into a pining semi-hysterical damsel is as bewildering an authorial decision as making Voltaire boring, can't you?
I can indeed! I trust Tarr to do better than that :P
Re: A few replies from the last post
As you can deduce, I've now read it, and basically I liked it, it's well told, and most characters, including the main villain (Henry the Quarrelsome of course) aren't one note but layered, but alas for historicity, Judith Tarr seems to have based her novel on sources that were published in the 1960s. And research marches on. This unfortunately means two key premises of the book can't have happened, to wit: in the novel, Theophanu the HRE is actually the daughter of Theophano the Byzantine Empress and her first husband, the Emperor Romanos. Her bff and cousin (or rather, aunt), our true heroine and the title character, nicknamed Aspasia (as her birth name is also Theophano) is a sister of Romanos, and the daughter of the previous Emperor Constantine. (Which makes her literally born in the purple.) Theophano the Byzantine Empress is at the start of the novel on to her second marriage, to Nikopheros Phokas, brilliant General and lousy Emperor, and as Tarr is basing this on 1960s sources, Theophano the Byzantine Empress is absolutely guilty of arranging the murder of Nikopheros with her lover John Tsimitikes, who then ditches her, offering her as a scapegoat to the Patriarch, so he can be crowned by same. Tarr's novel has John (I.) Tsimitikes also kill Aspasia's (fictional) husband Demetrius for good measure, so she hates him. Now, current research has Theophanu the HRE being the niece of John Tismitikes, daughter of his sister, and thus not born in the Purple or having grown up in the palace at all, which makes for a completely different childhood than her being the daughter of Theophano the Byzantine Empress and Romanos and co-raised by Aspasia. This isn't Judith Tarr's fault (in the 1960s, "maybe she was the daughter of Romanos and Theophano" was still a theory for Theophanu the HRE), and John's coup plus Nikopheros' murder makes for a great suspenseful opening chapter, but it still means that the backstory is completely wrong (as far as we know today) and can't have happened.
Later on, when young Theophanu talks John the Ursurper into picking her to give to Otto the Great's emissaries for his son, there's also the problem that while John was more diplomatic than Nikopheros and did hand over one of his relations for the purpose of good relationships and diplomatic recognition of his newly gained status by Otto, it's doubtful that he would have sent not just one genuine Byzantine Princess to the Germans but two, since he okays Aspasia coming with her. Especially since the now widowed Aspasia could legitimize any alternate claimant. That's what I mean about two key premises being historically unlikely.
The novel itself, though, as a novel is very readable, and I suspect the Publisher's Weekly reviewer would have been fine had it been set among the Tudors or in another English history setting they were familiar with, instead of one that was new and requiring accordingly more attention. Gerbert the future Sylvester II is a key supporting character, and gets a couple of great scenes.
Eagle's Daughter
-is it non-historical for Adelheid to be a mean/jealous mother-in-law? I actually am having fun watching Adelheid, especially knowing what comes next -- and, I mean, I can understand it; from Aspasia's point of view, even though she isn't sympathetic towards Adelheid specifically, we do see through her eyes some of how hard it is to be a woman in power. ...Though I can see how it might not be so fun if one was a big Adelheid fan.
-Did Otto II really send Adelheid to Burgundy like in the book? (This may have been one of the podcast things I missed.)
-Ooh, thank you for pointing out how knowledge has changed! I hadn't thought of how Aspasia going as well isn't likely.
-Wait, remind me, what do people now think of Byzantine Empress Theophano and the likelihood she arranged the murder of Emperor Nikopheros?
-I got the impression from the podcast that Otto the Great was less great than he was sort of going around making unforced errors but was also really, really lucky. Whereas this book seems to buy in to the "great" part.
-I also got the impression from the podcast that the odds were good Theophanu might have been sent back or sent to a convent or otherwise disposed of, and that she was likely to have been terrified, whereas this Theophanu is all "cool! I'm gonna be HRE!"
The novel itself, though, as a novel is very readable, and I suspect the Publisher's Weekly reviewer would have been fine had it been set among the Tudors or in another English history setting they were familiar with, instead of one that was new and requiring accordingly more attention.
That makes a lot of sense. I don't find it boring!
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Honestly, we don't know. There's one contemporary chronicler, Odilo of Clurry, who says Adelheid and Theophanu did not get along (which made their later team-up so surprising), though of course the others, writing during the regency and later in Otto III's reign, would also have a vested interest in presenting them as harmonious. If you wanat to see the two women as hostile, you can also make an educated guess from Adelheid remaining in Italy most of the time during Theophanu's life time, and rarely venturing beyond the alps for co-hosting a diet, but then again, this makes total political sense - Adelheid was the one with the Italian connections, who knew all the power players and kept them in line! So basically, anything from "disliked each other intensely" to "tolerated each other" to "got along fine" is possible. But of course, in a novel you need drama and obstacles to overcome, so I wasn't exactly surprised that Adelheid was presented as an antagonist of Theophanu's pre Otto II's death. However, note that the novel omits as characters both her daughter Mathilde, the abbess of Quedlinburg, who in fact will play an important role in Operation Save Little Otto And the Regency and her daughter Emma (from her first marriage) - omitting the later, as said in the afterword with an apology, also ommitts an important reason for the possible temporary fallout between Otto II and Adelheid, because Emma was married to King Lothar of France. Her brother-in-law Charles accused her of adultery with a bishop; both Emma and the bishop were cleared of the suspicion in front of a diet, but if they hadn't been, Emma could have died. (Or at the very least ended up imprisoned.) Charles fled to, drumroll, Otto II's court, and this according to the podcast version was one very likely reason why Adelheid left for Burgundy. Judith Tarr, like I said, mentions this in the afterword too, but by leaving this out, and showing Adelheid as a mother exclusively in the context of being dominating and jealous vis a vis Otto II of course makes a deliberate characterisation choice. If she'd been shown getting along well with her daughters, and being protective about one of them, she would have been a more sympathetic character even before the big turnaround.
Did Otto II really send Adelheid to Burgundy like in the book? (This may have been one of the podcast things I missed.)
She did leave for Burgundy. The podcast has this being her choice, not Otto's, and likely in anger over the Emma-Charles matter. What annoyed me more is that she's presented as having been in leage with Henry the Quarrelsome at this point, which, no, I don't think anyone ever said she was. It also causes a slight continuity problem because later in the novel Adelheid says Henry just isn't capable of being Emperor (as opposed to local ruler of a fiefdom), so firstly, if novel!Adelheid thought and knew this, why did she support him earlier, and secondly, no matter how angry she is about Theophanu's influence, Otto II is her legacy. If Henry got on the throne, the dynasty Adelheid just founded with Otto the Great would have been dead upon arrival. No way.
Wait, remind me, what do people now think of Byzantine Empress Theophano and the likelihood she arranged the murder of Emperor Nikopheros?
With the caveat that "people" is Anthony Kalldellis and Robin the "History of Byzantium" podcaster, the thing is, John I. Tsimitzikes needed a scapegoat, immediately, so the Patriarch of Constantinople would crown him. So blaming Theophano came in handy. Also, years later, when Theophano's son Basil finally became Emperor in fact and not just in name, he had to duke it out with the Phokas family first, with Bardas Phokas, specifically, who was another nephew of Nikepheros Phokas. Since the Phokas family hardly could deny Basil was in fact the rightful Emperor, son of Romanos, grandson of Constantine, already crowned as a toddler (he'd been Emperor in name through the reigns of both Nikepheros and John; officially, they were co-Emperors; in fact, the main reason why Theophano married Nikepheros was to assure her sons would remain alive and would get a chance at ruling, because you have to recall Nikepheros was an incredibly popular general who'd scored major victories, and he would have become Emperor at this point in all likelihood no matter what, but if it had been through an coup and an usurpation, chances were little Basil and Constantine would have ended up castrated at best, dead at worst). But the Phokas could wage a propaganda war through presenting Basil's mother as this evil low born woman and adultress who'd organized the murder of their guy. (Especially since Basil did have his mother brought back from the island/monastery into which she'd been banished once he had rid himself of the last co-regent and assumed power himself. He was standing by Mom, in other words, and she died in the palace.) Leo the Deacon, the main source for blaming Theophano, was writing in the Basil versus the Phokas family fights.
None of this means Theophano couldn't have been complicit, mind. The graphic novel I recently read did have her co-organizing the death, but it also gave her sympathetic motivations - not only is Nikepheros a great general but a lousy Emperor who manages to go from folk military hero to hated by almost everyone in just a few years because he has no idea of how to do anything but leading armies, he's also intending to make his family, the Phokas clan, the next dynasty, renege on his promise and get rid of Theophano's sons, so she simply strikes first. (And then finds herself double crossed by John Tsimitzikes and Basil Lekapantos the Eunuch, but the later does promise to keep her sons alive, as they are also his nephews.) It's another case of "we just don't know", due to less than reliable sources.
I got the impression from the podcast that Otto the Great was less great than he was sort of going around making unforced errors but was also really, really lucky. Whereas this book seems to buy in to the "great" part.
Yep. I guess that's another thing that happens if your sources come from the 1960s. As Mildred said, Otto proves that more than one German ruler called "the Great" could have been the defeated instead if he'd been less lucky at key points in his reign. :) (Otto definitely had his shares of miracles of the House of , well, not Brandenburg.)
I also got the impression from the podcast that the odds were good Theophanu might have been sent back or sent to a convent or otherwise disposed of, and that she was likely to have been terrified, whereas this Theophanu is all "cool! I'm gonna be HRE!"
Not least because of the possible birthdates for Theophanu, Judith Tarr chooses the oldest - which makes her 18 when she marries - while the podcast and for that matter other sources go with the youngest, which makes her 13 to 14 years age when she comes to Italy. Plus, again, completely different background. If Theophanu is 14 years old and NOT born to the purple, if her best claim to royalty is being the niece of a recent ursurper, John, then she is most likely scared of being sent back, no matter how brave a face she puts on things. If Theophanu is 18 and the daughter of Emperor Romanos II, well, she has a completely different standing and not much to fear, even if she was born before Romanos became Emperor (but when he was an Emperor's son). She can count on being very much wanted by the Ottonians.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
However, note that the novel omits as characters both her daughter Mathilde, the abbess of Quedlinburg, who in fact will play an important role in Operation Save Little Otto And the Regency and her daughter Emma (from her first marriage)
Aw! Yeah, I see what you mean -- it would have been nice to have that as well.
I do feel like, more so than I remember in her other novels, this one has been doing a lot of telling-not-showing... like, I felt that we had to take Aspasia's close relationship with Theophanu on faith a lot.
If Henry got on the throne, the dynasty Adelheid just founded with Otto the Great would have been dead upon arrival. No way.
Oh good, I'm glad you said this, because this was confusing me as to why she was supporting Henry! (I figured I had just missed a large whack of the podcast, because, uh, I do that sometimes.)
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Now I do have a suspicion for the reason for this plot twist, which reminded me a bit of a similarly bewildering (in terms of history) plot invention in the movie Le Roi Danse, which is about Louis XIV and Lully and is deliciously homoerotic, but not only wipes out brother Philippe from existence but lets Anne of Austria, Louis' mother, conspire with an evil cousin of his against her son and back said cousin for the throne. Now firstly, of course in historical reality if Louis had died young Philippe the Gay would have become King, not some cousin, and that's why he doesn't exist in this film (which laudably does not want to vilify a homosexual character). Secondly, Anne wasn't just close to her oldest son, she fought for him in the uprising of the nobility that dominated Louis XIV's childhood. Again, he was her future and justification of life. Backing some Bourbon cousin because Louis is into ballet and doesn't listen to her politically anymore would not only have been majorly ooc for the real Anne but would have made no political sense whatsoever.
In both cases, I think the reason why the authors go for the Mean Mom option is this: buying sympathy for the son. With Louis, it's that all powerful rulers are really hard to sympathize with, and the film starts when Louis isn't a child anymore, so the one time in his life where you can present him as being in danger and threatened is already over. But as with curent day stories about rich men, there's always the mean unloving parent option. Usually it's the father, but even a movie taking plenty of liberties can't keep Louis XIII around, otherwouse one of our main characters wouldn't be Louis XIV, he'd be the Dauphin. So poor Anne has to be it.
Meanwhile, with Otto II., the problem for Tarr possibly was that she wanted readers to like him, to be a worthy spouse. Now Otto II. wasn't a bad guy, but he wasn't, as the podcast points out, as lucky as his father, which meant he didn't have any grand battles or political achievements to feature in the story. And "sided with wife against Mom" alone evne if you write Adelheid as relentlessly mean still doesn't cut it. But if he doesn't just have his cousin but his own mother against him and sends her away after having seen through her plot and defeated it, he's both sympathetic and has accompolished something.
this one has been doing a lot of telling-not-showing... like, I felt that we had to take Aspasia's close relationship with Theophanu on faith a lot.
They don't have many actual scenes together, it's true. I think that's another reasonw hy Theophanu had to be the daughter of Romanos II and Theophano instead of John Tsimitzikes' niece, so that she could have shared her childhood with Aspasia and the reader can buy their closeness with the backstory in mind. Evidently if the two had only just met when Theophanu gets married, Theophanu is the niece of Aspasia's enemy and they still have no more scenes post marriage, their closeness would not work at all.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
That makes a lot of sense as to why the book did that even though it doesn't make historical sense. Poor Otto II, even in the book Theophanu's all "well, he isn't his dad, is he?" Lol.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
One thing I thought was kind of, idk, unknowingly (at least to the characters in the book) tragic is that so much is made of how the Ottos understand the idea of empire, and the Henrys don't, but of course Otto III never makes it to establishing that empire. Though I suppose that's why the book ends with Aspasia getting the training of little Henry. (I did really like that deal with Henry as a novelistic solution, even if it wasn't historical.)
Re: Eagle's Daughter
I don't know how far you are with the podcast, but Henry II was also married to a fabulous smart and tough lady, Kunigunde. (And when they didn't have any kids refused to do the blaming-the-woman thing but remained married and true to her.) So you could say that in the novel's world, he imprinted on Aspasia in the sense of valueing these qualities in a woman instead of being vexed by them/fearing them.
I was also, okay, not expecting it to end with Aspasia and Ismail breaking up! (Of course Ismail couldn't stay and she couldn't leave, but I was hoping that they'd have a long-distance relationship or something!)
I can't think of a known historical Christian/Muslim romance/marriage where one of the two parties did not convert. Now, Judith Tarr made Aspasia atypically relaxed about her religion (especially for a Byzantine princess - seriously, argueing theology was every Byzantine's favourite past time, and not just the imperial famamilies, or, to whote Gregory of Nyssa:
"The whole city [of Constantinople] is full of [arguments about Theology], the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing."
She may have thought that them actually staying together for good was too much. Also, let's not forget: Otto III? REALLY intense about being in a Christian Emperor. Super intense. If Ismail had still hung around at that point, it would not have meant good things for him, is what I'm saying.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Yes! I have gotten there! (I'm at the end of the Ottonian season, listening to the Q&A right now.) Kunigunde is excellent, and I love that he explicitly didn't blame her (seems very rare for this era??)
So you could say that in the novel's world, he imprinted on Aspasia in the sense of valueing these qualities in a woman instead of being vexed by them/fearing them.
Oh, I love that idea!
If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing."
:D This is great.
If Ismail had still hung around at that point, it would not have meant good things for him, is what I'm saying.
Ohhhhh. Wow. Yeah, I... can see why she had to have him go.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Not just for this one. *eyes Henry VIII of England*
Go you, for finishing the Ottonian season. If and when you and Mildred make it to Germany, and I get to show you Bamberg, we can do to the magnificent tomb of Henry and Kunigunde in our cathedral.
Details:
I'm of course very pleased Dirk the podcaster raved about how beautiful Bamberg is. (And it really made a stunning difference that Bamberg the city got the legacy of both Henry and Kunigunde, due to their childlessness. Mind you, we also lucked out that there was minimal war destruction in WWII, as opposed to Nuremberg which is just 60 km away and got 95% of its buildings bombed into smithereens so they had to be rebuild.)
Here's a baroque statue of Kunigunde, strategically placed on one of the main bridges:
Something you can't take a picture of is one of the most beautiful medieval manuscripts, the Apocalypse created for Henry II at Reichenau which the Bamberg Library owns; it has some of the best known Ottonian illuminations. In so many ways, the city still is the legacy of Henry and Kunigunde to the world.
Re: Eagle's Daughter
Not just for this one. *eyes Henry VIII of England*
What I was thinking!
Kunigunde was also one of my favorite parts of the podcast, and if I ever make it to Bamberg, you will have to show me the sites in person! In the meantime, I shall enjoy your pictures.