A HISTORY 
 
 OF THE
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 
 
 LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO 
 DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. 
 
 TORONTO
 
 A HISTOKY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EASTEEN EOMAN EMPIEE 
 
 FROM THE FALL OF IRENE TO THE 
 ACCESSION OF BASIL I.' 
 
 t (A.D. 802-867) 
 
 BY 
 
 J. B. BURY 
 
 REOI0S PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY 
 AND FELLOW OF KINO'S COLLEGE, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 
 
 ST. MAETIN'S STEEET, LONDON 
 
 1912
 
 COPYRIGHT
 
 KAEOLI KRVMBACHEK 
 VMBRAE
 
 PEEFACE 
 
 THE history of Byzantine civilization, in which social elements 
 of the West and the East are so curiously blended and fused 
 into a unique culture, will not be written for many years to 
 come. It cannot be written until each successive epoch has 
 been exhaustively studied and its distinguishing characteristics 
 clearly ascertained. The fallacious assumption, once accepted 
 as a truism, that the Byzantine spirit knew no change or 
 shadow of turning, that the social atmosphere of the Eastern 
 Rome was always immutably the same, has indeed been dis- 
 credited ; but even in recent sketches of this civilization by 
 competent hands we can see unconscious survivals of that 
 belief. The curve of the whole development has still to be 
 accurately traced, and this can only be done by defining each 
 section by means of the evidence which applies to that section 
 alone. No other method will enable us to discriminate the 
 series of gradual changes which transformed the Byzantium 
 of Justinian into that so different in a thousand ways of 
 the last Constantine. 
 
 This consideration has guided me in writing the present 
 volume, which continues, but on a larger scale, my History of 
 the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, published 
 more than twenty years ago, and covers a period of two 
 generations, which may be called for the sake of convenience 
 the Amorian epoch. I think there has been a tendency to 
 regard this period, occurring, as it does, between the revival 
 under the Isaurian and the territorial expansion under the 
 
 vii
 
 viii EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Basilian sovrans, as no more than a passage from the one to 
 the other; and I think there has been a certain failure to 
 comprehend the significance of the Amorian dynasty. The 
 period is not a mere epilogue, and it is much more than a 
 prologue. It has its own distinct, co-ordinate place in the 
 series of development ; and I hope that this volume may 
 help to bring into relief the fact that the Amorian age meant 
 a new phase in Byzantine culture. 
 
 In recent years various and valuable additions have been 
 made to the material available to the historian. Arabic and 
 Syriac sources important for the Eastern wars have been 
 printed and translated. Some new Greek documents, buried 
 in MSS., have been published. Perhaps the most unexpected 
 accessions to our knowledge concern Bulgaria, and are due to 
 archaeological research. Pliska, the palace of the early princes, 
 has been excavated, and a number of interesting and difficult 
 inscriptions have come to light there and in other parts of 
 the country. This material, published and illustrated by 
 MM. Uspenski and Shkorpil, who conducted the Pliska 
 diggings, has furnished new facts of great importance. 
 
 A further advance has been made, since the days when 
 Finlay wrote, by the application of modern methods of 
 criticism to the chronicles on which the history of this 
 period principally depends. The pioneer work of Hirsch 
 (Byzantinische Studien), published in 1876, is still an indis- 
 pensable guide ; but since then the obscure questions connected 
 with the chronographies of George and Simeon have been 
 more or less illuminated by the researches of various scholars, 
 especially by de Boor's edition of George and Sreznevski's 
 publication of the Slavonic version of Simeon. But though 
 it is desirable to determine the mutual relations among the 
 Simeon documents, the historian of Theophilus and Michael III. 
 is more concerned to discover the character of the sources
 
 PREFACE ^ ix 
 
 which Simeon used. My own studies have led me to the 
 conclusion that his narrative of those reigns is chiefly based 
 on a lost chronicle which was written before the end of the 
 century and was not unfavourable to the Amorian dynasty. 
 
 Much, too, has been done to elucidate perplexing historical 
 questions by the researches of A. A. Vasil'ev (to whose book 
 on the Saracen wars of the Amorians I am greatly indebted), 
 E. W. Brooks, the late J. Pargoire, 0. de Boor, and many 
 others. 1 The example of a period not specially favoured may 
 serve to illustrate the general progress of Byzantine studies 
 during the last generation. 
 
 When he has submitted his material to the requisite 
 critical analysis, and reconstructed a narrative accordingly, 
 the historian has done all that he can, and his responsibility 
 ends. When he has had before him a number of independent 
 reports of the same events, he may hope to have elicited an 
 approximation to the truth by a process of comparison. But 
 how when he has only one ? There are several narratives in 
 this volume which are mainly derived from a single independent 
 source. The usual practice in such cases is, having eliminated 
 any errors and inconsistencies that we may have means of 
 detecting, and having made allowances for bias, to accept the 
 story as substantially true and accurate. The single account 
 is assumed to be veracious when there is no counter-evidence. 
 But is this assumption valid ? Take the account of the 
 murder of Michael III. which has come down to us. If each 
 of the several persons who were in various ways concerned 
 in that transaction had written down soon or even immedi- 
 ately afterwards a detailed report of what happened, each 
 
 1 I regret that the paper of Mr. Brooks on the Age of Basil I. (in Byzanti- 
 nische Zeitschrift, xx.) was not published till this volume was corrected for 
 press. His arguments for postponing the date of Basil's birth till the reign of 
 Theophilus have much weight. But, if we accept them, I think that the 
 tradition retains such value as it possessed for dating the return of the Greek 
 captives from Bulgaria (cp. below, p. 371).
 
 x EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 endeavouring honestly to describe the events accurately, it is 
 virtually certain that there would have been endless divergencies 
 and contradictions between these reports. Is there, then, a 
 serious probability that the one account which happens to have 
 been handed down, whether written by the pen or derived from 
 the lips of a narrator of whose mentality we have no know- 
 ledge, is there a serious probability that this story presents 
 to our minds images at all resembling those which would 
 appear to us if the scenes had been preserved by a cinemato- 
 graphic process ? I have followed the usual practice it is 
 difficult to do otherwise ; but I do not pretend to justify it. 
 There are many portions of medieval and of ancient " recorded " 
 history which will always remain more or less fables convenues, 
 or for the accuracy of which, at least, no discreet person will 
 be prepared to stand security even when scientific method has 
 done for them all it can do. 
 
 It would not be just to the leading men who guided 
 public affairs during this period, such as Theophilus and 
 Bardas, to attempt to draw their portraits. The data are 
 entirely insufficient. Even in the case of Photius, who has 
 left a considerable literary legacy, while we can appreciate, 
 perhaps duly, his historical significance, his personality is only 
 half revealed ; his character may be variously conceived ; and 
 the only safe course is to record his acts without presuming 
 to know how far they were determined by personal motives. 
 
 J. B. BURY. 
 
 ROME, January 1912.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTEE I 
 
 NICEPHORUS I., STAURACIUS, AND MICHAEL I. (A.D. 802-813) 
 
 SEC. PAGE 
 
 1. THE FALL OF IRENE ....... 1 
 
 2. NICEPHORUS I. (A.D. 802-811) ..... 8 
 
 3. STAURACIUS (A.D. 811) ...... 16 
 
 4. REIGN AND POLICY OF MICHAEL I. (A.D. 811-813) . . 21 
 
 5. THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLICIES OF NICEPHORUS "I. AND MICHAEL I. 31 
 
 CHAPTEE II 
 
 LEO V., THE ARMENIAN, AND THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 
 (A.D. 813-820) 
 
 1. REIGN AND ADMINISTRATION OF LEO V. . . . .43 
 
 2. CONSPIRACY OF MICHAEL AND MURDER OF LEO ... 48 
 
 3. THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 56 
 
 CHAPTEE III 
 
 MICHAEL II., THE AMORIAN (A.D. 820-829) 
 
 1. THE ACCESSION OF MICHAEL (A.D. 820). THE CORONATION AND 
 
 MARRIAGE OF THEOPHILUS (A.D. 821) .... 77 
 
 2. THE CIVIL WAR (A.D. 821-823) ..... 84 
 
 3. THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II. . . . 110 
 
 xi
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THEOPHILUS (A.D. 829-842) 
 
 SEC. PAGE 
 
 1. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS . . . .120 
 
 2. THE BUILDINGS OF THEOPHILUS ..... 129 
 
 3. ICONOCLASM ........ 135 
 
 4. DEATH OF THEOPHILUS (A.D. 842) AND RESTORATION OF ICONS 
 
 (A.D. 843) . 143 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 MICHAEL III. (A.D. 842-867) 
 
 1. THE REGENCY (A.D. 842-856) ..... 154 
 
 2. BARDAS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN (A.D. 856-866) . . 161 
 
 3. THE ELEVATION OF BASIL (A.D. 866) AND THE MURDER OF 
 
 MICHAEL (A.D. 867) .... 174 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 180 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 FINANCIAL AND MILITARY ADMINISTRATION 
 
 1. FINANCE ........ 210 
 
 2. MILITARY AND NAVAL ORGANIZATION . . . .221 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE SARACEN WARS 
 
 1. THE EMPIRE OF THE ABBASIDS ..... 232 
 
 2. BAGHDAD . ... . . . . 238 
 
 3. THE FRONTIER DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE AND THE CALIPHATE 244
 
 . CONTENTS xiii 
 
 SEC. PAGE 
 
 4. THE WARFARE IN THE REIGNS OF HARUN AND MAMTJN 
 
 (A.D. 802-833) 249 
 
 5. THE EMBASSY OF JOHN THE GRAMMARIAN AND THE FLIGHT OF 
 
 MANUEL ........ 256 
 
 6. THE CAMPAIGNS OF A.D. 837 and 838 ... 259 
 
 7. THE WARFARE OF A.D. 839-867 . 273 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE SARACEN CONQUESTS OF CRETE AND SICILY 
 
 1. THE CONQUEST OF CRETE ...... 287 
 
 2. THE INVASION OF SICILY ...... 294 
 
 3. THE INVASION OF SOUTHERN ITALY .... 308 
 
 CHAPTEE X 
 
 KELATIONS WITH THE WESTERN EMPIRE. VENICE . 317 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 BULGARIA 
 
 1. THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM ...... 332 
 
 2. KRUM AND NICEPHORUS I. . . . . . . 339 
 
 3. KRUM AND MICHAEL I. . . . . . 345 
 
 4. THE BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE (A.D. 813) . . 353 
 
 5. THE REIGN OF OMURTAG ...... 359 
 
 6. THE REIGNS OF MALAMIR AND BORIS .... 369 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE CONVERSION OF SLAVS AND BULGARIANS 
 
 1. THE SLAVS IN GREECE ...... 375 
 
 2. THE CONVERSION OF BULGARIA ..... 381 
 
 3. THE SLAVONIC APOSTLES ...... 392
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 CHAPTEE XIII 
 
 THE EMPIRE OF THE KHAZARS AND THE PEOPLES OF THE NORTH 
 
 SEC. PAGE 
 
 1. THE KHAZARS ....... 402 
 
 2. THE SUBJECTS AND NEIGHBOURS OF THE KHAZARS . . 408 
 
 3. THE RUSSIANS AND THEIR COMMERCE .... 411 
 
 4. IMPERIAL POLICY. THE RUSSIAN DANGER . . . 414 
 
 5. THE MAGYARS 423 
 
 CHAPTEE XIV 
 
 ART, LEARNING, AND EDUCATION IN THE AMORIAN PERIOD 
 
 1. ART ......... 429 
 
 2. EDUCATION AND LEARNING . . . 434 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 I. THE LETTERS OF THEODORE OF STUDION . . . 451 
 
 II. GEORGE'S CHRONICLE ...... 453 
 
 III. THE CHRONICLE OF SIMEON, MAGISTER AND LOGOTHETE . 455 
 
 IV. GENESIOS AND THE CONTINUATION OF THEOPHANES . . 460 
 V. CHRONOLOGY OF THE WAR BETWEEN MICHAEL II. AND 
 
 THOMAS THE SLAV ...... 462 
 
 VI. THE FAMILY OF THEOPHILUS ..... 465 
 
 VII. THE FALL OF THEODORA (chronology] .... 469 
 
 VIII. THE WARFARE WITH THE SAHACENS IN A.D. 830-832 . . 472 
 
 IX. THE REVOLT OF EUPHEMIOS ..... 478 
 
 X. PRESIAM, MALAMIR ...... 481 
 
 XI. ON SOME OF THE SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF CONSTANTINE 
 
 AND METHODIUS ...... 485 
 
 XII. THE MAGYARS .... 489
 
 CONTENTS xv 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 I. SOURCES 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1. General . . . . . . . .493 
 
 la. Hagiograplrical ....... 495 
 
 2. Western ........ 497 
 
 3. Oriental ........ 498 
 
 4. Uelating to the North (Slavs, Khazars, etc. etc.) . . .499 
 4a. Relating to Constautine (Cyril) and Methodius . . . 500 
 
 5. Archaeological (including Coins and Seals) .... 501 
 A. Criticism, etc., of Sources ..... 502 
 
 II. MODERN WORKS 
 
 1. General Histories ....... 503 
 
 2. Monographs and Works bearing on special portions of the subject . 503 
 
 3. Works relating primarily to Western Europe . . . 505 
 
 4. Works relating primarily to Eastern Europe or the Saracens . 505 
 
 5. Works relating primarily to Northern Europe (Slavs, Russians, 
 
 Hungarians, etc.) ....... 506 
 
 5a. Works relating to Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius . . 506 
 
 6. Civilization ........ 507 
 
 7. Administration, Institutions, Laws ^ 507 
 
 8. Geography ........ 508 
 
 8. Maps ......... 509 
 
 9. Topography of Constantinople and adjacent regions . . . 509 
 10. Chronology and Genealogy ...... 510 
 
 INDEX 
 
 I. ENGLISH ........ 511 
 
 II. GREEK 530
 
 CHAPTEK I 
 
 NICEPHOKUS I., STAURACIUS, AND MICHAEL I. 
 (A.D. 802-813) 
 
 1. The Fall of Irene 
 
 THE Isaurian or Syrian dynasty, which had not only discharged 
 efficiently the task of defending the Roman Empire against 
 the Saracens and Bulgarians, but had also infused new life 
 into the administration and institutions, terminated inglori- 
 ously two years after the Imperial coronation of Charles the 
 Great at Rome. Ambassadors of Charles were in Con- 
 stantinople at the time of the revolution which hurled the 
 Empress Irene from the throne. Their business at her court 
 was to treat concerning a proposal of marriage from their 
 master. It appears that the Empress entertained serious 
 thoughts of an alliance which her advisers would hardly have 
 suffered her to contract, 1 and the danger may have precipi- 
 tated a revolution which could not long be postponed. Few 
 palace revolutions have been more completely justified by the 
 exigencies of the common weal, and if personal ambitions had 
 not sufficed to bring about the fall of Irene, public interest 
 would have dictated the removal of a sovran whose incapacity 
 must soon have led to public disaster. 
 
 The career of Irene of Athens had been unusually brilliant. 
 An obscure provincial, she was elevated by a stroke of fortune 
 to be the consort of the heir to the greatest throne in Europe. 
 Her husband died after a short reign, and as their son was a 
 mere child she was left in possession of the supreme power. 
 She was thus enabled to lead the reaction against iconoclasm, 
 and connect her name indissolubly with an Ecumenical 
 
 1 For this negotiation see further below, Chap. X. 
 
 1 B
 
 2 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 Council. By this policy she covered herself with glory in the 
 eyes of orthodox posterity ; she received the eulogies of popes ; 
 and the monks, who basked in the light of her countenance, 
 extolled her as a saint. We have no records that would 
 enable us to draw a portrait of Irene's mind, but we know 
 that she was the most worldly of women, and that love of 
 power was a fundamental trait of her character. When her 
 son Constantine was old enough to assume the reins of 
 government, she was reluctant to retire into the background, 
 and a struggle for power ensued, which ended ultimately in 
 the victory of the mother. The son, deprived of his eyesight, 
 was rendered incapable of reigning (A.D. 797), and Irene 
 enjoyed for five years undivided sovran power, not as a regent, 
 but in her own right. 
 
 Extreme measures of ambition which, if adopted by 
 heretics, they would execrate as crimes, are easily pardoned or 
 overlooked by monks in the case of a monarch who believes 
 rightly. But even in the narrative of the prejudiced monk, 
 who is our informant, we can see that he himself disapproved 
 of the behaviour of the " most pious " Irene, and, what is more 
 important, that the public sympathy was with her son. Her 
 conduct of the government did not secure her the respect 
 which her previous actions had forfeited. She was under the 
 alternating influence of two favourite eunuchs, 1 whose intrigues 
 against each other divided the court. After the death of 
 Stauracius, his rival Aetius enjoyed the supreme control of the 
 Empress and the Empire. 2 He may have been a capable man ; 
 but his position was precarious, his power was resented by the 
 other ministers of state, and, in such circumstances, the policy 
 of the Empire could not be efficiently carried on. He united 
 in his own hands the commands of two of the Asiatic Themes, 
 the Opsikian and the Anatolic, and he made his brother Leo 
 strategos of both Macedonia and Thrace. By the control of 
 the troops of these provinces he hoped to compass his scheme 
 of raising Leo to the Imperial throne. 
 
 We can hardly doubt that the political object of mitigating 
 
 1 (iriffT-f]6ioi 6vres TTJS pacriXelas, ii. 97, of Odrysian nobles who had 
 Theoph. A.M. 6290. influence with the king). In the 
 
 2 We may describe his position as tenth and eleventh centuries the 
 that of first minister an unofficial irapaBwaffretiuv regularly appears in 
 position expressed by irapaSwaffTftiuv the reigns of weak emperors. 
 
 (a word which occurs in Thucydides,
 
 SECT, i THE FALL OF IRENE 3 
 
 her unpopularity in the capital was the motive of certain 
 measures of relief or favour which the Empress adopted in 
 March A.D. 801. She remitted the "urban tribute," the 
 principal tax paid by the inhabitants of Constantinople, 1 but 
 we are unable to say whether this indulgence was intended to 
 be temporary or permanent. She lightened the custom dues 
 which were collected in the Hellespont and the Bosphorus. 
 We may question the need and suspect the wisdom of either 
 of these measures ; but a better case could probably be made 
 out for the abolition of the duty on receipts. This tax, 
 similar to the notorious Chrysargyron which Anastasius I. did 
 away with, was from the conditions of its collection especially 
 liable to abuse, and it was difficult for the fisc to check the 
 honesty of the excise officers who gathered it. We have a 
 lurid picture of the hardships which it entailed. 2 Tradesmen 
 of every order were groaning under extravagant exactions. 
 Sheep -dealers and pig -dealers, butchers, wine -merchants, 
 weavers and shoemakers, fullers, bronzesmiths, goldsmiths, 
 workers in wood, perfumers, architects are enumerated as 
 sufferers. The high-roads and the sea -coasts were infested 
 by fiscal officers demanding dues on the most insignificant 
 articles. When a traveller came to some narrow defile, he 
 would be startled by the sudden appearance of a tax-gatherer, 
 sitting aloft like a thing uncanny. 3 The fisherman who 
 caught three fishes, barely enough to support him, was obliged 
 to surrender one to the necessities of the treasury, or rather 
 of its representative. Those who made their livelihood by 
 catching or shooting birds 4 were in the same predicament. 
 It is needless to say that all the proceeds of these exactions 
 did not flow into the fisc ; there was unlimited opportunity 
 for peculation and oppression on the part of the collectors. 5 
 
 We learn that Irene abolished this harsh and impolitic 
 system from a congratulatory letter addressed to her on the 
 
 1 For this tax see below, Chap. OdXacrvav, OVKTI rjireip&rai apyvpt- 
 VII. 1. Theoph. A.M. 6293. frvrai 8.81x0. Kara TOI>J ffrevuirovs <*K TUV 
 
 2 See Theodore Stud. Epp. i. 6, ^>riKaOT]/j.fr(av&a'TrepaypiovTiv6s8alfjLovos. 
 who says that the <rrpayya\la of violent 4 The ro^njs and the i&vT'fis. 
 
 and unjust exactions which existed 5 Theodore also mentions the re- 
 had escaped the notice of Irene's pre- moval of a hardship suffered by 
 decessors. By her measure Tripos soldiers' wives, who, when they lost 
 ddidas iro\vir\affios ffvveeic6irri (p. 932). their husbands, were required to pay 
 
 3 Theodore, ib. OVK^TI ai odol death duties rrjv virtp TOV (tavovros 
 TfXwvovvrai 6'crcu Kara yijv Serai Kara e\eeivi)v Kal airdvOpwirov e^airalr-rjffiv.
 
 4 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 occasion by Theodore, the abbot of Studion. We must 
 remember that the writer was an ardent partisan of the 
 Empress, whom he lauds in hyperbolic phrases, according to 
 the manner of the age, and we may reasonably suspect that he 
 has overdrawn the abuses which she remedied in order to 
 exalt the merit of her reform. 1 
 
 The monks of Studion, driven from their cloister by her 
 son, had been restored with high honour by Irene, and we may 
 believe that they were the most devoted of her supporters. 
 The letter which Theodore addressed to her on this occasion 
 shows that in his eyes her offences against humanity counted 
 as nothing, if set against her services to orthodoxy and 
 canonical law. It is characteristic of medieval Christianity 
 that one who made such high professions of respect for 
 Christian ethics should extol the " virtue " of the woman who 
 had blinded her son, and assert that her virtue has made her 
 government popular and will preserve it unshaken. 
 
 Even if Irene's capacity for ruling had equalled her appetite 
 for power, and if the reverence which the monks entertained 
 for her had been universal, her sex was a weak point in her 
 position. Other women had governed Pulcheria, for instance 
 in the name of an Emperor ; but Irene was the first who had 
 reigned alone, not as a regent, but as sole and supreme autocrat. 
 This was an innovation against which no constitutional 
 objection seems to have been urged or recognized as valid at 
 Constantinople ; though in Western Europe it was said that 
 the Eoman Empire could not devolve upon a woman, and this 
 principle was alleged as an argument justifying the coronation 
 of Charles the Great. But in the army there was undoubtedly 
 a feeling of dissatisfaction that the sovran was disqualified 
 by her sex from leading her hosts in war ; and as the spirit of 
 iconoclasm was still prevalent in the army, especially in the 
 powerful Asiatic Themes, there was no inclination to waive 
 this objection in the case of the restorer of image-worship. 2 
 
 1 It is remarkable that Theophanes to be disclosed undesignedly by an 
 (loc. cit.} does not mention directly admirer, the deacon Ignatius, who 
 the existence of the abuses described speaks of her as a woman, and then 
 by Theodore. The reforms for which almost apologizes for doing so. Vit. 
 Theodore chiefly thanks her must be Niceph. 146 rb Kpa.Ta.i6(f>poi> exflvo Kal 
 included in the chronicler's critv &\\ois <pi\66eov ytivatov etirep ywaiKa 6^/j.is 
 iroXXotj. KaXelv TTJV Kal dvdpuv T< evee/Sei Sievey- 
 
 2 That her sex was regarded as a Kovaav 
 disadvantage by public opinion seems
 
 SECT, i THE FALL OF IRENE 5 
 
 The power exercised by the eunuch Aetius was intolerable 
 to many of the magnates who held high offices of state, and 
 they had good reason to argue that in the interests of the 
 Empire, placed as it was between two formidable foes, a 
 stronger government than that of a favourite who wielded 
 authority at the caprice of a woman was imperatively required. 
 The negotiations of the Empress with Charles the Great, and 
 the arrival of ambassadors from him and the Pope, to discuss 
 a marriage between the two monarchs which should restore 
 in Eastern and Western Europe the political unity of the 
 Roman Empire once more, were equally distasteful and alarming 
 to Aetius and to his opponents. The overtures of Charles 
 may well have impressed the patricians of New Eome with 
 the danger of the existing situation and with the urgent need 
 that the Empire should have a strong sovran to maintain 
 its rights and prestige against the pretensions of the Western 
 barbarian who claimed to be a true Augustus. It might also be 
 foreseen that Aetius would now move heaven and earth to secure 
 the elevation of his brother to the throne as speedily as possible. 
 
 These circumstances may sufficiently explain the fact that 
 the discontent of the leading officials with Irene's government 
 culminated in October A.D. 802, while the Western ambassadors 
 were still in Constantinople. 1 The leader of the conspiracy 
 was Nicephorus, who held the post of Logothete of the General 
 Treasury, and he was recognized by his accomplices as the 
 man who should succeed to the Imperial crown. His two 
 chief supporters were Nicetas Triphyllios, the Domestic of the 
 scholarian guards, and his brother Leo, who had formerly been 
 strategos of Thrace. The co-operation of these men was 
 highly important ; for Aetius counted upon their loyalty, as 
 Nicetas had espoused his part against his rival Stauracius. 2 
 Leo, who held the high financial office of Sakellarios, and the 
 quaestor Theoktistos joined in the plot, and several other 
 patricians. 3 
 
 1 Theoph. 475 27 , 47803. The manner them T&V tiribpKtav KO.I So\fpdv Tpi<pv\- 
 in which the presence of the am- \luv (476). Michael Syr. iii. 12 as- 
 bassadors (airoKpuridpioi) is noticed signs a leading role to Nicetas. 
 
 in the second passage (opuvrwv TO. 3 As Leo Serantapechos and Gregory, 
 
 Trpdy/j.aTa) suggests that Theophanes son of Musulakios (formerly Count of 
 
 derived some of his information from the Opsikian Theme). Also some of 
 
 their account of the transactions. the chief officers of the other Tagmata 
 
 2 For this reason Theophanes calls (the Excubitors and the Arithmos).
 
 6 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 On fche night of October 31 the conspirators appeared 
 before the Brazen Gate (Chalke) of the Palace, and induced 
 the guard to admit them, by a story which certainly bore 
 little appearance of likelihood. They said that Aetius had 
 been attempting to force the Empress to elevate his brother 
 to the rank of Augustus, and that she, in order to obviate his 
 importunities, had dispatched the patricians at this late hour 
 to proclaim Nicephorus as Emperor. The authority of such 
 important men could hardly be resisted by the guardians 
 of the gate, and in obedience to the supposed command of 
 their sovran they joined in proclaiming the usurper. It was 
 not yet midnight. Slaves and others were sent to all quarters 
 of the city to spread the news, and the Palace of Eleutherios, 
 in which the Augusta was then staying, was surrounded by 
 soldiers. This Palace, which she had built herself, was probably 
 situated to the north of the harbour of Eleutherios, somewhere 
 in the vicinity of the Forum which was known as Bous. 1 In 
 the morning she was removed to the Great Palace and detained 
 in custody, while the ceremony of coronation was performed 
 for Nicephorus by the Patriarch Tarasius, in the presence of a 
 large multitude, who beheld the spectacle with various emotions. 
 
 The writer from whom we learn these events was a monk, 
 violently hostile to the new Emperor, and devoted to the 
 orthodox Irene, who had testified so brilliantly to the " true 
 faith." We must not forget his bias when we read that all 2 
 the spectators were imprecating curses on the Patriarch, and 
 on the Emperor and his well-wishers. Some, he says, 
 marvelled how Providence could permit such an event and 
 see the pious Empress deserted by those courtiers who had 
 professed to be most attached to her, like the brothers 
 Triphyllios. Others, unable to believe the evidence of their 
 eyes, thought they were dreaming. Those who took in the 
 situation were contrasting in prophetic fancy the days that 
 were coming with the blessed condition of things which 
 existed under Irene. This description represents the attitude 
 
 1 It is supposed that Ak Serai, (ra'EXevdeplov), which stretched north - 
 
 " White Palace," the present name of ward from the harbour of that name, 
 the quarter where the Forum Bous 2 Theophanes (476) Kal TrdvrES eirl 
 
 was situated, is derived from Irene's rot's irparro^vois tdvcrxfyatvov KT\., 
 
 palace. See Mordtmann, Esquisse, and again KOIVTJ 5t ira.vTa,s Kareixf 
 
 p. 76. In any case, it must have been f6<w(m Kal &irap6.K\T)Tos a9v/j.ia. 
 situated in the Eleutherios quarter
 
 SECT, i THE FALL OF IRENE 7 
 
 of the monks and the large number of people who were under 
 their influence. But we may well believe that the populace 
 showed no enthusiasm at the revolution ; Nicephorus can 
 hardly have been a popular minister. 
 
 The new Emperor determined, as a matter of course, to 
 send the deposed Empress into banishment, but she possessed 
 a secret which it was important for him to discover. The 
 economy of Leo III. and Constantine V. had accumulated a 
 large treasure, which was stored away in some secret hiding- 
 place, known only to the sovran, and not communicated to 
 the Sakellarios, who was head of the treasury. Nicephorus 
 knew of its existence, and on the day after his coronation he 
 had an interview with Irene in the Palace, and by promises 
 and blandishments persuaded her to reveal where the store 
 was hidden. Irene on this occasion made a dignified speech, 1 
 explaining her fall as a punishment of her sins, and asking 
 to be allowed to live in her own house of Eleutherios. 
 Nicephorus, however, banished her first to Prince's Island in 
 the Propontis, and afterwards to more distant Lesbos, where 
 she died within a year. We cannot accept unhesitatingly the 
 assertion of the Greek chronographer that Nicephorus broke 
 his faith. There is some evidence, adequate at least to make 
 us suspicious, that he kept his promise, and that Irene was 
 not banished until she or her partisans organized a conspiracy 
 against his life. 2 
 
 1 Theophanes professes to give [leg. obiit]. Aetio retribuit uti 
 Irene's speech verbatim ; and the ei facere voluit." The details of 
 substance of it may perhaps be Michael's statements concerning 
 genuine. Some patricians were pres- Roman history are frequently in- 
 ent at the interview, and the chrono- accurate and confused, but it seems 
 grapher may have derived his infor- probable that there was some real 
 mation from one of these. Irene's foundation for this explicit notice of 
 steadfast bearing after her sudden a conspiracy in which Irene was con- 
 misfortune made an impression. cerned after her dethronement. The 
 
 2 Michael Syr. 12-13. The passage silence of Theophanes proves nothing, 
 is literally transcribed by Bar- He wished to tell as little as possible 
 Hebraeus, 138: " Imperium igitur to the discredit of the Empress and 
 adeptus est anno 1114 et honorifice to blacken the character of the 
 habuit Irenem reginam et Aetium. Emperor. The last sentence in the 
 Hi caedem ejus parare voluerunt above passage means that Aetius 
 manu monachorum. Insidiis vero was spared, because he had con- 
 manifestatis Irene in exilium missa cealed Nicephorus from the anger of 
 est Athenas ubi monache facta est Irene.
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 2. Nicephorus I. 
 
 According to Oriental historians, 1 Nicephorus was descended 
 from an Arabian king, Jaballah of Ghassan, who in the reign 
 of Heraclius became a Mohammadan, but soon, dissatisfied 
 with the principle of equality which marked the early period 
 of the Caliphate, fled to Cappadocia and resumed the profes- 
 sion of Christianity along with allegiance to the Empire. 
 Perhaps Jaballah or one of his descendants settled in Pisidia, 
 for Nicephorus was born in Seleucia of that province. 2 His 
 fame has suffered, because he had neither a fair historian to 
 do him justice, nor apologists to countervail the coloured 
 statements of opponents. He is described 3 as an unblushing 
 hypocrite, avaricious, cruel, irreligious, unchaste, a perjured 
 slave, a wicked revolutionary. His every act is painted as a 
 crime or a weakness, or as prompted by a sinister motive. 
 When we omit the adjectives and the comments and set down 
 the facts, we come to a different conclusion. The history of 
 his reign shows him a strong and masterful man, who was 
 fully alive to the difficulties of the task of governing and was 
 prepared to incur unpopularity in discharging his duty as 
 guardian of the state. Like many other competent statesmen, 
 he knew how to play upon the weaknesses of men and to 
 conceal his own designs ; he seems indeed to have been expert 
 in dissimulation and the cognate arts of diplomacy. 4 It was 
 said that tears came with convenient readiness, enabling him 
 to feign emotions which he was far from feeling and win a 
 false reputation for having a good heart. 5 
 
 1 Michael Syr. 15 (Bar-Hebraeus, (Vit. Nicet. xxix. ) as 6 ewre/3&n-aros 
 139). Tabari says: "the Romans Kal 0tA67rTa>%os Kal <f>i\o/j.6i>axos. He is 
 record that this Nikephoros was a also praised for piety and orthodoxy 
 descendant of Gafna of Ghassan " in the Ep. Synod. Orient, ad Theoph. 
 (apud Brooks, i. 743). 365. 
 
 2 It is strange that Theophanes 4 Theoph. 477, cp. 483 (6 TTO\V- 
 calls him a swineherd (476), but the /j.-?ix av0 *)- 
 
 point of the contumely may be his 5 Ib. 480. The same faculty was 
 
 provincial birth. Michael Syr. 12 calls attributed to Lord Thurlow. When 
 
 him a Cappadocian. His head on the Regency question came up, on 
 
 coins is as generally in Byzantine the occasion of George the Third's 
 
 coinage purely conventional. first seizure with insanity, as the 
 
 3 By Theophanes. Over against Chancellor was trimming between 
 Theophanes, however, we may place loyalty to the King, whose recovery 
 the brief eulogy of another con- was uncertain, and the favour of the 
 temporary monk, Theosteriktos (who Prince of Wales, a seasonable display 
 wrote the Life of Nicetas of Medikion of emotion in the House of Lords was 
 c. A.D. 824-829), who describes him one of his arts.
 
 SECT, ii NICEPHORUS I. 9 
 
 Most of the able Roman Emperors who were not born in 
 the purple had been generals before they ascended the throne. 
 Nicephorus, who had been a financial minister, was one of the 
 most notable exceptions. It is probable that he had received 
 a military training, for he led armies into the field. He was 
 thoroughly in earnest about the defence of the Empire against 
 its foes, whether beyond the Taurus or beyond the Haemus ; 
 but he had not the qualities of a skilful general, and this 
 deficiency led to the premature end of his reign. Yet his 
 financial experience may have been of more solid value to the 
 state than the military talent which might have achieved 
 some brilliant successes. He was fully determined to be 
 master in his own house. He intended that the Empire, the 
 Church as well as the State, should be completely under his 
 control, 1 and would brook no rival authorities, whether in the 
 court or in the cloister. He severely criticized his predecessors, 
 asserting that they had no idea of the true methods of govern- 
 ment. 2 If a sovran, he used to say, wishes to rule efficiently, 
 he must permit no one to be more powerful than himself, 3 a 
 sound doctrine under the constitution of the Roman Empire. 
 The principles of his ecclesiastical policy, which rendered him 
 execrable in the eyes of many monks, were religious toleration 
 and the supremacy of the State over the Church. Detested by 
 the monks on this account, he has been represented by one of 
 them, who is our principal informant, as a tyrannical oppressor 
 who imposed intolerable burdens of taxation upon his subjects 
 from purely avaricious motives. Some of his financial 
 measures may have been severe, but our ignorance of the 
 economic conditions of the time and our imperfect knowledge 
 of the measures themselves render it difficult for us to criticize 
 them. 4 
 
 In pursuance of his conception of the sovran's duty, to 
 take an active part in the administration himself and keep 
 its various departments under his own control, Nicephorus 
 resolved to exercise more constantly and regularly the supreme 
 judicial functions which belonged to the Emperor. His 
 immediate predecessors had probably seldom attended in 
 person the Imperial Court of Appeal, over which the Prefect 
 
 1 Theoph. 479 eij eavrbv T(L irdvTa 3 Ib. 
 
 /j.ereveyKt'tt'. * For these measures see below, 
 
 2 Ib. 489. Chap. VII. 1.
 
 10 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 of the City presided in the Emperor's absence ; l but hitherto 
 it had been only in the case of appeals, or in those trials of 
 high functionaries which were reserved for his Court, that the 
 sovran intervened in the administration of justice. Nicephorus 
 instituted a new court which sat in the Palace of Magnaura. 
 Here he used to preside himself and judge cases which 
 ordinarily came before the Prefect of the City or the Quaestor. 
 It was his purpose, he alleged, to enable the poor to obtain 
 justice speedily and easily. It is instructive to observe how 
 this innovation was construed and censured by his enemies. 
 It was said that his motive was to insult and oppress the 
 official classes, or that the encouragement of lawsuits was 
 designed to divert the attention of his subjects from Imperial 
 " impieties." '' The malevolence of these insinuations is 
 manifest. Nicephorus was solicitous to protect his subjects 
 against official oppression, and all Emperors who took an 
 active personal part in the administration of justice were 
 highly respected and praised by the public. 
 
 Not long after Nicephorus ascended the throne he was 
 menaced by a serious insurrection. 3 He had appointed an 
 able general, Bardanes Turcus, to an exceptionally extensive 
 command, embracing the Anatolic, the Armeniac, and the 
 three other Asiatic Themes. 4 The appointment was evidently 
 made with the object of prosecuting vigorously the war 
 against the Saracens, in which Bardanes had distinguished 
 himself, and won popularity with the soldiers by his scrupulously 
 fair division of booty, in which he showed himself no respecter 
 of persons. 5 He was, as his name shows, an Armenian by 
 
 1 Cp. Zacharia, Gfr.-rihn. Recht, 357. Probably he had held this post at 
 
 2 Theonh 479 489 first, and the Emperor afterwards 
 
 extended his command. We meet 
 
 The sources are Theoph. 479 ; Gen. again the commission of this large 
 
 8 sqq. ; Cont. Th. 6 sqq. The narra- military sphere to one general in A.D. 
 
 tives in the two latter works are told 819, when we .find TO irtvrf B^ara 
 
 a propos of the history of Leo the un der one strategos. Theod. Stud. 
 
 Armenian, and though they are cog- Epp. ii. 63 (Migne, 1284) TOI>J T^S 
 
 nate (and must be derived ultimately eapx^aj Aiyous (tirl yap ruv e' Oenaruv 
 
 from the same source), Cont. Th. is T 0en-cu), where (frpxia suggests those 
 
 here independent of Genesios (cp. i arge administrations which had been 
 
 Hirsch, Byz. Stud. 189). introduced in the sixth century (Italy, 
 
 4 Cont. Th. 6 /j-ovoffTpdr-qyov rCiv Africa). The other three Themes were 
 
 trtvre Oe/j-druv TWV Ka.ra.Triv bvaroMiv. the Opsikian, Thrakesian, and Bukel- 
 
 Theoph. and Gen. designate Bardanes larian. See below, Chap. VII. 2. 
 
 as strategos of the Anatolic Theme. B Cont. Th. 8-9.
 
 SECT, ii NICEPHORUS I. 11 
 
 descent, but we are not told whence he derived the surname 
 of " Turk." The large powers which were entrusted to him 
 stirred his ambitions to seize the crown, and the fiscal rigour 
 of the new Emperor excited sufficient discontent to secure 
 followers for a usurper. The Armeniac troops refused to 
 support him, but the regiments of the other four Themes 
 which were under his command proclaimed him Emperor on 
 Wednesday, July 19, A.D. 803. 1 
 
 This revolt of Bardanes has a dramatic interest beyond 
 the immediate circumstances. It was the first act in a long 
 and curious drama which was worked out in the course of 
 twenty years. We shall see the various stages of its develop- 
 ment in due order. The contemporaries of the actors grasped 
 the dramatic aspect, and the interest was heightened by the 
 belief that the events had been prophetically foreshadowed 
 from the beginning. 2 In the staff of Bardanes were three 
 young men who enjoyed his conspicuous favour. Leo was of 
 Armenian origin, like the general himself, but had been 
 reared at a small place called Pidra 3 in the Anatolic Theme. 
 Bardanes had selected him for his fierce look and brave 
 temper to be a " spear-bearer and attendant," or, as we should 
 say, an aide-de-camp. Michael, who was known as Traulos, 
 on account of his lisp, was a native of Amorion. The third, 
 Thomas, probably came of a Slavonic family settled in Pontus 
 near Gaziura. 4 All three were of humble origin, but Bardanes 
 detected that they were marked out by nature for great things 
 and advanced them at the very beginning of their careers. 
 When he determined to raise the standard of rebellion 
 against Nicephorus, he took these three chosen ones into his 
 confidence, and they accompanied him when he rode one day 
 to Philomelion 5 for the purpose of consulting a hermit said 
 to be endowed with the faculty of foreseeing things to come. 
 Leaving his horse to the care of his squires, Bardanes entered 
 
 1 Theoph. and Cent. Th. agree. But Genesios makes Thomas 
 
 2 The story is told by Genesios (p. 8). out to be an Armenian (though in 
 The account in Cont. Th. 7 is taken another place he says ffKvBifav T<$ 
 from Genesios ; see Hirsch, 184 sqq. ytvei, 32), while in Cont. Th. 50 his 
 
 :i Cf. Ramsay, Asia Minor, 246 n. parents are called S/cXa/?oyej'u>' TUV 
 
 4 The town of Gaziura (Ibora) is on TroXXdm yKiff<revdvTwv /caret rJ)i 
 
 the river Iris, south-east of Amasea, 'AvaroXr/v. The stories about his early 
 
 on the road to Tokat. It corresponds life will find a more fitting place 
 
 to the modern Turkhal. Cp. Ramsay, when we come to his rebellion in the 
 
 ib. 326 sqq. On the birth of Thomas reign of Michael II. 
 
 in this region, Genesios and Cont. Th. 5 In Pisidia, not far east of Antioch.
 
 12 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 the prophet's cell, where he received a discouraging oracle. 
 He was bidden to abandon his designs, which would surely 
 lead to the loss of his property and of his eyes. He left the 
 hermit's dwelling moody and despondent, and he was mount- 
 ing his horse when the holy man, who had followed to the 
 door and espied his three companions, summoned him to 
 return. Eagerly expecting a further communication Bardanes 
 complied, and he heard a strange prophecy: "The first and 
 the second of these men will possess the Empire, but thou 
 shalt not. As for the third, he will be merely proclaimed, 
 but will not prosper and will have a bad end." The dis- 
 appointed aspirant to the throne rushed from the hut, uttering 
 maledictions against the prophet who refused to flatter his 
 hopes, and jeeringly communicated to Leo, Michael, and 
 Thomas the things which were said to be in store for them. 
 Thus, according to the story, the destinies of the two 
 Emperors Leo V. and Michael II. and of the great tyrant 
 Thomas were shadowed forth at Philomelion long before it 
 could be guessed how such things were to come to pass. 1 
 
 The destiny of their patron Bardanes was to be decided 
 far sooner. The insurgent army advanced along the road to 
 Nicomedia, 2 but it was soon discovered that the Emperor was 
 prepared for the emergency and had forces at his disposition 
 which rendered the cause of the tyrant hopeless. Thomas, 
 the Slavonian, stood by his master ; but Leo, the Armenian, 
 and Michael, of Amorion, deserted to Nicephorus, who duly 
 rewarded them. Michael was appointed a Count of the tent, 3 
 
 1 This prediction post eventum was Anatolic Theme. In support of this 
 probably manufactured soon after the view, I adduce the fact that when 
 death of Thomas, in A.D. 824. Leo, the Armenian, became strategos 
 
 2 Apparently coming from Mcaea of that Theme under Michael I. he is 
 (Cont. Th. 9). said to have renewed his friendship 
 
 3 There is a difficulty, which his- with Michael, the Amorian. This sug- 
 torians have not noticed, as to the gests that Michael was connected with 
 meaning of this appointment. There the Anatolic Theme. Moreover, at the 
 was, so far as we know, no official time of Leo's elevation to the throne 
 entitled K6fj.t)s TTJS riprrjs par excellence, he appears as attached to his staff, 
 while in every Theme there was an The Counts of the tent of the various 
 officer so named. It may be held that Themes attended on the Emperor's 
 in the reign of Nicephorus there was tent in campaigns (jrept TO. 489). 
 a Count of the Imperial tent, who had The Foederati were the foreign guard 
 duties when the Emperor took part in of the Palace, afterwards known as 
 a campaign, and that the office was the Hetaireia ; the Count of the 
 abolished soon afterwards. It appears, Federates was the later Hetaeriarch. 
 however, possible that Michael was See Bury, Imp. Administrative System, 
 appointed /c6/?s 7-775 K6prt)s of the 107.
 
 SECT, ii NICEPHORUS I. 13 
 
 Leo to be Count of the Federates, and each of them received 
 the gift of a house in Constantinople. 1 When Bardanes 
 found it impracticable to establish on the Asiatic shore 2 
 a basis of operations against the capital, of which the in- 
 habitants showed no inclination to welcome him, he concluded 
 that his wisest course would be to sue for grace while there 
 was yet time, and he retired to Malagina. 3 The Emperor 
 readily sent him a written assurance of his personal safety, 4 
 which was signed by the Patriarch Tarasius and all the 
 patricians ; and the promise was confirmed by the pledge of 
 a little gold cross which the Emperor was in the habit of 
 wearing. The tyranny had lasted about seven weeks, when 
 Bardanes secretly left the camp at midnight (September 8) 
 and travelling doubtless by the road which passes Nicaea and 
 skirts the southern shores of Lake Ascanias, escaped to the 
 monastery of Heraclius at Kios, the modern town of Geumlek. 5 
 There he was tonsured and arrayed in the lowly garment of 
 a monk. The Emperor's bark, which was in waiting at the 
 shore, carried him to the island of Prote, where he had built 
 a private monastery, which he was now permitted to select as 
 his retreat. Under the name of Sabbas, 6 he devoted himself 
 to ascetic exercises. But Nicephorus, it would seem, did not 
 yet feel assured that the ex-tyrant was innocuous ; for we 
 can hardly doubt the assertion of our sources that it was with 
 the Emperor's knowledge that a band of Lycaonians 7 landed 
 on the island by night and deprived the exiled monk of his 
 eyesight. Nicephorus, however, professed to be sorely dis- 
 tressed at the occurrence ; he shed the tears which were 
 
 1 The details are recorded in Gen., pare the story of Theophilus and 
 more fully in Cont. Th. The house of Manuel, below, p. 258, and the assur- 
 Karianos was assigned to Michael, the ance given to Ignatius, below, p. 198. 
 palace of Zeno and a house called 5 Theoph. ib. 
 
 Dagistheus (rbv Aayurdta) to Leo. 6 Cont. Th. 10. 
 
 2 He waited at Chrysopolis for eight . 7 T J e ?Ph- 480 Aurdortt w f 
 days (Theoph. 479). ' \wwwfy0irtfcj, o/j.oyvw/j.ova<s /cat o/j.6- 
 
 ippovas diroffrelXas KT\. I would not, 
 
 3 The great cavalry depot, about w ith some historians, quote this ex- 
 twenty miles east of Nicaea on the pression of Theophanes as a proof of 
 road to Dorylaion. See Ramsay, the character of the Lycaonians. 
 Asia Minor, 204-205. Theophanes is a partisan of Bardanes, 
 
 4 Ib. Cont. Th. (cp. Gen. 10) men- and neither he nor any of his con- 
 tions the gold cross ; it was probably temporaries could resist the tempta- 
 an enkolpion (worn on the breast). A tion of playing on proper names, 
 cross was regularly used as a pledge Besides Lycaonia was infected with 
 of Imperial faith in such cases. Com- the Paulician heresy.
 
 14 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 always at his disposal, and did not leave the Imperial bed- 
 chamber for seven days. He even threatened to put to death 
 some Lycaonian nobles ; and the Senate and the Patriarch 
 could hardly venture to doubt the sincerity of his indignation. 
 As for the rebellious army, it was punished by receiving no 
 pay ; several officers and landed owners were banished ; the 
 property of the chief insurgent was confiscated. Such was 
 the fate of Bardanes Turcus and his revolt. 
 
 In February 8 8 a plot was formed to dethrone Nicephorus 
 by a large number of discontented senators and ecclesiastical 
 dignitaries. It is significant that the man who was designated 
 by the conspirators to be the new Emperor was on this 
 occasion also an Armenian. The patrician Arsaber held the 
 office of Quaestor; and the chronicler, who regarded with 
 favour any antagonist of Nicephorus, describes him as pious. 
 The plot was detected ; Arsaber was punished by stripes, 
 made a monk and banished to Bithynia ; the accomplices, 
 not excepting the bishops, were beaten and exiled. 1 
 
 Nicephorus had two children, a daughter and a son. 
 Procopia had married Michael Rangabe, 2 who was created 
 Curopalates ; and one of their sons, Nicetas (destined here- 
 after to occupy the Patriarchal throne), was appointed, as a 
 child, to be the Domestic or commander of the Hikanatoi, a 
 new corps of guards which his grandfather had instituted. 
 Stauracius was doubtless younger than Procopia, and was 
 crowned Augustus in December 803, a year after his father's 
 succession. 3 Theophanes, perhaps malevolently, describes 
 him as " physically and intellectually unfit for the position." 
 
 1 Among the conspirators were the have taken place much later than 794. 
 Synkellos, and the sakellarios and Assuming her to have been married 
 chartophylax of St. Sophia (Theoph. early, she might have been born in 778 ; 
 483). Finlay justly remarks that the and assuming that her father married 
 conspiracies formed against Nicephorus early, he might have been born in 758. 
 are no evidence of his unpopularity, Thus Nicephorus must have been 45 
 ' ' for the best Byzantine monarchs at least when he ascended the throne, 
 were as often disturbed by secret plots and was probably older. Stauracius 
 as the worst" (ii. p. 99). was childless. 
 
 2 From Nicetas, Vita Ignatii (Mansi, 3 During his sole reign the coinage 
 xvi. 210sg'g'.), we learn that Michael and of Nicephorus reverted to the old 
 Procopia had five children (1) Gorgo, fashion of exhibiting a cross on the 
 (2) Theophylactus, (3) Stauracius, (4) reverse. After the association of his 
 Nicetas, (5) Theophano. Nicetas son he adopted the device (introduced 
 (whose monastic name was Ignatius) by Constantine V.) of representing 
 was 14 years old in 813, and therefore the head of his colleague. See Wroth, 
 was born in 799. From this we may Imp. Byz. Coins, I. xl. 
 
 infer that Procopia's marriage cannot
 
 SECT, ii NICEPHORUS I. 15 
 
 His father took pains to choose a suitable wife for him. On 
 December 20, 807, a company of young girls from all 
 parts of the Empire was assembled in the Palace, to select a 
 consort for Stauracius. 1 For a third time in the history of 
 New Konie an Athenian lady was chosen to be the bride of 
 a Eoman Augustus. The choice of Nicephorus now fell on 
 Theophano, even as Constantine V. had selected Irene for 
 his son Leo, and nearly four centuries before Pulcheria had 
 discovered Athenais for her brother Theodosius. Theophano 
 had two advantages : she was a kinswoman of the late 
 Empress Irene ; and she had already (report said) enjoyed the 
 embraces of a man to whom she was betrothed. 2 The second 
 circumstance gave Nicephorus an opportunity of asserting the 
 principle that the Emperor was not bound by the canonical 
 laws which interdicted such a union. 3 
 
 If a statement of Theophanes is true, which we have no 
 means of disproving and no reason to doubt, the beauty of 
 the maidens who had presented themselves as possible brides 
 for the son, tempted the desires of the father ; and two, who 
 were more lovely than the successful Athenian, were consoled 
 for their disappointment by the gallantries of Nicephorus 
 himself on the night of his son's marriage. The monk who 
 records this scandal of the Imperial Palace makes no other 
 comment than " the rascal was ridiculed by all" 
 
 The frontiers of the Empire were maintained intact in 
 the reign of Nicephorus, but his campaigns were not crowned 
 by military glory. The death of the Caliph Harun (809 A.D.) 
 delivered him from a persevering foe against whom he had 
 been generally unsuccessful, and to whom he had been forced 
 to make some humiliating concessions ; but the Bulgarian 
 war brought deeper disgrace upon Eoman arms and was fatal 
 to Nicephorus himself. In an expedition which, accompanied 
 by his son and his son-in-law, he led across the Haemus, he 
 suffered himself to be entrapped, and his life paid the penalty 
 for his want of caution (July 26, A.D. 8 II). 4 
 
 1 For these bride shows see below, (Theoph. 483). 
 
 p. 81. 3 Cp. below, p. 34. 
 
 2 fj.(/jj'rj(TTev^v7]v dvdpl /ecu TroXXd/as 4 The Saracen and Bulgarian wars 
 O.VT$ (TiryKoiTa.ffdf'iffa.v, x^p^cras O.VTTIV air' of Nicephorus are described below in 
 airrov r<p d6\iifi 2,Tavpa.Ki<j) ffvv^fv^ev Chaps. VIII. and XI.
 
 16 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE- CHAP, i 
 
 3. Stauracius 
 
 The young Emperor Stauracius had been severely wounded 
 in the battle, but he succeeded in escaping to the shelter of 
 Hadrianople. His sister's husband, Michael Bangabe 1 , had 
 come off unhurt ; and two other high dignitaries, the magister 
 Theoktistos, 1 and Stephanos the Domestic of the Schools, 
 reached the city of refuge along with the surviving Augustus. 
 But although Stauracius was still living, it was a question 
 whether he could live long. His spine had been seriously 
 injured, and the nobles who stood at his bedside despaired of 
 his life. They could hardly avoid considering the question 
 whether it would be wise at such a crisis to leave the sole 
 Imperial power in the hands of one who had never shown 
 any marked ability and who was now incapacitated by a 
 wound, seemingly at the door of death. On the other hand, 
 it might be said that the unanimity and prompt action which 
 the emergency demanded would be better secured by ac- 
 knowledging the legitimate Emperor, however feeble he might 
 be. So at least it seemed to the Domestic of the Schools, 
 who lost no time in proclaiming Stauracius autdkrator? 
 Stauracius himself, notwithstanding his weak condition, 
 appeared in the presence of the troops who had collected at 
 Hadrianople after the disaster, and spoke to them. The 
 soldiers had been disgusted by the unskilfulness of the late 
 Emperor in the art of war, and it is said that the new 
 Emperor sought to please them by indulging in criticisms on 
 his father. 
 
 But the magister Theoktistos, 3 although he was present 
 on this occasion, would have preferred another in the place of 
 
 1 Theoktistos is undoubtedly the It is worth noticing that Muralt and 
 same person as the quaestor who sup- Hirsch (190) adduce from Theophanes 
 ported Nicephorus in his conspiracy July 25 as the date of the death of 
 against Irene ; he was rewarded by Nicephorus. This is due to a wrong 
 the high order of magister. reading, corrected in de Boor's edition, 
 
 2 The reign of Stauracius, reckoned 491. In Cont. Th. 11 the date is also 
 from the date of his father's death, given as July 26, but the death of 
 July 26, to the day of his resignation, Stauracius is wrongly placed on the 
 Oct. 2, lasted 2 months and 8 days day of his resignation (Oct. 2). He 
 (Cont. Th. 11). Theophanes gives 2 survived till Jan. 11, 812 (Theoph. 
 months and 6 days (495), but he 495). 
 
 reckons perhaps from the date of his 3 The divergent views of Stephanos 
 proclamation at Hadrianople, which and Theoktistos are expressly noted 
 might have been made on July 28. by Theophanes, 492.
 
 SECT, in STAURACIUS 17 
 
 Stauracius. And there was one who had a certain eventual 
 claim to the crown, and might be supposed not unequal to its 
 burdens, Michael Bangabe*, the Curopalates and husband of 
 the princess Procopia. It would not have been a violent 
 measure if, in view of the precarious condition of her brother, 
 Procopia's husband had been immediately invested with the 
 insignia of empire. Such a course could have been abundantly 
 justified by the necessity of having an Emperor capable of 
 meeting the dangers to be apprehended from the triumphant 
 Bulgarian foe. Theoktistos and others pressed Michael to 
 assume the diadem, and if he had been willing Stauracius 
 would not have reigned a week. But Michael declined at 
 this juncture, and the orthodox historian, who admires and 
 lauds him, attributes his refusal to a regard for his oath of 
 allegiance " to Nicephorus and Stauracius." l 
 
 The wounded Emperor was removed in a litter from 
 Hadrianople to Byzantium. The description of the con- 
 sequence of his hurt 2 shows that he must have suffered much 
 physical agony, and the chances of his recovery were diminished 
 by his mental anxieties. He had no children, and the 
 question was, who was to succeed him. On the one hand, 
 his sister Procopia held that the Imperial power rightly 
 devolved upon her husband and her children. On the other 
 hand, there was another lady, perhaps even more ambitious 
 than Procopia, and dearer to Stauracius. The Athenian 
 Theophano might hope to play the part of her kinswoman 
 Irene, and reign as sole mistress of the Eoman Empire. 3 
 
 Concerning the intrigues which were spun round the 
 bedside of the young Emperor in the autumn months (August 
 and September) of 811, our contemporary chronicle gives 
 only a slight indication. The influence of Theophano caused 
 her husband to show marked displeasure to the ministers 
 Stephanos and Theoktistos, and to his brother-in-law Michael, 
 and also to regard with aversion his sister Procopia, whom he 
 suspected of conspiring against his life. 4 As his condition 
 
 1 Ib. ' (j.i/j.r)<ru> TTJS /j.a.Kapias 
 
 2 The wound is characterized as tf\iri{e TTJS /3a<rt\efas aTrcus 
 
 mortal (/catpfwj) Kara, rov airov56\ov rb 4 The words of Theophanes are here 
 
 8eibv /u^pos. The consequence was, Si' ambiguous, and the sense depends on 
 
 oCpuv a.ifj.oppayri<ras d/u^rpws Kare^pavdrj the punctuation. De Boor punctuates 
 
 /jnrjpovs KO.L ffK^Xri. thus : diro<rrp((p6fj.fvos Travrr) /ecu Upo- 
 
 3 Ib. avTlKO. y&p T) TttXatj'a /card KOiriav TTJV Idiav adf\(f>rjv, ws tiriftovXev* 
 
 C
 
 18 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 grew worse and he saw that his days were numbered, he wavered 
 between two alternative plans for the future of the Empire. 
 One of these was to devolve the succession on his wife 
 Theophano. 
 
 The other alternative conceived by Stauracius is so 
 strange that we hardly know what to make of it. The idea 
 comes to us as a surprise in the pages of a ninth-century 
 chronicle. It appears that this Emperor, as he felt death 
 approaching, formed the conception of changing the Imperial 
 constitution into a democracy. 1 It was the wild vision of a 
 morbid brain, but we cannot help wondering how Stauracius 
 would have proceeded in attempting to carry out such a 
 scheme. Abstractly, indeed, so far as the constitutional 
 aspect was concerned, it would have been simple enough. 
 The Imperial constitution might be abolished and a demo- 
 cratic republic established, in theory, by a single measure. 
 All that he had to do was to repeal a forgotten law, 
 which had regulated the authority of the early Caesars, and 
 thereby restore to the Koman people the powers which it had 
 delegated to the Imperator more than seven hundred years 
 before. Of the Lex de imperio Stauracius had probably never 
 heard, nor is it likely that he had much knowledge of the 
 early constitutional history of Eome. Perhaps it was from 
 ancient Athens that he derived the political idea which, in 
 the circumstances of his age, was a chimera ; and to his wife, 
 thirsty for power, he might have said, " Athens, your own city, 
 has taught the world that democracy is the best and noblest 
 form of government." 
 
 The intervention of the Patriarch Nicephorus at this 
 juncture helped to determine and secure the progress of 
 events. He was doubtless relieved at the death of his stark 
 namesake, however much he may have been distressed at the 
 calamity which brought it about ; and we are told that, when 
 Stauracius arrived at Constantinople, the Patriarch hastened 
 to give him ghostly advice and exhort him to console those 
 who had been pecuniarily wronged by his father, by making 
 
 ffayav ai/r<fi rats Qeofiav oOs TIJS aiVyotfcrr^s airoffTpefib/uievos. The insinuations of 
 
 vTroj3o\ais. The meaning of 'this would his wife caused the aversion of 
 
 be that Theophano suborned Procopia Stauracius to his sister. 
 to plot against Stauracius. It is clear J Ib. $ drj/j.oK parlav dyeipai Xpiffriavois 
 
 that we should punctuate after avrif firl rots 7r/)oAo^3oD<n /ca/cois (" to crown 
 
 and connect TCUJ i>7ro/3o\eus with their misfortunes").
 
 SECT, in STAURACIUS 19 
 
 restitution. But like his sire, according to the partial 
 chronicler, Stauracius was avaricious, and was unwilling to 
 sacrifice more than three talents l in this cause, although that 
 sum was but a small fraction of the monies wrongfully appro- 
 priated by the late Emperor. The Patriarch failed in his 
 errand at the bedside of the doomed monarch, but he hoped 
 that a new Emperor, of no doubtful voice in matters of ortho- 
 doxy, would soon sit upon the throne. And it appeared that 
 it would be necessary to take instant measures for securing 
 the succession to this legitimate and desirable candidate. The 
 strange designs of Stauracius and the ambition of Theophano 
 alarmed Nicephorus, and he determined to prevent all danger 
 of a democracy or a sovran Augusta by anticipating the death 
 of the Emperor and placing Michael on the throne. At the 
 end of September he associated himself, for this purpose, with 
 Stephanos and Theoktistos. The Emperor was already con- 
 templating the cruelty of depriving his brother-in-law of 
 eyesight, and on the first day of October he summoned the 
 Domestic of the Schools to his presence and proposed to blind 
 Michael that very night. It is clear that at this time 
 Stauracius placed his entire trust in Stephanos, the man who 
 had proclaimed him at Hadrianople, and he knew not that 
 this officer had since then veered round to the view of 
 Theoktistos. Stephanos pointed out that it was too late, and 
 took care to encourage his master in a feeling of security. 
 The next day had been fixed by the conspirators for the 
 elevation of the Curopalates, and throughout the night troops 
 were filing into the Hippodrome to shout for the new 
 Emperor. 2 In the early morning the senators arrived; and 
 
 1 It is to be presumed that three parts of the Great Hippodrome, the 
 talents means three litrai (129 : 12s.). northern part being roofed over, the 
 The mere fact that Stauracius could southern uncovered. But this view 
 offer such a sum shows that the is untenable, and Bieliaev is also 
 Patriarch's demand must have referred wrong in placing the Kathisma the 
 to some small and particular cases of building in which the Emperor sat 
 injustice suffered by individuals. when he witnessed the races between 
 
 2 Theoph. 493 tv T$ ffKeiraarQ iiriro- these two portions. The Kathisma 
 Sp6fjL<f>. Labarte (131-2) supposed that was at the north end of the Hippo- 
 this covered hippodrome was inside drome. Ebersolt (Le Grand Palais, 
 the Palace (Paspates actually assumed 157-8) holds that the northern part 
 two hippodromes, one roofed, the other was uncovered, the southern covered, 
 unroofed, within the Palace : r& Buf. This view is equally improbable. I 
 a.v. 249 sqq.). In wepl ra.%. 507 6 /cdrw hope to show elsewhere that "the 
 ffKeira.<?Tbs ITTTT. and 6 dffKtiraffros iirir. roofed Hippodrome " was contiguous 
 are mentioned together. Bieliaev sup- to the great "unroofed" Hippodrome, 
 posed that they are only different though not part of the Palace.
 
 20 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 the constitutional formalities of election preliminary to the 
 coronation were complied with (Oct. 2, A.D. 811). Michael 
 Kangabe" was proclaimed " Emperor of the Eomans " by the 
 Senate and the residential troops l that remnant of them 
 which had escaped from the field of blood beyond the Haemus. 
 Meanwhile the Emperor, who had been less lucky on that 
 fatal day, escaping only to die after some months of pain, was 
 sleeping or tossing in the Imperial bedchamber, unconscious 
 of the scene which was being enacted not many yards away. 
 But the message was soon conveyed to his ears, and he 
 hastened to assume the visible signs of abdication by which 
 deposed Emperors were wont to disarm the fears or jealousy 
 of their successors. A monk, named Simeon, and a kinsman 
 of his own, tonsured him and arrayed him in monastic garb, 
 and he prepared to spend the few days of life left to him in a 
 lowlier place and a lowlier station. But before his removal 
 from the Palace his sister Procopia, in company with her 
 Imperial husband and the Patriarch Nicephorus, visited him. 
 They endeavoured to console him and to justify the step which 
 had been taken ; they repudiated the charge of a conspiracy, 
 and explained their act as solely necessitated by his hopeless 
 condition. Stauracius, notwithstanding their plausible argu- 
 ments, felt bitter ; he thought that the Patriarch had dealt 
 doubly with him. " You will not find," he said to Nicephorus, 
 " a better friend than me." 2 
 
 Nicephorus took the precaution of requiring from Michael, 
 before he performed the ceremony of coronation, a written 
 assurance of his orthodoxy and an undertaking to do no 
 violence to ecclesiastics, secular or regular. 3 The usual pro- 
 cession was formed ; the Imperial train proceeded from the 
 Palace to the Cathedral ; and the act of coronation was duly 
 accomplished in the presence of the people. 4 The rejoicings, 
 we are told, were universal, and we may believe that there 
 was a widespread feeling of relief, that an Emperor sound in 
 
 1 The Tagmata (Theoph. ib.). vised by the author. 
 
 2 Theoph. 493 <j>l\w O.VTOV Kpetrrova 3 The importance of this under- 
 oi/x evpficrets. Anastasius seems right taking, in its constitutional aspect, 
 in rendering aurov by me. Perhaps will be considered below in Section 5. 
 ^uou should be inserted, or perhaps 4 The proclamation in the Hippo- 
 we should read evp-qcretv. I suspect, drome was at the first hour (6 o'clock), 
 however, that the last pages of his the coronation at the fourth. Theoph. 
 chronography were insufficiently re- ib.
 
 SECT, in STAURACIUS 21 
 
 limb was again at the head of the state. The bounty of 
 Michael gave cause, too, for satisfaction on the first day of his 
 reign. He bestowed on the Patriarch, who had done so much 
 in helping him to the throne, the sum of 50 Ibs. of gold 
 (2160), and to the clergy of St. Sophia he gave half that 
 amount. 1 
 
 The unfortunate Stauracius 2 lived on for more than three 
 months, but towards the end of that time the corruption of 
 his wound became so horrible that no one could approach him 
 for the stench. On the llth of January 812 he died, and 
 was buried in the new monastery of Braka. This was a 
 handsome building, given to Theophano by the generosity of 
 Procopia when she resolved, like her husband, to retire to a 
 cloister. 3 
 
 4. Reign and Policy of Michael I. 
 
 It is worth while to note how old traditions or prejudices, 
 surviving from the past history of the Eoman Empire, gradu- 
 ally disappeared. We might illustrate the change that had 
 come over the " Eomans " since the age of Justinian, by the 
 fact that in the second year of the ninth century a man of 
 Semitic stock ascends the throne, and is only prevented by 
 chance from founding a dynasty, descended from the 
 GhassaEids. He bears a name, too, which, though Greek and 
 common at the time, was borne by no Emperor before him. 
 His son's name is Greek too, but unique on the Imperial list. 
 A hundred years before men who had names which sounded 
 strange in collocation with Hasileus and Augustus (such as 
 Artemius and Apsimar) adopted new names which had an 
 
 1 At the end of the ninth century ar-fipiov r&'Efipal'Ka. \ey6fj.evov avrrj trap- 
 the custom was for the Emperor, on foxev [MtxcujX] fv6a 2raupdwoi tra.^ 
 his accession, to give 100 Ibs. of gold (ib. 494). The locality is not known, 
 to the Great Church (St. Sophia) It is called TO. B/ra/ca in George Mon. 
 (Philotheos, ed. Bury, 135). This 776. Is the name really derived from 
 would include the present to the Stauracius : Zravpaidov being taken 
 Patriarch. for ff-ra 'Bpa.Klov ? Pargoire (Les Mon. 
 
 2 Michael Syr. (70) has recorded a de Saint Ign. 72) says : " TO. "Lra.vpa.Kiov 
 serious charge against Procopia, which dont le peuple fit plus tard ra ftpa-icS. 
 he found in the chronicle of Dionysios et les demi-savants Ta'Eppal'Kd." This 
 of Tell-Mahre. An intelligent and is a seductive idea ; my difficulty is 
 well-informed inhabitant of Constanti- that the form ' E/J/oai'/cd. occurs in Theo- 
 nople told Dionysios that Procopia phanes, who wrote only a couple of 
 administered a deadly poison to her years later, and must have known the 
 brother. true name, if that name had been only 
 
 3 4t> ols Kal tir Iffri fjiov olKov els fj-ova- then given to the monastery.
 
 22 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 Imperial ring (such as Anastasius and Tiberius). It was 
 instinctively felt then that a Bardanes was no fit person to 
 occupy the throne of the Caesars, and therefore he became 
 Philippic us. But this instinct was becoming weak in a city 
 where strange names, strange faces, and strange tongues were 
 growing every year more familiar. The time had come when 
 men of Armenian, Slavonic, or even Semitic origin might 
 aspire to the highest positions in Church and State, to the 
 Patriarchate and the Empire. The time had come at last 
 when it was no longer deemed strange that a successor of 
 Constantine should be a Michael. 
 
 The first Michael belonged to the Kangabe" family, of 
 which we now hear for the first time. 1 He was in the prime 
 of manhood when he came to the throne ; his hair was black 
 and curling, 2 he wore a black beard, and his face was round. 
 He seems to have been a mild and good-humoured man, but 
 totally unfit for the position to which chance had raised him. 
 As a general he was incapable ; as an administrator he was 
 injudicious ; as a financier he was extravagant. Throughout 
 his short reign he was subject to the will of a woman and the 
 guidance of a priest. It may have been the ambition of 
 Procopia that led him to undertake the duties of a sovran ; 
 and she shared largely in the administration. 3 Ten days 
 after her lord's coronation, Procopia daughter and sister, 
 now wife, of an Emperor was crowned Augusta in the 
 throne-room of Augusteus, in the Palace of Daphne, and she 
 courted the favour of the Senators by bestowing on them 
 many gifts. She distributed, moreover, five pounds of gold 
 
 1 Oont. Th. 12 K yeveas d KOLT- 2 Scr. Incert. 341 tirivyovpov ( = 
 
 ayofntvov TOV 'Payyaftt. Before his <ryvpav, curly), the right reading, as 
 
 elevation he dwelled near the Man- de Boor has shown (B.Z. ii. 297). It 
 
 gana. His father's name was Theophy- may be noted here that the Byzantines 
 
 lactus : Nicetas, Vit. Ignatii (Mansi, regularly wore beards. There was a 
 
 xvi. 210). Family surnames begin strong prejudice against beardless 
 
 to become frequent in the ninth men (a-iravol), who were popularly 
 
 century. They are constantly indi- regarded as dangerous ; cp. the 
 
 cated by the idiom 6 Kara, (as well as modern Greek proverb, airb ffiravbv 
 
 K). For instance, a man of the &i>6puiroi> /w/cpua ra povxd aov : see for 
 
 family of the Melissenoi might be this, and for further illustration, 
 
 called M. 6 MeXio-o-^s or M. 6 /car& Krumbacher, G.B.L. 809. Michael, 
 
 rbv M.e\i<r(nr)v6v or M. 6 Kara TOI>S MeXi<r- of course, appears bearded on his 
 
 ayvofa or M. 6 K rCiv MeX. (KarAyuv coins, but the face is only conven- 
 
 rb 7^05). For Byzantine surnames see tional. 
 
 H. Moritz, Die Zunamen lei den byz. 3 Scr. Incert. 335 aiirt] y&p ?jv 
 
 HistoriTcern und Chronisten, Teil i. Sictrtflowra Trdi/ra ra T??S j3a<nX'as. 
 1896-97, Teil ii. 1897-98 (Landshut).
 
 SECT, iv MICHAEL I. 23 
 
 (216) among the widows of the soldiers who had fallen with 
 her father in Bulgaria. Nor did she forget her sister-in-law, 
 who, if things had fallen out otherwise, might have been her 
 sovran lady. Theophano had decided to end her life as a 
 nun. Her triumphant rival enriched her, and, as has been 
 already mentioned, gave her a noble house, which was con- 
 verted into a cloister. Nor were the poor kinsfolk of 
 Theophano neglected by the new Augusta. It was said at 
 least that in the days of Nicephorus they had lived in pitiable 
 penury, as that parsimonious Emperor would not allow his 
 daughter-in-law to expend money in assisting them ; but this 
 may be only an ill-natured invention. 
 
 The following Christmas day was the occasion of another 
 coronation and distribution of presents. 1 Theophylactus, the 
 eldest son of Michael, was crowned in the ambo of the Great 
 Church. On this auspicious day the Emperor placed in the 
 Sanctuary of St. Sophia a rich offering of golden vessels, 
 inlaid with gems, and antique curtains for the ciborium, woven 
 of gold and purple and embroidered with pictures of sacred 
 subjects. 2 It was a day of great rejoicing in the city, and 
 people surely thought that the new sovran was beginning his 
 reign well ; he had made up his mind to ask for his son the 
 hand of a daughter of the great Charles, the rival Emperor. 3 
 
 The note of Michael's policy was reaction, both against 
 the ecclesiastical policy of Nicephorus, as we shall see, and 
 also against the parsimony and careful book-keeping which 
 had rendered that monarch highly unpopular. 4 Procopia and 
 Michael hastened to diminish the sums which Nicephorus had 
 
 1 To the Patriarch were given 25 thus (Descr. S. Soph. v. 767) : 
 
 !fc of v ?S *? th ^- cle ! gy v-i 00 rtrp^ s ' Arrvpev **i xei/rf 
 
 (Theoph. 494). According to Philo- riMtrotu 
 
 theos (136) the second or subordinate 6eoTfV? , weT<i(ravTf ,, ' 
 
 Emperor gave only 50 IDS. altogether 
 
 to the Church. See above, p. 21, n. See Ducange, Const. Christ. , B. iii. 
 
 1. Theophanes says that Michael Ixv. p. 37. 
 
 crowned his son tiirb NuTj^opou. 8 <rwa\\a'yrjs efc 6eo<p6\aKTov (ib.). 
 
 Nicephorus assisted, but Michael, if Theophylactus was only a boy ; he is 
 
 present as he presumably was, placed beardless on the coins on the reverse 
 
 the crown himself on the head of of which his bust appears (Wroth, ii. 
 
 Theophylactus. Cp. Bury, Const, of 405 sqq.). 
 
 Later ft. Empire, 16 and 46, n. 11. 4 In temper Michael resembled the 
 
 2 These curtains were called re- parsimonious Anastasius I. , who (like 
 rpd^ij\a, and are often mentioned in Nerva) was called mitissimus ; Michael 
 the Liber pontificalis (cp. i. p. 375). is vaX^TctTos (Theoph.) Cp. Scr. 
 Paul the Silentiary mentions them Incert. 335 (irpaos) and 341.
 
 24 
 
 hoarded, and much money was scattered abroad in alms. 1 
 Churches and monasteries were enriched and endowed ; 
 hermits who spent useless lives in desert places were sought 
 out to receive of the august bounty ; religious hostelries and 
 houses for the poor were not forgotten. The orphan and the 
 widow had their wants supplied ; and the fortunes of decayed 
 gentle people were partially resuscitated. All this liberality 
 made the new lord and lady highly popular ; complimentary 
 songs were composed by the demes and sung in public in their 
 honour. 2 The stinginess and avarice of Nicephorus were now 
 blotted out, and amid the general jubilation few apprehended 
 that the unpopular father-in-law was a far abler ruler than 
 his bountiful successor. 
 
 It was naturally part of the reactionary policy to recall 
 those whom Nicephorus had banished and reinstate those 
 whom he had degraded. 3 The most eminent of those who 
 returned was Leo the Armenian, son of Bardas. We have 
 met this man before. We saw how he took part in the 
 revolt of Bardanes against Nicephorus, and then, along with 
 his companion in arms, Michael the Amorian, left his rebellious 
 commander in the lurch. We saw how Nicephorus rewarded 
 him by making him Count of the Federates. 4 He sub- 
 sequently received a command in the Anatolic Theme, but for 
 gross carelessness and neglect of his duties 5 he was degraded 
 from his post, whipped, and banished in disgrace. He was 
 recalled by Michael, who appointed him General of the 
 Anatolic Theme, with the dignity of Patrician little guess- 
 ing that he was arming one who would dethrone himself and 
 deal ruthlessly with his children. Afterwards when the 
 General of the Anatolics had become Emperor of the Eomans, 
 
 1 See Theoph. 494, and Scr. Incert. nothing of his disgrace, which we 
 335, 336. learn from the Fragment of the 
 
 2 Op- Tnppr*- il, Scriptor Incertus and Cont. Th., and 
 
 OCI. IHCcl i/. liV. /ri v * it . -i 
 
 (2) omits to mention in this passage 
 
 fl>' that Michael made him ffTparrjybs r&v 
 
 4 See above, p. 13. According to 'AvaroXiK&v. 
 
 Genesios (10) he was viroffrpdrriyos rCov 5 He gave himself up to luxury 
 
 'AvaroXiKwv subsequently to his tenure and idleness iv iroKi-xyri Evxairwv 
 
 of the captaincy of the Federates, and (Cont. Th. 11). Euchaita, in the 
 
 then Michael advanced him to the Armeniac Theme, lay west of Amasea, 
 
 dignity of Patrician. It is probable on the road to Gangra ; see the dis- 
 
 that Leo was a turmarch of the cussion in Anderson, Studio, Pontica, 
 
 Anatolics when he was disgraced ; i. 7 sqq. He equates it with the 
 
 but observe that Geuesios (1) knows modern Elwan Chelebi.
 
 SECT, iv MICHAEL I. 25 
 
 it was said that signs and predictions of the event were not 
 wanting. Among the tales that were told was one of a little 
 slave-girl of the Emperor, who was subject to visitations of 
 " the spirit of Pytho." l On one occasion when she was thus 
 seized she went down from the Palace to the seashore below, 
 near the harbour of Bucoleon, 2 and cried with a loud voice, 
 addressing the Emperor, " Come down, come down, resign 
 what is not thine ! " These words she repeated again and 
 again. The attention of those in the Palace above was 
 attracted ; the Emperor heard the fatal cry, and attempted 
 to discover what it meant. He bade his intimate friend 
 Theodotos Kassiteras 3 to see that when the damsel was next 
 seized she should be confined within doors, and to investigate 
 the meaning of her words. To whom did the Palace belong, 
 if not to its present lord ? Theodotos was too curious himself 
 to fail to carry out his master's order, and the girl made an 
 interesting communication. She told him the name and 
 mark of the true Lord of the Palace, and urged him to visit 
 the acropolis at a certain time, where he would meet two 
 men, one of them riding on a mule. This man, she said, was 
 destined to sit on the Imperial throne. The cunning spatharo- 
 candidate took good care not to reveal his discovery to his 
 master. Questioned by Michael, he pretended that he could 
 make nothing of the ravings of the possessed girl. But 
 he did not fail to watch in the prescribed place at the pre- 
 scribed time for the man who was to come riding on a mule. 
 It fell out as the damsel said ; Leo the Armenian appeared on 
 
 1 This story is told by Genesios Bucoleon (from a marble group of a 
 (10, 11), but I doubt whether he lion and bull). Genesios here (10) 
 had the tale from popular hearsay, says that the girl stood iv x u P^V 
 which he mentions as one of his XiOiixp 8 irpoffayopeverai 'BovKdMur. 
 sources (3) ZK re tp-fi/J.^ SjjOev 5pa./j.ovo"r)s Perhaps this was a paved place round 
 f]Kovri.fftJ.{t>os. See Hirsch, 124. The the group. I think it may be inferred 
 story of the possessed woman who from this passage that in the time of 
 brought forth a monster, in the Epist. the writer from whom Genesios derived 
 Synod. Orient, ad Tluoph. 367, is the story Bucoleon had not yet been 
 regarded by Hirsch as a variant ; but applied to the port and palace. 
 
 it is quite different ; this Pythoness * He belonged to the important 
 
 was consulted by Leo. family of Melissenos. His father, 
 
 2 Millingen ( Walls, 269 sqq. ) shows Michael, was strategos of the Anatolics 
 that Hammer was right in identifying under Constantino V., and married a 
 the port of Bucoleon with Chatlady sister of that Emperor's third wife 
 Kapu (a water-gate on the level Eudocia (<rify-ya/u/3pos, Scr. Incert. 360). 
 ground below the Hippodrome), and He afterwards became Patriarch. For 
 that the port and palace of Hormisdas the family of the Melissenoi, see 
 were the older names for the port and Ducange, Fam. Byz. 145. 
 
 palace called by tenth-century writers
 
 26 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 a mule ; and the faithless Theodotos hastened to tell him the 
 secret and secure his favour. This story, noised abroad at 
 the time and remembered long afterwards, is highly charac- 
 teristic of the epoch, and the behaviour of Theodotos is 
 thoroughly in the character of a Byzantine palace official. 
 
 In matters that touched the Church the pliant Emperor 
 was obedient to the counsels of the Patriarch. In matters 
 that touched the State he seems also to have been under the 
 influence of a counsellor, and one perhaps whose views were 
 not always in harmony with those of the head of the Church. 
 No single man had done more to compass the elevation of 
 Michael than the Magister Theoktistos. This minister had 
 helped in the deposition of Irene, and he was probably 
 influential, though he played no prominent part, in the reign 
 of Nicephorus. Nicephorus was not one who stood in need 
 of counsellors, except in warfare ; but in Michael's reign 
 Theoktistos stood near the helm and was held responsible by 
 his contemporaries for the mistakes of the helmsman. The 
 admirers of the orthodox Emperor were forced to admit that, 
 notwithstanding his piety and his clemency, he was a bad 
 pilot for a state, and they threw the blame of the false course 
 on Theoktistos among others. 1 It was Theoktistos, we may 
 suspect, who induced Michael to abandon the policy, advocated 
 by the Patriarch, of putting to death the Paulician heretics. 2 
 
 But Michael's reign was destined to be brief. The struggle 
 of the Empire with the powerful and ambitious Bulgarian 
 kingdom was fatal to his throne, as it had been fatal to the 
 throne of Nicephorus. In the spring, A.D. 813, Michael took 
 the field at the head of a great army which included the Asiatic 
 as well as the European troops. Michael was no general, 
 but the overwhelming defeat which he experienced at Versinicia 
 (June 22) was probably due to the treachery of the Anatolic 
 regiments under the command of Leo the Armenian. 3 
 
 Michael himself escaped. Whether he understood the 
 import of what had happened or not, it is impossible to 
 
 1 Theoph. 500 ; also 497 rais T&V war with Bulgaria. See also a letter 
 
 Ka,Koffv/j.po6\wv elo-rjyfiffeffiv. addressed to him by Theodore in A.D. 
 
 a We can infer from some words of 808, Epp. i. 24, p. 981. 
 
 Theophanes that Theodore of Studion 3 For the Bulgarian war in A.D. 
 
 was an ally of Theoktistos : 498 ol 812, 813, and the circumstances of the 
 
 5 KaKol ffti/j.f3ov\ot (i.e. Theoktistos defeat, see below, Chap. XI. 3. 
 chiefly) ai>v Qcodupqi were in favour of
 
 SECT, iv MICHAEL I. 27 
 
 decide ; but one would think that he must have scented 
 treachery. Certain it is that he committed the charge of the 
 whole army to the man who had either played him false or 
 been the unwitting cause of the false play. A contemporary 
 author states that he chose Leo as " a pious and most valiant 
 man." ] A chronicler writing at the beginning of Leo's reign 
 might put it thus. But two explanations are possible : Michael 
 may have been really blind, and believed his general's specious 
 representations ; or he may have understood the situation 
 perfectly and consigned the power to Leo in order to save his 
 own life. 2 Of the alternatives the latter perhaps is the more 
 likely. In any case, the Emperor soon foresaw what the end 
 must be, and if he did not see it for himself, there was one to 
 point it out to him when he reached Constantinople two days 
 after the battle. A certain man, named John Hexabulios, to 
 whom the care of the city wall had been committed, met 
 Michael on his arrival, and commiserating with him, inquired 
 whom he had left in charge of the army. On hearing the 
 name of Leo, Hexabulios exclaimed at the imprudence of his 
 master: Why did he give such an opportunity to such a 
 dangerous man ? The Emperor feigned to be secure, but he 
 secretly resolved to abdicate the throne. The Empress 
 Procopia was not so ready to resign the position of the 
 greatest lady in the Empire to " Barca," as she sneeringly 
 called the wife of Leo, 3 and the ministers of Michael were not 
 all prepared for a change of master. Theoktistos and Stephanos 
 consoled him and urged him not to abdicate. 4 Michael 
 thought, or feigned to think, that the disaster was a divine 
 punishment, and indeed this supposition was the only 
 alternative to the theory of treachery. " The Christians 
 
 1 Theoph. 502. Empresses (perhaps the same as the 
 
 2 This alternative did not occur to rv/jurdviov, see Ducange, Gloss., s.v.), so 
 Hirsch. He regards the fact that called from its shape. Compare the 
 Michael charged Leo with the com- hat worn by Theodora, wife of Michael 
 mand as a proof of Leo's innocence. VIII., shown in Ducange, Fam. Byz. 
 The story of Hexabulios is told in- 191 (from a MS. of Pachymeres). 
 dependently by Genesios and Cont. The bronze Tyche in the Forum of 
 Th. Constantine had something of this 
 
 3 Theophanes, ib., mentions her un- kind on her head (juerd fiodiov, Patria 
 willingness, but in Cont. Th. 18 her Cpl. p. 205). 
 
 jealousy of "Barca" is mentioned. 4 Theoph. ib. Manuel the proto- 
 
 She was furious at the idea that Leo's strator is specially mentioned in Cont. 
 
 wife should place the modiolon on her Th., ib., as opposed to Michael's resig- 
 
 head. This was a head-dress worn by nation.
 
 28 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 have suffered this/' said the weeping Emperor in a council of 
 his patricians, " on account of my sins. God hates the 
 Empire of my father-in-law and his race. For we were more 
 than the enemy, and yet none had heart, but all fled." x The 
 advice of the Patriarch Nicephorus did not coincide -with the 
 counsels of the patricians. He was inclined to approve 
 Michael's first intention ; he saw that the present reign could 
 not last, and thought that, if Michael himself proposed a 
 successor, that successor might deal mercifully with him and 
 his children. 
 
 Meanwhile the soldiers were pressing Leo to assume the 
 Imperial title without delay. The general of the Anatolics at 
 first resisted, and pretended to be loyal to the Emperor at 
 such a dangerous crisis, when the enemy were in the land. 
 But when he saw 2 that the Bulgarians intended to advance 
 on Constantinople, he no longer hesitated to seize the prize 
 which had been placed within his reach. He did not intend 
 to enter the Imperial city in any other guise than as an 
 Emperor accepted by the army ; and the defence of Con- 
 stantinople could not be left in the hands of Michael. It 
 may be asked why Leo did not attempt to hinder Krum from 
 advancing, by forcing him to fight another battle, in which 
 there should be no feigned panic. The answer is that it was 
 almost impossible to inveigle the Bulgarians into a pitched 
 battle when they did not wish. Their prince could not fail to 
 have perceived the true cause of his victory, and he was not 
 likely to be willing to risk another combat. 
 
 July had already begun when Leo at length took the step 
 of writing a letter to the Patriarch. In it he affirmed his 
 own orthodoxy; he set forth his new hopes, and asked the 
 blessing and consent of the head of the Church. Immediately 
 after this he arrived at Hebdomon, and was proclaimed in 
 the Tribunal legitimate 3 Emperor of the Eomans by the 
 
 1 This is related by Scr. Incert. cent.) in which older pictures are 
 
 339-340. It is stated in Gont. 2'h. reproduced Michael is represented as 
 
 that Michael secretly sent by a trusty crowning Leo ; both are standing on a 
 
 servant f the Imperial insignia (the raised shield. See Diehl, L 'Art byzan- 
 
 diadem, the purple robe, and the red tin, 778. For 'another story of the 
 
 shoes) to Leo ; hence the anger resignation see Michael Syr. 70. 
 
 of Procopia, mentioned in the last 2 This moment in the situation is 
 
 note but one. Theophanes does not mentioned by Theophanes, ib. 
 
 mention this. In the richly illus- :i ^po/uwTaros, ib. For the Palace 
 
 trated Madrid MS. of Skylitzes (14th of Hebdomon (which van Millingen
 
 SECT, iv MICHAEL I. 29 
 
 assembled army. On Monday, July 11, at mid-day, he entered 
 by the Gate of Charisios 1 and proceeded to the Palace ; on 
 Tuesday he was crowned in the ambo of St. Sophia by the 
 Patriarch. 
 
 When the tidings came that Leo had been proclaimed, the 
 fallen Emperor with his wife and children hastened to assume 
 monastic garb and take refuge in the Church of the Virgin of 
 the Pharos. 2 Thus they might hope to avert the suspicions 
 of him who was entering into their place ; thus they might 
 hope to secure at least their lives and an obscure retreat. 
 The lives of all were spared ; 3 the father, the mother, and the 
 daughters escaped without any bodily harm, but the sons 
 were not so lucky. Leo anticipated the possibility of future 
 conspiracies in favour of his predecessor's male children by 
 mutilating them. In eunuchs he would have no rivals to 
 fear. The mutilation which excluded from the most exalted 
 position in the State did not debar, however, from the most 
 exalted position in the Church ; and Nicetas, who was just 
 fourteen years old when he underwent the penalty of being an 
 Emperor's son, will meet us again as the Patriarch Ignatius. 4 
 Parents and children were not allowed to have the solace of 
 living together ; they were transported to different islands. 
 Procopia was immured in the monastery dedicated to her 
 namesake St. Procopia. 5 Michael, under the name of 
 
 proved to be situated at Makri-Keui Nikolaos Mesarites, Die Palastrevolu- 
 
 on the Marmora) and the Tribunal, tion des Johannes Komnenos, 1907). 
 
 see Bieliaev, iii. 57 sqq. The Tri- See further Ebersolt, 104 sqq. 
 
 bunal was evidently a large paved 3 On the fate of Michael and his 
 
 place, close to the Palace, with a tri- family, the most important records 
 
 bunal or tribunals. Theodosius II., are Cont. Th. 19-20, and Nicetas, Vit. 
 
 Constantino V., and others had been Ign. 212-213. Genesios is not so well 
 
 proclaimed Emperors in the same place. informed as Cont. Th. , and speaks as 
 
 1 This gate (also called the Gate of if Ignatius alone suffered mutilation. 
 Polyandrion) was on the north side of 4 The eldest son, Theophylactus, his 
 the river Lycus and identical with father's colleague, was less distin- 
 Edirne Kapu, as van Millingen has guished. He also became a monk 
 proved (83 sqq.). The street from this and changed his name, but Eustratios 
 gate led directly to the Church of the did not rival the fame of Ignatius. 
 Apostles, and Leo must have followed Of the third, Stauracius, called per- 
 this route. haps after his uncle, we only hear that 
 
 2 This church had been built by he died before his father. 
 Constantino V. It was easily access- 5 The site is unknown. It was 
 ible from the Chrysotriklinos, being founded by Justin I., who was buried 
 situated apparently between this there (cp. Ducange, Const. Christ. 
 building and the Pharos, which was Bk. iv. p. 112), and is to be distin- 
 close to the seashore. There is a de- guished from the monastery of Proco- 
 scription of the church in Mesarites pius, which the Empress Procopia is 
 (29 sqq. in Heisenberg's Programm, said to have founded (ib.).
 
 30 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 Athanasius, eked out the remainder of his life in the rocky islet 
 of Plate, 1 making atonement for his sins, and the new Emperor 
 provided him with a yearly allowance for his sustenance. By 
 one of those strange coincidences, which in those days might 
 seem to men something more than chance, the death of 
 Michael occurred 2 on an anniversary of the death of the rival 
 whom he had deposed. The llth day of January, which had 
 relieved Stauracius from his sufferings, relieved Michael from 
 the regrets of fallen greatness. He was buried on the right 
 side of the altar in the church of the island where he died. 
 Opposite, on the left, was placed, five years later, the body of 
 the monk Eustratios, who had once been the Augustus 
 Theophylactus. This, however, was not destined to be the 
 final resting-place of Michael Eangabe". Many years after, 
 the Patriarch Ignatius remembered the grave of his Imperial 
 father, and having exhumed the remains, transferred them to 
 a new monastery which he had himself erected and dedicated 
 to the archangel Michael at Satyros, on the Bithynian 
 mainland, opposite to the Prince's islands. This monastery 
 of Satyros was also called by the name of Anatellon or the 
 Eiser, an epithet of the archangel. The story was that the 
 Emperor Nicephorus was hunting in the neighbourhood, where 
 there was good cover for game, and a large stag was pulled 
 down by the hounds. On this spot was found an old table, 
 supported by a pillar, with an inscription on this wise : " This 
 is the altar of the Arch-Captain (dp%KTTpaTij<yov} Michael, the 
 Eising Star, which the apostle Andrew set up." 3 
 
 1 Oxeia and Plate are the two most steriktos, writing in the latter years 
 westerly islands of the Prince's group. of Michael II., speaks of Michael I. as 
 Cont. Th. states (20) that Michael alive (Vit. Nicet. xxix. 6 vvv tn fi> 
 went to Plate, Nicetas (Vit. Ign. 211) /oiocaSi/op Siairpf-n-wv dfitiyMiTi). 
 
 says vaguely irpbs raj irpiyKi.irelovs 3 The anecdote is told in Cont. 
 
 vtfffovs (and that Procopia went with Th. 21. Hirsch (178) referred the 
 
 him). Some modern historians follow anecdote to Nicephorus II., and drew 
 
 Skylitzes (Cedrenus, ii. 48 ; Zonaras. conclusions as to the revision of Cont. 
 
 iii. 319) in stating that he was banished Th. But Nicephorus I. is unquestion- 
 
 to the large island of Prote, the most ably meant. Cp. Brooks, B.Z. x. 416- 
 
 northerly of the group (Finlay, ii. 417. Pargoire has shown that Igna- 
 
 112 ; Schlumberger, Les lies des tius did not found this monastery 
 
 Princes, 36 ; Marin, 33). For a till his second Patriarchate in the 
 
 description of Plate see Schlumberger, reign of Basil I. (Les Afon. de Saint 
 
 ib. 296 sqq. Ign. 71 sqq.), and has proved the 
 
 2 Cont. Th. 20, A.M. 6332 = A. D. approximate position of the monas- 
 839-840 (reckoning by the Alexandrine tery. For the topography of the 
 era) ; cp. Muralt, sub 840. Theo- coast, see below, p. 133.
 
 SECT, v ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF NICEPHORUS 31 
 
 5. Ecclesiastical Policies of Nicephorus I. and Michael I. 
 
 The principle that the authority of the autocrat was 
 supreme in ecclesiastical as well as secular administration had 
 been fundamental in the Empire since the days of Constantine 
 the Great, who took it for granted ; and, in spite of sporadic 
 attempts to assert the independence of the Church, it always 
 prevailed at Byzantium. The affairs of the Church were 
 virtually treated as a special department of the affairs of the 
 State, and the Patriarch of Constantinople was the minister of 
 religion and public worship. This theory of the State Church 
 was expressed in the fact that it was the function of the 
 Emperor both to convoke and to preside at Church Councils, 
 which, in the order of proceedings, were modelled on the 
 Eoman Senate. 1 It was expressed in the fact that the canons 
 ordained by ecclesiastical assemblies were issued as laws by 
 the Imperial legislator, and that he independently issued edicts 
 relating to Church affairs. It is illustrated by those mixed 
 synods which were often called to decide ecclesiastical questions 
 and consisted of the dignitaries of the Court as well as the 
 dignitaries of the Church. 
 
 The Seventh Ecumenical Council (A.D. 787) marks an 
 epoch in the history of the relations between Church and 
 State. On that occasion the right of presiding was transferred 
 from the sovran to the Patriarch, but this concession to the 
 Church was undoubtedly due to the fact that the Patriarch 
 Tarasius had been a layman and Imperial minister, who had 
 been elevated to the Patriarchal throne in defiance of the 
 custom which had hitherto prevailed of preferring only monks 
 to such high ecclesiastical posts. The significance of the 
 epoch of the Seventh Council is that a new principle was 
 signalized : the assertion of ecclesiastical independence in 
 questions of dogma, and the assertion of the autocrat's will in 
 all matters pertaining to ecclesiastical law and administration. 
 This was the view which guided the policy of Tarasius, who 
 represented what has been called " the third party," 2 standing 
 between the extreme theories of thorough -going absolutism, 
 
 1 Gelzer, Stoat und Kirche, 198. 2 Gelzer, ib. 228 sqq. He compares 
 
 See this able article for the whole it to the parti politique in France in 
 
 history of the Imperial authority over the reigns of Henry III. and Henry 
 
 the Church. IV.
 
 32 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 which had been exercised by such monarchs as Justinian, Leo 
 III. and Constantino V., and of complete ecclesiastical inde- 
 pendence, of which the leading advocate at this time was 
 Theodore, the abbot of Studion. The doctrine of the third 
 party was ultimately, but not without opposition and protest, 
 victorious ; and the ecclesiastical interest of the reign of 
 Nicephorus centres in this question. 
 
 Tarasius, who had submitted by turns to the opposite 
 policies of Constantine VI. and Irene, was an ideal Patriarch 
 in the eyes of Nicephorus. He died on February 25, A.D. 
 806, 1 and the Emperor looked for a man of mild and 
 complacent disposition to succeed him. The selection of a 
 layman was suggested by the example of Tarasius ; a layman 
 would be more pliable than a priest or a monk, and more 
 readily understand and fall in with the Emperor's views of 
 ecclesiastical policy. His choice was judicious. He selected 
 a learned 2 man, who had recently retired from the post of 
 First Secretary 3 to a monastery which he had built on the 
 Bosphorus, but had not yet taken monastic vows. He was a 
 man of gentle disposition, and conformed to the Imperial idea 
 of a model Patriarch. 
 
 The celebrated Theodore, abbot of the monastery of 
 Studion, now appears again upon the scene. No man con- 
 tributed more than he to reorganize monastic life and render 
 monastic opinion a force in the Empire. Nicephorus, the 
 Emperor, knew that he would have to reckon with the 
 influence of Theodore and the Studite monks, and accordingly 
 he sought to disarm their opposition by writing to him and 
 his uncle Plato before the selection of a successor to Tarasius, 
 and asking their advice on the matter. The letter in which 
 Theodore replied to the Imperial communication is extant, 4 
 and is highly instructive. It permits us to divine that the 
 abbot would have been prepared to fill the Patriarchal chair 
 himself. He begins by flattering Nicephorus, ascribing his 
 
 1 Theoph. A.M. 6298, p. 481 15 . fJLrjvl ffwreXov/dvy 
 
 All the MSS. have xe' (i.e. the 25th). ffiiv irevTairX-rj rerpdSi. 
 
 De Boor reads it]', on the ground that 2 See Ignatius, Vit. Nic. Patr. 149 
 
 the version of Anastasius, which has sqq. His learning is also shown hy 
 
 duodecimo KaUndas Martias (i.e. the his extant writings. 
 
 18th), represents an older and better 3 Protoasecretes. For his monas- 
 
 text. This is not confirmed by teries see below, p. 68. 
 
 Ignatius, Vit. Tar. 27 -bevpovaply 4 Epp. i. 16, p. 960.
 
 SECT, v ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF NICEPHORUS 33 
 
 elevation to God's care for the Church. He goes on to say 
 that he knows of no man really worthy of the Patriarchate, 
 and he names three conditions which a suitable candidate 
 should fulfil : he should be able, with perfect heart, to seek 
 out the judgments of God ; he should have been raised by 
 gradual steps from the lowest to higher ecclesiastical ranks ; 
 he should be experienced in the various phases of spiritual 
 life and so able to help others. This was manifestly aimed at 
 excluding the possible election of a layman. But Theodore 
 goes further and actually suggests the election of an abbot 
 or an anchoret, 1 without mentioning a bishop. We cannot 
 mistake the tendency of this epistle. It is probable that 
 Plato proposed his nephew for the vacant dignity. 2 But 
 Theodore's bigotry and extreme views of ecclesiastical inde- 
 pendence rendered his appointment by an Emperor like 
 Nicephorus absolutely out of the question. 
 
 Eespect for Church tradition, with perhaps a touch of 
 jealousy, made Theodore and his party indignant at the 
 designation of Nicephorus, a layman, as Patriarch. They 
 agitated against him, 3 and their opposition seemed to the 
 Emperor an intolerable insubordination to his own authority. 
 Nor did their attitude meet with much sympathy outside 
 their own immediate circle. A contemporary monk, who was 
 no friend of the Emperor, dryly says that they tried to create 
 a schism. 4 The Emperor was fain to banish the abbot and 
 his uncle, and break up the monastery ; but it was represented 
 to him that the elevation of the new Patriarch would be 
 considered inauspicious if it were attended by the dissolution 
 of such a famous cloister in which there were about seven 
 hundred brethren. 5 He was content to keep the two leaders 
 in prison for twenty-four days, probably till after Nicephorus 
 had been enthroned. 6 The ceremony was solemnised on Easter 
 
 against the appointment of Nicepho- 
 The mention of a arv\lrt)s is remark- rus (Theodore, ib.). This monk was 
 able, and I conjecture that Theodore doubtless one Simeon, to whom we 
 had in his mind Simeon (A.D. 764- have several letters of Theodore. 
 843) who lived on a pillar in Mytilene ; 4 Theoph. A.M. 6298. 
 
 see Acta S. Davidis, etc. 5 Ib. Michael, Vit. Theod. Stud. 260 
 
 2 Theodore, Epitaph. Plat. 837. says the number nearly approached 
 Cp. Schneider, Dcr hi. Theodor, 27. 1000. 
 
 3 Plato went at night to a monk 6 Theodore, Epitaph. Plat., ib. 
 who was a kinsman of the Emperor, Other members of the community 
 seeking to make him use his influence were imprisoned too. 
 
 D
 
 34 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 day (April 12) in the presence of the two Augusti, 1 and the 
 Studites did not persist in their protest. 2 
 
 The Emperor Nicephorus now resolved to make an asser- 
 tion of Imperial absolutism, in the sense that the Emperor 
 was superior to canonical laws in the same way that he was 
 superior to secular laws. His assertion of this principle was 
 the more impressive, as it concerned a question which did not 
 involve his own interests or actions. 
 
 It will be remembered that Tarasius had given his 
 sanction to the divorce of Constantino VI. from his first wife 
 and to his marriage with Theodote (Sept. A.D. 79 5). 3 After 
 the fall of Constantine, Tarasius had been persuaded by Irene 
 to declare that both the divorce and the second marriage 
 were illegal, and Joseph, who had performed the marriage 
 ceremony, was degraded from the priesthood and placed under 
 the ban of excommunication. This ban had not been 
 removed, and the circumstance furnished Nicephorus with a 
 pretext for reopening a question which involved an important 
 constitutional principle. It would have been inconvenient to 
 ask Tarasius to broach again a matter on which his own 
 conduct had been conspicuously inconsistent and opportunist ; 
 but soon after the succession of the new Patriarch, Nicephorus 
 proceeded to procure a definite affirmation of the superiority 
 of the Emperor to canonical laws. At his wish a synod was 
 summoned to decide whether Joseph should be received 
 again into communion and reinstated in the sacerdotal office. 
 The assembly voted for his rehabilitation, and declared the 
 marriage of Constantine and Theodote valid. 4 
 
 In this assembly of bishops and monks one dissentient 
 voice was raised, that of Theodore the abbot of Studion. He 
 and his uncle Plato had suffered under Constantine VI. the 
 penalty of banishment from their monastery of Sakkudion, on 
 account of their refusal to communicate with Joseph, who had 
 transgressed the laws of the Church by uniting Constantine 
 
 1 Theoph. ib. It is interesting to to be expected. 
 
 observe the tendency of the writer 2 Cp. Theodore, Epp. i. 25, p. 989 ; 
 
 here. He approved of the election 30, p. 1008. 
 
 of Nicephorus, but could not bear to :i Bury, Later Roman Empire, ii. 
 
 attribute a good act to the Emperor, 487. 
 
 and therefore adds casually irpbs 5 4 Mansi, xiv. 14. Hefele (iii. 397) 
 
 Kal TWV {3a(ri\4uv, as though the speaks inadvertently of the affair of 
 
 presence of Nicephorus and Stauracius the "Abt Johannes." Cp. Theodore, 
 
 were something unimportant or hardly Epp. i. 33, p. 101.
 
 SECT, v ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF NICEPHORUS 35 
 
 with Theodote. It has been thought that the firm attitude 
 which they then assumed may have been in some measure due 
 to the fact that Theodote was nearly related to them ; that 
 they may have determined to place themselves beyond all 
 suspicion of condoning an offence against the canons in which 
 the interests of a kinswoman were involved. 1 Now, when the 
 question was revived, they persisted in their attitude, though 
 they resorted to no denunciations. Theodore wrote a respectful 
 letter to the Patriarch, urging him to exclude Joseph from 
 sacerdotal ministrations, and threatening that otherwise a 
 schism would be the consequence. 2 The Patriarch did not 
 deign to reply to the abbot, and for two years the matter lay 
 in abeyance, the Studites saying little, but declining to com- 
 municate with the Patriarch. 3 
 
 The scandal of this schism became more public when 
 Joseph, a brother of Theodore, became archbishop of Thes- 
 salonica. 4 He was asked by the Logothete of the Course, 
 why he would not communicate with the Patriarch and the 
 Emperor. On his alleging that he had nothing against them 
 personally, but only against the priest who had celebrated the 
 adulterous marriage, the Logothete declared, " Our pious 
 Emperors have no need of you at Thessalonica or anywhere 
 else." 5 This occurrence (A.D. 808) roused to activity 
 Theodore's facile pen. But his appeals to court-dignitaries or 
 to ecclesiastics outside his own community seem to have 
 produced little effect. 6 He failed to stir up public opinion 
 
 1 Pargoire, Saint Thdophane, 65. perhaps a daughter of Plato's sister. 
 Theodote was an laSA0i? of Theodore A table will illustrate Theodore's 
 (Michael, Vit. Theod. Stud. 254) family: 
 
 Sergius = Euphemia 
 
 Plato Theoktiste = Photeinos dau; 
 
 ;hter 
 
 Theodore Joseph Euthymios daughter 
 
 ? Theodote = Constantino VI. 
 See Pargoire, ib. 36-37. 
 
 2 Epp. i. 30. Theodore did not election see ib. i. 23. 
 object to Joseph's restoration to the 5 Ib. i. 31. 
 
 office of Oikonomos (see i. 43). 8 Cp. i. 24 to Theoktistos the 
 
 3 Ib. i. 26. magister ; 21 and 22 to Simeon the 
 
 4 For the circumstances of his monk, a relative of the Emperor, of
 
 36 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 against the recent synod, and in their schism the Studites 
 were isolated. 1 But the attitude of this important monastery 
 could no longer be ignored. 
 
 The mere question of the rehabilitation of a priest was, 
 of course, a very minor matter. Nor was the legitimacy 
 of Constantine's second marriage the question which really 
 interested the Emperor. The question at issue was whether 
 Emperors had power to override laws established by the 
 Church, and whether Patriarchs and bishops might dispense 
 from ecclesiastical canons. Theodore firmly maintained that 
 " the laws of God bind all men," and the circumstance that 
 Constantine wore the purple made no difference. 2 The 
 significance of Theodore's position is that in contending for 
 the validity of canonical law as independent of the State and 
 the Emperor, he was vindicating the independence of the 
 Church. Although the Stiidites stood virtually alone for 
 if any sympathised with them they were afraid to express 
 their opinions the persistent opposition of such a large and 
 influential institution could not be allowed to continue. A 
 mixed synod of ecclesiastics and Imperial officials met in 
 January A.D. 809, the legality of the marriage of Theodote 
 was reaffirmed, and it was laid down that Emperors were 
 above ecclesiastical laws and that bishops had the power of 
 dispensing from canons. 3 Moreover, sentence was passed on 
 the aged Plato, the abbot Theodore, and his brother Joseph, 
 who had been dragged before the assembly, and they were 
 banished to the Prince's Islands, where they were placed in 
 separate retreats. 4 Then Nicephorus proceeded to deal with 
 
 whom Theodore complains (i. 26, the possible interpretation that the 
 
 addressed to the abbot Simeon, a synod was held in Dec. 808 and the 
 
 different person) that he was d/j.<poTep6- expulsion followed in January (cp. 
 
 y\<affffos. Hefele, iii. 397). For the acts of the 
 
 1 If there were secret sympathisers, synod (<n/co5os dt)fjLo<ria) see Theodore, 
 they had not the courage of their Epp. i. 33, pp. 1017-19 oiKovofj.iav otv 
 opinion (see i. 31, p. 1009 vvK-repivol rrjv ^ev^oixelav Soyfj-arl^ovaif ^TTITWI> 
 0eocre/3eij, afraid to come out into the /3a<n\twi> TOI)S 0etous vbpovs /J.TI Kparelv 
 light). diopi^ovrai' . . . %KO.OTOV rCiv lepapx&v 
 
 2 Ib. i. 22. At this time Theodore tZovaidfeiv fv rots Odois Kavocri wapd. TO, 
 wrote (i. 28) to an old friend, Basil of ev ai/rots KeKavovicrfM-va airotpalvovrai. 
 St. Saba, who was then at Rome, and Of course this is Theodore's way of 
 had renounced communion with him ; putting it. The Acts assuredly did 
 and we learn that Pope Leo had ex- not speak of roi)s 0eiovs v6fj.ovs. For 
 pressed indifference as to the " sins " the composition of the Synod cp,. ib. i. 
 of Joseph (p. 1001). 34, p. 1021. 
 
 3 The date is given by Theophanes 4 Plato in the i.slet Oxeia (Theodore, 
 (484) whose words, however, admit Epitaph in Plat. c. 39, p. 841, where
 
 SECT, v ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF NICEPHORUS 37 
 
 the seven hundred monks of Studion. He summoned them to 
 his presence in the palace of Eleutherios, where he received 
 them with impressive ceremonial. When he found it im- 
 possible to intimidate or cajole them into disloyalty to their 
 abbot or submission to their sovran, he said : " Whoever will 
 obey the Emperor and agree with the Patriarch and the 
 clergy, let him stand on the right ; let the disobedient move 
 to the left, that we may see who consent and who are 
 stubborn." But this device did not succeed, and they were 
 all confined in various monasteries in the neighbourhood of 
 the city. 1 Soon afterwards we hear that they were scattered 
 far and wide throughout the Empire. 2 
 
 During his exile, Theodore maintained an active corre- 
 spondence with the members of his dispersed flock, and in 
 order to protect his communications against the curiosity of 
 official supervision he used the twenty-four letters of the 
 alphabet to designate the principal members of the Studite 
 fraternity. In this cipher, for example, alpha, represented 
 Plato, beta Joseph, omega Theodore himself. 3 Confident in the 
 justice of his cause, he invoked the intervention of the Roman 
 See, and urged the Pope to undo the work of the adulterous 
 synods by a General Council. Leo wrote a paternal and 
 consolatory letter, but he expressed no opinion on the merits 
 of the question. We may take it as certain that he had other 
 information derived from adherents of the Patriarch, who were 
 active in influencing opinion at Eome, and that he considered 
 Theodore's action ill-advised. In any case, he declined to 
 commit himself. 4 
 
 The resolute protest of the Studites aroused, as we have 
 seen, little enthusiasm, though it can hardly be doubted 
 that many ecclesiastics did not approve of the Acts of the 
 recent synod. But it was felt that the Patriarch had, in the 
 circumstances, acted prudently and with a sage economy. In 
 later times enthusiastic admirers of Theodore were ready to 
 
 read '0eta), Theodore in Chalkites, 4 The first letter that Theodore 
 
 now Halki (id., Epigramm. 98-104, wrote to Leo he destroyed himself (see 
 
 p. 1804). ib. i. 34, p. 1028). The second is 
 
 1 Michael, Vit. Theod. Stud. 269 ; extant (i. 33). We learn the drift of 
 cp. Anon. Vit. Theod. Stud. 160. the Pope's reply from i. 34, written in 
 
 2 Theodore, Epp. i. 48, pp. 1072-73. the joint names of Plato and Theodore. 
 Some were exiled at Cherson, others in See also their letter to Basil of Saba, 
 the island of Lipari. i. 35. For the activity of the other 
 
 3 Ib. i. 41. side at Rome, see i. 28.
 
 38 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 allow that Nicephorus had wisely consented lest the Emperor 
 should do something worse. 1 And after the Emperor's death 
 he showed that his consent had been unwillingly given. 
 
 If the Emperor Nicephorus asserted his supreme authority 
 in the Church, it could not be said that he was not formally 
 orthodox, as he accepted and maintained the settlement of the 
 Council of Nicaea and the victory of Picture-worship. But 
 though his enemies did not accuse him of iconoclastic tendencies, 
 he was not an enthusiastic image-worshipper. His policy was 
 to permit freedom of opinion, and the orthodox considered 
 such toleration equivalent to heresy. They were indignant 
 when he sheltered by his patronage a monk named Nicolas 
 who preached against images and had a following of disciples. 2 
 The favour which he showed to the Paulicians gave his enemies 
 a pretext for hinting that he was secretly inclined to that 
 flagrant heresy, and the fact that he was born in Pisidia 
 where Paulicianism flourished lent a colour to the charge. 
 These heretics had been his useful supporters in the rebellion 
 of Bardanes, and the superstitious believed that he had been 
 victorious on that occasion by resorting to charms and sorceries 
 which they were accustomed to employ. 3 Others said that 
 the Emperor had no religion at all. 4 The truth may be that 
 he was little interested in religious matters, except in relation 
 to the State. He was, at all events, too crafty to commit 
 himself openly to any heresy. But it is interesting to observe 
 that in the policy of toleration Nicephorus was not unsupported, 
 though his supporters may have been few. There existed in 
 the capital a party of enlightened persons who held that it 
 
 1 Michael, Vit. Theod. Stud. 268 2 Theoph. 488. In writing to the 
 
 (^Kovb^ffev fiTj pov\6fj.evos d\\d fiiao-Ofis monk Simeon (i. 21) Theodore Studites 
 
 VTTO TOV &VO.KTOS. Ignatius in his Life himself speaks thus of Nicephorus : 
 
 of Nicephorus completely omits this oi 5eff7r6rai T//U.WC ol ayadol /uearrat /cat 
 
 passage in his career. Theophanes Kpirai TOV diKatov. <f>i\r)Tal TUIV 
 
 touches on it lightly in his Chrono- ira.ppT)ffia,t;op.6viav tv d\rj6elg.- ws 
 
 graphy, and we know otherwise that O.VTO rb TI/ULIOV O.VT&V crrci/ua. iro\- 
 
 he did not blame the policy of the Xd/cts diayopevei. 
 Patriarch and therefore incurred the 
 
 severe censure of Theodore, who J Theoph^. He is said to have 
 
 describes him as a Moechian, i.e. one slaughtered a bull m a particular way 
 
 of the adulterous party. See Theodore, *nd to have g r . ound garments ot 
 
 Epp. ii. 31, p. 1204, where M ou 6 TOV Bardanes in a mill. 
 
 <rxi7/uaros avadoxos refers to Theophanes, 4 Anon. Vit. Theod. Stud. 153: he 
 
 who had been Theodore's sponsor was " nominally a Christian, really an 
 
 when he became a monk, as Pargoire enemy of Christianity." Ignatius, 
 
 has shown (Saint Thtophane, 56 sqq.). Vit. Nicephori Pair. 153, admits that 
 
 See also ib. ii. 218, p. 1660. he was orthodox.
 
 SECT, v ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL I. 39 
 
 was wrong to sentence heretics to death, 1 and they were strong 
 enough in the next reign to hinder a general persecution of 
 the Paulicians. 
 
 But for the most part the policy of Nicephorus was 
 reversed under Michael, who proved himself not the master 
 but the obedient son of the Church. The Patriarch knew the 
 character of Michael, and had reason to believe that he would 
 be submissive in all questions of faith and morals. But he 
 was determined to assure himself that his expectations would 
 be fulfilled, and he resorted to an expedient which has a 
 considerable constitutional interest. 
 
 The coronations of the Emperors Marcian and Leo I. by 
 the Patriarch, with the accompanying ecclesiastical ceremony, 
 may be said to have definitely introduced the new constitutional 
 principle that the profession of Christianity was a necessary 
 qualification for holding the Imperial office. 2 It also implied 
 that the new Emperor had not only been elected by the Senate 
 and the people, but was accepted by the Church. But what 
 if the Patriarch declined to crown the Emperor-elect ? Here, 
 clearly, there was an opportunity for a Patriarch to do what it 
 might be difficult for him to do when once the coronation was 
 accomplished. The Emperor was the head of the ecclesiastical 
 organization, and the influence which the Patriarch exerted 
 depended upon the relative strengths of his own and the 
 monarch's characters. But the Patriarch had it in his power 
 to place limitations on the policy of a future Emperor by 
 exacting from him certain definite and solemn promises before 
 the ceremony of coronation was performed. 3 It was not often 
 that in the annals of the later Empire the Patriarch had the 
 strength of will or a sufficient reason to impose such capitula- 
 tions. The earliest known instance is the case of Anasta- 
 sius I., who, before the Patriarch crowned him, was required 
 
 1 Theophanes calls them KaKorp6iruv . Empire, 27-29. In later times a 
 
 avfji^ov\uv (495). They argued on regular coronation oath (we do not 
 
 the ground of the possibility of re- know at what date it was introduced) 
 
 pentance, (Soy/^dn^ov 5e d/ia^ws fir) rendered special capitulations less 
 
 f^flvai Ifpevaiv diro<t>aivfff6a.i Kara dffffi&v necessary. In the tenth century the 
 
 6dva.Tov, Kara irdvTa, (adds the writer) Patriarch Poly euktos was able to extort 
 
 TCUS 0eiais ypatpais fva.vTLovfj.fvoi wepl a concession from John Tzimisces as 
 
 TOVTUV. a condition of coronation. It must 
 
 always be remembered that coronation 
 
 The case ot Marcian is not quite by ^ Patriarch) though i ooke d on as 
 
 certain. a mat ^ er o f course, was not a constitu- 
 
 3 Cp. Bury, Constitution of Later tional sine qua non (ib. 11 sq. ).
 
 40 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 to swear to a written undertaking that he would introduce 
 no novelty into the Church. 
 
 Nicephorus obtained from Michael an autograph assurance 
 and the sign of the cross was doubtless affixed to the signa- 
 ture in which he pledged himself to preserve the orthodox 
 faith, not to stain his hands with the blood of Christians, and 
 not to scourge ecclesiastics, whether priests or monks. 
 
 The Patriarch now showed that, if there had been no 
 persecutions during his tenure of office, he at least would not 
 have been lacking in zeal. At his instance the penalty of 
 capital punishment was enacted against the Paulicians and 
 the Athingani, 1 who were regarded as no better than 
 Manichaeans and altogether outside the pale of Christianity. 
 The persecution began ; not a few were decapitated ; but 
 influential men, to whose advice the Emperor could not close 
 his ears, intervened, and the bloody work was stayed. The 
 monk, to whom we owe most of our knowledge of the events of 
 these years, deeply laments the successful interference of these 
 evil counsellors. 2 But the penalty of death was only commuted ; 
 the Athingani were condemned to confiscation and banishment. 
 
 The Emperor had more excuse for proceeding against the 
 iconoclasts, who were still numerous in the army and the 
 Imperial city. They were by no means contented at the rule 
 of the orthodox Eangabe". 3 Their discontent burst out after 
 Michael's fruitless Bulgarian expedition in June, A.D. 812. 
 We shall have to return to the dealings of Michael with the 
 Bulgarians ; here we have only to observe how this June 
 expedition led to a conspiracy. When the iconoclasts saw 
 Thrace and Macedonia at the mercy of the heathen of the 
 north, they thought they had good grounds for grumbling at 
 the iconodulic sovran. When the admirers of the great Leo 
 and the great Constantino, who had ruled in the days of their 
 fathers and grandfathers, saw the enemy harrying the land at 
 will and possessing the cities of the Empire, they might bitterly 
 
 1 The Athingani, if not simply a Zigeuner (gipsy) is derived from the 
 
 sect of the Paulicians, were closely Athingani ; since aOiyyavos means 
 
 related to them. The name is supposed gipsy in Modern Greek, 
 
 to be derived from d-6iyydi>en>, re- 2 ,, , 
 
 ferring to the doctrine that the touch eo P ft< 4y&- 
 
 of many things denied (cp. St. Paul, 3 It may be noted that Michael 
 
 Coloss. ii. 21 /uij5 Olyris). They seam made no changes, significant of ortho- 
 
 to have chiefly flourished in Phrygia. doxy, in the types of the coinage ; 
 
 It has been supposed by some that cp. Wroth, I. xli.
 
 SECT, v ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL I. 41 
 
 remember how heavy the arm of Constantino had been on the 
 Bulgarians and how well he had defended the frontier of 
 Thrace ; they might plausibly ascribe the difference in military 
 success to the difference in religious doctrine. It was a good 
 opportunity for the bold to conspire; the difficulty was to 
 discover a successor to Michael, who would support iconoclasm 
 and who had some show of legitimate claim to the throne. 
 The choice of the conspirators fell on the blind sons of 
 Constantine V., who still survived in Panormos, or as it was 
 also, and is still, called Antigoni, one of the Prince's Islands. 
 These princes had been prominent in the reign of Constantine 
 VI. and Irene, as repeatedly conspiring against their nephew 
 and sister-in-law. The movement was easily suppressed, the 
 revolutionaries escaped with a few stripes, and the blind princes 
 were removed to the more distant island of Aphusia. 1 But 
 though the iconoclasts might be disaffected, they do not seem 
 to have provoked persecution by openly showing flagrant 
 disrespect to holy pictures 2 in the reigns of Nicephorus and 
 Michael. Michael, however, would not suffer the iconoclastic 
 propaganda which his father-in-law had allowed. He edified 
 the people of Constantinople by forcing the iconoclastic 
 lecturer Nicolas to make a public recantation of his error. 
 
 The Emperor and the Patriarch lost no time in annulling 
 the decisions of those assemblies which the Studite monks 
 stigmatised as " synods of adulterers." The notorious Joseph, 
 who had celebrated the " adulterous " marriage, was again 
 suspended ; the Studites were recalled from exile ; and the 
 schism was healed. It might now be alleged that Nicephorus 
 had not been in sympathy with the late Emperor's policy, 
 and had only co-operated with him from considerations of 
 " economy." 3 But the dissensions of the Studite monks, first 
 
 1 Theoph. 496. Aphusia, still so OKTOS) hermit scraped and insulted a 
 called, is one of the Proconnesian picture of the Mother of God, and was 
 islands, apparently not the same as punished by the excision of his tongue. 
 Ophiusa, for Diogenes of Cyzicus * It is not known whether the 
 (Miiller, F.H.G. iv. 392) distinguishes Emperor or the Patriarch was the 
 &v<rta. Kal '0<t>i6effffa. The other chief prime mover. It is interesting to 
 islands of the group are Proconnesus, note that the Emperor Nicephorus 
 Aulonia, and Kutalis ; the four are had given the brothers of the Empress 
 described in Gedeon, Upoiubwijcros, Theodote quarters in the Palace, thus 
 1895. Cp. Hasluck, J.H.S. xxix. 17. emphasizing his approbation of ,her 
 
 2 The fact that Theophanes only marriage, and that Michael I. ex- 
 records one case in Michael's reign pelled them (Scr. Incert. 336). 
 
 (ib). is significant. A vagabond (i^trepi-
 
 42 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, i 
 
 with Tarasius and then with Nicephorus, were more than 
 passing episodes. They were symptomatic of an opposition or 
 discord between the hierarchy of the Church and a portion of 
 the monastic world. The heads of the Church were more 
 liberal and more practical in their views ; they realized the 
 importance of the State, on which the Church depended ; and 
 they deemed it bad policy, unless a fundamental principle 
 were at stake, to oppose the supreme authority of the 
 Emperor. The monks were no politicians ; they regarded the 
 world from a purely ecclesiastical point of view ; they looked 
 upon the Church as infinitely superior to the State ; and 
 they were prepared to take extreme measures for the sake of 
 maintaining a canon. The " third party " and the monks were 
 united, after the death of Michael I., in a common struggle 
 against iconoclasm, but as soon as the enemy was routed, the 
 disagreement between these two powers in the Church broke 
 out, as we shall see, anew.
 
 CHAPTEE II 
 
 LEO v. (THE ARMENIAN) AND THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 
 (A.D. 813-820) 
 
 1. Reign and Administration of Leo V. 
 
 LEO V. was not the first Armenian l who occupied the 
 Imperial throne. Among the Emperors who reigned briefly 
 and in rapid succession after the decline of the Heraclian 
 dynasty, the Armenian Bardanes who took the name of 
 Philippicus, had been chiefly noted for luxury and delicate 
 living. The distinctions of Leo were of a very different 
 order. If he had " sown his wild oats " in earlier days, he 
 proved an active and austere prince, and he presented a 
 marked contrast to his immediate predecessor. Born in 
 lowly station and poor circumstances, Leo had made his way 
 up by his own ability to the loftiest pinnacle in the Empire ; 
 Michael enjoyed the advantages of rank and birth, and had 
 won the throne through the accident of his marriage with an 
 Emperor's daughter. Michael had no will of his own ; Leo's 
 temper was as firm as that of his namesake, the Isaurian. 
 Michael was in the hands of the Patriarch ; Leo was 
 determined that the Patriarch should be in the hands of the 
 Emperor. Even those who sympathized with the religious 
 policy of Michael were compelled to confess that he was a 
 feeble, incompetent ruler ; while even those who hated Leo 
 most bitterly could not refuse to own that in civil administra- 
 tion he was an able sovran. A short description of Leo's 
 
 1 On one side his parentage \vas The statements are vague. His par- 
 
 " Assyrian," which presumably means ents (one or both ?) are said to have 
 
 Syrian (Gen. 28 ; Cont. Th. 6 Kara slain their (?) parents and been exiled 
 
 ffvfvytav t 'Aa-ffvptuv /ecu 'Ap/j.eviut>). for that reason to Armenia. 
 
 43
 
 44 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 personal appearance has been preserved. He was of small 
 stature and had curling hair ; he wore a full beard ; his hair 
 was thick ; his voice loud. 1 
 
 On the very day of his entry into Constantinople as an 
 Augustus proclaimed by the army, an incident is related to 
 have occurred which seemed an allegorical intimation as to 
 the ultimate destiny of the new Emperor. It is one of those 
 stories based perhaps upon some actual incident, but improved 
 and embellished in the light of later events, so as to bear 
 the appearance of a mysterious augury. It belongs to the 
 general atmosphere of mystery that seemed to envelop the 
 careers of the three young squires of Bardanes, whose 
 destinies had been so closely interwoven. The prophecy of 
 the hermit of Philomelion, the raving of the slave-girl of 
 Michael Rangabe 1 , 2 and the incident now to be related, 3 mark 
 stages in the development of the drama. 
 
 Since Michael the Amorian had been rewarded by 
 Nicephorus for his desertion of the rebel Bardanes, we lose 
 sight of his career. He seems to have remained an officer in 
 the Anatolic Theme, of which he had been appointed Count 
 of the tent, and when Leo the Armenian became the 
 strategos of that province the old comrades renewed their 
 friendship. 4 Leo acted as sponsor to Michael's son ; 5 and 
 Michael played some part in bringing about Leo's elevation. 
 The latter is said to have shrunk from taking the great step, 
 
 1 Pseudo-Simeon, 603. This is one at Constantinople (Panchenko, Kat. 
 
 of the notices peculiar to this Mol. viii. 234). 
 
 chronicle and not found in our other 2 Constantino Porphyrogennetos was 
 
 authorities. I have conjectured that conscious of this dramatic develop- 
 
 the source was the Scriptor Incertus, ment . We may trace his hand in the 
 
 of whose work we possess the valuable comment (in Cont. Th. 23) that the 
 
 fragment frequently cited in these prophecy of Philomelion was the first 
 
 notes. See Bury, A Source of Symeon V ague sketch, and the words of the 
 
 Magister B.Z. i. 572 (1892). Note de slave-girl "second colours "Sevrepd 
 
 Boor's emendation ffyvpdv for 6yvpdv Tiva j^^ara fa & f v7 p a <^ rats 
 
 (KOMV) in this passage, and cp. above, ^crepcus i^op^e^vra. tmcuy. 
 
 p. 22, n. 2. On most of the coins of m i j * n - , n t 
 
 Leo, which are of the ordinary type of ' d $ G p enesios \ 7 ' and in ConL 
 
 this period, his son Constantino ap- Th ' 19 < after Geneslos )' 
 
 pears beardless on the reverse. A seal, 4 Cont. Th. 12 U . See above, p. 12. 
 
 which seems to belong to these It is not clear whether Michael's office 
 
 Emperors, with a cross potent on the was still that of xi/xijs ,s <c6pTijy of 
 
 obverse, and closely resembling one the Anatolic Theme. Gen. 7 describes 
 
 type of the silver coinage of these nini as T<s " a ^ To0 IrroKfyuHf irpurapxy 
 
 Emperors and of their predecessors (cp. Cont. Th. 19), which seems to 
 
 Michael and Theophylactus (see mean that he was the private proto- 
 
 Wroth, PL xlvii. 4, 11, 12), is pre- strator of Leo as strategos. 
 
 served in the Russian Arch. Institute 5 Gen. 12,,.
 
 SECT, i LEO V. 45 
 
 as he was not sure that he would obtain simultaneous recogni- 
 tion in the camp and in the capital, and Michael the Lisper, 
 threatening to slay him if he did not consent, undertook to 
 make the necessary arrangements. 1 When Leo entered the 
 city he was met and welcomed by the whole Senate near the 
 Church of St. John the Forerunner, which still stands, not 
 far from the Golden Gate, and marks the site of the monastery 
 of Studion. Accompanied by an acclaiming crowd, and closely 
 attended by Michael his confidant, the new Augustus rode to 
 the Palace. He halted in front of the Brazen Gate (Chalke) 
 to worship before the great image of Christ which surmounted 
 the portal. The Fifth Leo, who was afterwards to be such 
 an ardent emulator of the third Emperor of his name, now 
 dismounted, and paid devotion to the figure restored by Irene 
 in place of that which Leo the Isaurian had demolished. 
 Perhaps the Armenian had not yet decided on pursuing an 
 iconoclastic policy ; in any case he recognized that it would 
 be a false step to suggest by any omission the idea that he 
 was not strictly orthodox. Halting and dismounting he con- 
 signed to the care of Michael the loose red military garment 
 which he wore. This cloak, technically called an eagle, 2 and 
 more popularly a kolobion, was worn without a belt. Michael 
 is said to have put on the " eagle " which the Emperor had 
 put off. It is not clear whether this was strictly according 
 to etiquette or not, but the incident was supposed to be an 
 omen that Michael would succeed Leo. Another still more 
 ominous incident is said to have followed. The Emperor did 
 not enter by the Brazen Gate, but, having performed his act 
 of devotion, proceeded past the Baths of Zeuxippos, and 
 passing through the Hippodrome reached the Palace at the 
 entrance known as the Skyla. 3 The Emperor walked rapidly 
 through the gate, and Michael, hurrying to keep up with 
 him, awkwardly trampled on the edge of his dress which 
 touched the ground behind. 
 
 It was said that Leo himself recognized the omen, but it 
 certainly did not influence him in his conduct ; nor is there 
 
 1 Gen. 5, repeated in Cont. Th. an illustration in the Madrid MS. 
 
 2 der6j, also 0<iXa<nra, Cont. Th. 19. of Skylitzes (reproduced in Beylie, 
 Genesios says it was called a Ko\6{ltoi> L 'Habitation byzantine, 122). 
 
 (a garment with very short sleeves, 3 Compare the route of Theophilus 
 
 whence its name ; cp. Ducange, Gloss. on the occasion of his triumph. See 
 s.v. ). The incident is the subject of below, p. 128.
 
 46 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 anything to suggest that at this time Michael was jealous of 
 Leo, or Leo suspicious of Michael. The Emperor made him 
 the Domestic or commander of the Excubitors, with rank of 
 patrician, and treated him as a confidential adviser. Nor did 
 he forget his other comrade, who had served with him under 
 Bardanes, but cleaved more faithfully to his patron than had 
 either the Amorian or the Armenian. Thomas the Slavonian 
 returned from Saracen territory, where he had lived in exile, 
 and was now made Turmarch of the Federates. Thus the 
 three squires of Bardanes are brought into association again. 
 Another appointment which Leo made redounds to his credit, 
 as his opponents grudgingly admitted. He promoted Manuel 
 the Protostrator, who had strongly opposed the resignation of 
 Michael and his own elevation, to the rank of patrician and 
 made him General of the Armeniacs. Manuel could hardly 
 have looked for such favour ; he probably expected that his 
 fee would be exile. He was a bold, outspoken man, and when 
 Leo said to him, " You ought not to have advised the late 
 Emperor and Procopia against my interests," he replied, " Nor 
 ought you to have raised a hand against your benefactor and 
 fellow-father," referring to the circumstance that Leo had stood 
 as sponsor for a child of Michael. 1 
 
 The revolution which established a new Emperor on the 
 throne had been accomplished speedily and safely at a moment 
 of great national peril. The defences of the city had to be 
 hastily set in order, and Krum, the Bulgarian victor, appeared 
 before the walls within a week. Although the barbarians of 
 the north had little chance of succeeding where the Saracen 
 forces had more than once failed, and finally retired, the 
 destruction which they wrought in the suburbs was a gloomy 
 beginning for a new reign. The active hostilities of the 
 Bulgarian prince claimed the solicitude of Leo for more than 
 a year, when his death, as he was preparing to attack the 
 capital again, led to the conclusion of a peace. 
 
 On the eastern frontier the internal troubles of the 
 Caliphate relieved the Empire from anxiety during this 
 
 1 Or perhaps Michael for a child of 23. There is perhaps no need to sus- 
 
 Leo (Cont. Th. 24). Leo was the P ec t a confusion of the two Michaels, 
 
 godfather of a son of Michael the The advancements of Michael and 
 
 Amorian (Theophilus unless Michael Thomas are told in Gen. 12, that of 
 
 had another son who died early), ib. Manuel only in Cont. Th.
 
 SECT, i LEO V. 47 
 
 reign, and, after the Bulgarian crisis had passed, Leo was able 
 to devote his attention to domestic administration. But of 
 his acts almost nothing has been recorded except of those 
 connected with his revival of iconoclasm. His warfare against 
 image-worship was the conspicuous feature of his rule, and, 
 occupied with execrating his ecclesiastical policy, the chroniclers 
 have told us little of his other works. Yet his most bitter 
 adversaries were compelled unwillingly to confess 1 that his 
 activity in providing for the military defences of the Empire 
 and for securing the administration of justice was -deserving of 
 all commendation. This was the judgment of the Patriarch 
 Nicephorus, who cannot be accused of partiality. He said 
 after the death of Leo : " The Eoman Empire has lost an 
 impious but great guardian." ' He neglected no measure 
 which seemed likely to prove advantageous to the State ; and 
 this is high praise from the mouths of adversaries. He was 
 severe to criminals, and he endeavoured, in appointing judges 
 and governors, to secure men who were superior to bribes. 
 No one could say that love of money was one of the Emperor's 
 weak points. In illustration of his justice the following 
 anecdote is told. One day as he was issuing from the Palace, 
 a man accosted him and complained of a bitter wrong which 
 had been done him by a certain senator. The lawless noble 
 had carried off the poor man's attractive wife and had kept 
 her in his own possession for a long time. The husband had 
 complained to the Prefect of the City, but complained in vain. 
 The guilty senator had influence, and the Prefect was a 
 respecter of persons. The Emperor immediately commanded 
 one of his attendants to bring the accused noble and the 
 Prefect to his presence. The ravisher did not attempt to 
 deny the charge, and the minister admitted that the matter 
 had come before him. Leo enforced the penalties of the law, 
 and stripped the unworthy Prefect of his office. 3 
 
 Our authorities tell us little enough about the administra- 
 tion of this sovran, and their praise is bestowed reluctantly. 
 But it is easy to see that he was a strenuous ruler, of the 
 
 1 Gen. 17-18. for show. Gieseler regarded him as 
 
 2 Gen. 17. The account in Cont. " einer der besten Regenten " (Lehr- 
 Th. 30 is taken from Genesios, but buck der Kirchengeschichte, ii. 1, p. 4, 
 the writer, on his own authority, ed. 4, 1846). 
 
 makes out Leo to have been a hypocrite, :i Gen. 18. 
 
 and to have feigned a love of justice
 
 48 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 usual Byzantine type, devoted to the duties of his post, and 
 concerned to secure efficiency both in his military and civil 
 officers. He transacted most of his State business in the long 
 hall in the Palace which was called the Lausiakos. There his 
 secretaries, who were noted for efficiency, worked under his 
 directions. 1 In undertakings of public utility his industry 
 was unsparing. After the peace with Bulgaria he rebuilt and 
 restored the cities of Thrace and Macedonia, and himself with 
 a military retinue made a progress in those provinces, to for- 
 ward and superintend the work. 2 He personally supervised 
 the drill and discipline of the army. 3 
 
 2. Conspiracy of Michael and Murder of Leo 
 
 The reign of Leo closes with another act in the historical 
 drama which opened with the revolt of Bardanes Turcus. We 
 have seen how the Emperor Leo bestowed offices on his two 
 companions, Michael and Thomas. But Michael was not to 
 prove himself more loyal to his Armenian comrade who had 
 outstripped him than he had formerly shown himself to his 
 Armenian master who had trusted him. Thomas indeed had 
 faithfully clung to the desperate cause of the rebel ; but he 
 was not to bear himself with equal faith to a more legitimate 
 lord. 
 
 The treason of Thomas is not by any means as clear as the 
 treason of Michael. But this at least seems to be certain, 
 that towards the end of the year 8 2 4 he organized a revolt 
 in the East ; that the Emperor, forming a false conception of 
 the danger, sent an inadequate force, perhaps under an incom- 
 petent commander, to quell the rising, and that this force was 
 defeated by the rebel. 
 
 But with Thomas we have no further concern now ; our 
 instant concern is with the commander of the Excubitors, who 
 was more directly under the Imperial eye. It appears that 
 Michael had fallen under the serious suspicion of the Emperor. 
 
 1 Gen. 18. than a month or two before Leo's 
 
 2 Ib. 28. For his new wall at death, Leo would have been con- 
 Blachernae see below, p. 94. strained to deal seriously with it, 
 
 3 Gont. Th. 30. and we should have heard about 
 
 4 The date is not given, but may be the operations. For the statement of 
 inferred with tolerable certainty. If Michael in his letter to Lewis the 
 the rebellion had broken out sooner Pious see Appendix V.
 
 SECT, ii '^MURDER OF LEO V, 49 
 
 The evidence against him was so weighty that he had hardly 
 succeeded in freeing himself from the charge of treason. He 
 was a rough man, without education or breeding; and while 
 he could not speak polite Greek, his tongue lisped insolently 
 against the Emperor. Perhaps he imagined that Leo was 
 afraid of him ; for, coarse and untrained as he may have been, 
 Michael proved himself afterwards to be a man of ability, and 
 does not strike us as one who was likely to have been a reck- 
 less babbler. He spoke doubtless these treasonable things in 
 the presence of select friends, but he must have known well 
 how perilous words he uttered. The matter came to the ears 
 of the Emperor, who, unwilling to resort to any extreme 
 measure on hearsay, not only set eavesdroppers to watch the 
 words and deeds of his disaffected officer, but took care that he 
 should be privately admonished to control his tongue. These 
 offices he specially entrusted to the Logothete of the Course, 
 John Hexabulios, a discreet and experienced man, whom we 
 met before on the occasion of the return of Michael Kangabe 
 to the city after the defeat at Hadrianople. 1 We may feel 
 surprise that he who then reproved Michael I. for his folly in 
 leaving the army in Leo's hands, should now be the trusted 
 minister of Leo himself. But we shall find him still 
 holding office and enjoying influence in the reign of Leo's 
 successor. The same man who has the confidence of the First 
 Michael, and warns him against Leo, wins the confidence of 
 Leo, and warns him against another Michael, then wins 
 the confidence of the Second Michael, and advises him on his 
 dealing with an unsuccessful rebel. 2 Had the rebellion of 
 Thomas prospered, Hexabulios would doubtless have been a 
 trusted minister of Thomas too. 
 
 Michael was deaf to the warnings and rebukes of the 
 Logothete of the Course ; he was indifferent to the dangers 
 in which his unruly talk seemed certain to involve him. 
 The matter came to a crisis on Christmas Eve, A.D. 820. 
 Hexabulios had gained information which pointed to a con- 
 spiracy organized by Michael and had laid it before the 
 Emperor. The peril which threatened the throne could no 
 longer be overlooked, and the wrath of Leo himself was 
 furious. Michael was arrested, and the day before the feast 
 
 1 Above, p. 27. 2 Below, p. 106. 
 
 E
 
 50 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 of Christmas was spent in proving his guilt. The inquiry 
 was held in the chamber of the State Secretaries, 1 and the 
 Emperor presided in person. The proofs of guilt were so 
 clear and overwhelming that the prisoner himself was con- 
 strained to confess his treason. After such a long space of 
 patience the wrath of the judge was all the more terrible, 
 and he passed the unusual sentence that his old companion- 
 in-arms should be fastened to a pole and cast into the 
 furnace which heated the baths of the Palace. That the 
 indignity might be greater, an ape was to be tied to the 
 victim, in recollection perhaps of the old Roman punishment 
 of parricides. 
 
 This sentence would have been carried out and the reign 
 of Leo would not have come to an untimely end, if the Empress 
 Theodosia had not intervened. Shocked at the news of the 
 atrocious sentence, she rose from her couch, and, not even 
 taking time to put on her slippers, rushed to the Emperor's 
 presence, in order to prevent its execution. If she had 
 merely exclaimed against the barbarity of the decree, she 
 might not have compassed her wish, but the very day of the 
 event helped her. It was Christmas Eve. How could the 
 Emperor dare, with hands stained by such foul cruelty, to 
 receive the holy Sacrament on the morrow ? Must he not be 
 ashamed that such an act should be associated with the feast 
 of the Nativity ? These arguments appealed to the pious 
 Christian. But Theodosia had also an argument which might 
 appeal to the prudent sovran : let the punishment be 
 postponed ; institute a stricter investigation, and discover the 
 names of all those who have been implicated in the plot. 
 The appeal of the Empress was not in vain. Her counsels 
 and her entreaties affected the mind of her husband. But 
 while he consented to defer his final decision, it would seem 
 that he had misgivings, and that some dim feeling of danger 
 entered into him. He is reported to have said : " Wife, you 
 have released my soul from sin to-day ; perhaps it will soon 
 cost me my life too. You and our children will see what 
 shall happen." 
 
 In those days men were ready to see fatal omens and 
 
 1 Gen. 20 irepl rbv r(av dfftjKpiirluv far from the Lausiakos (cp. Bieliaev, 
 These offices were situated not i. 157).
 
 SECT, ii MURDER OF LEO V. 51 
 
 foreshadowings in every chance event and random word. The 
 Emperor lay awake long on the night following that Christmas 
 Eve, tossing in his mind divers grave omens, which seemed 
 to point to some mortal peril, and to signify Michael as the 
 instrument. There was the unlucky chance that on the day 
 of his coronation Michael had trodden on his cloak. -But 
 there were other signs more serious and more recent. From 
 a book of oracles and symbolic pictures l Leo had discovered 
 the time of his death. A lion pierced in the throat with a 
 sword was depicted between the letters Chi and Phi. These 
 are the first letters of the Greek expressions 2 which mean 
 Christmas and Epiphany, and therefore the symbol was 
 explained that the Imperial lion was to be slain between 
 those two feasts. As the hours went on to Christmas morning 
 the Lion might feel uneasy in his lair. And a strange dream, 
 which he had dreamt a short time before, expressly signified 
 that Michael would be the cause of his death. The Patriarch 
 Tarasius had appeared to him with threatening words and 
 gestures, and had called sternly upon one Michael to slay the 
 sinner. It seemed to Leo that Michael obeyed the command, 
 and that he himself was left half dead. 
 
 Tortured with such fears the Emperor bethought him to 
 make further provisions for the safety of the prisoner whose 
 punishment he had deferred. He summoned the keeper 
 (papias) of the Palace and bade him keep Michael in one of 
 the rooms which were assigned to the Palace-sweepers, and to 
 fasten his feet in fetters. Leo, to make things doubly sure, 
 kept the key of the fetters in the pocket of his under-garment. 
 But still his fears would not let him slumber, and as the night 
 wore on he resolved to convince himself with his own eyes 
 that the prisoner was safe. Along the passages which led 
 to the room which for the time had been turned into a 
 dungeon, there were locked doors to pass. But they were 
 not solid enough to shut out the Emperor, who was a strong 
 man and easily smashed or unhinged them. He found the 
 prisoner sleeping on the pallet or bench of the keeper, and the 
 keeper himself sleeping on the floor. He saw none save 
 these two, but unluckily there was another present who saw 
 
 1 IK Ttvos ffi/yu/3o\t/c^j /3/3\ov (Gen. 21). 
 a Xpiffrov T] "yfrvr)cris and (TCI) <f>ura.
 
 52 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 him. A little boy l in the service of Michael, who had been 
 allowed (doubtless irregularly) to bear his master company, 
 heard the approaching steps and crept under the couch, from 
 which hiding-place he observed the movements of Leo, whom 
 he recognized as the Emperor by his red boots. Leo bent 
 over Michael and laid his hand on his breast, to discover 
 whether the beating of his heart pointed to anxiety or 
 security. When there was no response to his touch, the 
 Emperor marvelled much that his prisoner enjoyed such a 
 sound and careless sleep. But he was vexed at the circum- 
 stance that the keeper had resigned his couch to the criminal ; 
 such leniency seemed undue and suspicious. Perhaps he was 
 vexed too that the guardian was himself asleep. In any case 
 the lad under the bed observed him, as he was retiring from 
 the cell, to shake his hand threateningly at both the guardian 
 and the prisoner. The unseen spectator of Leo's visit reported 
 the matter to his master, and when the keeper of the Palace 
 saw that he too was in jeopardy they took common counsel 
 to save their lives. The only chance was to effect a com- 
 munication with the other conspirators, whose names had 
 not yet been revealed. The Emperor had directed that, if 
 Michael were moved to confess his sins and wished for ghostly 
 consolation, the offices of a priest should not be withheld from 
 him, and the matter was entrusted to a certain Theoktistos, 
 who was a servant of Michael, perhaps one of the Excubitors. 
 It certainly seems strange that Leo, who took such anxious 
 precautions in other ways, should have allowed the condemned 
 to hold any converse with one of his own faithful dependants. 
 The concession proved fatal. The keeper led Theoktistos to 
 Michael's presence, and Theoktistos soon left the Palace, under 
 the plea of fetching a minister of religion, but really in order 
 to arrange a plan of rescue with the other conspirators. He 
 assured the accomplices that, if they did not come to deliver 
 the prisoner from death, Michael would not hesitate to reveal 
 their names. 
 
 The plan of rescue which the conspirators imagined and 
 
 carried out was simple enough ; but its success depended on 
 
 the circumstance that the season was winter and the mornings 
 
 dark. It was the custom that the choristers who chanted the 
 
 1 The boy was an eunuch (Gen. 23).
 
 SECT, ii MURDER OF LEO V. 53 
 
 matins in the Palace Chapel of St. Stephen 1 should enter by 
 the Ivory Gate at daybreak, and as soon as they sang the 
 morning hymn, the Emperor used to enter the church. The 
 conspirators arrayed themselves in clerical robes, and having 
 concealed daggers in the folds, mingled with the choristers 
 who were waiting for admission at the Ivory Gate. Under 
 the cover of the gloom easily escaping detection, they entered 
 the Palace and hid themselves in a dark corner of the chapel. 
 Leo, who was proud of his singing (according to one writer he 
 sang execrably, but another, by no means well disposed to him, 
 states that he had an unusually melodious voice 2 ), arrived 
 punctually to take part in the Christmas service, and harbour- 
 ing no suspicion of the danger -which lurked so near. It was a 
 chilly morning, and both the Emperor and the priest who led the 
 service had protected themselves against the cold by wearing 
 peaked felt caps. At a passage in the service which the 
 Emperor used to sing with special unction, the signal was 
 given and the conspirators leaped out from their hiding-place. 
 The likeness in head-dress, and also a certain likeness in face 
 and figure, between Leo and the chief of the officiating clergy, led 
 at first to a blunder. The weapons of the rebels were directed 
 against the priest, but he saved his life by uncovering his head 
 and showing that he was bald. Leo, meanwhile, who saw his 
 danger, had used the momentary respite to rush to the altar 
 and seize some sacred object, whether the cross itself, or the 
 chain of the censer, or a candelabrum, as a weapon of defence. 
 When this was shattered by the swords of the foes who 
 surrounded him and only a useless fragment remained in his 
 hands, he turned to one of them who was distinguished above 
 the others by immense stature and adjured him to spare his life. 
 
 1 Ada, Davidis, etc., 229 KO.T&. rbv Bieliaev) thought that the church 
 rov TrpuTOfjLapTvpos ~SJre<f>6.vov va&v rbv (which Gen. and Cont. Th. do not 
 HvSov 6vra rdv fiacriXeiuv iv Toiry T<$ identify) is that of the Lord, which 
 (m\fyof^vy i\d<t>vri. But Nicetas ( Vit. was also close to Daphne. The 
 Ign. 216) places the murder in the Armenian historian Wardan (see Mar- 
 Church of the Virgin of the Pharos, quart, Streifziige, 404) says that the 
 and this is accepted by Ebersolt (155), keeper of the prison was a friend of 
 who consequently gets into difficulties Michael and bribed the /myyXa/ftrcu 
 about the Ivory Gate. From Gen. 24 (palace-guards), and that they exe- 
 it is clear that this gate was an ex- cuted the murder. He also mentions 
 terior gate of the Palace (this is in the intervention of the Empress, 
 accordance with Constantine, Cer. 600), 2 Gen. p. 19 ffofiapbv tpfioCiv KO.I 
 doubtless communicating with the Ka.K6pv6/j.os, but Cont. Th. 39 ty 70/5 
 Hippodrome, and close to the Daphne 0wm re eOQwvos ical tv TCUS fj.e\<f)8iats rCiv 
 Palace. Labarte (122 ; followed by /car' tKeivo icaipov ivOp&iruv T)Svra.Tos.
 
 54 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 But the giant, who for his height was nicknamed " One-and-a- 
 half," l swore a great oath that the days of Leo were numbered, 
 and with the word brought down his sword so heavily on the 
 shoulder of his victim that not only was the arm cut from 
 the body, but the implement which the hand still held was 
 cleft and bounded to a distant spot of the building. The 
 Imperial head was then cut off, and the work of murder and 
 rescue was accomplished. 2 
 
 Thus perished the Armenian Leo more foully than any 
 Eoman Emperor since Maurice was slain by Phocas. He was, 
 as even his enemies admitted (apart from his religious policy), 
 an excellent ruler, and a rebellion against him, not caused by 
 ecclesiastical discontent, was inexcusable. Michael afterwards 
 declared, in palliation of the conspiracy, that Leo had shown 
 himself to be unequal to coping with the rebellion of Thomas, 
 and that this incompetence had caused discontent among the 
 leading men of the State. But this plea cannot be admitted ; 
 for although Thomas defeated a small force which Leo, not 
 fully realizing the danger, had sent against him, there is no 
 reason to suppose that, when he was fully informed of the 
 forces and numbers of the rebel, he would have shown himself 
 less able or less energetic in suppressing the insurrection than 
 Michael himself. Certainly his previous conduct of warfare 
 was not likely to suggest to his ministers that he was 
 incapable of dealing with a revolt. But in any case we have 
 no sign, except Michael's own statement, that the rebellion of 
 Thomas was already formidable. We must conclude that the 
 conspiracy was entirely due to Michael's personal ambition, 
 stimulated perhaps by the signs and omens and soothsayings 
 of which the air was full. It does not appear that the 
 religious question entered into the situation ; for Michael was 
 himself favourable to iconoclasm. 
 
 The body of the slain Emperor was cast by his murderers 
 into some sewer or outhouse 3 for the moment. It was after- 
 
 1 iv Kal ijfjuffv, see Gen. 25. From which they interpreted to signify 
 Cont. Th. 39 we get another fact about some portentous event. See Gen. 26, 
 the giant : he belonged to the family Cont. Th. 40. Cp. the story told of the 
 of the Krambonites. death of Wala of Corbie (A.D. 836) : 
 
 2 There was a story told that at Simson, Ludwig, ii. 157. 
 
 the very hour at which the deed 3 Gen. 26 tv ev\oeid^cri x^pots TOJS 
 
 was wrought, four o'clock in the Trpbs r6 S^I/JLOV (S. seems to mean a 
 
 morning, some sailors, sailing on the receptacle for sewerage ; not noticed 
 
 sea, heard a strange voice in the air, in Ducange's Gloss.).
 
 SECT, ii MURDER OF LEO V. 55 
 
 wards dragged naked from the Palace by the " Gate of Spoils " 
 to the Hippodrome, 1 to be exposed to the spurns of the 
 populace, which had so lately trembled in the presence of the 
 form which they now insulted. From the Hippodrome the 
 corpse was borne on the back of a horse or mule to a harbour 
 and embarked in the same boat which was to convey the 
 widow and the children of the Emperor to a lonely and lowly 
 exile in the island of Prote. Here a new sorrow was in store 
 for Theodosia : the body of the son who was called by her own 
 name was to be laid by that of his father. The decree had 
 gone forth that the four sons were to be made eunuchs, in 
 order that they might never aspire to recover the throne from 
 which their father had fallen. The same measure which Leo 
 had meted to his predecessor's children was dealt out to his 
 own offspring. Theodosius, who was probably the youngest of 
 the brothers, did not survive the mutilation, and he was 
 buried with Leo. There is a tale that one of the other 
 brothers, but it is not quite clear whether it was Constantine 
 or Basil, 2 lost his power of speech from the same cause, but 
 that by devout and continuous prayer to God and to St. 
 Gregory, whose image had been set up in the island, his voice 
 was restored to him. The third son, Gregory, lived to 
 become in later years bishop of Syracuse. Both Basil and 
 Gregory repented of their iconoclastic errors, and iconodule 
 historians spoke of them in after days as " great in virtue." * 
 
 But although Michael, with a view to his own security, 
 dealt thus cruelly with the boys, he did not leave the family 
 destitute. He gave them a portion of Leo's property for their 
 support, but he assigned them habitations in different places. 
 The sons were confined in Prote, while the wife and the mother 
 of Leo were allowed to dwell " safely and at their own will " in a 
 more verdant and charming island of the same group, ChalkitSs, 
 which is now known as Halki. 4 
 
 1 There is a picture of the scene in course, is a mistake. Constantine 
 
 the Madrid MS. of Skylitzes (Beylie, was not Basil. The renaming was of 
 
 V 'Habitation byzantine,WQ). Partisans Symbatios, who became Constantine 
 
 of Michael appear above the roof of (ib. 41 ; below, p. 58). It seems prob- 
 
 the Palace to illustrate the chronicler's able that Basil was meant, as we 
 
 words (Cedrenus, ii. 67) Sid, rb ri)v find the story told of him in Pseudo- 
 
 f)a(ri.\fi.ov avXrjv STT\OIS oiKfiois irdvroOev Simeon, 619. 
 
 irfpi<t>pa.\6rivaLi. 8 Gen. 99. 
 
 - Cont. Th. 47 Kuvvravrivos 6 4 Cont. Th. 46, where their retreat 
 
 /j.eTovofj.aff6fls BaaiXeioj. This, of is designated as the monastery rS>v
 
 56 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 3. The Revival of Iconoclasm 
 
 The revival of image-worship by the Empress Irene and 
 the authority of the Council of Nicaea had not extinguished 
 the iconoclastic doctrine, which was still obstinately main- 
 tained by powerful parties both in the Court circles of 
 Byzantium and in the army. It is not surprising that the 
 struggle should have been, however unwisely, renewed. The 
 first period of iconoclasm and persecution, which was initiated 
 by Leo the Isaurian, lasted for more than fifty, the second, 
 which was initiated by Leo the Armenian, for less than thirty 
 years. The two periods are distinguished by the greater 
 prominence of the dogmatic issues of the question in the 
 later epoch, and by the circumstance that the persecution was 
 less violent and more restricted in its range. 
 
 We have already seen that Leo, before he entered Constan- 
 tinople to celebrate his coronation, wrote to assure the Patriarch 
 of his orthodoxy. 1 No hint is given that this letter was a 
 reply to a previous communication from the Patriarch. We 
 may suppose that Leo remembered how Nicephorus had exacted 
 a written declaration of orthodoxy from Michael, and wished 
 to anticipate such a demand. We know not in what terms 
 the letter of Leo was couched, but it is possible that he gave 
 Nicephorus reason to believe that he would be ready to sign 
 a more formal document to the same effect after his coronation. 
 The crowned Emperor, however, evaded the formality, which 
 the uncrowned Emperor had perhaps promised or suggested ; 
 and thus when he afterwards repudiated the Acts of the 
 Seventh Ecumenical Council he could not legally be said to 
 
 AetrTTorujj'. I know no other reference monasteries, see Schlumberger, op. cit. 
 
 to this cloister, but infer that it was 102 sqq. 
 
 in Halki from the letter of Theodore 1 Theoph. 502 ypdtfxi fj.ft> NiK7](p6pi i > 
 
 of Studion to Theodosia and her son T< TrarpiApxy TO. Trepl TTJS eavrov 6p6o- 
 
 Basil (ii. 204 eVeiS?? 3 aired66ii) Vfuv 5ofas 5ta/3e/3cuoi5 / uej'os, alruiv nera TTJS 
 
 Trapii TOV /j.eyd\ov /SatuA^ws T) vijaos rys c^x^s KaL tiru>eijffcus avrov TOV Kp&rovs 
 
 XaX/drou eh KaroiKTjrripiov). Theodore eiri\a^ff8ai. This statement of Theo- 
 
 complains that the abbot and monks phanes is most important and seems to 
 
 had been turned out of their house to be the key to the difficulty. Theophanes 
 
 make room for Theodosia, and have no does not say a word in prejudice of Leo. 
 
 home. The letter might suggest that He wrote probably very soon after 
 
 Basil was with Theodosia (in contra- Leo's accession and before the icono- 
 
 diction to the statement of Cont. Tfi.), clastic policy had been announced. If 
 
 but the inference is not necessary and Leo had signed, like Michael, a formal 
 
 the superscription may be inaccurate. document, Theophanes would almost 
 
 For a description of Halki and its certainly have mentioned it.
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 57 
 
 have broken solemn engagements. But his adversaries were 
 eager to represent him as having broken faith. According 
 to one account, 1 he actually signed a solemn undertaking to 
 preserve inviolate the received doctrines of the Church ; and 
 this he flagrantly violated by his war against images. 
 According to the other account, 2 he definitely promised to 
 sign such a document after his coronation, but, when it came 
 to the point, refused. The first story seizes the fact of his 
 reassuring letter to Nicephorus and represents it as a binding 
 document ; the second story seizes the fact that Leo after his 
 coronation declined to bind himself, and represents this 
 refusal as a breach of a definite promise. 
 
 The iconoclastic doctrine was still widely prevalent in the 
 army, and was held by many among the higher classes in the 
 capital.. If it had not possessed a strong body of adherents, 
 the Emperor could never have thought of reviving it. That 
 he committed a mistake in policy can hardly be disputed in 
 view of subsequent events. Nicephorus L, in preserving the 
 settlement of the Council of Nicaea, while he allowed icono- 
 clasts perfect freedom to propagate their opinions, had proved 
 himself a competent statesman. For, considered in the interest 
 of ecclesiastical tranquillity, the great superiority of image- 
 worship to iconoclasm lay in th*e fact that it need not lead to 
 persecution or oppression. The iconoclasts could not be com- 
 pelled to worship pictures, they had only to endure the offence 
 of seeing them and abstain from insulting them ; whereas the 
 adoption of an iconoclastic policy rendered persecution inevit- 
 able. The course pursued by Nicephorus seems to have been 
 
 1 Scr. Incert. 340 irpfrrepov iroi^ffas placed on his head ; then devrtpq. TTJS 
 I5it>xei.pov ', C P- 349. Simeon (Leo Gr. /3a<n\etas rjfj-tpas /cat af>0 6 0eo06pos 
 207) (3e/3aciicras avrbv eyypdfius irepl TTJS TU> rfjs 6p6o8olas rbfjup rbv dprupavrj 
 eairroD 6p0o5ot'as (cp. Vers. Slav. 90 ; /3ao"tX^a KarriTreiyev Ivffijnriva.ff6a.i. 6 oe 
 Add. Georg. ed. Mur. 679 has rb Kparaius airripvfi.ro. This story may 
 eyypacpov d6eT7]<ras). Hirsch is the be near the truth though it is told by 
 only modern authority since Lebeau a partisan. It is repeated by Genesios, 
 (xii. 297) who accepts this account etc., and accepted by Finlay, ii. 113 
 (22). According to Vit. Theod. Grapt. (who here confounds the Patriarch 
 665, Leo gave an undertaking at the with the deacon Ignatius), Hergen- 
 time of the coronation. rother, i. 234, and most writers. Hefele 
 
 2 Ignatius, Vit. NicepJi. Pair. 163, leaves the question open (iv. 1). 
 164 : Nicephorus sent an elaborate Ignatius relates that the Patriarch, 
 form (r6/io$), containing the orthodox when placing the crown on Leo's head, 
 creed, to Leo before his coronation ; felt as if he were pricked by thorns 
 Leo assented to its contents, but post- (164). 
 
 poned signing until the diadem was
 
 58 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 perfectly satisfactory and successful in securing the peace of 
 the Church. 
 
 All this, however, must have been as obvious to Leo the 
 Armenian as it seems to us. He cannot have failed to realize 
 the powerful opposition which a revival of iconoclasm would 
 arouse ; yet he resolved to disturb the tranquil condition of 
 the ecclesiastical world and enter upon a dangerous and dis- 
 agreeable conflict with the monks. 
 
 Most of the Eastern Emperors were theologians as well 
 as statesmen, and it is highly probable that Leo's personal 
 conviction of the wrongfulness of icon-worship, 1 and the fact 
 that this conviction was shared by many prominent people 
 and widely diffused in the Asiatic Themes, would have 
 been sufficient to induce him to revive an aggressive icono- 
 clastic policy. But there was certainly another motive which 
 influenced his decision. It was a patent fact that the icono- 
 clastic Emperors had been conspicuously strong and successful 
 rulers, whereas the succeeding period, during which the worship 
 of images had been encouraged or permitted, was marked by 
 weakness and some signal disasters. The day is not yet 
 entirely past for men, with vague ideas of the nexus of cause 
 and effect, to attribute the failures and successes of nations to 
 the wrongness or soundness of their theological beliefs ; and 
 even now some who read the story of Leo's reign may 
 sympathize with him in his reasoning that the iconoclastic 
 doctrine was proved by events to be pleasing in the sight of 
 Heaven. We are told that " he imitated the Isaurian Emperors 
 Leo and Constantine, whose heresy he revived, wishing to 
 live many years like them and to become illustrious." 5 
 
 To the ardent admirer of Leo the Isaurian, his own name 
 seemed a good omen in days when men took such coincidences 
 seriously ; and to make the parallel between his own case 
 and that of his model nearer still, he changed the Armenian 
 name of his eldest son Symbatios and designated him Con- 
 stantine. 3 The new Coiistantine was crowned and proclaimed 
 Augustus at the end of 813, when the Bulgarians were still 
 
 1 That the iconoclastic policy of Leo stantin V, cap. viii. See also Schenk, 
 
 III. and Constantine V. is not to be B.Z. v. 272 sqq.; BrShier, 41-42. This 
 
 explained by " considerations of ad- applies to the later iconoclasts also, 
 
 ministrative and military interest " * Scr. Incert. 346, 349. 
 
 has been shown by Lombard, Con- 3 Ib. 346. Cp. Gen. 26.
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 59 
 
 devastating in Thrace or just after they had retreated, and it 
 pleased Leo to hear the soldiers shouting the customary 
 acclamations in honour of " Leo and Constantino." Propitious 
 names inaugurated an Armenian dynasty which might rival 
 the Isaurian. 
 
 Stories were told in later times, by orthodox fanatics who 
 execrated his memory, of sinister influences which were brought 
 to bear on Leo and determine his iconoclastic policy. And 
 here, too, runs a thread of that drama in which he was one 
 of the chief actors. The prophecy of the hermit of Philo- 
 melion had come to pass, and it is said that Leo, in grateful 
 recognition, sent a messenger with costly presents to seek out 
 the true prophet. But when the messenger arrived at Philo- 
 melion he found that the man was dead and that another 
 monk named Sabbatios had taken possession of his hut. 
 Sabbatios was a zealous opponent of image-worship, and he 
 prophesied to the messenger in violent language. The 
 Empress Irene he reviled as " Leopardess " and " Bacchant," 
 he perverted the name of Tarasius to " Taraxios " (Disturber), 
 and he foretold that God would overturn the throne of Leo 
 if Leo did not overturn images and pictures. 1 
 
 The new prophecy from Philomelion is said to have alarmed 
 the Emperor, and he consulted his friend Theodotos Kassiteras 
 on the matter. We already met this Theodotos playing a part 
 in the story of the possessed damsel who foretold Leo's 
 elevation. Whatever basis of fact these stories may have, we 
 can safely infer that Theodotos was an intimate adviser of the 
 Emperor. On this occasion, according to the tale, he did not 
 deal straightforwardly with his master. He advised Leo to 
 consult a certain Antonius, a monk who resided in the capital ; 
 but in the meantime Theodotos himself secretly repaired to 
 Antonius and primed him for the coming interview. It was 
 arranged that Antonius should urge the Emperor to adopt the 
 doctrine of Leo the Isaurian and should prophesy that he 
 would reign till his seventy-second year. Leo, dressed as a 
 private individual, visited the monk at night, and his faith 
 
 1 Gen. 13 (repeated in Cont. Th.}. describes himself as Sesuch the lord of 
 
 It may be one of the tales which earthquakes, addresses Leo as "Alex- 
 
 Genesios derived from rumour ($77/1177), ander," and prophesies that he will 
 
 but it is also told in the Epist. Synod. reduce the Bulgarians if he abolishes 
 
 Orient, ad Theoph. 368, where Sabbatios icons.
 
 60 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 was confirmed when Antonius recognized him. This story, 
 which, of course, we cannot unreservedly believe, became 
 current at the time, and was handed down to subsequent 
 generations in a verse pasquinade composed by Theophanes 
 Confessor. 1 
 
 The Emperor discovered a valuable assistant in a young 
 man known as John the Grammarian, 2 who had the distinc- 
 tion of earning as many and as bitter maledictions from the 
 orthodox party of the time and from subsequent orthodox 
 historians as were ever aimed at Manes or at Arius or at 
 Leo III. He was one of the most learned men of his day, 
 and, like most learned men who fell foul of the Church in 
 the middle ages, he was accused of practising the black art. 
 His accomplishments and scientific ability will appear more 
 conspicuously when we meet him again some years hence 
 as an illustrious figure in the reign of Theophilus. He 
 was known by several names. We meet him as John the 
 Reader, more usually as John the Grammarian ; but those who 
 detested him used the opprobrious titles of Hylilas, 3 by which 
 they understood a forerunner and coadjutor of the devil, or 
 Lekanomautis, meaning that he conjured with a dish. His 
 parentage, if the account is true, was characteristic. He was 
 the son of one Pankratios, a hermit, who from childhood had 
 been possessed with a demon. But all the statements of our 
 authorities with respect to John are coloured by animosity 
 because he was an iconoclast. Patriarchs and monks loved to 
 drop a vowel of his name and call him " Jannes " after the 
 celebrated magician, just as they loved to call the Emperor 
 Leo " Chame-leon." 
 
 The project of reviving iconoclasm was begun warily and 
 silently ; Leo had determined to make careful preparations 
 before he declared himself. At Pentecost, 814, John the 
 Grammarian, assisted by several colleagues, 4 began to prepare 
 
 1 Gen. 15. in Cedrenus, ii. 144), Cont. Th. 154 
 
 2 See Scr. Incert. 349, 350. a distinguished family in Constanti- 
 
 3 Ib. It is not quite clear, however, nople, which St. Martin (apud Lebeau, 
 whether this obscure name was ap- xiii. 14) thinks was of Armenian 
 plied to John or to Pankratios his origin. His brother bore the Armenian 
 father. Pseudo-Simeon (606) inter- name Arsaber, and his father's name 
 prets the passage in the former sense, Pankratios may be a hellenization of 
 and I have followed him. See Hirsch, Bagrat. 
 
 332. He belonged to the family of 4 Besides Bishop Antonius, meri- 
 the Morocharzamioi (Morocharzanioi tioned below, the other members of
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 61 
 
 an elaborate work against the worship of images. The 
 Emperor provided him with full powers to obtain access to any 
 libraries that he might wish to consult. Eare and ancient 
 books were scattered about in monasteries and churches, and 
 this notice suggests that it was not easy for private individuals 
 to obtain permission to handle them. It is said that the zeal 
 of the scholar was increased by a promise of Leo to appoint 
 him Patriarch, in case it should be found necessary to remove 
 Nicephorus. John and his colleagues collected many books 
 and made an extensive investigation. Of course their opponents 
 alleged that they found only what they sought, and sought 
 only for passages which might seem to tell in favour of 
 iconoclasm, while they ignored those which told against it. 
 The Acts of the Synod of 753 gave them many references, and 
 we are told how they placed marks in the books at the relevant 
 passages. 1 
 
 It was desirable to have a bishop in the commission, and 
 in July a suitable person was found in Antonius, the bishop 
 of Syllaion in Pamphylia. 2 He is said to have been originally 
 a lawyer and a schoolmaster, and in consequence of some 
 scandal to have found it advisable to enter a monastery. He 
 became an abbot, and, although his behaviour was loose and 
 unseemly, " God somehow allowed him " to become bishop of 
 Syllaion. His indecent behaviour seems to have consisted in 
 amusing the young monks with funny tales and practical jokes. 
 He was originally orthodox and only adopted the heresy in 
 order to curry favour at the Imperial Court. Such is the 
 sketch of the man drawn by a writer who was violently 
 prejudiced against him and all his party. 3 
 
 Private apartments in the Palace were assigned to the 
 committee, and the bodily wants of the members were so well 
 provided for that their opponents described them as living like 
 pigs. 4 In the tedious monotony of their work they were 
 consoled by delicacies supplied from the Imperial kitchen, and 
 
 the commission were the laymen efs TOI)J r&irovs tvOa 
 
 Joannes Spektas and Eutychianos, 2 Syllaion was near the inland 
 
 members of the Senate, and the monks Kibyra (see Anderson's Map of Asia 
 
 Leontios and Zosimas (Theosteriktos, Minor). 
 
 Vit. Nicet. xxix., who adds that 3 Q T ., 
 
 Zosimas soon afterwards died in con- ert - d51 ' 
 
 sequence of having his nose cut off as 4 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. Pair. 165 rb 
 
 a punishment for adultery). irp6s rpv^v ffvuv SlKriv diror<ias ai/rots 
 
 ^ Scr. Incert. 350 (tr^/udSia /SaXXovres <nTt)p<riov.
 
 62 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 while the learning and subtlety of John lightened the difficulties 
 of the labour, the jests and buffoonery of the bishop might 
 enliven the hours of relaxation. The work of research was 
 carried on with scrupulous secrecy. Whenever any curious 
 person asked the students what they were doing they said, 
 " The Emperor commissioned us to consult these books, because 
 some one told him that he has only a short time to reign ; that 
 is the object of our search." 1 
 
 In December the work of the commission was completed 
 and the Emperor summoned Mcephorus to a private interview 
 in the Palace. 2 Leo advocated the iconoclastic policy on the 
 ground that the worship of images was a scandal in the army. 
 " Let us make a compromise," he said, " to please the soldiers, 
 and remove the pictures which are hung low." But Nicephorus 
 was not disposed to compromise ; he knew that compromise in 
 this matter would mean defeat. When Leo reminded him 
 that image-worship was not ordained in the Gospels and laid 
 down that the Gospels were the true standard of orthodoxy, 
 Nicephorus asserted the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 
 successive ages. This interview probably did not last very 
 long. The Patriarch was firm and the Emperor polite. Leo 
 was not yet prepared to proceed to extremes, and Nicephorus 
 still hoped for his conversion, even as we are told that Pope 
 Gregory II. had hoped for the conversion of his Isaurian 
 namesake. 
 
 The policy of the orthodox party at this crisis was to 
 refuse to argue the question at issue. The Church had already 
 declared itself on the matter in an Ecumenical Council ; and 
 to doubt the decision of the Church was heretical. And so 
 when Leo proposed that some learned bishops whom the 
 Patriarch had sent to him should hold a disputation with 
 some learned iconoclasts, the Emperor presiding, they em- 
 phatically declined, on the ground that the Council of Nicaea 
 
 1 According to the Epist. Synod. rately informed. See C. Thomas, 
 
 Orient, ad Theoph. 373, Nicephorus at Theodor, 104, n. 2. The synod, at 
 
 length obtained an inkling of what which 270 ecclesiastics are said to 
 
 was going on in the Palace and sum- have been present, was doubtless a 
 
 moned a synod in St. Sophia, at which CTI/P o5os dvd7j/j.ov(ra, for which see Her- 
 
 he charged the members of the com- genrbther, i. 38, and Pargoire, L'JSgl. 
 
 mission with heretical opinions ; and byz. 55-56. 
 
 the synod anathematized Antonius. 2 This interview is described by Scr. 
 
 It may be questioned whether the Incert. 352-353. 
 authors of this document were accu-
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 63 
 
 in A.D. 787 had settled the question of image-worship for 
 ever. 
 
 Soon after these preliminary parleys, soldiers of the 
 Tagmata or residential regiments showed their sympathies by 
 attacking the Image of Christ over the Brazen Gate of the 
 Palace. It was said that this riot was suggested and en- 
 couraged by Leo ; and the inscription over the image, telling 
 how Irene erected a new icon in the place of that which 
 Leo III. destroyed, might stimulate the fury of those who 
 revered the memory of the Isaurian Emperors. Mud and 
 stones were hurled by the soldiers at the sacred figure, and 
 then the Emperor innocently said, " Let us take it down, to 
 save it from these insults." This was the first overt act in 
 the new campaign, and the Patriarch thought it high time to 
 summon a meeting of bishops and abbots to discuss the 
 danger which was threatening the Church. The convocation 
 was held in the Patriarch's palace. All those who were 
 present swore to stand fast by the doctrine laid down at the 
 Seventh Council, and they read over the passages which their 
 opponents cited against them. 1 When Christmas came, 
 Nicephorus begged the Emperor to remove him from the 
 pontifical chair if he (Nicephorus) were unpleasing in his 
 eyes, but to make no innovations in the Church. To this Leo 
 replied by disclaiming either intention. 2 
 
 These preliminary skirmishes occurred before Christmas 
 (A.D. 814). On Christmas day it was noticed by curious and 
 watchful eyes that Leo adored in public a cloth on which the 
 birth of Christ was represented. 3 But on the next great feast 
 of the Church, the day of Epiphany, it was likewise observed 
 that he did not adore, according to custom. Meanwhile, the 
 iconoclastic party was being reinforced by proselytes, and the 
 Emperor looked forward to a speedy settlement of the question 
 in his own favour at a general synod. He issued a summons 
 to the bishops of the various dioceses in the Empire to 
 
 1 The riot of the soldiers and the 133-135 ; Jberso\t,-Sainte- Sophie de 
 
 meeting of the bishops occurred in Constantinople, 26-27 (1910). 
 December before Christmas : so ex- 
 
 pressly Scr. Incert. 355 ravra 4wpd x er, ?e evidently had an audience of 
 
 irpb rL eoprw. C. Thomas (ib. 107, * he Em P er , or > perhaps^ on Christmas 
 
 n. 5) seems to have overlooked this. * ?W m ' (sw} " eo/)TW " (Scr " 
 
 The Patriarch's palace was on the lncert - ->- 
 
 south side of St. Sophia, probably 3 oi/\6;uei>os dia^dcrat rrjv eopr^v 
 
 towards the east ; see Bieliaev, ii. (ib.).
 
 64 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 assemble in the capital, and perhaps stirred the prelates of 
 Hellas to undertake the journey by a reminiscence nattering 
 to their pride. He reminded them that men from Mycenae 
 in Argolis, men from Carystos in Euboea, men from Corinth, 
 and many other Greeks, joined the Megarians in founding that 
 colony of the Bosphorus which had now grown to such great 
 estate. 1 According as they arrived, they were conducted 
 straightway to the Emperor's presence, and were prohibited 
 from first paying a visit to the Patriarch, as was the usual 
 practice. The Emperor wished to act on their hopes or fears 
 before they had been warned or confirmed in the faith by the 
 words of their spiritual superior ; and this policy was regarded 
 as one of his worst acts of tyranny. Many of the bishops 
 submitted to the arguments or to the veiled threats of their 
 sovran, and those who dared to resist his influence were kept 
 in confinement. 2 The Patriarch in the meantime encouraged 
 his own party to stand fast. He was supported by the 
 powerful interest of the monks, and especially by Theodore, 
 abbot of Studion, who had been his adversary a few years ago. 
 A large assembly of the faithful was convoked in the Church 
 of St. Sophia, and a service lasting the whole night was 
 celebrated. 3 Mcephorus prayed for the conversion of the 
 Emperor, and confirmed his followers in their faith. 
 
 The Emperor was not well pleased when the news reached 
 the Palace of the doings in the Church. About the time of 
 cockcrow he sent a message of remonstrance to the Patriarch 
 and summoned him to appear in the Palace at break of day, 
 to explain his conduct. There ensued a second and more 
 famous interview between the Emperor and the Patriarch, 
 when they discussed at large the arguments for and against 
 image-worship. Nicephorus doubtless related to his friends 
 the substance of what was said, and the admirers of that 
 saint afterwards wrote elaborate accounts of the dialogue, 
 which they found a grateful subject for exhibiting learning, 
 
 1 Gen. 27 evrevQev Kal ypdij/as iravrl assembly of the bishops was held in 
 iri<TK6ir({) Karaipfiv v Bufai'Tty r(f vtrb the Palace (TOV devr^pov Kcud</>a 
 ~M.eyapb}i> KTiffdtvri Kal BtffcwTOj, KOLT' avvlffTy rb flovXevrripiov , ib.) before 
 Evpdirriv avve\6bvTuv Iv rrj rotirov the Patriarch's counter - demonstra- 
 Tro\iffi Kapvcrriw MvKtjvaiuv Kal tion ; but of course it was not a 
 ~K.opiv0lb)v &K\(j)v re iro\\Civ, 0tXo<r6<ois "synod." 
 
 fj.a Kal p-/)Top<n. The mythological 3 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. Pair. 167 rty 
 
 flourish may be due to Genesios. -jravw^ov ^irireX^ffovras fftiva&v. 
 
 2 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. Pair. 166. An
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 65 
 
 subtlety, and style. Ultimately Nicephorus proposed that 
 the bishops and others who had accompanied him to the gate 
 should be admitted to the Imperial presence, that his Majesty 
 might become fully convinced of their unanimity on the 
 question at issue. The audience was held in the Chrysotri- 
 klinos, 1 and guards with conspicuous swords were present, to 
 awe the churchmen into respect and obedience. 
 The Emperor bent his brows and spake thus : 2 
 
 Ye, like all others, are well aware that God has appointed us to 
 watch over the interests of this illustrious and reasonable flock ; 3 and 
 that we are eager and solicitous to smoothe away and remove every thorn 
 that grows in the Church. As some members of the fold are in doubt 
 as to the adoration of images, and cite passages of Scripture which seem 
 unfavourable to such practices, the necessity of resolving the question 
 once for all is vital ; more especially in order to compass our great end, 
 which, as you know, is the unity of the whole Church. The questioners 
 supply the premisses ; we are constrained to draw the conclusion. We 
 have already communicated our wishes to the High Pontiff, and now we 
 charge you to resolve the problem speedily. If you are too slow you 
 may end in saying nothing, and disobedience to our commands will not 
 conduce to your profit 
 
 The bishops and abbots, encouraged by the firmness of the 
 Patriarch, did not flinch before the stern aspect of the 
 Emperor, and several spoke out their thoughts, the others 
 murmuring approval. 4 Later writers edified their readers by 
 composing orations which might have been delivered on such 
 an occasion. In Theodore, the abbot of Studion, the Emperor 
 recognised his most formidable opponent, and some words are 
 ascribed to Theodore, which are doubtless genuine. He is 
 reported to have denied the right of the Emperor to interfere 
 in ecclesiastical affairs : 
 
 Leave the Church to its pastors and masters ; attend to your own 
 province, the State and the army. If you refuse to do this, and are bent 
 on destroying our faith, know that though an angel came from heaven to 
 pervert us we would not obey him, much less you. 5 
 
 1 irpbs TO. xpvcro/xx^a dvoLKTOpa (Igna- enumerates those who took a promin- 
 
 tius, Vit. Nic. 168). ent part : the bishops Euthymios of 
 
 3 I translate freely from Ignatius. Sardis, Aemilian of Cyzicus, Michael of 
 The general tenor of the speech is Synnada.Theophylactusof Nicomedia, 
 doubtless correct. and Peter of Nicaea. 
 
 , , . , x :> Theosteriktos, Vit. Nicet. 30 ; 
 
 MryaAwu/iw KOI Xo 7 ^ George Mon. 777; Michael, Ftt.*%rf. 
 
 280 sqq. (where, however, the strong 
 
 4 Theosteriktos, Vit. Nicet. 29, figure of an angel's descent is omitted). 
 
 F
 
 66 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 The protest against Caesaropapism is characteristic of 
 Theodore. The Emperor angrily dismissed the ecclesiastics, 
 having assured Theodore that he had no intention of making 
 a martyr of him or punishing him in any way, until the 
 whole question had been further investigated. 1 
 
 Immediately after this conclave an edict was issued for- 
 bidding members of the Patriarch's party to hold meetings or 
 assemble together in private houses. The iconodules were 
 thus placed in the position of suspected conspirators, under 
 the strict supervision of the Prefect of the City ; and 
 Nicephorus himself was practically a captive in his palace, 
 under the custody of one Thomas, a patrician. 
 
 The Patriarch did not yet wholly despair of converting 
 the Emperor, and he wrote letters to some persons who might 
 exert an influence over him. He wrote to the Empress 
 Theodosia, 2 exhorting her to deter her lord from his " terrible 
 enterprise." He also wrote to the General Logothete to the 
 same effect, and in more threatening language to Eutychian, 
 the First Secretary. Eutychian certainly gave no heedful ear 
 to the admonitions of the pontiff. If the Empress saw good 
 to intervene, or if the General Logothete ventured to remon- 
 strate, these representations were vain. The Emperor forbade 
 Nicephorus to exercise any longer the functions of his office. 3 
 
 Just at this time 4 the Patriarch fell sick, and if the 
 
 1 Michael, Vit. Tlieod. 281-284. and showed the old coins, the Emperor 
 
 2 She was the daughter of Arsaher, aske j him whether he found them ex- 
 patrician and quaestor (Gen. 21)! posed to the air or in a receptacle. He 
 Dark hints were let fall that there said "exposed to the air. The Emperor 
 was something queer about her mar- ! iad them washed with water and the 
 riage with Leo Perhaps she was a as disappeared. The man con- 
 relative within the forbidden limits. fessed the imposture and the Patnarch 
 CD ib 19 was discredited. The motif of this 
 
 fiction is doubtless an incident which 
 
 8 Ignatius, Fit. Nic. 190. A curious occurred in the reign of Theophilus, 
 
 story is told by Michael Syr. 71, when the gold circle (rov(f>a) of the 
 
 that the crown of a statue of "Angus- equestrian statue of Justinian in the 
 
 tus Caesar," which stood on a high Augusteum fell, and an agile workman 
 
 column, fell off. It was difficult, but reached the top of the column by the 
 
 important, to replace it, for it was be- device, incredible as it is described by 
 
 lieved that the crown had the power Simeon (Leo Gr. 227), of climbing with 
 
 of averting pestilence from the city. a rope to the roof of St. Sophia, at- 
 
 When a man was found capable of the taching the rope to a dart, and hurling 
 
 task, the Patriarch secretly gave him the dart which entered so firmly into 
 
 some coins and instructed him to say the statue (iinrt>Triv, the Lat. transl. 
 
 that he had found them at the foot of has equum) that he was able to swing 
 
 the statue. He wished to prove that himself along the suspended rope to 
 
 the representation of sacred images the summit of the column, 
 
 was ancient. When the man descended 4 Probably in February.
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 67 
 
 malady had proved fatal, Leo's path would have been smoothed. 
 A successor of iconoclastic views could then have been 
 appointed, without the odium of deposing such an illustrious 
 prelate as Nicephorus. If Leo did not desire the death of his 
 adversary, he decided at this time who was to be the next 
 Patriarch. Hopes had been held out to John the Grammarian 
 that he might aspire to the dignity, but on maturer reflexion 
 it was agreed that he was too young and obscure. 1 Theodotos 
 Kassiteras, who seems to have been the most distinguished 
 supporter of Leo throughout this ecclesiastical conflict, declared 
 himself ready to be ordained and fill the Patriarchal chair. 2 
 
 But Nicephorus did not succumb to the disease. He 
 recovered at the beginning of Lent 3 when the Synod was 
 about to meet. Theophanes, a brother of the Empress, 4 was 
 sent to invite Nicephorus to attend, but was not admitted 
 to his presence. A clerical deputation, however, waited at the 
 Patriarcheion, and the unwilling Patriarch was persuaded by 
 Thomas the patrician,his custodian, to receive them. 5 Nicephorus 
 was in a prostrate condition, but his visitors could not 
 persuade him to make any concessions. Their visit had 
 somehow become known in the city and a riotous mob, chiefly 
 consisting of soldiers, had gathered in front of the Patriarcheion. 
 A rush into the building seemed so imminent that Thomas 
 was obliged to close the gates, while the crowd of enthusiastic 
 iconoclasts loaded with curses the obnoxious names of Tarasius 
 and Nicephorus. 6 
 
 After this the Synod met and deposed Nicephorus. The 
 enemies of Leo encouraged the belief that the idea of putting 
 Nicephorus to death was seriously entertained, and it is stated 
 that Nicephorus himself addressed a letter to the Emperor, 
 begging him to depose him and do nothing more violent, for 
 
 1 Scr. Incert. 359. The disappoint- whose views were at variance with 
 ment of John was doubtless due to the those of the Patriarch (see Ignatius, 
 interest of Theodotos. Vit. Nic. Pair. 190). From the Scr. 
 
 2 He belonged to the important Incert. we know that this patrician 
 family of the Melissenoi. His father was Thomas. 
 
 Michael, patrician and general of the 4 ^ 191 rbv T ^ ^ afft \ iffff ^ ^al^a. 
 Anatolic Theme, had been a leading 
 
 iconoclast under Constantine V. (cp. 5 M- W& The deputation brought 
 
 Theoph. 440, 445). For the family a pamphlet with them T^ dro/ty 
 
 see Ducange, Fam. Byz. 145a. e/ceic^ rb^ which they tried to per- 
 
 3 Scr. Incert. 358. In the mean- suade him to endorse, threatening him 
 time, some of theduties of the Patriarch with deposition. 
 
 had been entrusted to a patrician, 6 Ib. 196. Scr. Incert. 358.
 
 68 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 his own sake. But there is no good reason to suppose that 
 Leo thought of taking the Patriarch's life. By such a course 
 he would have gained nothing, and increased his unpopularity 
 among certain sections of his subjects. It was sufficient to 
 remove Nicephorus from Constantinople, especially as he had 
 been himself willing to resign his chair. On the Bosphorus, 
 not far north of the Imperial city, he had built himself a 
 retreat, known as the monastery of Agathos. 1 Thither he was 
 first removed, but after a short time it was deemed expedient 
 to increase the distance between the fallen Patriarch and the 
 scene of his activity. For this purpose Bardas, a nephew of 
 the Emperor, was sent to transport him to another but 
 somewhat remoter monastery of his own building, that of the 
 great Martyr Theodore, higher up the Bosphorus on the 
 Asiatic side. The want of respect which the kinsman of the 
 Emperor showed to his prisoner as chey sailed to their 
 destination made the pious shake their heads, and the tragic 
 end of the young man four years later served as a welcome 
 text for edifying sermons. Bardas as he sat on the deck 
 summoned the Patriarch to his presence ; the guards did not 
 permit " the great hierarch " to seat himself ; and their master 
 irreverently maintained his sitting posture in the presence of 
 grey hairs. Nicephorus, seeing the haughty and presumptuous 
 heart of the young man, addressed him thus : " Fair Bardas, 
 learn by the misfortunes of others to meet your own." 2 The 
 words were regarded as a prophecy of the misfortunes in store 
 for Bardas. 3 
 
 On Easter day (April 1) Theodotos Kassiteras was 
 tonsured and enthroned as Patriarch of Constantinople. The 
 tone of the Patriarchal Palace notably altered when Theodotos 
 took the place of Nicephorus. He is described by an opponent 
 as a good-natured man who had a reputation for virtue, but 
 was lacking in personal piety. 4 It has been already observed 
 that he was a relative of Constantine V., and as soon as he 
 was consecrated he scandalised stricter brethren in a way 
 
 1 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. 201. It is not Michael, Vit. Theod. 285, as March 20. 
 
 certain on which side of the Strait 2 y v &ei TCWS dXXoTp/cus ffvfjuftopaa TCLS 
 
 Agathos lay, but it can be proved that tavrov KaXcDs SiarWeo-flai. 
 St. Theodore was on the Asiatic (see 
 
 Pargoire.tforodwn, 476-477). The date See below > P- 72 ' P e edifying 
 
 of the deposition is given by Theoph. anecdote may reasonably be suspected. 
 
 De exil. S. Nic. 166, as March 13, by 4 Scr. Incert. 360.
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 69 
 
 which that monarch would have relished. A luncheon party l 
 was held in the Patriarcheion, and clerks and monks who had 
 eaten no meat for years, were constrained by the kind 
 compulsion of their host to partake unsparingly of the rich 
 viands which were set before them. The dull solemnity of an 
 archiepiscopal table was now enlivened by frivolous conversation, 
 amusing stories, and ribald wit. 2 
 
 The first duty of Theodotos was to preside at the icono- 
 clastic Council, for which all the preparations had been made. 
 It met soon after his consecration, in St. Sophia, in the 
 presence of the two Emperors. 3 The decree of this Synod 
 reflects a less violent spirit than that which had animated 
 the Council assembled by Constantino V. With some 
 abbreviations and omissions it ran as follows : 
 
 " The Emperors Constantine (V.) and Leo (IV.) considering the public 
 safety to depend on orthodoxy, gathered a numerous synod of spiritual 
 fathers and bishops, and condemned the unprofitable practice, unwarranted 
 by tradition, of making and adoring icons, preferring worship in spirit 
 and in truth. 
 
 " On this account, the Church of God remained tranquil for not a 
 few years, and the subjects enjoyed peace, till the government passed 
 from men to a woman, and the Church was distressed by female simplicity. 
 She followed the counsel of very ignorant bishops, she convoked an 
 injudicious assembly, and laid down the doctrine of painting in a material 
 medium the Son and Logos of God, and of representing the Mother of 
 God and the Saints by dead figures, and enacted that these representations 
 should be adored, heedlessly defying the proper doctrine of the Church. 
 So she sullied our latreutic adoration, and declared that what is due only 
 to God should be offered to lifeless icons ; she foolishly said that they 
 were full of divine grace, and admitted the lighting of candles and the 
 burning of incense before them. Thus she caused the simple to err. 
 
 " Hence we ostracize from the Catholic Church the unauthorised 
 manufacture of pseudonymous icons ; we reject the adoration defined by 
 Tarasius ; we annul the decrees of his synod, on the ground that they 
 
 1 Scr. Incert. 360 apiffrbStiirva, Serruys (see Bibliography ; Acta con- 
 dljeuner. cilii, A.D. 815). In the first part of 
 
 2 Ib. y{\oia Kal iraiyviSia Kal this treatise (unpublished, but see 
 iro.\a.iaiMTa. Kal a&rx/>oXo7ias. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles, vii. 
 
 3 The proceedings of this Council 610 sq.) Nicephorus reproduced and 
 were destroyed when images were commented on the principal decrees of 
 restored ; but the text of the decree the iconoclastic councils. The other 
 has been extracted literally from the sources for the synod of 815 are : 
 anti-iconoclastic work of the Patriarch Theodore Stud. Efyp. ii. 1 ; Michael 
 Nicephorus entitled "EXcyxo* Ktt * II. &P- a d Lud. ; Scr. Incert. 360-361 ; 
 avarpoiTT) rov d8tff/j.ov KT\ Spov (pre- Theosteriktos, Vit. Nicet. xxx. Cp. 
 served in cod. Paris, 1250) by D. Mansi, xiv. 135 sqq. 417.
 
 70 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 granted undue honour to pictures ; and we condemn the lighting of 
 candles and offering of incense. 
 
 " But gladly accepting the holy Synod, which met at Blachemae in 
 the temple of the unspotted Virgin in the reign of Constantine and Leo 
 as firmly based on the doctrine of the Fathers, we decree that the 
 manufacture of icons we abstain from calling them idols, for there are 
 degrees of evil is neither worshipful nor serviceable." 1 
 
 The theological theory of image-worship must be left to 
 divines. In its immediate aspect, the question might seem to 
 have no reference to the abstract problems of metaphysical 
 theology which had divided the Church in previous ages. But 
 it was recognised by the theological champions of both parties 2 
 that the adoration of images had a close theoretical connexion 
 with the questions of Christology which the Church professed 
 to have settled at the Council of Chalcedon. The gravest 
 charge which the leading exponents of image-worship brought 
 against the iconoclastic doctrine was that it compromised or 
 implicitly denied the Incarnation. It is to be observed that 
 this inner and dogmatic import of the controversy, although 
 it appears in the early stages, 3 is far more conspicuous in the 
 disputations which marked the later period of iconoclasm. 
 To the two most prominent defenders of pictures, the Patriarch 
 Nicephorus and the abbot of Studion, this is the crucial point. 
 They both regard the iconoclasts as heretics who have lapsed 
 into the errors of Arianism or Monophysitism. 4 The other 
 aspects of the veneration of sacred pictures are treated as of 
 secondary importance in the writings of Theodore of Studion ; 
 the particular question of pictures of Christ absorbs his 
 
 1 d.Trpo<rKvvr)Tos Kal &xprjffroy. rhetikos would probably be considered 
 
 2 In the Acts of the Synod of A.D. by theologians specially important. 
 753 (754), the iconoclasts attempted It turns largely on the notion of Trept- 
 to show that image-worship involved 7/>a<M expounding the doctrine that 
 either Monophysitism or Nestorianism Christ was irepiypcnrTos (as well as 
 (Mansi, xiii. 247-257). Cp. Schwarz- avepiypairros), circumscript and cap- 
 lose, Der Bilderstreit, 92 sqq. able f being delineated. Theodore 
 
 constructed a philosophical theory of 
 
 ' John of Damascus (Or i. 4, 16, iconology wh h is somewhat mysti- 
 
 etc.) bases the legitimacy of pictures cal and e s J eems to have been influence d 
 
 on the Incarnation. by Neo-Platonism. It is based on the 
 
 4 See the First Antirrhesis of Nice- principle that not only does the copy 
 
 phorus, who observes that Constantine (eiK&i>) imply the prototype, but the 
 
 V. made war Kara. TTJS rou MocoyevoOs prototype implies the copy ; they are 
 
 oiKovofj.las (217). Cp. also ib. 221, 244, identical KO.&' 6/*oJw<nc, though not 
 
 and 248-249. The works of Theodore KO.T' otiaiav. See passages quoted by 
 
 on this question are subtler than those Schwarzlose, 180 sqq. ; Schneider, 105 
 
 of Nicephorus. His Third Antir- sq.
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 71 
 
 interest, as the great point at issue, believing, as he did, that 
 iconoclasm was an insidious attack on the orthodox doctrine 
 of the Incarnation. 
 
 We must now glance at the acts of oppression and perse- 
 cution of which Leo is said to have been guilty against those 
 who refused to join his party and accept the guidance of 
 the new Patriarch. Most eminent among the sufferers was 
 Theodore, the abbot of Studion, who seemed fated to incur the 
 displeasure of his sovrans. He had been persecuted in the 
 reign of Constantine VI. ; he had been persecuted in the reign 
 of Nicephorus ; he was now to be persecuted more sorely still 
 by Leo the Armenian. He had probably spoken bolder words 
 than any of his party, when the orthodox bishops and abbots 
 appeared before the Emperor. He is reported to have said 
 to Leo's face that it was useless and harmful to talk with a 
 heretic ; and if this be an exaggeration of his admiring 
 biographer, he certainly told him that Church matters were 
 outside an Emperor's province. When the edict went forth, 
 through the mouth of the Prefect of the City, forbidding the 
 iconodules to utter their opinions in public or to hold any 
 communications one with another, Theodore said that silence 
 was a crime. 1 At this juncture he encouraged the Patriarch 
 in his firmness, and when the Patriarch was dethroned, 
 addressed to him a congratulatory letter, and on Palm Sunday 
 (March 25), caused the monks of Studion to carry their holy 
 icons round the monastery in solemn procession, singing 
 hymns as they went. 2 And when the second " pseudo-synod " 
 (held after Easter) was approaching, he supplied his monks 
 with a formula of refusal, in case they should be summoned to 
 take part in it. By all these acts, which, coming from a man 
 of his influence were doubly significant, he made himself so 
 obnoxious to the author of the iconoclastic policy, that at 
 length he was thrown into prison. His correspondence then 
 became known to the Emperor, and among his recent letters, 
 one to Pope Paschal, describing the divisions of the Church, 
 was conspicuous. Theodore was accompanied into exile by 
 Nicolas, one of the Studite brethren. 3 They were first sent 
 to a fort named Metopa situated on the Mysian Lake of 
 
 1 Theodore, Epp. ii. 2 ; Michael, 2 Michael, Vit. Theod. 285. 
 
 Vit. Theod. 284. 3 Vit. Nicolai Stud. 881.
 
 72 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 Artynia. 1 , The second prison was Bonita, 2 and there the 
 sufferings of the abbot of Studion are said to have been 
 terrible. His biographer delights in describing the stripes 
 which were inflicted on the saint 3 and dwells on the sufferings 
 which he underwent from the extremes of heat and cold as 
 the seasons changed. The visitations of fleas and lice in the 
 ill-kept prison are not omitted. In reading such accounts we 
 must make a large allowance for the exaggeration of a bigoted 
 partisan, and we must remember that in all ages the hardships 
 of imprisonment endured for political and religious causes are 
 seldom or never fairly stated by those who sympathize with 
 the " martyrs." In the present instance, the harsh treatment 
 is intelligible. If Theodore had only consented to hold his 
 peace, without surrendering his opinions, he would have been 
 allowed to live quietly in some monastic retreat at a distance 
 from Constantinople. If he had behaved with the dignity of 
 Mcephorus, whose example he might well have imitated, he 
 would have avoided the pains of scourgings and the unpleasant 
 experiences of an oriental prison-house. From Bonita he was 
 transferred to the city of Smyrna, and thrown into a dungeon, 
 where he languished until at the accession of Michael II. he 
 was released from prison. In Smyrna he came into contact 
 with a kinsman of Leo, named Bardas, who resided there as 
 Strategos of the Thrakesian Theme. There can be little doubt 
 that this Bardas was the same young man who showed scant 
 courtesy to the fallen Patriarch Nicephorus, on his way to the 
 monastery of St. Theodore. At Smyrna Bardas fell sick, 
 and someone, who believed in the divine powers of the famous 
 abbot of Studion, advised him to consult the prisoner. 
 Theodore exhorted the nephew of Leo to abjure his uncle's 
 
 1 Called at this time the Lake of Lake Anava, east of Chonae. For 
 Apollonia (Vit. Nic. Stud.), after the this lake see Ramsay, Phrygia, i. 230. 
 important town at its eastern corner. (Cp. also Pargoire, in Echos d 'Orient, 
 Cp. Pargoire, Saint Theophane, 70. vi. 207-212, 1903.) 
 TheodoreremainedforayearatMetopa, 3 In the Vit. Nic. Stud, it is stated 
 April 15, 815-816 spring, ib. 71. that Theodore and Nicolas received 
 
 2 Our data for the location of Bonita a hundred strokes each, for writing 
 are : it was 100 miles from the Lycian certain letters. Afterwards they were 
 coast (Theodore, Ep. 75, p. 61, ed. beaten with fresh withies called rhecae. 
 Cozza-Luzi), near a salt lake (ib. ), in Moreover, their hands were bound with 
 the Anatolic Theme (ib. Ep. 10, p. ropes which were drawn very tight. 
 10) ; and Chonae lay on the road from Their imprisonment at Smyrna lasted 
 it to Smyrna. Hence Pargoire, op. 20 months, so that they left Bonita 
 cit. 70-71, places it close to Aji-Tuz- in May-June 819 (Pargoire, Saint 
 Gbl, "the lake of bitter waters," i.e., Theophane, ib.).
 
 SECT, in THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 73 
 
 heresy. The virtue of the saint proved efficacious ; the young 
 man recovered ; but the repentance was hollow, he returned 
 to his error ; then retribution followed and he died. This is 
 one of the numerous stories invented to glorify the abbot of 
 Studion, the bulwark of image-worship. 1 
 
 One of the gravest offences of Theodore in the Emperor's 
 eyes was doubtless his attempt to excite the Pope to intervene 
 in the controversy. We have two letters which he, in con- 
 junction with other image- worshippers, addressed to Pope 
 Paschal I. from Bonita. 2 His secret couriers maintained com- 
 munications with Rome, 3 where some important members of 
 the party had found a refuge, 4 and Paschal was induced to 
 send to Leo an argumentative letter in defence of images. 5 
 
 The rigour of the treatment dealt out to Theodore was 
 exceptional. Many of the orthodox ecclesiastics who attended 
 the Synod of April A.D. 815 submitted to the resolutions of 
 that assembly. Those who held out were left at large till the 
 end of the year, but early in A.D. 816 they were conducted to 
 distant places of exile. This hardship, however, was intended 
 only to render them more amenable to the gentler method of 
 persuasion. After a few days, they were recalled to Con- 
 stantinople, kept in mild confinement, and after Easter (April 
 20), they were handed over to John the Grammarian, who 
 presided over the monastery of Saints Sergius and Bacchus. 
 He undertook to convince the abbots of their theological error, 
 and his efforts were crowned with success in the case of at 
 least seven. Others resisted the arguments of the seducer, 
 and among them were Hilarion, the Exarch of the Patriarchal 
 monasteries, and Theophanes the Chronographer. 6 
 
 1 These details about Theodore's nople (Ep. 277, Cozza-Luzi). 
 banishment are derived from Theo- 4 Methodius, abbot of Chenolakkos 
 dore's Letters, from Michael's Vita (afterwards Patriarch of Constanti- 
 Theodori, and a few from the Vita nople) ; John, Bishop of Monembasia 
 Nicolai. (Ep. 193, Cozza-Luzi). 
 
 2 Theodore, Epp. ii. 12 and 13. 5 Part of this epistle is preserved in 
 Paschal was elected in Jan. 817, and a Greek version and has been edited by 
 the letters belong probably to 817 and G. Mercati, Note di letteratura biblica 
 818 respectively. John of Eukairia, a e cristiana antica = Studi i Testi, 5), 
 signatory of the first letter, did not 227 sqq., 1901. It contains some argu- 
 sign the second ; he had in the mean- ments which appear to be new. 
 
 time joined the iconoclasts (ib. ii. 35). 6 Our chief source here is Theo- 
 
 3 Dionysios who was in Rome at steriktos, Vit. JVic. xxx. sq. Nicetas, 
 the beginning of 817 ; Euphemian (ib. abbot of Medikion, was taken to 
 ii. 12) ; and Epiphanes, who was Masalaion (possibly in Lycaonia, cp. 
 caught and imprisoned at Constanti- Ramsay, Asia Minor, 356), where he
 
 74 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 Theophaues, whose chronicle was almost our only guide 
 for the first twelve years of the ninth century, had lived a 
 life unusually ascetic even in his own day, in the monastery 
 of Agros, at Sigriane near Cyzicus. 1 He had not been present 
 at the Synod nor sent into exile, but in the spring of A.D. 
 816 the Emperor sent him a nattering message, couched in 
 soft words, requesting him to come " to pray for us who are 
 about to march against the Barbarians." Theophanes, who 
 was suffering from an acute attack of kidney disease, 2 obeyed 
 the command, and was afterwards consigned to the custody of 
 John. Proving obstinate he was confined in a cell in the 
 Palace of Eleutherios for nearly two years, and when he was 
 mortally ill of his malady, he was removed to the island of 
 Samothrace where he expired (March 12, A.D. 818) about 
 three weeks after his arrival. 3 
 
 When we find that Leo's oppressions have been exaggerated 
 in particular cases, we shall be all the more inclined to allow 
 for exaggeration in general descriptions of his persecutions. 
 We read that " some were put to death by the sword, others 
 tied in sacks and sunk like stones in water, and women were 
 stripped naked in the presence of men and scourged." 4 If 
 
 remained for only 5 days. He sue- north of the estuary of the Rliyndakos. 
 
 cumbed to the arguments of John, Sigriane is to be carefully distinguished 
 
 but afterwards repented, and was from Sigrene near the river Granikos, 
 
 banished to the island of St. Glyceria with which Ramsay (Asia Minor, 162) 
 
 "in the Gulf," which Buttner-Wobst and others have identified it (Pargoire, 
 
 (B.Z. vi. 98 sq.) identifies (unconvinc- ib. 45-47). 
 
 ingly) with Niandro. See also Theo- 2 Nicephorus Blach. Vit. Theoph. 
 
 dore, Ep. 79, Cozza-Luzi, and Epp. ii. 23. Theophanes had stone in the 
 
 9 ; Sabas, Vit. Afacar. 154 (Makarios bladder. 
 
 of Pelekete was one of those who did 3 For the day see Anon. B. Vit. 
 
 not yield) ; and the Vitae of Theo- Theoph. 397 (and Anon. C. 293). For 
 
 phanes. John was assisted in his the year see Pargoire, op. cit. 73 sqq., 
 
 work by Joseph, famous as the subject who fixes 818 by a process of exclusion, 
 
 of the Moechian controversy. Theo- Note that Anon. A. (p. 12) and Theod. 
 
 dore Stud, wrote to Theophanes Prot. Enkomion 616, say that Theo- 
 
 (while he was in SS. Sergius and phanes received 300 strokes before his 
 
 Bacchus), congratulating him on his removal from Constantinople ; if this 
 
 firmness (Ep. 140, Cozza-Luzi). were true, the other biographer would 
 
 1 Sigriane has been located in the not have failed to mention it. 
 
 environs of Kurchunlu, at the foot of 4 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. 206. The best 
 
 Karadagh, between the mouth of the evidence for the severity of the perse- 
 
 Rhyndakos and Cyzicus. See T. E. cution is in Theodore Stud.'s letters 
 
 Euangelides, 'H MOJ/T; TT)S "Ziypiav^s f) to Pope Paschal and the Patriarch of 
 
 roO ~Meyd\ov 'Aypov (Athens, 1895)11 Alexandria (Epp. ii. 12, 14). He 
 
 sqq. ; Pargoire, op. cit. 112 sqq. The mentions deaths from scourging and 
 
 island of Kalonymos (ancient Besbikos, drownings in sacks (el<rl 5t ot Kal 
 
 modern Emir AH Adasse), mentioned era/c/a<r0&'res t8d\acra'eij0r)crat> dwpiq., ws 
 
 in the biographies of Theophanes, who <ra.<J>ts ytyovev K rCiv TOI/TOUS deaa-a/j.^vui', 
 
 founded a monastery on it, lies due p. 1156).
 
 SECT. Ill 
 
 THE REVIVAL OF ICONOCLASM 
 
 75 
 
 such atrocities had been frequent, we should have heard much 
 more about them. The severer punishments were probably 
 inflicted for some display of fanatical insolence towards the 
 Emperor personally. His chief object was to remove from the 
 capital those men, whose influence would conflict with the 
 accomplishment of his policy. 1 But there may have been 
 fanatical monks, who, stirred with an ambition to outstrip 
 the boldness of Theodore of Studion, bearded the Emperor to 
 his face, and to them may have been meted out extreme 
 
 1 The statements about the suffer- 
 ings of individuals in hagiographioal 
 literature (in which the principle that 
 suffering for orthodoxy enhanced merit 
 guided the writers) cannot be accepted 
 without more ado. It is said that 
 Leo scourged Euthymios of Sardis and 
 banished him to Thasos (Acta Davidis, 
 229). George the bishop of Mytilene 
 was sent to Cherson, and replaced by 
 Leo an iconoclast ; he excited the 
 Emperor against the holy Simeon of 
 Lesbos, who, imitating his namesake 
 the Stylite, lived on a pillar-at Molos, 
 a harbour in the south of the island, 
 having fastened his calves to his 
 thighs with chains. The inhabitants 
 were ordered to bring wood to the 
 foot of the column ; when the fire was 
 kindled, Simeon allowed himself to be 
 taken down, and was banished to 
 Lagusae, an island off the Troad (ib. 
 227 sqq). Theophylactus of Nico- 
 media is said to have been struck in 
 the face by the Emperor and banished to 
 Strobilos in the Kibyrrhaeot Theme (see 
 Synax. Ecc. Cpl. 519-520, cp. Loparev, 
 Viz. Vrem. iv. 355). Michael, the Syn- 
 kellos of Jerusalem (born c. 761, made 
 Synkellos 811), his friend Job, and 
 the two Palestinian brothers Theodore 
 and Theophanes (see below, p. 136), 
 were persecuted by Leo. But the Vita 
 Mich. Sync, is full of errors and must 
 be used with great caution. Theodore 
 and Theophanes seem to have been 
 among those monks who fled in the 
 reign of Michael I. (on account of 
 Mohammadan persecution : A.D. 812 
 monasteries and churches in Palestine 
 were plundered) to Constantinople, 
 where the monastery of Chora was 
 placed at their disposal. Michael 
 seems to have been sent by the Patri- 
 arch of Jerusalem on a mission to 
 Rome in Leo's reign, and, tarrying on 
 his way in Constantinople, to have 
 
 been thrown into prison. (Theod. 
 Stud., writing to him in A.D. 824, 
 Epp. ii. 213, p. 1641, asks him, 
 "Why, when you had intended to 
 go elsewhere, were you compelled to 
 fall into the snares of those who 
 govern here ? ") It is not clear why 
 he did not return to Jerusalem under 
 Michael II. ; he is said to have lived 
 then in a convent near Brusa. Theo- 
 dore and Theophanes were confined 
 by Leo in a fortress near the mouth of 
 the Bosphorus (see Vailhe's study, 
 Saint Michel le Syncelle). For the 
 persecution of Makarios, abbot of Pele- 
 kete (near Ephesus) see Vit. Macarii 
 157-159, sq. (Cp. Theodore Stud. 
 Ep. 38, ed. Cozza-L., p. 31.) John, 
 abbot of the Katharoi monastery (E. of 
 the Harbour of Eleutherios), is said to 
 have suffered stripes and been banished 
 first to a fort near Lampe (Phrygia) 
 and then to another in the Bukellarian 
 Theme (A.S. April 27, t. iii. 495). 
 Hilarion, abbot of the convent of 
 Dalmatos (or Dalmatoi ; n. of the 
 Forum Arcadii), was tortured by hunger 
 by the Patriarch Theodotos, and then 
 confined in various prisons (A.S. June 
 6, t. i. 759). Others who were mal- 
 treated, exiled, etc., were Aemilian, 
 bishop of Cyzicus (Synax. Ecc. Cp. 875, 
 cp. 519), Eudoxios of Amorion (ib. 
 519), and Michael of Synnada (ib. 703, 
 cp. Pargoire, Echos d'orient, iv. 347 
 sqq., 1903). The last-named died in 
 A.D. 826. Joannes, abbot of Psicha 
 (at Cple.), suffered according to his 
 biographer (Vit. Joann, Psich. 114 
 sqq.) particularly harsh treatment. 
 He was flogged, confined in various 
 prisons, and then tortured by one 
 "who outdid Jaunes." This must 
 mean not, as the editor thinks, John 
 the Grammarian, but Theodotos. Cp. 
 the story of the treatment of Hilarion.
 
 76 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, n 
 
 penalties. Again, it is quite possible that during the destruc- 
 tion of pictures in the city, which ensued on their condemna- 
 tion by the Synod, serious riots occurred in the streets, and 
 death penalties may have been awarded to persons who 
 attempted to frustrate the execution of the imperial commands. 
 We are told that " the sacred representations " l were at the 
 mercy of anyone who chose to work his wicked will upon 
 them. Holy vestments, embroidered with sacred figures, were 
 torn into shreds and cast ignominiously upon the ground ; 
 pictures and illuminated missals were cut up with axes and 
 burnt in the public squares. Some of the baser sort insulted 
 the icons by smearing them with cow-dung and foul-smelling 
 ointments. 2 
 
 1 Ignatius, Vit. Nic. ^/CTi/Trti/uara. 
 2 Ib. /3o\/3iYots Ko.1 a\oi<f>cus ical (55/ua?s
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 MICHAEL II., THE AMORIAN 
 (A.D. 820-829) 
 
 1. The Accession of Michael (A.D. 8%0}. The Coronation 
 and Marriage of Theophilus (A.D. 
 
 WHILE his accomplices were assassinating the Emperor, 
 Michael lay in his cell, awaiting the issue of the enterprise 
 which meant for him death or empire, according as it failed or 
 prospered. The conspirators, as we have seen, did not bungle 
 in their work, and when it was accomplished, they hastened 
 to greet Michael as their new master, and to bear him in 
 triumph to the Imperial throne. With his legs still encased 
 in the iron fetters he sat on his august seat, and all the 
 servants and officers of the palace congregated to fall at his 
 feet. Time, perhaps, seemed to fly quickly in the surprise of 
 his new position, and it was not till midday that the gyves 
 which so vividly reminded him of the sudden change of his 
 fortunes were struck off his limbs. The historians tell of a 
 difficulty in finding the key of the fetters, and it was John 
 Hexabulios, Logothete of the Course, who remembered that 
 Leo had hidden it in his dress. 1 
 
 About noon, 2 without washing his hands or making any 
 other seemly preparation, Michael, attended by his supporters, 
 proceeded to the Great Church, there to receive the Imperial 
 crown from the hands of the Patriarch, and to obtain recog- 
 nition from the people. No hint is given as to the attitude 
 of the Patriarch Theodotos to the conspiracy, but he seems 
 
 1 According to Cont. Th. (41), or broken with a hammer (^6Xis 
 however, the key was not forthcom- 6\aa6tvTuv). 
 
 ing, and the fetters were loosened - At the seventh hour, Gen. 30. 
 
 77
 
 78 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 to have made no difficulty in performing the ceremony of 
 coronation for the successful conspirator. The Amorian 
 soldier received the crown from the prelate's hands, and the 
 crowd was ready to acclaim the new Augustus. Those who 
 held to image worship did not regret the persecutor of their 
 faith, but thought that he had perished justly ; and perhaps 
 to most in that superstitious populace the worst feature in the 
 whole work seemed to be that his blood had stained a holy 
 building. 1 We have already seen how Michael dealt with the 
 Empress Theodosia and her children. 
 
 The new Koman Emperor 2 was a rude provincial, coarse 
 in manners, ill-educated, and superstitious. But he was 
 vigorous, ambitious, and prudent, and he had worked his way 
 up in the army by his own energy and perseverance. 
 Amorion, the city of his birth, in Upper Phrygia, was at this 
 time an important place, as the capital of the Anatolic 
 province. It was the goal of many a Saracen invasion. Its 
 strong walls had defied the generals of the Caliphs in the 
 days of the Isaurian Leo ; but it was destined, soon after it 
 had won the glory of giving a dynasty to the Empire, to be 
 captured by the Unbelievers. This Phrygian town was a 
 head-quarter for Jews, and for the heretics who were known as 
 Athingani. 3 It is said that Michael inherited from his parents 
 Athingan views, 4 but according to another account he was a 
 Sabbatian. 5 Whatever be the truth about this, he was inclined 
 to tolerate heresies, of which he must have seen much at his 
 native town in the days of his youth. He was also favour- 
 ably disposed to the Jews ; but the statement that his grand- 
 father was a converted Jew does not rest on very good 
 authority. 6 It is certain that his parents were of humble 
 rank, and that his youth, spent among heretics, Hebrews, and 
 half-Hellenized Phrygians, was subject to influences which 
 were very different from the Greek polish of the capital. One 
 so trained must have felt himself strange among the men of 
 old nobility, of Hellenic education, and ecclesiastical ortho- 
 
 1 Such was the thought of the 5 Nicetas, Vit. Ign. 216. The 
 Continuer of Theophanes, 42. Sabbatians were a fourth-century ott- 
 
 2 His age on his accession is not shoot from the Novatians ; they held 
 recorded, but he was certainly well that Easter should be celebrated on 
 over forty. the same day and in the same manner 
 
 3 See above, p. 40. as the Jewish feast. 
 
 4 Cont. Th. 42. 6 Michael Syr. 72.
 
 SECT, i MICHAEL II. 79 
 
 doxy l with whom he had to deal in Constantinople. He did 
 not disguise his contempt for Hellenic culture, 2 and he is 
 handed down to history as an ignorant churl. Such a man 
 was a good aim for the ridicule of witty Byzantines, and it is 
 recorded that many lampoons were published on the crowned 
 boor. 3 
 
 The low-born Phrygian who founded a new dynasty in the 
 ninth century reminds us of the low-born Dardanian who 
 founded a new dynasty exactly three hundred years before. 
 The first Justin, like the second Michael, was ignorant of 
 letters. It was told of Justin that he had a mechanical 
 contrivance for making his signature, and of Michael it was 
 popularly reported that another could read through a book 
 more quickly than he could spell out the six letters of his 
 name. 4 They were both soldiers and had worked their way 
 up in the service, and they both held the same post at the 
 time of their elevation. Justin was the commander of the 
 Excubitors when he was called upon to succeed Anastasius, 
 even as Michael when he stepped into the place of Leo. But 
 Michael could not say like Justin that his hands were pure of 
 blood. The parallel may be carried still further. The soldier 
 of Ulpiana, like the soldier of Amorion, reigned for about nine 
 years, and each had a successor who was a remarkable contrast 
 to himself. After the rude Justin, came his learned and 
 intellectual nephew Justinian ; after the rude Michael, his 
 polished son Theophilus. 
 
 Michael shared the superstitions which were not confined 
 to his own class. He was given to consulting soothsayers 
 and diviners ; and, if report spoke true, his career was directed 
 by prophecies and omens. It is said that his first marriage 
 was brought about through the utterances of a soothsayer. 
 He had been an officer in the army of the Anatolic Theme, in 
 days before he had entered the service of Bardanes. The 
 general of that Theme, whose name is not recorded, was as 
 ready as most of his contemporaries to believe in prognosti- 
 cation, and when one of the Athingan sect who professed to 
 
 1 Cp. Finlay, ii. pp. 128, 129. is described as not so cruel as Leo, but 
 
 2 Cant. Th. 49 rip 'EXX^V I* ,"1" "* Tp } X^^os *al <r X fSo V 
 Traldevw fcaariW, where Hellenic is ^ ^P^^V^^i K r W wSr,a V a ff rpo<f,r, v 
 
 not used in the bad sense of pagan. Kai 4 & Ta .* ""^T*! * i r 
 
 4 Cont. Th. 49, clearly taken from 
 
 3 Ib. In the Ada Davidis, 230, he one of the popular lampoons.
 
 80 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 tell fortunes, declared to him that Michael and another officer 
 of his staff were marked out for Imperial rank in the future, 
 he lost no time in taking measures to unite them with his 
 family. He prepared a feast, and chose them out of all the 
 officers to be his guests, to their own astonishment. But a 
 greater surprise awaited them, for when they were heated with 
 wine, he offered them his daughters in marriage. At this 
 unexpected condescension, the young men, of whom one at 
 least was of humble birth, were stupefied and speechless. 
 They drew back at first from an honour of which they deemed 
 themselves unworthy ; but the superstitious general overcame 
 their scruples, and the marriages took place. Thus it came about 
 that Michael won Thecla, 1 who became the mother of the 
 Emperor Theophilus. The other son-in-law, whoever he may 
 have been, was not so fortunate ; in his case the soothsayer 
 was conspicuously at fault. 2 
 
 Theophilus, for whom Leo V. had probably stood sponsor, 3 
 was adult when his father came to the throne, and on the 
 following Whitsunday (May 12 A.D. 821) Michael, according 
 to the usual practice, secured the succession by elevating him 
 to the rank of Basileus and Augustus. 4 The ceremony of 
 his marriage was celebrated on the same occasion. 5 Having 
 
 1 Her name is known from Con- VTTO 'Avruvlov irarpidpxov Kal T<^ TOV 
 stantine, Cer. 645, and Michael Syr. y6.fj.ov Kal T$ TT/S /fecnXe/aj ffrtyei rfj 
 72. Simeon and the Vita Theodorae ayia ireprrj/cocTTfl. (Cp. vers. Slav. 93, 
 state that Theophilus was the son of and Add. Georg. 790 ; the text of Leo 
 Michael's second wife, Euphrosyne. Gr. is imperfect.) See Brooks, op. cit. 
 
 2 The story is told by Gen. 31 542, who rightly says that this is an 
 ( Cont. Th. 44.) authentic notice which must be separ- 
 
 3 Gen. 12. ated from the legend which precedes 
 
 4 The true date of the elevation of it. It is not clear whether all these 
 Theophilus and his marriage has been ceremonies were performed on the 
 ascertained by Brooks (B.Z. 10, 540 same day. The crowning of Theo- 
 sqq.). The will of Justinian, Duke of philus with the diadem (or^u/ua or 
 Venice, equates indiction 7 (A.D. 828- 8iddr)/j.a) must have come first, and 
 829) with the ninth year of Michael was performed in St. Sophia ; the 
 and the eighteenth (mistake for eighth) ceremony is described in Constantine, 
 of Theophilus. This is compatible Cer. i. 38. We must not press the 
 with his coronation in A.D. 821 or 822. notice so as to imply that Michael was 
 Now there are no coins of Michael II. absent himself and deputed the Patri- 
 alone (see Wroth, ii. 416), and this arch to crown his son. Except in the 
 fact, combined with the probability Emperor's absence, the Patriarch 
 that the Emperor would not delay handed the crown to him, and he 
 long to crown his son, justifies us in placed it on his colleague's head, 
 deciding for 821. The day of the The marriage ceremony was always 
 ceremony is recorded by Simeon, performed in the Church of St. Stephen 
 
 5 Simeon ( Theod. Mel. 147), or^>ei in Daphne, and is described Cer. i. 
 oe Qeoo&pav tv rif evKT-rjpiif! rot) aytov 39 (the nuptial crown is <rTe<f>dvu/j.a, 
 '2iTtt}>dvov, ffT<p6eh Kal avros dpa avr'jj as distinguished from the Imperial
 
 SECT, i THE MARRIAGE OF THEOPHILUS 81 
 
 received the Imperial crown from his father's hands in St. 
 Sophia, he was wedded by the Patriarch, in the Church of 
 St. Stephen in the Palace, to Theodora, a Paphlagonian lady, 
 whose father and uncle were officers in the army. 1 The 
 ceremony was followed by her coronation as Augusta. 
 
 It is probable that the provincial Theodora, of an obscure 
 but well-to-do family, was discovered by means of the bride-show 
 custom which in the eighth and ninth centuries was habitually 
 employed for the purpose of selecting brides for Imperial 
 heirs. Messengers were sent into the provinces to search for 
 maidens who seemed by their exceptional physical attractions 
 and their mental qualities worthy of sharing the throne of 
 an Emperor. They were guided in their selection by certain 
 fixed standards ; they rejected all candidates who did not 
 conform, in stature and in the dimensions of their heads and 
 feet, to prescribed measures of beauty. 2 It was thus that 
 Maria, discovered in a small town in Paphlagonia, came to be 
 the consort of Constantine VI., 3 and we saw how a bride-show 
 was held for the wedding of Stauracius. 4 In later times 
 Michael III. and Leo VI. would win their brides in the same 
 fashion ; 5 and it is not improbable that Irene of Athens 
 owed her marriage with Leo IV. to this custom. 
 
 The bride-show of Theophilus has been embroidered with 
 legendary details, and it has been misdated, but there is no 
 reason for doubting that it was actually held. The story 
 represents Theophilus as still unmarried when he became sole 
 Emperor after his father's death. His stepmother Euphrosyne 
 
 The coronation of the uncle, the general Manuel, was an 
 
 Augusta was celebrated in the same Armenian (Cont. Th. 148). 
 
 place (ib. i. 40). The procedure where , ma Philareti ^ Vasil'ev, in 
 
 the marriage and coronation oi an /m KL v . 76> The Imperial ^ts 
 
 Augusta were combined is described measured Maria - s height er Xa ^ TOV 
 
 ib. i. 41 For the succession of .^ her head and f | ce ' and ner foot 
 
 Antomus to the Patriarchate, see (ro0 To 
 
 below, p. 115. a 7-7, 
 
 1 Her father was Marines, a drun- 
 
 garios, if not a turmarch. He belonged Above, p. 15. 
 
 to the town of Ebissa (Cont. Th. 89). 5 Michael III. : Vita Irenes, 603. 
 
 In the same passage the fact that Leo VI. : Vita Theophanus, ed. Kurtz 
 
 Theodora had been crowned "long (Zapiski imp. Ak. Nauk. viii e ser. 
 
 ago, " TTciXat 5ij, i.e. before her husband's iii. 2 (1898), p. 5). The custom, but 
 
 accession to the autocracy, is recorded. perhaps in a modified form, made its 
 
 For the family relations of Theodora way into France : Lewis the Pious 
 
 see below, Chapter V. p. ] 56, Genea- chose his wife Judith, inspectis plcris- 
 
 logical Table. She was of Armenian que nobilium filiabus (Ann. r. Fr. 
 
 descent, at least on one side, for her 150, A.D. 819). 
 
 G
 
 82 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 assembled the maidens, who had been gathered from all the 
 provinces, in the Pearl-chamber in the Palace, and gave the 
 Emperor a golden apple to bestow upon her who pleased him 
 best. 1 Theophilus halted before Kasia, a lady of striking 
 beauty and literary attainments, and addressed to her a cynical 
 remark, apparently couched in metrical form, 2 to which she 
 had a ready answer in the same style. 
 
 Theophilus : 
 
 A woman was the fount and source 
 Of all man's tribulation. 
 
 Kasia : 
 
 And from a woman sprang the course 
 Of man's regeneration. 
 
 The boldness of the retort did not please the Emperor, and 
 he gave the golden apple to Theodora. 
 
 It was in the spring of A.D. 821, and not nine years later, 
 that Theophilus made his choice, and it was his mother, 
 Thecla, if she was still alive, and not Euphrosyne, who 
 presided over the bride-show. 3 Some may think that the 
 golden apple, the motif of the judgment of Paris, must be 
 rejected as a legendary trait in the story ; yet it seems 
 possible that the apple had been deliberately borrowed from 
 the Greek myth as a symbol by which the Emperor intimated 
 his choice and was a regular feature of the Byzantine bride- 
 shows. Nor does there seem any reason to doubt that the 
 poetess Kasia was one of the chosen maidens ; and the passage 
 between her and the Emperor is, if not true, happily invented 
 so far as her extant epigrams reveal her character. 4 Dis- 
 
 1 The story in its genuine form is G. <t5 ytivai}, 5ta yvvaixbs <eio->e/>/>i$7j rd 
 told by Simeon (Add. Georg. 790). It 0aDXa. 
 
 is completely altered and corrupted in K. d\\a /cai dia yvvaiKbs ra Kpdrrova. 
 
 Vita Theodorae, 4 (see below). The iryydfet.. 
 
 Pearl-chamber (napyapirov rplK\ivos) is (text: irrjy. TO, Kp.). I pointed this 
 
 an anachronism. It was one of the out in Gibbon, v. 199 note, and Engl. 
 
 new buildings of Theophilus himself Hist. Rev. xiii. p. 340 (1898). 
 
 (see below, p. 131). The bride-show of 8 Eudocia, his mother (not Basil), 
 
 Leo VI. was held tv rivi /3a<rtXi/c< manages the bride-show of Leo VI. 
 
 rafuelifj Tys irfpi/SXt-irTov Mavatipas (Vita (Vita Theophanus, loc. cit.). 
 
 Theophanus, loc. cit.). 4 Her strong opinions came out in 
 
 2 With slight change the dialogue her epigrams ; she did not suffer fools 
 in the chronicle falls into the " politi- gladly : see the verses on the /ucDpos in 
 cal metre," which I have reproduced Krumbacher, Kasia, p. 362, cp. p. 365. 
 in English : Three hymns of Kasia are printed in
 
 SECT, i THE MARRIAGE OF THEOPHILUS 83 
 
 appointed in her chance of empire, Kasia resolved to renounce 
 the world, and a letter of Theodore, the abbot of Studion, is 
 preserved in which he approves of her design, and compliments 
 her on the learning and skill of some literary compositions 
 which she had sent him. 1 
 
 The pleasing story of the bride-show of Theophilus, in 
 which Kasia is the heroine, did not find favour with the 
 monk who wrote an edifying biography of the sainted Theodora. 
 He would not allow that she owed her elevation to the too 
 ready tongue of her rival who had presumed to measure wits 
 with the Emperor, and he invented a different story in which 
 Kasia is ignored. 2 According to this frigid fiction, Theophilus 
 selected seven of the maidens, gave each of them an apple, and 
 summoned them again on the morrow. He asked each of them 
 for her apple, but the apples were not forthcoming. Theodora 
 alone produced hers, and along with it offered a second to the 
 Emperor. " This first apple, which I have kept safe," she 
 said, " is the emblem of my maidenhood ; the second, do not 
 decline it, is the fee 3 of the son which shall be born to us." 
 When Theophilus, in amazement, asked her to explain this 
 " oracle," she told hirn that at Nicomedia, on her way to 
 Constantinople, she had visited a holy man who lived in a 
 tower, and that he had prophesied her elevation to the throne 
 and had given her the apple. 4 
 
 Christ and Paranikas, Anth. Graeca efSet, TT}S re Kavovas Kal vrixovs iroir)- 
 
 carm. Christianorum, 103-104 ; another <ra.a-r)s iv TOIJ xpovois Qeo(pt\ov Kal rov 
 
 in Krumbacher, 34.7 sqq. Krumbacher viov avrov. The convent seems to 
 
 has shown that her name was Kasia, have been somewhere on the Seventh 
 
 not Eikasia or Ikasia as the chronicle Hill, near the Constantinian Wall (cp. 
 
 has, and he conjectures that EI'KCKTICI van Millingen, Walls, 22-23). 
 
 arose from r; Kavia (317). Accepting 2 Vita Theodorae, 4. Melioranski 
 
 the date of the bride-show as c. 830, characterises this narrative as " a 
 
 he places her birth c. 810 ; but the polemical pendant " to the story of 
 
 true date of the marriage of Theo- Kasia (Iz sem. ist. 12). He thinks 
 
 philus shows that the year of her that the use of dfj.<f>ortpa.s, p. 3, is an 
 
 birth must have been in the neigh- allusion to Kasia's rivalry ; but 
 
 bourhood of 800. She was still a d/tt^or^pas here means all. 
 
 very young girl when she decided to 3 drji>dpioi>. 
 
 become a nun (see next note), so 4 The beauty of Theodora was cele- 
 
 that we might conjecture the date to brated in Spain by the poet Yahya 
 
 be c. 804. al-Ghazzal, who was sent by Abd ar- 
 
 1 Ep. 270, Cozza - Luzi (cp. A. Rahman as an envoy to the Court of 
 
 Gardner, Theodore, 266 sqq.). The Theophilus (A.D. 839-840). He was 
 
 tenth-century author of the lldrpia. conversing with the Emperor when 
 
 K^nSXews (ed. Preger, 276) notices the Theodora entered "dressed in all her 
 
 convent founded by Kasia and describes finery a rising sun in beauty. Al- 
 
 her as rijs /jLovaxys, evirpeirovs Kal ei)- Ghazzal was so surprised that he could 
 
 Xa^SoOs /cat tre/Saa/atas yvvaiKbs, w/rafos T$ not take his eyes from her," and
 
 84 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 2. The Civil War (A.D. 821-823) 
 
 Of the three actors in the historical drama which was 
 said to have been shadowed forth by the soothsayer of 
 Philomelion, one has passed finally from the scene. The last 
 act is to take the form of a conflict between the two survivors, 
 Michael of Amorion and Thomas of Gaziura. This conflict is 
 generally known as the rebellion of Thomas, but it assumed 
 the dimensions and the dignity of a civil war. Two rivals 
 fought for a crown, which one of them had seized, but could 
 not yet be said to have firmly grasped. Michael had been 
 regularly elected, acclaimed, and crowned in the capital, and 
 he had the advantage of possessing the Imperial city. His 
 adversary had the support of most of the Asiatic provinces ; 
 he was only a rebel because he failed. 
 
 We have seen how Thomas clung to his master and patron 
 Bardanes whom others had deserted (A.D. 803). When the 
 cause of Bardanes was lost, he probably saved himself by 
 fleeing to Syria and taking up his abode among the Saracens, 1 
 with whom he had lived before. For in the reign of Irene 
 he had entered the service of a patrician, 2 and, having been 
 discovered in an attempt to commit adultery with his 
 master's wife, he was constrained to seek a refuge in the 
 dominions of the Caliph, where he seems to have lived for 
 a considerable time. His second sojourn there lasted for 
 
 ceased to attend to the conversation. reign (this is incorrect). Michael II., 
 
 Theophilus expressed astonishment at in Ep. ad Lud. 417, says that he abode 
 
 his rudeness, and the poet said to the among the unbelievers until the reign 
 
 interpreter, "Tell thy master that I of Leo, and during that time became 
 
 am so captivated by the charms of this a Mohammadan in order to gain in- 
 
 queen that I am prevented from fluence with the Saracens, 
 listening. Say that I never saw in 2 For a discussion of the difficulties, 
 
 my life a handsomer woman." "He see Bury, B.Z. i. 55 sqq., where it is 
 
 then began to describe one by one all shown that the patrician was not 
 
 her charms, and to paint his amaze- Bardanes, as Genesios alleges (35). 
 
 ment at her incomparable beauty, and Michael (Ep. ad, Lud., ib.) does not 
 
 concluded by saying that she had name the patrician. The fact seems to 
 
 captivated him with her black eyes " be that Thomas first fled c. A.D. 788, 
 
 (Makkari, ii. 115). and only returned in A.D. 803 to assist 
 
 1 There is an explicit statement in Bardanes ; so that he might be roughly 
 
 the Ada Davidis (a well - informed described as having lived with the 
 
 source), 232 : having served Bardanes, Saracens for twenty-five years (Gen. 
 
 he fled, on account of misdeeds, to ib.). This I now believe to be the true 
 
 the Saracens and lay quiet during explanation of the twenty-five years, 
 
 the reigns of Nicephorus, Stauracius, and not that which I suggested loc. 
 
 Michael I., and a great part of Leo's cit.
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 85 
 
 about ten years (A.D. 803-813). We saw how he received a 
 military command from his old fellow-officer, Leo the Armenian, 
 and he rose in arms shortly before that Emperor's death. 1 
 
 If he was tempted to rise against Leo, much more was he 
 tempted to dispute the crown with Michael, with whom he 
 seems to have had a rivalry of old standing. 2 Thomas was 
 much the elder of the two ; at the time of his rising he was 
 an old man. One of his legs was maimed ; but his age and 
 lameness did not impair his activity. The lame man was 
 personally more popular than the lisper ; for, while Michael's 
 manners were coarse and brusque, Thomas was courteous and 
 urbane. 3 His Slavonic origin hardly counted against him; 4 
 men were by this time becoming familiar with Eomaeized 
 Slavs. 
 
 But Thomas did not come forward as himself; and this 
 is a strange feature of the rebellion which it is difficult to 
 understand. He did not offer himself to the inhabitants of 
 Asia Minor as Thomas of Gaziura, but he pretended that he 
 was really one who was generally supposed to be dead, a 
 crowned Augustus, no other than Constantine the Sixth, son 
 of Irene. That unfortunate Emperor, blinded by the orders 
 of his mother, had died, if not before her dethronement, at all 
 events in the first years of Nicephorus. 5 The operation of 
 blinding had not been performed in public, and a pretender 
 might construct a tale that another had been substituted, 
 and that the true Constantine had escaped. But it is hard to 
 see how the fraud could have been successful even for a time 
 in the case of Thomas. He might easily enough have palmed 
 himself off among barbarian neighbours as the deposed 
 Emperor. Or if he had produced an obscure stranger and 
 given out that this was Constantine who for more than twenty 
 years had lurked in some safe hiding-place, we could under- 
 stand that the fiction might have imposed on the Themes of 
 Asia. But we cannot easily conceive how one who had been 
 recently before the eye of the world as Thomas, Commander 
 
 1 See above, p. 46 and p. 48. filled the Patriarchal chair seventy 
 
 2 Gen. 32 avtuaOev yap dXX^Xou 7 ears back Nicetas, in the reign of 
 avTiireirov86Tus diiffravro. Constantine V. 
 
 t n /TTI 5 Before the year A.D. 806, as is 
 
 Cont. Th. 53. proved by Theodore Stud. Epp. i. 31 
 
 4 But observe the el KO.L aKvOifav T (and cp. Gen. 35) ; see Brooks, B.Z, ir. 
 
 ytvei of Genesios, 32. A Slav had 654 sqq.
 
 86 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 of the Federates, and whose earlier career must have been 
 more or less known by his contemporaries, could suddenly 
 persuade people that all this time he was not himself. One 
 almost suspects that some link in the chain of events is lost 
 which might have explained the feasibility of the deceit. If 
 Thomas had withdrawn for some years to Syria, he might 
 have returned in the new character of an Augustus who was 
 supposed to be dead. And indeed in one account of the 
 rebellion it is implied that he started from Syria, perhaps with 
 some Saracen support at his back. 1 
 
 The pretender was not content with being Constantine, 
 son of Irene ; he resolved, like Constantine the Great, to have 
 a son named Constantius. Accordingly he adopted a man of 
 mongrel race, whose true name is unknown, and called him 
 Constantius. Our record describes this adopted son in terms 
 of the utmost contempt, as a base and ugly mannikin. 2 
 But he must have had some ability, for his " father " trusted 
 him with the command of armies. 
 
 It is impossible to distinguish with certainty the early 
 stages of the insurrection of Thomas, or to determine how far 
 it had spread at the time of Michael's accession. He established 
 his power by winning the district of Chaldia, in eastern Pontus. 
 He also secured some strong places in the Armeniac Theme, in 
 which Gaziura, his native town, was situated, but the soldiers 
 of this Theme did not espouse his cause. It was to the 
 eastern provinces that he chiefly looked for support at first, 
 but his power presently extended to the west. The false 
 Constantine and his son could soon reckon the greater part of 
 Asia Minor, from the borders of Armenia to the shores of the 
 Aegean, as their dominion. The Paulician heretics, who were 
 persecuted by Leo, flocked to their standard. They intercepted 
 the taxes which should have been conveyed to Constantinople 
 and used the money for winning adherents to their cause. 
 
 1 Gen. 36 ; Cont. Tk. 51 ; Ada Dav. Harun, who treated him with honour 
 
 232. There is a confusion in this as an Emperor's son, to give him an 
 
 tradition between the beginning of the army to overthrow the Emperor 
 
 rebellion and the alliance of Thomas (Nicephorus). Mamun, however, gave 
 
 with the Saracens in A.D. 821. him an army " soit pour s'emparer 
 
 According to Michael Syr. 37, Thomas, de 1'empire des Remains et le lui 
 
 whose father's name was Mosmar, was livrer (ensuite), soit pour les troubler 
 
 with the Saracens before the death of par la guerre." Cp. Bar-Hebraeus, 
 
 Harun, and pretended to b<? the son of 150. 
 
 Constantine VI. He tried to persuade 2 lb.
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 87 
 
 The cities which would not voluntarily have acknowledged 
 them were constrained by fear. Soon they could boast that 
 only two armies in Asia had not joined them, the Opsikian 
 and the Armeniac. The patrician Katakylas, Count of 
 Opsikion, was a nephew of Michael, and remained true to his 
 uncle. Olbianos, strategos of the Armeniacs, espoused the 
 same cause. But the meagre and disorderly accounts of the 
 war which have reached us do not inform us what Olbianos 
 and Katakylas did, or whether they did anything, to stem the 
 torrent of rebellion. No dates are given, and even the order 
 of events is obscure. 
 
 But if Michael and his supporters made no signal effort 
 to oppose the progress of the danger, the attention of Thomas 
 was diverted to another enemy. The civil war in the Empire 
 was an opportunity for the Caliph, and the Saracens began 
 to make excursions in the Eoman lands which were left 
 insufficiently protected, as the regular defenders had abandoned 
 their posts to swell the army of Thomas. Perhaps the 
 murmurs of his soldiers l convinced Thomas that he must 
 relinquish for a time his war against his countrymen to 
 repel the common foe. But if he was yielding to the wishes 
 of his followers, in taking measures to protect their homes, 
 he made a skilful use of the danger and turned it completely 
 to his own advantage. His long sojourns among the Moslems 
 stood him in good stead now. His first movement was to 
 invade Syria 2 and display his immense forces to the astonished 
 eyes of the Saracens. Perhaps such a large Eoman army had 
 seldom passed the Taurus since Syria had become a Saracen 
 possession. But the object of this invasion was not to harry 
 or harm the invaded lands, but rather to frighten the enemy 
 into making a treaty with such a powerful commander. The 
 design was crowned with success. The Caliph Mamun 
 empowered persons in authority to meet the pretender, and 
 a compact of alliance was arranged. Thomas or Constantine 
 was recognised as Emperor of the Komans by the Commander 
 of the Faithful, who undertook to help him to dethrone his 
 rival. In return for this service, Thomas is said to have 
 
 1 -Cant. Th. 54. This point is not Genesios does not mention this move- 
 in Genesios. ment. The Syrian episode evidently 
 
 2 Ib. fis rj]v avruv {lff/3d\\wv. belongs to the summer of A.D. 821.
 
 88 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 agreed not only to surrender certain border territories which 
 are not specified, but to become a tributary of the Caliph. 1 
 
 After the conclusion of this treaty, which turned a foe 
 into a friend, we expect to find the Emperor Constantine 
 hastening back to recover the throne of the Isaurians. But 
 before he left Syria he took a strange step. With the 
 consent or at the instance of his new allies he proceeded to 
 Antioch, in order to be crowned by the Patriarch Job as 
 Basileus of the Romans. The coronation of a Roman 
 Emperor in Antioch in the ninth century was a singular 
 event. We cannot imagine that Thomas was accompanied 
 thither by his army ; but doubtless the Greek Christians of 
 the place flocked to see the unaccustomed sight, and when the 
 Patriarch Job placed the crown on the head of the Basileus 
 they may have joined his attendants in acclaiming him. We 
 have to go back to the fifth century for a like scene. It was 
 in Syrian Antioch that Leontius, the tyrant who rose against 
 Zeno, was crowned and proclaimed Augustus. The scale and 
 gravity of the rebellion of the Isaurian Leontius render it not 
 unfit to be compared with the rebellion of the later pretender, 
 who also professed to be of Isaurian stock. 
 
 But when we consider the circumstances more closely the 
 coronation assumes a puzzling aspect. If Thomas had been 
 simply Thomas, we can understand that he might have 
 grasped at a chance, which was rare for a rebel in his day, 
 to be crowned by a Patriarch out of Constantinople, even 
 though that Patriarch was not a Roman subject. But 
 Thomas, according to the story, gave out that he was an 
 Emperor already. He had borrowed the name and identity 
 of the Emperor Constantine VI. ; he had therefore, according 
 to his own claim, been crowned Augustus by the Patriarch 
 of Constantinople forty years before. What then is the 
 meaning of his coronation at Antioch ? One would think 
 that such a ceremony would weaken rather than strengthen 
 his position. It might be interpreted as a tacit confession 
 that there was some flaw in the title of the re-arisen Con- 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 54 {jTriax vo ^t J - V0 ^ T ^ n t mention this, but it may explain 
 'PU/J.O.IUV re irpoSovvai 8pia Kal rty aitrCiv (see below) the coronation at Antioch. 
 aurots virb xpas iroi7J<rai. apx^v. The The author of the Ada Davidis says 
 last clause must be interpreted to (232) that Thomas promised to sub- 
 mean that Thomas undertook to pay a ject the Empire to the Saracens. This 
 tribute to the Caliph. Genesios does doubtless was generally believed.
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 89 
 
 stantine. It would have been requisite for an Emperor who 
 had been first crowned at Antioch to repeat the ceremony 
 when he had established himself on the Bosphorus ; but it 
 is strange that one who had declared that he had been 
 formally consecrated at Constantinople by the chief Patriarch 
 should come to Antioch to receive an irregular consecration 
 from a lesser prelate. It does not appear that the tyrant 
 had abandoned his claim to be another than himself, and, 
 having won his first followers by an imposture, now threw 
 off the cloak and came forward as Thomas of Gaziura. It 
 may be suggested that the coronation was not contrived by 
 the wish of the pretender, but by the policy of Mamun. The 
 reception of the emblem of sovranty at the hands of a 
 Patriarch, who was the subject of the Caliph, may have 
 been intended as a symbolical acknowledgment of the 
 Caliph's overlordship and a pledge of his future submission 
 as a tributary. 1 
 
 The prospect of the tyrants looked brighter than ever 
 when they returned to the lands of the Empire. Men of all 
 sorts and races and regions had flocked to their standards 
 Slavs, Persians, Armenians, Iberians, and many from the 
 regions of the Caucasus and the eastern shores of the Euxine. 2 
 The total number of the forces is estimated at eighty thousand. 
 Eeports meanwhile reached Constantinople of the gathering of 
 this large host. But Michael took it for granted that rumour 
 outran the truth, and deemed it enough to send into the field 
 a small army, totally insufficient to cope with the foe. The 
 
 1 The difficulty about the coronation tions Saracens, Persians, Iberians, 
 at Antioch has not been noticed, so Armenians, Abasgians (Avassis), and 
 far as I know, by any historian. If speaks as if all these had been in the 
 Thomas had pretended to be a son of rebel army at the very beginning of 
 Constantino (as Michael Syr. alleges, the revolt against Leo V. Besides 
 see above, p. 86, n. 1), all would be these, Genesios (33) mentions Alans, 
 clear. It is curious that Michael Syr. Zichs, Colchians, Indians (that is, 
 (75)states thatinA.n.831-832aRoman, negroes), Kabeiroi, Slavs, Huns, Van- 
 pretending to be of Imperial lineage, dais, and Getae. The Kabeiroi are 
 came to Mamun in Cilicia and asked probably the Turkish Kabars of the 
 him to help him to the throne ; Maiiiun Khazar Empire (see below, p. 426). 
 caused him to be crowned by the For the Alans (Ossetians), see below, 
 Patriarch Job ; the impostor after- p. 408 sq. The Getae may be the Goths 
 wards became a Mohammadan. When of the Crimea, the Huns may be Mag- 
 the news reached Constantinople, the yars or Inner Bulgarians, or something 
 bishops met and excommunicated Job. else. It is difficult to discover ninth- 
 The Greek sources give no support to century Vandals (Wends do not come 
 this story. into range). 
 
 2 Michael, Ep.adLud. 417-418,men-
 
 90 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 thousands of Michael were swallowed up by the tens of 
 thousands of Thomas. 1 As no formidable resistance was offered 
 to the tyrant's progress in Asia Minor, he prepared to attack 
 the city itself. For this enterprise, in which so many had 
 failed before him, it was judged indispensable to possess a fleet. 
 The .City of the Bosphorus had over and over again defied a 
 joint attack by land and sea ; it was naturally inferred that 
 an attack by land alone would have no chances of success. 2 
 The pretender therefore set himself to gather a fleet, and it 
 would seem that he had no difficulty in seizing the fleets of 
 the Aegean and the Kibyrrhaeot Themes, which together 
 formed the Thematic or provincial navy. 3 Thus all the 
 warships stationed in the eastern parts of the Empire were in 
 his hands, except the Imperial fleet itself, which lay at the 
 Imperial city. In addition to these, he built new warships 
 and new ships of transport. When all was ready, he caused 
 his naval forces to assemble at Lesbos and await his orders, 
 while he himself advanced to the Hellespont and secured 
 Abydos. And now he met his first reverse. All had yielded 
 to him as he swept on through the Asiatic Themes, except 
 one place, whose name our historians do not mention. He 
 did not think it worth while to delay himself, but he left a 
 considerable part of his army under the command of Con- 
 stantius, to reduce this stubborn fortress. It seems probable 
 too that this dividing of his forces formed part of a further 
 design. We may guess that while Constantine was to cross 
 by the western gate of the Propontis and advance on the city 
 from the west, Constantius was to approach the eastern strait 
 and attack the city on the south. But if this was the plan 
 of operations, Constantius was not destined to fulfil his part 
 of it. Olbianos, the general of the Armeniac Theme, was 
 biding his time and watching for an opportunity. His army 
 
 1 This engagement is recorded only "the feeble spirit" of the defenders, 
 by the Continuer, who uses the ex- He remarks that currents of the Mar- 
 pressive metaphor tio-rrep TI iro-rbv Si\f/ui> mora, and "the violent storms to 
 dvepfofaffev (55). Part of Michael's which the waters around the city are 
 army, however, escaped. liable," were natural allies of the 
 
 2 It is, however, well remarked by besieged. 
 
 van Millingen ( Walls, 179) that in 3 evrevdev /ecu TOV Oefj-ariKov crroAou 
 
 Byzantine history "there is only one yivercu ey/cpar-fts (ib.) ; ij5r] rb vavriKbv 
 
 instance of a successful naval assault &wa.v rb vTrb '1'u/j.aiovs 6i>, irXyv TOV 
 
 upon Constantinople, the gallant cap- /ScicnAi/coO /cXrj^j'Tos vTroiroieiTai (Gen. 
 
 ture of the city in 1204 by the Vene- 37). 
 tians," and that was largely due to
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 91 
 
 was not large enough to try an issue with the united forces of 
 the enemy, but his chance came when those forces were divided. 
 He set an ambush to waylay the younger tyrant, who, as he 
 advanced securely, supposing that the way was clear, allowed 
 his men to march in disorder. Constantius was slain and his 
 head was sent to Constantine. This was the first check in 
 the triumphant course of the war, though the death of the 
 " son " may have caused little grief to the " father." 
 
 The scene of operations now shifts from Asia to Europe. 
 The Emperor, seeing that his adversary was preparing to cross 
 the straits, had gone forth at the head of a small army and 
 visited some of the cities of Thrace in order to confirm them 
 against the violence or seductions of the tyrant and assure 
 himself of their stedfast faith. But his care availed little. 
 On a dark moonless night Thomas transported his troops to 
 various spots on the Thracian shore, starting from an obscure 
 haven named Horkosion. 1 About the same time the fleet 
 arrived from Lesbos and sailed into the waters of the Propontis. 
 No resistance was offered by the inhabitants of Thrace when 
 they saw the immense numbers of the invading host. Michael 
 seems to have lingered, perhaps somewhere on the shores of 
 the Propontis, to observe what effect the appearance of his foe 
 would produce on the cities which had yesterday pledged 
 themselves to stand true, and when he learned that they were 
 cowed into yielding, he returned to the city and set about 
 making it ready to withstand a siege. The garrison was 
 recruited by loyal soldiers from the Asiatic Themes, now free 
 from the presence of the pretender. The Imperial fleet, 
 supplied with " Marine Fire," was stationed not in the Golden 
 Horn, but in the three artificial harbours on the southern 
 shore of the city, the port of Hormisdas, which was probably 
 already known by its later name of Bucoleon ; 2 the Sophian 
 
 1 Gen. 37 implies that Horkosion the Marmora appears in the sequel, 
 was on the Hellespontine coast, not Of the harbours along this shore the 
 necessarily that it was close to Abydos. best account is in van Millingen, 
 We may therefore identify it with Walls, 268 sqq. There were two other 
 '0/Hc6s, which lay between Parion and harbours besides the three above- 
 Lampsacus (Theod. Stud. Epp. i. 3, p. mentioned ; but there is no evidence 
 917), which is doubtless the Lorco of that the Kontoskalion (between the 
 later times, placed with probability Sophian and the Kaisarian) existed 
 by Tomaschek in the crescent bay a in the ninth century, while that of 
 little N.E. of Lampsacus (Top. u. Eleutherios or Theodosius, the most 
 Kleinasien, 15). westerly of all, had probably been filled 
 
 2 The position of Michael's fleet on up before this period (the author of
 
 92 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 harbour, further to the west ; l and beyond it the harbour of 
 Kaisarios. 2 The entrance to the Golden Horn was blocked 
 by the Iron Chain, which was stretched across the water from 
 a point near the Gate of Eugenics to the Castle of Galata. 3 
 In making these dispositions Michael was perhaps availing 
 himself of the experience of previous sieges. When the 
 Saracens attacked the city in the seventh century, Constantine 
 IV. had disposed a portion of his naval forces in the harbour 
 of Kaisarios. 4 In the second attack of the same foe in the 
 eighth century, Leo III. had stretched the Iron Chain, but he 
 seems to have stationed his own ships outside the Horn. 5 
 
 The host of Thomas had been increased by new adherents 
 from the European provinces, and Slavs from Macedonia nocked 
 to the standard of the Slavonian pretender. 6 But he needed 
 a new general and a new son. To succeed the unlucky leader, 
 whom he had destined to be Constantius the Fourth, he chose 
 a monk, already bearing an Imperial name, and worthy in the 
 opinion of the tyrant to be Anastasius the Third ; not worthy, 
 however, of such an exalted place, in the opinion of our 
 historians, who describe him as an ugly man, with a face like 
 an Ethiopian's from excessive wine-drinking, and of insane 
 mind. 7 But the monk was not fitted to lead troops to battle, 
 and for this office Thomas won the services of a banished 
 general named Gregory, who had perhaps better cause than 
 himself to hate the name of Michael. Gregory Pterotos was 
 a nephew of Leo the Armenian, and, on the death of his uncle, 
 whom he loved, fear had not held him back from entering the 
 presence of his successor, where, instead of falling among those 
 
 the Ildrpia, 184, 248, says this hap- 3 From Theoph. 396 we know that 
 
 pened in the reign of Theodosius I. ; in A.D. 717 it was attached to the 
 
 but the alternative name suggests Ka<rTt\\toi> rdv TaXdrov (as in later 
 
 rather that he repaired it). It may times). The southern end was fastened, 
 
 be noticed that the harbours in which in later times, to the Kentenarion 
 
 Phocas expected Heraclius (A.D. 610) tower close to the Porta Eugenii, and 
 
 to land were those of Kaisarios, Sophia, we know that this existed in the ninth 
 
 and Hormisdas (John Ant., in Miiller, century (Ildrpia 264, where Con- 
 
 F.H.G. v. 1. 38). stantine I. is said to have built the 
 
 1 Also called Harbour of Julian and tower). Cp. van Millingen, 228. 
 New Harbour. 4 Theoph. 353. 
 
 2 Van Millingen has shown that it 5 j^ ogg 
 is almost certainly identical with the 
 
 Neorion of Heptaskalon, and there is ' Michael, Ep. adLud. 418: Thrace, 
 
 archaeological evidence for placing it Macedonia Thessalonia, et circum- 
 
 between Kum Kapussi and Yeni Kapu **& Sclarnmis. 
 
 (310 sqq.). 7 Gen. 39.
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 93 
 
 who grovelled at the Imperial feet, he overwhelmed him with 
 reproaches for the murderous deed. The Emperor merely said, 
 " I know the greatness of your sorrow and the ocean of your 
 distress," but two days later he banished this fearless kinsman 
 of his predecessor to the island of Skyros. 1 Gregory was not 
 unwilling to attach himself to the rival of him who had 
 banished himself and dethroned his uncle, and he was speedily 
 entrusted with the command of ten thousand men and sent on 
 to open the assault on the Imperial city. 
 
 It was already winter, and the first year of Michael's 
 reign was drawing to a close, when Gregory took up his 
 station on the north-west of the city, in the suburbs outside 
 Blachernae, while the fleet, under another unnamed com- 
 mander, reached the same quarter by sailing up the inlet of 
 the Golden Horn, having evidently unfastened the Iron Chain 
 where it was attached to the Castle of Galata. 2 On the 
 banks of the Barbyses, 3 a stream which flows into the Horn, 
 the leaders of the sea forces and the land forces could concert 
 their plans together. No action, however, was taken until 
 Constantius and Anastasius arrived with their mighty host. 
 The leaders seem to have imagined that when this vast 
 array spread out before the walls of the city, and their ships 
 filled the Golden Horn and threatened the harbours on the 
 Propontis, the inhabitants would be so utterly dismayed by 
 the sight of the overwhelming numbers that they would throw 
 open their gates in despair. But it soon became clear that 
 the city and its masters were resolved to withstand even such 
 a vast force ; they trusted in their impregnable walls. It was 
 the first business of Thomas, when he saw that a siege was 
 inevitable, to reduce the suburbs and villages which lay north 
 
 1 The details about this Gregory Sweet Waters of Europe. It flows 
 (his kinship with Leo, the cause of into the Horn close to the Cosmidion 
 his exile, and his name Pterotos) are (Church of SS. Cosmas and Damian, 
 recorded in Cont. Th. 57, but not by now the Eyub mosque), which is not 
 Genesios. far to the west of Blachernae. See 
 
 2 This is an inference, but I think van Millingen, Walls, 175-176. There 
 evident. Thomas controlled the was a bridge across the Barbyses 
 northern shore of the Horn. In ex- (Niceph. Patr. ed. de Boor, 14 and 
 actly the same way the Venetians, 26), which must have been quite 
 having captured the Galata Tower, re- distinct from the bridge across the 
 moved the chain in A.D. 1203 (Nicetas, Golden Horn, of which the southern 
 ed. Bonn. 718-719). point was in Aivan Serai ; though 
 
 3 Gen. 38. The Barbyses (or Bar- Ducange (Const. Christ, iv. 125) and 
 byssos) is now called the Kiat-haneh van Millingen seem to connect the 
 Su, one of the streams known as the two bridges.
 
 94 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 of the city along the shores of the Bosphorus. 1 These places 
 could not resist. The inhabitants were doubtless glad to 
 submit as speedily as possible to any one engaged in besieging 
 the city, remembering too well how but a few years ago they 
 had been harried by another and more terrible enemy, the 
 Bulgarian Krum. 2 
 
 The siege began in the month of December. 3 The course 
 of events from this point to the end of the war may be 
 conveniently divided into five stages. 4 
 
 1. December 821 to February or March 822. Thomas 
 spent some days in disposing his forces and preparing his 
 engines. He pitched his own tent in the suburbs beyond 
 Blachernae, 5 not far from the noble building which rose 
 towards heaven like a palace, the church of St. Cosmas 
 and St. Damian, the physicians who take no fee for their 
 services to men. Until the reign of Heraclius the north- 
 western corner of the city between the Palace of Blachernae 
 and the Golden Horn must have been defended by a fortifica- 
 tion of which no traces survive. 6 Heraclius, whether before 
 or after the siege of the Avars (A.D. 626), 7 had connected the 
 Palace with the seaward fortifications by a wall which is 
 flanked by three admirably built hexagonal towers. 8 But the 
 assaults of the Bulgarians in A.D. 813 seem to have proved 
 that this " Single Wall of Blachernae," as it was called, was 
 an insufficient defence, and Leo V., in expectation of a second 
 Bulgarian siege, 9 constructed a second outer wall, parallel to 
 that of Heraclius, and forming with it a sort of citadel which 
 was known as the Brachionion. 10 
 
 1 Gen. 39. the Cosmidion. Cp. Ducange, Const. 
 
 2 Above, p. 46. Chr. 127. 
 
 3 The date comes from Michael, Ep. 6 Extending, I conjecture, from the 
 ad Lud. 418, where we also learn that north-east corner of the Palace to the 
 the blockade lasted for the space of a sea-wall. Cp. van Millingen, Walls, 
 year. 120. The outer walls of the Palace 
 
 4 There has been no full and critical itself formed the fortification as far as 
 relation of the siege by modern his- the northern extremity of the Theo- 
 torians. See Lebeau, xiii. 50 sqq. ; dosian Walls. 
 
 Schlosser, 440 sqq. ; Finlay, ii. 131 7 Pernice (L' Imperatore Eraclio, 141) 
 
 (very brief). Much the best is that of has given some reasons for thinking 
 
 Vasil'ev, Viz. i. Ar. 33 sqq. that the wall was built after the Avar 
 
 5 The suburb between Cosmidion attack in A.D. 619. Cp. my note in 
 and Blachernae was known as ra Gibbon, v. 92. 
 
 Uav\tvov (and is so designated here in 8 Van Millingen, Walls, 164 sqq. 
 
 Cont. Th. 59), from Paulinus (famous 9 See below, p. 359. 
 
 for his love-affair with Athenais, the 10 Van Millingen, Walls, 168: "The 
 
 wife of Theodosius II.), who founded Wall of Leo stands 77 feet to the west
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 95 
 
 The troops on whom it devolved to attack the long 
 western walls of Theodosius, from the Palace of Blachernae 
 to the Golden Gate, were assigned to the subordinate tyrant 
 Anastasius, 1 to whose dignity a high command was due, but 
 others were at hand to keep the inexperienced monk from 
 blundering. The main attack was to be directed against the 
 quarter of Blachernae. Here were gathered all the resources 
 of the engineer's art, rams and tortoises, catapults and city- 
 takers ; and over these operations Thomas presided himself. 
 
 In the city meanwhile the aid of Heaven and the inven- 
 tions of men were summoned to defend the walls. On the 
 lofty roof of the church of the Mother of God in Blachernae, 
 the Emperor solemnly fixed the Eoman standard, in the sight 
 of the enemy, and prayed for succour against them. Presently 
 the besiegers beheld the young Emperor Theophilus walking 
 at the head of a priestly procession round the walls of the 
 city, and bearing with him the life-giving fragments of the 
 holy Cross, and raiment of the mother of Christ. 2 
 
 But, if he employed superstitious spells, Michael did not 
 neglect human precautions. He too, like his opponent, called 
 to his service all the resources of the art of the engineer, and 
 the machines of the besieged proved in the end more effectual 
 than those of the besieger. Simultaneous attacks by land and 
 sea were frustrated, and on land at least the repulse of the 
 assailants was wholly due to the superior machines of the 
 assailed. The missiles which were shot from the city carried 
 farther than those of Thomas, and great courage was required 
 to venture near enough to scale or batter the walls. Ladders 
 and battering-rams were easily foiled by the skilful handling 
 of engines mounted on the battlements, and at last the attack- 
 ing host retired from the volleys of well-aimed missiles within 
 the shelter of their camp. At sea, too, the assailants were 
 discomfited, but the discomfiture was perhaps chiefly caused 
 by the rising of an adverse wind. The ships of Thomas were 
 
 of the Wall of Heraclius, running while the lower portion was pierced 
 
 parallel to it for some 260 feet, after by numerous loopholes." 
 
 which it turns to join the walls along 1 This is recorded in Cont. Th., not 
 
 the Golden Horn. Its parapet walk by Genesios. 
 
 was supported upon arches which 2 The clothes of the Virgin were 
 
 served at the same time to buttress " discovered " in a coffin at Blachernae 
 
 the wall itself, a comparatively slight in A.D. 619 (see my note in Gibbon, 
 
 structure about 8 feet thick. ... It v. 81). We shall meet this precious 
 
 was flanked by four small towers, relic again in A.D. 860 (below, p. 420).
 
 96 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 provided both with " liquid fire " and with four-legged city- 
 takers, 1 from whose lofty storeys naming missiles might be 
 hurled upon and over the sea-walls of the city. But the 
 violent wind rendered it impossible to make an effective use 
 of these contrivances, and it was soon clear that the attack 
 on the seaside had failed. 
 
 Foiled at every point, Thomas was convinced that he had 
 no chance of succeeding until the severity of winter had 
 passed, and he retired from his position to await the coming 
 of spring, whether in the cities of Thrace or on the opposite 
 coasts of Asia. 2 
 
 2. Spring, 822 A.D. At the coming of spring Thomas 
 reassembled his land forces and his ships at Constantinople 
 and prepared for another simultaneous attack on both elements. 
 Michael meanwhile had made use of the respite from hostilities 
 to reinforce his garrison considerably, and during this second 
 siege he was able to do more than defend the walls : he could 
 venture to sally out against the enemy. It was also probably 
 during the lull in the war that some repairs were made in 
 the Wall of Leo, recorded by inscriptions which are still 
 preserved. 3 
 
 We are told that when the day dawned on which a grand 
 assault was to be made on the walls of Blachern, the Emperor 
 ascended the wall himself and addressed the enemy, who were 
 within hearing. 4 He urged them to desert the rebel and seek 
 
 1 Terpatr/ceXets e\e7r6\ets. occurred. Fragmentary inscriptions 
 
 2 The words of our source (Cent. of M. and T. have been found near 
 Th. 61 AXXws 5 Kal TJ &pa Spifj^repov the Charisian Gate in the Theodosian 
 fSe'iKW rbv Kaip&v are x el / J -u >1 ' * ^iftyevo- Wall (ib. 101). 
 
 /j.ti>ov Kal TTJS Qp$Kt]S TU>I> a\\wv otfcnjs 4 Cont. Th. 61 T6ixos TOW BXaxe/wwj' 
 
 Svffxeifdpov 4irl Trapaxf^o-ffLav ^rpa-n-r) was to be the object of attack, i.e. 
 
 Kal rrjv rov ffrparov avaKo/JuSriv) may chiefly the Wall of Leo ; then Michael 
 
 merely mean that winter in Thrace is said to have spoken K TOV TWV 
 
 was too severe for military operations, reix^v /ueretipou, but it does not follow 
 
 not that Thomas wintered elsewhere. that this also was the Wall of Leo. 
 
 3 Those inscriptions are near the We may suspect that Michael stood 
 south end of Leo's Wall ; both are on the battlements of the Palace of 
 defective. One records the names of Blachernae, nearly opposite the point 
 Michael and Theophilus ; the other where the wall which Manuel Corn- 
 gives the date A.M. 6330, which nenus, in the twelfth century, built 
 corresponds to A.D. 822. See van outside the Palace, was pierced by the 
 Millingen, Walls, 168. An inscrip- gate of Gyrolimne. This conjecture 
 tion on one of the towers of the (which I owe to Mr. van Millingen) is 
 Heraclian Wall is in honour of an suggested by (1) the fact that at 
 Emperor Michael ; if this was Michael Gyrolimne the younger Andronicus, 
 II. (as van Millingen thinks, 166), the during his rebellion, more than once 
 name of Theophilus must also have held parley with his father's ministers ;
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 97 
 
 pardon and safety in the city. His words were not received 
 with favour, nor did he imagine that they would move those 
 whom he addressed. But he achieved the effect which he 
 desired, though not the effect at which his speech seemed to 
 aim. The foe concluded that the besieged must needs be in 
 great straits, when the Emperor held such parley from the 
 walls. With confident spirits and in careless array they 
 advanced to the assault, supposing that they would encounter 
 but a weak resistance. Suddenly, to their amazement and 
 consternation, many gates opened, and soldiers, rushing forth 
 from the city, were upon them before they had time to 
 apprehend what had happened. The men of Michael won a 
 brilliant victory, and Thomas was forced to abandon the 
 assault on Blachernae. A battle by sea seems to have been 
 fought on the same day, and it also resulted in disaster for 
 the besiegers. The details are not recorded, but the marines 
 of Thomas, seized by some unaccountable panic, retreated to 
 the shore and absolutely refused to fight. 
 
 Time wore on, and the taking of the city seemed no nearer. 
 One of the generals in the leaguer concluded that there was 
 little chance of success, and weary of the delay he determined 
 to change sides. This was Gregory, the exile of Skyros, and 
 nephew of Leo the Armenian. His resolve was doubtless 
 quickened by the fact that his wife and children were in the 
 power of Michael ; l he reckoned that their safety would be 
 assured if he deserted Thomas. Accordingly, at the head of 
 his regiment, he left the camp and entrusted a Studite monk 
 with the task of bearing the news to the Emperor. 2 But the 
 approaches to the city were so strictly guarded by the 
 blockaders that the messenger was unable to deliver his 
 message, and Michael remained in ignorance of the new 
 accession to his cause. As it turned out, however, the act of 
 Gregory proved of little profit to any one except, perhaps, to 
 him, whom it was intended to injure. Thomas saw that the 
 
 (2) the hill opposite this gate must From the same source we learn that 
 
 inevitably have been occupied by Gregory was given to deep potations 
 
 troops of Thomas, and in 1203 the (62) ; he seems to have been a man 
 
 Crusaders on this hill were nearly who acted generally from impulse 
 
 within speaking distance of the more than from reflexion, 
 
 garrison on the wall. Cp. van 2 This, too, we learn from Cont. Th., 
 
 Millingen, ib. 126-127. not from Genesios. 
 1 Cont. Th. 63 gives us this fact. 
 
 H
 
 98 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 traitor must be crushed immediately, for it would be a serious 
 disadvantage to have an enemy in his rear. Accordingly, he 
 marched against him with a band of chosen soldiers ; his 
 army being so large that he could easily divert a portion 
 without raising the blockade. The followers of Gregory were 
 defeated, we know not where nor how; and Gregory himself, 
 a fugitive from the field, was pursued and slain. There is a 
 certain propriety in the part which this soldier plays in the 
 last act of the drama, in which Leo, Michael, and Thomas 
 were the chief performers. Leo had passed away before that 
 last act ; but his nephew, as it were, takes his place, and 
 oscillates between his rivals, is banished by Michael and slain 
 by Thomas. 
 
 3. Summer and Autumn A.D. 822. The false Constantine, 
 if he still sustained that pretence, made the most of his easy 
 victory over the renegade. He proclaimed that he had con- 
 quered by land and sea, and sent letters to Greece and the 
 islands of the Aegean, bearing this false news. 1 His purpose 
 was to reinforce his navy, which hitherto had accomplished 
 nothing worthy of its size, by fresh ships from these regions. 
 Nor was he disappointed. It was clearly thought in Greece, 
 where the population was devoted to image-worship, that the 
 pretender was carrying all before him, that the capture or 
 surrender of the city was merely a matter of days, or at most 
 months, and that Michael's days were numbered. A large 
 fleet was sent, with all good-will, to hasten the success of one 
 who professed to be an image- worshipper. 2 No less than 
 three hundred and fifty ships (it is alleged) arrived in the 
 Propontis. Under given topographical conditions, when the 
 same object is in view, history is apt to repeat itself, and we 
 find Thomas mooring these reinforcements in the harbour of 
 Hebdomon and on the adjacent beach, 3 exactly as the Saracens 
 
 1 ypii^naffi ireTrXao-^ois, Gen. 41. harbour of Hebdomon was east of the 
 
 .... . , palace (and just to the east of the har- 
 
 Hopf (126) sees here "the old was th J e Kyklobion) . It is cl 
 
 opposition of the oppressed provinces therefore that fc. Xi^}r=the harbour 
 
 against the Despotic centralisation in of Hebdomon ; but it could not have 
 
 the capital. held ftU the sMpS) and 8Q some of them 
 
 3 rrj ruv KO\OV^VUV Hvptduv &KTTJ, were moored to the east along the 
 
 ibid. T< T&V B. \inevi, Cont. Th. 64. shore. Hopf (119) curiously says that 
 
 From a passage in John of Antioch it Thomas took "Berida" by storm, 
 
 is clear that Byrides was a place on On the iriva.% of the Hell. Syllogos 
 
 the coast between Hebdomon (Makri- (see Bibliography) Byrides is marked 
 
 keui) and the Golden Gate. The near Selymbria.
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 99 
 
 had disposed their fleet on the two occasions on which they 
 had attempted to capture the city. 1 
 
 He had formed the project of a twofold attack by sea.' 2 
 On the northern side the city was to be assailed by his 
 original fleet, which lay in the Golden Horn ; while the new 
 forces were to operate against the southern walls and harbours, 
 on the side of the Propontis. But Michael foiled this plan by 
 prompt action. Sending his fire-propelling vessels against the 
 squadron at Hebdomon, he destroyed it, before it had effected 
 anything. Some of the ships were entirely burnt, others 
 scattered, but most were captured, and towed into the city 
 harbours, which the Imperial navy held. 3 Such was the fate 
 of the navy which the Themes of Hellas and Peloponnesus had 
 sent so gladly to the discomfiture of the Phrygian Emperor. 
 
 On the seaside the danger was diminished ; but by land 
 the siege was protracted with varying success until the end of 
 the year. Frequent excursions were made from the city, and 
 sometimes prospered, whether under the leadership of the 
 elder Emperor or of his son Theophilus, with the General 
 Olbianos or the Count Katakylas. 4 But on the whole the 
 besieged were no match in the field for their foes, who far 
 outnumbered them. Both parties must have been weary 
 enough as the blockade wore on through the winter. It was 
 at length broken by the intervention of a foreign power. 
 
 1 Theoph. 353 (664 A.D.) dirb rrjs rogennetes seems to have been too 
 wpbs Maiv dKp6rriTos rov 'E/356/aou . . . much for Finlay here, but the story is 
 /J^XP 1 ""^"' TOV irpbs a.va.To\T)v dKpuTTjpiov told simply enough by Genesios. 
 
 TOV \eyofj.frov KvK\o[3lov (a description 4 Here, again, Cont. Th. 64 has 
 indeed which does not naturally information not vouchsafed by Gene- 
 suggest a harbour), and 395 (717 A.D.) sios : vvv ^v TOV MtxctiJX, vvv 8 TOV 
 an equivalent description. viov avrov Qeo<f>l\ov airrots ire!;ibvTos 
 
 2 Gen. ib. /xerct 'OAjSiapoO /cat KaraKuXa. This 
 
 3 Ib. T&S TrXei'ovs 5 CLVT&V . . . T$ suggests that Olbianos and Katakylas 
 paffiXeiTrpoa-dyovcnv. George Mon. (795) were in the city during the siege, 
 mentions the destruction of the fleet Finlay knows that the troops of the 
 as a critical event in the siege. Armeniac and Opsikian Themes inter - 
 Finlay, whose account of this rebellion rupted the communications of Thomas 
 is not very satisfactory, makes a with the centre of Asia Minor : "These 
 strange mistake here (ii. 131): "The troops maintained a constant corn- 
 partisans of Michael collected a fleet munication with the garrison of 
 of 350 ships in the islands of the Constantinople from the coast of 
 Archipelago and Greece, and this fleet, Bithynia" (loc. cit.). There is no 
 having gained a complete victory over authority for this, though it is what 
 the fleet of Thomas, cut off the com- we should expect. We only know 
 munications of the besiegers with that before the blockade began in 
 Asia." He has thus reversed the spring Michael imported many troops 
 facts. The Greek of the historical into the city, doubtless regiments of 
 Commission of Constantine Porphy- these Themes.
 
 100 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 4. Intervention of the Bulgarians, Spring, A.D. 823. It 
 was from the kingdom beyond Mount Haemus that Michael 
 received an opportune aid which proved the turning-point in 
 the civil war. The Bulgarians had been at peace with the 
 Empire, since Leo and king Omurtag, not long after the death 
 of Krum, had concluded a treaty for thirty years. 1 Communi- 
 cations now passed between Constantinople and Pliska, but it 
 is uncertain who took the first step, and what was the nature 
 of the negotiations. The simplest and earliest chronicle of 
 the siege represents Michael as requesting Omurtag to take 
 the field against Thomas, and Omurtag readily responding to 
 the request. 2 But an entirely different version is adopted in 
 records which are otherwise unfavourable to Michael. 3 
 According to this account, the proposal of alliance came from 
 the Bulgarian king, and the Emperor declined the offer 
 because he was reluctant to permit Christian blood to be shed 
 by the swords of the heathen. He tendered his sincere 
 thanks to Omurtag, but alleged that the presence of a 
 Bulgarian army in Thrace, even though acting in his own 
 cause, would be a virtual violation of the Thirty Years' 
 Peace. 4 Omurtag, however, took the matter into his own 
 hands, and, unable to resist the opportunity of plunder and 
 pillage, assisted Michael in Michael's own despite. It was 
 obviously to the interest of the Emperor that this version 
 should obtain credit, as it relieved him from the odium of 
 inviting pagans to destroy Christians and exposing Roman 
 territory to the devastation of barbarians. We must leave it 
 undecided whether it was Michael who requested, or Omurtag 
 who offered help, but we cannot seriously doubt that the help 
 was accorded with the full knowledge and at the desire of the 
 besieged Emperor. It may well be that he declined to 
 conclude any formal alliance with the Bulgarians, 5 but merely 
 gave them assurances that, if they marched against Thomas 
 and paid themselves by booty, he would hold them innocent 
 of violating the peace. The negotiations must have been 
 
 1 See below p. 360. 4 See Gen. ib. dTroXoyfirai /j.rj 
 
 2 George Mon. p. 796 ^8^ & 6 *^ at J w<s ^ T0ff v ^ vov 
 /3 a rt\ew Mi X ar,\ rov, Bov\ydpovs ds ^0X077^6 Xpurrta^u^ al/wro* 
 trvwaxt*" /car' airov 7rpo<re K a\t<raTo. *$*^* rf rOt on*un+> nU^ 
 This is accepted by Hirsch, 134. Ta X " S ^" ra *"J*w. 
 
 Gen. 41 oiawpea ptverai Trpos paaiXea 
 
 3 Gen. 41-42 ; Cont. Th. 65. xal <TVfjLfj.axfiv alrflrai at/ry-
 
 SECT, ir THE CIVIL WAR 101 
 
 conducted with great secrecy, and the account which 
 represented Michael as unreservedly rejecting the proffered 
 succour gained wide credence, 1 though his enemies assigned to 
 his refusal a less honourable motive than the desire of sparing 
 Christian blood, and suggested that his avarice withheld him 
 from paying the Bulgarians the money which they demanded 
 for their services. 2 
 
 Omurtag then descended from Mount Haemus and 
 marched by the great high road, by Hadrianople and 
 Arcadiopolis, to deliver Constantinople from the Roman 
 leaguer, even as another Bulgarian monarch had come down, 
 more than a hundred years before, in the days of Leo III., to 
 deliver it from the Saracens. 3 When Thomas learned that 
 the weight of Bulgaria was thrown into the balance and that 
 a formidable host was advancing against him, he decided to 
 abandon the siege and confront the new foe. 4 It was a 
 joyful day for the siege-worn citizens and soldiers, when they 
 saw the camp of the besiegers broken up and the great army 
 marching away from their gates. Only the remnant of the 
 rebel navy still lay in the Golden Horn, as Thomas did not 
 require it for his immediate work. The Bulgarians had 
 already passed Arcadiopolis and reached the plain of Keduktos, 
 near the coast between Heraclea and Selymbria. 5 Here they 
 awaited the approach of Thomas, and in the battle which 
 ensued defeated him utterly. The victors soon retired, laden 
 with booty; having thus worked much profit both to themselves 
 
 1 We must suppose that Michael that he did enlist them in his forces 
 
 deliberately circulated it. It is char- during the siege. 
 
 acteristic that he does not mention 6 Gen. 42. KO.TO. rbv KijSotiicTov 
 
 or even hint at the Bulgarian episode Ka\ovfj.evov \upov. (For the date of 
 
 in his letter to the Emperor Lewis. the battle of Keduktos see Appendix 
 
 He wished the Franks to suppose that V.). For the location of Keduktos 
 
 the subjugation of Thomas was due to (A-quaeductus), the important passage 
 
 his unaided efforts, and it would have is Nicephorus Bryenn. 135 (ed. Bonn) 
 
 been humiliating to confess to the = Anna Comnena I. 18-19 (ed. Reiffer- 
 
 rival Emperor that the Bulgarians had scheid) describing the battle between 
 
 invaded the Empire even in his own Alexius Comnenus and Bryennios fr 
 
 cause. rots Kara rov KriSotJKTov ireoLois, near 
 
 - Cont. Th. 652. the fort of Kalavrye and the river 
 
 3 Tervel (A.D. 717). Halmyros. The Halmyros seems to 
 
 4 Michael Syr. (37) says that Michael be the stream to the west of Erekli 
 employed Saracen captives who were (Heraclea), and the name of Kalavrye 
 in the city to fight for him, promising (TaXa/Spta in Attaleiates, 289 ed. Bonn) 
 them freedom (a promise which he is preserved in Gelivre near Selymbria 
 did not keep), and with their help (Tomaschek, Zur Kunde der H.-Ji. 
 routed Thomas. It is quite possible 331). Cp. JireSek, Heerstrasse, 101.
 
 102 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 and to their ally, for whom the way was now smoothed to the 
 goal of final victory. They had destroyed the greater part of 
 the rebel army on the field of Keduktos, and Michael was 
 equal to dealing with the remnant himself. 
 
 5. Siege of Arcadiopolis and end of the Civil War, 823 
 A.D. When the Bulgarians retreated, Thomas, still hopeful, 
 collected the scattered troops who had been routed on the day 
 of Keduktos, and marching north-eastward pitched his camp 
 in the marshy plain of Diabasis, watered by the streams of the 
 Melas and Athyras which discharge into the lagoon of Buyak 
 Chekmeje, about twenty miles west of Constantinople. This 
 district was well provided with pasturage for horses, and well 
 situated for obtaining supplies ; moreover, it was within such 
 distance from the capital that Thomas could harry the 
 neighbouring villages. 1 The month of May, if it had not 
 already begun, was near at hand, when Michael went forth to 
 decide the issue of the long struggle. He was accompanied 
 by his faithful generals Katakylas and Olbianos, each at the 
 head of troops of his own Theme. It is not recorded whether 
 the younger Emperor marched with his father or was left 
 behind to guard the city. But the city might justly feel 
 secure now ; for the marines whom Thomas had left in the 
 Golden Horn espoused the cause of Michael, as soon as they 
 learned the news of Keduktos. 2 
 
 Thomas, who felt confident of success, decided to entrap 
 his foes by the stratagem of a feigned flight. But his 
 followers did not share his spirit. 3 They were cast down by 
 the recent defeat ; they were thoroughly weary of an enter- 
 prise which had lasted so much longer than they had dreamt 
 
 1 Gen. (42) indicates the character would place the fortress A.&yyoi, which 
 
 of the place. Its distance from Con- commanded the plain (according to 
 
 stantinople is vaguely suggested in Kinnamos), identifying it with Can- 
 
 Cont. Th. 66 trradlovs awtx " T ^ s tacuzene's i) A6yovs, i. 297 ed. Bonn. 
 
 7r6Xews IKO.VOVS, and KaxeWev rds (I-loghus in Idrisi's geography). 
 
 irpovofjL&s TTOIWV Trdvra ptv wpt> rijs North of the lagoon there is an ex- 
 
 7r6\ews /cpe K6ff/j.ov, but Thomas did tensive marsh, through which there is 
 
 not come within sight of the city. a solid stone dyke of Roman work ; 
 
 Diabasis has been identified by Jirecek this was doubtless called the Crossing, 
 
 (ib. 53, 102) with the plains of Choiro- Diabasis. 
 
 bakchoi, described by Kinnamos (73- 2 That the naval armament joined 
 
 74 ed. Bonn) and Nicetas (85-86 ed. Michael after the Bulgarian victory is 
 
 Bonn). The Melas (Kara-su) and stated in Cont. Th. Genesios is less 
 
 Athyras flow from the hill of Kush- precise. 
 
 kaya near the Anastasian Wall ; and 3 The spirit of the army is described 
 
 near here Tomaschek (op. cit. 304) in Cont. Th. 67.
 
 SECT, n THE CIVIL WAR 103 
 
 when they lightly enlisted under the flag of the pretender ; 
 their ardour for the cause of an ambitious leader had cooled ; 
 they were sick of shedding Christian blood ; they longed to 
 return to their wives and children. This spirit in the army 
 of the rebels decided the battle of Diabasis. They advanced 
 against their enemies as they were commanded ; when the 
 word was given they simulated flight ; but, when they saw 
 that the troops of the Emperor did not pursue in disorder, as 
 Thomas had expected, but advanced in close array, they lost 
 all heart for the work, and surrendered themselves to Michael's 
 clemency. 
 
 The cause of Thomas was lost on the field of Diabasis. 
 The throne of the Amorian Emperor was no longer in 
 jeopardy. But there was still more work to be done and the 
 civil war was not completely over until the end of the year. 
 The tyrant himself was not yet captured, nor his adopted son, 
 Anastasius. Thomas, with a few followers, fled to Arcadiopolis l 
 and closed the gates against his conqueror. The parts of the 
 tyrant and the Emperor were now changed. It was now 
 Michael's turn to besiege Thomas in the city of Arcadius, as 
 Thomas had besieged Michael in the city of Constantine. 
 But the second siege was of briefer duration. Arcadiopolis 
 was not as Constantinople ; and the garrison of Thomas was 
 not as the garrison of Michael. Yet it lasted much longer 
 than might have been expected ; for it began in the middle of 
 May, and the place held out till the middle of October. 2 
 
 Arcadiopolis was not the only Thracian town that sheltered 
 followers of Thomas. The younger tyrant, Anastasius, had 
 found refuge not far off, in Bizye. 3 Another band of rebels 
 seized Panion, 4 and Heraclea on the Propontis remained 
 devoted to the cause of the Pretender. These four towns, 
 Heraclea, Panion, Arcadiopolis and Bizye formed a sort of 
 
 1 The united authority of the con- the ancient Bergyle, corresponds to 
 
 temporary George Mon. (797) and the modern Liile Burgas, and was a 
 
 Genesios (43) would be decisive for the station on the main road from Hadria- 
 
 city of Arcadius, as against Cont. Th. nople to Constantinople. Cf. Jire2ek, 
 
 in which the city of Hadrian is men- Heerstrasse, 49. 
 
 tioned. ' ASpiavovwoXiv there (68) is 2 g ee Appendix V. 
 
 probably a slip ; in any case it is an ,. 
 
 error. All doubt on the matter is re- Jft" , lay ?%& , d A UC ?? st r f 
 
 moved by Michael's own statement Hadnanople, and N.E. of Arcadiopolis. 
 
 (Ep. ad Lud. 418) from which we learn 4 On the Propontis coast, not far 
 
 the duration of the siege. Arcadiopolis, from Heraclea (Suidas, s.v.).
 
 104 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 line, cutting off Constantinople from Western Thrace. But 
 the subjugation of the last refuges of the lost cause was merely 
 a matter of months. It would not have been more than a 
 matter of days, if certain considerations had not hindered the 
 Emperor from using engines of siege against the towns which 
 still defied him. But two lines of policy concurred in deciding 
 him to choose the slower method of blockade. 
 
 In the first place he wished to spare, so far as possible, 
 the lives of Christians, and, if the towns were taken by 
 violence, bloodshed would be unavoidable. That this con- 
 sideration really influenced Michael is owned by historians 
 who were not well disposed towards him, but who in this 
 respect bear out a statement which he made himself in his 
 letter to Lewis the Pious. 1 He informed that monarch that 
 he retreated after the victory of Diabasis, " in order to spare 
 Christian blood." Such a motive does not imply that he 
 was personally a humane man ; other acts show that he could 
 be stark and ruthless. His humanity in this case rather 
 illustrates the general feeling that prevailed against the 
 horrors of civil war. It was Michael's policy to affect a tender 
 regard for the lives of his Christian subjects, and to contrast 
 his own conduct with that of his rival, who had brought so 
 many miseries on the Christian Empire. We have already 
 seen how important this consideration was for the purpose of 
 conciliating public opinion, in the pains which were taken to 
 represent the Bulgarian intervention as a spontaneous act 
 of Omurtag, undesired and deprecated by Michael. 
 
 But there was likewise another reason which conspired 
 to decide Michael that it was wiser not to storm a city 
 of Thrace. It was the interest and policy of a Eoman 
 Emperor to cherish in the minds of neighbouring peoples, 
 especially of Bulgarians and Slavs, the wholesome idea that 
 fortified Eoman cities were impregnable. 2 The failure of 
 Krum's attack on Constantinople, the more recent failure of 
 the vast force of Thomas, were calculated to do much to 
 confirm such a belief. And Michael had no mind to weaken 
 this impression by showing the barbarians that Roman cities 
 might yield to the force of skilfully directed engines. In 
 
 1 Hfia i^v rbv ffi^\iov diroSidpaffKuv ir&Xefj-ov, Cont. Th. 68. Michael, Ep. 
 ad Lud. 418. a Cont. Th. 68.
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 105 
 
 fact, Michael seized the occasion to show the Bulgarians that 
 he regarded Arcadiopolis as too strong to be taken by assault. 
 
 In following these two principles of policy, Michael 
 placed himself in the light of a patriot, in conspicuous contrast 
 to his beaten rival, who had been the author of the Civil 
 War, and had used all his efforts to teach barbarians how the 
 Imperial city itself might be taken by an enemy. The 
 garrison of Arcadiopolis held out for five months, 1 but Thomas 
 was obliged to send out of the town all the women and 
 children, and the men who were incapable of bearing arms, 
 in order to save his supplies. By the month of October, the 
 garrison was reduced to such straits that they were obliged 
 to feed on the putrid corpses of their horses which had perished 
 of hunger. 2 Part of the garrison now left the town, some 
 with the knowledge of Thomas, others as deserters to Michael. 
 The latter, desperate with hunger, let themselves down by 
 ropes, or threw themselves from the walls at the risk of 
 breaking their limbs. The messengers of Thomas stole out 
 of the gates and escaped to Bizye, where the younger tyrant 
 Anastasius had shut himself up, in order to concert with the 
 " son " some plan for the rescue of the " father." Then 
 Michael held a colloquy with the garrison that was left in 
 Arcadiopolis, and promised to all a free pardon, if they would 
 surrender their master into his hands. The followers who 
 had been so long faithful to their leader thought that the 
 time had come when they might set their lives before loyalty 
 to a desperate cause. They accepted the Imperial clemency 
 and delivered Thomas to the triumphant Emperor. 
 
 The punishment that awaited the great tyrant who was 
 so near to winning the throne was not less terrible than that 
 to which Michael himself had been sentenced by Leo, the 
 Armenian. All the distress which the Emperor had under- 
 gone for the space of three years was now to be visited on his 
 head. The pretender, who had reduced his conqueror to dire 
 extremities and had wasted three years of his reign, could 
 hope for no easy death. The quarrel between Michael and 
 Thomas was an old one ; it dated from the days when they 
 had both been officers under the general Bardanes. The 
 time had now come for settling accounts, and the reckoning 
 
 1 Michael, Ep. ad Lud. 419. 2 Gen. 44.
 
 106 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 against the debtor was heavy indeed. The long war had 
 inflicted immeasurable injury on the lands of the Empire, 
 and it would be hard to estimate how much Thrace alone had 
 suffered. The private ambition of the old Slav of Gaziura, 
 the impostor who had deceived his followers, for a time at 
 least, that he was a legitimate Emperor, was answerable for 
 all this ruin and misery. When he was led in chains to the 
 presence of his hated rival, Michael, not disguising his joy, 
 set his foot upon the neck of the prostrate foe, 1 and pro- 
 nounced his doom. His hands and feet were to be cut off, 
 and his body was to be pierced on a stake. The miserable 
 man when he was led to punishment, cried aloud for mercy : 
 " Pity me, thou who art the true Emperor ! " Hope may 
 have been awakened in his heart for a moment, hope at least 
 of some alleviation of the doom, when his judge deigned to 
 ask him a question. It was one of those dangerous questions 
 which tempt a man in the desperate position of Thomas to 
 bear false witness if he has no true facts to reveal. Michael 
 asked whether any of his own officers or ministers had held 
 treacherous dealings with the rebel. But if the rebel had 
 any true or false revelations to make, he was not destined to 
 utter them, and if he conceived hopes of life or of a milder 
 death, they were speedily extinguished. At this juncture 
 John Hexabulios, the Logothete of the Course, intervened 
 and gave the Emperor wise counsel. The part played in 
 history by this Patrician was that of a monitor. We saw 
 him warning Michael Rangabe* against Leo ; we saw him 
 taking counsel with Leo touching the designs of Michael the 
 Lisper; and now we see him giving advice to Michael. His 
 counsel was, not to hear Thomas, inasmuch as it was improper 
 and absurd to believe the evidence of foes against friends. 
 
 The sentence was carried out, 3 probably before the walls 
 of Arcadiopolis, and doubtless in the Emperor's presence ; and 
 the great rebel perished in tortures, " like a beast." 4 A like 
 
 1 George Mon. 797 /card rr\v ap-xalav Genesios does not notice the ass, which 
 
 ffvvi)8fiav. We remember how Justinian often played a part in such scenes. 
 
 II. set his feet on the necks of Leontius , The punishment is described by 
 
 ^ In ConLTh. (69), it is said that Jj$ ael Mmself iu his letter to Lewis 
 
 he was exhibited on an ass : 4irl6vov re * '" 
 
 Bfarpifa iracn, TOVTO fj.6vov eViT/rayy- 4 wffirep re wov SuffOavarouii, Cmil. 
 
 Sovvra, fXtriaov fj.f 6 dXrj^oJs /3a<ri\eD. Th. 70.
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 107 
 
 doom was in store for his adopted son. But Bizye caused the 
 Emperor less trouble than Arcadiopolis, for when the followers 
 of Anastasius heard the news of the fate of Thomas, they 
 resolved to save their own lives by surrendering him to 
 Michael. The monk, who in an evil hour had exchanged 
 the cloister for the world, perished by the same death as 
 Thomas. But even after the extinction of the two tyrants, 
 there was still resistance offered to the rule of Michael. The 
 inland cities, Bizye and Arcadiopolis, had surrendered ; but the 
 maritime cities, Heraclea and Panion, 1 still held out. In 
 these neighbouring places there was a strong enthusiasm for 
 image- worship, and Michael had given clear proofs that he 
 did not purpose to permit the restoration of images. But the 
 resistance of these cities was soon overcome. The wall of 
 Panion was opportunely shattered by an earthquake, and thus 
 the city was disabled from withstanding the Imperial army. 
 Heraclea, though it was visited by the same disaster, suffered 
 less, and did not yield at once ; but an assault on the sea- 
 side was successful, and here, too, Michael had a bloodless 
 victory. 
 
 The Emperor, having completely established his power in 
 Thrace, returned to the city with his prisoners. If his 
 dealing with the arch-rebels Thomas and Anastasius had been 
 cruel, his dealing with all their followers was merciful and 
 mild. Those who were most deeply implicated he punished 
 by banishment. On the rest he inflicted only the light 
 ignominy of being exhibited at a spectacle in the Hippodrome 
 with their hands bound behind their backs. 
 
 But there was still some work to be done in Asia, before 
 it could be said that the last traces of the rebellion of Thomas 
 had been blotted out. Two adherents of the rebel still held 
 two strong posts in Asia Minor, and plundered the surrounding 
 country as brigands. Kaballa,' 2 in the Anatolic Theme, to the 
 north-west of Iconium, was in the hands of Choereas, while 
 
 1 Michael, ib., calls it Panidus. The latter, which is doubtless the 
 
 2 There were two places of this Kaballa in question, is placed by 
 name (in one of which Constantine V. Ramsay in Pisidia, near the village of 
 Kaballinos was probably born), one in Chigil on the road from Iconium to 
 Phrygia, south of Trajanopolis, the Philomelion. Anderson (cp. his Map) 
 other on the borders of Pisidia and places it at Kavak, considerably nearer 
 Lycaonia and not far from Laodicea Iconium, and in Lycaonia ; see 
 Kekaumene (Ramsay, Lycaonia, 69). J.If.S. xviii. 120-1 (1898).
 
 108 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 Gazarenos of Kolonea held Saniana, an important fortress on 
 the Halys. 1 Michael sent a golden bull 2 to these chiefs, 
 announcing the death of Thomas and offering to give them a 
 free pardon and to confer on them the rank of Magister, if 
 they submitted. But they were wild folk, and they preferred 
 the rewards of brigandage to honours at the Imperial Court. 
 The messenger of Michael, however, accomplished by guile what 
 he failed to accomplish openly. He seduced some of the 
 garrisons of both towns, and persuaded them to close the gates 
 upon their captains while they were abroad on their lawless 
 raids. The work of tampering with the men of Choereas and 
 Gazarenos demanded subtlety and caution, but the imperial 
 messenger was equal to the emergency. The manner in which 
 he won the ear of an oekonomos or steward of a church or 
 monastery in Saniana, without arousing suspicion, is recorded. 
 He found a peasant, by name Gyberion, who had a talent for 
 music and used to spend his leisure hours in practising rustic 
 songs. The envoy from the Court cultivated the friendship 
 of this man and composed a song for him, which ran thus : 
 
 Hearken, Sir Steward, to Gyberis ! 
 Give me but Saniana town, 
 New-Caesarea shalt thou win 
 And eke a bishop's gown. 3 
 
 When these lines had been repeatedly sung by the man within 
 the hearing of the oekonomos or of his friends, the meaning of 
 the words was grasped and the hint taken. Shut out of their 
 " cloud-capped towns " 4 the two rebels, Choereas and Gazarenos 
 took the road for Syria, hoping to find a refuge there, like 
 their dead leader Thomas. But before they could reach the 
 frontier they were captured and hanged. 
 
 1 Saniana has been identified by &Kovae, Kvpi oiKov6fjie, 
 Ramsay (Asia Minor, 218 sqq.) with rbv YvfitpLv, rl aov \tyei 
 Cheshnir Keupreu, on the east side of &v /J.OL 5<2>s TTJC Zavidvav, 
 the Halys, south - east of Ancyra, fj.-r]TpoTro\iTt]v ere irolcrw, 
 a point at which the military road Neo/ccu<rd/>eij' <rot 5w<rw. 
 from Dorylaeum forked, one branch 
 
 going eastward, the other south-east- I f this is right, the lines are eight- 
 ward. If he is right, its military im- syllabled trochaics with accent on the 
 portance (implied, I think, in Gont. penultima. For Neocaesarea in Pontus 
 Them. 28) is clear. =Niksar, cp. Anderson, Studia Pon- 
 
 2 XpwrojSotfXAioi/,' Cent. Th. 72. tica, i- 56 sqq. 
 
 3 Krumbacher has restored the 4 Ib. 73 virepvetfruv TOUTUV TTO\IX- 
 verses as follows, G.B.L. 793 ib. : vluv.
 
 SECT, ii THE CIVIL WAR 109 
 
 The drama is now over ; all the prophecies of the sooth- 
 sayer of Philomelion have come true. The star of the Armenian 
 and the star of the Slavonian have paled and vanished before 
 the more puissant star of the man of Amorion ; both Leo and 
 Thomas have been done to death by Michael. He now wears 
 the Imperial crown, without a rival ; he has no more to fear 
 or hope from unfulfilled soothsay. 
 
 We may now turn from the personal interest in the story 
 to the more general aspects of this great civil war, which 
 caused abundant misery and mischief. The historians describe 
 how " it filled the world with all manner of evils, and 
 diminished the population ; fathers armed themselves against 
 their sons, brothers against the sons of their mothers, friends 
 against their dearest friends." l It was as if the cataracts of 
 the Nile had burst, deluging the land not with water but with 
 blood. 2 The immediate author of these calamities was Thomas, 
 and there is no doubt that his motive was simply personal 
 ambition. The old man with the lame leg was not fighting 
 for a principle, he was fighting for a diadem. But nevertheless 
 he could not have done what he did if there had not been at 
 work motives of a larger and more public scope, urging men 
 to take up arms. It must not be forgotten that he originally 
 revolted against Leo, and that his war with Michael was 
 merely a continuation of that revolt. Now there were two 
 classes of subjects in the Empire, who had good cause to be 
 discontented with the policy of Leo, the image-worshippers 
 and the Paulicians. The policy of Thomas, which he skilfully 
 pursued, was to unite these discordant elements, orthodoxy 
 and heresy, under a common standard. His pretence to be 
 Constantine VI. may have won the confidence of some image- 
 worshippers, 3 but he was possibly more successful in conciliating 
 Paulicians and other heretics. 
 
 It is more important to observe that the rebellion probably 
 initiated or promoted considerable social changes in the 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 49. won no sympathy from the image- 
 
 2 Ib. 53. worshippers of Constantinople, and 
 
 3 He seems to have professed image- his memory was execrated by such a 
 worship himself (Michael, Vit. Theod. bigoted iconolater as George Mon. 
 Stud. 320 eXtyero iepas eiKbvas airo- (793). Cp. below, p. 116. Ignatius 
 5execr0a re Kal irpoirKweiv) and the the deacon (biographer of the Patriarch 
 precautions of Michael, lest Theodore Nicephorus) wrote iambic verses on 
 Stud, and his party should embrace Thomas (ra Kara Qwfj.ai>), Suidas s.v. 
 his cause, bear this out. But Thomas 'lyvdnos.
 
 110 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 Asiatic provinces. The system of immense estates owned by 
 rich proprietors and cultivated by peasants in a condition of 
 serfdom, which had prevailed in the age of Justinian, had 
 been largely superseded by the opposite system of small 
 holdings, which the policy of the Isaurian Emperors seems 
 to have encouraged. But by the tenth century, vast pro- 
 perties and peasant serfs have reappeared, and the process 
 by which this second transformation was accomplished must 
 be attributed to the ninth. The civil war could not fail to 
 ruin numberless small farmers who in prosperous times could 
 barely pay their way, and the fiscal burdens rendered it 
 impossible for them to recuperate their fortunes, unless they 
 were aided by the State. But it was easier and more con- 
 ducive to the immediate profit of the treasury to allow these 
 insolvent lands to pass into the possession of rich neighbours, 
 who in some cases might be monastic communities. It is 
 probable that many farms and homesteads were abandoned by 
 their masters. A modern historian, who had a quick eye for 
 economic changes, judged that the rebellion of Thomas " was 
 no inconsiderable cause of the accumulation of property in 
 immense estates, which began to depopulate the country and 
 prepare it for the reception of a new race of inhabitants." l 
 If the government of Michael II. had been wise, it would 
 have intervened, at all costs, to save the small proprietors. 
 Future Emperors might thus have been spared a baffling 
 economic problem and a grave political danger. 
 
 8 3. The Ecclesiastical Policy of Michael 
 
 It was probably during or just after the war with 
 Thomas that Thecla, the mother of Theophilus, died. At all 
 events we find Michael soon after the end of the war making 
 preparations for a second marriage, notwithstanding the deep 
 grief which he had displayed at the death of his first wife. 
 A second marriage of any kind was deprecated by the strictly 
 orthodox, and some thought that at this juncture, when the 
 Empire was involved in so many misfortunes, the Emperor 
 showed little concern to appease an offended Deity. But the 
 Senators were urgent with him that he should marry. " It is 
 
 1 Finlay, ii. 133.
 
 SECT, in ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II. Ill 
 
 not possible," they said, " that an Emperor should live without 
 a wife, and that our wives should lack a Lady and Empress." 
 The writer who records this wishes to make his readers believe 
 that the pressure of the Senate was exerted at the express 
 desire of Michael himself. 1 However this may be, it is 
 interesting to observe the opinion that an Augusta was 
 needed in the interests of Court society. 
 
 But those who carped at the idea of a second marriage 
 were still more indignant when they heard who she was that 
 the Emperor had selected to be Empress over them. It was 
 not unfitting that the conqueror of the false Constantine 
 should choose the daughter of the true Constantine for his 
 wife. But Euphrosyne, daughter of Constantine VI., and 
 grand-daughter of Irene, had long been a nun in a monastery 
 on the island of Prinkipo, where she lived with her mother 
 Maria. Here, indeed, was a scandal ; here was an occasion for 
 righteous indignation. 2 Later historians at least made much of 
 the crime of wedding a nun, but at the time perhaps it was 
 more a pretext for spiteful gossip than a cause of genuine 
 dissatisfaction. 3 The Patriarch did not hesitate to dissolve 
 Euphrosyne from her vows, that she might fill the high 
 station for which her birth had fitted her. The new Amorian 
 house might claim by this marriage to be linked with the old 
 Isaurian dynasty. 
 
 The ecclesiastical leanings of Michael II. were not different 
 from those of his predecessor, 4 but he adopted a different 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 78. Our Greek author- exhorting her not to go and live with 
 ities do not tell us directly that Thecla her daughter in the Palace (Epp. ii. 
 was alive when Michael acceded to 181 ; cp. Ep, 148 Cozza L.). 
 
 the throne. But Michael Syr. 72 3 Compare Finlay ii. 142. He gives 
 
 states that she died "when he had no reason for this view, but I find one 
 
 reigned four years "; and the language in the silence of the contemporary 
 
 of Cont. Th. 78, in noticing his second George, who does not mention Euphro- 
 
 marriage, seems decidedly to imply syne. In the chronicle of Simeon 
 
 that she had died very recently. (^cW.ffeon/. 783, 789), she is mentioned, 
 
 Michael Syr. adds a dark and incred- but the author does not know who she 
 
 ible scandal that Euphrosyne bore a was and takes her for the mother of 
 
 male child, and reflecting that it was Theophilus. 
 
 of Jewish race and would ' ' corrupt 4 It is a mistake to suppose (as 
 
 the Imperial stock " caused it to be Schwarzlose does, p. 73) that Michael 
 
 killed. was neutral. Grossu (Prep. Theodor. 
 
 2 Theodore of Studiou denounced 151) properly calls him "a convinced 
 the Emperor for this unlawful (^KPO/UWS) iconoclast, though not a fanatic." 
 act in a catechesis, Parva Cat. 74, p. Finlay (ii. 129) speaks of his "in- 
 258, and he wrote a letter to Maria, difference to the ecclesiastical disputes
 
 112 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 policy. He decided to maintain the iconoclastic reform of Leo, 
 which harmonized with his own personal convictions; but at 
 the same time to desist from any further persecution of the 
 image -worshippers. We can easily understand that the 
 circumstances of his accession dictated a policy which should, 
 so far as possible, disarm the opposition of a large and in- 
 fluential section of his subjects. Accordingly, he delivered 
 from prison and allowed to return from exile, all those who 
 had been punished by Leo for their defiance of his authority. 1 
 The most eminent of the sufferers, Theodore of Studion, left 
 his prison cell in Smyrna, hoping that the change of govern- 
 ment would mean the restoration of icons and the reinstallation 
 of Nicephorus as Patriarch. He wrote a grateful and con- 
 gratulatory letter to the Emperor, exhorting him to bestow 
 peace and unity on the Church by reconciliation with the see 
 of Eome. 2 At the same time, he attempted to bring Court 
 influence to bear on Michael, and we possess his letters to 
 several prominent ministers, whom he exhorts to work in the 
 cause of image-worship, while he malignantly exults over the 
 fate of Leo the Armenian. 3 Theodore had been joined by 
 many members of his party on his journey to the neighbour- 
 hood of Constantinople, and when he reached Chalcedon, he 
 hastened to visit the ex-Patriarch who was living in his own 
 monastery of St. Theodore, on the Asiatic shore of the 
 Bosphorus. 4 Here and in the monastery of Crescentius, where 
 
 which agitated a church to many of proceeding to Prusa and Chalcedon 
 
 whose doctrines he was at heart ad- (Michael, Vit. Theod. c. 58). On 
 
 verse"; but this " indifference " was leaving Smyrna, Theodore proceeded 
 
 relative ; it would be misleading to to Pteleae, by way of Xerolopha and 
 
 describe him as an " indifferentist. " AO.KKOV fjurdra, unknown places (ib. 
 
 His own iconoclastic convictions are c. 48). The position of Pteleae, on the 
 
 expressed clearly in his Letter to river Onopniktes (ib. c. 51), is un- 
 
 Lewis (420 sq.). On his actual policy, known, but it is probably the same as 
 
 all writers agree ; it is briefly summed Pteleae on the Hellespont (for which 
 
 up in the Ada Davidis 230 : /car^x w ' see Ramsay, Asia Minor, 163). In 
 
 ^KCKJTOS S rb doKow avrf TroieLru. that case, Theodore must have followed 
 
 1 In the Epist. syn. ad Tkeoph. 377 tne coast road from Smyrna. 
 Michael is described as rbv irpa.tyra.Tov * Grossu (145) is wrong in saying 
 KO.I yaXtivbrarov /3a<rt\<?a, who xP LffT - ^ ia * Theodore crossed the Bosphorus 
 fufji-nrw said to those who were in and visited Nicephorus in the monas- 
 chains, "Come forth." tery of Agathos. This monastery 
 
 a m, j .. ~ . may have been on the European side 
 
 2 Theodore, Epp. n. 74. of ^ Q Bosphoru8> but Nicephorus was 
 
 3 Ib. ii. 75, 76, 80, 81, 82. These in the monastery of St. Theodore 
 and the letter to the Emperor were (Ignatius, Vit. Niceph. 201), which 
 probably written at Pteleae, where was on the Asiatic side (Pargoire, 
 Theodore stayed for some time, before Boradion, 476-477).
 
 SECT, in ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II. 113 
 
 Theodore took up his abode somewhere on the Asiatic shore of 
 the Propontis, 1 the image-worshippers deliberated how they 
 should proceed. 
 
 Their first step seems to have been the composition of a 
 letter 2 which Nicephorus addressed to the Emperor, admonishing 
 him of his religious duties, and holding up as a warning the 
 fate of his impious predecessor. In this document the argu- 
 ments in favour of images were once more rehearsed. But 
 Michael was deaf to these appeals. His policy was to allow 
 people to believe what they liked in private, but not to permit 
 image-worship in public. When he received the letter of 
 Nicephorus he is reputed to have expressed admiration of its 
 ability and to have said to its bearers words to this effect : 
 " Those who have gone before us will have to answer for their 
 doctrines to God ; but we intend to keep the Church in the 
 same way in which we found her walking. Therefore we rule 
 and confirm that no one shall venture to open his mouth 
 either for or against images. But let the Synod of Tarasius be 
 put out of mind and memory, and likewise that of Constantine 
 the elder (the Fifth), and that which was lately held in Leo's 
 reign; and let complete silence in regard to images be the 
 order of the day. But as for him who is so zealous to speak 
 and write on these matters, if he wishes to govern the Church 
 on this basis, 3 preserving silence concerning the existence and 
 worship of images, bid him come here." 
 
 But this attempt to close the controversy was vain ; the 
 injunction of silence would not be obeyed, and its enforce- 
 ment could only lead to a new persecution. The Emperor 
 
 1 Michael, Vit. Theod. c. 59, names has, I think, been a confusion here 
 the monastery, and seems to imply it between Michael's reply to the Patri- 
 was on the Gulf of Nicomedia. But arch and his subsequent reply to the 
 in Vit. Nicol. Stud. 900, the place of audience of ecclesiastics whom he 
 Theodore's abode at this time is received, doubtless at a silention in 
 described as a irapa.K6\irtos r6iros rrjs the presence of the Senate. We do 
 TLpovffrjs, which would naturally mean not know whether Nicephorus wrote 
 on the bay of Mudania. his letter before or after the appearance 
 
 2 Ignatius, Vit. Niceph. 209, where of Theodore on the scene. Grossu 
 Michael's reply irpds TOI>S r6 ypdfj./j.a (144 sqq.) is right, I think, in his 
 SiaKofj-iffa^vovs is given. George Mon., general reconstruction of the order of 
 without mentioning Nicephorus or his events, but it cannot be considered 
 letter, cites Michael's reply (from absolutely certain. 
 
 Ignatius), referring to it as a public 3 From these words, I think we 
 
 harangue, diri XooO d-rj/jLTiyopJicras (792). may infer that the Patriarchate was 
 
 The texts of Simeon have eirl fffXevrlov already vacant through the death of 
 
 instead of iiri \aov (Leo Gr. 211 ; Theodotos. 
 Vers. Slav. 92, na selendii). There
 
 114 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 presently deemed it expedient to essay a reconciliation, by 
 means of a conference between leading representatives of both 
 parties, and he requested the ex-Patriarch and his friends 
 to meet together and consider this proposal. 1 The image- 
 worshippers decided to decline to meet heretics for the purpose 
 of discussion, and Theodore, who was empowered to reply to 
 the Emperor on behalf of the bishops and abbots, wrote that, 
 while in all other matters they were entirely at their sovran's 
 disposition, they could not comply with this command, 2 and 
 suggested that the only solution of the difficulty was to appeal 
 to Home, the head of all the Churches. 
 
 It was apparently after this refusal 3 that, through the 
 intervention of one of his ministers, Michael received in 
 audience Theodore and his friends. 4 Having permitted them 
 to expound their views on image-worship, he replied briefly 
 and decisively : " Your words are good and excellent. But, 
 as I have never yet till this hour worshipped an image in my 
 life, I have determined to leave the Church as I found it. 
 To you, however, I allow the liberty of adhering with 
 impunity to what you allege to be the orthodox faith ; live 
 where you choose, only it must be outside the city, and you 
 need not apprehend that any danger will befall you from my 
 government. " 
 
 It is probable that these negotiations were carried on 
 while the Patriarchal chair was vacant. Theodotos died early 
 in the year, and while the image-worshippers endeavoured to 
 procure the restoration of Nicephorus on their own terms, the 
 Emperor hoped that the ex-Patriarch might be induced to 
 yield. The audience convinced him that further attempts to 
 come to an understanding would be useless, and he caused the 
 
 1 Theodore, Epp. ii. 86. mentions only the one transaction. 
 
 2 They based their refusal on an We can, therefore, only apply con- 
 apostolic command, sc. of Paul in siderations of probability. 
 
 Titus iii. 9-10. 4 Michael, ib. c. 60 (cp. Vita Nicol. 
 
 3 So Schneider, 89 ; Grossu, 147. Stud. 892). The Patriarch was not 
 C. Thomas places the audience almost present (ib. ; and Theodore, Epp. ii. 
 immediately after Theodore's return 129, p. 1417 ; from which passage it 
 from exile, and before the letter of appears that at this audience the 
 Nicephorus (136). The difficulty as Emperor again proposed a conference 
 to the order arises from the fact that between representatives of the two 
 the three negotiations (1) the letter doctrines, and offered to leave the 
 of Nicephorus, (2) the proposal for a decision to certain persons who pro- 
 conference, (3) the audience are re- fessed to be image-worshippers rovrov 
 corded in three sources, each of which KaKtivov rCiv drj6fv o/mo^povuv iifjuv).
 
 SECT, in ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II. 115 
 
 vacant ecclesiastical throne to be filled by Antonius Kassymatas, 
 bishop of Syllaion, who had been the coadjutor of Leo V. in 
 his iconoclastic work. 1 By this step those hopes which the 
 Imperial leniency had raised in the minds of Theodore and his 
 party were dissipated. 
 
 The negotiations, as they were conducted by Theodore, 
 had raised a question which was probably of greater import- 
 ance in the eyes of Michael than the place of pictures in 
 religious worship. The Studite theory of the supremacy of 
 the Eoman See in the ecclesiastical affairs of Christendom had 
 been asserted without any disguise ; the Emperor had been 
 admonished that the controversy could only be settled by the 
 co-operation of the Pope. This doctrine cut at the root of 
 the constitutional theory, which was held both by the 
 Emperors and by the large majority of their subjects, that the 
 Imperial autocracy was supreme in spiritual as well as in 
 secular affairs. The Emperor, who must have been well aware 
 that Theodore had been in constant communication with 
 Rome during the years of persecution, doubtless regarded his 
 Eoman proclivities with deep suspicion, and he was not 
 minded to brook the interference of the Pope. His suspicions 
 were strengthened and his indignation aroused by the arrival 
 of a message from Pope Paschal I. Methodius (who was 
 afterwards to ascend the Patriarchal throne) had resided at 
 Rome during the reign of Leo V. and worked there as an 
 energetic agent in the interests of image-worship. 2 He now 
 returned to Constantinople, bearing a document in which 
 Paschal defined the orthodox doctrine. 3 He sought an 
 audience of the Emperor, presented the Papal writing, and 
 called upon the sovran to restore the true faith and the true 
 Patriarch. Michael would undoubtedly have resented the 
 dictation of the Pope if it had been conveyed by a Papal 
 
 1 Theodotos was Patriarch for six 2 See Fit. Metk. 1 4, p. 1248 ; cp. 
 
 years (Thcoph. 362 ; Zonaras xiv. 24, Theodore, Epp. ii. 35. Methodius was 
 
 14, p. 350 : Zonaras probably had a a native of Syracuse. He went at 
 
 list of Patriarchs before him, see an early age to Constantinople, and 
 
 Hirsch, 384). As he became Patriarch became abbot of the monastery of 
 
 at Easter 815, his death occurred in Chenolakkos. He went to Rome in 
 
 821. Cp. Andreev, Konst. Patr. 200. A.D. 815. See Pargoire's papers in 
 
 His successor Antonius was already chos d 1 Orient, 6, 126 sqq. and 183 sqq. 
 
 Patriarch at Whitsuntide (see above, (1903). 
 
 p. 80 n. 5) ; we may conjecture that 3 Vit. Meth. 1 5 r6juous Sexy/tart/coi/s 
 
 he was inaugurated at Easter. See JJTOI 8povs 6pOodo%ia.s. 
 further Vasil'ev, Pril. 147-148.
 
 116 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 envoy ; but it was intolerable that one of his own subjects 
 should be the spokesman of Rome. Methodius was treated 
 with rigour as a treasonable intriguer ; he was scourged and 
 then imprisoned in a tomb in the little island of St. Andrew, 
 which lies off the north side of the promontory of Akritas 
 (Tuzla-Burnu), in the Gulf of Nicomedia. 1 His confinement 
 lasted for more than eight years. 2 
 
 After the outbreak of the civil war Michael took the pre- 
 caution of commanding Theodore and his faction to move into 
 the city, fearing that they might support his opponent, who 
 was said to favour images. The measure was unnecessary, for 
 the iconolaters of the better class seem to have had no 
 sympathy with the cause of Thomas, and the ecclesiastical 
 question did not prove a serious factor in the struggle. 8 
 On the termination of the war, the Emperor made a new 
 effort to heal the division in the Church. He again 
 proposed a conference between the leading exponents of 
 the rival doctrines, but the proposal was again rejected, 
 on the ground that the question could be settled only in 
 one of two ways either by an ecumenical council, which 
 required the concurrence of the Pope and the four Patri- 
 archs, or by a local council, which would only have legal 
 authority if the legitimate Patriarch Nicephorus were first 
 restored. 4 
 
 1 Vit. Meth. 1 5. For the island Leo, the Sakellarios (whom Michael 
 see Pargoire, Hitria, 28. had charged with the negotiation), re- 
 
 2 Vit. Meth. 1 6, says nine years. jecting the proposition on behalf of his 
 As he was imprisoned in spring 821, party (Epp. ii. 129). The writer refers 
 and released (ib.) by Michael just before to the audience which the Emperor 
 his death (Oct. 829), eight and a half had accorded to him and his friends 
 would be more accurate. in 821 as irpb rpLuv tr&v. This enables 
 
 3 Michael, Vit. Theod. c. 61. Vit. us to assign the date to the tirst months 
 Nicol. Stud. 900. Grossu (149) and of 824. At the same time Theodore 
 others think that Theodore, while he addressed a letter directly to the 
 was in the city, was probably re- Emperors Michael and Theophilus 
 installed at Studion. I doubt this. (ii. 199), setting forth the case for 
 During the latter part of the war pictures. At the end of the war 
 (Grossu omits to notice) he was in the Theodore retired (along with his 
 Prince's Island, as we learn from a disciple Nicolaus) to the monastery of 
 letter written there, Epp. ii. 127, p. St. Tryphon, close to the promontory 
 1412. (Nicephorus, it would seem, of Akritas, in the Gulf of Nicomedia 
 was allowed to remain in his monastery (Michael, Vit. Theod., ib. ; Vit. Nicol. 
 on the Bosphorus. ) From Epp. ii. 129. Stud. 900), where he lived till his 
 p. 1416, we learn that Theodore had death, Nov. 11, 826 (Vit. Nicol. 
 no sympathy with the rebel : <j>ovl<ricos 902 ; Naukratios, Encyclica, 1845 ; 
 iirav Kparrj^Tj SiKalws an-or/cm irpbs rov Michael, Vit. Theod. c. 64). He was 
 vl)fj.ov r\\v a.vTi<rt]Ko\Jffav Troivrjv. buried in Prince's Island, but the 
 
 4 The source is Theodore's letter to remains were afterwards removed to
 
 SECT, in ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II. 117 
 
 The Emperor was convinced that the obstinacy of the 
 image-worshippers rested largely on their hopes that the 
 Eoman See would intervene, and that if he could induce the 
 Pope to assume a cold attitude to their solicitations the 
 opposition would soon expire. In order to influence the 
 Pope he sought the assistance of the Western Emperor, Lewis, 
 to whom he indited a long letter, which contains an in- 
 teresting description of the abuses to which the veneration of 
 images had led. 1 " Lights were set in front of them and 
 incense was burned, and they were held in the same honour 
 as the life-giving Cross. They were prayed to, and their aid 
 was besought. Some used even to cover them with cloths 
 and make them the baptismal sponsors for their children. 
 Some priests scraped the paint from pictures and mixed it in 
 the bread and wine which they give to communicants ; others 
 placed the body of the Lord in the hands of images, from 
 which the communicants received it. The Emperors Leo V. 
 and his son caused a local synod to be held, 2 and such 
 practices were condemned. It was ordained that pictures 
 which were hung low in churches should be removed, that 
 those which were high should be left for the instruction of 
 persons who are unable to read, but that no candles should 
 be lit or incense burned before them. Some rejected the 
 council and fled to Old Rome, where they calumniated the 
 Church." The Emperors proceed to profess their belief in 
 the Six Ecumenical Councils, and to assure King Lewis 
 that they venerate the glorious and holy relics of the Saints. 
 They ask him to speed the envoys to the Pope, to whom 
 they are bearers of a letter and gifts for the Church of 
 St. Peter. 
 
 The four envoys 3 who were sent on this mission met 
 with a favourable reception from the Emperor Lewis at 
 
 Studion in 844 (Michael, ib. c. 68). the false idea of some historians that 
 
 During his last years he continued his Michael held a council in 821. He 
 
 epistolary activity in the cause of simply adhered to the acts of 815. 
 
 orthodoxy, and many people came to 3 Theodore, a strategos of proto- 
 
 see and consult him (ib. c. 63). spathar rank ; Nicetas, bishop of 
 
 1 Mich. Ep. ad Lud. 420. It is Myra ; Theodore, oekonomos of St. 
 dated April 10, A.D. 824. Sophia ; Leo, an Imperial candidates. 
 
 2 " Propterea statuerunt orthodoxi The Patriarch Fortunatus of Grado 
 imperatores et doctissimi sacerdotes (who had fled to Constantinople in 
 locale ad unare concilium." This state- 821) accompanied them (Ann. r. F., 
 ment, which of course refers to the sub 824). 
 
 synod of A.D. 815, seems to have led to
 
 118 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, in 
 
 Eouen, and were sent on to Eome, where Eugenius had 
 succeeded Paschal in St Peter's chair. 1 It is not recorded 
 how they fared at Kome, but Lewis lost no time in making 
 an attempt to bring about a European settlement of the 
 iconoclastic controversy. The Prankish Church did not agree 
 with the extreme views of the Greek iconoclasts, nor yet with 
 the doctrine of image-worship which had been formulated by 
 the Council of Nicaea and approved by the Popes ; and it 
 appeared to Lewis a good opportunity to press for that 
 intermediate solution of the question which had been 
 approved at the Council of Frankfurt (A.D. 794). The 
 sense of this solution was to forbid the veneration of images, 
 but to allow them to be set up in churches as ornaments and 
 memorials. The first step was to persuade the Pope, and for 
 this purpose Lewis, who, like his father, was accustomed to 
 summon councils on his own authority, respectfully asked 
 Eugenius to permit him to convoke the Frankish bishops to 
 collect the opinions of the Fathers on the question at issue. 
 Eugenius could not refuse, and the synod met in Paris in 
 November 825. The report of the bishops agreed with the 
 decision of Frankfurt ; they condemned the worship of images, 
 tracing its history back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus; 
 they censured Pope Hadrian for approving the doctrine of the 
 Nicene Council ; but, on the other hand, they condemned 
 the iconoclasts for insisting on the banishment of images from 
 churches. 2 Lewis despatched two learned bishops to Eome, 
 bearing extracts from the report of the synod, 3 but the story 
 of the negotiations comes here to a sudden end. We hear of 
 no further direct communications between Eome and Con- 
 stantinople, but we may reasonably suspect that a Papal 
 embassy to Lewis (A.D. 826), and two embassies which 
 passed between the Eastern and Western Emperors in the 
 following years, 4 were concerned with the question of religious 
 pictures. 
 
 Till his death, from disease of the kidneys, in October 
 
 1 Paschal seems to have died some 3 Sickel, Acta Lud. 235, 236, pp. 
 time in spring 824 ; cp. Simson, Lud- 154 sq. 
 
 wig, i. 212, n. 1. 4 Ann. r. F., sub 826, 827, 828. See 
 
 2 For all this, see Simson, ib. 248 below, p. 330. 
 sqq., where the sources are given.
 
 SECT, in ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF MICHAEL II. 119 
 
 A.D. 829, Michael adhered to his resolution not to pursue or 
 imprison the leaders of the ecclesiastical opposition. The only 
 case of harsh dealing recorded l is the treatment of Methodius, 
 and he, as we have seen, was punished not as a recalcitrant 
 but as an intriguer. 
 
 1 For the alleged persecution of Euthymios of Sardis (Gen. 5Q = Cont. \Th. 
 48) see below p. 139.
 
 CHAPTEE IV 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 (A.D. 829-842) 
 
 1. The Administration of Theophilus 
 
 FOR eight years Theophilus had been an exemplary co-regent. 
 Though he was a man of energetic character and active brain, 
 he appears never to have put himself forward, 1 and if he 
 exerted influence upon his father's policy, such influence was 
 carefully hidden behind the throne. Perhaps Michael com- 
 pelled him to remain in the background. In any case, his 
 position, for a man of his stamp, was an education in politics ; 
 it afforded him facilities for observing weak points in an 
 administration for which he was not responsible, and for study- 
 ing the conditions of the Empire which he would one day 
 have to govern. He had a strong sense of the obligations of 
 the Imperial office, and he possessed the capacities which his 
 subjects considered desirable in their monarch. He had the 
 military training which enabled him to lead an army into the 
 field ; he had a passion for justice ; he was well educated, and, 
 like the typical Byzantine sovran, interested in theology. 
 His private life was so exemplary that even the malevolence 
 of the chroniclers, who detested him as a heretic, could only 
 rake up one story against his morals. 2 He kept a brilliant 
 Court, and took care that his palace, to which he added new 
 
 1 He emerges only on two occasions behaved with a pretty maid of his 
 in our meagre chronicles (1) as help- wife. When Theodora discovered his 
 ing in the defence of the city against conduct and showed her chagrin, he 
 Thomas, and (2) as responsible for swore a tremendous oath that he had 
 the death of Euthymios of Sardis never done such a thing before and 
 (but for this see below, p. 139). would never repeat the offence (Cont. 
 
 2 The scandal was that he mis- Th. 95). 
 
 120
 
 SECT, i THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 121 
 
 and splendid buildings, should not be outshone by the marvels 
 of Baghdad. 
 
 We might expect to find the reign of Theophilus remem- 
 bered in Byzantine chronicle as a dazzling passage in the 
 history of the Empire, like the caliphate of Harun al-Eashid 
 in the annals of Islam. But the writers who have recorded 
 his acts convey the impression that he was an unlucky and 
 ineffective monarch. 1 In his eastern warfare against the 
 Saracens his fortune was chequered, and he sustained one 
 crushing humiliation ; in the West, he was unable to check 
 the Mohammadan advance. His ecclesiastical policy, which 
 he inherited from his predecessors, and pursued with vigour 
 and conviction, was undone after his death. But though he 
 fought for a losing cause in religion, and wrought no great 
 military exploits, and did not possess the highest gifts of 
 statesmanship, it is certain that his reputation among his 
 contemporaries was far higher than a superficial examination 
 of the chronicles would lead the reader to suspect. He has 
 fared like Leo V. He was execrated in later times as an unre- 
 lenting iconoclast, and a conspiracy of silence and depreciation 
 has depressed his fame. But it was perhaps not so much his 
 heresy as his offence in belonging to the Amorian dynasty 
 that was fatal to his memory. Our records were compiled 
 under the Basilian dynasty, which had established itself on 
 the throne by murder ; and misrepresentation of the Amorians 
 is a distinctive propensity in these partial chronicles. Yet, if 
 we read between the lines, we can easily detect that there was 
 another tradition, and that Theophilus had impressed the 
 popular imagination as a just 2 and brilliant sovran, somewhat 
 as Harun impressed the East. This tradition is reflected in 
 anecdotes, of which it would be futile to appraise the propor- 
 tions of truth and myth, anecdotes which the Basilian 
 
 1 Cp. esp. Cont. Th. 139 (dvffrvx^). tarische, kirchliche wie Verwaltungs- 
 
 a The hostile chroniclers admit his fragen allein entscheidet, und eine 
 
 love of justice, and Nicetas (Vita vollendete Verstandnislosigkeit fur 
 
 Ignatii, 216) describes him as " not die Zeichen der Zeit sind die Eigen- 
 
 otherwise bad " (apart from his heresy) tiimlichkeiten dieses stark iiber- 
 
 &nd a.s diKaioKpurlas avTexofJ-fvos. Gelzer schatztcn, im Grunde keineswegs 
 
 (Abriss, in Krumbacher, G.B.L. 967) bedeutenden Regenten." His ecclesi- 
 
 judges Theophilus severely : " Ein astical policy was a failure, but other- 
 
 Grossenwahn nach dem Vorbilde wise I fail to see the grounds for this 
 
 orientalischer Sultane, ein Allwis- verdict, 
 senheitsdiinkel der selbstandig mili-
 
 122 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 historiographers found too interesting to omit, but told in a 
 somewhat grudging way because they were supposed to be to 
 the credit of the Emperor. 
 
 The motive of these stories is the Emperor's desire to 
 administer justice rigorously without respect of persons. He 
 used to ride once a week through the city to perform his 
 devotions in the church of the Virgin at Blachernae, and on 
 the way he was ready to listen to the petitions of any of his 
 subjects who wished to claim his protection. One day he 
 was accosted by a widow who complained that she was 
 wronged by the brother of the Empress, Petronas, who held 
 the post of Drungary of the Watch. It was illegal to build 
 at Constantinople any structure which intercepted the view or 
 the light of a neighbour's house ; but Petronas was enlarging 
 his own residence at Blachernae, with insolent disregard 
 for the law, in such a way as to darken the house of the 
 widow. Theophilus promptly sent Eustathios the quaestor, 
 and other officers, to test the accuracy of her statement, and 
 on their report that it was true, the Emperor caused his 
 brother-in-law to be stripped and flogged in the public street. 
 The obnoxious buildings were levelled to the ground, and the 
 ruins, apparently, bestowed upon the complainant. 1 Another 
 time, on his weekly ride, he was surprised by a man who 
 accosted him and said, " The horse on which your Majesty is 
 riding belongs to me." Calling the Count of the Stable, who 
 was in attendance, the Emperor inquired, " Whose is this 
 horse ? " " It was sent to your Majesty by the Count of 
 Opsikion," was the reply. The Count of the Opsikian Theme, 
 who happened to be in the city at the time, was summoned 
 and confronted next day with the claimant, a soldier of his 
 own army, who charged him with having appropriated the 
 animal without giving any consideration either in money or 
 military promotion. The lame excuses of the Count did not 
 serve ; he was chastised with stripes, and the horse offered to 
 its rightful owner. This man, however, preferred to receive 
 2 pounds of gold (86, 8s.) and military promotion ; he proved 
 a coward and was slain in battle with his back to the enemy. 2 
 Another anecdote is told of the Emperor's indignation on 
 
 1 Simeon, AM. Georg. 793. 
 2 lb. 803. The story is told otherwise in Gont. Th. 93.
 
 SECT, i THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 123 
 
 discovering that a great merchant vessel, which he descried 
 with admiration sailing into the harbour of Bucoleon, was 
 the property of Theodora, who had secretly engaged in mer- 
 cantile speculation. " What ! " he exclaimed, " my wife has 
 made me, the Emperor, a merchant ! " He commanded the 
 ship and all its valuable cargo to be consigned to the flames. 1 
 
 These tales, whatever measure of truth may underlie 
 them, redounded to the credit of Theophilus in the opinion of 
 those who repeated them ; they show that he was a popular 
 figure in Constantinople, and that his memory, as of a just 
 ruler, was revered by the next generation. We can accept 
 without hesitation the tradition of his accessibility to his 
 subjects in his weekly progresses to Blachernae, and it is said 
 that he lingered on his way in the bazaars, systematically 
 examining the wares, especially the food, and inquiring the 
 prices. 2 He was doubtless assiduous also in presiding at the 
 Imperial court of appeal, which met in the Palace of 
 Magnaura, 3 here following the examples of Nicephorus and 
 Leo the Armenian. 
 
 The desirability of such minute personal supervision of 
 the administration may have been forced on Theophilus by 
 his own observations during his father's reign, and he evidently 
 attempted to cross, so far as seemed politic, those barriers 
 which hedged the monarch from direct contact with the life 
 of the people. As a rule, the Emperor was only visible to 
 the ordinary mass of his subjects when he rode in solemn 
 pomp through the city to the Holy Apostles or some other 
 church, or when he appeared to watch the public games from 
 his throne in the Hippodrome. The regular, unceremonial 
 ride of Theophilus to Blachernae was an innovation, and if it 
 did not afford him the opportunities of overhearing the gossip 
 of the town which Harun al-Eashid is said by the story-tellers 
 to have obtained by nocturnal expeditions in disguise, it may 
 have helped a discerning eye to some useful information. 
 
 The political activity of Theophilus seems to have been 
 directed to the efficient administration of the existing laws 
 and the improvement of administrative details ; 4 his govern- 
 
 1 Gen. 75 ; told differently and with 3 Cp. ib. 88 tv Kpirrjptots. 
 
 more elaboration in Cont. Th. 88. 4 For the new Themes which he 
 
 2 Cont. Th. 87. instituted, see below, Chap. VII. 2.
 
 124 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 ment was not distinguished by novel legislation or any 
 radical reform. His laws have disappeared and left no visible 
 traces like almost all the Imperial legislation between the 
 reigns of Leo III. and Basil I. 1 Of one important enactment 
 we are informed. The law did not allow marriage except 
 between orthodox Christians. 2 But there was a large influx, 
 during his reign, of orientals who were in rebellion against 
 the Caliph, 3 and Theophilus, to encourage the movement, 
 passed a law permitting alliance between Mohammadan 
 " Persians " and Romans. 4 This measure accorded with his 
 reputation for being a friend of foreigners. 5 
 
 One of the first measures of the reign was an act of policy, 
 performed in the name of justice. According to one account 6 
 the people had gathered in the Hippodrome to witness horse- 
 races, and at the end of the performance the Emperor assembled 
 the Senate in the Kathisma, from which he witnessed the 
 games, and ordered Leo Chamaidrakon, the Keeper of the 
 Private Wardrobe, to produce the chandelier which had been 
 broken when Leo V. was cut down by his murderers in the 
 chapel of the Palace. Pointing to this, Theophilus asked, 
 " What is the desert of him who enters the temple of the Lord 
 and slays the Lord's anointed ? " The Senate replied, " Death," 
 and the Emperor immediately commanded the Prefect of the 
 City to seize the men who had slain Leo and decapitate them 
 in the Hippodrome before the assembled people. The astonished 
 
 1 A law concerning the fashion of shorn at once. This incident, which 
 
 wearing the hair is attributed to him is undoubtedly genuine, may have 
 
 in Cont. Th. 107. His own hair was actually prompted the regulation, 
 
 thin, and he decreed (i6tain<sev and 2 Marriages with heretics were for- 
 
 v6(jLot> tZfOero) that no Roman should bidden : Acta Cone. Trullani, c. 72. 
 
 allow his hair to fall below the Cp. Zachariii v. L. Gfr. - rim. . 
 
 neck, alleging the virtuous fashion 61 $q. 
 
 of the ancient Romans. Such an 3 See below, Chap. VIII. p. 252. 
 
 edict is grossly improbable. We may 4 Cont. Th. 112. 
 
 suspect that he introduced a regula- 5 <f>t\oeOvrts TWV iruirore pa<n\tui>, 
 
 tion of the kind in regard to soldiers ; Acta 42 Mart. Amor. 27 where he is 
 
 and some light is thrown on the said to have been fond of negroes 
 
 matter by an anecdote (recorded about (A.i6ioires), of whom he formed a 
 
 A.D. 845-847) in Acta 42 Mart. Amor. military bandon. This passage also 
 
 24-25. Kallistos, a count of the refers to marriages of foreigners with 
 
 Schools (i.e., captain of a company in Roman women : crway-qyepKus '/c 
 
 the Scholarian Guards), presented him- $ia<j>bpuv y\uff<rui> on irXdcrTrjv 
 
 self to the Emperor with long untidy 0-vfj.fj.opLav oOs /cai fetiyvvvdai rats 
 
 hair and beard (a^xM^P? Tlvt K o/J-fl KO.L 6vya.Tpd.ffi r<2i> TTO\ITUV irpbs dt Kai 
 
 dtpi\oKd\(f yveiddi). Theophilus very dffTvyeiT6i>ui> /Uiatrrt/cws o-wrdfay 
 
 naturally administered a severe rebuke avtrpetye TO. 'Pufj,atuv afoia. 
 
 to the officer, and ordered him to be 6 Simeon, Add. Georg. 791.
 
 SECT, i THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 125 
 
 victims of such belated justice naturally exclaimed, " If we had 
 not assisted your father, Emperor, you would not now be 
 on the throne." There are other versions of the circumstances, 
 and it is possible that the assassins were condemned at a formal 
 silention in the Magnaura. 1 It would be useless to judge this 
 punishment by any ethical standard. Michael II. had not 
 only a guilty knowledge of the conspiracy, but had urged the 
 conspirators to hasten their work. The passion of a 
 doctrinaire for justice will not explain his son's act in calling 
 his father's accomplices to a tardy account ; nor is there the 
 least probability in the motive which some image-worshippers 
 assigned, that respect for the memory of Leo as a great 
 iconoclast inspired him to wreak vengeance on the murderers. 2 
 The truth, no doubt, is that both Michael II. and Theophilus 
 were acutely conscious that the deed which had raised them 
 to power cast an ugly shadow over their throne ; and it is 
 noteworthy that in the letter which they addressed to the 
 Emperor Lewis they stigmatize the conspirators as wicked 
 men. 3 Michael, we may be assured, showed them no favour, 
 but he could not bring himself to punish the men whom he 
 had himself encouraged to commit the crime. The conscience 
 of Theophilus was clear, and he could definitely dissociate the 
 Amorian house from the murder by a public act of retribu- 
 tion. It may well be that (as one tradition affirms 4 ) Michael, 
 when death was approaching, urged his son to this step. In any 
 case, it seems certain that the purpose of Theophilus was to 
 remedy a weakness in his political position, and that he was 
 taking account of public opinion. 
 
 The Augusta Euphrosyne, last Imperial descendant of the 
 Isaurian house, retired to a monastery soon after her stepson's 
 accession to the supreme power. Michael is related to have 
 bound the Senate by a pledge that they would defend the 
 rights of his second wife and her children after his death. 5 
 If this is true, it meant that if she had a son his position 
 should be secured as co-regent of his stepbrother. She had no 
 children, and found perhaps little attraction in the prospect of 
 
 1 Gen. 51. Add. Georg. 789, that Theophilus 
 
 2 Add. Georg., ib. reigned along with Euphrosyne is a 
 
 3 Ep. ad Lud. 418, " a quibusdam corollary from the error that she was 
 improbis." his mother, and brought about his 
 
 4 Gen. 51. marriage with Theodora after his 
 
 5 Cont. Tli. 78. The statement in father's death.
 
 126 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 residing in the Palace and witnessing Court functions in which 
 Theodora would now be the most important figure. There is 
 no reason to suppose that she retired under compulsion. 1 
 
 The first five children born to Theophilus during his 
 father's lifetime were daughters, but just before or soon after 
 his accession Theodora gave birth to a son, who was named 
 Constantino and crowned as Augustus. Coristantine, however, 
 did not survive infancy, 2 and the Emperor had to take thought 
 for making some provision for the succession. He selected as 
 a son-in-law Alexios Musele, 3 who belonged to the family of the 
 Krenitai, of Armenian descent, and betrothed him to his eldest 
 daughter, Maria (c. A.D. 831). Alexios (who had been created a 
 patrician and distinguished by the new title of anthypatos, 4 
 and then elevated to the higher rank of magister) received the 
 dignity of Caesar, which gave him a presumptive expectation 
 of a still higher title. The marriage was celebrated about 
 A.D. 836, but Maria died soon afterwards, and, against the 
 Emperor's wishes, his son-in-law insisted on retiring to a 
 monastery. There was a story that the suspicions of 
 Theophilus had been aroused by jealous tongues against the 
 loyalty of Alexios, who had been sent to fight with the 
 Saracens in Sicily. It is impossible to say how much truth 
 may underlie this report, nor can we be sure whether the 
 Caesar withdrew from the world before or after the birth of a 
 son to Theophilus (in A.D. 839), an event which would in any 
 case have disappointed his hopes of the succession. 5 
 
 1 On the retirement of Euplirosyne, Melioranski, ib. 
 
 see Melioranski, Viz. Vrem. 8, 32-33. 2 He probably died c. A.D. 835. For 
 
 The statements of Simeon (Add. Georg. the evidence for Constantino, for the 
 
 790) and Gont. Th. 86 contradict each argument that Maria was the eldest 
 
 other ; according to the latter she was daughter, for the chronology, and for 
 
 (laudably) expelled from the Palace the coins, see Appendix VI. 
 
 by Theophilus (accepted as true by 3 Mushegh, in Armenian ; cp. St. 
 
 Hirsch, 205). I think Melioranski is Martin apud Lebean, xiii. 118, who 
 
 right in following the former ( Viz. thinks he was descended from the 
 
 Vrem. 8, 32-33), but his observations Mamigonians. His namesake, who 
 
 about the chronology do not hold. held high posts under Irene and Con- 
 
 Gont. Th. is undoubtedly right in stantine VI., may have been his 
 
 stating that Euphrosyne withdrew to father. 
 
 the cloister in which she had formerly 4 See Bury, Imp. Administration, 
 
 been a nun (in the island of Prinkipo ; 28. 
 
 see above, p. Ill) ; she had nothing to 5 Cp. Appendix VI. ad fin. Theo- 
 do with the monastery of Gastria, to philus gave Alexios three monasteries, 
 which Simeon sends her (Add. Georg. one of them at Chrysopolis. But 
 790 ; cp. Vit. Theodorae Aug. p. 6). Alexios wished to found a cloister 
 Gastria belonged to Theoktiste, the himself ; and taking a walk north- 
 mother-in-law of Theophilus. See ward from Chrysopolis along the shore,
 
 SECT, i THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 127 
 
 While he was devoted to the serious business of ruling, 
 and often had little time for the ceremonies and formal 
 processions l which occupied many hours in the lives of less 
 active Emperors, Theophilus loved the pageantry of royal 
 magnificence. On two occasions he celebrated a triumph 
 over the Saracens, and we are so fortunate as to possess 
 an official account of the triumphal ceremonies. 2 When 
 Theophilus (in A.D. 831) reached the Palace of Hieria, near 
 Chalcedon, he was awaited by the Empress, the three ministers 
 the Praepositus, 3 the chief Magister, and the urban Prefect 
 who were responsible for the safety of the city during his 
 absence, and by all the resident members of the Senate. At 
 a little distance from the Palace gates, the senators met him 
 and did obeisance ; Theodora stood within the rails of the 
 hall which opened on the court, and when her lord dismounted 
 she also did obeisance and kissed him. The train of captives 
 had not yet arrived, and ten days elapsed before the triumphal 
 entry could be held. Seven were spent at Hieria, the senators 
 remaining in ceremonial attendance upon the Emperor, and 
 their wives, who were summoned from the city, upon the 
 Empress. On the seventh day the Court 4 moved to the Palace 
 of St. Mamas, and remained there for three days. On the 
 tenth, Theophilus sailed up the Golden Horn, disembarked at 
 Blachernae, and proceeded on horseback outside the walls to 
 a pavilion which had been pitched in a meadow 5 near the 
 Golden Gate. Here he met the captives who had been con- 
 veyed across the Propontis from Chrysopolis. 
 
 Meanwhile, under the direction of the Prefect, the city 
 had been set in festive array, decorated " like a bridal chamber," 
 
 he came on a site which pleased him stantinopolis, ii. 297-304). The urban 
 
 in the suburb of Anthemios, some- quarter of Anthemios (ib. 467-469) was 
 
 where near the modern Anadoli- north - north - west of the Cistern of 
 
 Hissar. The ground belonged to the Mokios (Chukur-Bostan), in the west 
 
 Imperial arsenal (mangana), but, of the City. 
 
 through the influence of Theodora, J See Cord. Th. 88. 
 
 Alexios was permitted to buy it. His 2 irepl ra. 503 sqq. Cp. below, 
 
 tomb and that of his brother existed pp. 254, 261. 
 
 here in the following century (Cent. 3 In the performance of his function 
 
 Th. 109). Pargoire (Boradion, 456 sqq., as regent during Imperial absences, 
 
 473-475) has shown that the suburban the praepositus was designated as 6 
 
 quarter of Anthemios was near Anadoli- odiruv or 6 dTro/j.ovefc. Cp. Bury, Imp. 
 
 Hissar north of Brochthoi, which was Adm. System, 124. 
 
 near Kandili, and south of Boradion, 4 The ladies perhaps returned to the 
 
 which was near Phrixu-limen = Kanlija city. 
 
 (for these districts see Hammer, Con- 5 The meadow of the Konfiivoffr&ffiov.
 
 128 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 with variegated hangings l and purple and silver ornaments. 
 The long Middle Street, through which the triumphal train 
 would pass, from the Golden Gate of victory to the place of 
 the Augusteon, was strewn with flowers. The prisoners, the 
 trophies and the spoils of war preceded the Emperor, who rode 
 on a white horse caparisoned with jewelled harness ; a tiara 
 was on his head ; he wore a sceptre in his hand, and a gold- 
 embroidered tunic framed his breastplate. 2 Beside him, on 
 another white steed similarly equipped, rode the Caesar 
 Alexios, wearing a corslet, sleeves, and gaiters of gold, a helmet 
 and gold headband, and poising a golden spear. At a short 
 distance from the triumphal gate the Emperor dismounted 
 and made three obeisances to the east, and, when he crossed 
 the threshold of the city, the Praepositus, the Magister, and 
 the Prefect, now relieved of their extraordinary authority, 
 presented him with a crown of gold, which he carried on his 
 right arm. The demes then solemnly acclaimed him as victor, 
 and the procession advanced. When it reached the milestone 
 at the gates of the Augusteon, the senators dismounted, except 
 those who, having taken part in the campaign, wore their 
 armour, and, passing through the gates, walked in front of the 
 sovran to the Well of St. Sophia. Here the Emperor himself 
 dismounted, entered the church, and, after a brief devotion, 
 crossed the Augusteon on foot to the Bronze Gate of the 
 Palace, where a pulpit had been set, flanked by a throne of 
 gold, and a golden organ which was known as the Prime 
 Miracle. 3 Between these stood a large cross of gold. When 
 Theophilus had seated himself and made the sign of the cross, 
 the demes cried, " There is one Holy." The city community 4 
 then offered him a pair of golden armlets, and wearing these 
 he acknowledged the gift by a speech, 5 in which he described 
 his military successes. Amid new acclamations he remounted 
 his horse, and riding through the Passages of Achilles and 
 past the Baths of Zeuxippus, entered the Hippodrome and 
 reached the Palace at the door of the Skyla. On the next 
 
 .. 4 rb Tro\irev/iia, the whole body of 
 
 *,riA*pi.cov (cp. Ducange, s.v. the citizens of the capital, of whom 
 
 Xwpfc,). The tunic i was poW^orpw : . e ,,P re ff ct ^V^J!^ ?" 
 
 does this mean that the design repre- '**> d hls subordinates 
 
 sented roses and bunches of grapes ? we 5 re n t] ? * PX<- 
 
 8 Delivered evidently from the pul- 
 
 ;! TrpurMav/jLa. pit.
 
 SECT, i THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEOPHILUS 129 
 
 day, at a reception in the Palace, many honours and dignities 
 were conferred, and horse-races were held in the Hippodrome, 
 where the captives and the trophies were exhibited to the 
 people. 
 
 2. Buildings of Theophilus 
 
 The reign of Theophilus was an epoch in the history of 
 the Great Palace. He enlarged it by a group of handsome 
 and curious buildings, on which immense sums must have 
 been expended, and we may be sure that this architectural 
 enterprise was stimulated, if not suggested, by the reports 
 which reached his ears of the magnificent palaces which the 
 Caliphs had built for themselves at Baghdad. 1 His own 
 pride and the prestige of the Empire demanded that the 
 residence of the Basileus should not be eclipsed by the 
 splendour of the Caliph's abode. 
 
 At the beginning of the ninth century the Great Palace 2 
 consisted of two groups of buildings the original Palace, 
 including the Daphne, which Constantine the Great had built 
 adjacent to the Hippodrome and to the Augusteon, and at 
 some distance to the south-east the Chrysotriklinos (with its 
 dependencies), which had been erected by Justin II. and had 
 superseded the Daphne as the centre of Court life and 
 ceremonial. It is probable that the space between the older 
 Palace and the Chrysotrikliuos was open ground, free from 
 buildings, perhaps laid out in gardens and terraced (for the 
 ground falls southward). There was no architectural connexion 
 between the two Palaces, but Justinian II. at the end of the 
 seventh century had connected the Chrysotriklinos with the 
 Hippodrome by means of two long halls which opened into 
 one another the Lausiakos and the Triklinos called after his 
 name. These halls were probably perpendicular to the 
 Hippodrome, and formed a line of building which closed in 
 the principal grounds of the Palace on the southern side. 3 
 
 1 See below, Chap. VIII. 2. of Japan at Kyoto, described by F. 
 
 2 Palace suggests to us a single block Brinkley, Japan, Us History, Arts, and 
 of building, and is so far misleading, Literature, vol. i. 198-199 (1901). 
 though it can hardly be avoided. The 3 The eastern door of the Lausiakos 
 Byzantine residence resembled the faced the western portico of the 
 oriental " palaces " which consisted of Chrysotriklinos; its western door 
 many detached halls and buildings in opened into the Triklinos of Justinian, 
 large grounds. Compare, for instance, on the west of which was the Skyla 
 the residence of the Heian Emperors which opened into the Hippodrome. 
 
 K
 
 130 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 It is probable that the residence of Constantino bore some 
 resemblance in design and style to the house of Diocletian at 
 Spalato and other mansions of the period. 1 The descriptions 
 of the octagonal Chrysotriklinos show that it was built under 
 the influence of the new style of ecclesiastical architecture 
 which was characteristic of the age of Justinian. The chief 
 group of buildings which Theophilus added introduced a new 
 style and marked a third epoch in the architectural history of 
 the Great Palace. Our evidence makes it clear that they 
 were situated between the Constantinian Palace on the north- 
 west and the Chrysotriklinos on the south-east. 2 
 
 These edifices were grouped round the Trikonchos or 
 Triple Shell, the most original in its design and probably 
 that on which Theophilus prided himself most. It took its 
 name from the shell-like apses, which projected on three sides, 
 the larger on the east, supported on four porphyry 3 pillars, the 
 others (to south and north) on two. This triconch plan was 
 long known at Constantinople, whither it had been imported 
 from Syria ; it was distinctively oriental. On the west side a 
 silver door, flanked by two side doors of burnished bronze, 
 opened into a hall which had the shape of a half moon and 
 was hence called the Sigma. The roof rested on fifteen 
 columns of many-tinted marble. 4 But these halls were only 
 the upper storeys of the Trikonchos and the Sigma. The 
 ground-floor of the Trikonchos 5 had, like the room above it, 
 three apses, but differently oriented. The northern side of 
 this hall was known as the Mysterion or Place of Whispers, 
 
 See my Great Palace in B.Z. xx. tailed description of the buildings. 
 
 (1911), where I have shown that Their situation is determined by com- 
 
 Labarte's assumption that the Lausi- billing the implications in this account 
 
 akos was perpendicular to the Triklinos with data in the ceremonial descrip- 
 
 of Justinian is not justified and has tions in Ger. I have shown (op. cit.) 
 
 entailed many errors. It has been that the Trikonchos was north of the 
 
 adopted by Paspates and Ebersolt and Chrysotriklinos (not west as it is placed 
 
 has not been rejected by Bieliaev. by Labarte, Ebersolt, etc.). 
 
 That the line of these buildings was 3 So-called "Roman" stone, really 
 
 perpendicular to the Hippodrome can- Egyptian (Cont. Th. 327) : red 
 
 not be strictly proved. It is bound up porphyry with white spots (Anna 
 
 with the assumption that the east- Comnena, vii. 2, ed. Reitferscheid, i. 
 
 west orientation of the Chrysotriklinos p. 230). Cp. Ebersolt, 111. 
 
 was perpendicular to the axis of the 4 From Dokimion in Phrygia, near 
 
 Hippodrome. Synnada. The stone in these quarries 
 
 1 See Ebersolt, Le Grand Palais, presents shades of " violet and white, 
 160 sqq., whose plan of the Con- yellow, and the more familiar brec- 
 stantinian palace, however, cannot be ciated white and rose-red " (Lethaby 
 maintained ; cp. my criticisms, op. cit. and Swainson, Sancta Sophia, 238). 
 
 2 Cont. Th. 139 sqq. gives the de- B Known as the Tetraseron.
 
 SECT, ii BUILDINGS OF THEOPHILUS 131 
 
 because it had the acoustic property, that if you whispered in 
 the eastern or in the western apse, your words were heard 
 distinctly in the other. The lower storey of the Sigma, to 
 which you descended by a spiral staircase, was a hall of 
 nineteen columns which marked off a circular corridor. 
 Marble incrustations in many colours l formed the brilliant 
 decoration of the walls of both these buildings. The roof of 
 the Trikonchos was gilded. 
 
 The lower part of the Sigma, unscreened on the western 
 side, opened upon a court which was known as the Mystic 
 Phiale of the Trikonchos. In the midst of this court stood a 
 bronze fountain phiale with silver margin, from the centre of 
 which sprang a golden pine-cone. 2 Two bronze lions, whose 
 gaping mouths poured water into the semicircular area of the 
 Sigma, stood near that building. The ceremony of the 
 saximodeximon, at which the racehorses of the Hippodrome 
 were reviewed by the Emperor, was held in this court; the 
 Blues and Greens sat on tiers of steps of white Proconnesian 
 marble, 3 and a gold throne was placed for the monarch. On 
 the occasion of this and other levees, and certain festivals, the 
 fountain was filled with almonds and pistacchio nuts, while 
 the cone offered spiced wine 4 to those who wished. 
 
 Passing over some minor buildings, 5 we must notice the 
 hall of the Pearl, which stood to the north of the Trikonchos. 
 Its roof rested on eight columns of rose-coloured marble, the 
 floor was of white marble variegated with mosaics, and the 
 walls were decorated with pictures of animals. The same 
 building contained a bed-chamber, where Theophilus slept in 
 
 1 IK \a.KapiKwt> iraniroiKiXtav (Cont. is used symbolically in the Mithraic 
 Th. 140). cult. Strzygovski argues that, a symbol 
 
 2 arpofii\<.ov. Fountains in the form of fruitfulness in Assyria and Persia, 
 of pine-cones seem to have been com- it was taken by the Christians to 
 mon. There were two in the court of symbolize fructification by the divine 
 the New Church founded by Basil I. spirit, and he explains (p. 198) the 
 (Cont. Th. 327), and representations name " mystic Phiale " in this sense. 
 occur often in Byzantine art. Such a , Thege dva p de were on the west 
 fountain has been recognised in the side of thfi JftTft ( h also Qn 
 Theodora mosaic of St Vitale at north and south ), as we ma/ infer from 
 Kavenna. See Strzygovski, Die Pi- ,-.. TJ, -IA* 
 
 . / i IT- . .1 . i r / \j\fllv. JL Ii. J.:4O*. 
 
 menzapfen als \Vasserspeier, in Mil- 
 
 theilungen des d. arch. Instituts, Horn, tmSns. 
 
 xviii. 185 sqq. (1903), where the subject 5 The Pyxites and another build- 
 
 is amply illustrated, and it is shown ing to the west, and the Eros (a 
 
 that the idea is oriental. The pine- museum of arms), near the Phiale 
 
 cone occurs in Assyrian ornament, and steps, to the north, of the Sigma.
 
 132 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 summer ; its porticoes faced east and south, and the walls and 
 roof displayed the same kind of decoration as the Pearl. To 
 the north of this whole group, and fronting the west, 1 rose the 
 Karianos, a house which the Emperor destined as a residence 
 for his daughters, taking its name from a flight of steps of 
 Carian marble, which seemed to flow down from the entrance 
 like a broad white river. 
 
 In another quarter (perhaps to the south of the Lausiakos) 
 the Emperor laid out gardens and constructed shelters or 
 " sunneries," if this word may be permitted as a literal 
 rendering of Mliaka. Here he built the Kamilas, an apart- 
 ment 2 whose roof glittered with gold, supported by six 
 columns of the green marble of Thessaly. The walls were 
 decorated with a dado of marble incrustation below, and 
 above with mosaics representing on a gold ground people 
 gathering fruit. On a lower floor 3 was a chamber which 
 the studious Emperor Constantine VII. afterwards turned 
 into a library, and a breakfast-room, with walls of splendid 
 marble and floor adorned with mosaics. Near at hand two 
 other houses, similar yet different, attested the taste of 
 Theophilus for rich schemes of decoration. One of these 
 was remarkable for the mosaic walls in which green trees 
 stood out against a golden sky. The lower chamber of the 
 other was called the Musikos, from the harmonious blending 
 of the colours of the marble plaques with which the walls 
 were covered Egyptian porphyry, white Carian, and the 
 green riverstone of Thessaly, while the variegated floor 
 produced the effect of a flowering meadow. 4 
 
 If the influence of the luxurious art of the East is 
 apparent in these halls and pavilions which Theophilus 
 added to his chief residence, a new palace which his architect 
 Patrikes built on the Bithynian coast was avowedly modelled 
 on the palaces of Baghdad. It was not far from the famous 
 
 1 The Karianos faced the Church of 3 fj.eff6ira.Tov, not the ground -floor, 
 the Lord (Cont. Th. 139), which was but the entresol (as Ebersolt renders, 
 in the extreme north of the palace 116). From here one had, through a 
 grounds, near to the south-east corner K\ovj3iov, railing or balustrade (can- 
 of the Augusteon and to the gate celli, cp. Ducange, s.v. /cXo/36s), a view 
 leading into the grounds of the of the Chrysotriklinos. 
 
 Magnaura. 4 The Musikos had only two walls, 
 
 2 The Kamilas and the two adjacent east and north ; on the other sides it 
 houses are described as cubicula (Cont. was columned and open (Cont. Th. 
 Th. 144). 146). It was thus a heliakon.
 
 SECT, ii BUILDINGS OF THEOPHILUS 133 
 
 palace of Hieria, built by Justinian. The Asiatic suburbs of 
 Constantinople not only included Chrysopolis and Chalcedon, 
 but extended south-eastward along the charming shore which 
 looks to the Prince's Islands, as far as Kartalimen. Proceeding 
 in this direction from Chalcedon, one came first to the peninsula 
 of Hieria (Phanaraki), where Justinian had chosen the site of 
 his suburban residence. Passing by Rufinianae (Jadi-Bostan), 
 one reached Satyros, once noted for a temple, soon to be 
 famous for a monastery. The spot chosen by Theophilus for 
 his new palace was at Bryas, which lay between Satyros and 
 Kartalimen (Kartal), and probably corresponds to the modern 
 village of Mal-tepe. 1 The palace of Bryas resembled those 
 of Baghdad in shape and in the schemes of decoration. 2 The 
 only deviations from the plan of the original were additions 
 required in the residence of a Christian ruler, a chapel of the 
 Virgin adjoining the Imperial bedroom, and in the court a 
 church of the triconch shape dedicated to Michael the arch- 
 angel and two female saints. The buildings stood in a park 
 irrigated by watercourses. 
 
 Arabian splendour in his material surroundings meant 
 modernity for Theophilus, 3 and his love of novel curiosities 
 was shown in the mechanical contrivances which he installed 
 in the audience chamber of the palace of Magnaura. 4 A 
 golden plane-tree overshadowed the throne ; birds sat on its 
 branches and on the throne itself. Golden griffins couched 
 at the sides, golden lions at the foot ; and there was a gold 
 
 1 For these identifications, and the 3 It is to be noticed that he renewed 
 Bithynian irpodaraa, see Pargoire's all the Imperial wardrobe (Simeon, ib.). 
 admirable Hieria. Cp. also his 4 The triklinos, or main hall, of the 
 Rufinianes, 467 ; he would seek the Magnaura (built by Constantine) was 
 site of the palace in ruins to the east in form a basilica with two aisles, and 
 of the hill of Drakos-tepe. probably an apse in the east end, 
 
 2 ey <rxi?M&<" Kal TroicaXtp, Cont. Tfi. where the elevated throne stood 
 98, cp. Simeon (Add. Georg.) 798. railed off from the rest of the build- 
 The later source says that John the ing. See Ebersolt, 70. There were 
 Synkellos brought the plans from chambers off the main hall, especially 
 Baghdad and superintended the con- the nuptial chamber (of apse-shape : 
 struction ; there is nothing of this K6JX 7 ! T v TacrroO), used on the occasion 
 in Simeon, but it is possible that of an Imperial wedding. The situa- 
 John visited Baghdad (see below, p. tion of the Magnaura was east of the 
 256). The ruins of an old temple near Augusteon ; on the north-west it was 
 the neighbouring Satyros supplied close to St. Sophia ; on the south-west 
 some of the building material for the there was a descent, and a gate led 
 palace of Bryas. The declension of into the grounds of the Great Palace, 
 this name is both Epvov and Epvavros. close to the Church of the Lord and 
 Some modern writers erroneously sup- the Consistorion. 
 
 pose that the nominative is Bpi'/os.
 
 134 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 organ in the room. 1 When a foreign ambassador was intro- 
 duced to the Emperor's presence, he was amazed and perhaps 
 alarmed at seeing the animals rise up and hearing the lions 
 roar and the birds burst into melodious song. At the sound 
 of the organ these noises ceased, but when the audience was 
 over and the ambassador was withdrawing, the mechanism 
 was again set in motion. 2 
 
 One of the most remarkable sights in the throne room of 
 the Magnaura was the Pentapyrgion, or cabinet of Five Towers, 
 a piece of furniture which was constructed by Theophilus. 3 
 Four towers were grouped round a central and doubtless 
 higher tower ; each tower had several, probably four, storeys ; 4 
 and in the chambers, which were visible to the eye, were 
 exhibited various precious objects, mostly of sacred interest. 
 At the celebration of an Imperial marriage, it was the usage 
 to deposit the nuptial wreaths in the Pentapyrgion. On 
 special occasions, for instance at the Easter festival, it was 
 removed from the Magnaura to adorn the Chrysotriklinos. 5 
 
 If the Emperor's love of magnificence and taste for art 
 impelled him to spend immense sums on his palaces, he did 
 not neglect works of public utility. One of the most important 
 duties of the government was to maintain the fortifications of 
 the city in repair. Theophilus did not add new defences, 
 like Heraclius and Leo, but no Emperor did more than he to 
 strengthen and improve the existing walls. The experiences 
 of the siege conducted by Thomas seem to have shown that 
 the sea-walls were not high enough to be impregnable. It 
 was decided to raise them in height, and this work, though 
 commenced by his father on the side of the Golden Horn, 7 
 was mainly the work of Theophilus. Numerous inscriptions 
 
 1 Two gold organs were made for artist made the golden organs and the 
 Theophilus, but only one of them golden tree (ib.). 
 
 seems to have been kept in the 4 Compartments, /j.e<roKa.p5ta. See 
 
 Magnaura. Simeon (Add. Georg.), 793. Cer. 582, cp. 586-587. 
 
 4.- n KCQ KCO 17-, 5 Constantino, Ccr. 580, cp. 70. 
 
 2 Constantine, Cer .568-569 ; Vita 6 Gen n T&f ^ e Xfi 
 
 Bas 2tf = C<mt . Th 173. For such ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^^ 
 
 contrivances at Baghdad see Gibbon, TapexftVTUV rb 6e7ri p aTOV . 
 
 V1 ' 7 This follows from two inscriptions 
 
 3 Simeon, ib. (cp. Pseudo-Simeon, of "Michael and Theophilus," now 
 627) ; it was made by a goldsmith lost ; see van Millingen, Walls, 185. 
 related to the Patriarch Antonius. If Other inscriptions existed inscribed 
 not of solid gold, it was doubtless " Theophilus and Michael," and there- 
 richly decorated with gold. The same fore dating from the years 839-842.
 
 SECT, ii BUILDINGS OF THEOPHILUS 135 
 
 of which many are still to be seen, many others have dis- 
 appeared in recent times recorded his name, which appears 
 more frequently on the walls and towers than that of any 
 other Emperor. 1 The restoration of the seaward defences 
 facing Chrysopolis may specially be noticed : at the ancient 
 gate of St. Barbara (Top-kapussi, close to Seraglio Point), 2 and 
 on the walls and towers to the south, on either side of the gate 
 of unknown name (now De'irmen-kapussi) near the Kynegion. 3 
 Just north of this entrance is a long inscription, in six iambic 
 trimeters, praying that the wall which Theophilus " raised on 
 new foundations " may stand fast and unshaken for ever. It 
 may possibly be a general dedication of all his new fortifica- 
 tions. 4 But the work was not quite completed when Theophilus 
 died. 5 South of the Kynegion and close to the Mangana, a 
 portion of the circuit remained in disrepair, and it was reserved 
 for Bardas, the able minister of Michael III., to restore it some 
 twenty years later. 
 
 3. Iconoclasm 
 
 It was not perhaps in the nature of Theophilus to adopt 
 the passive attitude of his father in the matter of image- 
 worship, or to refrain from making a resolute attempt to 
 terminate the schism which divided the Church. But he 
 appears for some years (perhaps till A.D. 834) to have continued 
 the tolerant policy of Michael, and there may be some reason 
 for believing, as many believe, that the influence of his friend 
 John the Grammarian, who became Patriarch in A.D. 832, 6 was 
 chiefly responsible for his resolution to suppress icons. He did 
 
 1 Gen. ib. notes the inscriptions as rt> [fiXfoOev et'j "yTJv reixos ^1776/5*67-05 
 a feature. [ravw dKafj^trrus Mi^a^X 6 SeaTrinjs 
 
 2 Van Millingen, 184. Hammer, Sia Bdp[5a rov r]u>v o-xoXwv SofifffrlKOV 
 Constantinopolis, i. Appendix, gives ijyeipe rr.f\Tr~\vbv wpdeifffj.a TJ) 7r6Xei. 
 copies of inscriptions which have dis- 
 
 appeared Some of these supplements can hardly 
 
 Van Millingen, 250, 183. be right. In 1. 1 I would read 
 
 4 Van Millingen's conjecture. The 0[f>6vov] ; m 2 /rai ptttfte, for there 
 
 inscription is in one line 60 feet long. is an upright stroke before Serbs ; in 
 
 The last verse should be restored 4 d/cd/zTrrus is inappropriate, perhaps 
 
 , . , , , , , vvv d/cXo^rws. The slabs bearing the 
 
 4<r<rroi> aicXo"?"" 
 
 5 I infer this from the Bardas in- Kiosk, once the Church of St. Saviour 
 
 scription, which, with the restorations / jj. 253 sqq. ). 
 
 of Mordtmann and van Millingen (op. 6 cW t Tk. 121, see Vasil'ev, Viz. i 
 
 cit. 185-186), runs as follows : ^ r-j prii. 147 S qq. Before his eleva- 
 
 iroXXJuw xparcuws SfffTrotrdvTwv rov tion he held the office of Synkellos. 
 
 er[aXoi>] For his work under Leo V. see above, 
 
 dXX' oi)]5ef6s xpos v^os ?} fVKocr/J.ia.v p. 60 sq.
 
 136 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 not summon a new council, and perhaps he did not issue any 
 new edict ; but he endeavoured, by severe measures, to ensure 
 the permanence of the iconoclastic principles which had been 
 established under Leo the Armenian. The lack of contempo- 
 rary evidence renders it difficult to determine the scope and 
 extent of the persecution of Theophilus ; but a careful examina- 
 tion of such evidence as exists shows that modern historians 
 have exaggerated its compass, if not its severity. 1 So far 
 as we can see, his repressive measures were twofold. He 
 endeavoured to check the propagation of the false doctrine by 
 punishing some leading monks who were actively preaching 
 it ; and he sought to abolish religious pictures from Constan- 
 tinople by forbidding them to be painted at all. 2 
 
 Of the cases of corporal chastisement inflicted on ecclesiastics 
 for pertinacity in the cause of image-worship, the most famous 
 and genuine is the punishment of the two Palestinian brothers, 
 Theodore and Theophanes, 3 who had already endured persecution 
 under Leo V. On Leo's death they returned to Constantinople 
 and did their utmost in the cause of pictures, Theodore by his 
 books and Theophanes by his hymns. But Michael II. treated 
 them like other leaders of the cause ; he did not permit them 
 to remain in the city. 4 Under Theophilus they were im- 
 prisoned and scourged, then exiled to Aphusia, one of the 
 
 1 The contemporary chronicler in his account of the affair of Theodore 
 
 George gives no facts, but indulges and Theophanes, for which we have a 
 
 in vapid abuse. Simeon relates the first-hand source in Theodore's own 
 
 treatment of the brothers Theodore letter. Simeon made use of this 
 
 and Theophanes, but otherwise only source honestly ; in Gont. Th. there 
 
 says that Theophilus pulled down are marked discrepancies.) Various 
 
 pictures, and banished and tormented tortures and cruelties are ascribed in 
 
 monks (Add. Georg. 791). Genesios general terms to Th. in Ada, 42 
 
 (74-75) is amazingly brief: the Mart. Amor. (F 24, a document 
 
 Emperor disturbed the sea of piety ; written not very long after his death). 
 
 (1) he imprisoned Michael, synkellos 2 This seems to be a genuine tradi- 
 
 of Jerusalem, with many monks ; (2) tion, preserved in Cont. Th. (Tit. 
 
 branded Theodore and Theophanes ; Theoph.) cc. 10 and 13. See below. 
 
 (3) was assisted by John the Patriarch. 3 For the following account the 
 
 The lurid description of the persecu- source is the Vita Theodori Grapti 
 
 tion, which has generally been adopted, (see Bibliography). See also Vit. 
 
 is supplied by the biographer of Mich. Sync., and Vailhe, Saint Michel 
 
 Theophilus, Cont. Th. c. IQsqq., who le Syncelle. 
 
 begins by stating that Th. sought 4 Op. cit. 201, where it is said that 
 
 to outdo his predecessors as a per- John (afterwards Patriarch) shut 
 
 secutor. The whole account is too them up in prison, and having argued 
 
 rhetorical to be taken for sober history, with them unsuccessfully, exiled them, 
 
 and it is in marked contrast with This is probably untrue. They lived 
 
 that of Genesios, who was not disposed in the monastery of Sosthenes (which 
 
 to spare the iconoclasts. (We can, survives in the name Stenia), on the 
 
 indeed, prove the writer's inaccuracy European bank of the Bosphorus.
 
 SECT, in ICONOCLASM UNDER THEOPHILUS 137 
 
 Procoimesian islands. 1 Theophilus was anxious to win them 
 over ; the severe treatment which he dealt out to them 
 proves the influence they exerted ; they had, in fact, succeeded 
 Theodore of Studion as the principal champions of icons. The 
 Emperor hoped that after the experience of a protracted exile, 
 and imprisonment they would yield to his threats ; their 
 opposition seemed to him perhaps the chief obstacle to the 
 unity of the Church. So they were brought to Constantinople 
 and the story of their maltreatment may be told in their 
 own words. 2 
 
 The Imperial officer arrived at the isle of Aphusia and hurried us 
 away to the City, affirming that he knew not the purpose of the command, 
 only that he had been sent to execute it very urgently. We arrived in 
 the City on the 8th of July. Our conductor reported our arrival to the 
 Emperor, and was ordered to shut us up in the Praetorian prison. Six 
 days later (on the 14th) we were summoned to the Imperial presence. 
 Conducted by the Prefect of the City, we reached the door of the 
 Chrysotriklinos, and saw the Emperor with a terribly stern countenance 
 and a number of people standing round. It was the tenth hour. 3 The 
 Prefect retired and left us in the presence of the Emperor, who, when 
 we had made obeisance, roughly ordered us to approach. He asked us 
 " Where were ye born ? " We replied, " In the land of Moab." " Why 
 came ye here ? " We did not answer, and he ordered our faces to be 
 beaten. After many sore blows, we became dizzy and fell, and if I had 
 not grasped the tunic of the man who smote me, I should have fallen on 
 the Emperor's footstool. Holding by his dress I stood unmoved till the 
 Emperor said " Enough " and repeated his former question. When we 
 still said nothing he addressed the Prefect [who appears to have returned] 
 in great wrath, " Take them and engrave on their faces these verses, and 
 then hand them over to two Saracens to conduct them to their own 
 country." One stood near his name was Christodulos who held in his 
 hand the iambic verses which he had composed. The Emperor bade 
 him read them aloud, adding, " If they are not good, never mind." He 
 said this because he knew how they would be ridiculed by UP, since we 
 are experts in poetical matters. The man who read them said, " Sir. these 
 fellows are not worthy that the verses should be better." 
 
 They were then taken back to the Praetorium, and then 
 once more to the Palace, 4 where they received a flogging in the 
 
 1 See above, p. 41. etc.) are, I believe, wrong in their 
 
 2 In their letter to John of Cyzicus, conception of the Thermastra. The 
 quoted in op. cit. 204 sqq. evidence points, as I have tried to 
 
 3 Three o'clock in the afternoon. show, to its being north of the 
 
 4 Before they were admitted to the Lausiakos ami forming the ground 
 presence they were kept in the floor of the Eidikon. The scene of 
 Thermastra. The writers on the the scourging is represented in a 
 Palace (Labarte, Bieliaev, Ebersolt, miniature in the Madrid MS. of
 
 138 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 Imperial presence. But another chance was granted to them. 
 Four days later they were .informed by the Prefect that if they 
 would communicate once with the iconoclasts it would be 
 sufficient to save them from punishment ; " I," he said, " will 
 accompany you to the Church." When they refused, they 
 were laid upon benches, and their faces were tattooed it was 
 a long process with the vituperative verses. Some admiration 
 is due to the dexterity and delicacy of touch of the tormentor 
 who succeeded in branding twelve iambic lines on a human 
 face. The other part of the sentence was not carried out. 
 The brethren were not reconducted to their own country ; 
 they were imprisoned at Apamea in Bithynia, where Theodore 
 died. 1 Theophanes, the hymn writer, survived till the next 
 reign and became bishop of Nicaea. 
 
 Of the acts of persecution ascribed to Theophilus, this is 
 the most authentic. Now there is a circumstance about it 
 which may help to explain the Emperor's exceptional severity, 
 the fact that the two monks who had so vehemently agitated 
 against his policy were strangers from Palestine. We can 
 easily understand that the Emperor's resentment would have 
 been especially aroused against interlopers who had come 
 from abroad to make trouble in his dominion. And there are 
 two other facts which are probably not unconnected. The 
 oriental Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) 
 had addressed to Theophilus a " synodic letter " in favour of 
 the worship of images, 2 a manifesto which must have been 
 highly displeasing to him and to the Patriarch John. Further, 
 it is recorded, and there is no reason to doubt, that Theophilus 
 
 Skylitzes, reproduced in Beylid, graphy) was supposed by Combefis 
 
 L ,' Habitation byzantine, p. 122. The to be a joint composition of the 
 
 place of the punishment was the mid- three eastern Patriarchs. This is 
 
 garden, fjieffOK^wiov, of the Lausiakos, very unlikely, but the author may 
 
 doubtless the same as the jtecroo/Tnoj' have belonged to one of the eastern 
 
 near the east end of the Justinianos, dioceses (cp. c. 30), though it would 
 
 mentioned in Constantine, Cer. 585. be rash to argue (with Schwarzlose, 
 
 111), from a certain tone of authority, 
 
 Dec. 27, 841. V^t. Theodori, 210 ; tha he was a Patriarch . H e sketches 
 
 cp. Simeon, MA.Qwg. 808 ; Menolocj. the Mst of the controversy on 
 
 Basil. Migne 117 229 An anecdote im from the beginning to J the 
 
 m ConJ 2 h. (180). makes him survive deat & h of Michael IL (committing some 
 
 Theophilus (so Vit. Mich Sync. 252 ; chronological blunders pointed out by 
 
 Narr. de Theoph alsol 32), and in Schwarz f ose) , and exhorts Theophilus 
 
 the same passage Theophanes is falsely to follow the example of pious 
 
 described as bishop of Smyrna. Emperors like Constantine, Theo- 
 
 2 The Epistola synodica Orientalium dosius, Marcian, and not that of the 
 
 ad Theophilum imp. (see Biblio- godless iconoclasts.
 
 ICONOCLASM UNDER THEOPHILUS 
 
 139 
 
 imprisoned Michael, the synkellos of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 1 
 who had formerly been persecuted by Leo V. We may fairly 
 suspect that the offence of the Palestinian brethren was seriously 
 aggravated in his eyes by the fact that they were Palestinian. 
 This suspicion is borne out by the tenor of the bad verses 
 which were inscribed 011 their faces. 2 
 
 There was another case of cruelty which seems to be 
 well attested. Euthymios, bishop of Sardis, who had been 
 prominent among the orthodox opponents of Leo V., died in 
 consequence of a severe scourging. 3 But the greater number 
 of image-worshippers, whose sufferings are specially recorded, 
 suffered no more than banishment, and the Proconnesian 
 island Aphusia is said to have been selected as the place of 
 confinement for many notable champions of pictures. 4 
 
 The very different treatment which Theophilus accorded 
 to Methodius is significant. In order to bend him to his 
 will, he tried harsh measures, whipped him and shut him up 
 
 1 Gen. 74 ; Vit. Mich. Sync. 238, 
 where he and his companion Job are 
 said to have been imprisoned in a cell 
 in the Praetorium in A.D. 834. Cp. 
 Vailhe, Saint Michel le Syncelle, 618. 
 
 3 The sense of the verses (which are 
 preserved in Vit. Theod. Gr. 206 ; 
 Add. Georg. 807 ; Cont. Th. 105 ; 
 Pseudo- Simeon, 641 ; Ada Davidis, 
 239 ; Vit. Mich. Sync. 243 ; Zonaras, 
 iii. 366, etc. material for a critical 
 text) may be rendered thus : 
 
 In that fair town whose sacred streets were 
 
 trod 
 
 Once by the pure feet of the Word of God 
 The city all men's hearts desire to see 
 These evil vessels of perversity 
 And superstition, working foul deeds there, 
 Were driven forth to this our City, where 
 Persisting in their wicked lawless ways 
 They are condemned and, branded on the 
 
 face 
 As scoundrels, hunted to their native 
 
 place. 
 
 3 There is a difficulty about Euthy- 
 mios. In the Acta Davidis, 237, his 
 death is connected with the persecu- 
 tion in the reign of Theophilus. In 
 Cont. Th. 48 it is placed in the reign 
 of Michael II., who is made responsible, 
 while the execution is ascribed to 
 Theophilus. This notice is derived 
 from Genesios % (or from a common 
 source), who says, at the end of 
 Michael II.'s reign EvOv/j.iov . . 6eo</>tXos 
 
 Here 
 
 the act is ascribed entirely to Theo- 
 philus, so that we might assume a 
 misdating. It seems quite incon- 
 sistent with the policy of Michael. 
 The author of the Acta Davidis, ib., 
 expressly states that the punishment 
 of Methodius was the only hardship 
 inflicted by Michael. If he had per- 
 mitted the scourging of Euthymios, 
 would it have been passed over by 
 George the Monk ? Pargoire, Saint 
 Euthyme, in Echos d" 'Orient, v. 157 sqq. 
 (1901-2), however, thinks the date of 
 the death of Euthymios was Dec. 
 26, 824. 
 
 4 Simeon the Stylite of Lesbos (see 
 above, p. 75), who in the reign of 
 Michael II. lived in the suburb ot 
 Pegae, on the north side of the Golden 
 Horn, was banished to Aphusia (Acta 
 Davidis, 239), whither Theodore and 
 Theophanes had at first been sent. 
 Other exiles to this island were 
 Makarios, abbot of Pelekete (who was 
 first flogged and imprisoned, according 
 to Vit. Macarii, 158) ; Hilarion, abbot 
 of the convent of Dalmatos (A.S., 
 June 6, t. i. 759, where he is said to 
 have received 117 stripes) ; and John, 
 abbot of the Katharoi (A.S., April 27, 
 t. iii. 496). All these men had suf- 
 fered persecution under Leo V. ; see 
 above, Chap. II. 3 ad fin.
 
 140 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 in a subterranean prison. 1 But he presently released him, and 
 Methodius, who, though an inflexible image-worshipper, was no 
 fanatic, lived in the Palace on good terms with the Emperor, 
 who esteemed his learning, and showed him high honour. 2 
 
 Of the measures adopted by Theophilus for the suppression 
 of icon-worship by cutting off the supply of pictures we know 
 nothing on authority that can be accepted as good. It is 
 stated 3 that he forbade religious pictures to be painted, and 
 that he cruelly tortured Lazarus, the most eminent painter of 
 the time. 4 There is probably some truth behind both state- 
 ments, and the persecution of monks, with which he is 
 charged, may be explained by his endeavours to suppress the 
 painting of pictures. Theophilus did not penalise monks on 
 account of their profession ; for we know from other facts 
 that he was not opposed to monasticism. But they were the 
 religious artists of the age, and we may conjecture that many 
 of those who incurred his displeasure were painters. 
 
 If we review the ecclesiastical policy of Theophilus in the 
 light of the few facts which are certain and compare it with 
 other persecutions to which Christians have at various times 
 resorted to force their opinions upon differing souls, it is 
 obviously absurd to describe it as extraordinarily severe. 
 The list of cases of cruel maltreatment is short. That many 
 obscure monks besides underwent distress and privation we 
 cannot doubt ; but such distress seems to have been due to 
 a severer enforcement of the same rule which Michael II. 
 had applied to Theodore of Studion and his friends. Those 
 
 1 Vit. Meth. 1, 8. The subter- he was imprisoned. Released by the 
 ranean prison (with two robbers, in the intercession of Theodora, he retired 
 island of Antigoni : Pseudo-Simeon, to the cloister of Phoberon, where he 
 642), may be a reduplication of the painted a picture of John the Baptist 
 confinement in the island of S. Andreas (to whom the cloister was dedicated), 
 under Michael II. Cp. Pargoire, extant in the tenth century. After the 
 Saint Mtthode, in fichos d' 'Orient, vi. death of Theophilus he painted a Christ 
 183 sqq. (1903). for the palace-gate of Chalke. It seems 
 
 2 Gen. 76 ; Cont. Tfi. 116. Genesios incredible that he could have con- 
 says that Theophilus was very curious tinned to work after the operation on 
 about occult lore (rb. &-iroKpv<f>d), in his hands. Lazarus is mentioned in 
 which Methodius was an adept. Lib. Ponf " "; 147, 150, as bearer of a 
 
 present which Michael III. sent to 
 See above p. 136, n. 2. gt Peter , s at Ron]C) an(J ig desc ribed 
 
 4 Cont. Tk. 102 : Lazarus was at as genere Chazarus. The visit to 
 
 first cajoled, then tortured by scourg- Rome is mentioned in Synaxar. Cpl. 
 
 ing ; continuing to paint, his palms 233, where he is said to have been 
 
 were burnt with red-hot iron nails sent a second time and to have died 
 
 (irtra\a <ndr)pS. d-jravBpaKwO^vTa), and on the way.
 
 SECT, in ICONOCLASM UNDER THEOPHILUS 141 
 
 who would not acquiesce in the synod of Leo V. and actively 
 defied it were compelled to leave the city. The monastery 
 of Phoberon, at the north end of the Bosphorus, seems to have 
 been one of the chief refuges for the exiles. 1 This brings us 
 to the second characteristic of the persecution of Theophilus, 
 its geographical limitation. Following in his father's traces, 
 he insisted upon the suppression of pictures only in 
 Constantinople itself and its immediate neighbourhood. 
 Iconoclasrn was the doctrine of the Emperor and the Patriarch, 
 but they did not insist upon its consequences beyond the 
 precincts of the capital. So far as we can see, throughout 
 the second period of iconoclasm, in Greece and the islands 
 and on the coasts of Asia Minor, image-worship nourished 
 without let or hindrance, and the bishops and monks were 
 unaffected by the decrees of Leo V. This salient fact has not 
 been realised by historians, but it sets the persecution of 
 Theophilus in a different light. He would not allow pictures 
 in the churches of the capital ; and he drove out all active 
 picture-worshippers and painters, to indulge themselves in 
 their heresy elsewhere. It was probably only in a few 
 exceptional cases that he resorted to severe punishment. 
 
 The females of the Emperor's household were devoted to 
 images, and the secret opinion of Theodora must have been 
 well known to Theophilus. The situation occasioned 
 anecdotes turning on the motive that the Empress and her 
 mother Theodora kept a supply of icons, but kept them well 
 out of sight. The Emperor had a misshapen fool and jester, 
 named Denderis, whose appearance reminded the courtiers of 
 the Homeric Tbersites. 2 Licensed to roam at large through 
 the Palace, he burst one day into Theodora's bedchamber and 
 found her kissing sacred images. 3 When he curiously asked 
 
 1 fVKrripiov HpoSp6fwv (St. John the miraculous image. Legend as- 
 
 Baptist) ri> OVTW Ka\ov/j.evov rov cribed its foundation to Constantine 
 
 Qofiepov KOLTO. rbv T&v^fivov TTOVTOV (Cont. (cp. Ducange, Const. Chr, iv. 80), 
 
 Th. 101). The monks of the Abraamite but it was probably not older than 
 
 monastery (which possessed a famous the sixth century. Cp. Pargoire, " Les 
 
 image of Christ impressed on a debuts de monachisme a Constanti- 
 
 cloth, and a picture of the Virgin nople " (Revue des questions historiques, 
 
 ascribed to St. Luke) were expelled to Ixv., 1899) 93 sqq. 
 Phoberon, and said to have been beaten z Q^^ ph 91 
 
 to death (ib.). The monastery of St. 
 
 Abraamios was outside the city, near 3 The scene is represented in the 
 
 the Golden Gate (Leo Diaconus, 47-48). Madrid Skylitzes, and reproduced by 
 
 It was called the Achciropoittos, from Beylie, L' Habitation byzantine, 120.
 
 142 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 what they were, she said, " They are my pretty dolls, and 
 I love them dearly." He then went to the Emperor, who 
 was sitting at dinner. Theophilus asked him where he had 
 been. " With nurse," l said Denderis (so he used to call 
 Theodora), " and I saw her taking such pretty dolls out of a 
 cushion." The Emperor comprehended. In high wrath he 
 rose at once from table, sought Theodora, and overwhelmed 
 her with reproaches as an idolatress. But the lady met him 
 with a ready lie. " It is not as you suppose," she said ; " I 
 and some of my maids were looking in the mirror, and 
 Denderis took the reflexions for dolls and told you a foolish 
 story." Theophilus, if not satisfied, had to accept the ex- 
 planation, and Theodora carefully warned Denderis not to 
 mention the dolls again. When Theophilus asked him 
 one day whether nurse had again kissed the pretty dolls, 
 Denderis, placing one hand on his lips and the other on 
 his posterior parts, said, " Hush, Emperor, don't mention 
 the dolls." 
 
 Another similar anecdote is told of the Emperor's mother- 
 in-law, Theoktiste, who lived in a house of her own, 2 where 
 she was often visited by her youthful granddaughters. She 
 sought to imbue them with a veneration for pictures and to 
 counteract the noxious influence of their father's heresy. She 
 would produce the sacred forms from the box in which she 
 kept them, and press them to the faces and lips of the young 
 
 1 irapa ryv fjLdvav. the abundance of water in the grounds 
 
 2 Gont. Th. 90. The house was below the Sanjakdar mosque favours 
 known as Gastria. She had bought the tradition that there was a flower- 
 it from Nicetas, and afterwards con- garden there, and this would explain 
 verted it into a monastery. It was in the motive of the Helena legend, 
 the quarter of Psamathia, in the south- Mr. van Millingen is disposed to 
 west of the city. Paspates (Bt/f. /j.e\. think that the identification of 
 354-357) has identified it with the Paspates may be right, but he sug- 
 ruinous building Sanjakdar Mesjedi (of gests that the extant building was 
 which he gives a drawing), which lies originally a library, not a church, 
 a little to the north of the Armenian The good Abbe Marin, who accepts 
 Church of St. George (where St. Mary without question all the monastic 
 Peribleptos used to stand). Gastria foundations of Constantinian date, 
 is interpreted as flower-pots in the thinks there was a monastic founda- 
 story told in the lldrpia KirX. 215, tion at Gastria before Theoktiste. 
 where the foundation of the cloister is The evidence for Constantinian mon- 
 ascribed to St. Helena, who is said to asteries has been drastically dealt 
 have brought back from Jerusalem the with by Pargoire, " Les Debuts de 
 flowers which grew over the place monachisme a Constantinople," in the 
 where she had discovered the cross, Revue des questions historiques, Ixv. 67 
 and planted them in pots (ydcrrpas) on sqq. (1899). 
 
 this spot. Paspates points out that
 
 SECT, in ICONOCLASM UNDER THEOPHILUS 143 
 
 girls. 1 Their father, suspecting that they were being tainted 
 with the idolatrous superstition, asked them one day, when 
 they returned from a visit to their grandmother, what presents 
 she had given them and how they had been amused. The 
 older girls saw the trap and evaded his questions, but Pulcheria, 
 who was a small child, truthfully described how her grand- 
 mother had taken a number of dolls from a box and pressed 
 them upon the faces of herself and her sisters. Theophilus 
 was furious, but it would have been odious to take any severe 
 measure against the Empress's mother, who was highly 
 respected for her piety. All he could do was to prevent his 
 daughters from visiting her as frequently as before. 
 
 8 4. Death of Theophilus and Restoration of Icon Worship 
 
 Theophilus died of dysentery on January 20, A.D. 842. 2 
 His last illness was disturbed by the fear that his death 
 would be followed by a revolution against the throne of his 
 infant son. The man who seemed to be the likely leader of 
 a movement to overthrow his dynasty was Theophobos, a 
 somewhat mysterious general, who was said to be of Persian 
 descent and had commanded the Persian troops in the 
 Imperial service. 3 Theophobos was an " orthodox " Christian, 4 
 but he was one of the Emperor's right-hand men in the 
 eastern wars, and had been honoured with the hand of his 
 sister or sister-in-law. 5 He had been implicated some years 
 before in a revolt, but had been restored to favour and lived 
 in the Palace. 6 It is said that he was popular in Con- 
 stantinople, and the Emperor may have had good reasons for 
 thinking that he might aspire with success to the supreme 
 power. From his deathbed he ordered Theophobos to be cast 
 into a dungeon of the Bucoleon Palace, where he was secretly 
 decapitated at night. 7 
 
 1 Theoktiste is represented giving 6 Gen. 59. 
 
 an icon to Pulcheria, the other 7 Gen. 60, and Add. Georg. 810, 
 
 daughters standing behind, in a where Petronas, with the logothete 
 
 miniature in the Madrid Skylitzes (i.e. Theoktistos), is said to have per- 
 
 (see reproduction in Beylie*, op. cit. 56). formed the decapitation. The alter- 
 
 2 Cont. Th. 139. native account given by Gen. 60-61 has 
 
 3 See below, p. 252 sq. no value, as Hirsch pointed out, p. 
 
 4 Simeon, Add. Georg. 803 (cp. Gen. 142, but it is to be noticed that 
 61 10 ). Ooryphas is there stated to have been 
 
 s Ib. 793. See below, p. 253. drungarios of the watch. We meet a
 
 144 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 Exercising a constitutional right of his sovran authority, 
 usually employed in such circumstances, 1 the Emperor had 
 appointed two regents to act as his son's guardians and assist 
 the Empress, namely, her uncle Manuel, the chief Magister, 
 and Theoktistos, the Logothete of the Course, who had proved 
 himself a devoted servant of the Amorian house. It is 
 possible that Theodora's brother Bardas was a third regent, 
 but this cannot be regarded as probable. 2 The position of 
 Theodora closely resembled that of Irene during the minority 
 of Constantine. The government was carried on in the joint 
 names of the mother and the son, but the actual exercise of 
 Imperial authority devolved upon the mother provisionally. 
 Yet there was a difference in the two cases. Leo IV., so far 
 as we know, had not appointed any regents or guardians of his 
 son to act with Irene, so that legally she had the supreme 
 power entirely in her hands ; whereas Theodora was as unable 
 to act without the concurrence of Manuel and Theoktistos as 
 they were unable to act without her. 
 
 It has been commonly thought that Theophilus had 
 hardly closed his eyes before his wife and her advisers made 
 such pious haste to repair his ecclesiastical errors that a 
 council was held and the worship of images restored, almost 
 as a matter of course, a few weeks after his death. The 
 
 person or persons of this name have devolved on the Prefect, not on 
 
 holding different offices under the the admiral, and I conclude that 
 
 Amorians: (1) Ooryphas, in command Nicetas Ooryphas was prefect in A. D. 
 
 of a fleet, under Michael II. (see 860, and drungarios in A.D. 867 (such 
 
 below, Chap. IX. p. 290); (2) Ooryphas, changes of office were common in 
 
 one of the commanders in an Egyptian Byzantium), and that the author of 
 
 expedition in A.D. 853 (see below, Vit. Ign. knowing him by the later 
 
 Chap. IX. p. 292) ; (3) Ooryphas, Prefect office, in which he was most distin- 
 
 of the City in A.D. 860 (see below, guished, described him erroneously. 
 
 Chap. XIII. p. 419) ; (4) Ooryphas, Ooryphas the drungarios of the watch 
 
 "strategos" of the fleet at the time may be identical with (1) ; but Isuspect 
 
 of the death of Michael III. ; see Vat. there is a confusion with Petronas, who 
 
 MS. of Cont. Georg. in Muralt, p. 752 seems to have held that office at one 
 
 = Pseudo-Simeon, 687. The fourth of time in the reign of Theophilus (see 
 
 these is undoubtedly Nicetas Ooryphas above, p. 122). 
 
 whom we meet in Basil's reign as l In the same way the Emperor 
 
 drungarios of the Imperial fleet. He Alexander appointed seven guardians 
 
 may probably be the same as the (firlrpoiroi) for his nephew Constantine, 
 
 second, but is not likely (from con- A.D. 913. The boy's mother Zoe was 
 
 siderations of age) to be the same as not included. Cont. Th. 380. 
 
 the first. In regard to (3), it is to be 2 It is safest to follow Gen. 77. 
 
 noted that according to Nicetas, Vit. Bardas was probably added by Cont. 
 
 Ign. 232, Nicetas Ooryphas, drungarios Th. (148) suo Murte, on account of his 
 
 of the Imperial fleet, oppressed Ignatius prominent position a few years later. 
 
 in A.D. 860. Such business would So Uspenski, Ocherki, 25.
 
 SECT, iv RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP 145 
 
 truth is that more than a year elapsed before the triumph 
 of orthodoxy was secured. 1 The first and most pressing 
 care of the regency was not to compose the ecclesiastical 
 schism, but to secure the stability of the Amorian throne ; 
 and the question whether iconoclasm should be abandoned 
 depended on the view adopted by the regents as to the 
 effect of a change in religious policy on the fortunes of the 
 dynasty. 
 
 For the change was not a simple matter, nor one that 
 could be lightly undertaken. Theodora, notwithstanding her 
 personal convictions, hesitated to take the decisive step. It is 
 a mistake to suppose that she initiated the measures which 
 led to the restoration of pictures. 2 She had a profound belief 
 in her husband's political sagacity ; she shrank from altering 
 the system which he had successfully maintained ; 3 and there 
 was the further consideration that, if iconoclasm were con- 
 demned by the Church as a heresy, her husband's name would 
 be anathematized. Her scruples were overcome by the 
 arguments of the regents, who persuaded her that the restora- 
 tion of images would be the surest means to establish the 
 safety of the throne. 4 But when she yielded to these reasons, 
 to the pressure of other members of her own family, and 
 probably to the representations of Methodius, she made it a 
 condition of her consent, that the council which she would 
 
 1 The old date was in itself impos- (UUMptnft <To<j>ias apKovvrus e^elxero /cat 
 
 sible : the change could not have ovdev rCiv detivruv avry i\f\-q0eC icoi 
 
 been accomplished in the time. The TTWS TI> fKeivov dia.rayfj.dTuv d/j.vrj(j.ovri- 
 
 right date is furnished by Sabas, Vit. ffavres ei's er^pav 6iayuyT)i> fKTpawfirjfifv ; 
 Joannic. 320, where the event is 4 The chief mover was, I have no 
 
 definitely placed a year after the doubt, Theoktistos. His name alone 
 
 accession of Michael. This is con- is mentioned by the contemporary 
 
 firmed by the date of the death of George Mon. 811 (cp. Vita Theodorae, 
 
 Methodius, who was Patriarch for four 14). In Gen. he shares the credit 
 
 years and died June 14, 847 (Vit. with Manuel (78), and in Cent. Th. 
 
 Joannic. by Simeon Met. 92 ; the same (148-150) Manuel appears alone as 
 
 date can be inferred from Theophanes, Theodora's adviser. But the part 
 
 De ex. S. Niceph. 164). All this was played by Manuel is mixed up with 
 
 shown for the first time by de Boor, a hagiographical tradition, redound - 
 
 Angriffder Rhos, 450-453 ; the proofs ing to the credit of the monks of 
 
 have been restated by Vasil'ev, Viz. Studion, whose prayers were said to 
 
 i Arab., Pril. iii. ; and the fact is have saved him from certain death 
 
 now universally accepted by savants, by sickness, on condition of his promis- 
 
 though many writers still ignorantly ing to restore image - worship when 
 
 repeat the old date. he recovered. (For the connexion of 
 
 a Her hesitation comes out clearly Manuel with the Studites, cp. also 
 
 in the tradition and must be accepted Vita Nicolai, 916, where Nicolaus is 
 
 as a fact. said to have healed Helena, Manuel's 
 
 3 Gen. 80 6 e/xos dvrip ye Kal /3a<nXei*s wife. )
 
 146 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 have to summon should not brand the memory of Theophilus 
 with the anathema of the Church. 1 
 
 Our ignorance of the comparative strength of the two 
 parties in the capital and in the army renders it impossible 
 for us to understand the political calculations which 
 determined the Empress and her advisers to act in accordance 
 with her religious convictions. But the sudden assassination 
 of Theophobos by the command of the dying Emperor is a 
 significant indication 2 that a real danger menaced the throne, 
 and that the image -worshippers, led by some ambitious 
 insurgent, would have been ready and perhaps able to over- 
 throw the dynasty. 3 The event seems to corroborate the 
 justice of their fears. For when they re-established the cult 
 of pictures, iconoclasm died peacefully without any convulsions 
 or rebellions. The case of Theoktistos may be adduced to 
 illustrate the fact that many of those who held high office 
 were not fanatical partisans. He had been perfectly contented 
 with the iconoclastic policy, and was probably a professed 
 iconoclast, 4 but placed in a situation where iconoclasm 
 appeared to be a peril to the throne, he was ready to throw it 
 over for the sake of political expediency. 
 
 Our brief, vague, and contradictory records supply little 
 certain information as to the manner in which the govern- 
 ment conducted the preparations for the defeat of iconoclasm. 5 
 It is evident that astute management was required ; and a 
 considerable time was demanded for the negotiations and 
 intrigues needful to facilitate a smooth settlement. We may 
 
 1 This is an inevitable inference (78) says of him that lie wavered (Sia 
 from the traditions. ptaov nvbs irapefjiTrecrbvTOs diuK\affev), 
 
 2 Ct> Uspenski ib 59 but this seems to ""P^ that he at 
 
 first shared the hesitation of the 
 
 3 The story of Genesios (77-78) that Empress. 
 
 Manuel addressed the assembled $ We must assume that Theodora, 
 
 people irf the Hippodrome, and de- before a final decision was taken, held 
 
 manded a declaration of loyalty to the a silention at which both the Senate 
 
 government, and that the people ex- and ecclesiastics were present. Such 
 
 pecting that he would himself usurp a meeting is recorded in Theophanes, 
 
 the throne were surprised and dis- J} e ex. S. Niceph. 164, and in Skylitzes 
 
 appointed when he cried, || Long life (Cedrenus), ii. 142. The assembly 
 
 to Michael and Theodora," seems to declared in favour of restoring images, 
 
 be also significant. and ordered that passages should be 
 
 4 The interest of the Studites in selected from the writings of the 
 Manuel (see above, p. 145, n. 4) Fathers to support the doctrine. The 
 argues that he was at heart an image- former source also asserts that Theo- 
 worshipper, as the other relatives of dora addressed a manifesto to the 
 Theodora seem to have been. Gen. people.
 
 RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP 
 
 147 
 
 take it for granted that Theodora and her advisers had at 
 once destined Methodius (who had lived for many years in the 
 Palace on intimate terms with the late Emperor, and who, we 
 may guess, had secretly acted as a spiritual adviser to the 
 Imperial ladies) as successor to the Patriarchal chair. To 
 him naturally fell 1 the task of presiding at a commission, 
 which met in the official apartments of Theoktistos 2 and pre- 
 pared the material for the coming Council. 3 
 
 Before the Council met, early in March (A.D. 843), the 
 Patriarch John must have been officially informed by the 
 Empress of her intention to convoke it, and summoned to 
 attend. He was not untrue to the iconoclastic doctrine which 
 he had actively defended for thirty years, and he declined to 
 alter his convictions in order to remain in the Patriarchal 
 chair. He was deposed by the Council, 4 Methodius was elected 
 
 1 Cp. Uspenski, op. eit. 33. That 
 Methodius took the leading part in 
 the preparations, and that the success 
 of the Council was chiefly due to his 
 influence and activity is a conclusion 
 which all the circumstances suggest ; 
 without the co-operation of such an 
 ecclesiastic, the government could not 
 have carried out their purpose. But 
 a hagiographical tradition confirms 
 the conclusion. It was said that 
 hermits of Mount Olympus, Joannikios, 
 who had the gift of prophecy, and 
 Arsakios, along with one Esaias of 
 Nicomedia, were inspired to urge 
 Methodius to restore images, and that 
 at their instigation he incited the 
 Empress (Narr. de Theophili absol. 25). 
 This story assumes that Methodius 
 played an important part. According 
 to Vit. Mich. Sync. A 249, the 
 Empress and Senate sent a message 
 to Joannikios, who recommended 
 Methodius. The same writer says 
 (ib.) that Michael the synkellos was 
 designated by popular opinion as 
 John's successor. But the hagio- 
 graphers are unscrupulous in making 
 statements which exalt their heroes 
 (see below, p. 148, n. 1). He seems 
 to have been made abbot of the Chora 
 convent (ib. 250) ; he died January 4, 
 846 (cp. Vailhe, Saint Michel, 314). 
 
 2 Gen. 80. 
 
 3 The preparation of the reports for 
 the Council of A.D. 815 had occu- 
 pied nearly a year (see above, p. 60). 
 The Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical 
 
 Council supplied the Commission with 
 its material. 
 
 4 In the sources there is some varia- 
 tion in the order of events. Theo- 
 phanes, De ex. S. Niceph., represents 
 the deposition of John (with the 
 measures taken against him) as an act 
 of the Council which restored ortho- 
 doxy. George Mon. (also a contem- 
 porary) agrees (802), and the account 
 of Genesios is quite consistent, for he 
 relates the measures taken against 
 John after the Council (81). According 
 to Cont. Th. John received an ultimatum 
 from the Empress before the Council 
 met (150-151), but this version cannot 
 be preferred to that of Genesios. After 
 the act of deposition by the Council, 
 Constantine, the Drungary of the 
 Watch, was sent with some of his 
 officers, to remove John from the 
 Patriarcheion. He made excuses and 
 would not stir, and when Bardas went 
 to inquire why he refused, he displayed 
 his stomach pricked all .over with 
 sharp instruments, and alleged that 
 the wounds were inflicted by the 
 cruelty of Constantine (an Armenian) 
 and his officers, whom he stigmatized 
 as pagans (this insult excites the wrath 
 of Genesios who was a descendant of 
 Constantine). But Bardas saw through 
 the trick. Genesios does not expressly 
 say that the wounds were self-inflicted, 
 but his vague words suggest this in- 
 ference to the reader (cp. Hirsch, 153). 
 In Cont. Th. the story is elaborated, and 
 the manner in which John wounded
 
 148 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 in his stead, and the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical 
 Council were confirmed. The list of heretics who had been 
 anathematized at that Council was augmented by the names 
 of the prominent iconoclastic leaders who had since troubled 
 the Church, but the name of the Emperor Theophilus was 
 omitted. We can easily divine that to spare his memory was 
 the most delicate and difficult part of the whole business. 
 Methodius himself was in temper a man of the same cast as 
 the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus ; he understood the 
 necessities of compromise, he appreciated the value of 
 "economy," and he was ready to fall in with the wishes of 
 Theodora. We may suspect that it was largely through his 
 management that the members of the Council agreed, appar- 
 ently without dissent, to exclude the late Emperor from the 
 black list ; and it is evident that their promises to acquiesce 
 in this course must have been secured before the Council met. 
 According to a story which has little claim to credit, Theodora 
 addressed the assembly and pleaded for her husband on the 
 ground that he had repented of his errors on his death-bed, and 
 that she herself had held an icon to his lips before he breathed 
 his last. 1 But it is not improbable that the suggestion of a 
 death-bed repentance was circulated unofficially for the purpose 
 of influencing the monks who execrated the memory of the 
 
 himself is described. See also Acta was to shift the responsibility to the 
 Davidis, 248 (where the instrument is evil counsels of the Patriarch John ; 
 a knife used for paring nails). In the see e.g. Nicetas, Vit. Ign. 222 and 
 contemporary De ex. S. Niceph. of 216. According to the Acta Davidis 
 Theophanes, another motive is alleged : Theodora had a private interview with 
 the revolution threw John into such Methodius, Simeon the Stylite saint 
 despondency that he almost laid violent of Lesbos, and his brother George, and 
 hands on himself. It is impossible to intimated that some money (ev\oyia, 
 extract the truth from these state- a douceur) had been left to them by 
 ments ; but Schlosser and Finlay may the Emperor, if they would receive him 
 be right in supposing that John was as orthodox. Simeon cried, "To per- 
 really wounded by soldiers, and that dition with him and his money," but 
 his enemies invented the fiction of finally yielded (244-246). This work 
 self-inflicted wounds. In any case, so characteristically represents Simeon 
 far as I can read through the tradition, as playing a prominent role in the 
 there is no good ground for Uspenski's whole business, as disputing with 
 conclusion (op. cit. 39) that " the pro- John in the presence of Theodora and 
 cess against John was prior to the Michael, and as influential in the 
 Council." This view (based on Cont. election of Methodius. It is also 
 Th.}, also held by Hergenrbther (i. stated that he was appointed Synkellos 
 294) and Finlay (ii. 163), is opposed to of the Patriarch (vev^an rijs Airyowrri;*, 
 the other older sources (besides those 250). On the other hand the bio- 
 cited above) : Vita Meth. (1253) and grapher of Michael, synkellos of 
 Vita Ignatii (221) ; cp. Hirsch, 211. Jerusalem, claims that he was made 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 152-153. One way of Synkellos (Vit. Mich. Sync. 250). 
 mitigating the guilt of Theophilus
 
 SECT, iv RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP 14d 
 
 last imperial iconoclast. It seems significant that the monks 
 of Studion took no prominent part in the orthodox reform, 
 though they afterwards sought to gain credit for having 
 indirectly promoted it by instigating Manuel the Magister. 1 
 We shall hardly do them wrong if we venture to read between 
 the lines, and assume that, while they refrained from open 
 opposition, they disapproved of the methods by which the 
 welcome change was manoeuvred. 
 
 But the flagrant fact that the guilty iconoclast, who had 
 destroyed icons and persecuted their votaries, was excepted 
 from condemnation by the synod which abolished his heresy, 
 stimulated the mythopoeic fancy of monks, who invented divers 
 vain tales to account for this inexplicable leniency. 2 The story 
 of Theodora's personal assurances to the synod belongs to this 
 class of invention. It was also related that she dreamed that 
 her husband was led in chains before a great man who sat on 
 a throne in front of an icon of Christ, and that this judge, 
 when she fell weeping and praying at his feet, ordered Theo- 
 philus to be unbound by the angels who guarded him, for the 
 sake of her faith. 3 According to another myth, the divine pardon 
 of the culprit was confirmed by a miracle. Methodius wrote 
 down the names of all the Imperial heretics, including Theo- 
 philus, in a book which he deposited on an altar. Waking up 
 from a dream in which an angel announced to him that pardon 
 had been granted, he took the book from the holy table, and 
 discovered that where the name of Theophilus had stood, there 
 was a blank space. 4 
 
 Of one thing we may be certain : the Emperor did not 
 repent. The suggestion of a death-bed repentance 5 was a 
 falsification of fact, probably circulated deliberately in order 
 to save his memory, and readily believed because it was 
 edifying. It helped to smooth the way in a difficult situation, 
 by justifying in popular opinion the course of expediency or 
 " economy," which the Church adopted at the dictation of 
 Theodora. 
 
 After the Council had completed its work, the triumph of 
 
 1 See above, p. 145, n. 4. those suspicious phenomena which, 
 
 2 Cp. Uspenski, op. tit. 47 sqq. even when there is no strong interest 
 
 3 Narr. de Theophili absol. 32 sq. for alleging it, cannot be accepted 
 
 4 Ibid. without exceptionally good evidence 
 
 5 A death-bed repentance is one of at first hand.
 
 150 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 CHAP. IV 
 
 orthodoxy was celebrated by a solemn festival service in St. 
 Sophia, on the first Sunday in Lent (March 11, A.D. 843). 
 The monks from all the surrounding monasteries, and perhaps 
 even hermits from the cells of Athos, nocked into the city, 1 
 and we may be sure that sacred icons were hastily hung in 
 the places from which others had been torn in all the churches 
 of the capital. 2 A nocturnal thanksgiving was held in the 
 church of the Virgin in Blachernae, and on Sunday morning 
 the Empress, with the child Emperor, the Patriarch and clergy, 
 and all the ministers and senators, bearing crosses and icons 
 and candles in their hands, devoutly proceeded to St. Sophia. 3 
 
 1 Gen. 82 mentions Olympus, Ida, 
 Athos, and even rb /card Kvfuvai> 
 ffvu'irX^pufJi.a, monks from Mt. Kyminas 
 in Mysia. This passage is important 
 as a chronological indication for the 
 beginnings of the religious settlements 
 on Mount Athos, which are described 
 in K. Lake's The Early Days of 
 Monasticism on Mount Athos, 1909. 
 He seems to have overlooked this 
 passage. As he points out, there were 
 three stages in the development (1) 
 the hermit period ; (2) the loose organ- 
 izations of the hermits in lauras ; (3) 
 the strict organization in monasteries. 
 In A.D. 843 we are in the first period, 
 and the first hermit of whom we know 
 is Peter, whose Life by a younger con- 
 temporary, Nicolaus, has been printed 
 by Lake. Peter had been a soldier in 
 the Scholae, and was carried captive 
 to Samarra (therefore after A.D. 836, 
 see below, p. 238) by the Saracens, 
 possibly in Mutasim's expedition of 
 A.D. 838 ; having escaped, he went to 
 Rome to be tonsured, and then to 
 Athos, where he lived fifty years as a 
 hermit. The first laura of which we 
 know seems to have been founded at 
 the very end of the reign of Michael 
 III. (see Lake, p. 44), by Euthymius 
 of Thessalonica, whose Life has been 
 edited from an Athos MS. by L. Petit 
 ( Vie et office de Saint- Euthyme le Jeune, 
 1904). The earliest monastery in the 
 vicinity was the Kolobu, founded by 
 John Kolobos in the reign of Basil I. ; it 
 was not on Mount Athos, but to the 
 north, probably near Erissos (Lake, 
 60 sqq. ), and there were no monasteries 
 on the mountain itself till the coming 
 of Athanasius, the friend of the 
 Emperor Nicephorus II. There was 
 a Mount Kyminas close to Akhyraos 
 
 (George Aero p. i. 27-28. ed.Heisenberg) 
 which corresponds to Balikesri in 
 Mysia, according to Ramsay, Asia 
 Minor, 154, and Tomaschek, Zur his- 
 torischen Topographie von Kleinasien 
 im Mittelalter, 96. But the evidence 
 of the Vita Michaelis Maleini (ed. 
 Petit, 1903) and the Vita Mariae iun. 
 (cited by Petit, p. 61) seem to make it 
 probable that Mount Kyminas of the 
 monks was in eastern Bithynia near 
 Prusias ad Hypion (Uskub ; cp. 
 Anderson, Map), and Petit identifies 
 it with the Dikmen Dagh. 
 
 2 New icons soon adorned the halls 
 of the Palace. The icon of Christ 
 above the throne in the Chrysotriklinos 
 was restored. Facing this, above the 
 entrance, the Virgin was represented, 
 and on either side of her Michael III. 
 and Methodius ; around apostles, 
 martyrs, etc. See Anthol. Pal. i. 106 
 (cp. 107), 11. 14, 15 : 
 
 80ev Ka\ovfjiv \piaTor piK\ivov vov 
 rbv irplv Xa%6vra K\r)ffews xp vff(av ^t j - ov - 
 
 irpbfSpos, 1. 10, is the Patriarch as 
 Ebersolt has seen (Le Grand Palais, 
 82). Coins of Michael and Theodora 
 were issued, with the head of Christ on 
 the reverse. This had been introduced 
 by Justinian II., and did not reappear 
 till now. The type is evidently copied 
 from coins of Justinian. Wroth, xliv. 
 
 3 Narr. de Theoph. absol. 38. An 
 official description of the ceremony, 
 evidently drawn up in the course of 
 Michael's reign (with later additions at 
 the end), is preserved in Constantine, 
 Cer. i. 28. The Patriarch and the 
 clergy kept vigil in the church at 
 Blachernae, and proceeded in the 
 morning to St. Sophia, Sia, TOV Srjfj.o<riov 
 
 (from the church of the
 
 SECT, iv RESTORA TION OF ICON WORSHIP 151 
 
 It was enacted that henceforward the restoration of icons 
 should be commemorated on the same day, and the first 
 Sunday of Lent is still the feast of Orthodoxy in the Greek 
 Church. 
 
 All our evidence for this ecclesiastical revolution comes 
 from the records of those who rejoiced in it ; we are not 
 informed of the tactics of the iconoclastic party, nor is it 
 hinted that they made any serious effort to fight for a doomed 
 cause. We can hardly believe that the Patriarch John was 
 quiescent during the year preceding the Council, and silently 
 awaited the event. But the only tradition of any counter- 
 movement is the anecdote of a scandalous attempt to discredit 
 Methodius after his elevation to the Patriarchate. The icono- 
 clasts, it was said, bribed a young woman to allege publicly 
 that the Patriarch had seduced her. An official inquiry was 
 held, and Methodius proved his innocence, to the satisfaction 
 of a curious and crowded assembly, by a cynical ocular demon- 
 stration that he was physically incapable of the offence with 
 which he was charged. He explained that many years ago, 
 during his sojourn at liome, he had been tormented by the 
 stings of carnal desire, and that in answer to his prayer 
 St. Peter's miraculous touch had withered his body and freed 
 him for ever from the assaults of passion. The woman 
 was compelled to confess that she had been suborned, and 
 the heretics who had invented the lie received the mild 
 punishment of being compelled every year, at the feast of 
 orthodoxy, to join the procession from Blachernae to St. 
 Sophia with torches in their hands, and hear with their own 
 ears anathema pronounced upon them. 1 There was some 
 
 Apostles to the Augusteon, the street mother of Metrophanes, afterwards 
 
 had porticoes ; we know nothing about bishop of Smyrna, who was prominent 
 
 the road from Blachernae to the in the struggle between Photius and 
 
 Apostles). The Emperor went to St. Ignatius. There must have been 
 
 Sophia from the Palace. some link of connexion between her 
 
 1 The story is told by Gen. 83-85, and Methodius. A second motif 
 
 and repeated, with the usual elabora- probably was the impotence of the 
 
 tion, in Cont. Th. 158-160. It was Patriarch. The story had the merit 
 
 unknown to the author of the Vita of insulting the repentant iconoclastic 
 
 Methodii, and his silence is a strong clergy, who, as a condition of retaining 
 
 external argument for rejecting it their posts, were obliged to take part 
 
 entirely. But that there was a motif in the anniversary procession. We 
 
 behind, which we are not in a position cannot put much more faith in the 
 
 to discover, is proved, as Hirsch has anecdote that the ex-Patriarch John, 
 
 pointed out (154), by the fact that who was compelled to retire to a 
 
 Genesios identifies the woman as monastery at Kleidion on the Bos-
 
 152 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, iv 
 
 kernel of truth in this edifying fiction, but it is impossible to 
 disentangle it. 
 
 It would seem that the great majority of the iconoclastic 
 bishops and clergy professed repentance of their error and 
 were allowed to retain their ecclesiastical dignities. Here 
 Methodius, who ^ was a man of moderation and compromise, 
 followed the precedent set by Tarasius at the time of the first 
 restoration of image-worship. 1 But the iconoclastic heresy 
 was by no means immediately extinguished, though it never 
 again caused more than administrative trouble. Some of 
 those who repented lapsed into error, and new names were 
 added, twenty-five years later, 2 to the list of the heretics who 
 were held up to public ignominy on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, 
 and stigmatized as Jews or pagans. 3 
 
 The final installation of icons among the sanctities of the 
 Christian faith, the authoritative addition of icon-worship to 
 the superstitions of the Church, was a triumph for the religious 
 spirit of the Greeks over the doctrine of Eastern heretics 
 whose Christianity had a more Semitic flavour. The struggle 
 had lasted for about a hundred and twenty years, and in its 
 latest stage had been virtually confined to Constantinople. 
 Here the populace seems to have oscillated between the two 
 extreme views, 4 and many of the educated inhabitants probably 
 belonged to that moderate party which approved of images in 
 Churches, but was opposed to their worship. Of the influence 
 of the iconoclastic movement on Byzantine art something will 
 be said in another chapter, but it must be noticed here that 
 in one point it won an abiding victory. In the 'doctrine laid 
 down by the Council no distinction was drawn between 
 sculptured and painted representations ; all icons were legiti- 
 mized. But whereas, before the controversy began, religious 
 art had expressed itself in both forms, after the Council of 
 
 phorus (Simeon, Cont. Georg. 811), Ortakeui, on the European side of the 
 
 ordered a servant to poke out the eyes Bosphorus. 
 
 of an icon in the church of that cloister, l For the policy of Methodius and 
 
 and for this offence received 200 stripes the disapproval which it aroused, see 
 
 by the command of the Empress (Gen. below, p. 182. 
 
 82). Cont. Th. 151 says that he was 2 Condemned by the Council of A.D. 
 
 banished to his suburban house called 869 (Mansi, xvi. 389). 
 
 T& tyi^d (there was another place of 3 eavrovs rrj ruiv'Iovdaiuv Ka2 'EXXT^aii' 
 
 this name near the Forum of Constan- nepldt. /caflvTro/SaXXo/t^cois, Uspenski, 
 
 tine, Cont. Th. 420). Probably Psicha op. cit. 98. "EXX^c is here used for 
 
 was at Kleidion, which is the modern pagan. 
 
 Defterdan Burnu, a little north of 4 Cp. Brehier, 40.
 
 SECT, iv RESTORATION OF ICON WORSHIP 153 
 
 A.D. 843, sculpture was entirely discarded, and icons came to 
 mean pictures and pictures only. This was a silent surrender, 
 never explicitly avowed by the orthodox Church, to the 
 damnable teaching of the iconoclasts ; so that these heretics 
 can claim to have so far influenced public opinion as to 
 induce their victorious adversaries to abandon the cult of 
 graven images. After all, the victory was a compromise.
 
 CHAPTEE V 
 
 MICHAEL III 
 A.D. 842-867 
 
 1. The Regency 
 
 MICHAEL III. reigned for a quarter of a century, but he never 
 governed. During the greater part of his life he was too 
 young ; when he reached a riper age he had neither the 
 capacity nor the desire. His reign falls into two portions. 
 In his minority, the Empress Theodora held the reins, guided 
 by the advice of Theoktistos, the Logothete of the Course, who 
 proved as devoted to her as he had been to her husband. 
 During the later years, when Michael nominally exercised the 
 sovranty himself, the real power and the task of conducting 
 the administration devolved upon her brother Bardas. In 
 the first period, the government seems to have been competent, 
 though we have not sufficient information to estimate it with 
 much confidence ; in the second period it was eminently 
 efficient. 
 
 The Empress Theodora x occupied the same constitutional 
 position which the Empress Irene had occupied in the years 
 following her husband's death. She was not officially the 
 Autocrat, any more than her daughter Thecla, who was 
 associated with her brother and mother in the Imperial 
 dignity ; 2 she only acted provisionally as such on behalf of 
 
 1 At the beginning of the reign cp. above, p. 150, n. 2. 
 
 coins were issued with the head of 2 Ada 42 Mart. Am. 52 (A.D. 845) 
 
 Theodora (despoina) on one side, on the fiaaCKevovros TTJS 'Pufj.aiui> dpxTJs MixctrjX 
 
 other the child-Emperor and his eldest Kal 6eo5u>/3as /cat 6^X77$. Cp. Wroth, 
 
 sister Thecla robed as Augusta. A 431 (PI. xlix. 19) Mt%ar/X QeoSupa Kal 
 
 few years later Michael and Theodora 6^/cXa K 6(eov) /SamXety 'Pu/Mttav on 
 
 appear together on the obverse ; on reverse of silver coins, 
 the reverse is the head of the Saviour, 
 
 154
 
 SECT, i THE REGENCY 155 
 
 her son. The administration was conducted in their joint 
 names ; but she possessed no sovran authority in her own 
 right or independently of him. Her actual authority was 
 formally limited (unlike Irene's) by the two guardians or 
 co-regents whom Theophilus had appointed. To find two 
 men who would work in harmony and could be trusted not 
 to seek power for themselves to the detriment of his son was 
 difficult, and Theophilus seems to have made a judicious 
 choice. But it was almost inevitable that one of the two 
 should win the effective control of affairs and the chief place 
 in the Empress's confidence. It may well be that superior 
 talent and greater political experience rendered Theoktistos 
 a more capable adviser than Manuel, her uncle, who had 
 probably more knowledge of warfare than of administration. 
 Theoktistos presently became the virtual prime minister, 1 and 
 Manuel found it convenient to withdraw from his rooms in 
 the Palace and live in his house near the Cistern of Aspar, 
 though he did not formally retire from his duties and 
 regularly attended in the Palace for the transaction of 
 business. 2 
 
 Her uncle's practical abdication of his right to a voice in 
 the management of the Empire corresponds to the policy 
 which Theodora pursued, under the influence of the Logothete, 
 towards the other members of her own family. Her brother 
 Petronas, who was a competent general and had done useful 
 work for her husband, seems to have been entrusted with no 
 important post and allowed no opportunity of winning dis- 
 tinction under her government ; he proved his military 
 capacity after her fall from power. Her more famous and 
 brilliant brother Bardas was forced to be contented with an 
 inactive life in his suburban house. Theodora had also three 
 sisters, of whom one, Sophia, had married Constantine 
 Babutzikos. Another, Calomaria, was the wife of Arsaber, 
 
 Simeon (Cont. garden, within the Palace. Manuel 
 
 Georg.), 815. converted his house into a monastery, 
 
 2 Gen. 86, where it is explained that the church of which is now the Kefele 
 
 Theoktistos schemed to get rid of mosque, a little to the west of the 
 
 Manuel by a charge of treason, but Chukur Bostan or Cistern of Aspar. 
 
 Manuel anticipated the trouble by a See Paspates, Buf, (j.e\. 304 ; Mil- 
 
 voluntary semi-retirement. Simeon, lingen, Walls, 23 ; Strzygovski, Die 
 
 ib. 816, mentions that Theoktistos byz. Wasserbehalter von Kpel (1893), 
 
 built himself a house with baths and 158.
 
 156 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 a patrician, who was elevated to the higher rank of 
 magister. 1 On his death Calomaria lived in the Palace 
 with her sister, and is said to have worn mean raiment and 
 performed the charitable duty of paying monthly visits to 
 the prisons 2 and distributing blessings and alms to the 
 prisoners. 
 
 Michael was in his seventeenth year when his mother 
 decided to marry him. The customary bride -show was 
 announced throughout the provinces by a proclamation 
 inviting beautiful candidates for the throne to assemble on 
 a certain day in the Imperial Palace. 3 The choice of the 
 Empress fell on Eudocia, the daughter of Dekapolites (A.D. 855). 
 We know nothing of this lady or her family ; she seems to 
 have been a cipher, and her nullity may have recommended 
 her to Theodora. But in any case the haste of the Empress 
 and Theoktistos to provide Michael with a consort at such an 
 early age was prompted by their desire to prevent his union 
 with another lady. For Michael already had a love affair 
 with Eudocia Ingerina, whom Theodora and her minister 
 regarded as an unsuitable spouse. A chronicler tells us that 
 
 1 The text of the passage in Cont. 
 Th. 175 seems perfectly right as it 
 stands, but has been misunderstood 
 both by the later historian Skylitzes 
 (see Cedrenus, ii. 161) and by modern 
 critics. The text is i) 5t KaXo/uapta 
 'Ap<raj3T]p 
 
 TTJS wfpbs roO ytieTd. rat/ret rbv irarpi- 
 apxiKbv Qpbvov avriXapo/jievov <J>amou 
 ddf\(pf. The translation is : " Calo- 
 maria married Arsaber, the brother of 
 Irene, who was the mother of Photius, 
 afterwards Patriarch." There is no 
 
 Tarasius. 
 
 difficulty about this. But because 
 Theodora had three sisters, it was 
 assumed that all three were married, 
 and that the husbands of all three are 
 mentioned. Irene was the name of 
 the third sister, and Skylitzes says 
 that she (&lp-l]vrj 5) married Sergius, 
 the brother of Photius. Hirsch 
 criticizes the passage on the same 
 assumption (215). The relationship 
 of Photius to Theodora and the text 
 of Cont. Th. will be made clear by a 
 diagram. 
 
 Marines Theoktiste. 
 
 Sergius = Irene. 
 
 Arsaber = Calomaria. Theodora. Irene. 
 
 Photius. Tarasius. Sergius. Stephen. Bardas. 
 
 2 The Chalke and the Numera in 
 the Palace, and the Praetorium in the 
 town. She was accompanied by the 
 Count of the Walls, the Domestic of 
 the Numeri, or the Prefect of the 
 City. Cont. Th. ib. 
 
 3 The evidence for this bride-show 
 is in the Vit. Irenes, 603-604. Irene, 
 a Cappadocian lady, was one of the 
 competitors. Her sister- apparently 
 also a candidate afterwards married 
 Bardas.
 
 SECT, i THE REGENCY 157 
 
 they disliked her intensely " on account of her impudence " ; l 
 which means that she was a woman of some spirit, and they 
 feared her as a rival influence. The young sovran was obliged 
 to yield and marry the wife who was not of his own choice, 
 but if he was separated from the woman he loved, it was 
 only for a short time. Eudocia Ingerina did not disdain to 
 be his mistress, and his attachment to her seems to have 
 lasted till his death. 
 
 But the power of Theodora and her favourite minister 
 was doomed, and the blow was struck by a member of her 
 own family (A.D. 856, January to March). 2 Michael had 
 reached an age when he began to chafe under the authority 
 of his mother, whose discipline had probably been strict:; and 
 his uncle Bardas, who was ambitious and conscious of his own 
 talents for government, divined that it would now be possible 
 to undermine her position and win his nephew's confidence. 
 The most difficult part of his enterprise was to remove 
 Theoktistos, but he had friends among the ministers who 
 were in close attendance on the Emperor. The Parakoe- 
 momenos or chief chamberlain, Damianos (a man of Slavonic 
 race), persuaded Michael to summon his uncle to the Palace, 
 and their wily tongues convinced the boy that his mother 
 intended to depose him, with the assistance of Theoktistos, or 
 at all events and this was no more than the truth that he 
 would have no power so long as Theodora and Theoktistos 
 co-operated. 3 Michael was brought to acquiesce in the view 
 that it was necessary to suppress the too powerful minister, 
 and violence was the only method. Theophanes, the chief of 
 the private wardrobe, joined the conspiracy, and Bardas also 
 won over his sister Calomaria. 4 Some generals, who had 
 
 1 Simeon (Cont. Georg.\ 816, the from the official description in Con- 
 source for Michael's marriage. The stantine, Cer. 213. 
 probable date, A.D. 855, is inferred 2 For date see Appendix VII. 
 from the fact that the marriage pre- 3 So Simeon (Cont. Georg.), 821. Ac- 
 ceded the death of Theoktistos, com- cording to Gen. 87, Bardas suggested 
 bined with Michael's age. The bridal to Michael that Theodora intended 
 ceremony of an Emperor was performed to marry herself, or to find a husband 
 in the church of St. Stephen in the for one of her daughters, and depose 
 Palace of Daphne. The chronicler (ib. ) Michael, with the aid of Theoktistos. 
 notes that the bridal chamber (rb 4 The part played by Calomaria is 
 iraffTov) was in the palace of Magnaura, recorded by Genesios, whose informa- 
 and the marriage feast, at which the tion was doubtless derived from his 
 senators were present, was held in the ancestor Constantino the Armenian, 
 hall of the Nineteen Couches. This who was an eye-witness of the murder. 
 was the regular habit, as we learn For Theophanes of Farghana see p. 238.
 
 158 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP. 
 
 been deposed from their commands and owed a grudge to 
 Theoktistos, 1 were engaged to lend active assistance. It was 
 arranged that Bardas should station himself in the Lausiakos, 
 and there attack the Logothete, whose duties frequently obliged 
 him to pass through that hall in order to reach the apart- 
 ments of the Empress. 2 Calomaria concealed herself in an 
 upper room, where, through a hole, perhaps constructed on 
 purpose, 3 she commanded a view of the Lausiakos, and could, 
 by signalling from a window, inform the Emperor as soon as 
 Bardas sprang upon his victim. 
 
 Theoktistos had obtained at the secretarial office 4 the 
 reports which he had to submit to the Empress, and as he 
 passed through the Lausiakos he observed with displeasure 
 Bardas seated at his ease, as if he had a full right to be there. 
 Muttering that he would persuade Theodora to expel him from 
 the Palace, he proceeded on his way, but in the Horologion, at 
 the entrance of the Chrysotriklinos, he was stopped by the 
 Emperor and Damianos. Michael, asserting his authority 
 perhaps for the first time, angrily ordered him to read the 
 reports to himself and not to his mother. As the Logothete 
 was retracing his steps in a downcast mood, Bardas sprang 
 forward and smote him. The ex-generals hastened to assist, 
 and Theoktistos drew his sword. 5 The Emperor, on receiving 
 a signal from his aunt, hurried to the scene, 6 and by his orders 
 
 1 A grudge : this is a fair inference B Gen. 88, Bardas threw Theoktistos 
 from the fact that they were selected down (/caraTi-pr/pi'las), KO.I evdtws eiridlSo- 
 for the purpose. TCU adi> KoiAecJ) (nradi) fird/juos, fjv Trpds 
 
 2 The apartments of Theodora seem diroTpoirr]i> evavrluv t-ytinvuffev. Simeon, 
 to have been in the Chrysotriklinos. ib. 822, says that Bardas began to 
 The eastern door of the Lausiakos strike him on the cheek and pull his 
 faced the Horologion which was the hair ; and Maniakes, the Drungary of 
 portal of the Chrysotriklinos. the Watch, cried, "Do not strike the 
 
 3 Gen. 87 41- vireprtpov Terpri/j.tvov Logothete." Maniakes was therefore 
 otKlffKov dibTTTfipav Ka.TaffTri(ravTes. We the surname of Constantino the 
 may imagine this room to have been Armenian. 
 
 in the Eidikon, to which stairs led up 6 Gen. 88 Karaff^fjialverai /3o<rt\ei)s 
 
 from the Lausiakos. The Eidikon, irpbs i-t\ev<riv Tr\v dia xaXK^Xdrwc 
 
 which was over the Thermastra, ad- TTV\UI> Tt/3e/>toi; rov fii/a/cros, ical <rrds 
 
 joined the Lausiakos on the north side. ^/ceure KT\. This gate, not mentioned 
 
 4 ret AffrjKpi]Tia, Simeon, ib. 821. elsewhere so far as I know, was prob- 
 The accounts of the murder in this ably a door of the Chrysotriklinos 
 chronicle and in Genesios are inde- palace, which, we know, Tiberius II. 
 pendent and supplement each other. improved. If Calomaria was, as I 
 Simeon gives more details before the suppose, in the Eidikon building, 
 assault of Bardas, Genesios a fuller de- she could have signalled from a win- 
 scription of the murder and the part dow on its eastern side to the Chryso- 
 played by his own grandfather. triklinos.
 
 SECT, i THE REGENCY 159 
 
 Theoktistos was seized and dragged to the Skyla. 1 It would 
 seein that Bardas did not contemplate murder, but intended to 
 remove the Logothete to a place of banishment. 2 ' But the 
 Emperor, advised by others, probably by Damianos, that nothing 
 short of his death would serve, called upon the foreign Guards 
 (the Hetairoi) to slay Theoktistos. Meanwhile the Empress 
 had heard from the Papias of the Palace that the Logothete's 
 life was in danger, and she instantly rushed to the scene to 
 save her friend. But she was scared back to her apartments 
 by one of the conspirators, a member of the family of Melissenos, 
 who cried in a voice of thunder, " Go back, for this is the day 
 of strikers." s The Guards, who were stationed in the adjoining 
 Hall of Justinian, rushed in ; 4 one of them dragged the victim 
 from the chair under which he had crawled and stabbed him 
 in the belly (A.D. 856). 
 
 Of the two offices which Theoktistos had held, the less 
 onerous, that of Chartulary of the Kanikleion, 5 was conferred on 
 Bardas, while his son-in-law Symbatios whose name shows 
 his Armenian lineage was appointed Logothete of the Course. 6 
 The reign of Theodora was now over. She had held the reins 
 of power for fourteen years, and she was unwilling to surrender 
 them. She was not an unscrupulous woman like Irene, she 
 did not aspire to be Autocrat in her own right or set aside her 
 son ; but well knowing her son's incapacity she had doubtless 
 looked forward to keeping him in perpetual tutelage and 
 retaining all the serious business of government in her own 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 170, whose narrative family see above, p. 25, n. 3. 
 
 varies in particulars, represents Theo- 4 Gen. (ib.) states that Constantine, 
 
 ktistos as making an attempt to flee the Drungary of the Watch, tried to 
 
 to the Hippodrome through the Asek- save Theoktistos by holding the doors 
 
 reteia, "for at the time the office of between the Skyla and the Triklinos 
 
 the Asekretai was there." The secre- of Justinian, hoping that he would be 
 
 tarial offices were probably in the same condemned to banishment before the 
 
 building as the Eidikon (cp. Ebersolt, guards appeared. But Michael called 
 
 Le Grand Palais, 124), and were them, and Constantine was obliged 
 
 reached through a door on the north unwillingly to give way. It is clear 
 
 side of the Lausiakos. Theoktistos from the narrative that Theoktistos 
 
 was doubtless returning thither. was not taken through the Triklinos 
 
 2 Gen. 89. of Justinian ; therefore he must have 
 
 3 This is told by Gen. 88, and prob- been dragged through a door on the 
 ably comes from his grandfather. The north side of the Lausiakos, into the 
 identification of the ex-general who Thermastra, and thence to the Skyla 
 scared the Empress as a Melissenos is by way of the Hippodrome. 
 
 in favour of the incident. Simeon 5 Cont. Th. 171. 
 
 does not mention this, but states that 6 This seems probable, though 
 
 the Papias informed Theodora (Cont. Symbatios is not mentioned till some 
 
 Georg. 822). For the Melissenos years later.
 
 160 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 hands. The murder of Theoktistos cut her to the heart, and 
 though the Emperor endeavoured to pacify and conciliate her, 
 she remained unrelenting in her bitterness. 1 
 
 The Senate was convoked, and that body applauded the 
 announcement that Michael would henceforward govern alone in 
 his own name. 2 Bardas was elevated to the rank of magister 
 and was appointed Domestic of the Schools. It would appear 
 that for nearly two years Theodora resided in the Palace, 
 powerless but unforgiving, and perhaps waiting for a favourable 
 opportunity to compass the downfall of her brother. It is 
 said that her son plagued her, trying perhaps to drive her into 
 voluntary retirement. At last, whether his mother's proximity 
 became intolerable, or she involved herself in intrigues against 
 Bardas, 3 it was decided that she should not only be expelled 
 from the Palace but consigned to a nunnery. The Patriarch 
 Ignatius, who owed his appointment to her, was commanded 
 to tonsure her along with her daughters, but he absolutely 
 declined on the sufficient ground that they were unwilling to 
 take the monastic vow. The hair of their heads was shorn by 
 other hands, and they were all immured in the monastery of 
 Karianos (autumn A.D. 858). 
 
 It was probably soon afterwards that the Empress, thirsting 
 
 1 Simeon (Cont. Georg.), 822-823. inconsistent with Nicetas, only the 
 Cont. Th. 171 describes her lamenta- author has confused the monastery with 
 tion and anger as that of a tragedy the palace of Karianos (and has been 
 queen. followed in this by Finlay, ii. 173, 
 
 2 Simeon (ib.) pfoos avTOKparopfl and Hergenrbther, i. 348). The palace 
 (the technical phrase). of Karianos was within the precincts 
 
 3 For the chronology see Appendix of the Great Palace (see above, p. 132), 
 VII. The sources here causeidifficulty ; and as Theophilus built it for his 
 I have followed Nicetas ( Vit. Ign. 225), daughters, it is very probable that they 
 who says : rrjv /j-yrtpa Kal rots ci5eX0ds lived there before they were expelled. 
 Karayaytiv tv rots Kapiavov \eyofj.tt>ois But they could not be ' ' driven from 
 a.weve'xOrlvai Kf\evei Kal Kaprjvai. Ac- the Palace to the palace of Karianos." 
 cording to Sim eon (ib.) the three eldest TO. KapLavov in Nicetas and Simeon is 
 sisters were expelled from the palace obviously the Convent of Karianos, 
 and placed 's TO, Kapiavov. Pulcheria, which we can, I think, approximately 
 as her mother's favourite, was sent to locate from the data in the lldrpta K?rX. 
 the convent of Gastria ; Theodora re- 241. Here buildings along the Golden 
 mained in the palace, but was after- Horn, from east to west, are described, 
 wards also sent to Gastria. Gen. 90 thus : (1) Churches of SS. Isaiah and 
 says simply that they were all ex- Laurentios, south of the Gate Jubali 
 pelled to Gastria. Cont. Th. 174 Kapussi ; (2) house of Dexiokrates, 
 states that they were tonsured by evidently near the gate of Dexiokrates 
 Petronas and sent "to the palace of =Aya Kapu; (3) TCI ~K.apia.vov ; (4) 
 Karianos," but after Theodora's death Church of Blachernae. It follows that 
 the daughters were confined in Gastria the Karianos was in the region between 
 and their mother's corpse was taken Aya Kapu and Blachernae. For this 
 thither. This last account is not region cp. van Millingen, Walls, c. xiv.
 
 SECT, i THE REGENCY 161 
 
 for revenge if she did not hope to regain power, entered into a 
 plot against her brother's life. The Imperial Protostrator was 
 the chief of the conspirators, who planned to kill Bardas as 
 he was returning to the Palace from his suburban house on 
 the Golden Horn. But the design was discovered, and the 
 conspirators were beheaded in the Hippodrome. 1 
 
 2. Bardas and Basil the Macedonian. 
 
 Bardas was soon raised to the high dignity of Curopalates? 
 which was only occasionally conferred on a near relative of the 
 Emperor and gave its recipient, in case the sovran died childless, 
 a certain claim to the succession. His position was at the 
 same time strengthened by the appointments of his two sons to 
 important military posts. The Domesticate of the Schools, 
 which he vacated, was given to Antigonus who was only a boy, 3 
 while an elder son was invested with the command of several 
 western Themes which were exceptionally united. 4 But for 
 Bardas the office of Curopalates was only a step to the higher 
 dignity of Caesar, which designated him more clearly as the 
 future colleague or successor of his nephew, whose marriage 
 had been fruitless. He was created Caesar on the Sunday 
 after Easter in April A.D. 862. 5 
 
 The government of the Empire was in the hands of Bardas 
 for ten years, and the reluctant admissions of hostile chroniclers 6 
 show that he was eminently fitted to occupy the throne. A 
 
 1 The source is Simeon, ib., and we the command almost immediately, as 
 can hardly hesitate to accept his Petronas died shortly after. Vogt 
 statement as to the implication of (Basile I er ) is wrong in supposing that 
 Theodora, to whom he was well dis- Petronas succeeded Bardas in this 
 posed. He speaks of her part in an post. 
 
 apologetic tone, as if she were not 4 Simeon, ib. The wife of this son 
 
 responsible for her acts : ddvptg, was her father-in-law's mistress. For 
 
 (j.eTeupt<rdf?<ra rbv vovv Kal virb fKir\r/- other examples of such extended com- 
 
 fews d<paipfdeicra Kal rb (f>povfiv, dvdia mands see pp. 10, 222. 
 
 eavrfjs KaracrKevdfri. /3ov\T)v Kara Edpda 5 The year is given by Gen. 97, the 
 
 povXevo/dvri. day by Simeon, ib., 824. No known 
 
 2 It appears from Cont. Th. 176, facts are incompatible with this date 
 that he was already Curopalates when (which Hirsch accepts), and we must 
 he took part in the expedition against decisively reject the hypotheses of 
 Samosata, the date of which we other- Aristarchos (A.D. 860), Vogt (A.D. 865 
 wise know to be 859 (see below, p. or 866), and others. 
 
 279). 6 The concession of Nicetas (Vit. 
 
 3 Simeon (Cont. Georg.) 828. Ac- lyn. 224) is, among others, especially 
 cording to Cont. Th. 180, Petronas significant : a-n-ovdalov Kal Spaa-T-rtpiov 
 succeeded him in 863 as Domestic ; irepl rj]v T>? VO\ITIKU>V 
 
 but if this is true, he was restored to /j-eraxftpurtv. 
 
 M
 
 162 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 brilliant success won (A.D. 863) against the Saracens, and the 
 conversion of Bulgaria, enhanced the prestige of the Empire 
 abroad ; he committed the care of the Church to the most 
 brilliant Patriarch who ever occupied the ecclesiastical throne 
 of Constantinople ; he followed the example of Theophilus in 
 his personal attention to the administration of justice ; l and he 
 devoted himself especially to the improvement of education and 
 the advancement of learning. The military and diplomatic 
 transactions of this fortunate decade, its importance for the 
 ecclesiastical independence of the Eastern Empire, and its 
 significance in the history of culture, are dealt with in other 
 chapters. 
 
 Michael himself was content to leave the management of 
 the state in his uncle's capable hands. He occasionally took 
 part in military expeditions, more for the sake of occupation, 
 we may suspect, than from a sense of duty. He was a man of 
 pleasure, he only cared for amusement, he had neither the 
 brains nor the taste for administration. His passion for horse- 
 races reminds us of Nero and Commodus ; he used himself to 
 drive a chariot in the private hippodrome of the Palace of 
 St. Mamas. 2 His frivolity and extravagance, his impiety and 
 scurrility, are held up to derision and execration by an imperial 
 writer who was probably his own grandson but was bitterly 
 hostile to his memory. 
 
 Little confidence can be placed in the anecdotes related by 
 the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetos and his literary 
 satellites, but there is no doubt that they exhibit, in however 
 exaggerated a shape, the character and reputation of Michael. 
 We may not be prepared, for instance, to believe that the fire- 
 signals of Asia Minor were discontinued, because on one 
 occasion he was interrupted in the hippodrome by an in- 
 opportune message ; 3 but the motive of the story reflects his 
 genuine impatience of public business. The most famous or 
 infamous performance of Michael was his travesty of the 
 mysteries and ministers of the Church. One of his coarse 
 boon-companions, a buffoon known as the " Pig," was arrayed 
 
 1 Cp. Cont. Th. 193. confined to invited members of the 
 
 2 Gen. 112, Cont. Th. 197. It does Court. High officials took part in 
 not appear that he ever drove in the these amateur performances (Cont. Th. 
 Great Hippodrome himself. At St. 198). 
 
 Mamas the spectacle would be private 3 Cont. Th. 197.
 
 SECT, ii BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 163 
 
 as Patriarch, while the Emperor and eleven others dressed 
 themselves in episcopal garments, as twelve prominent bishops. 
 With citherns, which they hid in the folds of their robes and 
 secretly sounded, they intoned the liturgy. They enacted the 
 solemn offices of consecrating and deposing bishops, and it 
 was even rumoured that they were not ashamed to profane the 
 Eucharist, using mustard and vinegar instead of the holy 
 elements. 1 A story was current that one day the mock 
 Patriarch riding on an ass, with his execrable cortege, came 
 face to face with the true Patriarch Ignatius, who was con- 
 ducting a religious procession to a suburban church. The 
 profane satyrs raised their hoods, loudly struck their in- 
 struments, and with lewd songs disturbed the solemn hymns 
 of the pious procession. But this was only a sensational 
 anecdote, for we have reason to believe that Michael did not 
 begin to practise these mummeries till after the deposition of 
 Ignatius. 2 Mocking at the ecclesiastical schism, he is said to 
 have jested " Theophilus (the Pig) is my Patriarch, Photius 
 is the Patriarch of the Caesar, Ignatius of the Christians." 3 
 How far mummeries of this kind shocked public opinion in 
 Constantinople it is difficult to conjecture. 
 
 1 These mummeries are described by this connexion, I may refer to the curi- 
 
 Constantine Porph. (Cont. Th. 244 ous (thirteenth or fourteenth century) 
 
 sqq.). They are not referred to by composition called the Mass of the 
 
 Simeon, but are mentioned in general Spanos (i.e. Beardless), a parody of the 
 
 terms by Nicetas (Vit. Ignatii, 246, rites of the Church, and doubtless 
 
 where the proper name of Gryllos= connected with Satanic worship. See 
 
 the Pig is given as Theophilus), and Krumbacher, G.B.L. 809 sqq. ; A. 
 
 are attested by the 16th Canon of the Heisenberg, in B.Z. xii. 361. 
 
 Council of 869-870, which describes and 2 The anecdote is told in Cont. Th. 
 
 condemns them (Mansi, xvi. 169). In 244 (Vif-a Bos.), but not in Vit. Ign. 
 
 this canon Michael himself is not said where (loc. cit.) the profanities are re- 
 
 to have participated in the parodies, corded as happening after the fall of 
 
 which are attributed to "laymen of Ignatius, and Photius is blamed for 
 
 senatorial rank under the late Em- not protesting and putting a stop to 
 
 peror." These men, arranging their them. The author also reports (p. 
 
 hair so as to imitate the tonsure, and 247) that Simeon, a Cretan bishop 
 
 arrayed in sacerdotal robes, with epis- (who had left the island on account 
 
 copal cloaks, used to travesty the of the Saracen invasion), remonstrated 
 
 ceremonies of electing, consecrating, with Michael, and begged him to 
 
 and deposing bishops ; one of them discontinue his sacrilegious conduct, 
 
 used to play the Patriarch. The canon The Emperor knocked his teeth out 
 
 obviously insinuates that Photius had and had him severely ;beaten for his 
 
 not done his duty in allowing such temerity. In the Madrid Skylitzes 
 
 profanities to go on. But it does there is a representation of the Patri- 
 
 not speak of the profanation of the arch and the Synkellos standing in the 
 
 Eucharist, nor is this mentioned in portico of a church, outside which are 
 
 Vit. Ign. I therefore think this must Gryllos and the mummers with musi- 
 
 be regarded as an invention an almost cal instruments (Beylie, op. cit. 91). 
 
 inevitable addition to the scandal. In 3 Vit. Ign. 246.
 
 164 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 The Imperial pleasures were costly, and Michael's criminal 
 generosity to his worthless companions dissipated large treasures. 
 He made it a practice to stand sponsor at the baptisms of 
 children of his jockeys, and on such occasions he would bestow 
 upon the father a present varying from 1296 to 2160, 
 occasionally even as much as 4320 sums which then re- 
 presented a considerably higher value than to-day. 1 Not only 
 was no saving effected during the eleven years in which he 
 was master of the Empire, but he wasted the funds which had 
 been saved by his father and by his mother, and towards the 
 end of his reign he was in such straits for ready money that 
 he laid hands upon some of the famous works of art with 
 which Theophilus had adorned the Palace. The golden plane- 
 tree, in which the mechanical birds twittered, the two golden 
 lions, the two griffins hammered out of solid gold, and the 
 organ of solid gold, all weighing not less than 200 pounds, 
 were melted down; but before they were minted, Michael 
 perished. 2 It seems probable that it was in the last year or 
 two of his reign that his extravagance became excessive and 
 ruinous. For there is no sign that the Empire was in financial 
 difficulties during the government of Bardas, who seems to 
 have been able to restrain his nephew within certain bounds. 
 
 The weak point of the position of the Caesar lay in the 
 circumstance that he had to share his influence over the 
 Emperor with boon companions ; for there was always the 
 danger that a wily schemer, concealing ambition under the 
 mask of frivolity, might successfully use the opportunities of 
 intimate intercourse to discredit him and undermine his power. 
 The fact that he retained for ten years the unshaken, almost 
 childish confidence of his nephew is a striking proof of his 
 
 1 The sums mentioned are 30, 40, (ravTa* refers to o-roXds). Hirsch did 
 50, 100 litrai, Cont. Th. 172. See not observe this distinction, and 
 further, Chapter VII. p. 220. thought that the contradiction was 
 
 2 There is an inconsistency here complete. Basil rescued the robes, 
 between the Vita Basilii and the Vita but coined the melted gold, and called 
 Michaelis in Cont. Th., but it is not the nomisma of this coinage a senzdton. 
 so serious as Hirsch thinks (244). The name, I suppose, was given be- 
 According to the former source (257) cause the lions, plane-tree, etc., were 
 Michael melted down the plane-tree, iv T$ fftvrfo (Constantino, Cer. 569). 
 lions, etc., and the gold on the Imperial The Vita Bas. was a source of the 
 and senatorial state-robes ; according Vita Mich. ; here the author of the 
 to the latter (173) the plane-tree, etc., latter seems to correct an inaccuracy 
 were melted, but the robes were found of Constantino VII., the author of the 
 still untouched on Michael's death former.
 
 SECT, ii BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 165 
 
 talent and tact ; and when at last he was overthrown, his 
 supplanter was one of the two ablest men who arose in the 
 Eastern Empire during the ninth century. 
 
 Basil the Macedonian, who now comes on the stage, is the 
 typical adventurer who rises from the lowliest circumstances 
 to the highest fortune. His career, wonderful in itself, was 
 made still more wonderful by mythopoeic fancy, which con- 
 verted the able and unscrupulous upstart into a hero guided 
 by Heaven. He was born about A.D. 812, 1 of poor Armenian 
 parents, whose family had settled in the neighbourhood of 
 Hadrianople. His Armenian descent is established beyond 
 doubt, 2 and the legend that he was a Slav has no better a 
 foundation than the fiction which claimed Slavonic parentage 
 for the Emperor Justinian. 3 But his family was obscure ; and 
 the illustrious lineage which his descendants claimed, connect- 
 ing him through his grandfather with the Arsacids and by his 
 grandmotner with Constantine the Great and Alexander, was 
 an audacious and ingenious invention of the Patriarch Photius. 4 
 In his babyhood he was carried into captivity, along with his 
 parents, by the Bulgarian Krum, and he spent his youth in the 
 region beyond the Danube which was known as " Macedonia." 5 
 
 1 In the reign [of Michael I. (811- that Basil's father would beget a son 
 813), Cont. Georg. 817. Pankalo was named Beklas, whose description un- 
 his mother's name (Constantine, Cer. mistakably pointed to Basil, and who 
 648). would have a long and happy reign. 
 
 2 It is now generally admitted : the Photius gave this document to a con- 
 most decisive evidence is a passage in federate, one of the palace clergy, who 
 the Vita Euthymii, ed. de Boor, p. 2. deposited it in the palace library and 
 The whole question has recently been then seized an opportunity of showing 
 discussed fully by Vasil'ev (Prois- it to the Emperor as an ancient book 
 khozhdenie, etc., see Bibliography). full of secret lore, which no one but 
 
 3 The sole foundation of the Slavonic Photius could interpret. Photius was 
 theory is the fact that Arabic writers summoned. His explanation easily 
 designate him as a Slav. But this is imposed on the Emperor's simplicity 
 explained by the Arabic view that and vanity. How could Basil resist 
 Macedonia was Slavonic; "Slav" is the interpretation of Beklas as a 
 simply the equivalent of "Mace- mysterious acrostich containing the 
 donian " (cp. Vasil'ev, op. cit. 15). initial letters of the name of himself, 
 
 4 Vita Ignatii, 283. This case of his wife, and his four sons (B-asil, 
 a fictitious genealogy is interesting. E-udocia, K-onstantine, L-eo, A-lex- 
 Photius after his deposition cast about ander, S-tephen) ? The genealogy was 
 for ways of ingratiating himself with accepted by Basil's house ; it is re- 
 Basil, and conceived the idea of pro- corded in Gen. and Cont. Th. 
 viding this son of nobody with an 5 See below, p. 370. When Simeon 
 illustrious lineage. He invented a speaks of Hadrianople as in Macedonia, 
 line of descendants from Tiridates, it is only to explain Basil's designation 
 king of Armenia, stopping at Basil's as the Macedonian. It is in passages 
 father. He wrote this out in uncial where Basil is in question that the 
 characters (ypd/jL/jiacriv 'AXefai/Spt'j'ois) on geographical term Macedonia was ex- 
 old parchment, and added a prophecy tended to include Thrace.
 
 166 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 We may conjecture that he derived his designation as Basil 
 the Macedonian from his long sojourn in this district, for 
 " Macedonian " can hardly refer to his birthplace, which was 
 in Thrace. He was twenty-five years old when the captives 
 succeeded (as is related in another Chapter *) in escaping from 
 the power of the Bulgarians and returning to their homes. 
 Basil obtained some small post in the service of a strategos, 2 
 but seeing no hope of rising in the provinces he decided to 
 seek his fortune in Constantinople. His arrival in the city 
 has been wrought by the storyteller into the typical form of 
 romance. On a Sunday, near the hour of sunset, he reached 
 the Golden Gate, a poor unknown adventurer, with staff and 
 scrip, and he lay down to sleep in the vestibule of the adjacent 
 church of St. Diomede. 3 During the night, Nicolas, who was 
 in charge of the church, was awakened by a mysterious voice, 
 saying, "Arise and bring the Basileus into the sanctuary." 
 He got up and looking out saw nothing but a poor man asleep. 
 He lay down again, and the same thing was repeated. The 
 third time, he was poked in the side by a sword and the voice 
 said, " Go out and bring in the man you see lying outside the 
 gate." He obeyed, and on the morrow he took Basil to the bath, 
 gave him a change of garments, and adopted him as a brother. 4 
 So much is probable that Basil found shelter in St. 
 Diomede, and that through Nicolas he was enabled to place 
 his foot on the first rung of the ladder of fortune. The 
 monk had a brother who was a physician in the service of 
 Theophilus Paideuomenos, or, as he was usually called, 
 Theophilitzes, a rich courtier and a relative of the Empress 
 Theodora. The physician, who saw Basil at St. Diomede, and 
 admired his enormous physical strength, recommended him to 
 
 1 See p. 371. with a portion of the name of Diomed 
 
 2 Tzantzes, Strat. of the Theme of were employed." Simeon rightly de- 
 Macedonia, Simeon, ib. 819. signates Nicolas as caretaker, irpocr- 
 
 3 A parochial church situated be- novdpios ( = Trapa.fj.oi'dpios, sexton), and 
 tween the Golden Gate and the sea, carefully explains that the church was 
 
 chi 
 
 at Yedikule. Some remains have then parochial (xa^oXtKTj). Genesios 
 
 been found which are supposed to miscalls him KaOriyoti/jLevos. St. Diomede 
 
 mark its site. See van Millingen, was converted into a monastery, almost 
 
 Walls, 265: "The excavations made certainly by Basil, but as in many 
 
 in laying out the public garden beside other cases the foundation was attri- 
 
 the city walls west of the Gas Works at buted to Constantino (cp. Pargoire, Rev. 
 
 Yedi Koule, brought to light sub- des questions historiques, Ixv. 73 sqq.). 
 
 structures of an ancient edifice, in the 4 tirolt]fffv dSe^oiroLrjcnv, Simeon, ib. 
 
 construction of which bricks stamped 820. Simeon tells the whole story 
 
 with the monogram of Basil I. and more dramatically than Genesios.
 
 SECT, ii BARDAS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 167 
 
 his employer, who hired him as a groom. 1 Basil gained the 
 favour of Theophilitzes, who was struck by the unusual size 
 of his head ; 2 and when his master was sent on a special 
 mission to the Peloponnesus, Basil accompanied him. 3 Here 
 he met with a singular stroke of good fortune. At Patrae he 
 attracted the attention of a rich lady, who owned immense 
 estates in the neighbourhood. Her name was Danelis. When 
 Theophilitzes had completed his business and prepared to 
 return, Basil fell ill and remained behind his patron. On his 
 recovery Danelis sent for him, and gave him gold, thirty 
 slaves, and a rich supply of dresses and other things, on the 
 condition of his becoming the " spiritual brother " of her son. 4 
 The motive assigned for her action is the conviction, on the 
 strength of a monk's prophecy, that he would one day ascend 
 the throne ; and Basil is said to have promised that, if it ever 
 lay in his power, he would make her mistress of the whole 
 land. But whatever her motive may have been, there is no 
 doubt that she enriched Basil, and she lived to see him 
 Emperor and to visit his Court. 
 
 It is said that the munificence of the Greek lady enabled 
 Basil to buy estates in Thrace and to assist his family. But 
 he remained in his master's service, till a chance brought him 
 under the notice of the Emperor. 5 Michael had received as 
 a gift an untamed and spirited horse. His grooms were 
 
 1 Gen. 109 says nothing of the youths, and there was rivalry between 
 physician, and makes Theophilitzes them and the youths in the employ- 
 visit the monastery himself. ment of the Emperor and the Caesar 
 
 2 irl<ryovpoi> icai fj.eyd\rii> Ke<j>a\T]t> One day Theophilitzes gave an enter- 
 ^Xovra, hence he called him Kephalas tainment for the purpose of a wrestling 
 (Cont. Georg. 820). match ; Bardas was not present, but 
 
 3 The Peloponnesian episode comes was represented by his son Antigonus. 
 from Constantine's Vita Bas., Cont. Th. The champions of the Emperor and 
 226 sqq. If the author is accurate in the Caesar defeated the others, until 
 saying that Theophilitzes was sent by Basil who had not taken part was 
 Michael and Bardas, we may place it summoned to wrestle with the strongest 
 in A.D. 856, when Basil was about 44. of the adversaries. Constantino the 
 He returned from captivity about Armenian (Drungary of the Watch) 
 A.D. 837, but we have no evidence as intervened to sprinkle the floor with 
 to the date of his arrival at Constanti- chaff, fearing that Basil might slip, 
 nople. Basil threw his opponent by a grip 
 
 * irvevfJiaTiKTJs d5e\06rr;Toy ffvv8e<r/j.ov which was called by the Slavonic term 
 
 ib. 228. podreza. Antigonus reported this 
 
 5 So Siineon, ib. 816 (followed by achievement to his father, who told 
 
 Cont. Th.23Q). Gen. 110 connects the Michael, and Basil was summoned to 
 
 entry into the Emperor's service with the Emperor's presence. Constantino 
 
 another exploit of Basil in the capacity Porph. gives a different version of the 
 
 of wrestler. Theophilitzes maintained story and places the event before the 
 
 a company of strong and comely taming of the horse (which Genesios
 
 168 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 unable to manage it, and Michael was in despair, when his 
 relative Theophilitzes suggested that his own groom, Basil, 
 might be able to master it. Basil knew how to charm horses, 
 and when he held its bridle with one hand and placed the 
 other on its ear, the animal instantly became amenable. The 
 Emperor, delighted with this achievement and admiring his 
 physical strength, took him into his own service and assigned 
 him a post under the Hetaeriarch or captain of the foreign 
 guards of the Palace. His rise was rapid. He was invested 
 with the dignity of a strator, 1 and soon afterwards he received 
 the important office of Protostrator, whose duties involved 
 frequent attendance upon the Emperor (A.D. 858-S59 2 ). 
 
 So far the wily Armenian adventurer, whose mental powers 
 were little suspected, had owed his success to fortune and his 
 physical prowess, but now he was in a position to observe the 
 intrigues of the Court and to turn them to his own advantage. 
 Damianos, the High Chamberlain, who had assisted Bardas in 
 the palace revolution which had overthrown Theodora, became 
 hostile to the Caesar, and attempted to discredit him with the 
 Emperor. The crisis came when, as Bardas, arrayed in the 
 Caesar's purple skaramangion and accompanied by the mag- 
 nates of the Court, was passing in solemn procession through 
 the Horologion, Damianos refrained from rising from his seat 
 and paying the customary token of respect. 3 Bardas, over- 
 whelmed with wrath and chagrin at this insult, hurried 
 into the Chrysotriklinos and complained to the Emperor, who 
 immediately ordered Damianos to be arrested and tonsured. 
 
 does not mention). According to this began to spread through the city." 
 
 account, Antigonus, Domestic of the Though based doubtless on a true 
 
 Schools, gave a banquet in the Palace incident (remembered by Constantino 
 
 in honour of his father the Caesar. the Armenian), the story in either 
 
 Bardas brought with him senatorial version breaks down chronologically, 
 
 magnates and some Bulgarian envoys For Basil was transferred to the 
 
 who happened to be in the city. Emperor's service not later than 858, 
 
 Theophilitzes was one of the guests. and at that time Bardas was still 
 
 The Bulgarians bragged about a Domestic of the Schools and Antigonus 
 
 countryman who was in their suite and a small boy. 
 
 was an invincible wrestler. Theophi- l Cont. Th. 231. 
 
 litzes said to Bardas, "I have a man 2 This promotion was connected 
 
 who will wrestle with that Bulgarian." with the conspiracy against Bardas in 
 
 The match was made, and (Constahtine which Theodora was concerned. The 
 
 the Armenian having sprinkled the protostrator, who was involved in it, 
 
 bran this detail is taken from was executed, and Basil replaced him 
 
 (Jenesios) Basil threw the Bulgarian, (Cont. Georg. 823-824). Hence my 
 
 squeezing him like a wisp of hay. date, see above, pp. 160-1. 
 
 "From that day the fame of Basil 3 Simeon, ib. 827.
 
 SECT, ii BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 169 
 
 But the triumph of Bardas was to turn to his hurt. Basil 
 was appointed to fill the confidential post of High Chamber- 
 lain l (with the rank of patrician), though it was usually 
 confined to eunuchs, and Basil the Armenian was to prove a 
 more formidable adversary than Damianos the Slav. 2 
 
 The confidential intimacy which existed between Michael 
 and his Chamberlain was shown by the curious matrimonial 
 arrangement which the Emperor brought to pass. Basil was 
 already married, but Michael caused him to divorce his wife, 3 
 and married him to his own early love, Eudocia Ingerina. 
 But this was only an official arrangement ; Eudocia remained 
 the Emperor's mistress. A mistress, however, was also 
 provided for Basil, of distinguished rank though not of 
 tender years. It appears that Theodora and her daughters 
 had been permitted to leave their monastery and return to 
 secular life, 4 and Thecla, who seems to have been ill-qualified 
 for the vows of a nun, consented to become the paramour of 
 her brother's favourite. Thus three ladies, Eudocia Ingerina, 
 Eudocia the Augusta, and Thecla the Augusta, fulfilled between 
 them the four posts of wives and mistresses to the Emperor and 
 his Chamberlain. Before Michael's death, Eudocia Ingerina 
 bore two sons, and though Basil was obliged to acknowledge 
 them, it was suspected or taken for granted that Michael was 
 their father. 5 The second son afterwards succeeded Basil on 
 the Imperial throne, as Leo VI. ; and if Eudocia was faithful 
 to Michael, the dynasty known as the Macedonian was really 
 descended from the Amorians. The Macedonian Emperors took 
 pains to conceal this blot or ambiguity in their origin ; their 
 
 1 Parakoimomenos. been then about 43 years old. 
 
 - The date is not recorded, but it 5 Simeon (Cont. Georg. 835, and 
 
 seems probable that it was not very 844) states that Michael was the 
 
 long before the fall of Bardas. father, as if it were a well-known fact, 
 
 3 Maria ; she was sent back to and without reserve. In the case of 
 "Macedonia" (i.e. probably Thrace) such an arrangement d trois, it is, of 
 well provided for. course, impossible for us, knowing so 
 
 4 For the evidence, see Hirsch, 66, little as we do, to accept as proven 
 and below, p. 177. Thecla became the such statements about paternity, 
 mistress of John Neatokometes after Eudocia may have deceived her lover 
 Basil's accession. When Basil learned with her husband ; and as Basil seems 
 this, he ordered the latter to be beaten to have been fond of Constantine and 
 and tonsured ; Thecla was also beaten, to have had little affection for Leo 
 and her property confiscated. Simeon, (whom he imprisoned shortly before 
 ib. 842. She died bedridden (K\IVO- the end of his reign), we might be led 
 Trerijy) in her house at Blachernae, to suspect that the eldest born of 
 Cont. Th. 147. If she became Basil's Eudocia was his own son, and Leo 
 mistress in 865-866, she might have Michael's.
 
 170 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 animosity to the Amorian sovrans whose blood was perhaps 
 in their veins, and their excessive cult of the memory of Basil, 
 were alike due to the suspicion of the sinister accident in their 
 lineage. 
 
 Such proofs of affection could not fail to arouse the 
 suspicion and jealousy of Bardas, if he had, till then, never 
 considered Basil as a possible rival. But he probably under- 
 estimated the craft of the man who had mounted so high 
 chiefly by his physical qualities. Basil attempted to persuade 
 the Emperor that Bardas was planning to depose him from 
 the throne. But such insinuations had no effect. Michael, 
 notwithstanding his frivolity, was not without common sense. 
 He knew that the Empire must be governed, and believed 
 that no one could govern it so well as his uncle, in whom he 
 reposed entire confidence. Basil was the companion of his 
 pleasures, and he declined to listen to his suggestions touching 
 matters of state. Basil then resorted to a cunning device. 
 He cultivated a close friendship with Symbatios an Armenian 
 like himself the Logothete of the Course and son-in-law of 
 Bardas. He excited this ambitious minister's hope of becoming 
 Caesar in place of his father-in-law, and they concocted the 
 story of a plot l which Symbatios revealed to Michael. Such 
 a disclosure coming from a minister, himself closely related to 
 Bardas, was very different from the irresponsible gossip of the 
 Chamberlain, and Michael, seriously alarmed, entered into a 
 plan for destroying his uncle. 
 
 At this time it was the spring of A.D. 866 pre- 
 parations were being made for an expedition against the 
 Saracens of Crete, in which both the Emperor and the Caesar 
 were to take part. 2 Bardas was wide-awake. He was warned 
 
 1 I follow mainly Simeon (ib. 828), Originally, it had been arranged with- 
 which is obviously the most impartial out any arriere penste on either side ; 
 source. Nicetas, Vit. Ign. 255, then the conspirators decided to avail 
 describes the plot as only a pretext. themselves of the opportunity which 
 
 2 The official account was that it might furnish. Bardas, warned 
 Bardas prepared the expedition, in that a design was afoot against him, 
 order to find an opportunity of killing and that Basil was the arch plotter, 
 Michael (Simeon, ib. 832). Simeon drew back, and it was necessary to 
 represents Michael and Basil planning reassure him. The chroniclers tell 
 the expedition for the purpose of stories of various prophecies and signs 
 killing Bardas (as it would have been warning him of his fate. His friend 
 difficult to dispatch him in the city). Leo the Philosopher is said to have 
 Genesios is evidently right in the tried to dissuade him from going. His 
 simple statement (103) that Michael sister Theodora sent him a dress too 
 and Bardas organized an expedition. short for him, with a partridge worked
 
 SECT, ii BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 171 
 
 by friends or perhaps by a change in the Emperor's manner, 
 and he declined to accompany the expedition. He must have 
 openly expressed his fears to his nephew, and declared his 
 suspicion of Basil's intentions ; for they took a solemn oath 
 in order to reassure him. On Lady Day (March 25) the 
 festival of the Annunciation was celebrated by a Court proces- 
 sion to the church of the Virgin in Chalkoprateia ; after the 
 ceremonies, the Emperor, the Patriarch, the Caesar, and the 
 High Chamberlain entered the Katechumena of the church ; 
 Photius held the blood of Jesus in his hands, and Michael and 
 Basil subscribed with crosses, in this sacred ink, a declaration 
 that the Caesar might accompany them without fear. 
 
 The expedition started after Easter, 1 and troops from the 
 various provinces assembled at a place called the Gardens 
 (Kepoi) in the Thrakesian Theme, on the banks of the 
 Maeander. Here Basil and Symbatios, who had won others 
 to their plot, 2 determined to strike the blow. A plan was 
 devised for drawing away Antigonus, the Domestic of the 
 Schools, to witness a horse-race at a sufficient distance from 
 the Imperial tent, so that he should not be at hand to come 
 to his father's rescue. 3 On the evening before the day which 
 was fixed by the conspirators, John Neatokometes visited the 
 Caesar's tent at sunset, and warned Procopius, the Keeper 
 of his Wardrobe, " Your lord, the Caesar, will be cut in pieces 
 to - morrow." Bardas pretended to laugh at the warning. 
 " Tell NeatokometeV' he said, " that he is raving. He wants 
 to be made a patrician a rank for which he is much too 
 young ; that is why he goes about sowing these tares." But 
 he did not sleep. In the morning twilight he told his friends 
 what he had heard. His friend Philotheos, the General 
 
 in gold on it. He was told, when he was the circumstance that Bardas 
 
 asked the meaning of this, that the pitched his tent on a higher eminence 
 
 shortness signified the curtailment of than that of the Emperor's, 
 
 his life, and the guileful bird ex- 3 Gen. (ib.). He also records (105) 
 
 pressed the vengeful feelings which that Bardas had ordered Antigonus to 
 
 the sender entertained on account of lead his troops to Constantinople, and 
 
 the murder of Theoktistos (Gen. 104). that Antigonus delayed to do so. He 
 
 1 Easter fell on April 7. ascribes this order to the fear which the 
 
 2 Simeon (ib. 830) gives the names gift of Theodora (see above, p. 170) 
 of five, of whom one John Chaldos aroused in Bardas, and inconsistently 
 Tziphiuarites is also mentioned by states that the gift reached him at 
 Genesios (106). This writer thought Kepoi. It is obvious that Antigonus 
 that the plan was first conceived at and his troops were a difficulty to the 
 Kepoi, and that its immediate occasion conspirators ; cp. Cont. Th. 236.
 
 172 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 Logothete, said, " Put on your gold peach-coloured cloak and 
 appear to your foes, they will flee before you." Bardas 
 mounted his horse (April 21) and rode with a brilliant 
 company to the Emperor's pavilion. Basil, in his capacity 
 of High Chamberlain, came out, did obeisance to the Caesar, 
 and led him by the hand to the Emperor's presence. Bardas, 
 sitting down beside the Emperor, suggested that, as the troops 
 were assembled and all was ready, they should immediately 
 embark. Suddenly looking round, he saw Basil making 
 threatening signs with his hand. Basil then lunged at him 
 with his sword, and the other conspirators rushed in and 
 hewed him in pieces. Their violent onrush frightened and 
 endangered the Emperor, who mutely watched, but Constantine 
 the Armenian protected him from injury. 1 
 
 The role of Constantine, who still held the post of 
 Drungary of the Watch, is that of a preventer of mischief, 
 when he appears on the stage at critical moments only to 
 pass again into obscurity. He attempted to save Theoktistos 
 from his murderers ; and now after the second tragedy, it is 
 through his efforts that the camp is not disordered by a 
 sanguinary struggle between the partisans of Bardas and the 
 homicides. 2 
 
 The Emperor immediately wrote a letter to the Patriarch 
 Photius informing him that the Caesar had been convicted 
 of high treason and done to death. We possess the Patriarch's 
 reply. 3 It is couched in the conventional style of adulation 
 repulsive to our taste but then rigorously required by Court 
 etiquette. Having congratulated the Emperor on his escape 
 from the plots of the ambitious man who dared to raise 
 his hand against his benefactor, Photius deplores that he 
 
 1 This incident comes, of course, i6pia.fj.^evov}. Constantine Porphyro- 
 from Genesios. In the rest I have geunetos has yet another version, per- 
 followed the account of Simeon. haps devised by himself. He is more 
 Genesios entirely suppresses the part subtle. Instead of cutting the knot, 
 played by Basil (just hinting, 107 1]( like Genesios, he assigns a part in the 
 that his interests were involved). murder to his grandfather, but so as 
 According to him. when Bardas was to minimise his responsibility. Ac- 
 sitting with Michael, Symbatios came cording to this account, Michael is 
 in and read the reports (which the the organizer of the plot ; he gives a 
 Logothete regularly presented). As sign to Symbatios to introduce the 
 he went out he made the sign of the assassins ; they hesitate, and Michael, 
 cross as a signal to the conspirators fearing for his own safety, orders Basil 
 who were in hiding. Gen. adds that to instigate them (Vita JBas. c. 17). 
 the corpse was barbarously mutilated 2 Gen. 107. 
 (ret Totirov aiSola Kovrif SiapT^ffavrfs 3 Ep. 221.
 
 SECT, ii BARD AS AND BASIL THE MACEDONIAN 173 
 
 was sent without time for repentance to the tribunal in 
 another world. The Patriarch owed his position to Bardas, 
 and if he knew his weaknesses, must have appreciated his 
 merits. We can detect in the phraseology of his epistle, 
 and especially in one ambiguous sentence, the mixture of his 
 feelings. " The virtue and clemency of your Majesty forbid 
 me to suspect that the letter was fabricated or that the 
 circumstances of the fall of Bardas were otherwise than it 
 alleges circumstances by which he (Bardas) is crowned and 
 others will suffer." l These words intimate suspicion as 
 clearly as it could decently be intimated in such a case. 
 It was impossible not to accept the sovran's assurance of 
 the Caesar's guilt, if it were indeed his own assurance, yet 
 Photius allows it to be seen that he suspects that the Imperial 
 letter was dictated by Basil and that there was foul play. 
 But perhaps the most interesting passage in this composition 
 of Photius in which we can feel his deep agitation under 
 the rhetorical figures of his style is his brief characterization 
 of the Caesar as one who was " to many a terror, to many a 
 warning, to many a cause of pity, but to more a riddle." * 
 
 Photius concluded his letter with an urgent prayer that 
 the Emperor should instantly return to the capital, professing 
 that this was the unanimous desire of the Senate and the 
 citizens ; and shortly afterwards he dispatched another brief 
 but importunate request to the same effect. 3 It is absurd to 
 suppose that this solicitude was unreal, or dictated by motives 
 of vulgar flattery. We cannot doubt the genuine concern of 
 the Patriarch ; but in our ignorance of the details of the 
 situation we can only conjecture that he and his friends 
 entertained the fear that Michael might share the fate of his 
 uncle. The intrigues of Basil were, of course, known well 
 to all who were initiated in Court affairs ; and modern partisan 
 writers of the Eoman Church, who detest Photius and all 
 his works, 4 do not pause to consider, when they scornfully 
 animadvert upon these " time-serving " letters, that to have 
 
 1 Si' we eKfivos /AV or^erou fiXXot 4 Jager, ib. 115. Hergenrb'ther, i. 
 S KO^OVTO-I. The paraphrase of the 589. Valettas, in his apology for 
 Abbe Jager (Hist, de Photius, 116) Photius (note to Up. 221, p. 536), says 
 entirely omits this. that Ph. calls Basil 4v ir6\ \riffrriv, 
 
 11>7 etc., in Ep. 190 ; but Basil, Prefect of 
 
 2 Mistranslated by Jager, tb. 117. the City ^ to whom this letter is ad . 
 
 3 Ep. 222. dressed, is a different person.
 
 174 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 addressed to Michael holy words of condemnation or reproof 
 would have been to fling away every chance of rescuing him 
 from the influence of his High Chamberlain. We know not 
 whether the Emperor was influenced by the pressing messages 
 of the Patriarch, but at all events the Cretan expedition was 
 abandoned, and he returned with Basil to Constantinople. 
 
 3. The Elevation of Basil and the Murder of Michael 
 
 The High Chamberlain promptly reaped the due reward 
 of his craft and audacity. He was adopted as a son by the 
 childless Emperor, and invested with the order of Magister. 1 
 A few weeks later, Michael suddenly decided to elevate him 
 to the throne. We can easily understand that this step 
 seemed the easiest way out of his perplexities to the Emperor, 
 who felt himself utterly lost when Bardas was removed from 
 the helm. Basil, firm and self-confident, was a tower of 
 strength, and at this moment he could exert unlimited influence 
 over the weak mind of his master. The Court and the city 
 were kept in the dark till the last moment. On the eve of 
 Pentecost, the Chief of the Private Wardrobe waited on the 
 Patriarch and informed him that on the morrow he would 
 be required to take part in the inauguration of Basil as 
 Basileus and Augustus. 
 
 On Whitsunday (May 26), it was observed with surprise 
 that two Imperial seats were placed side by side in St. Sophia. 
 In the procession from the Palace, Basil walked behind the 
 Emperor, in the usual guise of the High Chamberlain ; but 
 Michael on entering the church did not remove the crown 
 from his head as was usual. He ascended the ambo 2 
 wearing the diadem, Basil stood on a lower step, and below 
 him Leo Kastor, a secretary, with a document in his hand, 
 while the Praepositus, the demarchs, and the demes stood 
 around. Leo then read out an Imperial declaration : " The 
 Caesar Bardas plotted against me to slay me, and for this reason 
 induced me to leave the city. If I had not been informed of 
 the plot by Symbatios and Basil, I should not have been alive 
 now. The Caesar died through his own guilt. It is my will 
 
 1 Gont. Th. 238. Descr. Ambonis, 60 sqq. (ed. Bonn, 
 
 2 There were two flights of steps up p. 51). 
 to the ambo, described by Paul Silent. ,
 
 SECT, in THE ELEVATION OF BASIL 175 
 
 that Basil, the High Chamberlain, since he is faithful to me 
 and protects my sovranty and delivered me from my enemy 
 and has much affection for me, should be the guardian and 
 manager of my Empire and should be proclaimed by all as 
 Emperor." Then Michael gave his crown to the Patriarch, 
 who placed it on the holy table and recited a prayer over it. 
 Basil was arrayed by the eunuchs in the Imperial dress (the 
 divetesion and the red boots),and knelt before the Emperor. The 
 Patriarch then crowned Michael, and Michael crowned Basil. 1 
 
 On the following day (Whitmonday) Symbatios, the 
 Logothete of the Course, deeply incensed at the trick that 
 Basil had played on him and disappointed in his hopes of 
 promotion to the rank of Caesar, requested Michael to confer 
 upon him the post of a strategos. He was made Strategos of 
 the Thrakesian Theme, and his friend George Peganes was 
 appointed Count of the Opsikian Theme. 2 These two con- 
 spired and marched through the provinces, ravaging the crops, 
 declaring their allegiance to Michael and disowning Basil. 
 The Emperors ordered the other strategoi to^ suppress them, 
 and Nicephorus Maleinos, by distributing a flysheet, induced 
 their soldiers to abandon them. When Peganes was caught, 
 his eyes were put out and he was placed at the Milestone in 
 the Augusteon, with a plate in his hand, into which the 
 passers-by might fling alms a form of public degradation 
 which gave rise to the fable that the great general Belisarius 
 
 1 The descriptionof the coronationis Constitution of the later Roman Empire, 
 given by Simeon (Gout. Georg. 832-833). p. 16. To the official description in 
 This text (cp. also ed. Muralt, 744) Cer. the text of Simeon adds the fact 
 is in error when it is said that Photius that the ffKijirrpa were lowered just 
 "took the crown from the Emperor's before the act of crowning (<TK. ire<r6v- 
 head and placed it on Basil's " ; the rwt>, ws 0os). The skeptra, skeue, 
 writer meant to say, "gave it to the and banda were arrayed on both sides 
 Emperor, "and Ty Ba<riXy is obviously of the ambo, and the denies did obei- 
 an error for T$ /SacrtXei. The same sance to them (Cer. ib. ). The corona- 
 mistake is found in the vers. Slav. tion of Eiidocia Ingerina as Augusta 
 108, but Leo Gr. 246 tirtduKev atfri must have soon followed that of Basil, 
 T<$ /ScwiXei, and Theod. Mel. 172 as a matter of course. 
 dirtSuKev avry /ScwiXe? are closer here 2 Simeon, ib. 833, Cent. Th. 238, 
 to the original text. The ceremony 240. Hirsch (238) observes an ap- 
 is described in Constantine, Cer. 194 parent contradiction between these 
 irpCrrov ikv ffrtyet 6 warp, rbv ^yav sources : Cont. Th. assigns the Thrak. 
 /3a<nXect, dra tirididuai rip pey. |3a<7tXet Theme to Symbatios, the Opsikian 
 TO ffr/j./j,a KO.L <TT^>et 6 J3a<ri\evs rbv to Peganes, ' ' whereas according to 
 veoxf<-poTbvr]Toi> paffiXta. The senior the other account Symbatios receives 
 Emperor always crowned the colleague the latter province." But /cd/ce?vos 
 whom lie created, unless he were un- KO/KTJS TOV '0\f/. in Simeon refers to 
 able to be present ; then he assigned Peganes more naturally than to 
 the office to the Patriarch. See Bury, Symbatios.
 
 176 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 ended his days as a beggar. A month later Symbatios, who 
 had fled across Asia Minor, was caught in an inn in Keltzene. 1 
 His right hand was cut off and he was blinded of one eye, 2 and 
 placed outside the palace of Lausos in Middle Street, to beg 
 like his comrade. At the end of three days, the two offenders 
 were restored to their abodes, where they were kept under arrest. 
 
 The joint reign of Michael and Basil lasted for less than 
 a year and a half. Michael continued to pursue his amuse- 
 ments, but we may suspect that in this latest period of his 
 life his frivolous character underwent a change. He became 
 more reckless in his extravagance, more immoderate in his 
 cups, 3 and cruel in his acts. The horror of his uncle's murder 
 may have cast its shadow, and Basil, for whom he had not the 
 same respect, was unable to exert the same kind of ascendency 
 as Bardas. We cannot suppose that all the essential facts of 
 the situation are disclosed to us in the meagre reports of our 
 chronicles. The following incident can only have marked the 
 beginning of the final stage of intensely strained relations. 4 
 
 Michael held a horse-race in the Palace of St Mamas. He 
 drove himself as a Blue charioteer, Constantine the Armenian 
 drove as a White, other courtiers as Green and Eed. The 
 Emperor won the race, and in the evening he dined with 
 Basil and Eudocia Ingerina, and was complimented by the 
 patrician Basiliskianos 6 on his admirable driving. Michael, 
 delighted by his flattery, ordered him to stand up, to take the 
 
 1 Simeon, ib. 834. Keltzene is the 3 In late writers, the Emperor is 
 classical Akilisene, called Ekelesene designated as Michael the Drunkard 
 by Procopius (B.P. i. 17) ; '^KeXev^ivrj, (/jxdvffT^), e.g. Glycas, ed. Bonn, 541, 
 Mansi, xi. 613 ; KeXirf??^, Nova 546. Cp. Gen. 113 olvo<t>\vyias, and 
 Tactica, ed. Gelzer, 78. It lies on the Cont. Tk. 251-252. 
 
 left bank of the Euphrates, north of 4 Our only useful source here is 
 
 Sophene, east of Dardanalis ; its chief Simeon. Gen. and Cont. Th. slur 
 
 town was Erez, now Erzinjan, north- over the murder of Michael, and 
 
 east of Ani (Theodosiopolis). For a exonerate Basil. According to Gen. 
 
 geographical description see Adonts, 113, Basil's friends advised him to 
 
 Armeniia v epokhu lustiniana, 48, slay Michael, but he declined, and 
 
 52 sqq. According to Cont, Th. 240, they did the deed themselves. 
 
 Symbatios occupied the fort T??S 6 In Cont. Th. 250, he is called 
 
 TrXaretas irtrpas ; we do not know Basilikinos, where we learn that he 
 
 where this was. Simeon, ib., states was a brother of Constantine Kap- 
 
 that when Symbatios arrived in the nogenes who was afterwards Prefect 
 
 capital, Peganes was brought to meet of the City, and that he was one of 
 
 him, holding a clay censer in his hand Michael's fellows in his religious mum- 
 
 with sulphur to fumigate him, a meries. According to this source 
 
 mysterious performance. (Constantine Porph.), Michael arrayed 
 
 2 According to Cont. Th. 241, of him in full Imperial dress and intro- 
 both eyes, and according to this duced him to the Senate with some 
 source the nose of Peganes was slit. doggrcl verses.
 
 SECT, in THE ELEVATION OF BASIL 177 
 
 red boots from his own feet and put them on. Basiliskianos 
 hesitated and looked at Basil, who signed to him not to obey. 
 The Emperor furiously commanded him to do as he was bidden, 
 and turning on Basil cried with an oath, " The boots become 
 him better than you. I made you Emperor, and have I not 
 the power to create another Emperor if I will ? " Eudocia 
 in tears, remonstrated : " The Imperial dignity is great, and 
 we, unworthy as we are, have been honoured with it. It is 
 not right that it should be brought into contempt." Michael 
 replied, " Do not fear ; I am perfectly serious ; I am ready to 
 make Basiliskianos Emperor." This incident seriously alarmed 
 Basil. Some time later when Michael was hunting, a monk 
 met him and gave him a paper which purposed to reveal a 
 plot of Basil against his life. He then began to harbour 
 designs against his colleague. 1 He had small chance against 
 such an antagonist. 
 
 Basil struck the blow on Sept. 24, A.D. 867. 2 Michael 
 had bidden him and Eudocia to dinner in the Palace of St. 
 Mamas. When Michael had drunk deeply, Basil made an 
 excuse to leave the room, and entering the Imperial bed- 
 chamber tampered with the bolts of the door so that it could 
 not be locked. He then returned to the table, and when the 
 Emperor became drunk as usual, he conducted him to his bed 
 and kissing his hand went out. The Keeper of the Private 
 Wardrobe, who was accustomed to sleep in the Emperor's room, 
 was absent on a commission, 3 and Basiliskianos had been 
 commanded to take his place. Michael sank . on his bed in 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 249 (cp. 209) asserts of the Protovestiarios. Michael was 
 an actual attempt on Basil's life in murdered in the Palace of St. Mamas, 
 the hunting-field. That Theodora had been restored to 
 
 2 JT 9in liberty, though not to power, by A.D. 
 
 866, is illustrated by the letter which 
 
 3 The Empress Theodora (who was Pope Nicolas addressed to her (Nov. 
 now at liberty, see above, p. 169) had 866). But we can fix the resumption 
 invited her son to dinner in the of her honours as Augusta to an 
 house of Authemios, and Michael had earlier date, A.D. 863, for in triumphal 
 ordered Rentakios, Keeper of the 4/cra in Constantino, Cer. 332, which 
 Wardrobe, to kill some game to send belong as I have shown to that year, 
 to his mother. Hirsch (66) has mis- "the honourable Augustae" are 
 apprehended this, for he says, ' ' Theo- celebrated ; see below, p. 284, n. 4. 
 dora giebt ja im Palaste des Anthemios The house of Anthemios (rk 'A.v6f/j.tov) 
 jenes Gastmahl, nach welchem Michael means perhaps not a "palace," but 
 ermordet wird." It is clear that (as Pargoire thinks, Boradion, 474) 
 Theodora's dinner was to be held on a the monastery founded by her son-in- 
 subsequent day ; it is mentioned by law Alexios in the suburban quarter 
 Simeon only to account for the absence of Anthemios (see above, p. 127). 
 
 N
 
 178 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, v 
 
 the deep sleep of intoxication, and the chamberlain on duty, 
 discovering that the door could not be bolted, divined the 
 danger, but could not waken the Emperor. 
 
 Basil had engaged the help of eight friends, some of whom 
 had taken part in his first crime, the murder of Bardas. 1 
 Accompanied by these, Basil opened the door of the bed-chamber, 
 and was confronted by the chamberlain, who opposed his 
 entrance. One of the conspirators diving under Basil's arm 
 rushed to the bed, but the chamberlain sprang after him and 
 gripped him. Another then wounded Basiliskianos and 
 hurled him on the floor, while a third, John Chaldos (who 
 had been prominent among the slayers of Bardas), hewed at 
 the sleeping Emperor with his sword, and cut off both his 
 hands. Basil seems to have stood at the door, while the other 
 accomplices kept guard outside. John Chaldos thought that 
 he had done enough ; he left the room, and the conspirators 
 consulted whether their victim should be despatched outright. 
 One of them 2 took it upon himself to return to the bed where 
 Michael was moaning out piteous imprecations against Basil, 
 and ripped up his body. 
 
 Through the darkness of a stormy night the assassins rowed 
 across the Golden Horn, landing near the house of a 
 Persian named Eulogios, who joined them. By breaking 
 through an enclosure 3 they reached a gate of the Great Palace. 
 Eulogios called out to his fellow-countryman Artavasdos, the 
 Hetaeriarch, in the Persian tongue, " Open to the Emperor, for 
 Michael has perished by the sword." Artavasdos rushed to the 
 Papias, took the keys from him by force, and opened the gate. 
 
 In the morning, Eudocia Ingerina was conducted in state 
 from St. Mamas to the Great Palace, to take, as reigning 
 
 1 Those who shared in both crimes K/xmJo-as Ba<n'\os duo T&V per' airroO 
 were John Chaldos, Peter the Bulgarian, 6vr<av Kal XaKTtaas Kartal-e TTJV ir\aKa Kal 
 Asylaion, Maurianos, Constantine Tox- elffij\0ov f^xp 1 T W TT^XT/S TOV ira\arlov 
 aras, Symbatios, cousin of Asylaion. (Simeon, ib. 838). rb ret%os seems to 
 The other two were Bardas (father of be the wall of the Palace, round which 
 Symbatios) and Jakovitzes, a Persian. at this point there was a brick en- 
 Several of them probably belonged to closure. The palace of Marina was on 
 the Hetaireia or foreign guard, the the sea side of the Great Palace (since 
 captain of which, Artavasdos, may it was in the First Region, cp. Ducange, 
 have been initiated in the plot. Const. C/ir. ii. p. 113), but we do not 
 
 2 Asylaion. know whether it was north of the 
 
 3 From the house of Eulogios they Bucoleon, and therefore we have no 
 reached the palace of Marina. irXaf means of conjecturing at what gate 
 Si fy irepi<j>pd.(r(rov(ra rb rel^os Kal Basil found Artavasdos.
 
 SECT, in THE MURDER OF MICHAEL 179 
 
 Augusta, the place of the other Eudocia, who was restored to 
 her parents. A chamberlain was sent to provide for the 
 burial of the late Emperor. He found the corpse rolled up in 
 a horsecloth, and the Empress Theodora, with her daughters, 
 weeping over her son. He was buried in a monastery at 
 Chrysopolis, on the Asiatic shore. 
 
 Such is the recorded story of the final act which raised 
 Basil the Macedonian to supreme power. It is probably 
 correct ^n its main details, but it not only leaves out some of 
 the subordinate elements in the situation, such as the attitude 
 of Eudocia was she in the secret ? but fails to make it clear 
 whether Basil was driven to the assassination of his benefactor 
 by what he conceived to be a political necessity, or was 
 prompted merely by the vulgar motive of ambition. No plea 
 could be set up for the murder of Bardas on the ground of the 
 public good, but the murder of Michael is a different case. 
 The actual government had devolved on Basil, who was equal 
 to the task ; but if the follies and caprices of Michael, who 
 was the autocrat, thwarted his subordinate colleague, the 
 situation might have become well-nigh impossible. If we 
 could trust the partial narrative of Basil's Imperial grandson, 
 who is concerned not only to exonerate his ancestor, but to 
 make out a case to justify the revolution, Michael had become 
 an intolerable tyrant. 1 In his fits of drunkenness he issued 
 atrocious orders for the execution and torture of innocent men, 
 orders which he had forgotten the next day. In order to 
 raise money, he began to make depredations on churches and 
 religious houses, and to confiscate the property of rich people. 
 There was nothing for it but to kill him like a noxious snake. 
 " Therefore the most reputable of the ministers and the wise 
 section of the Senate took counsel together, and caused him to 
 be slain by the Palace guard." Allowing for some exaggeration 
 and bias in this picture of the situation, we may be right in 
 believing that Michael had become unmanageable and mis- 
 chievous, and that it was to the general advantage to sup- 
 press him. The vigorous reign of Basil proves that he was 
 deeply interested in the efficiency of the government. It is not 
 our business either to justify or to condemn the murder of 
 Michael III. ; we are only concerned to understand it. 
 1 Cont.Th. 251-252, 254.
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 
 
 UNDER the rule of the iconoclasts, the differences which divided 
 the " orthodox " had been suffered to slumber ; but the defeat 
 of the common enemy was the signal for the renewal of a 
 conflict which had disturbed the peace of the Church under 
 Irene and Nicephorus. The two parties, which had suspended 
 their feud, now again stood face to face. 
 
 The fundamental principle of the State Church founded by 
 Constantine was the supremacy of the Emperor ; the Patriarch 
 and the whole hierarchy were subject to him ; he not only 
 protected, he governed the Church. The smooth working of 
 this system demanded from churchmen a spirit of compromise 
 and " economy." It might often be difficult for a Patriarch to 
 decide at what point his religious duty forbade him to comply 
 with the Emperor's will ; and it is evident that Patriarchs, like 
 Tarasius and Nicephorus, who had served the State in secular 
 posts, were more likely to work discreetly and harmoniously 
 under the given conditions than men who had been brought 
 up in cloisters. We saw how the monks of Studion organized 
 an opposition to these Patriarchs, whom they denounced for 
 sacrificing canonical rules to expediency. The abbot Theodore 
 desired to subvert the established system. He held that the 
 Emperor was merely the protector of the Church, and that 
 the Church was independent. He affirmed, moreover, the 
 supremacy of the Roman See in terms which no Emperor and 
 few, if any, Patriarchs would have endorsed. But by their 
 theory, which they boldly put into practice, the Studites were 
 undermining Patriarchal and episcopal authority. They 
 asserted the right of monks to pass an independent judgment 
 
 180
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 181 
 
 on the administration of their bishop, and, in case his 
 actions did not meet with their approval, to refuse to com- 
 municate with him. A movement of independence or in- 
 subordination, which was likely to generate schisms, was 
 initiated, and the activity and influence of Theodore must 
 have disseminated his views far beyond the limits of his own 
 community. 
 
 Thus there arose two antagonistic sections, of which one 
 approved more or less the doctrines of Theodore of Studion, 
 while the other upheld Patriarchal authority and regarded 
 Nicephorus as an ideal Patriarch. One insisted on the strictest 
 observation of ecclesiastical canons and denounced the sudden 
 elevations of Nicephorus and Tarasius from the condition of 
 laymen to the episcopal office ; the other condoned such 
 irregularities which special circumstances commended to the 
 Imperial wisdom. One declined to allow any relaxation of 
 canonical rules in favour of the Emperor; the other was 
 prepared to permit him considerable limits of dispensation. 
 There were, in fact, two opposite opinions as to the spirit and 
 method of ecclesiastical administration, corresponding to two 
 different types of ecclesiastic. Both sides included monks ; 
 and it would not be true to say that the monks generally 
 rallied to the section of the Studites. There were many 
 abbots and many hermits who disliked the Studite ideal of a 
 rigorous, disciplinary regulation of monastic life, and many 
 who, like Theophanes of Sigriane, were satisfied with the 
 State Church and had no sympathy with the aggressive policy 
 of Theodore and his fellows. 
 
 Methodius had always been an ecclesiastic, and the Studites 
 could not reproach him for any irregularity in his consecration 
 as bishop. He had been a martyr in the cause of image- 
 worship, and he had effectively assisted in its triumph. But 
 his promotion to the Patriarchate was not pleasing to the 
 Studite monks. His sympathies were with the other party, 
 and he was prepared to carry on the tradition of Tarasius and 
 Nicephorus. We can well understand that his intimacy with 
 the Emperor Theophilus, with whom he agreed to differ on the 
 iconoclastic question, was far from commending him to the 
 stricter brethren. The Studites were prepared to be critical, 
 and from the very beginning his administration was the subject
 
 182 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 of adverse comment or censure. 1 He desired to conciliate them, 
 and the bones of their revered abbot Theodore were brought 
 back for interment at Studion, with great solemnity. But the 
 satisfaction of the monks at this public honour to their abbot 
 was mitigated, if it was not cancelled, by the translation, at 
 the same time, of the remains of Nicephorus to the Church of 
 the Apostles. 2 They recalled his uncanonical consecration, they 
 recalled his condonation of " adultery." But if he could not 
 conciliate them, the Patriarch was determined to crush their 
 rebellious spirit. He called upon them to anathematize all 
 that Theodore had written against Tarasius and Nicephorus, 
 and he urged that Theodore had himself practically revoked 
 his own strong language, had been reconciled with Nicephorus, 
 and in fact changed his opinion. But the Studites obstinately 
 refused, and Methodius asserted his Patriarchal authority. 
 " You are monks," he said, " and you have no right to question 
 the conduct of your bishops ; you must submit to them." 3 He 
 pronounced against the rebellious brethren not the simple 
 anathema, but the curse, the katathema, of the Church. The 
 struggle seems to have ended with concessions on the part of 
 the Patriarch. 4 
 
 The difficulties which troubled the short administration of 
 Methodius 5 possess a significant bearing on the more serious 
 ecclesiastical strife which marked the reign of his successor, 
 and which led, indirectly, to the great schism between the 
 Eastern and the Western Churches. The two opposing parties 
 of Ignatius and Photius represent the same parties which dis- 
 tracted the Patriarchate of Methodius, and the struggle is thus a 
 
 1 Methodius was blamed especially 4 Dobschiitz, 47. 
 
 for too indulgent treatment of re- 5 His difficulties are illustrated by 
 
 pentant iconoclasts, and for ordaining a despondent letter which he wrote 
 
 new bishops and priests without a to the Patriarch of Jerusalem (see 
 
 sufficient investigation of their quali- Bibliography). He expresses his dis- 
 
 iications. For the disputes see Vita appointment at the unbecoming and 
 
 Joannicii, c. 51, 52, 57, and Vita insolent conduct of the .repentant 
 
 Methodii, 257-260. They are discussed iconoclastic clergy. His Patriarchate 
 
 byllspenski, Ocherki, SBsgq.; Lebedev, was also troubled by the heresy of 
 
 Istoriia, 17-19 ; Hergenrbther, i. 352 Zelix, or Lizikos, an Imperial secretary 
 
 sqq. ; but best by Dobschiitz, Meth. u. (Gen. 85 ; Vita Method. 282), who con- 
 
 die Stud. sidered Jesus Christ to be a creature 
 
 2 See Theophanes, De exsilio Nice- (/cr/cr^a), refused the title of Theotokos 
 phori ; Methodius, Ad Studitas, 1293- to the Virgin, and rejected the vivi- 
 98 (and the Synodica in Pitra, Jur. ficous cross. These dangerous opinions 
 ecc. Gr. 2, 361); Dobschiitz, 42 sg^- were suppressed, and Zelix and his 
 
 3 Narratio de Tar. et Niceph. 1853. followers reconciled to orthodoxy.
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 183 
 
 continuation of the same division which had vexed Tarasius 
 and Nicephorus, although the immediate and superficial issues are 
 different. 1 When we apprehend this continuity, we are able to 
 see that the particular question which determined the course 
 of the conflict between Photius and Ignatius only rendered 
 acute an antagonism which had existed for more than half a 
 century. 2 
 
 Methodius seems to have availed himself of the most 
 popular kind of literature, edifying biographies of holy men, 
 for the purpose of his struggle with the Studites. Under 
 his auspices, Ignatius the Deacon composed the Lives of 
 Tarasius and Nicephorus, in which the troubles connected 
 with the opposition of Studion are diligently ignored. The 
 ecclesiastical conflicts of the period are, indeed, reflected, more 
 by hints and reticences than direct statements, in the copious 
 hagiographical productions of the ninth century, 3 to which 
 reference is frequently made in this volume. 
 
 On the death of Methodius, the Empress Theodora and 
 her advisers chose his successor from among three monks of 
 illustrious birth, each of whom, if fortune had been kind, 
 might have worn the Imperial crown. Nicetas, a son of the 
 Emperor Michael I., had been tonsured after his father's death, 
 had taken the name of Ignatius, and had founded new 
 monasteries in the Islands of the Princes, over which he 
 presided as abbot. 4 Here he and his family, who had not 
 been despoiled of their wealth, afforded refuge to image- 
 worshippers who were driven from the capital. The sons of 
 
 1 Hergenrother (i. 353) saw that relating to the period are fully re- 
 there was a connexion between the viewed from this point of view, for 
 quarrels which vexed Methodius and the dating of the Lives by Ignatius to 
 those which troubled his successor. A.D. 843-845, see his remarks p. 54. 
 The continuity of the parties has been Ignatius also wrote a Life of Gregory 
 worked out by Uspenski, op. cit. 81 Dekapolites, which exists in MS., 
 sqq. , and more fully by Lebedev, op. but has not been printed. 
 
 cit. 1. * Nicetas, Vita Ign. 217, Plate, 
 
 2 It is noteworthy that Methodius Hyatros and Terebinthos. Hyatros 
 was a Sicilian, and that a Sicilian (or latros) is now called Niandro, a tiny 
 Gregory Asbestas was to play a lead- islet south of Prinkipo. Terebinthos 
 ing part in the opposition to Ignatius. is Anderovithos, about two miles to 
 For at an earlier period we find traces the east of Prinkipo. See Pargoire, 
 of antagonism between Sicilian monks Les Monast&res de S. Ignace, 62 sqq. 
 and the Studites (Michael, Vita Theod. He has shown that the monastery of 
 312 ; cp. Uspenski, op. cit. 81-82). Satyros, dedicated by Ignatius, on 
 
 3 See the illuminating article of v. the opposite coast (see above, p. 133), 
 Dobschiitz (referred to in the preced- to the Archangel Michael, was not 
 ing notes), where the hagiographies founded till A.D. 873.
 
 184 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 the Emperor Leo V., to whom the family of Ignatius owed its 
 downfall, had been cast into a monastery in the island of Prote ; 
 they renounced the errors of their father, and won a high 
 reputation for virtue and piety. When the Patriarchal throne 
 became vacant, these monks of Imperial parentage, Basil and 
 Gregory, the sons of Leo, and Ignatius, the son of Michael, 
 were proposed for election. 1 Ignatius was preferred, perhaps 
 because it was felt that notwithstanding their own merits the 
 shadow of their father's heresy rested upon the sons of Leo ; 
 and he was consecrated on July 4, A.D. 847. 2 
 
 Ignatius had spent his life in pious devotion and monastic 
 organization. Tonsured at the age of thirteen or fourteen, he 
 had made no progress in secular learning, which he distrusted 
 and disliked. He was not a man of the world like Methodius ; 
 he had the rigid notions which were bred in cloistral life and 
 were calculated to lead himself and the Church into difficulties 
 when they were pursued in the Patriarchal palace. It is 
 probable that he was too much engaged in his own work to 
 have taken any part in the disputes which troubled Methodius, 
 and Theodora may have hoped that he would succeed in con- 
 ciliating the opposing parties. 3 But he was by nature an 
 anti-Methodian, and he showed this on the very day of his 
 consecration. 
 
 Gregory Asbestas, the archbishop of Syracuse, happened 
 to be in Constantinople at the time. A Sicilian, he was a 
 friend of the Sicilian Methodius, on whom he composed a 
 panegyric, and he was a man of some learning. There was a 
 charge against him of some ecclesiastical irregularity, 4 and it 
 was probably in connexion with this that he had come to the 
 capital. He had taken his place among the bishops who 
 attended in St. Sophia, bearing tapers, to acclaim the Patriarch, 
 and Ignatius ordered him to withdraw, on the ground that his 
 episcopal status was in abeyance until the charge which lay 
 
 1 Gen. 99. porter of Methodius, it is probable 
 
 2 Methodius died June 14, 847 that Ignatius had taken no part in 
 (Vita Joannic. by Simeon Met. 92; the opposition to Methodius. 
 
 Menol. Bas., sub die, p. 500, where he 4 According to Pseudo-Simeon, 671, 
 
 is said to have been Patriarch for four he had irregularly consecrated Zacha- 
 
 years three months). rias a priest whom Methodius had 
 
 3 It is said that Ignatius was re- sent to Rome bishop (of Tauro- 
 commended to the Empress by the menium). This author erroneously 
 hermit Joannikios (Vita Ignatii, 221). states that Gregory was deposed by 
 As Joannikios had been a strong sup- Methodius.
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 185 
 
 against him had been decided. This public slight enraged 
 Gregory, who dashed his candle to the ground and loudly 
 declared that not a shepherd but a wolf had intruded into the 
 Church. The new Patriarch certainly displayed neither the 
 wisdom of a serpent nor the harmlessness of a dove, and his 
 own adherents admit that he was generally blamed. 1 He had 
 thus at the very outset taken pains to offend an able and 
 eminent prelate of the party which had supported Methodius, 
 and the action was interpreted as a declaration of war. The 
 result was a schism. Gregory had many sympathizers ; some 
 bishops had marked their disapprobation of the action of 
 Ignatius by leaving the church in his company. 2 A schism- 
 atic group was formed which refused to acknowledge the new 
 Patriarch a group which expressed the general tendencies of 
 the Methodian party and avowed an unreserved admiration for 
 Methodius. But it was only a small group. The hierarchy 
 in general supported Ignatius, as it had supported Methodius ; 
 for Ignatius was supported by Theodora. 3 Nevertheless the 
 followers of Gregory, though comparatively few, were influential. 
 They alleged against the Patriarch that he was a detractor from 
 the merits and memory of his predecessor, and that he was 
 unduly rigorous and narrow in his application of the canons. 
 Ignatius summoned Gregory to answer the charge which still 
 hung over his head ; Gregory declined, and, along with others 
 of his party, was condemned by a synod. 4 He appealed against 
 this judgment to Pope Leo IV., who asked the Patriarch to 
 send him a copy of the Acts. Ignatius did not comply, and 
 Leo's successor, Benedict III., declined to confirm the deposition 
 of Gregory, and contented himself with suspending him until 
 he had inspected the documents. 5 
 
 1 Vita Ign, 232 01) /caXws ptv, &s ye we must accept the continuity of the 
 SOKOVV rots jroXXots. party with this limitation. 
 
 2 Ti. n n ^ 4 Stylianos, Ep. 428 ; Mansi, xiv. 
 J&. Especially Peter bishop of 102 9_32. The synod was held not 
 
 Sardis, and Eulampios, bishop of i ate r than 854, for Leo IV. died in 855. 
 A P amea - 6 Stylianos, loc. cit. ; Nicolaus, Ep. 
 
 3 Lebedev seems, in his exposition 9. For the fragment of a letter of 
 of the continuity of the two parties, Leo IV. to Ignatius, complaining that 
 to have missed the importance of the Patriarch had deposed certain men 
 Theodora's attitude. On their own without his knowledge or consent, 
 principles, the Methodians were bound see Ewald, " Die Papstbriefe der brit- 
 to support the new Patriarch, so long tischen Sammlung," in Neues Archiv, 
 as he was orthodox and was upheld v. 379 (1879). The persons in ques- 
 by the Emperor. The greater num- tion are undoubtedly Gregory and his 
 ber probably adhered to Ignatius, and fellows.
 
 186 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 The schism of Gregory might be allowed to rest in the 
 obscurity of ecclesiastical records if it had not won distinction 
 and importance by the adhesion of the most remarkable man 
 of the age. Photius was probably born about the beginning 
 of the ninth century. His father, Sergius, 1 was a brother of 
 the Patriarch Tarasius, 2 and through his mother he was 
 connected with the family of the Empress Theodora. 3 His 
 parents suffered exile for their devotion to image-worship 
 under the iconoclastic sovrans, 4 and it was probably in the 
 first years of Theodora's reign that Photius entered upon his 
 career as a public teacher of philosophy. He had an 
 attractive personality, he was a stimulating teacher, and he 
 soon found a band of disciples who hung upon his words. 
 His encyclopaedic learning, in which he not only excelled 
 all the men of his own time but was unequalled by any Greek 
 of the Middle Ages, will call for notice in another chapter. 
 His family connexions as well as his talents opened a career 
 in the Imperial service ; -and he was ultimately appointed to 
 the high post of Protoasecretis, or First Secretary, with the rank 
 of a protospathar. 5 It was probably during his tenure of this 
 important post that he was sent as ambassador to the East, 
 perhaps to Baghdad itself, perhaps only to some of the 
 provincial emirs. 6 Whatever his services as an envoy may 
 have been, he established personal relations of friendship with 
 Mohammadan magnates. 7 
 
 Photius had a high respect for Gregory Asbestas, and 
 identified himself closely with the group which opposed 
 
 1 Pseudo-Simeon, 668. His brothers 800. See Papadopulos-Kerameus, 6 
 were named Sergius and Tarasius. Trarptdpx^s <U>TIOS ws trarrip tiyios TT}S 
 
 2 Photius, Up. 113 deiov ^repov ; 'E/c/cX^as, p. 658 in B.Z. viii. (1909). 
 Up. 2 rbv iifj^Tepov irarpWeiov. Hergenrbther's date for his birth is 
 
 so i, 1KC 827 ( L 315-316). 
 
 See above, p. 156. B The date ig unknown> Hergen- 
 
 4 Photius, Ep. 113, Ep. 234 (ad rother says "probably under Theoktis- 
 
 Tarasium fratrem), Ep. 2 (Inthronist. tus " (i. 340). Hergenrbther has the 
 
 ad episc. orient.), p. 145. Cp. Ada curious idea that protospatharios 
 
 Gone. viii. 460 TOIJTOV Kal irarrip means "captain of the Imperial body- 
 
 Ka.1 n^T-rip iiirtp evcrepeias dOXovvres guard " (ib. ). 
 
 tva.Tr60a.vov. These passages show 6 See the Dedication of the 
 
 that they died in exile. Photius Bibliotheca, irpea-^e^eiv fyuas in' 
 
 himself was anathematized by the ' A.<r<rvplovs alped^vras. 
 
 same iconoclastic synod which 7 Cp. Mansi, xvii. 484. Nicolaus 
 
 anathematized his father (Ep. 164), Mysticus, Ep. 2*(Migne, cxi.), writing 
 
 and this was probably the synod of to the Emir of Crete, says that 
 
 A.D. 815. If so we cannot place the Photius was a friend of the Emir's 
 
 birth of Photius much later than father (p. 7).
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 187 
 
 Ignatius. 1 There was a natural antipathy between Photius, 
 a man of learning and a man of the world, and Ignatius, who 
 had neither tact nor secular erudition. It is probable that 
 the Patriarch even displayed in some public way his dislike 
 or disdain for profane learning." We can well understand 
 that he was deeply vexed by the opposition of a man whose 
 talents and learning were unreservedly recognized by his 
 contemporaries, and who exerted immense influence in the 
 educated society of the city. The synod, which condemned 
 Gregory, seems to have also condemned Photius, implicitly if 
 not by name ; and he was numbered among the schismatics. 3 
 
 In order to embarrass the Patriarch, and to prove that a 
 training in logic and philosophy was indispensable for defend- 
 ing Christian doctrine and refuting false opinions, Photius 
 conceived the idea of propounding a heresy. He promulgated 
 the thesis that there are two souls in man, one liable to err, 
 the other immune from error. 4 Some took this seriously and 
 were convinced by his ingenious arguments, to the everlasting 
 peril of their souls. His friend, Constantine the Philosopher, 
 who was afterwards to become famous as the Apostle of the 
 Slavs, reproached Photius with propounding this dangerous 
 proposition. " I had no idea," said Photius, " that it would 
 do any harm. I only wanted to see how Ignatius would deal 
 with it, without the aid of the philosophy which he rejects." 
 
 The Palace revolution which resulted in the fall of 
 Theodora and placed the government in the hands of Bardas 
 changed the ecclesiastical situation. Whatever difficulties 
 beset Ignatius in a post which he was not well qualified to 
 fill, whatever vexation might be caused to him through the 
 active or passive resistance of his opponents, he was secure so 
 long as the Empress was in power. But Bardas was a friend 
 and admirer of Photius, and the Ignatian party must have 
 felt his access to power as a severe blow. Bardas, however, 
 was a sufficiently prudent statesman to have no desire 
 wantonly to disturb the existing state of things, or to stir up 
 
 1 Nicolaus, Up, 11. p. 163 ; Styli- 4 Anastasius, Praef. 6 ; cp. Pseudo- 
 
 anos, Ep. 428 ; Pseudo-Simeon, 671. Simeon, 673 ; Mansi, xvi. 456. Cp. 
 
 Hergenrother, iii. 444-446. The 
 
 Anastasms, Praef. 6 "qui scilicet doctrine had such a vogue that the 
 
 viros extenoris sapientiae repuhsset. f athers of the Eighth Counci i thought 
 
 3 Libellus Ignatii, 300 ; Metro- it expedient to condemn it (canon x., 
 
 phanes, Ep. 415. Mansi, ib. 404).
 
 188 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 a serious ecclesiastical controversy. If Ignatius had behaved 
 with discretion and reconciled himself to a regime which 
 personally he disliked, it is not probable that the sympathies 
 of Bardas with the Photian party would have induced him to 
 take any measure against the Patriarch. 
 
 Ignatius found in the private morals of the powerful 
 minister a weak spot for attack. According to the rumour 
 of the town, Bardas was in love with his daughter-in-law, 
 and had for her sake abandoned his wife. 1 Acting on this 
 gossip, the Patriarch admonished Bardas, who declined to take 
 any notice of his rebukes and exhortations. 2 We may suspect 
 that he refused to admit that the accusation was true it 
 would perhaps have been difficult to prove and recommended 
 Ignatius to mind his own business. But Ignatius was 
 determined to show that he was the shepherd of his flock, 
 and that he was no respecter of persons. On the feast of 
 Epiphany (Jan. A.D. 858) he refused the communion to the 
 sinner. It is said that Bardas, furious at this public insult, 
 drew his sword ; but he managed to control his anger and 
 vowed vengeance on the bold priest. 
 
 The ecclesiastical historians speak with warm approbation 
 of this action of the Patriarch. The same prelate, who 
 adopted such a strong measure to punish the vices of Bardas, 3 
 had no scruples, afterwards, in communicating with the 
 Emperor Basil, who had ascended to power by two successive 
 murders. And the ecclesiastical historians seem to regard 
 the Patriarch's action, in ignoring Basil's crimes and virtually 
 taking advantage of them to reascend the Patriarchal throne, 
 as perfectly irreproachable. The historian who is not an 
 ecclesiastic may be allowed to express his respectful interest 
 in the ethical standards which are implied. 
 
 About eight months later the Emperor Michael decided 
 to tonsure his mother and sisters and immure them in the 
 monastery of Karianos. He requested the Patriarch to perform 
 the ceremony of the tonsure, and we have already seen that 
 
 1 Simeon (Cont. Qeorg. ) 826 ; Anas- 0i^?i/ t\0eiv. Cp. Lebedev, Istoriia, 
 tasius, Praef. ; Gen. 99 ; Vita Ign. 23-24. 
 
 224. 3 The expressions which Hergen- 
 
 2 Libellus Ignatii, 296 ; Vita Ign., ib. rother (369) applies to Bardas " ein 
 u)s avb. Trcurav rrjv Tr6\iv irepif3o/j.f3ri6TJvai' wolliistiger Hofling," "der machtige 
 /col oik 8.XP 1 r & v ToXXwj' ptivov dXXd no.1 Wiistling," are extraordinarily in- 
 
 avTov TOV dpxieptus TTJV irovypav felicitous.
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNA TIUS 189 
 
 Ignatius refused on the ground that the ladies themselves 
 were unwilling. 1 Bardas persuaded the Emperor that his 
 disobedience, in conjunction with his unconcealed sympathy 
 with the Empress, was a sign of treasonable purposes, and a 
 pretended discovery was made that he was in collusion with 
 an epileptic impostor, named Gebeon, who professed to be the 
 son of the Empress Theodora by a former marriage. Gebeon 
 had come from Dyrrhachium to Constantinople, where he 
 seduced some foolish people ; he was arrested and cruelly 
 executed in one of the Prince's Islands. 2 On the same day the 
 Patriarch was seized as an accomplice, and removed, without a 
 trial, to the island of Terebinthos (Nov. 23). 
 
 It is evident that there were no proofs against Ignatius, 
 and that the charge of treason was merely a device of 
 the government for the immediate purpose of removing him. 
 For in the subsequent transactions this charge seems to 
 have been silently dropped ; and if there had been any 
 plausible grounds, there would have been some sort of formal 
 trial. Moreover, it would appear that before his arrest it was 
 intimated to the Patriarch that he could avoid all trouble by 
 abdication, and he would have been tempted to yield if his 
 bishops had not assured him that they would loyally stand 
 by him. 3 Before his arrest he issued a solemn injunction 
 that no service should be performed in St. Sophia without his 
 consent. 4 A modern ecclesiastical historian, who has no high 
 opinion of Ignatius, cites this action as a proof that he was 
 ready to prefer his own personal interests to the good of the 
 Church. 5 
 
 In the place of his banishment Ignatius was visited 
 repeatedly by bishops and Imperial ministers pressing on him 
 the expediency of voluntary abdication. As he refused to 
 listen to arguments, threats were tried, but with no result. 6 
 The Emperor and Bardas therefore decided to procure the 
 election of a new Patriarch, though the chair was not de iure 
 
 1 Libellus Ignatii, 296. Anastasius 2 Vita Ign., ib. Bardas called 
 
 (Pracf. 2) and the Vita, Ign. (224) add Ignatius " Gebobasileutos. " 
 
 that he alleged the oath which he had 3 De Stauropatis, 441. 
 
 taken, at his elevation, that he would 4 Anastasius, Praef., ib. 
 
 never engage in a plot against Michael 5 Lebedev, op. cit. 25. 
 
 and Theodora (TT?S /3a<riXe/as V/JLWV). 6 Vita Ign. 226. Physical violence 
 
 Such an oath was apparently required was not employed at this stage (as the 
 
 from every Patriarch (secundum narrative in the Vita shows) ; Hergen- 
 
 morem, Anastas. ). rbther is wrong here (373-374).
 
 190 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 vacant, inasmuch as Ignatius had neither resigned nor been 
 canonically deposed. Such a procedure was not an innova- 
 tion ; there were several precedents. 1 The choice of the 
 government and the ecclesiastical party which was opposed to 
 Ignatius fell upon Photius. He was not only a grata persona 
 at Court ; but his extraordinary gifts, his eminent reputation, 
 along with his unimpeachable orthodoxy, were calculated to 
 shed prestige on the Patriarchal chair, and to reconcile the 
 public to a policy which seemed open to the reproaches of 
 violence and injustice. Many of the bishops who had vowed 
 to support the cause of Ignatius were won over by Bardas, and 
 Photius accepted the high office, which, according to his 
 enemies, had long been the goal of his ambition, and which, 
 according to his own avowal, he would have been only too 
 glad to decline. 2 He was tonsured on December 20 ; on the 
 four following days he was successively ordained lector, sub- 
 deacon, deacon, and priest, and on Christmas Day consecrated 
 bishop, by his friend Gregory Asbestas. 3 For this rapid and 
 irregular elevation to the highest dignity of the Church, 
 which was one of the principal objections urged against 
 Photius, the recent precedents of his uncle Tarasius and 
 Nicephorus, as well as others, could be alleged. The ambiguous 
 position of Gregory, who had been deposed by a synod and 
 suspended by a Pope, furnished another handle against the 
 new Patriarch. But all the bishops who were present in 
 Constantinople, except five, acknowledged him, 4 and the five 
 dissentients were persuaded to acquiesce when he gave them a 
 written undertaking that he would honour Ignatius as a father 
 and act according to his wishes. 5 But two months later 
 
 1 E.g. Arsacius, Atticus, Macedonius Metrophanes (loc. cit.), who was one of 
 II., etc. Cp. Hergenrb'ther, i. 377. the five, says|: " When we saw that the 
 
 2 He dwells on his reluctance to mass of the bishops had been seduced 
 accept the post in some of his letters ; we thought it right to acknowledge 
 cp. Ep. 159 ad Bardam. him in writing (5t' tSioxelpov 6/uoXo-yi'as) 
 
 3 Vita Ign. 232. as a son of our Church and in com- 
 
 4 From Metrophanes, Ep. 416, it munion with its High Priest (Ignatius), 
 would appear that the formality of in order that even here we might not 
 election by the bishops was not ob- be found in disagreement with his will ; 
 served ; that, after the consecration of for he (Ignatius) had directed us to 
 Photius, the bishops met and nomi- elect a Patriarch from our Church in 
 nated three candidates, of whom Christ. So when Photius signed in 
 Photius was not one ; but that all our presence a promise that he would 
 except five then went over to the hold the Patriarch free from blame 
 Photian side. and neither speak against him nor 
 
 8 Libellus Ign. 300 ; Vita Ign. 233. permit others to do so, we accepted
 
 PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 
 
 191 
 
 he is said to have recovered the document on some pretext 
 and torn it up into small pieces. Then those bishops who were 
 really on the side of Ignatius, and had unwillingly consented 
 to an impossible compromise, held a series of meetings in the 
 church of St. Irene, and deposed and excommunicated Photius 
 with his adherents. 1 Such an irregular assembly could not 
 claim the authority of a synod, but it was a declaration of 
 war. Photius immediately retorted by holding a synod in the 
 Holy Apostles. Ignatius, in his absence, was deposed and 
 anathematized ; and the opportunity was probably used to 
 declare Gregory Asbeatas absolved from those charges which 
 had led to his condemnation by the ex-Patriarch (spring 
 A.D. 859). 2 
 
 In the meantime Bardas persistently endeavoured to force 
 Ignatius to an act of abdication. He was moved from place 
 to place and treated with cruel rigour. 3 His followers were 
 
 unwillingly, on account of the violence 
 of the government." It appears from 
 this that Ignatius, though he refused 
 to abdicate, would have been prepared 
 to do so if another than Photius had 
 been his successor. It is to be observed 
 that while the Lib. Ign. and the Vita 
 Ign. assert that Ignatius declined 
 throughout to abdicate, Basil, arch- 
 bishop of Thessalonica, a younger 
 contemporary of Photius, in his Vita 
 Euthym. jun. 178 states that he, 
 partly voluntarily, partly under com- 
 pulsion, executed an act of abdication 
 (jStjSXfoi' irapatTrifffws rrj 'EKK\-r)ffiq, 
 irapadLdwiri). Cp. Papadopulos-Kera- 
 meus, 6 warp. $dmos (cited above), 
 659-660 ; P.-K. accepts this statement. 
 The evidence is certainly remarkable, 
 bit Basil, though he speaks sym- 
 pathetically of Ignatius, is an ardent 
 admirer of Photius ; cp. ib. 179. 
 
 1 Metrophanes, ib. The meeting 
 lasted forty days. 
 
 2 The chronology is uncertain, and 
 there is a discrepancy between Metro- 
 phanes and Vita Ign. According to 
 the latter source Ignatius was removed 
 to Mytilene in August (859), and was 
 there when the synod in the Holy 
 Apostles was held ; the other assembly 
 in St. Irene is not mentioned. Metro- 
 phanes implies that the two synods 
 were almost contemporary, and that 
 the persecution of Ignatius, prior to 
 his deportation to Mytilene, was sub- 
 
 sequent to the synod which deposed 
 him. He evidently places the synods 
 in the spring, for he connects the de- 
 position of Ignatius with the recovery 
 of the signed document of Photius 
 (8s /ierct j3paxb Kal rb tdtov d^efXero 
 Xeipbypa-<f>ov Kal Ka6e?\ev 'lyvdriov). 
 As Metrophanes was himself an actor 
 in these transactions, and was incar- 
 cerated with Ignatius in the Numera, 
 he is the better authority. It was, no 
 doubt, hoped to extract an abdication 
 from Ignatius without deposing him, 
 but the assembly of St. Irene forced the 
 hand of Photius. It was, however, no 
 less desirable after the synod to procure 
 an abdication in view of public opinion. 
 3 He was removed from Terebinthos 
 to Hieria (where he was kept in a 
 goat-fold), then to the suburb of 
 Promotes (on the Galata side of the 
 Golden Horn ; see Pargoire, Boradion, 
 482-483), where he was beaten by 
 Leo Lalakon, the Domestic of the 
 Numeri (who knocked out two of his 
 teeth), and loaded with heavy irons. 
 Then he was shut up in the prison of 
 the Numera, near the Palace, till he 
 was taken to Mytilene, where he 
 remained six months (c. August 859 to 
 February 860). He was then permitted 
 to return to Terebinthos, and he is 
 said to have suffered ill-treatment from 
 Nicetas Ooryphas, who was Prefect of 
 the City (see above, Chapter IV. p. 144, 
 note). But a worse thing happened.
 
 192 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 barbarously punished. The writers of the Ignatian party 
 accuse Photius of having prompted these acts of tyranny, but 
 letters of Photius himself to Bardas, bitterly protesting against 
 the cruelties, show that he did not approve this policy of 
 violence, 1 which indeed only served to increase his own 
 unpopularity. The populace of the city seems to have been 
 in favour of Ignatius, who had also sympathizers among the 
 Imperial ministers, such as Constantine the Drungarios of the 
 Watch. The monks, from whose rank he had risen, generally 
 supported him ; the Studites refused to communicate with the 
 new Patriarch, and their abbot Nicolas left Constantinople. 2 
 Photius, as is shown by his correspondence, took great pains 
 to win the goodwill of individual monks and others by flattery 
 and delicate attentions. 3 
 
 The announcement of the enthronement of a new Patriarch, 
 which it was the custom to send to the other four Patriarchal 
 Sees Kome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem had been 
 postponed, evidently in the hope that Ignatius would be 
 induced to abdicate. When more than a year had passed and 
 this hope was not fulfilled, the formal announcement could no 
 longer be deferred. An inthronistic letter was addressed to 
 the Eastern Patriarchs, 4 and an embassy was sent to Eome 
 bearing letters to the Pope from Michael and Photius. The 
 chair of St. Peter was now filled by Nicolas I., who stands out 
 among the Pontiffs between Gregory I. and Gregory VII. as 
 having done more than any other to raise the Papal power to 
 the place which it was to hold in the days of Innocent III. 5 
 
 Terebinthos, like the other islands in dom on the accession of Basil. In the 
 
 the neighbourhood of the capital, was meantime a succession of unwelcome 
 
 exposed to the Russian invasion of abbots had been imposed on Studion. 
 
 this year (see below, p. 419). The See Vita Nicolai Stud. 909 sqq. 
 
 enemy despoiled the monastery of 3 See the correspondence of Photius. 
 
 Ignatius, seized and slew twenty-two The material is collected in Hergen- 
 
 of his household (Vita Ign. 233 sqq.). rother, i. 396 sqq. One abbot at least 
 
 Ignatius himself (Libellus Ign., ad left his monastery to avoid the conflict. 
 
 mil.) mentions his sufferings from Cp. Vita Euthym. jun. 179. 
 
 cold, insufficient clothing, hunger, 4 The Patriarchate of Antioch was 
 
 stripes, chains. at this moment vacant, and the com- 
 
 1 See Photius, Ep. 159. munication is addressed to the 
 
 2 Nicolas of Crete had succeeded oekonomos and synkellos (Ep. 2, ed. 
 Naukratios as abbot in 848. He re- Val.). Its tenor corresponds to the 
 mained seven years in exile, first at letter to the Pope. 
 
 Praenete in Bithynia, then in the 6 He was elected in April 858. 
 
 Chersonese, whence (865-866) he was Regino, Ghron., s.a. 868, says of 
 
 brought in chains to Constantinople him : " regibus ac tyrannis imperavit 
 
 and incarcerated in his own monastery eisque ac si dominus orbis terrarum 
 
 for two years. He obtained his free- auctoritate praefuit."
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 193 
 
 A man of deeds rather than of words, as one of his admirers 
 says, he was inspired with the idea of the universal authority 
 of the Eoman See. The internal troubles in the Carolingian 
 realm enabled him to assert successfully the Papal pretensions 
 in the West ; the schism at Constantinople gave him a 
 welcome opportunity of pressing his claims upon the East. 
 But in Photius he found an antagonist, not only incomparably 
 more learned than himself, but equally determined, energetic, 
 and resourceful. 
 
 The letter of Photius to the Pope was a masterpiece of 
 diplomacy. 1 He enlarged on his reluctance to undertake the 
 burdens of the episcopal office, which was pressed upon him 
 by the Emperor and the clergy with such insistency that he 
 had no alternative but to accept it. He then in accordance 
 with the usual custom in such inthronistic letters made a 
 precise statement of the articles of his religion and declared 
 his firm belief in the seven Ecumenical Councils. He concluded 
 by asking the Pope, not for any support or assistance, but 
 simply for his prayers. He abstained from saying anything 
 against his predecessor. But the letter which was sent in the 
 Emperor's name 2 gave a garbled account of the vacation of the 
 Patriarchal throne, and requested the Pope to send legates to 
 attend a synod which should decide some questions relating to 
 the iconoclastic heresy. Neither the Patriarch nor the Emperor 
 invited the Pope even to express an opinion on recent events, 
 but Nicolas resolved to seize the occasion and assert a juris- 
 diction which, if it had been accepted, would have annulled 
 the independence of the Church of Constantinople. He 
 despatched two bishops, with instructions to investigate the 
 facts in connexion with the deposition of Ignatius, and to 
 make a report. 3 He committed to them letters (dated 
 
 1 Ep. 1. three bishops, who bore gifts from the 
 
 2 This letter is not preserved, but Emperor : a gold paten with precious 
 we know its tenor from the reply of stones (albis, prasinis et hyacinthinis) ; 
 Nicolas. It was said of Ignatius that a gold chalice from which gems hung 
 he had withdrawn from the duties of by golden threads ; a gold shield in- 
 his office voluntarily and had been laid with gems ; a gold-embroidered 
 deposed by a council, and it was robe with trees, roses, and sacred 
 suggested that he had neglected scenes, etc. ( Vita Nicolai Papae, 147). 
 (spreverit) his flock and contemned the The envoys reached Rome in summer 
 decrees of Popes Leo and Benedict 860 and were received in audience in 
 (Nicol. Ep. 2). The letters were pre- S. Maria Maggiore. 
 
 sented by an embassy consisting of 3 The legates were Rodoaldus of 
 Arsaber, an Imperial spatharios, and Porto and Zacharias of Anagni. The 
 

 
 194 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 September 25, 860) to the Emperor and to Photius. These 
 letters have considerable interest as a specimen of Papal 
 diplomacy. The communication to the Emperor opens with 
 the assertion of the primacy of the Koman See and of the 
 principle that no ecclesiastical difficulty should be decided in 
 Christendom x without the consent of the Roman Pontiff ; it 
 goes on to point out that this principle has been violated by 
 the deposition of Ignatius, and that the office has been 
 aggravated by the election of a layman an election which 
 "our holy Eoman Church" has always prohibited. On these 
 grounds the Pope announces that he cannot give his apostolic 
 consent to the consecration of Photius until his messengers 
 have reported the facts of the case and have examined 
 Ignatius. He then proceeds to reply to that part of the 
 Emperor's letter which concerned the question of image- 
 worship. The document concludes with the suggestion that 
 Michael should show his devotion to the interests of the 
 Church by restoring to the Eoman See the vicariate of 
 Thessalonica and the patrimonies of Calabria and Sicily, which 
 had been withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Pope by 
 Leo III. The short letter to Photius censures the temerity 
 of his elevation and declines to acknowledge his consecration, 
 unless the Papal messengers, when they return from Con- 
 stantinople, report favourably on his actions and devotion to 
 the Church. 2 
 
 The diplomatic intent of these letters could hardly be mis- 
 apprehended by a novice. The innocent suggestion (put 
 forward as if it had no connexion with the other matters 
 under discussion) that Illyricum and Calabria should be 
 transferred from the See of Constantinople to that of Rome 
 would never have been made if Nicolas had not thought that 
 there was a reasonable chance of securing this accession to the 
 
 Pope, in his letter to Michael, ex- to the Emperor in the Roman archives, 
 
 pressly reserves the decision to himself He complains afterwards that in the 
 
 (" ac deinde cum nostro praesulatui Greek translation which was read at 
 
 significatum fuerit.quid de eo agendum the Council of 861 it was falsified by 
 
 sit apostolica sanctione difnniamus "). interpolations and misrepresentations 
 
 The legates had only full powers in of the sense. He speaks of such falsi- 
 
 regard to the question of image- fications as characteristically Greek 
 
 worship. ("apud Graecos . . familiaris est ista 
 
 1 Nicol. Ep. 2, p. 162: " qualiter . . temeritas," Ep. 9), but inadequate 
 nullius insurgentis deliberationis ter- knowledge of the language must have 
 minus daretur." been a cause of many mistakes. 
 
 2 The Pope kept a copy of his letter
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 195 
 
 dominion and revenue of his chair. It is plain that he could 
 not hope that the Emperor and the Patriarch would agree to 
 such a large concession unless they received a due considera- 
 tion ; and it is equally obvious that the only consideration 
 which the Pope could offer, was to consent to the consecration 
 of Photius, and crush by the weight of his authority the 
 schism which was so seriously distressing the church of Con- 
 stantinople. Notwithstanding his severe animadversions on 
 the uncanonical elevation of Photius, he intimated that this 
 was not an insuperable difficulty; if his delegates brought 
 back a satisfactory report, matters might be arranged. It is 
 perfectly clear that Pope Nicolas proposed a bargain, in the 
 interest of what he calls ecclesiastica utilitas. 1 
 
 It is impossible to say whether the Imperial government 
 took into serious consideration the Pope's proposal. But there 
 were at all events some, probably among the moderate section 
 of the Photians, who thought that the best solution of the 
 ecclesiastical difficulty would be to agree to the bargain, and 
 Photius was so gravely alarmed that, in a letter to Bardas, he 
 complains bitterly of the desire of persons who are not named 
 to deprive him of half his jurisdiction. 2 It would seem that 
 there was a chance that the diplomacy of Nicolas might have 
 been successful. But if Michael and Bardas entertained 
 any idea of yielding, they were persuaded by Photius to 
 relinquish it. 
 
 The two legates of the Pope were won over to the Photian 
 party by cajolements and threats. 3 A council assembled in 
 May (A.D. 8 6 1), 4 remarkable for the large number of bishops 
 
 1 It is not, I think, without signi- fieda. The meaning was seen by 
 ficance, as indicating the Pope's idea, Lebedev, loc. cit. 
 
 that this phrase is used in the letter 3 On their arrival at Rhaedestos 
 to Michael in reference to the restitu- they had received costly dresses from 
 tion of the provinces (" vestrum impe- Photius. They were kept in isolation 
 riale decus quod in omnibus ecclesia- for three months, so that they should 
 sticis utilitatibus vigere audivimus "), have no converse with the Ignatian 
 and also in the letter to Photius ("ec- party, and only hear the Photian side, 
 clesiasticae utilitatis constantiam "), Threats of exile and insects ("longa 
 where the suggestion seems to be exilia et diuturnas pediculorum come- 
 that Photius can prove his devotion stiones ") induced them to transgress 
 to the interests of the Church by their instructions and acknowledge 
 complying with the wishes of the Photius. Nicolaus, Epp. 6 and 9. It 
 Pope. Lebedev (op. cit. 48-49) has was the Emperor who threatened and 
 apprehended that Nicolas was pro- Photius who cajoled. Stylianos, Ep. 
 posing a "deal." 429. 
 
 2 Ep. 157, p. 492 cufxuptlrai d<j>' TJ/J.WI' 4 In the Church of the Apostles. 
 rb rituffv T^ dpxrjs and rb tf/j.i<rv afapri- This synod was called the First and
 
 196 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 CHAP. VI 
 
 who attended. The Emperor was present, and Ignatius 
 unwillingly appeared. Seventy-two witnesses, including both 
 highly-placed ministers and men of humble rank, came forward 
 to prove that Ignatius had been appointed to the Patriarchate, 
 not by free election, but by the personal act of Theodora. 1 
 We are in the dark as to the precise circumstances of the 
 elevation of Ignatius. There is no doubt that he was chosen 
 by Theodora, but it is almost incredible that the usual form 
 of election was not observed, and if it was observed, to 
 condemn his elevation was to condemn the elevation of every 
 Patriarch of Constantinople as uncanonical. For virtually 
 every Patriarch was appointed by the Imperial will. 2 In any 
 case at this synod if we can trust the accounts of the 
 supporters of Ignatius the government exercised considerable 
 pressure. The assembly, including the representatives of 
 Home, whether they were convinced or not, confirmed the 
 deposition of Ignatius, and declared him unworthy. The 
 authority of Photius was thus established by the formal act 
 of a large council, subscribed by the legates of the Eoman see. 3 
 
 was a coincidence. Ignatius had been 
 brought back to Constantinople some 
 time before, and was permitted to 
 reside in the Palace of Posis which 
 had belonged to his mother, the 
 Empress Procopia. He unwillingly 
 resigned himself to appear before the 
 synod, where he refused to recognize 
 the authority of the Papal legates. 
 
 2 Pope Nicolas observes this (loc. 
 cit. ). 
 
 3 Seventeen canons, passed by this 
 Council, remained in force, and are 
 preserved (Mansi, xvi. 535 sqq.). 
 Canons 16 and 17, forbidding for the 
 future the consecration of bishops in 
 the circumstances in which Photius 
 had been consecrated, and the sudden 
 elevation of a layman to the episcopate, 
 were calculated to conciliate the can- 
 onical scruples of the Pope. Canons 
 13-15 were aimed against schismatics 
 and intended to strengthen the hands 
 of Photius. Most of the other rules 
 dealt with monastic reform, and by 
 one of them (204), prohibiting members 
 from leaving their cloisters at their 
 own caprice, it is thought that Photius 
 hoped to prevent the Ignatians from 
 travelling to Rome. Cp. Lebedev, op. 
 cit. 63. 
 
 Second (irpuT^ Kal devrtpa), of which 
 perhaps the most probable explanation 
 is that suggested by Hergenrbther 
 (i. 438), that it resumed and confirmed 
 the acts of the synod of 859 held in 
 the same church. 
 
 1 We must suppose that he had 
 been condemned on the same ground 
 in A.D. 859 at the local council ; but 
 this charge does not seem to have 
 been mentioned in Michael's letter to 
 the Pope, who indeed points this out in 
 his letter of A.D. 862 (Ep. 5) : " omni- 
 bus accusationibus remotis . . unum 
 opponentes tantummodoquod potentia 
 saeculari sedem pervaserit. " Seventy- 
 two witnesses (for the number cp. 
 Hergenrother, i. 426, n. 38), including 
 men of all ranks senators, artisans, 
 fish-merchants were produced to give 
 sworn evidence that Ignatius had been 
 uncanonically appointed. Cp. Fit. 
 Ign. 237. The acts of the Council 
 were burnt at the Council of A.D. 869 ; 
 and our knowledge of its proceedings 
 is derived chiefly from the Libellus 
 Ign. and the Vit. lyn. There were 318 
 bishops, etc., present, the same number 
 as at the Council of Nicaea, as the 
 Photians noted with satisfaction : 
 Lebedev (op. cit. 53) thinks that this
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 197 
 
 The legates had exceeded their instructions. 1 When they 
 returned to Eome in the autumn, their action was repudiated 
 by the Pope, who asserted that they had only been directed to 
 report on the whole matter to him, and had received no power 
 to judge the question themselves. There is no doubt that 
 they had betrayed the interests of their master and suffered 
 themselves to be guided entirely by the court of Byzantium. 
 An Imperial secretary soon arrived at Eome, bearing a copy 
 of the Acts of the Council with letters from the Emperor and 
 the Patriarch. 2 The letter of Photius could hardly fail to 
 cause deep displeasure to the Roman bishop. It was perfectly 
 smooth, courteous, and conciliatory in tone, but it was the 
 letter of an equal to an equal, and, although the question of 
 Roman jurisdiction was not touched on, it was easy to read 
 between the lines that the writer had the will and the courage 
 to assert the independence of the see of Constantinople. As 
 for the ecclesiastical provinces of Illyricum and Calabria, he 
 hypocritically threw upon the government the entire responsi- 
 bility for not restoring them to Rome, and implied that he 
 himself would have been willing to sacrifice them. 3 
 
 The Imperial secretary remained in Rome for some 
 months, 4 hoping that Nicolas would be persuaded to sanction 
 all that his legates had done in his name. But the Pope was 
 now resolved to embrace the cause of Ignatius and to 
 denounce Photius. He addressed an encyclical letter to the 
 three Patriarchs of the East, informing them that Ignatius 
 had been illegally deposed, and that a most wicked man (homo 
 
 1 This is proved by the Pope's holding his hand, traced his signature 
 letter which they carried to Michael, on a paper on which Photius after- 
 and it is useless for Lebedev (op. cit. wards wrote a declaration of abdica- 
 54) to contest it. tion. The other sources which mention 
 
 2 It may be noticed here that ac- this, are derived from Vit. Ign. ; Her- 
 cording to Vit. lyn. 241, some time genrother is wrong in supposing that 
 after the Council, new attempts were the account in Gen. 100 is inde- 
 made to extort an abdication from Ig- pendent ; see Hirsch, 159. Photius, 
 natius by ill - treatment. He was however, seems to have made no use 
 beaten, starved for two weeks, with of this document. The sufferings re- 
 no dress but a shirt, in the Imperial corded and probably exaggerated in 
 mortuary chapel (Heroon) of the Holy the- Vita may be briefly referred to at 
 Apostles, where he was stretched upon the end of the Libellus lyn. (ev eirra 
 the sarcophagus of Constantino V., yap OI/TW KoKaaBevra, fi/j.tpcus &VLTOV, 
 with heavy stones attached to his G.VTTVOV, d/cdtfierroi' Staneivai tfiiaffav), 
 ankles. These tortures were inflicted but nothing is said of the signature, 
 by Theodore Moros, John Gorgonites, 3 Ep. 3. 
 
 and Nikolaos Skutelops. When he 4 Till March 862, the date of the 
 
 was perfectly exhausted, one of them, replies of the Pope (Epp. 5 and 6).
 
 198 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 scelestissimus) had occupied his church ; declaring that the 
 Koman see will never consent to this injustice ; and ordering 
 them, by his apostolical authority, to work for the expulsion 
 of Photius and the restoration of Ignatius. 1 At the same 
 time he indited epistles to the Emperor and to Photius, 
 asserting with stronger emphasis than before the authority of 
 Eome as head and mistress of the churches, 2 and declining to 
 condemn Ignatius or to recognize Photius. 
 
 The ambassadors of the Pope, during their visit to 
 Constantinople, had heard only one side. The authorities had 
 taken care to prevent them from communicating with Ignatius 
 or any of the Ignatian party, and they also attempted to 
 hinder any one from repairing to Eome in the interests of the 
 Ignatian cause. Theognostos, however, who was an ardent 
 partisan of the deposed Patriarch, 3 succeeded in reaching Home 
 in disguise, and he carried with him a petition setting forth 
 the history of the deposition of Ignatius and the sufferings 
 which he endured, and imploring the Pope, who was humbly 
 addressed as " the Patriarch of all the thrones," to take pity 
 and arise as a powerful champion against injustice. 4 
 
 1 Up. 4, 168. aloud his sentence in the ambo of St. 
 
 2 The words in which he asserts Sophia. Soldiers surrounded his house 
 that the laws and decrees of the on the eve of Whitsunday, May 25, 
 Roman see must not be set aside by 862 ; but Ignatius escaped, disguised 
 subject churches, on the plea of as a porter, and wandered for some 
 different customs, are strong : " Et months from island to island in the 
 ideo consequens est ut quod ab huius Propontis, eluding the pursuers who 
 Sedis rectoribus plena auctoritate were set on his track. In August and 
 sancitur, nullius consuetudinis praepe- September Constantinople was shaken 
 diente occasione, proprias tantum by terrible earthquakes for forty days, 
 sequendo voluntates, removeatur, sed and the calamity was ascribed by 
 firmius atque inconcusse teneatur. " superstition to the unjust treatment 
 Ep. 6, 174. of Ignatius. To calm the public, the 
 
 3 He was an archimandrite of the Emperor , caused a declaration to be 
 Roman Church, abbot of the monas- made that Ignatius would be allowed 
 tery of Pege, skeuophylax of St. to remain unmolested in his cloister. 
 Sophia, and Exarch of the monasteries Ignatius revealed himself to Petronas, 
 of Constantinople. See the title of the brother of Bardas, who gave him 
 the Libellus Ign. as a safe-conduct an enkolpion (prob- 
 
 4 The Libellus, stating the case of ably a jewelled cross) which the 
 Ignatius, was written by Theognostos, Emperor wore on his breast. He then 
 but in the name of Ignatius, with had an interview with Bardas and 
 whom were associated fifteen metro- was dismissed to his monastery. See 
 politan bishops, and an "infinite Vita Ign. 241 sqq. The earthquake 
 number " of priests, monks, etc. Per- referred to is probably the same as 
 haps, as Hergenrbther suggests (i. that described in Cont. Th. 196-197. 
 462), it was the knowledge of this It did great damage in the south- 
 despatch to Rome that prompted the western part of the city (Hexakionion). 
 government to make another attempt The earthquake in Vita Ign. 249 
 to force Ignatius, this time by reading seems to be different.
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 199 
 
 It was probably the influence of the representations of 
 Theognostos and other Ignatians who had found their way 
 to Koine, that moved Nicolas a year later (April A.D. 863), 
 to hold a Synod in the Lateran. 1 Neither the Emperor nor 
 the Patriarch had vouchsafed any answer to his letter, and 
 as it was evident that they had no intention of yielding to 
 his dictation, he punished the Church of Constantinople by 
 the only means which lay in his power. The synod deprived 
 Photius of his ecclesiastical status, and excommunicated him 
 unless he immediately resigned the see which he had usurped ; 
 it pronounced the same penalty upon all ecclesiastics who had 
 been consecrated by Photius ; and it restored Ignatius and all 
 those bishops who had been deposed and exiled in his cause. 2 
 A copy of the proceedings was sent to Constantinople. 
 
 It was impossible for Constantinople to ignore the formal 
 condemnation pronounced by the Lateran Synod, and Photius 
 was prepared to assert the independence of his see, by dealing 
 out to the Pope the same measure which the Pope had dealt out 
 to him. In August 865, Nicholas received a letter from the 
 Emperor assuring him that all his efforts in behalf of Ignatius 
 were useless, and requiring him to withdraw his judgment, 
 with a threat that, if he refused, the Emperor would march 
 to Rome and destroy the city. The document, which was 
 evidently drafted under the direction of Photius, must have 
 been couched in sufficiently provocative terms ; but the threat 
 was not seriously meant, and the writer did not expect that 
 the Pope would yield. The real point of the letter was the 
 repudiation of the papal claim to supreme jurisdiction, as the 
 real point of the Pope's long reply was the assertion of the 
 privileges of the chair of St. Peter. The Pope indeed makes 
 what may be represented as a concession. He offers to revise 
 his judgment at Eome, and demands that the two rivals 
 shall appear personally before him, or if they cannot come, 
 send plenipotentiaries. The concession was as nugatory as 
 the Emperor's threat, and it assumed, in an aggravated form, 
 the claims of the Papacy as a supreme court of appeal. 3 
 
 1 Cp. Hergenrother, i. 519. synod of Nov. 864, which condemned 
 
 2 Nicolaus, Ep. 7. The acts are not his fellow, Rodoald. 
 
 extant. This synod condemned the 3 The tenor of Michael's letter is 
 
 faithless legate Zacharias, and must only known from the reply of Nicolas, 
 not be confounded with the Lateran Ep. 8, who describes it as "tota bias-
 
 200 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 The quarrel between Home and Constantinople was soon 
 augmented by the contest between the two sees for the control 
 of the infant church of Bulgaria, 1 and Photius judged that 
 the time was ripe for a decisive blow. He held a local synod 
 for the condemnation of various heresies which Latin clergy 
 had criminally introduced into Bulgaria. 2 These " servants 
 of Antichrist, worthy of a thousand deaths," permitted the 
 use of milk and cheese in the Lenten fast ; they sowed the 
 seed of the Manichaean doctrine by their aversion to priests 
 who are legally married ; they had the audacity to pour anew 
 the chrism of confirmation on persons who had already been 
 anointed by priests, as if a priest were not as competent to 
 confirm as to baptize. But above all they were guilty of 
 teaching the blasphemous and atheistic doctrine that the 
 Holy Ghost proceeds not only from the Father, but also from 
 the Son. 
 
 The eloquent Patriarch can hardly find words adequate 
 to characterize the enormity of these false doctrines, in the 
 encyclical letter 3 which he addressed to the three Eastern 
 Patriarchs, inviting them to attend a general council at 
 Constantinople, for the purpose of rooting out such abominable 
 errors. Other questions too, Photius intimated, would come 
 before the council. For he had received from Italy an official 
 communication full of grave complaints of the tyranny 
 exercised by the Roman bishop in the west. 
 
 The document to which Photius refers seems to have 
 emanated from the archbishops of Koln and Trier, who were 
 at this time leading an anti-papal movement. The occasion 
 of this division in the western Church was the love of king 
 Lothar II. of Lothringia for his mistress Waldrade. 4 To 
 marry her he had repudiated his queen, and his action was 
 approved by a synod at Metz, guided .by the influence of the 
 two archbishops. But the Pope embraced the cause of the 
 queen, and in a synod in the Lateran (October 863), annulled 
 
 phemiis, tota iniuriis plena." One of :i Ep. 4. 
 
 Michael's demands was that the Pope 4 For this affair and its consequences 
 
 should hand over to him the Ignatians see Hergenrother, i. 540 sqq. ; Hefele, 
 
 who were at Rome. iv. 240 sqq. The documents will be 
 
 1 See Chap. XII. found in Mansi, xv. 611 sqq., 645 sqq., 
 
 2 Photius, Ep. 4, 27, p. 176. to which must be added the Vita 
 Hergenrother assigns the synod to Nicolai, and the chronicles of Regino 
 Lent, 867 (i. 648). and Hincmar (Ann. Bert.).
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 201 
 
 the acts of Metz, and deposed the archbishops of Koln and 
 Trier. These prelates received at first support from the 
 Emperor Lewis II., but that vacillating monarch soon made 
 peace with the Pope, and the archbishops presumed to 
 organize a general movement of metropolitan bishops against 
 the claims of the Koman see. They distributed to the bishops 
 of the wesb a circular Protest, denouncing the tyranny, 
 arrogance, and cunning of Nicholas, who would " make himself 
 the Emperor of the whole world." 1 They sent a copy to the 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, imploring him to come to their 
 help and deliverance. 2 
 
 This movement in the western church was well calculated 
 to confirm Photius and the Imperial government in the justice 
 of their own cause, and it led the Patriarch to a far-reaching 
 scheme which it required some time to mature. It is certain 
 that during the years A.D. 8 6 5-8 6 7, there were secret negotiations 
 between Constantinople and the Emperor Lewis. It is im- 
 probable that any formal embassies were interchanged. But 
 by unofficial means perhaps by communications between 
 Photius and the Empress Engelberta an understanding was 
 reached that if the Pope were excommunicated by the 
 eastern Patriarchs, Lewis might be induced to drive him from 
 Rome as a heretical usurper, and that the court of Con- 
 stantinople would officially recognize the Imperial dignity 
 and title of the western Emperor. 3 
 
 Constantinople carried out her portion of the programme. 
 The Council met in A.D. 867 (perhaps the late summer), 4 and 
 the Emperor Michael presided. The Pope was condemned 
 and anathema pronounced against him for the heretical 
 doctrines and practices which were admitted by the Roman 
 Church, and for his illegitimate interference in the affairs of 
 the Church of Constantinople. The acts of the Synod were 
 
 1 " Dominus Nicolaus qui dicitur Lewis and his wife. 
 
 Papa et qui se Apostolum inter 4 The date is inferred from the fact 
 
 Apostolos adnumerat totiusque nmndi that Zacharias, bishop of Chalcedon, 
 
 imperatorem se facit." The text i.s who was deputed to carry the acts of 
 
 given Ann. Bert. 68 sqq. the Council to Italy, was still on his 
 
 2 Photius, op. cit. ffwodiKrj TIS eTriffToXrj journey in September, after Michael's 
 Trpos 71/J.as avairefioirriKev, ib. pr; Trapideiv death, and was recalled (Vita Ign. 
 avrovs ourws ot'/crpws d.Tro\\v/j.tvovs KT\. 257), Hergenrbther, i. 349. 
 
 3 Previous negotiations, though not 5 And probably Basil with him, as 
 mentioned in the sources, are pre- Hergenrother ib. admits. Metrophanes, 
 supposed by the actual acclamation of op. cit. 417.
 
 202 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 afterwards burned, 1 and we know of it only from the brief 
 notices of the enemies of Photius. They insinuate that the 
 signature of Michael had been appended when he was drunk ; 
 that the signature of his colleague Basil, had been forged ; that 
 the subscriptions of almost all those who were present, number- 
 ing about a thousand, were fabricated. 2 These allegations are 
 highly improbable, and the writers themselves are inconsistent 
 in what they allege. It is obvious that if the Emperors had 
 disapproved of the purpose of the Council, the Council could 
 never have met ; and it is equally clear that if the overwhelming 
 majority of the Council, including the Emperors, had dis- 
 approved of the decrees, the decrees could not have been 
 passed. But there seems to have been some chicanery. At 
 the Eighth Ecumenical Council, the metropolitan bishops whose 
 signatures appeared, were asked whether they had subscribed, 
 and they said, " God forbid, we did not subscribe." s Are we 
 to suppose that they consented to the acts and afterwards 
 refused to append their names ? 
 
 The scandal about the legates of the Eastern Patriarchs 
 is hardly less obscure. It is stated that Photius picked up 
 in the streets three evil men whom he foisted upon the synod 
 as the representatives of the Patriarchs. 4 They pretended to 
 be Peter, Basil, and Leontios. But the true Peter, Basil, and 
 Leontios appeared at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, where 
 they asserted that they had not been named as legates by the 
 Patriarchs, that they knew nothing about the Synod, had not 
 attended it, and had not signed its acts. 5 It is impossible to 
 
 1 By the explicit and emphatic in- twenty-one realty signed, but this can 
 structions of Pope Hadrian. hardly be true, and the same writer 
 
 2 Vita Hadriani II. 811, and Anas- gives the total number of signatures 
 tasius, Praef. Hergenrbther, i. 652, as "about 1000" which is absurd, 
 admits that there is great exaggeration No Ecumenical Council had nearly so 
 in these Latin sources. In the Vita many members, and why (as Lebedev 
 Hadr., it is said that the signatures asks) 'should Photius have taken the 
 were fabricated by hired persons, who trouble to forge so many ? 
 
 used fine and coarse pens to vary the 4 See the 6th Canon of the Eighth 
 
 handwriting. In regard to the sig- Council, Mansi, xvi. 401 irovqpofa 
 
 nature of Basil, the Pope was officially rii/as (ivdpas dirb TWI> XeuQbpuv dyviwv. 
 informed that it was spurious (i/<eu5ws 6 See their examination by the 
 
 tyypa.<p7jt>cu) : cap. 4 of his Roman Council, Act viii. pp. 384 sqq. , also 
 
 Synod, in Act vii. of the Eighth of Leontios, George, and Sergius, Act 
 
 Council, Mansi, xvi. 380. ix. p. 397. Peter, etc. who are 
 
 3 Act viii. 01 vwoyeypanfjAvoi i> rip brought before the Council are de- 
 /3t/3Xt<{> fKelvif /jLT)TpoTro\iTai (which must scribed as roi)s \}/ev5oTOTroTT]p7)Tas of)s 6 
 mean, exclusive of the Photians). &&TIOS irpoireXd^eTo icard. rov . . Nt/coXdoi;. 
 Anastasius says (loc. cit.), that only But if we are to make any sense of
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 203 
 
 discover the truth, nor has it much interest except for ecclesi- 
 astical historians, who, if they are members of the Latin 
 Church, will readily credit Photius with a wholesale and 
 barefaced scheme of deception, and if they belong to the 
 Greek communion, may be prepared to maintain that at the 
 Eighth Ecumenical Council mendacity was the order of the 
 day. 1 In either case, those who stand outside the Churches 
 may find some entertainment in an edifying ecclesiastical 
 scandal. 
 
 That the Emperors were acting in concert with Photius 
 is, if there could be any doubt, definitely proved by the fact 
 that Lewis was solemnly acclaimed as Basileus and Engelberta 
 as Augusta. No Council, no Patriarch, could have dared to 
 do what, done without the Imperial consent, or rather 
 command, would have been an overt act of treason. The 
 Patriarch sent a copy of the Acts of the Council to Engel- 
 berta, with a letter in which, comparing her to Pulcheria, he 
 urged her to persuade her husband to drive from Rome a 
 bishop who had been deposed by an Ecumenical Council. 2 
 
 The schism between Rome and Constantinople was now 
 complete for the moment. The Pope had anathematized the 
 Patriarch, and the Patriarch had hurled back his anathema 
 at the Pope. But this rent in the veil of Christendom was 
 thinly patched up in a few months, and the designs of Photius 
 for the ruin of his antagonist came to nought. On the death 
 of Michael, the situation was immediately reversed. When 
 Basil gained the sovran power, one of his first acts was to 
 depose Photius and restore Ignatius. It is probable that 
 his feelings towards Photius, the friend and relative of 
 Bardas, were not over friendly, but his action was doubtless 
 determined not by personal or religious considerations, but by 
 reasons of state. We cannot say whether he was already 
 
 the proceedings, this cannot be taken Vita Ign., and Metrophanes against 
 
 literally. They cannot (unless they Photius. He says, "the enemies of 
 
 lied) have been the men whom Photius Photius lied, but so immoderately 
 
 suborned ; they must be the men that they damaged not Photius, but 
 
 whom those men impersonated. This themselves." Lebedev entirely ignores 
 
 question is not elucidated by modern here the evidence of the Acts of the 
 
 ecclesiastical historians. Cp. Hergen- Eighth Council. 
 
 rother, ii. 110 sqq., 118 sq. ; Hefele, 2 The messengers were recalled be- 
 
 iv. 394-395. fore they reached Italy, see above, 
 
 1 Lebedev, op. cit. 102-103, rejects the p. 201, n. 4. 
 evidence of Anastasius, Vita Hadr.,
 
 204 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 forming projects which rendered the alienation from Kome 
 undesirable ; but his principal and immediate purpose was 
 assuredly to restore ecclesiastical peace and tranquillity in 
 his own realm, and to inaugurate his reign by an act of piety 
 arid orthodoxy which would go far in the eyes of the inhabit- 
 ants of Constantinople to atone for the questionable methods 
 by which he had won the autocratic power. 
 
 Nothing proves more convincingly than Basil's prompt 
 reversal of his predecessor's ecclesiastical policy, that this 
 policy was generally unpopular. Unless he had been sure 
 that the restitution of Ignatius would be welcomed by an 
 important section of his subjects at Constantinople, it is 
 incredible, in view of the circumstances of his accession, that 
 it would have been his first important act. Photius had his 
 band of devoted followers, but they seem to have been a small 
 minority ; and there are other indications that public opinion 
 was not in his favour. The severe measures to which the 
 government had resorted against Ignatius and his supporters 
 would hardly have been adopted if the weight of public opinion 
 had leaned decisively on the side of Photius. There was, 
 however, some embarrassment for Basil, who only a few 
 months before had co-operated in the council which excom- 
 municated the Pope, and there was embarrassment for many 
 others who shared the responsibility, in turning about and 
 repudiating their acts. The natural instinct was to throw 
 all the blame upon Photius ; Basil's signature was officially 
 declared to be spurious; and most of those, who had taken 
 part willingly or unwillingly in the condemnation of the Pope, 
 were eager to repudiate their consent to that audacious 
 transaction. 
 
 The proceedings of the Eighth Council, which procured 
 a temporary triumph for Rome, the second patriarchate of 
 Photius, and his second dethronement, lie outside the limits 
 of this volume. He died in exile, 1 almost a centenarian. 
 Immediately after his death he was recognized as a Father 
 of the Church, and anathema was pronounced on all that 
 Councils or Popes had uttered against him. The rift between 
 
 1 A.D. 897. See Papadopulos- in Viz. Vrcm. 3, 437), Feb. 6 is dis- 
 
 Kerameus 6 irarp. <t>wrios, 647 sqq. tinguished by the M I/1 7/ U7 7 TOV ev ayLois 
 
 In the Synax. ecc. Cpl. p. 448 (date : Trarphs ijfj.uii> Kal dpxieir. 
 
 middle of tenth century, see Bieliaev, Qwriov.
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 205 
 
 Kome and Constantinople, which Photius had widened and 
 deepened, was gradually enlarged, and after the final rent 
 (in the middle of the eleventh century), which no subsequent 
 attempts at union could repair, the reputation of Photius 
 became brighter than ever, and his council of 861, which 
 the Pope had stigmatized as a pirate synod, was boldly 
 described by Balsamon as ecumenical. It was recognized 
 that Photius was the first great champion of the inde- 
 pendence of the see of Constantinople, and of the national 
 development of the Greek Church, against the interference 
 of Kome. He formulated the points of difference between 
 the two Churches which were to furnish the pretext for the 
 schism ; he first brought into the foreground, as an essential 
 point of doctrine, the mystery of the procession of the Holy 
 Ghost. 1 
 
 The members of the Latin and the Greek Churches are 
 compelled, at the risk of incurring the penalties of a damnable 
 heresy, to affirm or to deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from 
 the Son as well as from the Father. The historian, who is 
 not concerned, even if he were qualified, to examine the mutual 
 relations which exist among the august persons of the Trinity, 
 will yet note with some interest that on this question the 
 Greeks adhered to the official doctrine of the Church so far 
 as it had been expressed by the authority of Ecumenical 
 Councils. The theologians of the Second Council at Con- 
 stantinople (A.D. 381) had distinctly declared the procession 
 from the Father, and against this pronouncement it could only 
 be argued that they had not denied the procession from the 
 Son. It was not till A.D. 589 that a council in Spain added 
 the words " and the Son " to the creed of Nicaea, and this 
 addition was quickly adopted in Gaul. It corresponded to 
 the private opinions of most western theologians, including 
 Augustine and Pope Leo I. But the Greek Fathers generally 
 held another doctrine, which the layman may find it difficult 
 
 1 His chief work on the subject, corum opposita, etc., in Migne, P.L. 
 
 "On the Mystagogia of the Holy 121, 228 sqq.), for which see Draseke's 
 
 Spirit," was not written till 885-886. article, Ratramnus und Photios, in 
 
 In it he seems to have taken account B.Z. 18, 396 sqq. (1909), where it is 
 
 of the most important contemporary suggested that though Photius did 
 
 vindication of the Latin doctrine, not read the treatise itself, its points 
 
 written (probably after 867) by Bishop were communicated to him by Greek 
 
 Ratramnus of Corbie (Contra Grae- friends.
 
 206 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 to distinguish. They maintained that the Third person pro- 
 ceeded not from, but through the Second. In the ninth 
 century, the Popes, though they repudiated the opposite 
 dogma, hesitated to introduce the Spanish interpolation into 
 the Creed, and perhaps it was not adopted till the beginning 
 of the eleventh. The Eeformed Churches have accepted the 
 formula of the Creed, as it was revised in Spain, though they 
 acknowledge only the authority of the first four Ecumenical 
 Councils. It can hardly make much difference to the mass 
 of believers ; since we may venture to suspect that the 
 majority of those who profess a firm belief in the double 
 procession attach as little significance to the formula which 
 they pronounce as if they declared their faith in a fourth 
 dimension of space. 
 
 The beginnings of the antagonism and mutual dislike 
 between the Greeks and Latins, which are so conspicuous at 
 a later stage of history, may be detected in the Ignatian con- 
 troversy. In the correspondence between Pope and Emperor, 
 we can discern the Latin distrust of the Greeks, the Greek 
 contempt for the Latins. The Emperor, probably prompted 
 by Photius, describes Latin as a " barbarous and Scythian " 
 language. 1 He has quite forgotten that it was the tongue 
 of Constantine and Justinian, and the Pope has to remind him 
 that his own title is " Emperor of the Kornans " and that in 
 the ceremonies of his own court Latin words are daily pro- 
 nounced. But this childish and ignorant attack on the 
 language of Eoman law shows how the wind was blowing, 
 and it well illustrates how the Byzantines, in the intense con- 
 viction of the superiority of their own civilization for which 
 indeed they had many excellent reasons already considered 
 the Latin-speaking peoples as belonging to the barbarian 
 world. It was not to be expected that the Greeks, animated 
 by this spirit, would accept such claims of ecclesiastical 
 supremacy as were put forward by Nicolas, or that the Church 
 of Constantinople would permit or invite a Pope's inter- 
 ference, except as a temporary expedient. Photius aroused 
 into consciousness the Greek feeling of nationality, which 
 throughout the Middle Ages drew strength and nourishment 
 from bitter antagonism to Eoman Christianity, and the modern 
 
 1 See Nicol. Ep. 8.
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 207 
 
 Hellenes have reason to regard him, as they do, with veneration 
 as a champion of their nationality. 1 
 
 The Ignatian affair has another aspect as a conspicuous 
 example of the Caesaropapism which was an essential feature 
 in the system of the Byzantine state. Ignatius was removed, 
 because he offended the Emperor, just as any minister might 
 be deprived of his office. It may be said that the Ignatian 
 party represented a feeling in the Church against such an 
 exertion of the secular power ; and it is doubtless true that 
 the party included, among its active members, some who 
 inherited the traditions of the opposition to the Patriarchs 
 Tarasius and Nicephorus and considered the influence of the 
 Emperors in ecclesiastical affairs excessive. But we may 
 hesitate to believe that the party as a whole supposed that 
 they were protesting on principle against the authority of the 
 autocrat over the Church. It is more probable that they 
 were guided by personal ties and considerations, by sympathy 
 with Ignatius who seemed to have been most; unjustly treated, 
 and by dislike of Photius. It is to be observed that the 
 Emperor made his will prevail, and though the policy of 
 Michael was reversed by Basil, this was simply a change in 
 policy, it was not a change in principle. It was a concession 
 to public opinion and to Borne, it was not a capitulation of 
 the State to the Church. It was a new act of the autocrat 
 as head of the ecclesiastical organization, it was not an 
 abdication of the Caesar-pope. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to speak of the canonical irregu- 
 larities of which so much was made in the indictment of the 
 Pope and the Ignatian synods against Photius. In regard to 
 the one fact which we know fully, the sudden elevation of a 
 layman to the episcopal office, we may observe that the Pope's 
 reply to the case which Photius made out is unsatisfactory 
 and imperfect. The instances of Tarasius and Nicephorus 
 were sufficient for the purpose of vindication. In regard to 
 
 1 The Photian spirit was curiously foreign influence was behind their 
 
 caricatured in the recent struggle opponents, the vindicators of the 
 
 between the two language parties in vulgar tongue (known as ol /j.a\\iapoL), 
 
 Greece. The advocates of the literary and that the object was to undermine 
 
 language (TJ KaOapevovffa), who, headed the Hellenic nationality and the 
 
 by Professor Mistriotes, carried the Orthodox Church. Foreigners can 
 
 day and secured the ultimate doom of only gape with wonder, 
 the popular language, asserted that
 
 208 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vi 
 
 Tarasius, it is urged by Nicolas that Pope Hadrian protested 
 against his elevation, in a message addressed to the Seventh 
 Ecumenical Council. But the Council had not hesitated to 
 accept Tarasius, and it did not concern the Church of Con- 
 stantinople, what the Bishop of Rome, apart from the Council, 
 chose to think or say about the matter. In regard to 
 Nicephorus, the Pope said nothing because he had nothing to 
 say. Nicephorus was in communion with Rome ; the Popes 
 of his day raised no protest against his elevation. We have 
 seen that if the first overtures of Nicolas to Constantinople 
 had met with a different reception, the canonical molehills 
 would never have been metamorphosed into mountains. The 
 real value of the objections may be measured by the fact that 
 when Photius reascended the patriarchal throne after the 
 death of his rival, he was recognized by Pope John III. 
 The death of Ignatius had indeed removed one obstacle, but 
 nevertheless on the showing of Nicolas he was not a bishop 
 at all. Pope John recognized him simply because it suited the 
 papal policy at the moment. 
 
 In the stormy ecclesiastical history of our period the 
 monks had played a conspicuous part, first as champions of 
 the worship of icons and then of the cause of Ignatius, who 
 was himself a typical monk. In the earlier controversies over 
 the mystery of the incarnation, gangs of monks had been the 
 authors of scandal in those turbulent assemblies at Ephesus, 
 of which one is extolled as an Ecumenical Council and the 
 other branded as a synod of brigands ; at Constantinople, 
 they led an insurrection which shook the throne of Anastasius. 
 The Emperor Constantine V. recognized that the monks were 
 his most influential and implacable opponents and declared 
 war upon monasticism. But monasticism was an instinct too 
 deeply rooted in Byzantine society to be suppressed or ex- 
 terminated ; the monastic order rested 011 as firm foundations, 
 secured by public opinion, as the Church itself. The reaction 
 under Irene revived and confirmed the power of the cloister ; 
 and at the same time the Studite movement of reform, under 
 the guidance of Plato and Theodore, exerted a certain 
 influence beyond the walls of Studion and tended to augment 
 the prestige of the monastic life, though it was far from being 
 generally accepted. The programme of the abbot Theodore
 
 CHAP, vi PHOTIUS AND IGNATIUS 209 
 
 to render the authority of the Church independent of the 
 autocrat was a revolutionary project which had no body of 
 public opinion behind it and led to no consequences. The 
 iconoclastic Emperors did their will, and the restoration of 
 image- worship, while it was a triumph for the monks, was 
 not a victory of the Church over the State. But within the 
 State-Church monasticism nourished with as little check as it 
 could have done if the Church had been an independent 
 institution, and produced its full crop of economic evils. 
 Hundreds of monasteries, some indeed with but few tenants, 
 existed in Constantinople and its immediate neighbourhood in 
 the ninth century, and the number was being continually 
 increased by new foundations. For it was a cherished 
 ambition of ordinary men of means to found a monastery, and 
 they had only to obtain the licence of a bishop, who con- 
 secrated the site by planting a cross, 1 and to furnish the 
 capital for the upkeep of the buildings and the maintenance 
 of three monks. It was a regular custom for high dignitaries, 
 who had spent their lives in the service of the State, to retire 
 in old age to cloisters which they had built themselves. 2 It 
 is too little to say that this was an ideal of respectability; 
 it was also probably for the Byzantine man a realization of 
 happiness in the present, enhanced as it was by the prospect 
 of bliss in the future. But the State paid heavily for the 
 indulgence of its members in the life of the cloister and 
 the cell. 
 
 1 ffravpoinfiyiov. the significant TOI>J OTTO 
 
 2 History furnishes numerous par- fjiovadiKofa in Philotheos, 176 15 . 
 ticular instances, but I may notice
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 FINANCIAL AND MILITARY ADMINISTRATION 
 
 1. Finance 
 
 THE Imperial revenue in the Middle Ages proceeded from the 
 same principal sources as in the earlier ages of the Empire : 
 taxation and the profits on the Imperial estates. The 
 machinery for collecting the revenue had perhaps been little 
 altered, but the central ministries which controlled the 
 machinery had been considerably changed. The various 
 financial and cognate departments which had been subject to 
 the authority of the two great financial ministers and the 
 Praetorian Prefects, under the system introduced by Constantine, 
 are now distributed among eight mutually independent 
 ministries. 1 
 
 The Logothete or Accountant of the General Treasury, or, 
 as he was briefly called, the General Logothete, had inherited 
 the most important duties of the Count of the Sacred 
 Largesses. He ordered and controlled the collection of all 
 the taxes. He was the head of the army of surveyors, 
 controllers, and collectors of the land and hearth taxes, 2 and 
 of the host of commerciarii or officers of the customs. 
 
 The Military Logothete administered the treasury which 
 defrayed the pay of the soldiers and other military expenses, 
 which used to be furnished from the chests of the Praetorian 
 Prefects. 3 The Wardrobe 4 and the Special Treasury 5 were 
 
 1 See Bury, Imperial Administra- * ftecmdpiov (to be distinguished 
 live System, 78 sgq. from the Private Wardrobe, oiKeiaKbv 
 
 8f<rT., which was under the Proto- 
 
 2 irorni, fcouriroi, irpaKTOpes (ib. ves tiarios, an eunuch). Ib. 95. 
 
 87 ' 9 '- 5 rb el8iK6v. Its master was called 
 
 3 Ib. 90. 6 ewl TOV eldtKov. Ib. 98. 
 
 210
 
 SECT, i FINANCE 211 
 
 stores for all kinds of material used for military and naval 
 purposes ; on the occasion of a warlike expedition they supplied 
 sails and ropes, hides, tin and lead, and innumerable things 
 required for the equipment. The President of the Special 
 Treasury controlled the public factories, and the Chartulary 
 of the Wardrobe was also master of the mint. 
 
 The estates of the Crown, which were situated chiefly in 
 the Asiatic provinces, were controlled by two central offices. 
 The revenues were managed by the Chartulary of the Sakellion, 
 the estates were administered by the Great Curator. 1 The 
 pastures in western Asia Minor, however, where horses and 
 mules were reared for the military service, were under the 
 stewardship of another minister, the Logothete of the Herds, 
 while the military stables of Malagina were directed by an 
 important and independent officer, the Count of the Stable? 
 These latter offices had been in earlier times subordinated to 
 the Count of the Private Estate. 
 
 The Sakellion was the central treasury of the State. We 
 have no particular information concerning the methods of 
 disbursement and allocation, or the relations between the 
 various bureaux. But we may suppose that the Greneral 
 Logothete, who received the income arising from taxation, 
 paid directly to other departments the various standing 
 expenses which were defrayed from this revenue, and handed 
 over the surplus to the Sakellion. This treasury, which 
 received directly the net income furnished by the rents of the 
 Private Estates, would thus have contained the specie available 
 for the expenses of military expeditions, for buildings and 
 public works, for the extravagances of the Court and all the 
 private expenses of the Emperor. The annual savings, if 
 savings were effected, seem to have passed into the personal 
 custody of the sovran, so that Irene was able to conceal the 
 treasure which she had accumulated. 3 
 
 The Sakellion itself was under the control of the chief 
 financial minister, the Sakellarios, who acted as general 
 comptroller. The special financial ministries were not 
 subordinate to him, but he had the right and duty to inquire 
 
 1 lb. 93, 100. over the accumulated savings of her 
 
 2 Ib. Ill, 113. husband's reign and her own regency. 
 
 3 The inference is borne out by the This would not have been necessary 
 fact that Theodora personally handed if they had lain in the Sakellion.
 
 212 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 into their accounts, and was doubtless responsible for all 
 disbursements from the Sakellion. 1 
 
 Bullion, furnished by the State mines, came to the General 
 Logothete, who must have sent it to the Wardrobe to be 
 coined, while other bullion might be deposited before mintage 
 in the Special Treasury. From the Wardrobe the coins would 
 pass to the Sakellion. 
 
 The two principal direct taxes, on which the Imperial 
 finance rested, were the land-tax and the hearth-tax. These 
 had always been the two pillars of the treasury, for the hearth- 
 tax was only a modification of the old capitation, being levied, 
 not on the free man and woman, but on the household. 2 The 
 population of cities, including the capital, did not pay the 
 hearth-tax, at least in the eastern provinces. The leaseholders 
 on the Imperial estates were not exempted from the land-tax, 
 which all landed proprietors and tenants paid ; and the house- 
 holders of Constantinople and the other cities were burdened 
 by an analogous charge on sites, which was known as the 
 " urban tribute." 3 The uniform hearth rate was probably 
 combined in the same schedules with the other tax and 
 collected by the same officials. 4 Other sources of income were 
 the toll on receipts (an income-tax of the most odious form, 
 which Irene was praised for abolishing), death duties, judicial 
 fines, and, above all, the duties levied on imports, which must 
 have amounted to a substantial sum. 
 
 The unpopular fiscal measures of the Emperor Nicephorus, 
 which are briefly recapitulated by a hostile monk, afford us 
 a vague glimpse into the obscure financial conditions of the 
 Empire. His official experience as General Logothete had 
 enabled him to acquire an expert knowledge of financial 
 details which few sovrans possessed, and he was convinced 
 that the resources of the State were suffering and its strength 
 endangered by the policy of laxity and indulgence which had 
 been adopted by Irene. In the first year of his reign there 
 was a severe taxation, which may have driven many to 
 embrace the cause of the rebel Bardanes. 5 We may 
 
 1 Ib. 82. it probable that the iro\iTiKol </>6poi 
 
 2 Zacharia v. L. Zur Kenntniss des represent the capitatio tcrrena applied 
 rim,. Steuerwesens, 9-13. to towns. 
 
 3 Monnier, Etudes de droit byz. 4 Zacharia v. L. ib. 12. 
 
 xviii. 485, and xix. 75, 98, has made B See Cont. T/i. 8 (r6Te = July 803).
 
 SECT, i FINANCE 213 
 
 probably conjecture that his severity consisted in restoring 
 wholly or partly the taxes which his predecessor had 
 recently abolished. We may be disposed to believe that he 
 acquiesced in the disappearance of the tax on receipts, for 
 if he had revived it, his enemies, who complained of all his 
 financial measures, would hardly have failed to include in their 
 indictment the revival of a burden so justly odious. But we may 
 reasonably assume that he restored the custom duties, which 
 were levied at the toll-houses of Abydos and Hieron, to their 
 former figure, and that he imposed anew upon Constantinople 
 the urban tribute, which Irene had inequitably remitted. 
 
 But seven years later, in A.D. 809, in view perhaps of the 
 imminent struggle with the Bulgarians, he prepared a for- 
 midable array of new measures to replenish the sinking 
 contents of the treasury. 1 
 
 I. In all cases where taxes had been reduced in amount, 
 they were raised again to the original sum. It is possible 
 that this applied to reductions which had been allowed during 
 the preceding twenty years. 2 
 
 II. The kapnikon or hearth-tax, which had replaced the old 
 capitation-tax, was a fixed annual charge of two miliarisia 
 (2s.). 3 But monastic and religious institutions, orphanages, 
 hospitals, homes for the aged, although legally liable, had been 
 exempted from payment for many years with the connivance of 
 the government. We cannot hesitate to ascribe this inequit- 
 able favour to the policy of the pious Empress Irene. It was 
 monstrous that the tenants on the monastic lands should be free 
 from the burden which was imposed on all other farms and 
 estates. Religious institutions multiplied rapidly ; private 
 persons were constantly founding new monasteries ; and there 
 was a prospect that every year the proceeds of the hearth-tax 
 would suffer further diminution. Nicephorus was fully justified 
 in insisting that this exemption, unauthorised by law, should 
 cease, 4 and in forcing the institutions which had not contri- 
 
 1 Theoph. A.M. 6302 = A.D. 809-810. missions of A.D. 801 were not reversed 
 See Finlay, 98 ; Paparrhegopulos, till now. 
 
 'Icrro/na TOV *E\\T)VIKOV ZBvovs, ed. 2, iii. 3 See Cont. Th. 54. 
 
 565 sqq. ; but especially Monnier, op. 4 Both Finlay and Monnier approve 
 
 cit. xix. 67 sqq. the measure. Theophanes specially 
 
 2 This was the limit in the case of mentions Imperial monasteries, but 
 some other measures ; see below. it applied a fortiori to others, as 
 Monnier, ib. 69, thinks that the re- Monnier observes.
 
 214 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 buted their due share to the maintenance of the State to pay 
 the arrears of the tax since the year of his own accession. 
 
 III. The land-tax, which continued to be the most important 
 source of revenue, was the most troublesome to adjust and to 
 control. Nicephorus ordered that a new survey should be 
 made, and that the tax should be raised in amount by the 
 charge of a shilling on the receipt which the tax-collector 
 delivered. 1 In the case of large estates there was no difficulty 
 in collecting the duties ; the whole property 2 was liable for a 
 fixed sum, and if some tenants were too poor to pay, it did 
 not matter to the fisc. But great estates (which were to 
 increase in number and extent in the course of the ninth and 
 tenth centuries) seem at this time not to have been numerous ; 
 small proprietorship prevailed. The system which the govern- 
 ment employed to secure the treasury against loss when a 
 farmer failed or could not make his land yield the necessary 
 margin of profit did not work satisfactorily. The farms of a 
 commune were grouped together for this purpose, and if one 
 farmer was insolvent, the amount for which he was liable was 
 distributed as an extra-charge (epibolS) among the other 
 members of the group. For poorer members this imposition 
 was a considerable hardship, and the circumstance that 
 Nicephorus deemed it expedient to modify the system seems 
 to show that there were many cases of small proprietors 
 reduced to penury. So far as we can interpret our brief 
 record of his measure, he sought to devolve the responsibility 
 for the taxes of the poor upon their richer neighbours. The 
 fiscal debt of a defaulting farm no longer fell upon a whole 
 group, but upon some neighbouring proprietor, and this liability 
 was termed AlUlengyon or Mutual Security. 3 
 
 1 Theoph. 486 tirotrTeteaOai irdvras one-twelfth, but obviously dvd means 
 
 (this would be carried out by the here each taxpayer (cp. ib. dvd vop.i- 
 
 eTTOTrral of the General Logothete) /cat fffidruv). The charge was simply two 
 
 dvafiipdfccrdai TO. TOVTWV T^\TJ (which keratia ( = 1 miliarision), whatever the 
 
 means, as Monnier rightly says, a amount of the payment. If we re- 
 
 raising of the amount), Trap^xopras member that the kapnikon was a uni- 
 
 Kal xaprio.TtKUH' ZveKO. dvd Kepariuv /3'. form charge of only four keratia, we 
 
 The last clause explains di'a/3i/3<ifecr0ai ; can find no difficulty in the smallness 
 
 just as (ib. ) Trap^xopras Kal KT\. ex- of the new tax. 
 
 plains fZowXlfeo-Oai. The context shows 2 All the holdings of which the 
 
 that the tax was only on the fiscal possessio consisted were termed for 
 
 acquittances, not, as Finlay says, "on fiscal purposes 6fi6Sov\a. 
 public documents." Both he and 3 Theoph. ib. Trpocr^ra^ 
 
 Monnier think that dvd icep. /3' means TOVS TTTO)XOI)S Kal e^oTr\i^eadai irapd r&v 
 
 ublic documents." Both he and 3 Theoph. ib. Trpocr^ra^e ff 
 
 onnier think that dvd icep. /3' means TOVS TTTO)XOI)S Kal e^oTr\i^eadai 
 two keratia in the nomisma, that is o/AOxupw, trapexovras Kal dvd OKTU-
 
 SECT, i FINANCE 215 
 
 But what was to happen to the indigent defaulter ? 
 Nicephorus enrolled him as a soldier, compelling the same 
 more prosperous neighbour to provide for his military equip- 
 ment by paying the sum of eighteen and a half nomismata 
 (11 : 2s.). 1 We are not told whether this sum was regarded 
 as a price for the land, which ought to have been transferred 
 to the possession of the neighbour who was held responsible 
 for it, or even whether the proprietor was compelled to sell it. 
 
 The growth of monastic property was an economic evil 
 which was justly regarded by Nicephorus with disquietude, 
 and he adopted the heroic measure of incorporating in the 
 Imperial domains the better lands of some rich monasteries. 
 We cannot doubt that the transaction took the form of a 
 compulsory sale, the price being fixed by the treasury ; it is 
 impossible to suppose that it was naked confiscation, which 
 would have been alien to the methods of Konian policy. 2 
 But the taxes which had been paid on the entire property 
 continued to be exacted, according to our informant, from the 
 diminished estates of the monks. We know too little of the 
 conditions and provisions to enable us to pronounce whether 
 this measure was unreasonably oppressive ; 3 but it is clear 
 that Nicephorus was prepared to brave the odium which 
 always descended upon the medieval statesman who set the 
 economic interests of the State above those of its monastic 
 parasites. 
 
 But if Nicephorus increased his domains at the expense of 
 pious institutions, he also alienated portions of the Imperial 
 estates, and the motives of this policy are obscure. It is 
 
 i)/j.iffovs vo/j-iff/J-aTuv r<^ Srj/j.ocrt(f) years later was pursued by Basil II. 
 
 Kal d\\Ti\eyyvus TO. Synovia. The The same writer observes that the 
 
 passage lias been elucidated by Monnier new principle tended to break down 
 
 (90 sqq.). Zacharia v. Lingenthal the distinction between b^KTjva-a and 
 
 (Gr.-rom. JRecht, 235 n. 763) inter- 6/j.6dov\a as separate fiscal unities, and 
 
 preted 6/j.6x^P l as "die Besitzer von condemns it as a triumph over "good 
 
 o^Krjvcra," but then why not, as sense, tradition, and justice" (p. 97). 
 
 Monnier asks, O/U.OKTJCO-WJ' ? The 6fj.6- It was certainly a defeat of tradition. 
 XW/>QS =finitimus need not be 6fj.&Kiriv<Tos. i Q j ag ^. no ^ e 
 
 Monnier thinks that Nicephorus intro- 
 
 duced this new principle in the appli- * If no P rice nad been P aid . Theo- 
 
 cation of the ^irijSoXiJ (a principle phanes would assuredly have used 
 
 "which will subsequently be united stronger language. 
 to the old one of cadastral solidarity 3 It is quite possible that this obli- 
 
 and will make the system more gation applied only to the first year 
 
 lenient "), in order to hit the rich after the act ; or it may have been 
 
 neighbour, whether o^KTjvcros or not ; taken into account in fixing the pur- 
 
 the same policy which two hundred chase money.
 
 216 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 recorded as a hardship that he sold Imperial lands on the 
 coasts of Asia Minor, at a fixed price, to unwilling purchasers, 
 who, accustomed to sea-faring and trade, knew little or nothing 
 about agriculture. Here again we must remember that the 
 case is presented by an enemy, and that we are ignorant of 
 all the circumstances of the alleged coercion. 
 
 IV. In his diligent quest of ways and means, the sudden 
 acquisition of wealth, which we might now classify under the 
 title of unearned increment, did not escape the notice of 
 Nicephorus as a suitable object of taxation. He imposed 
 heavy charges upon those who could be proved to have 
 suddenly risen from poverty to affluence through no work or 
 merit of their own. He treated them as treasure-finders, and 
 thus brought them under the law of Justinian by which 
 treasure-trove was confiscated. 1 The worst of this measure 
 was that it opened a fruitful field to the activity of informers. 
 
 V. Death duties were another source of revenue which 
 claimed the Emperor's attention. The tax of 5 per cent on 
 inheritances which had been instituted by the founder of the 
 Empire seems to have been abolished by Justinian ; 2 but a 
 duty of the same kind had been reimposed, and was extended 
 to successions in the direct line, which had formerly been 
 exempted. The lax government of Irene had allowed the tax 
 to be evaded, by some at least of those who inherited property 
 from their fathers or grandfathers ; 3 and when Nicephorus 
 ordered that it should be exacted from all who had so 
 inherited during the last twenty years, many poor men were 
 in consternation. 
 
 VI. It is remarkable that a statesman possessing the 
 financial experience of Nicephorus should have shared the 
 ancient prejudice against usury so far as to forbid the lending 
 of money at interest altogether. The deliverance of society 
 from the evils attendant upon merciless usury was dearly 
 purchased by the injury which was inflicted upon industry 
 and trade. The enterprise of merchants who required capital 
 was paralyzed, and Nicephorus was forced to come to their 
 
 1 Theoph. 487 9 . The measure was ?) trartpuv in the passage of Theo- 
 retrospective for twenty years. phanes. The words clearly imply 
 
 2 G.I. 6, 23, 33 ; Monnier, xix. 83. ^ at Nicephorus was only enforcing 
 
 the payment ol an old tax, which 
 
 3 Monnier, ib., has pointed out that had been probably first imposed by 
 the stress lies on the words K irdinriov the Heraclians or Isaurians.
 
 SECT, i FINANCE 217 
 
 rescue. He aided them in a way which was highly advantageous 
 to the treasury. He advanced loans of twelve pounds of gold 
 about (518), exacting the high interest of 16 per cent. 1 
 The government was not bound by the prohibition of private 
 usury, which it is possible that the successor of Nicephorus 
 prudently abolished. 2 
 
 VII. The custom duties, which were levied at Abydos and 
 had been remitted by Irene in her unscrupulous desire to 
 conciliate the favour of Constantinople, had been immediately 
 re-enacted by her successor. Household slaves of a superior 
 kind were among the most valuable chattels which reached 
 the capital by the route of the Hellespont, and the treasury 
 profited by the cooks and pages and dancers who were sold 
 to minister to the comfort and elegance of the rich families 
 of Byzantium. But there was also a demand for these 
 articles of luxury among the inhabitants of the Aegean coasts 
 and islands, who could purchase them without paying the 
 heavy charges that were exacted in the custom-houses of 
 Abydos. 3 Nicephorus abolished this immunity by imposing 
 a tax of two gold pieces (24 shillings) a head on all such 
 slaves who were sold to the west of the Hellespont. 
 
 The chronicler Theophanes, whose hostile pen has recorded 
 these fiscal measures, completes his picture of the Emperor's 
 oppressions by alleging that he used to pry into men's private 
 affairs, employing spies to watch their domestic life and 
 encouraging ill-disposed servants to slander or betray their 
 masters. " His cruelties to the rich, the middle class, and the 
 poor in the Imperial city were beyond description." In the 
 
 1 Modern commentators seem to to the kommerkiarioi in the ports, 
 have missed the point of this measure. but it was a small one. Slaves who 
 Monnier implies that all vaiJK\ripoi were used for rough and rural work 
 were forced to borrow the sum of were probably, as Monnier observes, 
 twelve pounds from the treasury chiefly imported from the Euxine 
 whether they wanted it or not. This regions, by the Bosphorus. The duty 
 is incredible. The coercion consisted on them, which would be paid at 
 in compelling them, if they wanted a Hieron, was doubtless trifling. Jus- 
 loan, to borrow a fixed sum from the tinian established the toll -house at 
 State and from no other lender ; other Abydos. Trapa.(fj\a. d/Ju5t/c6s or simply 
 lenders were excluded by the law for- dfivSiKfa (dj3i/5in/c6s) came to be a 
 bidding private usury. genera] term for Xi/jLevapxys. See M. 
 
 2 So Monnier, xix. 89, conjectures. Goudas in BvfavTis i. 468 sqq. (1909), 
 Usury was again forbidden by Basil, who cites seals of Kovfj.fpKidpioi /cat 
 but Leo VI. (Nov. 83) permitted it, afivdiKoi of Thessalonica. <?a/3v5/fw, 
 with the restriction that interest to pass Abydos, was used for sailing 
 should not exceed 4^ per cent. into the Aegean ; see Simeon, Cont. 
 
 3 Some duty must have been paid Georg. ed. Mur. 638 S .
 
 218 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAI>. vn 
 
 last two years of his reign, he excited the murmurs of the 
 inhabitants by a strict enforcement of the market dues on 
 the sales of animals and vegetables, by quartering soldiers in 
 monasteries and episcopal mansions, by selling for the public 
 benefit gold and silver plate which had been dedicated in 
 churches, by confiscating the property of wealthy patricians. 1 
 He raised the taxes paid by churches and monasteries, and he 
 commanded officials, who had long evaded the taxation to 
 which they were liable as citizens, to discharge the arrears 
 which they had failed to pay during his own reign. 2 This 
 last order, striking the high functionaries of the Court, seemed 
 so dangerous to Theodosius Salibaras, a patrician who had 
 considerable influence with the Emperor, that he ventured to 
 remonstrate. " My lord," he said, " all are crying out at us, 
 and in the hour of temptation all will rejoice at our fall." 
 Nicephorus is said to have made the curious reply : " If God 
 has hardened my heart like Pharaoh's, what good can my 
 subjects look for ? Do not expect from Nicephorus save only 
 the things which thou seest." 
 
 The laxity and indulgence which had been permitted in 
 the financial administration of the previous reign rendered 
 the severity of Nicephorus particularly unwelcome and un- 
 popular. The most influential classes were hit by his strict 
 insistence on the claims of the treasury. The monks, who 
 suspected him of heterodoxy and received no favours at his 
 hands, cried out against him as an oppressor. Some of his 
 measures may have been unwise or unduly oppressive we 
 have not the means of criticizing them ; but in his general 
 policy he was simply discharging his duty, an unpopular duty, 
 to the State. 
 
 Throughout the succeeding reigns we obtain no such glimpse 
 into the details or vicissitudes of Imperial finance. If there 
 was a temporary reaction under Michael I. against the severi- 
 ties of Nicephorus, the following Emperors must have drawn 
 the reins of their financial administration sufficiently tight. 
 After the civil war, indeed, Michael II. rewarded the provinces 
 which had been faithful to his cause by a temporary remission 
 of half the hearth-tax. The facts seem to show that the 
 Amorian rulers were remarkably capable and successful in their 
 
 1 Theopli. 488-489. 2 In May A.n. 811 (ib.).
 
 SECT, i FINANCE 219 
 
 finance. On one hand, there was always an ample surplus in 
 the treasury, until Michael III. at the very end of his 
 reign deplenished it by wanton wastefulness. On the other, 
 no complaints are made of fiscal oppression during this period, 
 notwithstanding the fact that the chroniclers would have 
 rejoiced if they had had any pretext for bringing such a charge 
 against heretics like Theophilus and his father. 
 
 If our knowledge of the ways and means by which the 
 Imperial government raised its revenue is sadly incomplete 
 and in many particulars conjectural, we have no information 
 as to its amount in the ninth century, and the few definite 
 figures which have been recorded by chance are insufficient to 
 enable us to guess either at the income or the expenditure. 
 It is a remarkable freak of fortune that we should possess 
 relatively ample records of the contemporary finance of the 
 Caliphate, 1 and should be left entirely in the dark as to the 
 budget of the Empire. 
 
 We have some figures bearing on the revenue in the 
 twelfth century, and they supply a basis for a minimum 
 estimate of the income in the ninth, when the State was 
 stronger and richer. We learn that Constantinople alone 
 furnished the treasury with 7,300,000 nomismata or 
 4,380,000, including the profits of taxation on commerce 
 and the city markets. 2 It has been supposed that the rest of 
 the Empire contributed five times as much, so that the total 
 revenue would be more than 26, 280, 000. 3 At this period 
 the greater part of Asia Minor was in the hands of the Seljuk 
 Turks, while, on the other hand, the Empire possessed Bulgaria 
 and Crete. It might therefore be argued that the Emperor 
 Theophilus, who also held Calabria and received a certain 
 yearly sum from Dalmatia, may have enjoyed a revenue of 
 twenty-seven to thirty millions. 
 
 But the proportion of 1 to 5, on which this calculation 
 
 1 See below, p. 236. the re venue of the whole Empire before 
 
 2 Benjamin of Tudela, p. 13 (ed. and the conquest, we get 26,280,000, a 
 tr. M. N. Adler, 1907) ; cp. Papar- figure which agrees with the other 
 rhegopulos, 'Icrropia TOV 'EXX^pt/coO result (but in both cases the propor- 
 tions, iii. 74. tions are quite problematical). See 
 
 3 Cp. Andreades, Les Finances byz. Paparrhegopulos, op. tit. iv. 44 sqq. ; 
 20. In 1205 the Crusaders assured Diehl, J&ttttM byzantiiies, 125 ; Andre- 
 Baldwin the daily income of 30,000 ades, loc. tit. For the whole question 
 nomismata = 6,570,000 annually. of the finances cp. also Kalligas, 
 Supposing this represents a quarter of MeXerat 268 sqq.
 
 220 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 rests, is such an arbitrary hypothesis that we must seek some 
 other means of forming a rough evaluation. We are told 
 that in the twelfth century the island of Corcyra yielded 1500 
 pounds of gold or 64,800 to the Imperial treasury. 1 The 
 total area of the Imperial territory in the reign of Theophilus 
 (counting Sicily as lost, and not including Calabria, Dalmatia, 
 Cyprus, or Cherson) was about 546,000 kilometres. 2 The 
 area of Corcyra is 770, so that if its contribution to the 
 treasury was as large in the ninth as in the twelfth century, 
 and was proportional to its size, the amount of the whole 
 revenue would be about 46,000,000. But the population of 
 the islands was undoubtedly denser than in most regions of 
 the mainland, and it is probably an insufficient set-off to have 
 left out of account Calabria and some other outlying Imperial 
 possessions, and to have made no allowance for the vast 
 amount contributed by Constantinople. Yet this line of 
 calculation suggests at least that the Imperial revenue may 
 have exceeded thirty millions and was nearly half as large 
 again as the revenue of the Caliphs. 3 
 
 If we accept 25,000,000 as a minimum figure for the 
 revenue arising from taxation of all kinds, we must add a 
 considerable sum for the profits arising from the Imperial 
 Estates in Asia Minor. Disregarding this source of income, 
 which we have no data for estimating, we must remember 
 that the weight of gold which if sent to the mint to-day would 
 be coined into twenty-five million sovereigns represented 
 at Byzantium a far higher purchasing power. It is now 
 generally assumed that the value of money was five times as 
 great, and this is probably not an exaggeration. 4 On this 
 hypothesis the Imperial revenue from taxation would corre- 
 spond in real value to 125,000,000. 
 
 It is impossible to conjecture how the expenditure was 
 
 1 John of Brompton, Chronicon, p. of Nicephonis Gregoras, viii. 6, p. 317 
 1219 (Twysden's Hist. Angl. scrip- (ed. Bonn), that in A.D. 1321 the 
 tores X. vol. L, 1652), states that the revenue was increased by special efforts 
 island of Cunfu (Corfu) yielded (of the reXtDvcu and $0/30X6701) to the 
 " quintallos auri purissimi quindecim sum of one million nomismata 
 annuatim ; et pondus quintalli est (600,000), cannot be utilized. The 
 pondus centum librarum auri" (A.D. conditions of the time were exceptional. 
 1290). I do not understand why Zacharia v. 
 
 2 I have based this on the figures Lingenthal (Zur Kenntniss, 14) refers 
 given by Beloch in his Bevolkerung this statement to the land-tax only. 
 der griechisch-romischen Welt (1886). 4 See Paparrhegopulos, loc. cit. 
 
 3 See below p. 236. The statement Diehl, loc. cit. ; Andreades, 7.
 
 SECT, i FINANCE 221 
 
 apportioned. Probably a sum of more than 1,000,000 was 
 annually spent on the maintenance of the military establish- 
 ment, not including the cost of campaigns. The navy, the 
 civil service in all its branches, religious foundations, doles to 
 charitable institutions, liberal presents frequently given to 
 foreign potentates for political purposes, represented large 
 claims on the treasury, while the upkeep of a luxurious Court, 
 and the obligatory gifts (evcreftiai) on stated occasions to crowds 
 of officials, consumed no small portion of the Emperor's 
 income. Theophilus must have laid out more than a million 
 a year on his buildings. 1 It is only for the army and navy 
 that we possess some figures, but these, are too uncertain and 
 partial to enable us to reconstruct a military budget. 
 
 Perhaps the most striking evidence of the financial 
 prosperity of the Empire is the international circulation of its 
 gold currency. " In the period of 8 years from Diocletian to 
 Alexius Comnenus the Roman government never found itself 
 compelled to declare bankruptcy or stop payments. Neither 
 the ancient nor the modern world can offer a complete parallel 
 to this phenomenon. This prodigious stability of Roman 
 financial policy therefore secured the " byzant " its universal 
 currency. On account of its full weight it passed with all 
 the neighbouring nations as a valid medium of exchange. By 
 her money Byzantium controlled both the civilised and the 
 barbarian worlds." 2 
 
 2. Military and Naval Organization 
 
 I. Under the Amorian dynasty considerable administra- 
 tive changes were made in the organization of the military 
 provinces into which the Empire was divided, in order to 
 meet new conditions. In the Isaurian period there were five- 
 great Themes in Asia Minor, governed by strategoi, in the 
 following order of dignity and importance : the Anatolic, the 
 Armeniac, the Thrakesian, the Opsikian, and the Bukellarian. 
 This system of "the Five Themes," as they were called, 
 lasted till the reign of Michael II., if not till that of 
 
 1 The cost of St. Sophia is said to cannot have cost less. His reign 
 
 have been 300,000 gold litrai = lasted a little more than twelve years. 
 
 12,960,000. The buildings of Theo- a Gelzer, JSyz. Kulturgesch. 78. 
 philus, including the Palace of Bryas,
 
 222 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 Theophilus. 1 But it is probable that before that time the 
 penetration of theMoslems in the frontier regions had rendered it 
 necessary to delimit from the Anatolic and Armeniac provinces 
 districts which were known as kleisurarchies, 2 and were under 
 minor commanders, kleisurarchs, who could take measures for 
 defending the country independently of the strategoi. In 
 this way the kleisurarchy of Seleucia, west of Cilicia, was 
 cut off from the Anatolic Theme, and that of Charsianon from 
 the Armeniac. 3 Southern Cappadocia, which was constantly 
 exposed to Saracen invasion through the Cilician gates, was also 
 formed into a frontier province. 4 We have no record of the 
 times at which these changes were made, but we may suspect 
 that they were of older date than the reign of Theophilus. 
 
 This energetic Emperor made considerable innovations in 
 the thematic system throughout the Empire, and this side of 
 his administration has not been observed or appreciated. In 
 Asia Minor he created two new Themes, Paphlagonia and 
 Chaldia. 5 Paphlagonia seems to have been cut off from the 
 Bukellarian province; probably it had a separate existence 
 already, as a " katepanate," for the governor of the new Theme, 
 while he was a strate'gos, bore the special title of katepano, 
 which looks like the continuation of an older arrangement. 6 
 
 1 Oont. Th. 6 rGiv irvre ^e/xdrw^ TWI> of Seleucia is probably due to corrup- 
 KCLT& TT\V avaro\i]v, A.D. 803 ; and tion. 
 
 Theodore Stud. Epp. ii. 64, p. 1284 4 This also is omitted in our text of 
 
 ttriyapruvir. Q. r^Beirai, A.D. 819 (both Takt. Usp., doubtless a scribe's error, 
 
 these passages record the temporary It appears as a kleisurarchy in Ibn 
 
 commission of these Themes to a Fakih's list : Brooks, Arabic Lists, 75 
 
 superior fj.ovo<rrpdrr)yos ; cp. above, (Koron was the seat of the governor). 
 
 p. 10). As it is tolerably certain 5 2'akt.Usp.l 11-113 enumerates seven 
 
 that no additional Themes were created Asiatic strategoi, including those of 
 
 in the last year of Leo or during the Paphlagonia and Chaldia. This agrees 
 
 revolt of Thomas, it follows that A.D. with Ibn Fakih, ib. 73-76 ; and is borne 
 
 824 is a higher limit for the creation out by Euodios (Ada 4% Mart. Amor. 
 
 of the two or three new Themes which 65), who, referring to A.D. 838, mentions 
 
 existed in A.D. 838. Other considera- "the Seven Themes." The author of 
 
 tions make it probable that Theophilus the Vita Theodorae imp. (9) speaks of 
 
 was the innovator. err parity oi &Kr& at Amorion in that year. 
 
 2 The kleisdrai of Asia Minor were This (whether anachronism or not) 
 the passes of the Taurus, and, when cannot be pressed. Cp. Nikitin's note 
 the Saracens had won positions north of on Euodios (p. 244). He is wrong in 
 the Eastern Taurus, also of the Anti- supposing (p. 246, n.) that Cappadocia 
 taurus. was a Theme at this time, though he 
 
 3 The existence of the kleisurarchies might have quoted Cont. Th. 120 r$ 
 of Charsianon and Seleucia at the ffrpar. Kcnnr., which, in view of the 
 beginning of the reign of Michael III. other evidence, must be explained as 
 is proved by Ibn Khurdadhbah, 78. an anachronism. 
 
 The former appears duly in the 6 Constantino, De adm. imp. 178 ; 
 
 Taktikon Uspenski, 123 ; the omission Ccr. 788. The simplest explanation
 
 SECT, ii MILITARY ORGANIZATION 223 
 
 The rise of Paphlagonia in importance may be connected 
 with the active Pontic policy of Theophilus. It is not 
 without significance that Paphlagonian ships played a part in 
 the expedition which he sent to Cherson, 1 and we may 
 conjecture with probability that the creation of the Theme of 
 the Klimata on the north of the Euxine and that of 
 Paphlagonia on the south were not isolated acts, but were 
 part of the same general plan. The institution of the Theme 
 of Chaldia, which was cut off from the Armeniac Theme 
 (probably A.D. 837), 2 may also be considered as part of the 
 general policy of strengthening Imperial control over the 
 Black Sea and its coastlands, here threatened by the 
 imminence of the Moslem power in Armenia. To the south of 
 Chaldia was the duchy of Koloneia, also part of the Armeuiac 
 circumscription. 3 In the following reign (before A.D. 863) both 
 Koloneia and Cappadocia were elevated to the rank of Themes. 4 
 The Themes of Europe, which formed a class apart from 
 those of Asia, seem at the end of the eighth century to have 
 been four in number Thrace, Macedonia, Hellas, and Sicily. 
 There were also a number of provinces of inferior rank 
 Calabria, under its Dux ; Dalmatia and Crete, under governors 
 who had the title of archon ; 5 while Thessalonica with the 
 adjacent region was still subject to the ancient Praetorian 
 
 is that Paphlagonia was a katepanate A.L>. 845-847 (Ada 27, 29). The 
 
 before it acquired the rank of a strate- Emperor before his death directed 
 
 gia. Michael, Vita Theod. Stud. 309, that Kallistos Melissenos should be 
 
 referring to the reign of Michael II., sent to Koloneia ica.1 -ri]v rov dovKbs 
 
 speaks of rb 6^/j.a. r&v Ha<p\a.y&vui>, but dttireiv apx^v. Kallistos is called a 
 
 the use of Oe^a. in such a passage can- turmarch in Simeon, Add. Georg. 805 ; 
 
 not be urged as evidence for the date. Koloneia was doubtless a turmarchy 
 
 1 See below p 416 in tlie Armeniac Theme. Koloneia is 
 
 not mentioned by the Arabic writers 
 
 - The circumstances are discussed W h depend on Al-Garmi or in the 
 
 below, p. 261. Chaldia may have Takt. Usp. I conclude that till after 
 
 also existed already as a separate the death of Theophilus it had not 
 
 command of less dignity under a been separated from the Armeniac 
 
 Duke. For Takt. Usp. , which mentions Theme, or, in other words.that Kallistos 
 
 the strategos, names also in another was the first Dux. Another inference 
 
 place (119) 6 dov XaXSias. I explain may be that the Taktikon represents 
 
 this as a survival from an older official the official world immediately after 
 
 list, which the compiler neglected to the accession of Michael III. 
 
 eliminate. In the same document 4 Q ont- 7% 181. Cp. Brooks, op. cit. 
 
 tipxovres of Chaldia are also mentioned. 70, for Masudi's evidence. 
 
 These were probably local authorities B Calabria : Gay, L' Italic mer. 7 ; 
 
 in some of the towns, like the archons Takt. Usp. 124. Dalmatia : 6 <Spx w " 
 
 of Cherson. A., ib. Crete: ib. 119 6 Apxuv K. 
 
 3 The evidence for a Dux of Koloneia (which I interpret as a case, like that 
 
 under Theophilus is in an account of of Chaldia, where an older office is 
 
 the Amorian martyrs dating from retained in the list).
 
 224 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 Prefect of Illyricum, an anomalous survival from the old 
 system of Constantino. 1 It was doubtless the Slavonic revolt 
 in the reign of Nicephorus I. that led to the reorganization of 
 the Helladic province, and the constitution of the Peloponnesus 
 as a distinct Theme, 2 so that Hellas henceforward meant 
 Northern Greece. The Mohammadan descent upon Crete 
 doubtless led to the appointment of a strategos instead of an 
 archon of Crete, 8 and the Bulgarian wars to the suppression 
 of the Praetorian prefect by a strategos of Thessalonica. 4 The 
 Theme of Kephalonia (with the Ionian Islands) seems to have 
 existed at the beginning of the ninth century ; 5 but the 
 Saracen menace to the Hadriatic and the western coasts of 
 Greece may account for the foundation of the Theme of 
 Dyrrhachium, a city which probably enjoyed, like the com- 
 munities of the Dalmatian coast, a certain degree of local inde- 
 pendence. 6 If so, we may compare the policy of Theophilus 
 in instituting the strategos of the Klimata with control over 
 the magistrates of Cherson. 7 
 
 It is to be noted that the Theme of Thrace did not 
 include the region in the immediate neighbourhood of 
 Constantinople, cut off by the Long Wall of Anastasius, who 
 had made special provisions for the government of this 
 region. In the ninth century it was still a separate circum- 
 scription, probably under the military command of the 
 Count of the Walls, 8 and Arabic writers designate it by the 
 curious name Talaya or Tana. 9 
 
 A table will exhibit the general result of all these changes : 
 
 ASIATIC THEMES 
 
 / 1. Anatolic. 2. Armeniac. 3. Thrakesian. 
 
 . i/. 4. Opsikian. 5. Bukellarian. 
 
 Strategics -! , , . ,_ n , , . , ,,. 
 
 6. Cappadocia. 7- rapnlagonia. 8. Chaldia. 
 
 9. Koloneia. 
 Kleisurarc.hiai 10. Charsianon. 11. Seleucia. 
 
 1 Theodore Stud. Epp. i. 3, p. 917 6 Ib. 115 ; cp. 124 oi &pxovres rov 
 (TOV virdpxov). This evidence is over- Avppaxlov. 
 
 looked by Gelzer, Themenverfassung, 7 See below, p. 417. 
 
 38 sqq. 8 See Bury, op. cit. 67-68. 
 
 2 First mentioned in Scr. Incert. 9 Talaya seems to be the best attested 
 336 (A.D. 813). form (Brooks, op. cit, 69, 72). Gelzer, 
 
 8 See below, p. 289. 86 sqq., operates withTafla and thinks 
 
 4 Takt. Usp. 115. the district was called ij Td<ppos. The 
 
 5 See below, p. 324. Takt. Usp. 113. solution has not yet been discovered.
 
 MILITARY ORGANIZATION 
 
 225 
 
 Strategiai 
 
 Ducate 
 Archontates 
 
 NAVAL THEMES 
 1. Kibyrrhaiot. 2. Aigaion Pelagos. 
 
 EUROPEAN (AND OTHER) THEMES 
 
 r 1. Macedonia. 2. Thrace. 
 
 I 3. Hellas. 4. Peloponnesus. 5. Thessalonica. 
 ' 1 6. Dyrrhachium. 
 
 " 7. Kephalonia. 8. Sicily. 9. Klimata. 
 
 . 10. Calabria. 
 
 . 11. Dalmatia. 12. Cyprus. 
 
 II. There were considerable differences in the ranks and 
 salaries of the strategoi. In the first place, it is to be noticed 
 that the governors of the Asiatic provinces, the admirals of 
 the naval Themes, and the strategoi of Thrace and Macedonia 
 were paid by the treasury, while the governors of the European 
 Themes paid themselves a fixed amount from the custom dues 
 levied in their own provinces. 1 Hence for administrative 
 purposes Thrace and Macedonia are generally included among 
 the Asiatic Themes. The rank of patrician was bestowed as 
 a rule upon the Anatolic, Arrneniac, and Thrakesian strategoi, 
 and these three received a salary of 40 Ibs. of gold (1728). 
 The pay of the other strategoi and kleisurarchs ranged from 
 36 to 12 Ibs, 2 but their stipends were somewhat reduced in 
 the course of the ninth century. We can easily calculate that 
 the total cost of paying the governors of the eastern provinces 
 (including Macedonia and Thrace) did not fall short of 
 15,000. 
 
 been lowered (Cer., ib.). If we apply 
 the figures given by Ibn Khurdadhbah 
 to the corresponding categories in 
 the table of Themes under Michael 
 III. (36 Ibs. =1555: 4s. ; 24 Ibs. 
 = 1036 : 16s. ; 12 Ibs. =518 : 8s. ; 
 6 Ibs. =259 : 4s.), we get for the total 
 amount paid to the military com- 
 manders 16,558 : 16s. But it must 
 be remembered that the reduction of 
 salaries may have been made under 
 Michael III., or even before the death 
 of Theophilus, and may have been 
 connected with the increase in the 
 number of the Themes. It seems, for 
 instance, probable that when Koloneia 
 became a strategia the salary may 
 have been fixed at 20 Ibs. But the data 
 are sufficient for a rough estimate. 
 
 Q 
 
 1 Constantine, Cer. 697, referring 
 to the reign of Leo VI. There is every 
 reason to suppose that the system was 
 older. 
 
 2 Ibn Khurdadhbah, 85. " The pay 
 of the officers is at the maximum 
 40 Ibs ; it descends to 36, 24, 12, 6 
 and even to 1 Ib." The salaries which 
 obtained under Leo VI. (Cer., ib.) 
 enable us to apply this information 
 There we have 5 classes : (1) 40 Ibs. 
 Anatol., Arm., Thrakes. (2) 30 Ibs. 
 Opsik., Bukell., Maced. (3) 20 Ibs. 
 Capp., Chars., Paphl., Thrace, Kol. 
 
 (4) 10 Ibs. : Kib., Samos, Aig. Pel. 
 
 (5) 5 Ibs. : 4 kleisurarchies. It is 
 clear that in the interval between 
 Theophilus and Leo VI. the salaries, 
 with the exception of the highest, had
 
 226 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAI-. vn 
 
 In these provinces there is reason to suppose that the 
 number of troops, who were chiefly cavalry, was about 80,000. a 
 They were largely settled on military lands, and their pay was 
 small. The recruit, who began service at a very early age, 
 received one nomisma (12s.) in his first year, two in his 
 second, and so on, till the maximum of twelve (7 : 4s.), or 
 in some cases of eighteen (10 : 16s.), was reached. 2 
 
 The army of the Theme was divided generally into two, 
 sometimes three, turms or brigades ; the turm into drungoi or 
 battalions ; and the battalion into banda or companies. The 
 corresponding commanders were entitled turmarchs, drungaries, 
 and counts. The number of men in the company, the sizes of 
 the battalion and the brigade, varied widely in the different 
 Themes. The original norm seems to have been a bandon of 
 200 men and a drungos of 5 banda. It is very doubtful 
 whether this uniform scheme still prevailed in the reign of 
 Theophilus. It is certain that at a somewhat later period 
 the bandon varied in size up to the maximum of 400, and the 
 drungos oscillated between the limits of 1000 and 3000 men. 
 Originally the turm was composed of 5 drungoi (5000 men), 
 but this rule was also changed. The number of drungoi in 
 
 1 Ibn Kudama, 197 sqq., gives the ization never corresponded to this 
 
 total for the Asiatic provinces as scheme, and it has no historical value. 
 
 70,000, but the sum of his items does Thefigures 120,000 may indeed roughly 
 
 not correspond. The number of troops correspond to the actual total, if we 
 
 in Paphlagonia is omitted, and Gelzer include the Tagmata and all the forces 
 
 is probably right in supplying 4000 in Hellas and the Western provinces. 
 
 (op. cit. 98). He is also right in 2 Ibn Khurdadhbah makes two 
 
 observing that the figure 4000 assigned contradictory statements about the 
 
 to the Armeniacs must be wrong, but pay : (1) it varies between 18 and 12 
 
 I cannot agree with his emendation, dinars a year (84), and (2) beardless 
 
 10,000. For the number of the youths are recruited, they receive 1 
 
 Thrakesians 6000 must also be in- dinar the first year, 2 the second, and 
 
 correct ; they cannot have been less so on till their twelfth year of service, 
 
 numerous than the Bukellarians, who when they earn the full pay of 12 
 
 were 8000. I would therefore write dinars. Perhaps the explanation is 
 
 8000 for the Thrakesians, and 8000 for that the first passage only takes 
 
 the Armeniacs (not too few for this account of the " full pay." This may 
 
 Theme reduced by the separation of have varied in different Themes ; or 
 
 Chaldiaand Charsianon). With these higher pay than 12 dinars may have 
 
 corrections we get the required sum been that of the Tagmatic troops, or 
 
 70,000. The same author gives 5000 of the dekarchs (corporals). In any 
 
 for Thrace, to which we must add case Gelzer is wrong in his estimate of 
 
 another 5000 for Macedonia (but these the pay (120). He commits the error 
 
 numbers may be under the mark). of taking the dinar to be equivalent 
 
 Ibn Khurdadhbah (84) asserts that to a franc (or rather 91 pfennige). 
 
 the whole army numbered 120,000 But the dinar represents the Greek 
 
 men, and a patrician (i.e. a strategos) nomisma. The dirham (drachma) 
 
 commanded 10,000. The actual organ- corresponds to a franc.
 
 SECT, ii MILITARY ORGANIZATION 227 
 
 the turm was reduced to three, so that the brigade which the 
 turmarch commanded ranged from 3000 upwards. 
 
 The pay of the officers, according to one account, ranged 
 from 3 Ibs. to 1 lb., and perhaps the subalterns in the company 
 (the kentarchs and pentekontarchs) are included ; but the 
 turmarchs in the larger themes probably received a higher 
 salary than 3 Ibs. If we assume that the average bandon was 
 composed of 300 men and the average drungos of 1500, and 
 further that the pay of the drungary was 3 Ibs., that of the 
 count 2 Ibs. and that of the kentarch 1 lb., the total sum 
 expended on these officers would have amounted to about 
 64,000. But these assumptions are highly uncertain. Our 
 data for the pay of the common soldiers form a still vaguer 
 basis for calculation ; but we may conjecture, with every 
 reserve, that the salaries of the armies of the Eastern Themes, 
 including generals and officers, amounted to not less than 
 500,000^ 
 
 The armies of the Themes formed only one branch of the 
 military establishment. There were four other privileged and 
 differently organized cavalry regiments known as the Tagmata : 2 
 (1) the Schools, (2) the Excubitors, (3) the Arithmos or Vigla, 
 and (4) the Hikanatoi. The first three were of ancient 
 foundation ; the fourth was a new institution of Nicephorus I., 
 who created a child, his grandson Mcetas (afterwards the 
 Patriarch Ignatius), its first commander. 3 The commanders of 
 these troops were entitled Domestics, except that of the 
 Arithmos, who was known as the Drungary of the Vigla or 
 Watch. Some companies of these Tagmatic troops may have 
 been stationed at Constantinople, where the Domestics usually 
 resided, but the greater part of them were quartered in Thrace, 
 
 1 We cannot, I think, use the that these sums represent extra pay 
 
 evidence in the documents concerning given for special expeditions oversea, 
 
 the Cretan expeditions of A.D. 902 and and are outside the regular military 
 
 949 (in Constantine, Ger. ii. chaps. 44 budget. See below. We cannot draw 
 
 and 45) for controlling the Arabic conclusions from the sum of 1100 
 
 statements as to the pay of soldiers pounds =475, 222 which was sent in 
 
 and officers. For instance, we find A.D. 809 to pay the army on the 
 
 the detachment of 3000 Thrakesians Strymon, as we do not know the 
 
 receiving 2 nomismata each (p. 655) number of the troops or whether the 
 
 in A.D. 902 ; and men of the Sebastean sum included arrears. 
 
 Theme receiving 4 n. each (p. 656), 20-0 T AJ a * n 
 
 while the officers of the same Theme See Bur y> Im P- Admm - S y stem > 47 
 
 are paid turmarchs 12 n., drungaries S W' 
 
 10 n., counts 5 n. It seems probable 3 Nicet. Vita Ign. 213.
 
 228 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 Macedonia, and Bithynia. The question of their numbers is 
 perplexing. We are variously told that in the ninth century 
 they were each 6000 or 4000 strong, but in the tenth the 
 numbers seem to have been considerably less, the strength of 
 the principal Tagma, the Scholarians, amounting to no more 
 than 1500 men. If we accept one of the larger figures for 
 the reign of Theophilus, we must suppose that under one of 
 his successors these troops were reduced in number. 1 
 
 The Domestic of the Schools preceded in rank all other 
 military commanders except the strateigos of the Anatolic 
 Theme, and the importance of the post is shown by the 
 circumstance that it was filled by such men as Manuel and 
 Bardas. In later times it became still more important ; in 
 the tenth century, when a military expedition against the 
 Saracens was not led by the Emperor in person, the Domestic 
 of the Schools was ex officio the Commander-in-Chief. 2 The 
 Drungary of the Watch and his troops were distinguished from 
 the other Tagmata by the duties they performed as sentinels 
 in campaigns which were led by the Emperor in person. The 
 Drungary was responsible for the safety of the camp, and 
 carried the orders of the Emperor to the generals. 
 
 Besides the Thematic and the Tagmatic troops, there 
 were the Nurneri, a regiment of infantry commanded by a 
 Domestic ; 3 and the forces which were under the charge of the 
 Count or Domestic of the Walls, whose duty seems to have 
 been the defence of the Long Wall of Anastasius. 4 These 
 troops played little part in history. More important was the 
 Imperial Guard or Hetaireia, 5 which, recruited from barbarians, 
 formed the garrison of the Palace, and attended the Emperor 
 on campaigns. 
 
 1 See Constantino, Cer. 666. Cp. 5 Probably organized in the course 
 Bury, op. cit. 54, where, however, the of the ninth century, cp. Bury, op. cit. 
 reduction of the Excubitors and Hika- 107. They were under the command 
 natoi is probably exaggerated, as the of Hetaeriarchs, and associated with 
 numbers given in Cer. seem to refer to them were small corps of Khazars and 
 the contingents stationed in Asia, and Pharganoi. These guards were so well 
 not to include those in Thrace and remunerated that they had to purchase 
 Macedonia. their posts for considerable sums, on 
 
 2 Hence the Domestic of the Schools which . their . salar f ies represented an 
 developed into the Domestic of the annuity varying from about 2 f to 4 
 g ag j. ' per cent (Constantino, Cer. 692-69-3). 
 
 For example, a Khazar who received 
 
 ' They numbered 4000, according 7 . 4s . fcj paid for enrolment 
 to Kudama. Cp. Bury, op. c^t. 65. 3Q2 . gs ^ system applied to 
 
 4 See above, p. 224. most of the Palace offices.
 
 SECT, ii MILITARY ORGANIZATION 229 
 
 The care which was spent on providing for the health and 
 comfort of the soldiers is illustrated by the baths at Dorylaion, 
 the first of the great military stations in Asia Minor. This 
 bathing establishment impressed the imagination of oriental 
 visitors, and it is thus described by an Arabic writer : l 
 
 Dorylaion possesses warm springs of fresh water, over which the 
 Emperors have constructed vaulted buildings for bathing. There are 
 seven basins, each of which can accommodate a thousand men. The water 
 reaches the breast of a man of average height, and the overflow is 
 discharged into a small lake. 
 
 In military campaigns, careful provision was made for the 
 wounded. There was a special corps of officers called deputatoi, 2 
 whose duty was to rescue wounded soldiers and take them to 
 the rear, to be tended by the medical staff. They carried 
 flasks of water, and had two ladders attached to the saddles of 
 their horses on the left side, so that, having mounted a fallen 
 soldier with the help of one ladder, the deputatos could himself 
 mount instantly by the other and ride off. 
 
 It is interesting to observe that not only did the generals 
 and superior officers make speeches to the soldiers, in old 
 Hellenic fashion, before a battle, but there was a band of 
 professional orators, called cantatores, whose duty was to stimu- 
 late the men by their eloquence during the action. Some of 
 the combatants themselves, if they had the capacity, might be 
 chosen for this purpose. A writer on the art of war suggests 
 the appropriate chords which the cantatores might touch, and 
 if we may infer their actual practice, the leading note was 
 religious. " We are fighting in God's cause ; the issue lies 
 with him, and he will not favour the enemy because of their 
 unbelief." 
 
 III. Naval necessities imposed an increase of expenditure 
 for the defence of the Empire in the ninth century. 3 The 
 navy, which had been efficiently organized under the Heraclian 
 dynasty and had performed memorable services against the 
 attacks of the Omayyad Caliphs, had been degraded in import- 
 ance and suffered to decline by the policy of the Isaurian 
 monarchs. We may criticize their neglect of the naval arm, 
 
 1 Ibn Khurdadhbah, 81. scribe's error but a popular corrup- 
 
 2 Deputati. The word sometimes tion. Leo, Tact. 12, 51, 53. 
 appears as 8fffwor6.ro>.. This is not a 3 See Bury, Naval Policy.
 
 230 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 but we must remember that it was justified by immediate 
 impunity, for it was correlated with the simultaneous decline 
 in the naval power of the Saracens. The Abbasids who trans- 
 ferred the centre of the Caliphate from Syria to Mesopotamia 
 undertook no serious maritime enterprises. The dangers of the 
 future lay in the west and not in the east, in the ambitions 
 of the Mohammadan rulers of Africa and Spain, whose only 
 way of aggression was by sea. Sicily was in peril throughout 
 the eighth century, and Constantine V. was forced to reorganize 
 her fleet ; l accidents and internal divisions among the Saracens 
 helped to save her till the reign of Michael II. We shall see 
 in another chapter how the Mohammadans then obtained a 
 permanent footing in the island, the beginning of its complete 
 conquest, and how they occupied Crete. These events 
 necessitated a new maritime policy. To save Sicily, to recover 
 Crete, were not the only problems. The Imperial possessions 
 in South Italy were endangered ; Dalmatia, the Ionian islands, 
 and the coasts of Greece were exposed to the African fleets. 
 It was a matter of the first importance to preserve the control 
 of the Hadriatic. The reorganization of the marine estab- 
 lishment was begun by the Amorian dynasty, though its 
 effects were not fully realized till a later period. 
 
 The naval forces of the Empire consisted of the Imperial 
 fleet, 2 which was stationed at Constantinople and commanded 
 by the Drungary of the Navy, 3 and the Provincial fleets 4 of the 
 Kibyrrhaeot Theme, the Aegean, 5 Hellas, Peloponnesus, and 
 Kephalonia. 6 The Imperial fleet must now have been increased 
 in strength, and the most prominent admiral of the age, 
 Ooryphas, may have done much to reorganize it. An armament 
 of three hundred warships was sent against Egypt in A.D. 853, 
 and the size of this force may be held to mark the progress 
 which had been made. 7 Not long after the death of Michael 
 III. four hundred vessels were operating off the coast of 
 Apulia. 8 
 
 We have some figures which may give us a general idea 
 
 1 Amari, Storia, i. 175 n. 5 The naval Theme of Samoa seems 
 
 2 rb flacnXucoTXft/iw. *? ha . ve bee ? , of later date than the 
 
 Amorian period. 
 
 3 6 dpovyydpios rov irXofyov. For 6 p a phlagonia had also a small 
 him and his staff, see Bury, Imp. flotilla. 
 
 Adm. System, 108 sqq. i g ee below, p. 292. 
 
 (rr6\os. 8 Bury, Naval Policy, 33.
 
 SECT, ii NAVAL ORGANIZATION 231 
 
 of the cost of these naval expeditions. Attempts were made 
 to recover Crete from the Saracens in A.D. 902 and in A.D. 949, 
 and the pay of officers and men for each of these expeditions, 
 which were not on a large scale, amounted to over 140, 000. l 
 This may enable us to form a rough estimate of the expenditure 
 incurred in sending armaments oversea in the ninth century. 
 We may surmise, for instance, that not less than a quarter of a 
 million (pounds sterling), equivalent in present value to a 
 million and a quarter, was spent on the Egyptian expedition 
 in the reign of Michael III. 
 
 1 See official documents in Constan- 949 we have (673 sqq.) interesting 
 
 tine, Cer. 651 sqq. and 667 sqq. The details of the prices of the articles 
 
 total in the first case seems to come to required for the equipment (^o7rXi<m) 
 
 143,483, in the second to 147,287. of the vessels, and I calculate that this 
 
 In A.D. 902, there were 177 ships, and expenditure came to more than 1000. 
 the men numbered 47,127. For A.D. 
 
 NOTE 
 
 As to the surplus in the treasury on the death of Theophilus, 
 mentioned on p. 219, a footnote was there accidentally omitted. When 
 Michael III. assumed the government himself in A.D. 856, Theodora, by 
 way of justifying her administration, proved to the Senate that the 
 accumulated savings effected in the reign of Theophilus, and under her 
 own regime, lay in the treasury, and amounted to 190 kentenaria in gold 
 coin, and 300 pounds of silver (Gen. 90 = Cont. Th. 172). The gold is 
 equivalent to 4,708,800 (in purchasing value upwards of 20,000,000).
 
 CHAPTEK VIII 
 
 THE SARACEN WARS 
 
 1. The Empire of the Abbasids 
 
 IN the days of Nicephorus and Charles the Great, the Caliphate 
 was at the height of its power and grandeur ; a quarter of a 
 century later the decline of Abbasid rule, a process which was 
 eked out through several centuries, had already begun. An 
 accomplished student of Mohammadan history l has found, even 
 in the reigns of Harun and his son Mamun, the last great 
 Caliphs, signs and premonitions of decay ; in their characters 
 and tempers he discovers traits of the degeneracy which was 
 to be fully revealed in their weak and corrupt successors. 
 Without presuming to decide whether Harun should be called 
 a degenerate because to a nature unscrupulously cruel he 
 united susceptibility so sensitive to music and so prone to 
 melancholy that he burst into tears on hearing the strains of 
 a boatman's song wafted over the waters of the Tigris, we can 
 see in his reign and that of his son the immense difficulties of 
 government which confronted the rulers of the Mohammadan 
 world, the strength of the elements of division and disruption, 
 and the need of sovrans of singular ability and strenuous life, 
 if the fabric of the Empire was to be held together. 
 
 The realm of the Abbasids, in its early period, presents 
 some interesting points of comparison with the contemporary 
 Eoman Empire. The victory of the Abbasids and their establish- 
 ment on the throne of the Caliphs had been mainly due to 
 Persian support ; the change of dynasty marked the triumph 
 of Persian over Arabian influence. We may fairly compare 
 this change with that which attended the elevation of the 
 
 1 Von Kremer. 
 232
 
 SECT, i THE EMPIRE OF THE ABBASIDS 233 
 
 Isaurian dynasty to the throne of the Caesars. The balance 
 was shifted in favour of the eastern regions of the Empire, 
 and influences emanating from the mountains of Asia Minor 
 strove to gain the upper hand over the prevailing influence of 
 the Greeks. If the struggle between the two spirits expressed 
 itself here in the form of the iconoclastic controversy, the 
 anti- Arabian reaction in the Caliphate was similarly marked 
 by a religious movement, which is called heretical because it 
 was unsuccessful, and has a certain resemblance to iconoclasm 
 in so far as it was an attempt of reason to assert itself, within 
 certain limits, against authority and tradition. While the 
 Omayyad Caliphs were still ruling in Damascus, there were 
 some thoughtful Mohammadans who were not prepared to 
 accept without reflexion the doctrines which orthodoxy imposed ; 
 and it is not improbable that such men were stimulated in 
 theological speculation by friendly disputes and discussions 
 with their Christian fellow-subjects. 1 The sect of the Mutaza- 
 lites proclaimed the freedom of the will, which the orthodox 
 Mohammadan regards as inconsistent with the omnipotence of 
 Allah, and they adopted the dangerous method of allegorical 
 interpretation of the Koran. Their doctrines were largely 
 accepted by the Shiites, and they had to endure some persecu- 
 tion under the Caliphs of Damascus. The first Abbasid rulers 
 secretly sympathized with the Mutazalites, but orthodoxy was 
 still too strong to enable them to do more than tolerate it. 
 Mamun was the first who ventured to profess the heresy, and 
 in A.D. 827 he issued an edict proclaiming that the Koran was 
 created. This was the cardinal point at issue. The Mutaza- 
 lites pointed out that if, as the orthodox maintained, the 
 Koran existed from all eternity, it followed that there were two 
 co-existing and equally eternal Beings, Allah and the Koran. 
 The doctrine of the eternal existence of the Koran corresponds 
 to the Christian doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible, and in 
 denying it the Caliph and his fellow- heretics seemed to under- 
 mine the authority of the Sacred Book. There were some 
 who had even the good sense to assert that a better book than 
 the Koran might conceivably be written. 2 The intellectual 
 attitude of the Mutazalites is also apparent in their rejection 
 
 1 Cp. Kremer, Culturgeschichte, ii. 399 sq. 
 2 Weil, ii. 264.
 
 234 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 of the doctrine, which the orthodox cherished, that in the 
 next world God would reveal himself to the faithful in a visible 
 shape. Mamun may have hoped to bring about a general 
 reform of Islam, but his enlightened views, which his two 
 successors, Mutasim and Wathik, also professed and endeavoured 
 to enforce, probably made few converts. These Caliphs, like 
 the iconoclastic Emperors, resorted to persecution, the logical 
 consequence of a system in which theological doctrine can be 
 defined by a sovran's edict. When Wathik died, in consequence 
 of his dissolute life, in A.D. 847, his successor Mutawakkil 
 inaugurated a return to the orthodox creed, and executed 
 those who persisted in denying the eternity of the Koran. 
 
 The genuine interest evinced by the Caliphs of this period 
 in poetry and music, in literature and science, was the most 
 pleasing feature of their rule. It was a coincidence that the 
 brilliant period of Arabic literature, developing under Persian 
 influence, was contemporary with the revival of learning and 
 science at Constantinople, of which something will be said in 
 another chapter. The debt which Arabic learning owed to 
 the Greeks was due directly to the intermediate literature of 
 Syria ; but we must not ignore the general effect of influences 
 of culture which flowed reciprocally and continually between 
 the Empire and the Caliphate. 1 Intercourse other than war- 
 like between neighbouring realms is usually unnoticed in 
 medieval chronicles, and the more frequent it is, the more 
 likely it is to be ignored. But various circumstances permit 
 us to infer that the two civilizations exerted a mutual influence 
 on each other; and the historians record anecdotes which, 
 though we hesitate to accept them as literal facts, are yet, 
 like the anecdotes of Herodotus, good evidence for the social 
 or historical conditions which they presuppose. It must not 
 be thought that the religious bigotry of the Moslems or the 
 chronic state of war between the two powers were barriers or 
 obstacles. At that time the Mohammadan society of the 
 middle classes, especially in the towns, seems to have been 
 permeated by a current of intellectual freedom : they were 
 not afraid to think, they were broad-minded and humane. 2 
 On the other hand, while the continuous hostilities on the 
 
 1 See below, Chapter XIV. 
 2 Kremer, Cutturge.schichte, i., p. vi.
 
 SECT, i THE EMPIRE OF THE ABB AS IDS 235 
 
 frontiers do not appear to have seriously interrupted the 
 commercial traffic between Europe and Asia, the war directly 
 contributed to mutual knowledge. In the annual raids and 
 invasions by which the Romans and Saracens harried each 
 other's territories, hundreds of captives were secured; and 
 there was a recognized system of exchanging or redeeming 
 them at intervals of a few years. The treatment of these 
 prisoners does not seem to have been very severe ; distinguished 
 Saracens who were detained in the State prison at Constanti- 
 nople were entertained at banquets in the Imperial palace. 1 
 Prisoners of the better classes, spending usually perhaps five 
 or six years, often much longer terms, in captivity, were a 
 channel of mutual influence between Greek and Saracen 
 civilization. On the occasion of an exchange of captives in 
 A.D. 845, Al-Garmi, a highly orthodox Mohammadan, was 
 one of those who was redeemed. During a long period of 
 detention, he had made himself acquainted with the general 
 outline of Imperial history, with the government, the 
 geography, and the highroads of the Empire, and had obtained 
 information touching the neighbouring lands of the Slavs 
 and the Bulgarians. He committed the results of his 
 curiosity to writing, and the descriptive work of Ibn 
 Khurdadhbah, which has come down to us, owed much to the 
 compositions of the captive Al-Garmi. 
 
 In its political constitution, the most striking feature of 
 the Caliphate, as contrasted with the Eoman Empire, was the 
 looseness of the ties which bound its heterogeneous territories 
 together under the central government. There was no great 
 administrative organization like that which was instituted by 
 Diocletian and Constantine, and survived, however changed 
 and modified, throughout the ages. At Constantinople the 
 great chiefs of departments held in their hands the strings to 
 all the administration in the provinces, and the local affairs 
 of the inhabitants were strictly controlled by the governors 
 and Imperial officials. In the Caliphate, on the other hand, 
 the provincials enjoyed a large measure of autonomy, and 
 there was no administrative centralisation. For keeping their 
 subjects in hand, the Caliphs seem to have depended on secret 
 police and an organized system of espionage. An exception 
 1 Philotheos, in Constantine. Cer. 743, 767 ( = 157, 168, ed. Bury).
 
 236 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 to the principle of abstaining from State interference was 
 made in favour of agriculture : the government considered 
 itself responsible for irrigation ; and the expenses of maintain- 
 ing in repair the sluices of the Tigris and Euphrates, indis- 
 pensable for the fertility of Mesopotamia, were defrayed 
 entirely by the public treasury. 1 
 
 The small number of the ministries or divans in Baghdad 
 is significant of the administrative simplicity of the Saracen 
 State. The most important minister presided over the office 
 of the ground-tax, and next to him was the grand Vezir. 
 The duty of the Postmaster was to exercise some general 
 control over the administration ; and his title, though he was 
 not responsible for the management of the State Post, suggests 
 the methods by which such control was exerted. 2 The chief 
 purpose of the Post, which, like that of the Roman Empire, 
 was exclusively used by officials, was to transmit reports from 
 the provinces to the capital. It was carefully organized. 
 The names of the postal stations, and their distances, were 
 entered in an official book at Baghdad, and the oldest geo- 
 graphical works of the Arabs were based on these official itin- 
 eraries. The institution served a huge system of espionage, 
 and the local postmasters were the informers, sending reports 
 on the conduct of governors and tax-collectors, as well as on 
 the condition of agriculture, to headquarters. 3 
 
 We possess far fuller information on the budget of the 
 Caliphate under the early Abbasids than on the finances of the 
 later Empire at any period. 4 We can compare the total 
 revenues of the State at various periods in the eighth and 
 ninth centuries, and we know the amount which each province 
 contributed. Under Harun ar-Rashid the whole revenue 
 amounted to more than 530 millions of dirhams (about 
 21,000,000), in addition to large contributions in kind, 
 whose value in money it is impossible to estimate. 5 In the 
 
 1 Kremer, ib. i. 200-202. Kremer, Culturgeschichte, 356 sqq. ; 
 
 2 He may be compared to the head (3) in the Persian historian Wassaf. 
 of the Third Section of the Russian The relations of the three are discussed 
 police. by Kremer, ib. 12 sqq. (1) and (3) 
 
 3 Kremer, ib. 192 sqq., 201-202. agree accurately as to the gold and 
 
 4 Kremer, ib. 256 sqq. silver items, and both state that the 
 
 5 for Harun's reign we have three gold dinar was then (under Harun) 
 tax rolls : (1) in Gahsiyari's History of equivalent to 22 silver dirhams. 
 the Vezirs ; published in Kremer, They are evidently copies of the same 
 Budget Harun ; (2) in Ibn Khaldun ; tax list. (1) and (2) agree generally.
 
 SECT, i THE EMPIRE OF THE ABBASIDS 237 
 
 reign of Mamun (A.D. 819-820) it was reduced perhaps by 
 200 millions, and about forty years later the sources point to 
 a still lower figure. 1 In the following century (A.D. 915-916), 
 it is recorded that the income of the State, from the taxes 
 which were paid in gold and silver, amounted to no more 
 than 24 millions of dirhams. 2 The sources of the revenue 
 were the taxes on land and property, ships and mines, mills 
 and factories, the duties on luxuries, on salt, and many other 
 things. The falling off during the ninth century may be 
 easily accounted for by such general causes as internal troubles 
 and rebellions, constant wars, the dishonesty of provincial 
 governors, and the lavish luxury of the Court. The Caliph 
 Mamun is said to have spent on the maintenance of his Court 
 six thousand dinars daily, which is equivalent nearly to 
 1,000,000 a year. 3 
 
 The circumstances of the elevation of the Abbasid house 
 entailed, as a natural consequence, that the Persians should 
 form an important element in the military establishments. 
 Under the Omayyads the chief recruiting grounds were 
 Basrah and Kufah, and the host consisted mainly of Arabians. 
 In the army of Mansur there were three chief divisions the 
 northern Arabs, the southern Arabs, and, thirdly, the men of 
 Khurasan, a geographical term which then embraced the 
 mountainous districts of Persia. The third division were the 
 privileged troops who, to use the technical Eoman term, were 
 in praesenti and furnished the guards of the Caliph. But in 
 the reign of Mutasim, who ascended the throne in A.D. 833, 
 the Persians were dislodged from their place of favour by 
 foreigners. The Turkish bodyguard was formed by slaves 
 
 Kremer calculated the dinar from Ibn the relation of the dinar to the dirham 
 
 Khaldun's sums as equal to 15 dir- varied. The actual totals given 
 
 hams. This list belonged to the (supposing the dinar = 15 dirhams) 
 
 period immediately before Harun's are : Kudama, 3l7f millions (over 
 
 accession (775-786). 12,706,000) ; Ibn Khurdadhbah, 293 
 
 1 We cannot depend on the totals millions (11,720,000) taking the 
 
 of the accounts in Kudama and Ibn dirham as a franc. Ibn Khurdadhbah 
 
 Khurdadhbah, which are our sources was general postmaster in the district 
 
 for this decline. For Kudama's list of Gabal, and wrote between A.D. 854 
 
 is based partly on a list of 819-820, and 874. Kudama died in A.D. 948-9. 
 and partly on later lists up to 851-852 
 
 (Kremer, Culturcjeschichte, 270) ; and Kremer, CulturgeschicUe, i. 281. 
 
 Ibn Khurdadhbah gives the revenue 3 The defence of the Syrian fron- 
 
 from Khurasan for 836, but his other tier is said to have cost 200,000 
 
 figures belong to later years (up to dinars (120,000), sometimes 300,000 
 
 874). Further, we do not know how (180,000).
 
 238 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 imported from the lands beyond the Oxus, and so many came 
 from Farghana that they were all alike known as Farghanese. 
 We may suspect that many of these soldiers entered the 
 Caliph's service voluntarily, and it is remarkable that much 
 about the same time as the formation of the Turkish 
 bodyguard of the Caliph we meet the earliest mention of 
 Farghanese in the service of the Eoman Empire. 1 The 
 unpopularity of the insolent Turkish guards among the 
 inhabitants of Baghdad drove Mutasim into leaving the capital, 
 and during the secession to Samarra, which lasted for sixty 
 years, they tyrannized over their masters, like the Praetorians 
 of past and the Janissaries of future history. Yet a fifth 
 class of troops was added about the same time to the military 
 forces of the Caliphate ; it consisted of Egyptian Beduins, 
 Berbers, and negroes, and was known as the African corps. 
 The Saracens adopted the tactical divisions of the Eoman 
 army. 2 The regiment of 1000 men, commanded by a kaid, 
 was subdivided into hundreds and tens, and there were 
 normally ten such regiments under the emir, who corresponded 
 to the strategos of a Theme. 
 
 2. Baghdad 
 
 The capital city of the Abbasids, 3 from which they 
 governed or misgoverned Western Asia, was the second city 
 in the world. In size and splendour, Baghdad was surpassed 
 only by Constantinople. There is a certain resemblance between 
 the circumstances in which these two great centres of power 
 were founded. Saffah, the first sovran of the new dynasty, had 
 seen the necessity of translating the seat of government from 
 Syria to Mesopotamia. A capital on the navigable waters of 
 the Tigris or the Euphrates would be most favourably situated 
 for ocean commerce with the far East ; it would be at a safe 
 distance from Syria, where the numerous adherents of the 
 fallen house of the Omayyads were a source of danger ; it 
 would be near Persia, on whose support the risen house of the 
 
 1 Cp. Simeon, Gont. Georg. 815 work, Baghdad during the Abbasid 
 Qfo<pdfris 6 K Qapydvuv. Caliphate, where references to the 
 
 2 Kremer, ib. 237. authorities are given throughout, and 
 
 3 The following description is de- the topography is elucidated by 
 rived from Le Strange's exhaustive numerous plans.
 
 SECT, ii BAGHDAD 239 
 
 Abbasids especially depended. Perhaps, too, it may have been 
 thought that Damascus was perilously near the frontier of the 
 Roman Empire, whose strength and vigour had revived under 
 its warlike Isaurian rulers. 1 It was impossible to choose 
 Kufah on the Euphrates, with its turbulent and fanatical 
 population, and Saffah built himself a palace near the old 
 Persian town of Anbar, a hundred miles further up the river. 
 But his successor Mansur, having just essayed a new residence 
 on the same stream, discerned the advantages of a situation 
 on the Tigris. For the Tigris flows through fruitful country, 
 whereas the desert approaches the western banks of the 
 Euphrates ; and in the eighth century it flowed alone into the 
 Persian Gulf, 2 while the Euphrates lost itself in a great swamp, 
 instead of uniting with its companion river, as at the present 
 day. Mansur did not choose the place of his new capital in 
 haste. He explored the banks of the Tigris far to the north, 
 and thought that he had discovered a suitable site not far 
 from Mosul. But finally he fixed his choice on the village of 
 Baghdad. Bricks bearing the name of Nebuchadnezzar show 
 that the spot was inhabited in the days of the Assyrian 
 monarchy ; when Mansur inspected it, he found it occupied by 
 monasteries of Nestorian Christians, who extolled the coolness 
 of the place and its freedom from gnats. The wisdom of the 
 Caliph's decision may be justified by the fact that Baghdad 
 has remained unchallenged, till this day, the principal city of 
 Mesopotamia. The experiments preliminary to its founda- 
 tion remind us of the prologue to the foundation of Con- 
 stantinople. When Diocletian determined to reside himself 
 in the East, he chose Nicomedia, and Nicomedia corresponds 
 to the tentative establishments of Saffah and Mansur on the 
 Euphrates. When Constantine decided that Nicomedia would 
 not suit the requirements of a new Eome, he was no less at a 
 loss than Mansur, and we are told that various sites competed 
 for his choice before he discovered Byzantium. 
 
 But the tasks which confronted the two founders were 
 widely different. Constantine had to renew and extend an 
 ancient city ; and his plans were conditioned by the hilly 
 
 1 Le Strange, 4-5. lagoons which marked its stream were 
 
 2 In the last portion of its course it navigable (ib.). 
 entered the great swamp, but the
 
 240 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 nature of the ground. The architectural inventiveness of 
 Mansur and his engineers was hampered by no pre-existing 
 town ; when they had cleared away a miserable hamlet and 
 the abodes of infidel monks, they had a tabula rasa, level and 
 unencumbered, on which they could work their will, confined 
 only by the Isa canal and the Tigris itself. The architects 
 used the opportunity and built a wonderful city of a new 
 type. It was in the form of a perfect circle, four miles in 
 circumference, surrounded by three concentric walls con- 
 structed of huge sun-dried bricks. In the centre stood the 
 Palace of Mansur, known as the Golden Gate, and close to it 
 the Great Mosque. The whole surrounding area, enclosed by 
 the inmost wall, was reserved for the offices of government, 
 the palaces of the Caliph's children, and the dwellings of his 
 servants. No one except the Caliph himself was permitted to 
 pass into these sacred precincts on horseback. The ring 
 between the inner and the middle wall was occupied by 
 houses and booths. The middle wall was the principal 
 defence of the town, exceeding the other two in height and 
 thickness. Through its iron gates, so heavy that a company 
 was required to open them, a rider could enter without 
 lowering his lance; and at each gatehouse a 'gangway was 
 contrived by which a man on horseback could reach the top 
 of the wall. From this massive fortification a vacant space 
 divided the outmost wall, which was encompassed by a water- 
 moat. This system of walls was pierced by four series of 
 equidistant gates the gates of Syria (N.W.), Khurasan 
 (N.E.), Basrah (S.E.), and Kufah (S.W.). The imposing gate- 
 houses of the middle circle were surmounted by domes. Such 
 was the general plan of the round city of Mausur, to which he 
 gave the name of Madinat as-Salam, " the City of Peace." 
 But if the name was used officially, it has been as utterly 
 forgotten by the world as Aelia Capitolina and Theupolis, 
 which once aspired to replace Jerusalem and Antioch. 
 
 The building of the city occupied four years (A.D. 7 6 2-7 6 6). 1 
 Mansur also built himself another house, the Kasr-al-Khuld 
 or Palace of Eternity, outside the walls, between the Khurasan 
 
 1 Tabari states the cost of building which is about the equivalent of 
 the two outer walls and the palace, 360,000 (Le Strange, 40). 
 and constructing the ditch, at a sum
 
 SECT, ii BAGHDAD 241 
 
 Gate and the river. It was here that Harun ar-Ra&hid 
 generally lived. South of the city stretched the great com- 
 mercial suburb of Karkh, 1 and the numerous canals which 
 intersected it must have given it the appearance of a modern 
 Dutch town. Here were the merchants and their stores, as 
 carefully supervised by the government as the traders and 
 dealers of Constantinople. The craftsmen and tradesmen did 
 not live scattered promiscuously in the same street, as in our 
 cities of to-day ; every craft and every branch of commerce 
 had its own allotted quarter. It is said that Mansur, in 
 laying out the town of Karkh, which was not included in his 
 original plan, was inspired by the advice of an envoy of the 
 Roman Emperor, who was then Constantine V. When the 
 patrician had been taken to see all the wonders of the new 
 city, the Caliph asked him what he thought of it. " I have 
 seen splendid buildings," he replied, " but I have also seen, 
 O Caliph, that thine enemies are with thee, within thy city." 
 He explained this oracular saying by observing that the 
 foreign merchants in the markets within the walls would have 
 opportunities of acting as spies or even as traitors. Mansur 
 reflected on the warning, and removed the market to the 
 suburbs. 
 
 This is not the only anecdote connecting Byzantine 
 envoys with the foundation of Baghdad. We may not give 
 these stories credence, but they have a certain value for the 
 history of culture, because they would not have been invented 
 if the Saracens had not been receptive of Byzantine influences. 
 It was said that a Greek patrician advised Mansur on the 
 choice of his site ; and a visitor who walked through the 
 western suburb and was shown the great " water-mill of the 
 patrician " might feel convinced that here was an undoubted 
 proof of the alleged debt to Byzantine civilization. His guide 
 would have told him that the name of the builder of the mills 
 was Tarath, who had come on behalf of the Roman Emperor 
 to congratulate the Caliph Mahdi on his accession to the 
 throne (A.D. 775). Tarath, who was himself fifth in descent 
 from the Emperor Maruk, offered to build a mill on one of the 
 canals. Five hundred thousand dirhams (about 20,000) 
 
 1 The name still survives in Karchiaka, which the Turks apply to western 
 Baghdad (Le Strange, 66). 
 
 R
 
 242 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vnr 
 
 were supplied for the cost, and the patrician guaranteed that 
 the yearly rents would amount to this sum. When the 
 forecast was fulfilled, Mahdi gratefully ordered that the rents 
 should be bestowed on the patrician, and until his death the 
 amount was transmitted to him year by year to Constantinople. 
 The story sounds like a pleasing invention, called forth by the 
 need of explaining the name of the mill ; and it has been 
 suggested that the name itself was originally derived, not 
 from " Patrician," but from " Patriarch," and that the mills, 
 older than the foundation of the city, were called after the 
 Patriarch of the Nestorians. 1 The name Tarath, however, 
 is evidently Tarasius, while in his Imperial ancestor Maruk 
 it is easy to recognize the Emperor Maurice ; and it is 
 to be observed that the age of the fifth generation from 
 Maurice (who died in A.D. 602) corresponds to the reign 
 of Mansur. 
 
 The traffic of Baghdad was not confined to Karkh ; 
 there were extensive market-places also in the region outside 
 the western wall, and in the north - western suburb of 
 Harbiyah, beyond the Syrian Gate. The quarters in all 
 these suburbs which encompassed the city were distinguished 
 for the most part by the names of followers of Mansur, to 
 whom he assigned them as fiefs. 
 
 Although Baghdad was to live for ever, the Round City 
 of the founder was destined soon to disappear. The Palace of 
 the Golden Gate was little used after the death of Mansur 
 himself, and four generations later the rest of the court and 
 government was permanently established on the other side of 
 the Tigris. At the very beginning, three important suburbs 
 grew up on the opposite bank of the river, which was spanned 
 by three bridges of boats. This region has aptly been described 
 as a fan-shaped area, the point of radiation being the extremity 
 of the Main Bridge, which led to the gate of Khurasan, and 
 the curve of the fan sweeping round from the Upper Bridge 
 to the Lower Bridge. 2 But these quarters of Rusafah, Sham- 
 masiyah, 3 and Mukharrim were not destined to be the later 
 
 1 Le Strange, 145. Batrik = TrarplKios Aramaic word, meaning "deaconry" 
 should differ in the final guttural and pointing to Christian origin was 
 from batrik = Trar/Jtdpx'?? (ib. note). the Christian quarter, known as the 
 
 2 Le Strange, 169. Dar ar-Rum or House of the Romans. 
 
 3 In the region of Shammasiyah an Here were, churches of the Jacohites
 
 SECT, ii BAGHDAD 243 
 
 city of the Abbasids ; their interest is entirely connected with 
 the events of the earlier period. Mansur built a palace in 
 Kusafah for his son Mahdi, in whose reign this quarter, in- 
 habited by himself and his courtiers, became the most fashion- 
 able part of the capital. More famous was the palace of Ja'far 
 the Barmecide in the quarter of Mukharrim. 1 It was given 
 by its builder as a free gift to prince Mamun, who enlarged it, 
 built a hippodrome, and laid out a wild beast park. When 
 Mamun came to the throne, he generally lived here, whenever 
 he was in Baghdad, and from this time we may date the up- 
 ward rise of Eastern Baghdad. For the decline and destruc- 
 tion of the Eound City of Mansur had been initiated in the 
 struggle between Mamun and his brother Amin, when its walls 
 and houses were ruined in a siege which lasted for a year. 
 Mamun rebuilt it, but neither he nor his successors cared to 
 live in it, 'and the neglect of the Caliphs led to its ultimate 
 ruin and decay. For a time indeed it seemed that Baghdad 
 itself might permanently be abandoned for a new residence. 
 The Caliph Mutasim, who had built himself a new palace in 
 Mukharrim, was forced by the mutinies of the Turkish Guards 
 to leave Baghdad, and Samarra, higher up the river, was the 
 seat of the court and government of the Commander of the 
 Faithful for about sixty years (A.D. 836-94). Once indeed, 
 during this period, a caliph took up his quarters for a year in 
 Baghdad. It was Mustain, who fled from Samarra, unable to 
 endure his subjection to the Turkish praetorians (A.D. 865). 
 But he came not to the city of Mansur, but to the quarter of 
 Kusafah, which he surrounded with a wall to stand the siege 
 of the rival whom the Turks had set up. This siege was as 
 fatal to the old quarters of Eastern Baghdad as the earlier 
 siege was to the Round City and its suburbs. When the 
 Court finally returned from Samarra, thirty years later, new 
 palaces and a new Eastern Baghdad arose farther to the south, 
 on ground which was wholly beyond the limits of the suburbs 
 of Mansur's city. 
 
 and of the more influential Nestorians, Catholicus of the Nestorians lived in 
 
 both of whom lived unmolested under the adjacent monastery, the Dayr ar- 
 
 the rule of the Abbasids. . The Rum (ib. 208). 
 Nestorian church is said to have l Ib. 243 sqq. 
 
 been large, solid, and beautiful ; the
 
 244 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 3. The Frontier Defences of the Empire and the Caliphate 
 
 The sway of the Caliph extended from the northern shores 
 of Africa to the frontiers of India, but after the year 800 his 
 lordship over northern Africa was merely nominal, and the 
 western limits of his realm were virtually marked by Cyprus 
 and Egypt. For Ibrahim, son of Aghlab, who was appointed 
 governor of Tunis, announced to the Caliph Harun that he 
 was prepared to pay a yearly tribute but was determined to 
 keep the province as a perpetual fief for himself and his 
 descendants. Harun, who was at the moment beset by war 
 and revolts elsewhere, was compelled to acquiesce, and the 
 Aghlabid dynasty was thus founded in Africa. The whole 
 Caliphate was divided into some fifteen administrative provinces, 
 and the Asiatic provinces alone formed a far larger realm than 
 the contemporary Eoman Empire. 
 
 The circumscriptions of Syria and Armenia were separated 
 from Eoman territory by frontier districts, which were occupied 
 by forts and standing camps. The standing camp, or fustdt, 
 was an institution which had been developed under the 
 Omayyads, and was continued under the early Abbasids. The 
 ancient towns of Tarsus, Adana, and Mopsuestia were little 
 more than military establishments of this kind. If we survey 
 the line of defences along the Taurus range from the Euphrates 
 to the frontier of Cilicia, our eye falls first on Melitene 
 (Malatia) which lies at the meeting of the great highroads 
 leading from Sebastea (Sivas) and Caesarea to Armenia and 
 northern Mesopotamia, not far from the loop which the river 
 describes below the point at which its parent streams x uni,te 
 their waters. The road from Melitene to Germanicia, across 
 the Taurus, was marked by the fastnesses of Zapetra (at Viran- 
 shahr) and Hadath or Adata, 2 both of which were frequently 
 attacked by the Eomans. Germanicia and Anazarbos were 
 strongly fortified by the Caliph Harun, and between these 
 
 1 The Euphrates (Kara-su) and Minor he equates Hadath with Pav- 
 
 Arsanias (Murad-su). rali, north of Inekli. The roads 
 
 a For a demonstration of the site of across Commagene to Samosata, from 
 
 Zapetra (the ancient Sozopetra), and Zapetra and from Germanicia, were 
 
 for the position of Hadath (near defended respectively by the forts of 
 
 Inekli) see Anderson, Campaign of Hisn Mansur or Perrhe and Bahasna 
 
 Basil /., in Classical Review, x. 138-9 (for which cp. Anderson's Map). 
 (April 1896). In his Map of Asia
 
 SECT, in FRONTIERS OF EMPIRE AND CALIPHATE 245 
 
 main positions, in the hilly regions of the upper Pyramus, 
 were the forts of Kanisah and Haruniyah. 1 This line, from 
 Melitene (which gave his title to the Emir of the district) to 
 Anazarbos, formed the defence against invasion of Mesopotamia. 
 The province of Syria was secured by another line, in which 
 the chief points were Mopsuestia (Massisah), Adana and 
 Tarsus. When the coast road, emerging from the Syrian 
 Gates, had swept round the bay of Issus, it turned inland to 
 Mopsuestia, and thence ran due westward to Tarsus, passing 
 Adana, which it entered by the old bridge of Justinian across 
 the Sarus. Under Harun, Tarsus was garrisoned by eight 
 thousand soldiers, and it was fortified by double walls sur- 
 rounded by a moat. 
 
 Of the Taurus mountain passes, through which the 
 Christians and Moslems raided each other's lands, the two 
 chief were (1) the defiles, known from ancient times as the 
 Cilician Gates, through which the Saracens, when Tarsus was 
 their base, carried the Holy War into the central regions of 
 Asia Minor, and (2) the pass which connected Germanicia 
 with Arabissos. 
 
 The pass of the Cilician Gates, famous in ancient as well 
 as in medieval history, is about seventy miles in length from 
 the point where the ascent from the central plateau of Asia 
 Minor begins, south of Tyana, to the point where the southern 
 foothills of Taurus merge in the Cilician plain. 2 Near the 
 northern extremity of the pass, a lofty isolated peak rises to 
 the height of about a thousand feet, commanding a wide view 
 both of the southern plains of Cappadocia and of the northern 
 slopes of Taurus. On this impregnable height stood the 
 fortress of Lulon, 3 which, though it could defy armed assault, 
 yet, whether by treachery or long blockades, passed frequently 
 backwards and forwards from the Saracens to the Komans. It 
 was the key of the Cilician pass. While it was in the hands 
 of the Komans, it was difficult for a Saracen army to invade 
 
 1 These have not been identified. pass is derived from Ramsay, Cilicia. 
 The latter, built by Harun (A.D. 799) 3 The Arabic authorities call it both 
 was a day's march to the west of Lulon and al-Safsaf, "the willow." 
 Germanicia, and Kauisah - as - Sawda, For the identification see Ramsay, ib. 
 "the black church," was about twelve 405. It is supported by the fact that 
 miles from Haruniyah. Le Strange, Tabari calls the pass "the pass of al- 
 Eastcrn Caliphate, pp. 128-9. Safsaf " (A.H. 188). 
 
 2 The following description of the
 
 246 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 Cappadocia ; while the Saracens held it, an Imperial army 
 could not venture to enter the defiles. 1 The northern road to 
 Tyana and the western road to Heraclea meet close to Lulon 
 at the foot of the pass, so that the fort commanded both these 
 ways. 
 
 The road winding first eastward and then turning south 
 ascends to the oval vale of Podandos, called the " Camp of 
 Cyrus," because the younger Cyrus encamped here on his 
 march against his brother. 2 The path rises from Podandos 
 through steep and narrow glens to the summit of the pass ; 
 and on the east side, high up on the mountain, it was 
 commanded by a stronghold, built of black stone, known as 
 the Fortress of the Slavs. 3 From the summit, marked by a 
 little plateau which is now called Tekir, 4 a descent of about 
 three miles leads to the rocky defile which was known as the 
 Cilician Gates and gave its name to the whole pass. It is a 
 passage, about a hundred yards long and a few yards wide, 5 
 between rock walls rising perpendicular on either side, and 
 capable of being held against a large force by a few resolute 
 men. Above, on the western summit, are the remains of an 
 old castle which probably dates from the times when Greeks 
 and Saracens strove for the possession of the mountain frontier. 
 
 In the period with which we are concerned Podandos and 
 the pass itself seem to have been durably held by the Saracens. 
 Lulon frequently changed hands. When the Romans were in 
 possession, it served as the extreme station of the line of 
 beacons, which could flash to Constantinople, across the 
 highlands and plains of Asia Minor, the tidings of an 
 
 1 Cp. Ramsay, Asia Minor, 354. called the fort Rodentos (Constantino, 
 
 2 Ramsay (Cilicia, 386 sqq. ) shows Themes, 19, where it is mentioned with 
 that Cyrus and Xenophon did not Lulon and Podandos). The Butrentum 
 march through the Cilician Gates of the Crusaders may be, as Ramsay 
 proper. From Podandos (Bozanti) suggests, a contamination of Podandos 
 they took a south-easterly path, which and Rodentos. 
 
 followed the course of the Chakut-Su 4 Ramsay points out that this is in 
 
 and was the direct way to Adana but modern warfare strategically the most 
 
 a considerably longer route to Tarsus. important point of the pass. In 
 
 3 Hisn as-Sakalibah. The ruins are ancient times the places of most im- 
 known as Anasha Kalahsi ; they stand portance, becausemost easily defensible 
 high on Mt. Anasha (Ramsay, ib. 383). by a small body, were the Gates south 
 In the reign of Justinian II. there was of the summit and the narrow glen 
 a large desertion of Slavs to the Arabs descending to Podandos, north of the 
 (Theoph. A.M. 6184), and doubtless summit. 
 
 these or similar deserters were placed 5 The Roman road was about 11 feet 
 
 as a garrison in this fort. The Greeks wide (Ramsay, 379).
 
 SECT, in FRONTIERS OF EMPIRE AND CALIPHATE 247 
 
 impending invasion. 1 The light which blazed from the lofty- 
 hill of Lulon was seen by the watchers on the peak of Mount 
 Argaios not the Argaios which looks down on Caesarea, but 
 another mountain, south-east of Lake Tatta. It travelled in 
 its north-westward course across the waters of the lake, to be 
 renewed on the hill of Isamos, and the signal was taken up on 
 the far-off height of Aigilos. The beacon of Aigilos, visible to 
 the great military station of Dorylaion which lies on the river 
 Tembris some thirty miles to the north-west, signalled to 
 Mamas, a hill in the south-eastern skirts of Mount Olympus, 
 and another fire passed on the news to Mokilos. The light of 
 Mokilos crossed the Bithynian Gulf, and the last beacon on 
 the mountain of St. Auxentios transmitted the message to 
 those who were set to watch for it in the Pharos of the Great 
 Palace. 
 
 Such telegraphic communication had been devised in 
 remote antiquity, and had been employed by the Eomans 
 elsewhere. But the mere kindling of beacons could only 
 convey a single message, and if the line of fires in Asia Minor 
 was established as early as the eighth century, they were 
 probably lit solely to transmit the news that a Saracen 
 incursion was imminent. But a simple plan for using 
 the beacons to send as many as twelve different messages is 
 said to have been contrived by Leo the mathematician 2 
 and adopted by the Emperor Theophilus. Two clocks 
 were constructed which kept exactly the same time and were 
 set together; one was placed in the palace, the other in the 
 fortress nearest to the Cilician frontier. Twelve occurrences, 
 which were likely to happen and which it was important to 
 know, were selected ; one of the twelve hours was assigned to 
 each ; and they were written on the faces of both clocks. If 
 at four o'clock the commander of Lulon became aware that 
 the enemy were about to cross the frontier, he waited till the 
 
 1 The list of the stations is given in Olympus, Const., (6) Kyrizos, C. Th., 
 
 Constantino, Htpl ra. 492, and C. Th. Const. (Kirkos, Cedr.), (7) M(i(ctXoy, G. 
 
 197 = Cedrenus, ii. 174. See Ramsay, Th., MwiuXXos, Cedr. Mou/aXos eirdvu 
 
 Asia Minor, pp. 352-3 and 187 (cp. rdv HvXwv, Const., (8) S. Auxentios 
 
 his maps of Galatia and Bithynia). (Kaich-Dagh), (9) Palace. I have 
 
 The stations are given thus in the followed Ramsay's general identifica- 
 
 texts : (1) Lulon, (2) Argaios, C. Th., tion of the route. He conjectures 
 
 Cedr. ; Ai'-y&ij (3ow6s, Const., (3) Isamos that Kyrizos is Katerli Dagh. and 
 
 (Samos, Const.), (4) Aigilon (Aigialos, identifies Mokilos with Samanli Dagh. 
 
 Cedr.), (5) Mamas, C. Th., Cedr.; - See below, Chap. XIV. 2.
 
 248 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vni 
 
 hour of one and then lit his beacon ; and the watchers in the 
 Palace, seeing the light on Mount Auxentios, knew at what 
 hour the first fire was kindled and therefore what the signal 
 meant. A signal made at two o'clock announced that 
 hostilities had begun, and a three o'clock despatch signified a 
 conflagration. 1 
 
 In expeditions to Commagene and Mesopotamia, the 
 Imperial armies generally followed the road from Arabissos 
 (Yarpuz) which, crossing the Taurus, descends to Germanicia. 
 The troops of the Eastern Asiatic Themes met those which 
 came from the west at Caesarea, and a road crossing the 
 Antitaurus range by the Kuru-Chai pass 2 took them to Sirica 
 and Arabissos. But at Sirica (perhaps Kemer) they had an 
 alternative route which was sometimes adopted. They 
 could proceed southward by Kokusos (Geuksun) and reach 
 Germanicia by the Ayer-Bel pass. 3 
 
 / t/ J. 
 
 At the beginning of the ninth century, a great part of 
 Cappadocia east and south-east of the upper Halys had become 
 a frontier land, in which the Saracens, although they did not 
 occupy the country, had won possession of important strong- 
 holds, almost to the very gates of Caesarea. If they did not 
 hold already, they were soon to gain the forts in the 
 Antitaurus region which commanded the roads to Sis, and 
 Kokusos which lay on one of the routes to Germanicia. 4 To 
 the north, they seem to have dominated the country as far 
 west as the road from Sebastea to Arabissos. And, south of 
 the Antitaurus range, Arabissos was the only important place 
 of which the Empire retained possession. 5 The fact that the 
 
 1 Pseudo - Simeon 681 sq. is the the Paulicians, is another indication, 
 authority for the wpo\6yw, 56o 4 faov It seems probable that they had 
 Kii/j.vovra. achieved this position in Eastern Asia 
 
 2 Ramsay, Asia Minor, 271 ; for Minor before the end of the 8th 
 Sirica, 274. century. Ramsay (Asia Minor, 278) 
 
 3 Anderson, Road System (28), where exaggerates when he says that after 
 all the routes over the Taurus are 780 "the Greek arms were probably 
 described. There were two ways from never seen again in Eastern Cappa- 
 Caesarea southward to Sis and Ana- docia till Basil's expedition in 880"; 
 zarbos, ib. 29. at least, the frequent Roman expedi- 
 
 4 The penetration of Cappadocia by tions to Commagene passed through 
 the Arabs before 873 can be partly south-eastern Cappadocia. 
 
 inferred from the details of the cam- 5 Ramsay (ib. 276) infers from 
 
 paigns of Basil I., who undertook to Basil's campaign in 877 that Arabissos 
 
 drive them out of the country. Cp. was then in the hands of the Saracens. 
 
 Anderson, Campaign of Basil I. (cit. I doubt whether the inference is 
 
 supra) and Road System, 34 sq. The justified ; Basil's march to Germanicia 
 
 position of Amara, where they settled by the western pass seems to have
 
 SECT, iv SARACEN WARS, A.D. 802-833 249 
 
 Charsian province was designated as a Kleisurarchy is a 
 significant indication of the line of the eastern frontier. 
 It was the business of the Charsian commander to defend 
 the kleisurai or passes of the Antitaurus hills. 
 
 4. The Warfare in the Reigns of Harun and Mamun 
 (A.D. 802-833) 
 
 Till the middle of the tenth century when the Emperor 
 Nicephorus Phocas made a serious effort to drive the Moslems 
 from Syria, the wars between the Empire and Caliphate are 
 little more than a chronicle of reciprocal incursions which 
 seldom penetrated very far into the enemy's country. The 
 chief events were the capture and recapture of the fortresses 
 in the Taurus and Antitaurus highlands ; occasionally an 
 expedition on a larger scale succeeded in destroying some 
 important town. The record of this monotonous warfare is 
 preserved more fully in the Arabic than in the Greek 
 chronicles. It would be as useless as it were tedious to 
 reproduce here the details of these annual campaigns. It will 
 be enough to notice the chief vicissitudes, and the more 
 important incidents, in a struggle whose results, when the 
 Amorian dynasty fell, showed a balance in favour of the 
 Saracens. 
 
 During the last few years of the reign of Irene, the 
 warfare slumbered ; * it would seem that she purchased 
 immunity from invasion by paying a yearly sum to the Caliph. 
 One of the first decisions of Nicephorus was to refuse to 
 continue this humiliating tribute, and the Arab historians 
 quote letters which they allege to have passed between the 
 Emperor and the Caliph on this occasion. 2 Nicephorus 
 demanded back the money which had been paid through 
 " female weakness." The epistle, if it is authentic, was 
 
 been dictated by other considerations. 2 They are given by Tabari (as well 
 
 In any case, Arabissos must have been as later writers). Translations in 
 
 Imperial during most of the Amorian Gibbon, chap. 52, and "Weil, ii. 159. 
 
 period. Brooks regards them as spurious, and 
 
 1 According to Michael Syr. 12, thinks that the story of the peace with 
 
 however, there were two Saracen in- Irene (Rina), which is not mentioned 
 
 vasions after the deposition of Con- by Theophanes, was an Arab invention. 
 
 stantineVI.: in the first, Aetius gained It is not mentioned by Michael Syr., 
 
 a victory, in the second the Romans who, however, states that Nicephorus 
 
 were defeated. sent a letter to Harun (16).
 
 250 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 simply a declaration of war. Haruri was so incensed with 
 fury that no one could look at him ; he called for an inkpot 
 and wrote his answer on the back of the Imperial letter. 
 
 Harun, Commander of the Faithful, to the Greek dog. I have read 
 thy letter, son of an unbelieving mother. Thou shalt not only hear my 
 answer but see it with thine eyes. 
 
 The Caliph marched immediately to chastise the insolent 
 Koman, but Nicephorus, who, occupied with the revolt of 
 Bardanes, was not prepared to meet him, offered to pay tribute, 
 if the army, which had advanced from the Cilician Gates to 
 Heraclea, would retire. Harun, satisfied with the booty he 
 had collected and the damage he had inflicted, agreed to the 
 proposal; but when he had reached the Euphrates, the news 
 arrived that the Emperor had broken the compact, and 
 notwithstanding the severe cold, for it was already winter, he 
 retraced his steps and raided the lands of his enemy again. 
 
 Each succeeding year during the reign of Harun, and 
 under his successor till A.D. 813, witnessed the regular incur- 
 sions of the Moslem commanders of the frontier. 1 We may 
 notice particularly an expedition led by the Caliph himself, 
 who wore a pointed cap inscribed " Raider and pilgrim," in 
 the summer of A.D. 806. His army numbered 135,000 
 regular soldiers, with many volunteers, and besides capturing 
 a number of important forts he took Heraclea and its subter- 
 ranean grain stores. He seized Tyana, which lies north of 
 Lulon on the road to Caesarea, and converted it into a 
 permanent post of occupation, building a mosque, which the 
 Greek chronicler designates as " the house of his blasphemy." 
 The Emperor, who seems to have been unable to send a 
 sufficient force to take the field against the invader, at length 
 induced him to withdraw for the sum of 50,000 dinars. 2 
 
 1 In A.D. 804 Nicephorus in person Saracen period, showed himself so 
 
 opposed the invaders and was wounded brave and brilliant in war." In 807 
 
 (Tabari, s.a. 188). According to Nicephorus fought a pitched battle 
 
 Michael Syr. (16), the Romans in with the Saracens and was routed 
 
 this year entered Cilicia, pillaged the (Kitab al-'Uyun, Brooks, 747). 
 
 regions of Mopsuestia, Anazarbos, and 2 For this campaign we have both 
 
 Tarsus ; see also next note. This Theophanes and Tabari. They agree 
 
 writer (who becomes more valuable in saying that the tribute was a sort 
 
 for chronology in the reign of Theo- of ransom for Nicephorus, his son, his 
 
 philus) has a curious estimate of patricians, and the other Romans, 
 
 the military talent of Nicephorus : Tabari says that four dinars were 
 
 " No Roman Emperor, throughout the for Nicephorus, two for Stauracius
 
 SECT, iv SARACEN WARS, A.D. 802-833 251 
 
 During the last two years of Haran's reign (A.D. 808-9) 
 insurrections in his eastern dominions l prevented him from 
 prosecuting the war against Bomania with the same energy, 
 and after his death the struggle of his sons for the throne was 
 the signal for new rebellions, and secured the Empire for some 
 years against any dangerous attack. 2 Harun had obliged his 
 three sons to sign a document, by which the government of 
 the realm was divided among them, but Amin succeeded to 
 the supreme position of Caliph and Mamun was designated 
 as next in succession. Amin was younger than Mamun, but 
 he was the son of the Princess Zubaidah who had Mansur's 
 blood in her veins, while Mamun's mother was a slave. Civil 
 war broke out when Amin attempted to violate the paternal 
 will by designating his own son as heir apparent to the 
 throne. It was decided by the long siege of Baghdad and 
 the execution of Amin (A.D. 813). 
 
 The twenty years of Mamun's reign were marked by 
 internal rebellions and disaffection so grave that all the 
 military forces which he commanded were required to cope 
 with these domestic dangers. The governors of Egypt were 
 already aspiring to an independence which they were after- 
 wards to achieve, and Babek, an unconquerable leader, who 
 belonged to the communistic sect of the Hurramites, defied 
 the Caliph's power in Adarbiyan and Armenia. The army 
 of Mamun was annihilated by this rebel in A.D. 829-30, and 
 the task of subduing him was bequeathed to the Caliph's 
 successor. These circumstances explain the virtual cessation 
 of war between the Empire and the Caliphate for a space of 
 sixteen years (A.D. 814-829). There was no truce or treaty; 
 the two powers remained at war ; there were some hostilities ; 3 
 
 (Brooks, Bijzantines and Arabs, i. that a Roman embassy came to Mamun 
 746); Theophanes says three for him- in A.H. 210 = April 825-April 826, to 
 self, three for his son. Michael Syr. negotiate a peace, that Mamun de- 
 places the capture of Heraclea in A. D. clined and ordered the commanders on 
 804 (16). the frontiers to invade the Empire, 
 
 1 w;i ;; ICQ and that they were victorious, 
 vv en, 11. 100. -, T . 1t T7 -. A 0/ , ,. 
 
 Vasil ev, Viz. ^ Ar. 36, accepts the 
 
 2 Perfunctory raids are recorded by statement that Zapetra was taken in 
 Ibn Wadhih each year till A.H. 197 Michael's reign, on the ground that 
 ( = September 12, 812-August 31, 813). Baladhuri was a contemporary. He 
 Brooks, op. cit. 747. died in 892-3, and may have been a 
 
 3 Notably on the occasion of the child in Michael's reign ; but I think 
 revolt of Thomas. Baladhuri (4), we may take it that he has misplaced 
 however, records that the Romans de- an event which belongs to the first 
 stroyed /apetra, Mamun restored it, year of Theophilus. See below.
 
 252 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 but the Saracens seem to have desisted from their yearly 
 invasions, and the Emperors Leo and Michael were less eager 
 to take advantage of Mamun's difficulties by aggressions on 
 their side than glad to enjoy a respite from the eastern war. 1 
 This long suspension of the Holy War was chequered, indeed, 
 by Mamun's actions during the rebellion of Thomas, which 
 show r ed that he cherished designs upon the Empire which 
 only necessity held in abeyance. We saw how the Saracens 
 took advantage of that crisis, first invading the Empire, and 
 then supporting Thomas the Slavonian. The Caliph, whether 
 he had made secret conditions with the pretender or not, 
 undoubtedly hoped to augment his territory in Asia Minor. 
 
 If the Caliph had espoused the cause of Thomas, the 
 Emperor had an opportunity of retaliating by supporting the 
 rebel Babek. And as a matter of fact, the renewal of the 
 war seems to have been caused by the opening of negotiations 
 between Babek and the Emperor Theophilus. It must have 
 been immediately after Theophilus ascended the throne that 
 a considerable number of Hurramite insurgents passed into 
 Koman territory and offered to serve in the Roman armies. 2 
 It is probable that the negotiations with Babek were arranged 
 with the help of a notable officer, of Persian origin, who had 
 been brought up at Constantinople and bore a Greek name 
 Theophobos. 3 Theophilus appointed him commander of the 
 
 1 The silence of the Greek and that the fugitives were Christians 
 Arabic chroniclers proves at least who feared Mamun and Babek alike, 
 that the war was very languidly It should be borne in mind that these 
 prosecuted in the reign of Leo. But so-called n^ptrat must have been mainly 
 there seem to have been hostilities, Persarmenians. 
 
 for we have a record of an eastern 3 The difficulties connected with 
 
 campaign of that Emperor. See Theo- Theophobos have not been fully 
 
 dore Stud. Ep. 213 (Cozza-L.), pp. cleared up, or even realised, by 
 
 180-1 pera rb ttcffrpaTevacu rbv /3a<riX^a, modern historians. He is mentioned 
 
 referring to A.D. 817. Moreover, in only in the Greek sources : Gen. 52-57 ; 
 
 A.D. 816 a campaign was contem- Gont. Th. 110-112; Simeon (Add. 
 
 plated : see Anon. A. Vita Theophanis, Oeorg. 793). While it is admitted 
 
 2916 ; Anon. B. Vita Theophanis, 396. that the stories told of his descent 
 
 Cp. Pargoire, St. TMophane, 73-81. from the Persian kings, and of his 
 
 2 See Michael Syr. 50 and 73 (who early life, are suspicious from their 
 describes them as Khordanaye, i.e. general nature and the fact that there 
 Hurramites), and Greek sources cited are conflicting versions their legeud- 
 in next note. Simeon gives the ary character is established by their 
 number of the " Persian " refugees as inconsistency with chronology and 
 14,000; according to Gont. Th. they other errors (Hirsch, 139) it has been 
 had increased to 30,000 in A.u. 837. generally assumed that Theophobos 
 That there was an influx in the inter- and his father were followers of Babek 
 vening years is borne out by Tabari, 28 and came to Sinope with the other 
 (sub A.D. 833). Finlay (ii. 153) thinks fugitives (so e.g. Finlay and Vasil'ev).
 
 SECT, iv SARACEN WARS, A.D. 802-833 253 
 
 army of eastern fugitives, to whom his descent and knowledge 
 of their language naturally recommended him. But the 
 attachment of the soldiers to Theophobos was possibly based 
 on a higher and transcendent claim. 
 
 The Hurramites cherished the firm belief that a Mahdi or 
 Guide of their own race would appear who would guide them 
 to faith in himself, would transmit his Empire to another, to 
 be followed by a perpetual line of successors. Such a divine 
 leader had recently arisen amongst them, but he was caught 
 and executed. 1 If Theophobos was recognised as his successor, 
 we should understand both the ascendency which he exercised 
 over them, and the motive of the legends which grew up 
 about his origin. But the fact which suggests this explan- 
 ation is the belief current among the " Persians " in later 
 generations that Theophobos had never tasted death. 2 
 
 The foreigners had come to Sinope, having evidently 
 followed the coast road by Trapezus, as they could not pass 
 through the Saracen province of Melitene. Quarters were 
 assigned to them here and at Amastris, but some years later 
 they seized their commander and proclaimed him Emperor 
 against his will (A.D. 837). Theophobos, whose services had 
 been rewarded by the rank of patrician and the hand of a 
 lady who was sister either to Theophilus himself or to 
 Theodora, 3 was a loyal subject, and he managed to send a 
 
 If so, Theophobos must have been a Gen. 54). The tale that the Persians 
 most distinguished and important became aware of his existence, by 
 figure in the Babek movement, other- astrology or otherwise, and wanted to 
 wise he would hardly have married make him their king, is connected 
 into the Emperor's family ; and we with the part he played in the negoti- 
 should expect to find him mentioned ations with Babek ; it is quite prob- 
 in our Oriental sources. His Greek able that he went as envoy to Babek 
 name, his orthodoxy, on which the in Armenia, though in Gen. and Cont. 
 chroniclers compliment him, and the Th. the personal interview is at Sinope. 
 trust reposed in him by Theophilus, (The improbable statement that Babek 
 all suggest that he was a Byzantine came himself to Sinope is rejected by 
 subject and Imperial officer ; and the Finlay and Vasil'ev. ) Yet this is 
 stories preserve the fact that he was hardly a sufficient motif for the legend- 
 born and educated at Constantinople. ary anecdotes, which would, I think, 
 These stories were based on the three be accounted for by the conjecture 
 circumstances that he was a citizen of which I have ventured to put forward 
 the Empire, that he belonged to a in the text. 
 
 "Persian" family, and that he was 1 Michael Syr. 50. For the Hur- 
 
 appointed commander of the Hurram- ramites (Kop/adroi), see also Weil, 
 
 ites. They let out the circumstance ii. 235. 
 that his father (who may have been 2 Gen. 60. 
 
 the first of the family to settle in 3 Simeon (Add. Georg. 793) says 
 
 Byzantium) served in the Imperial "a sister of Theodora"; Gen. 55 = 
 
 army ('Pufj-aiuv 6i>Ta rots Kara\6yoLS, Cont. Th. 112, says " the sister of the
 
 254 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, via 
 
 secret message to the Emperor. Theophilus pardoned the 
 troops, but took the precaution of distributing them among 
 the armies of various Themes, in regiments of 2000, which were 
 known as " the Persian turms." 
 
 We may pass briefly over the meagre details of the warfare 
 during the next three years, noticing only the sack of 
 Zapetra by Theophilus (A.D. 830), his victory in Cilicia 
 (A.D. 831) which he celebrated by a triumphal entry into 
 Constantinople, and the Saracen capture of the important 
 fortress of Lulon. 1 But we may linger longer over the over- 
 tures for peace which Theophilus addressed to the Caliph. 
 
 Defeated in a battle, in the autumn of A.D. 831, the 
 Emperor wished for peace and from his camp he sent an 
 ecclesiastic with a letter to Mamun. The Caliph received 
 him in his camp, 2 but on observing the superscription of the 
 letter, he returned it to the envoy saying " I will not read his 
 letter, which he begins with his own name." The ambassador 
 retraced his steps, and Theophilus was compelled to rewrite 
 his epistle and place the name of the Caliph before his own. 
 The story may be an insolent invention of the Saracens, 3 but 
 it is certain that Mamun rejected the offers of Theophilus 
 who proposed to give him 100,000 dinars and 7000 captives, 
 if he would restore the fortresses which he had conquered and 
 conclude a peace for five years. The time of the summer 
 campaign, however, had drawn to a close, and Mamun retired 
 into his own territories (September). 
 
 The capture of Lulon after a long siege was an important 
 success for the arms of Mamun. The value of this fortress, 
 the key to the northern entrance of the Cilician Gates, has 
 
 Emperor " (of whom otherwise we do outside of the document, while the 
 
 not hear). Against Simeon is the Emperor's name came first inside. If 
 
 detailed notice of the family of Theo- this style was usual before the time of 
 
 dora in Cont. Th. 175, where the wife Theophilus, his secretary committed 
 
 of Theophobos is not mentioned. a breach of etiquette. The forms of 
 
 1 The details are discussed in address used in the tenth century 
 Appendix VIII. were : outside, rf fjLeyaXoTrpeirecrTdTif} 
 
 2 Yakubi, 7, designates the envoy evyeveffrdry KO.I irepijl\tirTif) (name) 
 as a bishop. See below, Appendix VIII. -rrpwToav/j.l3ou\i{i /ecu diardKropi T&V 
 
 3 It is possible, however, that the 'Ayaprjvuv d?r6 (name) TOV TTIITTOV cttrro- 
 Caliph was only insisting on a recog- Kpdropos Avyovarov /jieyd\ov /SacnX^ojy 
 nised convention. In the tenth ceii- 'Pw/xai&w. Inside : (name) Tncrrbs 4v 
 tury it was the official style of the X/ucmJ) r$ 0ef avroKpdrup ASyovffTos 
 East Roman Chancery, in letters from f^yas /3a<nAei)s 'Pw^aJw T /j.eya\o- 
 the Emperor to the Caliph, to give irpeirfffrdr^ KT\. (as on outside). Con- 
 the Caliph's name precedence on the stantine, Oar. 686.
 
 SECT, iv SARACEN WARS, A.D. 802-833 255 
 
 already been explained. After its surrender, Theophilus 
 addressed a letter to the Caliph, 1 which according to an 
 Arabic historian, was couched in the following phrases : 
 
 Of a truth, it is more reasonable for two antagonists, striving each for 
 his own welfare, to agree than to cause injury to each other. Assuredly, 
 you will not consent to renounce your own welfare for the sake of 
 another's. You are sufficiently intelligent to understand this without a 
 lesson from me. I wrote to you to propose the conclusion of peace, as I 
 earnestly desire complete peace, and relief from the burden of war. We 
 will be comrades and allies ; our revenues will increase steadily, our 
 trade will be facilitated, our captives liberated, our roads and uninhabited 
 districts will be safe. If you refuse, then for I will not dissimulate or 
 flatter you with words I will go forth against you, I will take your 
 border lands from you, I will destroy your horsemen and your footmen. 
 And if I do this, it will be after I have raised a flag of parleys between 
 us. Farewell 
 
 To this epistle the Caliph disdainfully replied in terms 
 like these : 
 
 I have received your letter in which you ask for peace, and in 
 mingled tones of softness and severity try to bend me by referring to 
 commercial advantages, steady augmentation of revenues, liberation of 
 captives, and the termination of war. Were I not cautious and deliberate 
 before deciding to act, I would have answered your letter by a squadron 
 of valiant and seasoned horsemen, who would attempt to tear you from 
 your household, and in the cause of God would count as nought the pain 
 which your valour might cause them. And then I would have given 
 them reinforcements and supplies of arms. And they would rush to 
 drink the draughts of death with more zest than you would flee to find 
 a refuge from their insults. For they are promised one of two supreme 
 blessings victory here or the glorious future of paradise. But I have 
 deemed it right to invite you and yours to acknowledge the One God 
 and to adopt monotheism and Islam. If you refuse, then there shall be 
 a truce for the exchange of captives ; but if you also decline this 
 proposition, you will have such personal acquaintance with our qualities 
 as shall render further eloquence on my part needless. He is safe who 
 follows the right path. 
 
 If these letters represent the tenor of the communications 
 which actually passed 2 it is clear that Mamun, encouraged by 
 
 1 This is the embassy briefly re- (Date, A.D. 832.) They are not quite 
 
 corded by Michael Syr. 75 (A.D. 832), consistent, however, with the account 
 
 who says that Mamun uttered fierce of Michael, who says (ib.) that Mamun 
 
 threats' when Manuel left his service replied, "Acknowledge my sovranty 
 
 and that these threats frightened over you, pay me a tribute, however 
 
 Theophilus. small, and I will agree to your re- 
 
 - They are given by Tabari, 25, 26, quest " (cp. Bar-Hebr. 154). 
 and accepted as genuine by Vasil'ev.
 
 256 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 the successes of the three past years, had no wish to bring the 
 war to a close. He looked forward, perhaps, to the entire 
 subjugation of the Empire. 1 But his days were numbered. 
 In the following summer he crossed the frontier, 2 took some 
 fortresses, and returned to Podandos, where he was stricken 
 down by a fatal fever. He died on August 7, A.D. 833, and 
 was buried at Tarsus. 
 
 5. The Embassy of John the Grammarian and the Flight 
 of Manuel 
 
 It was probably in the first months of his reign that the 
 Emperor sent to the Caliph an embassy which made such an 
 impression on popular imagination that it has assumed a 
 more or less legendary character. The fact seems to be, so 
 far as can be made out from the perplexing evidence, that 
 John the Synkellos, commonly known as the Grammarian, a 
 savant who, it may well be, was acquainted with Arabic, was 
 sent to Baghdad, to announce the accession of Theophilus. 3 
 He carried costly presents for the Caliph, and large sums 
 of money 4 for the purpose of impressing the Saracens by 
 ostentatious liberality. The imagination of the Greeks dwelt 
 complacently on the picture of an Imperial ambassador 
 astonishing the Eastern world by his luxury and magnificence, 
 and all kinds of anecdotes concerning John's doings at 
 Baghdad were invented. It was said that he scattered gold 
 like the sand of the sea, and bestowed rich gifts on anyone 
 who on any pretext visited him in his hostel. 
 
 An additional interest was attached to the embassy of 
 John the grammarian by the link, whether actual or fictitious, 
 which connected it with the adventures of a famous general 
 of the time, and this connection led Greek tradition to mis- 
 date the embassy to a later period in the reign. Manuel, who 
 under Leo V. had been strategos of the Armeniac Theme, was 
 distinguished for his personal prowess, and under Michael II. 
 
 1 So Yakubi, 9, who says he pur- with new proposals of peace. See 
 posed to besiege Amorion, and settle Masudi, Prairies d'or, vii. 94-6, ed. 
 the Arabs of the desert in the towns Barbier de Meynard ( = Vasil'ev, 66). 
 of the empire. 3 Cont. Th. 95 preserves the truth. 
 
 2 While he was at Podandos, before This was first pointed out by Brooks, 
 he crossed the frontier, an envoy of See Appendix VIII. 
 
 Theophilus is said to have arrived 4 Over 17,000, Cont. Th. 96.
 
 SECT, v EMBASSY OF JOHN THE GRAMMARIAN 257 
 
 he had apparently again acted as strategos, perhaps of the 
 same Theme. He was of Armenian descent, and the Empress 
 Theodora was his brother's daughter. 1 In the Saracen war 
 his boldness and determination saved the Emperor's life. It 
 was related that Theophilus, in a battle which he fought and 
 lost (A.D. 830) against the forces of Mamun, was hard pressed 
 and sought safety among the Persian troops 2 who formed the 
 intention of handing over his person to the enemy and making 
 terms for themselves. Manuel, who knew their language, 
 became aware of the contemplated treachery, rushed through 
 their ranks, and seizing the bridle of Theophilus dragged him, 
 angry and reluctant, from the danger which he did not suspect. 
 The Emperor rewarded his saviour with such lavish marks of 
 favour that the jealousy of Petronas, the brother of the 
 Empress, was aroused. Theophilus was informed that Manuel 
 was aspiring to the throne, and he believed the accusation, 
 based perhaps on some unguarded words. Made aware of his 
 danger, Manuel crossed over to Pylae, and making use of the 
 Imperial post reached the Cilician frontier. He was joyfully 
 welcomed by the Saracens, and the Caliph, who was wintering 
 in Syria, gladly accepted the services of his enemy's ablest 
 general. 3 The countrymen of Manuel, who were vainer of 
 his reputation for warlike prowess than they were indignant 
 at his desertion to the Unbelievers, relate with complacency 
 that he performed great services for the Caliph against the 
 sectaries of Babek and the rebellious population of Khurasan. 4 
 
 1 For his career see Cont. Th. 110 3 Simeon's account of the circum- 
 (his Armenian descent is also noted stance (Add. Georg. 796) is superior 
 in Gen. 52). For his relationship to to Gen. and Cont. Th. The person 
 Theodora, ib. 148, 0os dirb -iraTpk. who brought the charge against 
 Vasil'ev (Index, 171), and others Manuel was Myron, Logothete of the 
 distinguish two Manuels, but there Course, otherwise of no note in his- 
 can in my opinion be no question tory ; but he was the father-in-law of 
 that Manuel, the magister, who Petronas, and it might therefore be 
 played an important part after the conjectured that Petronas was behind 
 death of Theophilus, is the same as the attempt to ruin his uncle. The 
 the Manuel whom Theophilus created fact that Petronas was Manuel's 
 a magister. See Appendix VIII. nephew does not militate against 
 
 2 I have followed the briefer and this supposition. 
 
 more intelligible version of Simeon 4 See Cont. Th. 118. I infer that 
 
 (Add. Georg. 802 = 710 ed. Mur.) : so this piece was based on a good source, 
 
 Vasil'ev, 86. In Gen. 61 (followed from the mention of the Hurramites 
 
 in Cont. Th. 116), the incident is im- (Kop/udroi). This was not a familiar 
 
 proved with details, and the danger name to the Greeks, and points to 
 
 is heightened ; the Emperor is rescued special information. Cp. also Gen. 
 
 not from the Persians, but from the 72. 
 Saracens themselves.
 
 258 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 But in the meantime it had been proved to the Emperor that 
 the charges against his general were untrue, 1 and he was 
 desirous to procure the return of one whose military talent he 
 could ill afford to lose. It is said that John the Grammarian 
 undertook to obtain a secret interview with Manuel and convey 
 to him the Emperor's assurance of pardon, safety, and honour, 
 if he would return to Constantinople. 2 The ambassador 
 executed this delicate mission successfully ; he carried an 
 Imperial letter with the golden seal, and the cross which 
 Theophilus wore on his breast ; 3 and Manuel, reassured by 
 these pledges, promised, at the first opportunity, to return to 
 his own country. He accompanied the Caliph's son to invade 
 the Empire, and succeeded in escaping somewhere near the 
 frontier. 4 Theophilus immediately conferred on him the post 
 of Domestic of the Schools, and raised him from the rank of 
 a Patrician to that of a Magister. 5 
 
 The whole story has a basis in fact. There is no doubt 
 that Manuel fled to the Saracens, and afterwards returned. 
 And it is not improbable that John the Grammarian was 
 instrumental in communicating to him the assurances which 
 led to his return. But if we accept the story, as it is told by 
 the Greek writers, we have to suppose that Manuel deserted 
 from the Caliph in A.D. 830, and returned in A.D. 832, and 
 therefore to date the embassy of John to the winter of 
 A.D. 831-2. Such a conclusion involves us in several 
 difficulties ; and the most probable solution of the problem 
 appears to be that Manuel fled from the Court not of 
 Theophilus, but of his father, and returned to Constantinople 
 
 1 Their falsehood was exposed Manuel managed to separate himself 
 by the eunuch . Leo, protovestiarios and the Caliph's son (Abbas) in a 
 (Simeon, Add. Georg. 796). hunting expedition from the rest of 
 
 2 Simeon (Add. Georg. 796-7), the party, kissed the prince, and 
 represents this mission as the primary took an affecting leave of him. 
 purpose of John's journey to Syria. According to Genesios, when the 
 
 3 rbv dvvjr6ypa<j>ov \6yov Kal rb <f>v\a- Saracens attacked a place called 
 Krbv rov /ScuriX^ws, Simeon ib. ( = rb Geron, he went over to the Christians 
 Xpu<roj3oi/X\iof and rb rov ft. 4yK6\iri.ov and escaped into the town ; Ramsay 
 in Cont. Th. 119 [cp. Gen. 63], where places Geron between Germanicia and 
 an anecdote is told of John's visiting Mambij (Asia Minor, 301). In Cont. 
 Manuel in the guise of a ragged Th. 120, he is said to have arranged 
 pilgrim). a plan of escape with the strategos of 
 
 4 The versions vary both as to the Cappadocia. From Yakubi we learn 
 place and the circumstances. Simeon that in 830 Manuel was with Abbas 
 (Add. Georg. 798), says vaguely that at Resaina (cp. Appendix VIII.). 
 
 it was near the Anatolic Theme ; B Gen. 68, Cont. Th. 120.
 
 SECT, v EMBASSY OF JOHN THE GRAMMARIAN 259 
 
 in A.D. 830. 1 Both John's embassy and Manuel's adventures 
 interested popular imagination, and in the versions which 
 have come down to us the details have been variously 
 embroidered by mythopoeic fancy. Even the incident of 
 the rescue of Theophilus by Manuel may be said to be open 
 to some suspicion, inasmuch as a similar anecdote is recorded 
 of a battle thirty years later, in which Michael III. plays the 
 part of his father. 2 
 
 6. The Campaigns of A.D. 837 and 838 
 
 During the first years of Mamun's brother and successor, 
 Mutasim, there was a suspension of hostilities, 3 for the forces 
 of the new Caliph were needed to protect his throne against 
 internal rebellions, and he was bent on finally quelling the 
 still unconquered Babek. The desire of Theophilus for peace 
 was manifest throughout the war with Mamun ; it was 
 probably due to the need of liberating all the strength of his 
 resources for the task of driving the Saracens from Sicily. 
 But at the end of four years he was induced to renew the 
 war, and Babek again was the cause. Pressed hard, and 
 seeing that his only chance of safety lay in diverting the 
 Caliph's forces, the rebel leader opened communications with 
 Theophilus and promised to become a Christian. 4 The move- 
 ment of Babek was so useful to the Empire, as a constant 
 
 1 See Appendix VIII. statement of Michael Syr. 88, that 
 
 2 Gen. 93 (cp. Vasil'ev, 194). The (apparently in 835-836) "most of the 
 chief difference is that the Persian companions of Babek, with the general 
 auxiliaries play no part on the later Nasr, reduced to extremities by the 
 occasion. The presence of the Persians war, went to find Theophilus and 
 explains the situation in the earlier became Christians." Nasr, a sup- 
 battle ; and perhaps it is more prob- porter of Mamun's brother Emin and 
 able that Manuel saved the life of a violent anti-Persian, had been in 
 Theophilus, and that the same story rebellion against Mamun from A.D. 
 was applied to Michael, than that 810 to 824-825, when he submitted, 
 both anecdotes are fictitious. There See Michael Syr. 22, 53, 55, who relates 
 is also the story of the rescue of the (36-37) that he wrote (apparently e. 
 Emperor by Theophobos (Gont. Th. 821) to Manuel the Patrician proposing 
 122 sq.), which Vasil'ev rejects (Pril. an alliance with the Empire. Michael 
 ii. 136). II. sent envoys to him at Kasin, his 
 
 3 Interrupted only by a raid of headquarters ; but Nasr's followers 
 Omar, the Emir of Melitene, recorded were indignant, and to pacify them he 
 by Michael Syr. 85, in A.D. 835. killed the envoys. There is a chrono- 
 Theophilus at first defeated him, but logical inconsistency, for the chronicler 
 was afterwards routed. We shall meet says that this happened when Nasr 
 Omar again, twenty-five years later. heard that Mamun was coming to 
 
 4 Tabari, 29. We must evidently Baghdad ; but Mamun came to Bagh- 
 connect this notice of Tabari with the dad (ib. 45) in A.D. 818-819.
 
 260 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 claim on the Caliph's forces, that it was obviously to the 
 interest of Theophilus to make an effort to support it, when 
 it seemed likely to be crushed. On grounds of policy, it must 
 be admitted that he was justified in reopening hostilities in 
 A.D. 837. 1 In choosing the direction of his attack he was 
 probably influenced by the hope of coming into touch with 
 the insurgents of Armenia and Adarbiyan. 2 He invaded the 
 regions of the Upper Euphrates with a large army. 3 He 
 captured and burned the fortress of Zapetra, putting to 
 death the male population and carrying off the women and 
 children. He appeared before Melitene, threatening it with 
 the fate of Zapetra if it did not surrender. The chief men of 
 the place, however, induced him to spare it ; they came forth, 
 offered him gifts, and restored to liberty Eoman prisoners 
 who were in the town. He crossed the Euphrates, and 
 besieged and burned Arsamosata. 4 But of all his achieve- 
 ments, the conquest of Zapetra was regarded by both the 
 Moslems and the Christians as the principal result of the 
 campaign. 5 
 
 The expedition of Theophilus into western Armenia 
 deserves particular notice, for, though the Greek writers 
 
 1 Michael Syr. 88 (Ann. Sel. 1148 corresponds to the modern Shimshat. 
 = A.D. 836-837). Tabari and Yakubi Melitene was attacked when the 
 erroneously place this expedition in the Emperor returned from the excursion 
 following year. A.D. 837 had already into Armenia. Cont. Th. is here well 
 been adopted by Weil and Vasil'ev. informed ; Zapetra is mentioned #XXas 
 
 2 Michael, ib., says that he sent into Te . 5 ^ ^ Xe ' s (124). 
 
 Great Armenia, demanding tribute, 5 Havin g take ? Arsamosata the 
 
 and threatening to devastate it in Romans passed into Armenia and 
 
 case of refusal. The tribute was paid. rav ?gf? there &$***> **> T1 " s 
 
 probably means Little Sophene, north 
 
 Tabari, 29, says, " 100,000 accord- of Anzitene and the Murad-Chai ; for 
 ing to some; while others say that the Armenian historians relate that he 
 the fighting men exceeded 70,000." took the fort of Chozan (Stephen of 
 4 Michael, 89. (Yakubi and Bala- Taron, 108 ; Samuel of Ani, 707). For 
 dhuri mention only Zapetra ; Tabari the district of Chozan, cp. Constantine, 
 mentions Melitene also.) Simeon(Add. De adm. imp. 226; Gelzer, ib. 173; 
 Georg. 798, vers. Slav. 96) names rfy Adonts, Armeniin v epokhu lustiniana 
 re ZAirerpov /cat rb Sa/u.&raroj', con- (1908), 38, where the distinction be- 
 founding Arsamosata with Samosata. tween Little Sophene to the north- 
 That Arsamosata is meant is shown west, and Great Sophene to the south- 
 by Michael's statement that the in- east, of Anzitene, is clearly explained, 
 vaders entered Hanazit, i.e. Anzitene. Samuel (ib.) says that, having taken 
 The position of the town is discussed Zapetra, Theophilus went to Armenia 
 by Gelzer in Georgius Cyprius, 171-172. and took Palin (a fort in Paline, which 
 It lay on the road leading eastward lies east of Chozan), Mezkert (in 
 from Melitene to Aklat on Lake Van ; Sophene, on the Murad-Su), and Ankl 
 east of Kharput and near the left bank (in Degik = Digisene, which lay be- 
 of the Murad - Chai (Arsanias). It tween Sophene and Sophanenc).
 
 SECT, vi CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 837 261 
 
 betray no consciousness of this side of his policy, there is 
 some evidence that the situation in the Armenian highlands 
 and the Caucasian region constantly engaged his attention 
 and that his endeavours to strengthen the Empire on its 
 north-eastern frontier met with considerable success. In 
 A.D. 830 he had sent an expedition under Theophobos and 
 Bardas against Abasgia, which had proclaimed itself inde- 
 pendent of the Empire, but this enterprise ended in failure. 1 
 He was more fortunate elsewhere. We may surmise that it 
 is to the campaign of A.D. 837 that an Armenian historian 2 
 refers who narrates that Theophilus went to Pontic Chaldea, 
 captured many Armenian prisoners, took tribute from 
 Theodosiopolis, and conferred the proconsular patriciate on 
 Ashot, its ruler. 3 It was probably in connexion with this 
 expedition that the Emperor separated eastern Pontus from 
 the Armeniac province, and constituted it an independent 
 Theme, 4 under a strategos who resided at Trapezus. The 
 Theme of Chaldia reached southward to the Euphrates, 
 included Keltzene and part of Little Sophene, while to the 
 north-east, on the Boas (Chorok-Su), it embraced the district 
 of Sper. 5 It is at least evident that the Imperial conquests 
 of A.D. 8 3 7 in Little Armenia would have furnished a motive 
 for the creation of a new military province. 
 
 The triumph with which Theophilus celebrated the 
 devastation which he had wrought within the borders of 
 his foe was a repetition of the pageants and ceremonial 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 137. cp. above, p. 126. Stephen relates 
 
 2 Stephen of Taron, 107. Cp. Mar- that in the same year Theophilus in- 
 quart, Streifzuge, 421, who connects vaded Syria, took the town of Urpeli, 
 this notice with the disastrous Abas- and vanquished the Arabs at Almulat. 
 gian expedition of 830. But Theo- Then turning eastward to Armenia he 
 philus did not accompany that ex- took several fortresses in the region 
 pedition. of Gelam and made the "Fourth 
 
 3 " Ashot the son of Shapuh," pre- Armenia a waste deserted by men and 
 sumably the nephew of Ashot who beasts" (108). 
 
 founded Kamakh, as the historian 4 For the evidence, see above, p. 223. 
 
 Vardan records. See Marquart, ib. 5 Constantine, Themes, 30. He de- 
 
 404. Stephen's Theodosiopolis may scribes the inland parts of Chaldia as 
 
 be Kamakh (in Daranalis), not Er- irpooi/jua of Little Armenia, and men- 
 
 zerum. The dignity bestowed on tions Keltzene (for which see above, 
 
 Ashot is described as " the Consulate, p. 176), SwpfrTjy, which I suppose to 
 
 i.e. the Patriciate apuhiupat" (<brd mean Sper or Sber, and rb Tot^dvov, 
 
 virdruv) : this may mean the title which I take to be Chozan in Sophene. 
 
 Hypatos (patriciate being a mistake Note that Stephen of Taron, loc. tit., 
 
 of Stephen) or the proconsular patri- says that Theophilus left Ashot in the 
 
 ciate, dvOviraros Kal TrarpiKios, for which district of Sper.
 
 262 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 which had attended his return, six years before, from the 
 achievement of similar though less destructive victories. 
 Troops of children with garlands of flowers went out to 
 meet the Emperor as he entered the capital. 1 In the 
 Hippodrome he competed himself in the first race, driving 
 a white chariot and in the costume of a Blue charioteer ; and 
 when he was crowned as winner, the spectators greeted him 
 with the allusive cry, " Welcome, incomparable champion ! " 
 
 In the autumn of the same year, Babek was at last 
 captured and executed, 3 and the Caliph Mutasim was free 4 
 to prepare a scheme of revenge for the destruction of Zapetra 
 and the barbarities which had been committed. 5 He resolved 
 to deal a crushing blow which would appear as a special 
 insult and injury to the present wearer of the Imperial crown. 
 Amorion was the original home of the family of Theophilus, 6 
 and he resolved that it should be blotted out from the number 
 of inhabited cities. But apart from this consideration, which 
 may have stimulated his purpose, the choice of Amorion was 
 natural on account of its importance. The Saracens considered 
 its capture the great step to an advance on Constantinople. 
 In the seventh century they took it, but only for a moment ; 
 in the eighth they attempted it three times in vain. 7 In the 
 year of his death, Mamun is said to have intended to be- 
 siege it. 8 An Arabic chronicler describes it as the eye of 
 
 1 Constantine, irepl rat;. 508. The the same writer we learn that a cer- 
 triumph is also mentioned in one text tain Ibrahim declaimed a poem before 
 of the Acta 4% Mart. Amor. (40-42). the Caliph, exciting him to revenge. 
 
 2 Simeon (Add. Georg.) 799 /caXwj ' Gre ! k writers say that the region 
 7,\0, dfftjKpire <t>* K Ti OV dpi ot ^apetra was the home of the an- 
 
 cestors of the reigning Caliph. I his 
 
 3 Michael Syr. 90 ; he fled to Ar- i s stated in Gen. 64, Cont. Th. 124. 
 menia, on his way to the Empire, and Simeon (Add. Georg. 798) ascribes 
 was betrayed by " a patrician named this honour to "Za^arov. A work 
 Stephanos," in whose house he found composed soon after A.D. 845 (Acta 42 
 a lodging. Cp. Weil. ii. 301. Mart. Ainor. 40) leaves it open : 
 
 4 Michael, 89, records some minor irepLfavels 7r6Xetj Zvda KT\. There 
 hostilities of Mutasim in the winter seems to be no foundation for this ; 
 of 837-838. the motive of the myth was to balance 
 
 8 That these barbarities were chiefly the destruction of the cradle of the 
 
 committed by the orientals who had Emperor by that of the cradle of the 
 
 joined Theophilus (cp. Weil, ii. 310) Caliph. Cp. Vasil'ev, 116. Nikitin 
 
 may possibly be inferred from an in- (Ada citt. 191) attempts an explana- 
 
 cidental remark of Michael Syr. 96, tion of the fable. Apart from its 
 
 "Nasr who had devastated Zapetra," connexion with the reigning dynasty, 
 
 but this may relate to an act during the selection of Amorion can be ex- 
 
 Nasr's earlier rebellion. Masudi says plained by its importance, 
 
 that Theophilus had with him Burjans, 7 Theoph. 351, 386, 452, 470. 
 
 Bulgarians, and Slavs (67). From 8 See above, p. 256.
 
 SECT, vi CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 838 263 
 
 Christendom, 1 and a Greek contemporary writer ranks it next 
 to the capital. 2 
 
 Mutasim left his palace at Samarra in April (A.D. 838), 
 and the banners of his immense ariny 3 were inscribed with 
 the name of Amorion. The Caliph was a warrior of indis- 
 putable bravery, but we know not whether it was he or his 
 generals who designed the strategical plan of the invasion. 
 The two most eminent generals who served in this campaign 
 were Ashnas and Afshin. The former was a Turk, and his 
 prominence is significant of the confidence which Mutasim 
 reposed in his new corps of Turkish guards. Afshin had 
 distinguished himself by suppressing rebellion in Egypt, and 
 he had done much to terminate the war against Babek which 
 had been so long drawn out. 
 
 The city of Ancyra was fixed upon as the first objective of 
 the invasion. An army of the east, under the command of Afshin , 
 advanced by way of Germanicia, and crossed the frontier by the 
 Pass of Hadath on a day which was so fixed as to allow him 
 time to meet the army of the west in the plains of Ancyra. 
 
 The purposes of the Caliph were not kept secret. The 
 dispositions of the Emperor show that he was aware of the 
 designs on Ancyra and Amorion. He left Constantinople 
 probably in May ; and from Dorylaion, the first great military 
 station on the road to the Saracen frontier, he made provisions 
 for the strengthening of the walls and the garrison of Amorion. 
 The duty of defending the city naturally devolved upon Aetius, 
 the strategos of the Anatolic Theme, for Amorion was his 
 official residence. The plan of the Emperor was to attack the 
 forces of the enemy on their northward march to Ancyra. 
 Knowing nothing of the eastern army under Afshin, he crossed 
 the Halys and encamped with his army not far from the 
 river's bank in the extreme south of the Charsian district, 
 
 1 " And more valued by the Greeks negroes. Masudi (68) says that the 
 than Constantinople " (Tabari, 30) ; numbers were exaggerated by some to 
 cp. Masudi, 74. 500,000 and reduced by others to 
 
 2 Acta citt. 425 (cp. 11 13 ). 200,000. Tabari (30) says that no 
 
 3 According to Michael Syr. 95, Caliph had ever made preparations for 
 Mutasim's army numbered 50,000, war on such a gigantic scale. These 
 Afshin's 30,000. He mentions also statements illustrate the value of 
 30,000 merchants and providers, numbers in medieval writers. We 
 50,000 camels, 20,000 mules. Bar- can only trust intelligent contem- 
 Hebraeus (159) says that Mutasim led poraries. Here the numbers of the 
 220,000 men. The Armenian version combatants given by Michael, i.e. 
 of Michael (274) mentions 30,000 Dionysios, are moderate and credible.
 
 264 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 probably near Zoropassos, where there was a bridge. He 
 calculated that the enemy would march from the Cilician 
 Gates to Ancyra by the most direct road, which from Soaridos 
 to Parnassos followed the course of the river, and he hoped 
 to attack them on the flank. 1 The Caliph's western army 
 advanced northward from Tyana in two divisions, and Ashnas, 
 who was in front, was already near the Halys before the 
 Emperor's proximity was suspected. The Caliph ordered a 
 halt till the position and movements of the Eomans should be 
 discovered. But in the meantime Theophilus had been in- 
 formed of the advance of the eastern army, and the news 
 disconcerted his plans. He was now obliged to divide his 
 forces. Taking, probably, the greater portion with him, 2 he 
 marched himself to oppose Afshin, and left the rest, under the 
 command of a kinsman, to check or harass the progress of the 
 Caliph. Afshin had already passed Sebastea (Sivas), and was 
 in the district of Dazimon, when he was forced to give battle 
 to the Emperor. 3 Dazimon, the modern Tokat, commands the 
 great eastern road from Constantinople to Sebastea, at the 
 point where another road runs northward to Neo-Caesarea. 
 The town lies at the foot of a hill, at one extremity of which 
 the ruins of the ancient fortress are still to be seen. 4 Situated 
 near the southern bank of the Iris, it marks the eastern end 
 of a fertile plain stretching to Gaziura (now Turkhal), which 
 in the ancient and middle ages was known as Dazimonitis ; 
 the Turks call it Kaz-Ova. It was probably in this plain 
 that the Saracens encamped. 5 The Emperor, who may have 
 
 1 For details of the march of is "Thursday, Shaban 25." But 
 Mutasim and Ashnas, see Bury, Shaban 25 = July 22 fell on Monday. 
 Mutasim's March. Tabari's account 4 For the plain of Dazimon, which 
 of the campaign is fuller than any seems to have been once part of an 
 other. Imperial estate, see Anderson, Stud. 
 
 2 30,000 (Michael Syr. 95, who Pont. i. 68 ; for Tokat itself and the 
 gives no topographical indications). fortress, Cumont, ib. ii. 240-243. 
 Afshin is evidently meant by Simeon's 5 Afshin had been reinforced by the 
 curious Sudee (Sundei, vers. Slav. 97 ; forces of Armenia led by Bagarat, 
 SovSei}, Add. Georg. ed. Mur. 712 ; lord (ishkhan) of Vaspurakan, the 
 SouS^u, Leo Gr. 224). "prince of princes." This title was 
 
 3 Gen. 67 o (the Saracen com- rendered in Greek by &pxuv TUI> apxbv- 
 manders) KOT& r6c Act i/^wva aw/ix^'? -'' TWV (Constantino, Cer. 687). Genesios 
 ffTpaTOTrfSfvcrd/mevoi. Tabari's date (45) has split him into two persons (67) 
 for the battle, July 22, can hardly avrou rov (Lpx- o.px- Ka ^ T v BeaTrapa- 
 be right. A longer time must surely Kavlrov (I am not quite sure whether 
 have elapsed before the beginning of Marquart follows him, op. cit. 463). 
 the siege of Amorion (Aug. 1). More- Cont. Th. 127 rightly mentions only 
 over, Tabari refutes himself. His date one person. Bagarat was a son of
 
 SECT, vi CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 838 265 
 
 arrived on the scene by way of Zela and Gaziura, halted near 
 Anzen, a high hill, from whose summit the position of the 
 enemy could be seen. This hill has not been identified ; we 
 may perhaps guess, provisionally, that it will be discovered to 
 the south of the plain of Dazimonitis. 1 The fortune of the 
 ensuing battle at first went well for the Greeks, who defeated 
 the enemy, on one wing at least, with great loss ; but a heavy 
 shower of rain descended, and the sudden disappearance of the 
 Emperor, who at the head of 2000 men had ridden round to 
 reinforce the other wing of his army, gave rise, in the over- 
 hanging gloom, to the rumour that he was slain. The Eomans, 
 in consternation, turned and fled, and, when the sun emerged 
 from the darkness, the Emperor with his band was surrounded 
 by the troops of Afshin. They held the enemy at bay, until 
 the Saracen general brought up siege-catapults to bombard 
 them with stones ; then they fought their way, desperately 
 but successfully, through the hostile ring. 2 
 
 The Emperor, with his handful of followers, fled north- 
 westward to Chiliokomon, " the plain of a thousand villages " 
 (now Sulu-Ova), 3 and then, returning to his camp on the 
 Halys, found to his dismay that his kinsman had allowed, or 
 been unable to forbid, many of the troops to disperse to their 
 
 Ashot (ob. 826), on whom the Caliph companions because their bow-strings 
 
 had conferred the government of were wet ; this, in turn, explains the 
 
 Iberia. Leo V. bestowed on him the employment of stone-hurling machines 
 
 title curopalates (frequently conferred mentioned by Michael. According to 
 
 on the Iberian princes), and in A.D. Tabari (135), who professes to give 
 
 820 he besought Leo's help against a the evidence of a Christian captive 
 
 rebel. (Cp. Marquart, ib. 404.) present at the battle, the fortune of 
 
 Bagarat was also lord of Taron (the the day was retrieved by the Saracen 
 
 district west of Lake Van and north cavalry. It may be suspected that 
 
 of Arzanene, from which it is separ- the discomfiture of the Romans, 
 
 ated by the Antitaurus. Vaspura- whether by archers or cavalry or both, 
 
 kan is east and north-east of Lake occurred on that wing which the 
 
 Van). Emperor with his 2000 rode round to 
 
 1 Anzen recurs in a later battle in reinforce. Gen. 68-69 (Cont. Th. 128) 
 the same region ; see below, p. 282, relates that Theophilus was rescued 
 for the topographical data. by Manuel from the contemplated 
 
 2 I have followed the account of treachery of his Persian regiments. 
 Michael Syr. 95. Genesios (68) agrees The story is highly suspicious (cp. 
 as to the first success of the Romans, Hirsch, 145), as it was also told, with 
 but attributes their flight to the little variation, of a battle in A.D. 830 
 archery of the Turks. He describes (above, p. 257). But the life of 
 the surrounding of Theophilus, with Theophilus was certainly in danger, 
 whom were Manuel, the Persians, and as we know from Michael. According 
 the commanders of the Tagmatic to Masudi (68), having lost many of 
 troops. He also mentions the rain his officers, he owed his life to the 
 and explains that the Turkish archers protection of Nasr. 
 
 could not shoot at Theophilus and his 3 See Cumont, op. cit. 144.
 
 266 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 CHAP. VIII 
 
 various stations. Having punished the commander for his 
 weakness, and sent orders that the soldiers who had left the 
 camp should be beaten with stripes, he dispatched a eunuch l 
 to Ancyra, to provide, if there were still time, for the defence 
 of that city. But it was too late ; for the western army of 
 the invaders was already there. 2 Ancyra ought to have 
 offered resistance to a foe. Its fortifications were probably 
 strengthened by Nicephorus I. 3 But the inhabitants, 
 thoroughly alarmed by the tidings of the victory of Afshin, 
 deserted the city and fled into the mountains, where they were 
 sought out by Ashnas and easily defeated. Thus the town fell 
 without a blow into the hands of the destroyer. 4 The Emperor, 
 at this crisis, did not disdain to humble himself before the 
 Caliph. He sent an embassy, imploring peace, and offering to 
 rebuild the fortress of Zapetra, to release all the captives who 
 were in his hands, and to surrender those men who had com- 
 mitted cruel outrages in the Zapetra campaign. The overtures 
 were rejected, with contempt and taunts, by the Caliph, 5 and 
 Theophilus betook himself to Dorylaiou 6 to await the fate of 
 
 1 Doubtless Theodores Krateros, one 
 of the Amorian martyrs, who, as 
 Nikitin conjectures, may have been 
 strategos of the Bukellarian Theme 
 (Ada 42 Mart. Amor. 205). 
 
 2 It had marched northward by the 
 route west of the Halys (see above, 
 p. 264). Michael Syr. 95 records that 
 Mutasim found Nyssa, which lay on 
 his road, deserted, and destroyed its 
 walls. 
 
 3 Theoph. 481. In 806 Harun 
 marched within sight of the city (ib. 
 482). It is generally said that the 
 walls were restored by Michael II. 
 (so Vasil'ev, 124). But the inscrip- 
 tions on which this statement is based 
 (C.I. G. iv. 8794, 8795, pp. 365-366) 
 have, I think, been wrongly inter- 
 preted. The second (consisting of 
 fifteen iambic trimeters) tells how 
 Michael 
 
 6 
 
 has raised Ancyra from her ruins. 
 The document begins : 
 
 ffapeiffa Kal </c\i>0et<ra 7r/>[6s 
 
 vvv [dvey]eipov rwv KO.KUV a.veifj.ivtj. 
 
 [I read irtvdei, Boeckh irevdei. He 
 reads ^Oplav TCUS in line 2, but the 
 traces do not point to this.] Now, as 
 no destruction of Ancyra is recorded 
 between A.D. 805 (the restoration of 
 Nicephorus) and A.I>. 829, Michael II. 
 cannot be meant. The storm must 
 refer to the event of 838, and the 
 restoration must belong to the reign 
 of Michael III. Moreover, in the case 
 of Michael II. (except in the first five 
 months of his reign), Theophilus 
 would have been associated with him 
 in such an inscription. The fact that 
 Michael III. is named alone, without 
 Theodora, points to a date after A.D. 
 856, and this is confirmed by ird\ai. 
 The other inscription (ten iambic tri- 
 meters), though it does not mention 
 the disaster, is evidently of the same 
 date, and, as Boeckh thinks, probably 
 by the same (local) "poet." 
 
 4 A poet, Husain, sang in honour 
 of Mutasim : "Of Ancyra thou didst 
 spare nought, and thou didst demolish 
 the great Amorion." Ibn Khur- 
 dadhbah, 101, 74 ; Vasil'ev, 129, n. 2. 
 
 5 Yakubi, 9 ; Gen. 64. 
 
 6 Michael Syr. 95 relates that a 
 report was spread in Constantinople 
 that the Emperor was slain in the 
 battle with Afshin, that a plot was
 
 SECT. VI 
 
 CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 838 
 
 267 
 
 Amorion, for the safety of which he believed that he had done 
 all that could be done. 
 
 The army of the Saracens advanced westwards from 
 Ancyra in three columns, Ashnas in front, the Caliph in the 
 centre, and Afshin behind, at distances of two parasangs. 
 Kavaging and burning as they went, they reached Amorion 
 in seven days. The siege began on the first of August. 1 
 The city was strong ; its high wall was fortified by forty-four 
 bastions and surrounded by a wide moat ; 2 its defence had 
 been entrusted by Theophilus to Aetius, strategos of the 
 Anatolic Theme ; and reinforcements had been added to 
 its garrison, under Constantine Babutzikos, who had married 
 a sister of the Empress Theodora and was Drungary of the 
 Watch, and the eunuch Theodore Krateros 3 and others. 
 But there was a weak spot in the fortification. Some time 
 
 formed to elect a new Emperor, and 
 that Theophilus, informed of the 
 matter by a message from his mother 
 (? stepmother), hastened thither from 
 Amorion and punished the conspira- 
 tors. Genesios (69) mentions his 
 being at Nicaea, and Vasil'ev suggests 
 that this may confirm the Syriac 
 record. 
 
 1 Tabari, 45 ; Ada 42 Mart. 42 
 (el<n6vTos TOV Ai/yowrTou /XT/POS). The 
 city was taken on Tuesday in Rama- 
 dhan, i.e. August 13, according to 
 Yakubi, 10. This accords with Michael 
 Syr. 100, who says that the city was 
 taken in 12 days, and can be recon- 
 ciled with the statement of Euodios 
 (Acta citt. 65) that the siege lasted 
 13 days. For Ashnas arrived at 
 Amorion on Thursday, August 1, the 
 Caliph was there on Friday, August 
 2, and Afshin came on Saturday 
 (Tabari, 37). Thus the duration might 
 be described as either of 12 or of 13 
 days (or of 11, since active operations 
 did not begin till August 3). See 
 Nikitin (adActacitt. 243), who wrongly 
 equates the Thursday with July 31. 
 Tabari's equation (45) of Friday with 
 the 6th of Rarnadhan is false ; Thurs- 
 day = Ramadhan 7 (see Mas Latrie, 
 Trteor, p. 566). The same scholar 
 rightly points out that a wrong de- 
 duction has been drawn by Weil and 
 Vasil'ev from Tabari's statement (45) 
 that Mutasim returned 55 days after 
 the beginning of the siege. They 
 
 took this to mean that the siege lasted 
 55 days, and so placed the capture on 
 September 23 or 24. But Tabari 
 obviously means his return to Tarsus, 
 and the 55 days include his march 
 from Amorion, which was slow and 
 interrupted. According to George 
 Mon. 797, the siege lasted 15 days in 
 August ; this is nearly right. 
 
 2 Ibn Khurdadhbah. 
 
 3 The names in Simeon (Add. Georg. 
 805 ; vers. Slav. 98) and Cont. Th. 126 
 must be controlled by the Acta of the 
 42 Martyrs. The identity of the 
 officers has been examined by Nikitin 
 (Acta, 202-219), who has proved, in 
 my opinion, that Constantine the 
 Patrician is Constantine Babutzikos. 
 In one document he is described as 
 &pxwv TUP ray/j.drui> (Synaxar. ecc. 
 Const. 516), whence Nikitin infers 
 that he was commander of one of the 
 "guard regiments." But Simeon's 
 Spovyydpios shows at once that he 
 commanded the Arithmos (Vigla), 
 the only one of the four Tagmata 
 whose commander was so named. The 
 other officers were Theophilus, a 
 strategos, and Bassoes, d 5po/j.evs the 
 runner. Nikitin (208 sqq.) has shown 
 that this does not mean a courier 
 here, but a victor in the foot-race 
 (irefo5p6/j.iov). Constantine, Cer. 358, 
 mentions Bambaludes, d r&v Tlpaffivuv 
 Sports, champion of the Greeks, in 
 the reign of Michael III.
 
 268 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 before, the Emperor, riding round the city, had observed 
 that in one place the wall was dilapidated, and had ordered 
 the commander of the garrison to see that it was repaired. 
 The officer delayed the execution of the command, until, 
 hearing that Theophilus was marching from Constantinople 
 to take the field against the Saracens, he hastily filled up 
 the breach with stones and made the place, to outward view, 
 indistinguishable from the rest of the wall. This specious 
 spot, well known to the inhabitants, was revealed to the 
 enemy by a traitor who is said to have been a Mohammadan 
 captive converted to Christianity. 1 The Caliph directed his 
 engines against the place, and after a bombardment of two 
 days 2 the wall gave way and a breach was made. Aetius 
 immediately dispatched a letter to the Emperor, communi- 
 cating to him what had befallen, explaining the hopelessness 
 of further defence, and announcing that he intended to leave 
 the city at night and attempt to escape through the enemy's 
 lines. The letter was entrusted to two messengers, one of 
 whom spoke Arabic fluently. When they crossed the ditch, 
 they fell into the hands of some Saracen soldiers, and 
 pretended to be in the Caliph's service. But as they did not 
 know the names of the generals or the regiments they were 
 suspected as spies, and sent to the Caliph's tent, where they 
 were searched and the letter was discovered. 
 
 The Caliph took every precaution to frustrate the inten- 
 tions of escape which the intercepted letter disclosed. Troops 
 of cavalry sat all night in full armour on their horses 
 watching the gates. But it was easier to hinder escape 
 than to take the city. The breadth of the ditch and the 
 height of the walls rendered it difficult to operate effectively 
 with siege - engines, and the usual devices of raising the 
 ballistae on platforms and filling up the ditch were tried 
 without success. But the breach in the wall was gradually 
 
 1 There were two acts of treachery treachery, Nikitin (Ada citt. 194) 
 
 during the siege. This first act (not infers that Manikophagos was the 
 
 mentioned by Michael Syr.) is related name of the first traitor. Gont. Th. 
 
 by Tabari (37), who is supported in ascribes both acts to Boiditzes. 
 
 one of the Ada J$ Mart. (12 vir6 2 Michael Syr. 98. There had 
 
 TLVUV 7r/3o5e5wK6rwv), by Gont. Th. already been fighting for three days 
 
 130, and Simeon, who speaks of two (ib.), and before this some days must 
 
 traitors, Boiditzes and Manikophagos have been occupied by the construc- 
 
 (Add. Oeorg. 805). As Boiditzes per- tion of the Saracen entrenchment (ib. 
 
 petrated the later and decisive act of 97).
 
 SECT, vi CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 838 269 
 
 widening, and the Greek officer to whom that section of the 
 defence was entrusted despaired of being able to hold out. 
 The Arabic historian, to whom we owe our information 
 concerning the details of the siege, states what seems almost 
 incredible that Aetius refused to furnish additional forces 
 for the defence of the dangerous spot, on the ground that 
 it was the business of each captain and of no one else to 
 provide for the safety of his own allotted section. But he 
 saw that there was little hope, and he sent an embassy to 
 Mutasim, offering to capitulate on condition that the in- 
 habitants should be allowed to depart in safety. The envoys 
 were the bishop of Amorion and three officers, of whom one 
 was the captain of the weak section of the walls. His name 
 was Boiditzes. 1 The Caliph required unconditional surrender, 
 and the ambassadors returned to the city. But Boiditzes 
 went back to Mutasim's tent by himself and offered to betray 
 the breach. The interview was protracted, and in the 
 meantime the Saracens gradually advanced towards the wall, 
 till they were close to the breach. The defenders, in 
 obedience to the strict orders of their officer to abstain from 
 hostilities till his return, did not shoot or attempt to oppose 
 them, but only made signs that they should come no farther. 
 At this juncture, Mutasim and Boiditzes issued from the 
 pavilion, and at the same moment, at a signal from one of 
 Mutasim's officers, the Saracens rushed into Amorion. The 
 Greek traitor, dismayed at this perfidious practice, clutching 
 his beard, upbraided the Caliph for his breach of faith, 
 but the Caliph reassured him that all he wished would be 
 his. 2 
 
 A part of the unfortunate population sought refuge in 
 
 1 BoiS'tTfrs, Simeon and Cont. Th., Boiditzes returned to the city by him - 
 locc.citt.; Bow5?;s, Euodios (Ada citt. ), self and signalled from the walls to 
 71 ; Vendu, Tabari, 41, who explains the besiegers that he had withdrawn 
 the name as meaning a steer ; Bodin, the defenders. This is incompre- 
 Michael Syr. 98. Genesios, 65, does hensible, for it was clear to his fellow 
 not give the name, but says that he envoys that he meant treachery, and 
 derived a nickname from an ox, on if he had returned to the city he 
 account of some quarrel between the would have been arrested, unless Aetius 
 Jews and Christians. was in the plot (which there is no 
 
 2 The Greek sources do not explain good ground for suspecting). I have 
 how the traitor communicated with therefore here followed the narrative 
 the enemy ; in Tabari he goes alone of Tabari. But the details are very 
 to Mutasim. Michael Syr. 98 gives uncertain. Mutasim gave the traitor 
 what is evidently the true account 10,000 darics (Michael, 99). 
 
 as to the embassy, but he implies that
 
 270 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 a large church, in which after an obstinate resistance they 
 perished by fire. 1 The walls were rased to the ground and 
 the place left desolate ; and the Caliph, finding that the 
 Emperor was not preparing to take the field, slowly returned 
 to his own country, with thousands of captives. 2 The fate 
 of these Amoriaus was unhappy. The land was suffering 
 from drought ; the Saracens were unable to procure water, 
 and some of the prisoners, exhausted by thirst, refused to go 
 farther. These were at once dispatched by the sword ; but 
 as the army advanced, and the need grew more urgent, the 
 Caliph gave orders that only the more distinguished captives 
 should be retained ; the rest were taken aside and slaughtered. 3 
 The siege of Ainorion had lasted for nearly two weeks. 4 
 But for the culpable neglect of the officer responsible for the 
 integrity of the walls and the treachery which revealed the 
 weak spot to the besiegers, the city could probably have 
 defied all the skill and audacity of the enemy. Its fall seems 
 to have made a deep impression on both Moslems and 
 Christians, 5 and popular imagination was soon busy with the 
 treachery which had brought about the catastrophe. The 
 name of the culprit, Boiditzes, is derived from bo'idion, an ox ; 
 and, according to one story, he wrote a letter to the Saracens 
 bidding them direct their attack close to the tower, where 
 they saw a marble lion carved on the face and a stone ox 
 (bo'idiori) above. 6 The ox and the lion may have been there ; 
 but if the ox was a coincidence, the lion furnished a motive to 
 
 1 Michael, 99; Tabari, 42 ; cp. Ada judgments of God." Many captives 
 43 Mart. 44 ; Skylitzes (Cedr.) ii. 136. were sold to slave - dealers, but the 
 
 2 Masudi, 68, says that 30,000 were parents were not separated from their 
 killed in Amorion. If there is any children (100). 
 
 foundation for the number it may s Tabari, 44-45, mentions Badi-'l- 
 
 represent the total of the inhabitants, j aur as t h e re gion where the captives 
 
 military and civil. Euodios (Ada were s i ain . It evidently means the 
 
 citt. 67) gives the ridiculous figure of plain of p an kaleia, the wide desert 
 
 more than / 0,000 for the soldiers plain to the east of Amorion (Ramsay, 
 
 alone; this would represent nearly Asia Minor, 231); for in one of the 
 
 the whole Asiatic army. But the older ^cto ^ j>fa^. (44) " Pankallia" 
 
 number was large, for after the j s name d as the scene of these events, 
 
 massacres the captives were so numer- 4 , - , 
 
 ous that at the distribution of the See above > P" 26 '' n " L 
 
 spoil Mutasim slew 4000. See Michael B Cp. Michael Syr. 100. 
 
 Syr. 100. This writer relates (99) 6 Cont. Th. 130 potSiov &vudev 
 
 that more than a 1000 nuns who \Wivov tguOev d \tut> e/c fj.ap/j.dpov ttf>- 
 
 survived the massacre were delivered iffrarat. Vasil'ev has an appendix on 
 
 to the outrages of the Turkish and the name of the traitor (150 sqq.), but 
 
 Moorish slaves, and curiously adds : does not observe the significance of 
 
 " glory to the incomprehensible this passage.
 
 SECT, vi CAMPAIGN OF A.D. 838 271 
 
 myth. Boiditzes was said to be a pupil of Leo the Philosopher, 1 
 and an Arabic writer calls him Leo. 2 
 
 A sequel of the siege of Amorion rendered it memorable 
 in the annals of the Greek Church. Forty-two distinguished 
 prisoners were carried off to Samarra and languished in captivity 
 for seven years. The Caliph 3 attempted in vain to persuade 
 them to embrace Islam, and finally the choice was offered 
 to them of conversion or death. According to the story, 
 Boiditzes, who had betrayed Amorion, became a Mohammadan, 
 and was sent at the last moment to represent to his countrymen 
 the folly of resisting. But they stood stedfast in their faith, 
 and on the 6th March 845 they were led to the banks of the 
 Tigris and beheaded. Their bodies were thrown into the 
 river, and miraculously floated on the top of the water. The 
 renegade traitor Boiditzes shared their fate at least in the 
 legendary tale ; for the Saracen magnates said to the Caliph : 
 " It is not just that he should live, for if he was not true to 
 his own faith, neither will he be true to ours." Accordingly 
 he was beheaded, but his body sank to the bottom. This was 
 the last great martyrdom that the Greek Church has to record. 
 Before two years passed, it was fashioned by the pens of Greek 
 hagiographers into the shape of an edifying legend. 4 The 
 deacon Ignatius, who wrote the life of the Patriarch Nicephorus, 
 celebrated it in a canon, and the Forty-two Martyrs of 
 
 1 Pseudo-Simeon, 638. In his text, province, and imprisoned along with 
 the second traitor, named Mtm/co^d-yoj the Amorian captives. For the govern- 
 by Simeon (Add. Georg. 805, vers. Slav. ment of Koloneia cp. above, p. 223. 
 98), appears as ~M.avu<o<pdvri?. We may 4 The material will be found in the 
 suspect that this name implies some Ada edited by Vasilievski and Nikitin. 
 connexion with the Manichaean (i.e. As to the dates of these documents 
 Paulician) heresy. Nikitin's conclusions (cp. 272 sqq.) are 
 
 2 Masudi, 68, " the Patrician Leo." f follows : The Canon of the Deacon 
 
 Ignatius (texts H and 6) was composed 
 
 3 Wathik, who succeeded Mutasim before or about the middle of A.D. 847 ; 
 in 842. Of the forty-two, six are it was subsequent to text F, the author 
 mentioned by name in the Ada. Five of which (wno is specially interested 
 of them are the officers named above, in Kallistos) mentions that the Martyrs 
 p. 267 ( Aetius, Constantino, Theodore, had been already celebrated in writing. 
 Theophilus, and Bassoes). The sixth To these earlier works B and A belong, 
 was not properly an Amorian martyr, and A is probably earlier than B. 
 for he was not at the siege. He was Euodioa (text Z, of which A is an 
 Kallistos Melissenos, described as duke abridgment) perhaps wrote his version 
 of Koloneia (Simeon, Add. Georg. 805 in the reign of Basil I., certainly after 
 has divided him into two persons). 867. In my references to the Ada 
 His career is related in one of the Acts I have not distinguished the earlier 
 (T, see next note), from which we texts, which belong to A.D. 845-847, 
 learn that he was captured in his own but I have always indicated Euodios.
 
 272 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vn 
 
 Amorion, established as " stars in the holy firmament of the 
 Church," l inspired some of the latest efforts of declining Greek 
 hymnography. 2 
 
 The fact that a number of distinguished captives, who had 
 been carried from Amorion to the Tigris, were executed by 
 Mutasim's successor admits of no doubt. But it would be 
 rash to consider it merely an act of religious intolerance. We 
 may rather suppose it to have been dictated by the motive 
 of extorting large ransoms for prisoners of distinction. The 
 Caliphs probably hoped to receive an immense sum for the 
 release of the Amorian officers, and it was adroit policy to 
 apply pressure by intimating that, unless they were ransomed, 
 they could only purchase their lives by infidelity to their 
 religion. 3 The Emperor, immediately after the catastrophe, 
 had indeed made an attempt to redeem the prisoners. He 
 sent Basil, the governor of the Charsian frontier district, 4 
 bearing gifts and an apologetic letter to the Caliph, in which 
 the Emperor regretted the destruction of Zapetra, demanded 
 the surrender of Aetius, and offered to liberate his Saracen 
 captives. He also gave Basil a second letter of menacing 
 tenor, to be delivered in case the terms were rejected. 
 Mutasim, when he had read the first, demanded the surrender 
 of Manuel the patrician, whose desertion he had not forgiven, 
 and Nasr the apostate. The envoy replied that this was 
 impossible, and presented the second missive. Mutasim 
 angrily flung back the gifts. 5 
 
 1 Ib. 79 : Genesios, 66, knows nothing of the 
 
 Aertpct *5urot lettei ? ( which > ^ s Vasil'ev suggests, 
 
 to T aeirry crept^n W b , e ., an anecdote , but says that 
 
 ~ L_\_^l. Theophilus offered him 20,000 Ibs. of 
 
 gold (864,000). The Caliph dis- 
 
 2 Krumbacher, Die Erzahlungen, dained this large sum, remarking that 
 944-952. * ne expedition had cost him 100,000 ; 
 
 3 In support of this view, it may be J??* "\ Cont - TJ ?- . 13 1 his reply is 
 urged that they were detained seven Jlj eren . 1 again in Pseudo-Simeon 
 years before they were put to death. 639. The figures for the offer of 
 Compare the case of the patrician for Theophilus differ in different texts. 
 
 whom Michael III. paid a ransom of *" n Sf^f^JS agree 
 
 1000 captives in A.D. 860. See below, w^h Genesios ; Skyhtzes (Cedrenus, 
 
 281 u - 13 ' ' vers - Gabu 22 verso ; cp. 
 
 ,, ., ,, Zonaras, xv. 29, 19) says only 2400. 
 
 ! Michael Syr 96 calls Basil the TMg di ' &nc ' is noteworthy (not 
 
 patrician of Karshena But Charsianon remarked b y Hirsch) ; and the small 
 
 at this time was only a kleisurarchy derive b sk ^ litzes from some 
 
 (see above, p. 222), and Basil could unknown sourc ^ loo \ s as if it mi ht 
 
 not have had patrician rank. be right The wordg of Gen> ^ ^ 
 
 6 So Michael, ib. (Bar-Hebraeus, 161). ^Karovrdduv are not clear.
 
 SECT, vii SARACEN WAR A.D. 839-847 273 
 
 7. The Warfare of A.D. 839-867 
 
 The disastrous events of the invasion of Mutasim, along 
 with the steady advance of the African Moslems in the island 
 of Sicily, not to speak of the constant injuries which the Arabs 
 of Crete inflicted on the Empire, convinced Theophilus that 
 the Empire was unable to cope alone with the growing 
 power of Islam in the Mediterranean, and he decided to 
 seek the alliance and co-operation of other powers. He 
 sent an embassy, which included a bishop and a patrician, 
 to the Western Emperor, Lewis the Pious, asking him to send 
 a powerful armament, perhaps to attack Syria or Egypt, in 
 order to divert or divide the forces of the Caliph. 1 The 
 envoys were welcomed and honourably entertained at iDgelheim 
 (June 17, 839), but the embassy led to no result. 2 Equally 
 fruitless was the attempt to induce the ruler of Spain, Abd ar- 
 Rahman II., to co-operate with the Empire against his rival 
 the Eastern Caliph. Spain was in such a disturbed state at 
 this time that it was impossible for him to undertake a distant 
 expedition beyond the seas. His good-will was unreserved, 
 and in reply to the Imperial Embassy he sent to Constantinople 
 his friend the poet Yahya al-Ghazzal with promises to dispatch 
 a fleet as soon as internal troubles permitted him. 3 But those 
 troubles continued, and the fleet never sailed. 
 
 Meanwhile the fall of Amorion had led to no new 
 permanent encroachment on Eoman territory. The Emir of 
 Syria raided the Empire more than once with little success, 4 
 and in A.D. 841 the Imperial forces took Adata and Marash, 
 and occupied part of the territory of Melitene. 5 It was 
 
 1 Gen. 72 x^pw re xal iroXfuv Ttvas 2 Ann. Bert., ib. 
 
 "La.pa.Kf]vtKCiv TWV /tcra|i> At/Jwjs ical 3 Makkari (ii. 115) says that Yahya 
 
 'Acrias Ka.Ta\T)l<Taff6ai. If 'Atria means succeeded in forming an alliance be- 
 
 Asia Minor, this points to Syria. If tween the two sovrans. 
 
 Libya means the realm of the Fatimids 4 The first raid of Abu Said, 
 
 and Idrisids, it may point to Egypt. governor of Syria and Mesopotamia, 
 
 The chief envoy was the patrician was perhaps in the last months of 
 
 Theodosius Babutzikos, according to A.D. 838 ; he was opposed by Nasr, 
 
 Genesios ; but Prudentius (Ann. Bert. who lost his life. The next recorded 
 
 19) states that the envoys were Theo- were in A.D. 840-841 (Michael Syr. 96 
 
 dosius, bishop ofChalcedon, and Theo- 102). In A.D. 838-839, Mamun's nephew 
 
 phanes, a spatharios. Theodosius the Abbas entered into treasonable com- 
 
 patriciau had been sent at an earlier munication with Theophilus. The in- 
 
 date to Venice, and seems to have trigue was discovered, and he perished 
 
 proceeded direct from there to Ingel- by torture and hunger (ib. 101). 
 
 heirn. Cp. Vasil'ev, 146. 5 Ib. 102. 
 
 T
 
 274 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, via 
 
 perhaps in the previous year that a Roman fleet appeared off 
 the coast of Syria and pillaged the port of Antioch. 1 These 
 successes inclined Mutasim to be gracious, when Theophilus 
 again proposed an exchange of captives, and he displayed 
 insolent generosity. " We," he said, " cannot compare the 
 values of Moslems and Christians, for God esteems those more 
 than these. But if you restore me the Saracens without ask- 
 ing for anything in return, we can give you twice as many 
 Eomans and thus surpass you in everything." Aetius and his 
 fellows were not included in the exchange, but a truce was 
 concluded (A.D. 841).^ 
 
 It was only a truce, for Mutasim cherished the illusory 
 hope of subjugating the Empire. He revived the ambitious 
 designs of the Omayyad Caliphs, and resolved to attack Con- 
 stantinople. The naval establishment had been suffered to 
 decay under the Abbasids, and, as a powerful fleet was in- 
 dispensable for any enterprise against the city of the 
 Bosphorus, some years were required for preparation. The 
 armament was not ready to sail till the year 842, when 400 
 dromonds sailed from the ports of Syria. Mutasim, who died 
 in the same month as Theophilus, did not live to witness 
 the disaster which befell his fleet. It was wrecked on the 
 dangerous Chelidonian islets off the south-eastern cape of the 
 coast ; only seven vessels escaped destruction. 3 
 
 Mutasim's unpopular successor, Wathik, was throughout 
 his short reign (842-847) so embarrassed by domestic troubles 
 religious strife, risings in Damascus and Arabia, discontent 
 in Baghdad that he was unable to prosecute the Holy War. 4 
 
 1 Michael Syr. 101. No precise date against them, at Mauropotamon. 
 is given ; we have only the limits, 838 Vasil'ev (155) supposes that the Kara- 
 and 841. Su, a tributary of the Halys, north of 
 
 2 Ib. 102. Mount Argaios, the MAas of Strabo, 
 
 3 George Mon. 801 (copied in Vit. is the Mauropotamos here meant. 
 Tfieodorae, 11). Schlosser (556 n.) The weight, however, of MS. authority 
 thinks that this was an expedition of is in favour of rb Mavpoir6ra/j.oi>, a 
 the Moslems of Crete. But in that place (of course on a river), not 6 
 case it would not have been wrecked Mavpoirtrra/jLos, a river. Cp. de Boor, 
 off Cape Hiera (Selidan-Burnu), which ib. n. 1. Theoktistos was also unlucky 
 is far away from the course to Con- in an expedition, by sea, against the 
 stantinople. The commander was Abu Abasgians ; the fleet was wrecked. 
 Dinar (' A.irodeli>ap). Cont. Th. 203. From this passage it 
 
 4 There seems to have been only would appear that the date was prior 
 one campaign, viz. in A.D. 843 or to the Cretan expedition, which Simeon 
 844 (Simeon, Add. Georg. 815). The (Cont. Oeorg.) 814 puts in spring A.D. 
 Saracens invaded Cappadocia and 843. Ace. to Cont. Th. there were 
 defeated Theoktistos, who was sent two solar eclipses before the Abasgian
 
 SECT, vii SARACEN WAR A.D. 839-847 275 
 
 The two powers exchanged their prisoners, and, though no 
 regular peace was made, they desisted from hostilities for 
 several years. 
 
 The exchange of prisoners from time to time was such a 
 characteristic feature of the warfare between the Empire and 
 the Caliphate, that the formal procedure by which such 
 exchanges were conducted is not without interest. A full 
 account has been preserved of the redemption of captives in 
 the year 845. 1 In response to an embassy which the Eoman 
 government sent to Baghdad, a plenipotentiary arrived at 
 Constantinople in order to obtain exact information as to the 
 number of the Mohammadans who were detained in captivity. 
 They were estimated as 3000 men, and 500 women and 
 children; according to another account, they were 4362 in 
 all. 2 The Greek prisoners in the Saracen prisons were found 
 to be less numerous, and in order to equalise the numbers, the 
 Caliph bought up Greek slaves in Baghdad, and even added 
 some females who were employed in the service of his palace. 
 The place usually chosen for the interchange of prisoners of 
 war was on the banks of the river Lamos, about a day's march 
 from Tarsus and close to Seleucia. Here the Greeks and the 
 Saracens met on September 16. The two Greek officers who 
 were entrusted with the negotiation were alarmed to see that 
 the other party was attended by a force of 4000 soldiers. 
 They refused to begin business till the Saracens consented to 
 an armistice of forty days, an interval which would permit 
 the redeemed prisoners to return to their homes without the 
 risk of being recaptured. There were preliminary disputes as 
 to the method of exchange. The Eomans declined to accept 
 children or aged persons for able-bodied men, and some days 
 were wasted before it was agreed to purchase man, with man. 
 
 enterprise. There was a total eclipse might possibly have been seen in 
 
 in 840 (April 5) visible at Cple., and in Asia Minor. See Oppolzer, Canon der 
 
 841 (Oct. 18) an annular eclipse, which Finsternisse (p. 196 and) Blatt No. 98 
 
 an astronomer could have well observed for the tracks of these obscurations, 
 
 at Khartum, and which might have 1 Tabari, 47 sqq. 
 
 been just partially visible at Cple. 2 Bar-Hebr. 194. After the death 
 
 These data are obviously not satis- of Mutasim, Michael Syr. has no 
 
 factory. If the expedition belonged information about the Saracen wars, 
 
 to the reign of Theophilus, the only and very little about anything else 
 
 eclipses I can find which might come till the reign of Romanus I. His 
 
 under consideration are the total of source, the chronicle of Dionysios (who 
 
 A.D. 833 (Sept. 17) and the annular died A.D. 845), came to an end at this 
 
 of 834 (March 14), of which the latter point.
 
 276 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 Two bridges were thrown across the river, and at the same 
 moment at which a Christian passed over one, a Mohammadan 
 traversed the other in the opposite direction. But the un- 
 fortunate Mohammadans were subjected to a religious test. 
 The Caliph had appointed a commission to examine the 
 theological opinions of the captives. Himself an adherent, 
 like Mamun and Mutasim, of the pseudo-rationalistic school 
 which denied the eternity of the Koran and the visible 
 epiphany of Allah in a future life, he commanded that only 
 those should be redeemed who denounced or renounced these 
 doctrines. Many refused to sacrifice their convictions, and 
 the application of the test was probably not very strict. The 
 exchange was carried out in four days, and more than 4000 
 Saracens were redeemed, including women and children, as 
 well as Zimmi, that is, Christian or Jewish subjects of the 
 Caliph. 1 
 
 Between the religious bigotry of rulers of Islam like 
 Wathik and Mutawakkil and that of Christian sovrans like 
 Theophilus and Theodora there was little to choose. For 
 the persecution of the Paulicians, which must be regarded 
 as one of the greatest political disasters of the ninth century, 
 Theophilus as well as Theodora was responsible, though the 
 crime, or rather the glory, is commonly ascribed entirely to 
 her. This sect, widely diffused throughout Asia Minor, from 
 Phrygia and Lycaonia to Armenia, had lived in peace under 
 the wise and sympathetic iconoclasts of the eighth century. 
 They have been described as " the left wing of the iconoclasts " ; 2 
 their doctrines they rejected images, pictures, crosses, as 
 idolatrous had undoubtedly a great influence on the genera- 
 tion of the iconoclastic movement ; it has even been supposed 
 
 1 Hostilities were resumed in A.D. Anazarbos. D. MacRitchie's Account 
 
 851. In that year, and the two follow- of the Gypsies of India (London, 1886) 
 
 ing, Saracen raids are recorded. In contains a translation of an article by 
 
 855 the Greeks attacked Anazarbos De Goeje on the history of the Gipsies 
 
 in northern Cilicia, and took captive (published in the Memoirs of the 
 
 the Zatts or Gipsies who had been Amsterdam Academy of Sciences, 
 
 settled there since A.D. 835. The 1875). See also Bataillard, Sur les 
 
 Caliph Muawia had settled in Syria origines des Boliemiens ou Tsiganes 
 
 these emigrants from India. Walid (Paris, 1876). Vasil'ev, 177-178. 
 
 and Yazid II. assigned them settle- 2 Conybeare, Key of Truth, cvi. For 
 
 ments at Antioch and Mopsuestia. Sergius the leader, who was active in 
 
 In the ninth century the Zatts behaved propagating Paulicianism in the first 
 
 as if they were an independent people, quarter of the ninth century, see ib. 
 
 and were suppressed with difficulty Ixviii., Ixix. 
 by Ujaif. They were then moved to
 
 SECT, vii PERSECUTION OF PA ULICIANS 277 
 
 that Constantino V. was at heart a Paulician. 1 We saw how 
 they had been favoured by Nicephorus, and how Michael I. 
 was stirred up by the ecclesiastics to institute a persecution. 
 Michael committed the execution of his decree in Phrygia and 
 Lycaonia to Leo the Armenian, as strategos of the Anatolic 
 Theme ; 2 while the suppression of the heresy in Cappadocia 
 and Pontus was enjoined on two ecclesiastics, the exarch or 
 visitor of the Patriarchal monasteries in those parts, and the 
 bishop of Neo-Caesarea. 3 The evidence leaves us in doubt 
 whether Leo, when he came to the throne, pursued the policy 
 of which he had been the instrument. Did the reviver of 
 iconoclasm so far desert the principles of his exemplar, 
 Constantino V., as to pursue the Paulicians ? It is not in- 
 credible that he may have adopted this course, if it were only 
 to dissociate himself from a sect which the Church maliciously 
 or ignorantly branded as Manichaean ; for it is certain that 
 the Paulicians were persecuted by Theophilus. 4 It was either 
 in the reign of Theophilus or during the earlier persecution 
 that Karbeas, a Paulician who held an office under the general 
 of the Anatolic Theme, led 5000 men of his faith to the 
 region beyond Cappadocia, and placed himself under the pro- 
 tection of the Emir of Melitene. He is said to have been 
 moved to this flight by the news that his father had been 
 hanged. 5 It is probable that there were already Paulicians in 
 
 1 Conybeare, ib. cxvi. sqq. Theophilus, meets there some " Pauli- 
 
 2 Theoph. 495. Photius (c. Man. c. anasts or Manichaeans " condemned to 
 24 = Peter Sic. 52) says that Michael death. And it is suggested by the evi- 
 and Leo his successor sent to all parts dence relating to Karbeas ; see next 
 of the Empire and put heretics to note. 
 
 death. This naturally implies that 5 Cont. Th. 166. It can now be 
 
 Leo persecuted as Emperor ; but we shown that there is a grave chrono- 
 
 cannot be certain, for the statement logical error in the account of this 
 
 may have arisen from the fact that writer. The flight of Karbeas is 
 
 Leo was associated with Michael's represented as a consequence of the 
 
 persecution. persecution of Theodora. Butadocu- 
 
 3 Photius, ib. Parakondakes, the ment dating from A.D. 845-846 (Ada 
 exarch, was, of course, not the Patri- 4-2 Mart. Amor. F 29) shows that at the 
 archal exarch, but a provincial in- end of the reign of Theophilus, or im- 
 spector (cp. Ducange, s.v. !a/>xos). mediately after, Karbeas and his people 
 Afterwards some Paulician killed him, were already settled in the East under 
 and the bishop was slain by the Saracen protection. We learn there 
 Kynochoritae (the position of Kynos- that Kallistos, appointed by Theo- 
 chora, a Paulician stronghold, is philus governor of the district of 
 unknown). Koloneia (Kara-hissar), tried to convert 
 
 4 We have an incidental proof of some of his officers who were Paulicians. 
 this in the Vita Macarii, 159. They betrayed him to the Paulicians 
 Makarios, abbot of Pelekete (cp. above, of Karbeas (rots virb rrjv ^ov<riav TOV 
 p. 139, n. 4), thrown into prison by rptrdXcu'os Ko/>/3ea reXovffi diroffT6.Ta.is),
 
 278 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vm 
 
 the districts north and west of Melitene ; l new fugitives 
 continually arrived ; and in their three principal cities, 
 Argaus, Tephrike, and Amara, 2 these martial heretics proved a 
 formidable enemy to the State of which their hardy valour 
 had hitherto been a valuable defence. 
 
 Seeing that even iconoclasts sought to suppress a religion 
 with which they had important points in common, the 
 Paulicians could expect little mercy after the triumph of 
 image- worship. It was a foregone conclusion that Theodora, 
 under the influence of orthodox ecclesiastical advisers, would 
 pursue her husband's policy with more insistent zeal, and 
 endeavour to extirpate the " Manichaean " abomination. A 
 fiat went forth that the Paulicians should abandon their 
 errors or be abolished from the earth which they denied. An 
 expedition was sent under several commanders to carry out 
 this decree, and a wholesale massacre was enacted. 3 Victims 
 were slain by the sword, crucified, and drowned in thousands ; 4 
 those who escaped sought shelter across the frontier. The 
 property of the Paulicians was appropriated by the State a 
 poor compensation for the loss of such a firm bulwark as the 
 persecuted communities had approved themselves. 
 
 It is just after the fall of the Empress Theodora from 
 power that we find the Paulicians effectively co-operating with 
 the enemies of the Empire. Her brother Petronas, who was 
 then strategos of the Thrakesian Theme, was entrusted with 
 the supreme command of the army, 5 and in the late summer 
 
 and he was presently taken to Arabissos and Germanicia. See his 
 
 Samarra by the Caliph's orders and Map of Asia Minor (in which he has 
 
 associated with the Amorians (see corrected his former identifications of 
 
 above). It follows that the flight of Euspoina and Lykandos). 
 
 Karbeas must be dated in the reign of s ^ e have a goO( j source here in 
 
 Theophilus, or else in the time of Cont. Th. 165 (cp. Hirsch, 214), but 
 
 Michael I. -Leo V. the chronology is left vague. Our 
 
 1 Cp. Karapet, Die Paulikianer, text seems to be incomplete, for the 
 117-118. names of the commanders are given 
 
 2 Argaus = Argo van, about 20 miles niore fully in Skylitzes (Cedrenus), ii. 
 north of Melitene ; see Anderson, 154 5 T0 o 'Apytpov (5 i}i> A<f&w) xal 6 
 Hood-system, 27. Tephrike is Devrik, T0 o Aoika (5ou/c6s Cont. Th.) ('A? S^i/cos) 
 much further north, and about 60 Ka i & SotfSaXu. The names in brackets 
 miles south-east of Sebastea. (Cp. are omitted in Cont Th., of which 
 Le Strange, Journal of . Asiatic otherwise the text of Skylitzes is no 
 Society, 1896, p. 733 sqq.) Anderson more than a transcript. 
 
 (ib. 32) has made it probable that , 
 
 Amara or Abara lay near the modern ' I 00 ' . 00 ' Cont > Th "? number 
 
 Manjilik, about 25 miles north of which, of course, has no value. 
 Gurun, on the road from Sebastea to 5 Cont. Th. 167.
 
 SECT, vn SARACEN WAR UNDER MICHAEL III. 279 
 
 (A.D. 856), having made successful raids into the districts of 
 Samosata and Amida, he proceeded against Tephrike, the 
 headquarters of Karbeas, who had been actively helping the 
 Emir of Melitene and the governor of Tarsus to waste the 
 Eoman borders. In this year begins a short period of 
 incessant hostility, marked on one hand by the constant 
 incursions of the commanders of Melitene and Tarsus, in 
 co-operation with Karbeas, and on the other by the appear- 
 ance in the field of the Emperor Michael himself, as well as 
 his uncles Bardas and Petronas. The first expedition of 
 Michael, who had now reached the age of twenty years, was 
 directed against Samosata, under the guidance of Bardas. 1 
 His army was at first successful, and the town was besieged. 
 But the garrison made a sudden sally on a Sunday, choosing 
 the hour at which the Emperor was engaged in the ceremonies 
 of his religion. He escaped with difficulty, and the whole 
 camp fell into the hands of the Saracens (A.D. 859). 2 It was 
 said that Karbeas performed prodigies of valour and captured 
 a large number of Greek officers. 3 
 
 In the ensuing winter negotiations were opened for the 
 exchange of captives, and the Saracen envoy, Nasr, came to 
 Constantinople. He wrote an interesting account of his 
 mission. 4 As soon as he arrived, he presented himself at the 
 Palace, in a black dress and wearing a turban and a sword. 
 Petronas (but it is not improbable that Bardas is meant) 5 
 informed him that he could not appear in the Emperor's 
 presence with a sword or dressed in black. " Then," said 
 Nasr, " I will go away." But before he had gone far he was 
 recalled, and as soon as the Emperor, who was then receiving 
 a Bulgarian embassy, was disengaged, he was admitted to the 
 hall of audience. Michael sat on a throne which was raised on 
 another throne, and his patricians were standing around him. 
 When Nasr had paid his respects, he took his place on a large 
 chair which had been set for him, and the gifts which he had 
 
 1 Bardas was now curopalates (see the Greeks had met the forces of the 
 above, p. 161). Emir of Melitene, with whom Karbeas 
 
 2 Gen. 91 records the disaster; used to act, and had driven them into 
 Tabari, 55, only the (initial) success. ^amosata. 
 
 CD Vasil'ev 185 n 4 Tabari has preserved it (57 . 
 
 \j\j. v iiMi ov lOt'j 11* ~i ~ii 1*1 nni 
 
 5 Petronas was general of the Ihra- 
 
 3 Cont. Th. 176-177 (otherwise a re- kesians from 860 to 863. I suspect 
 production of Genesios). The presence that Nasr wrote " his uncle " and that 
 of Karbeas at Samosata suggests that Tabari added Petronas.
 
 280 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 brought from the Caliph silk robes, about a thousand bottles 
 of musk, saffron, and jewels were presented. 1 Three inter- 
 preters came forward, and Nasr charged them to add nothing 
 to what he said. The Emperor accepted the gifts, and Nasr 
 noticed that he did not bestow any of them on the interpreters. 
 Then he desired that the envoy should approach, graciously 
 caressed him, and gave orders that a lodging should be found 
 for him in or near the Palace. 2 But the business on which 
 Nasr had come did not progress rapidly. He mentions that 
 a message arrived from the garrison of Lulon, which consisted 
 of Mohammadan Slavs, signifying their desire to embrace 
 Christianity and sending two hostages. It will be remem- 
 bered that this important fortress had been captured by 
 Mamun in A.D. 832, 3 and the opportunity for recovering it 
 was welcome. For four months 4 Nasr was detained at 
 Constantinople. Then new tidings arrived from Lulon, 
 which prompted Michael to settle the question of the 
 captives without delay. He had sent a patrician, 5 who 
 promised the garrison a handsome largess ; 6 but they repented 
 of their treachery, and handed over both the place and the 
 patrician to a Saracen captain. The patrician was carried 
 into captivity and threatened with death if he did not 
 renounce his religion. It would seem that the Emperor was 
 seriously concerned for his fate, for, as soon as the news came, 
 the exchange of captives was promptly arranged with Nasr. 
 It was agreed that both sides should surrender all the 
 prisoners who were in their hands. Nasr and Michael's 
 uncle 7 confirmed the agreement by oath in the Imperial 
 presence. Then Nasr said : " Emperor, your uncle has 
 sworn. Is the oath binding for you ? " He inclined his head 
 in token of assent. And, adds the envoy, " I did not hear a 
 single word from his lips from the time of my arrival till my 
 departure. The interpreter alone spoke, and the Emperor 
 listened and expressed his assent or dissent by motions of his 
 
 1 Cp. Bar-Hebr. 169. 5 Tabari, 56, says he was a logothctc 
 
 2 "Not far from himself." It is (perhaps Logothete of the Course), 
 not clear whether this means in the A thousand dinars each according 
 Palace not far from the Chrysotriklmos, to Tabari . This can liard f be tni( f 
 or not far from the Palace. A thousand nomisinat a for all seems 
 
 , ere > S n a T !l su PP. os ! n S more probable, but we do not know 
 (with Vasil ev 186), that it was in the the nu i mber of ' the rison . 
 
 hands of the Greeks in A.D. 857. 
 
 4 December 859 to March 860. 7 Evidently TCardas.
 
 SECT, vii SARACEN WAR UNDER MICHAEL III. 281 
 
 head. His uncle managed all his affairs." The Emperor 
 received 1000 Greek captives in return for 2000 subjects of 
 the Caliph, but the balance was redressed by the release of the 
 patrician whom he was so anxious to recover. 1 
 
 Not many weeks later, 2 committing the charge and 
 defence of his capital to Ooryphas, the Prefect, 3 Michael 
 again set forth to invade the Caliph's dominions. But even, 
 as it would seem, before he reached the frontier, 4 he was 
 recalled (in June) by the alarming news that the Eussians 
 had attacked Constantinople. When the danger had passed, 
 he started again for the East, to encounter Omar, the Emir of 
 Melitene, who had in the meantime taken the field. Michael 
 marched along the great high-road which leads to the Upper 
 Euphrates by Ancyra and Sebastea. Having passed Gaziura, 5 
 he encamped in the plain of Dazimon, where Afshin had 
 inflicted on his father an overwhelming defeat. 6 Here he 
 awaited the approach of the Emir, who was near at hand, 
 advancing, as we may with certainty assume, from Sebastea. 
 
 An enemy marching by this road, against Amasea, had the 
 choice of two ways. He might proceed northward to Dazimon 
 
 1 This is not explained in the B. 826 = Leo Gr. 240=Th. Mel. 168) ; 
 narrative of Nasr, but follows from the we must correct to yeyevrj^vov. 
 statement of Tabari elsewhere (56), Pseudo-Simeon (674 rt>t> fiacriXta ^dy 
 that the Emperor wrote offering 1000 rb M. KaraXa^&vra) had a good text of 
 Moslems as a ransom. the original before him. Mauropotamon 
 
 2 The exchange was effected on the i? the unknown place on some road to 
 hanks of the Lamos in April to May. . th .f % lon /, Melitene where Theo- 
 Michael must have left Constantinople ^ sio * was defeated (see above, p. 274). 
 about the beginning of June. e true date of the campaign is 
 
 determined by that ot the Russian 
 
 3 Simeon (Add. Georg.) 826. Cp. episode (see de Boor, op. cit. 458). 
 above, p. 144. At the time of Michael's Genesios Avrongly implies the date 861 
 death Ooryphas seems to have been (91, two years after the campaign of 
 drungarios of the Imperial fleet (see 859). Tabari records that in A. D. 860 
 the addition to Simeon's text in the Omar made a summer raid and took 
 Vatican MS. of Cont. Georg. ed. 7000 captives (56), and does not 
 Muralt, 752 = Pseudo-Simeon, 687), mention a raid of Omar in the follow- 
 but it does not follow; that, as de j n g y ea r. According to Genesios, the 
 Boor (Der Angriff der Rhos, 456) as- Imperial army numbered 40,000 in- 
 sumes, he held this post in 860. Had eluding Macedonian and Thracian 
 he been drungarios he would have been troops, and that of the Emir 30,000. 
 absent with the fleet in the west. This might be reached from 
 
 4 He had reached Mauropotamon Ancyra by (northern route) Euchaita- 
 (Simeon, vers. Slav. 106, and Cont. Amasea, or (southern) by Taviou, 
 Georg. ed. Mur. 736). The other pub- Verinopolis, and Zela. (Euchaita is 
 lished Greek texts have a corrupt Elwan-Chelebi : Anderson, Stud. Pont. 
 reading which implies that the Russians i. 9.) 
 
 were at Mauropotamon : rrjv rCiv &6tuv 6 He reached Dazimon (Tokat) and 
 
 'Pws tij.-fivvffev &<pt^Lv yeyfi>ri(j.vovs ijdr) encamped in the meadow of Kellarion 
 tear*, rbv [leg. rb] M. (Cont. Georg. ed. (Gen. 92).
 
 282 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 CHAP. VIII 
 
 and then westward by Gaziura ; or he might turn westward at 
 Verisa (Bolous) l and reach Amasea by Sebastopolis (Sulu-serai) 
 and Zela. On this occasion the first route was barred by the 
 Koman army, which lay near the strong fortress of Dazimon, 
 and could not be advantageously attacked on this side. It 
 would have been possible for Omar, following the second 
 route, to have reached Gaziura from Zela, and entered the 
 plain of Dazimon from the west. But he preferred a bolder 
 course, which surprised the Greeks, who acknowledged his 
 strategic ability. Leaving the Zela road, a little to the west 
 of Verisa, he led his forces northward across the hills (Ak- 
 Dagh), 2 and descending into the Dazimon plain occupied a 
 favourable position at Chonarion, not far from the Greek camp. 
 The battle which ensued resulted in a rout of the Imperial 
 army, and Michael sought a refuge on the summit of the same 
 steep hill of Anzen which marked the scene of his father's 
 defeat. 8 Here he was besieged for some hours, but want of 
 water and pasture induced the Emir to withdraw his forces. 
 
 It is possible that the victorious general followed up his 
 success by advancing as far as Sinope. 4 But three years 
 
 Anzen, and is probably on the south 
 side of the Dazimonitis. Hamilton's 
 identification of Kaivbv Xuplov with 
 Yildiz Dagh (Researches in Asia Minor, 
 i. 348), which is east of Verisa, south- 
 east of Tokat, cannot be maintained ; 
 see Cumont, Stud. Pont. ii. 231-223. 
 
 4 The notice of Omar reaching Sinope 
 is in Simeon (Cont. Georg.) 824. 
 Ramsay connected it with the expedi- 
 tion of 863 ; but it is noted by Simeon 
 as a distinct expedition. The difficulty 
 in connecting it with the expedition 
 of 860 lies (1) in the words virtarpeil/e 
 fn^l KaTa.\-rj<j>6els VTT& rov 'Pw/xat/coO 
 ffrparov (words which forbid its con- 
 nection with 863), and (2) in the fact 
 that the writer relates subsequently (out 
 of chronological order) Michael's march 
 to Mauropotamon and the Russian 
 peril (826). Perhaps it is best to 
 assign it to 861 or 862. In any case 
 Amisus or Sinope was probably the 
 goal of Omar in 860. This year was 
 also marked by incursions of Karbeas 
 and of Ali ibn Yahya, and by the 
 capture of a maritime stronghold (the 
 MS. text of Tabari has Antiochia, but 
 probably Attalia is meant). Tabari, 
 56. See Vasil'ev, 195, n. 4. 
 
 1 For Verisa = Bolous, see Anderson, 
 ib. 37-38. 
 
 * If we could identify Kellarin and 
 Chonarion, there would be no difficulty 
 in understanding the brief description 
 in Gen. and Oont. Th. of the strategic 
 movement of Omar. But I submit 
 that the logical interpretation of their 
 words is that on which I have ventured. 
 Gen. 92 6 3 "A/tep OT/xiTTjyiKws 
 TrapeKfiaTiK&Tepov die\0uv rrjs d.Tra'yo&njs 
 65oC wpbs TT]V ZtXiffav (which un- 
 questionably means Zela) ; Cont. Th. 
 177-178 &pn drj "Afj.fp avrip Kara- 
 ffTparijyuv iroppurtpw rfjs TeTpifj-fi^vrji 
 yet 65ov ; i.e. Omar left the high-road 
 to Zela in order to reach a position 
 close to the Roman army which was 
 near Dazimou. The map seems to 
 leave no alternative to the general 
 course which I have indicated. 
 
 3 Cp. above, p. 265. The hill was 
 six miles from the scene of the battle. 
 Vasil'ev has the strange notion (194, 
 n. 2) that Xuv&piov may be a shortened 
 form of Strabo's Kcuvbv Xupiov (781, 
 ed. Teubner), which he thinks suits 
 the description of Auzen. On etymolo- 
 gical grounds alone this is unaccept- 
 able ; but in any case Chonarion is not
 
 SECT, vii SARACEN WAR UNDER MICHAEL III. 283 
 
 later, Omar revisited the same regions, devastated the 
 Armeniac Theme, and reached the coast of the Euxine (A.D. 
 863). His plan seems to have been to march right across 
 the centre of Asia Minor and return to Saracen territory by 
 the Pass of the Cilician Gates. 1 He took and sacked the 
 city of Amisus (Samsun), and the impression which the 
 unaccustomed appearance of an enemy on that coast made 
 upon the inhabitants was reflected in the resuscitation of an 
 ancient legend. Omar, furious that the sea set a bound to 
 his northern advance, was said, like Xerxes, to have scourged 
 the waves. The Emperor appointed his uncle Petronas, who 
 was still strategos of the Thrakesian Theme, to the supreme 
 command of the army ; and not only all the troops of Asia, 
 but the armies of Thrace and Macedonia, and the Tagmatic 
 regiments, were placed at his disposal. When Omar heard at 
 Amisus of the preparations which were afoot, he was advised 
 by his officers to retire by the way he had come. But he 
 determined to carry out his original plan, and setting out 
 from Amisus in August, he chose a route which would lead 
 him by the west bank of the Halys to Tyana and Podandos. 
 The object of Petronas was now to intercept him. Though 
 the obscure localities named in the chronicles have not been 
 identified, the general data suggest the conclusion that it was 
 between Lake Tatta and the Halys that he decided to surround 
 the foe. The troops of the Armeniac, Bukellarian, 2 Paphla- 
 gonian, and Kolonean Themes converged upon the north, 
 after Omar had passed Ancyra. The Anatolic, Opsikian, and 
 Cappadocian armies, reinforced by the troops of Seleucia and 
 Charsianon, gathered on the south and south-east ; while 
 Petronas himself, with the Tagmata, the Thracians, and 
 Macedonians, as well as his own Thrakesians, appeared on the 
 west of the enemy's line of march. A hill separated Petronas 
 from the Saracen camp, and he was successful in a struggle 
 to occupy the height. Omar was caught in a trap. Finding 
 it impossible to escape to the north or to the south, he 
 
 1 For this campaign, see Bury, 2 Nasar was strategos of the Bukel- 
 
 Mutasim's March, 124 sqq. Tabari, 61- larians (George, Boun, 825). He dis- 
 
 62, says that, before starting, Omar tinguished himself subsequently in 
 
 communicated with Jafar ibn Dinar, the reign of Basil. Simeon (Cent. 
 
 who seems to have been governor of Georg.,ib.) inaccurately or proleptically 
 
 Tarsus. The date, A.D. 863, is fixed describes Petronas as ffTpaTijXdrri^ TTJJ 
 by Tabari.
 
 284 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vrn 
 
 attacked Petronas, who held his ground. Then the generals 
 of the northern and southern armies closed in, and the Saracen 
 forces were almost annihilated. Omar himself fell. His son 
 escaped across the Halys, but was caught by the turmarch of 
 Charsianon. The victory of Poson (such was the name of the 
 place), 1 and the death of one of the ablest Moslem generals 
 were a compensation for the defeat of Chonarion. Petronas 
 was rewarded by receiving the high post of the Domestic of 
 the Schools, 2 and the order of magister. 3 Strains of triumph 
 at a victory so signal resounded in the Hippodrome, and a 
 special chant 4 celebrated the death of the Emir on the field 
 of battle, a rare occurrence in the annals of the warfare with 
 the Moslems. 
 
 It would appear that this success was immediately 
 followed up by an invasion of Northern Mesopotamia. We 
 know not whether the Greek army was led by Petronas, but 
 another victory was won, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 
 Martyropolis, and this battlefield was likewise marked by the 
 fall of a Saracen commander who, year after year, had raided 
 Roman territory Ali ibn Yahya. 5 
 
 These victories are the last events worthy of record 6 in 
 the Eastern war during the reign of Michael III. While the 
 young Emperor was sole Augustus, and Bardas was the 
 virtual ruler, the defence of the Empire in the east was 
 
 1 The place, which has not been showed, Ceremonial Book, p. 434) in the 
 identified, was also marked by the &KTO, tirl /ieyiordcy dfj^ipq. tv jroX^/xy 
 stream of Lalakaon and the meadow rjTTijOtvTi nal dvaipedtvTi (Const. Cer. i. 
 of Gyrin. Tabari gives the name of 69, p. 332). It runs : "Glory to God 
 the place as " rz (the first letter is who shatters our enemies ! Glory to 
 aleph), in Marj-Uskuf." In the article God who has destroyed the godless ! 
 cited above I have attempted to show Glory to God the author of victory ! 
 that the region indicated lay north of Glory to God who crowned thee, lord 
 Nazianzus and Soandos. The date of of the earth! Hail, Lord, felicity of the 
 the battle was September 3. Tabari, Romans ! Hail, Lord, valour of thy 
 62. army ! Hail, Lord, by whom (Omar) 
 
 2 Petronas had represented (K was laid low ! Hail, Lord (Michael), 
 wpoffuirov) his nephew Antigonus, who destroyer ! God will keep thee in the 
 was a boy (see above, p. 161). Gont.Th. purple, for the honour and raising up 
 180 3 , 183 16 . According to Genesios, of the Romans, along with the honour- 
 he was made Domestic before the able Augustae [Eudocia, Theodora, 
 victory (95 7 ). Thecla] in the purple. God will 
 
 8 Gen. 97. The statement of "some" hearken to your people ! " 
 
 (ws St rtvej) that Bardas took part in 6 Yakubi, 11 ; Tabari, 62 : in the 
 
 the battle, and was rewarded by being month of Ramadan = October 18 to 
 
 created Caesar at Easter 862. is incon- November 16, 863. Cp. Bar-Hebr. 171. 
 
 sistent with chronology. 6 Saracen raids are noted by Tabari 
 
 4 This has been preserved (as I in 864 and 865.
 
 SECT, vii SARACEN WAR UNDER MICHAEL III. 285 
 
 steadily maintained. Michael had himself marched to the 
 front, and the Saracens had won no important successes 
 while his uncle was at the helm. It was probably after 
 the death of Bardas that an incident occurred which has 
 stamped Michael as supremely indifferent to the safety of his 
 Empire. One evening as he was preparing in his private 
 hippodrome in the Palace of St. Mamas to display his skill 
 as a charioteer, before a favoured company, the spectators 
 were alarmed and distracted by seeing a blaze illuminated in 
 the Pharos of the Great Palace, which announced tidings 
 flashed from Cappadocia, that the Saracens were abroad 
 within the Eoman borders. The spectacle was not discon- 
 tinued, but the attention of the onlookers languished, and the 
 Emperor, determined that such interruptions should not again 
 occur, commanded that the beacon signals in the neighbour- 
 hood of Constantinople should be kindled no more. 1 It might 
 be thought that the signal system had been abandoned for 
 some serious reason, connected perhaps with the loss of Lulon, 2 
 and that this anecdote, illustrating the Emperor's frivolity, 
 had been invented to account for it. But the very moderation 
 of the story may be held to show that it had a basis of fact. 
 For it does not suggest that the beacon messages were dis- 
 continued ; on the contrary, it expressly states that the 
 lighting of the beacons in or close to Constantinople, that is 
 at the Pharos and on Mt. Auxentios, was forbidden. 3 This 
 Imperial order, though dictated by a frivolous motive, need 
 not have caused a very serious delay in the arrival of the 
 news at Constantinople, nor can it be alleged that Michael 
 endangered thereby the safety of the provinces. 
 
 On the whole, the frontiers between the two powers in 
 Asia Minor had changed little under the rule of the Amorian 
 dynasty. The Moslems had won a few more fortresses ; and 
 what was more serious, in Cappadocia east of the Halys their 
 position was strengthened by the invaluable support of the 
 Paulician rebels. The Amorians bequeathed to their successor 
 the same task which had lain before them and which they had 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 197-198. 3 Cont. Th. 198 M/ctri TOI)J 7r\r,ffid- 
 
 2 But the loss of Lulon did not fwras (pavobs frepyelv irpoff^ra^ev. 
 render the signals useless or impossible. Modern writers have not attended to 
 Mt. Argaios would become the first the limitation 
 
 station.
 
 286 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, vin 
 
 failed to achieve, the expulsion of the enemy from Cappadocia; 
 but the difficulty of that task was aggravated by the disastrous 
 policy of the Paulician persecution for which Theophilus and 
 Theodora were responsible. 
 
 In the last years of the reign of Michael the Caliphate was 
 troubled by domestic anarchy, and offered a good mark for the 
 attack of a strenuous foe. The Caliph Mustain writhed under 
 the yoke of the powerful Turkish party, and he desired to 
 return from Samarra to the old capital of Baghdad. But he 
 was compelled to abdicate in favour of Mutazz, whom the 
 Turks set up against him (January 866). The best days of 
 the Abbasid dynasty were past, and the Caliphate had begun 
 to decline, just as the Empire was about to enter on a new 
 period of power and expansion.
 
 CHAPTEK IX 
 
 THE SARACEN CONQUESTS OF CRETE AND SICILY 
 
 1. The Saracen Conquest of Crete 
 
 SINCE the remote ages which we associate with the un- 
 certain name of Minos, when it was the home of a brilliant 
 civilization and the seat of an Aegean power, the island of 
 Crete played but a small part in Greek and Eoman history. 
 In the scheme of administration which was systematized in the 
 eighth century, it formed, along with some neighbouring islands, 
 a distinct theme ; but its name rarely occurs in our chronicles l 
 until its happy obscurity is suddenly disturbed in the reign 
 of Michael II. by an event which rendered it, for long years 
 to come, one of the principal embarrassments and concerns of 
 the Imperial Government. The fate of Crete was determined 
 by events in a distant Western land, whose revolutions, it might 
 have seemed, concerned the Cretans as little as those of any 
 country in the world. 
 
 The Omayyads in Spain no less than the Abbasids in 
 the East, Cordova no less than Baghdad, were troubled by 
 outbreaks of discontent and insurrection, in which the rational- 
 istic school of theology also played its part. The Emir Al- 
 Hakarn 2 dyed his hands in the blood of insurgents, and finally 
 when the inhabitants of one of the quarters of Cordova rose 
 against him, he commanded those who escaped the edge of 
 his sword to leave Spain with their families in three days 
 (A.D. 814). Ten thousand men, as well as women and children, 
 sailed to Egypt, and, placing themselves under the protection 
 
 1 It did not, however, altogether is mentioned in the Vita Andreae Cre- 
 
 escape the visitations of the Omayyad tensis (Papadopulos-Kerameus, 'Ava\. 
 
 fleets in the 7th century ; see Theo- 'Iepo<r. v. 177). 
 
 phanes, A.M. 6166. A Saracen descent 3 A.D. 796-822. 
 
 287
 
 288 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 of a powerful Beduin family, settled in the outskirts of Alex- 
 andria. Soon they felt strong enough to act for themselves, 
 and under the leadership of Abu Hafs a they seized the city 
 (A.D. 818-819). 
 
 At this time the governor of Egypt had availed himself of 
 the revolts with which the Caliph Mamun had to cope in the 
 eastern provinces of his dominion to declare himself inde- 
 pendent. The Spanish fugitives held Alexandria for six years 
 before Mamun had his hands free to deal with Egypt. At 
 length (A.D. 825) he sent Abdallah ibn Tahir to compel the 
 submission both of the rebellious governor and of the Anda- 
 lusian intruders. The governor was overthrown by one of his 
 officers before Abdallah arrived,, and the Spaniards readily 
 submitted to the representative of the Caliph and obtained 
 permission to leave Egypt and win a settlement within the 
 borders of the Empire. In the previous year they had made 
 a descent on the island of Crete, and their ships had returned 
 laden with captives and booty ; 2 and they now chose Crete as 
 their place of permanent habitation. They sailed in forty 
 ships, with Abu Hafs as their leader, and anchored probably 
 in the best harbour of the island, in the bay of Suda. 3 Abu 
 Hafs commanded his followers to plunder the island and return 
 to the port in twelve days, retaining twenty men to guard each 
 ship. It would appear that no serious resistance was offered 
 by the islanders, who perhaps had little love for the Imperial 
 government, which, besides being oppressive, had in recent years 
 been heretical. 4 It is related that when the Spaniards returned 
 
 1 Abu Hafs Omar ibn Shuaib. Cp. (Cont. Georg. 789) merely notices the 
 Dozy, Histoire des Musulmans fact of the conquest of Crete, which, 
 d'Espagne, ii. 68-76. along with that of Sicily, he ascribes 
 
 2 This descent is recorded by Genesios to the rebellion of Thomas, with which 
 (46), who dates it as occurring in the Michael was fully occupied. But 
 time of the rebellion of Thomas. He Thomas had been suppressed before 
 says that the conquest occurred in the the occupation of Crete or the invasion 
 following year, i.e. A.D. 825, as weknow of Sicily. Hopf (Gr. Gcsch. 121) and 
 from the Arabic sources. Therefore Amari (Storia, i. 163) placed the con- 
 the first descent was in A.D. 824. Cp. quest of Crete in 823, Muralt (Chron. 
 Vasil'ev, 47. Genesios knew nothing byz. 410) in 824. 
 
 about the Egyptian episode, and sup- 3 Thechief Arabic source is Humandi 
 
 posed that Abu Hafs ('A7r6xa^) and his (llth cent. ) who used an older writer, 
 
 people came directly from Spain. The Mohammad ibn Huzaw. Conde, Arabs 
 
 account in Cont. Th. 73 sqq. is derived in Spain, i. 263. Genesios places the 
 
 from Genesios, but the writer's remark landing at Charax, distinguishing it 
 
 maybe noted that the Saracens of Spain from Chandax (47). I can find no trace 
 
 had come in the course of time to be of Charax. 
 
 called Spaniards (I<rirdvoi)73 l6 . Simeon 4 Vasil'ev, 48.
 
 SECT, i THE SARACEN CONQUEST OF CRETE 289 
 
 to the port, they were dismayed to find that their ships had 
 disappeared. They had been burned by the orders of Abu 
 Hafs. To their loud and mutinous complaints that they were 
 now irrevocably severed from their wives and children whom 
 they had left in Egypt, he replied by bidding them marry the 
 women of the island whom they had taken captive. We may 
 question the truth of the story, 1 but it seems to point to the 
 fact that there was a considerable fusion by marriage between 
 the invaders and the natives. 
 
 The modern capital of Crete was founded by Abu Hafs. 
 He chose, to be the seat of his dominion, a site on the northern 
 shore of the island, not far from the hill of Knossos, the ancient 
 stronghold of Minos. The new town was central ; it looked 
 towards the isles of the Aegean which the conquerors of Crete 
 hoped to plunder ; but it had the disadvantage of having no 
 harbour or natural shelter for ships. It was surrounded by a 
 deep moat (handak), from which it derived its name Chaudax 
 or Candia. Twenty-nine towns were taken and their inhabi- 
 tants reduced to slavery. One alone was excepted from this 
 general fate by a special capitulation, and in it the Christians 
 were permitted freely to celebrate the rites of their religion. 2 
 
 The Emperor Michael and his successors did not under- 
 estimate the danger with which Crete in the possession of the 
 Moslems menaced the Empire. Michael appointed Photeinos, 
 the governor of the Anatolic Theme, to be strategos of Crete, 3 
 and not many months after the Saracen occupation this 
 general arrived at the island. But he found that his forces 
 
 1 The story is told in Gen. and Cont. founded on Genesios, enables us to 
 Th. (same source), and curiously, almost restore it (cp. Latin version). Genesios 
 in the same words by Humandi (cp. (48)recordsthatCyril,bishopofGortyn, 
 Hirsch, Byz. Stud. 136 ; Vasil'ev, 48 was slaughtered, and that his blood 
 n. 2). This coincidence has not been still remains liquid and acts as a 
 explained, but points to a common miraculous unguent. This probably 
 Cretan source. Amari (Storm, i. 163) comes from lost A eta of Ore tan martyrs 
 suggested that the foundation of the (I cannot agree that icadus TLV& (jxtffiv, 
 story may have been that Abu Hafs as Hirsch (op. dt. 137) suggests, proves 
 burned some ships which were useless. an oral source ; the words may have 
 If we are to hazard guesses, it is pos- been in the source of Genesios). 
 
 sible that one ship caught fire accident- 3 Photeinos was great-grandfather 
 
 ally and the conflagration spread of Zoe, fourth wife of Leo VI. That 
 
 (roO Trvei/yuaTos twaKfj-dfrvTos, Cont. Th. he went as strategos of Crete, I infer 
 
 75). from Cont. Th. 77 3 . His expedition is 
 
 2 The inhabitants of this town were recorded only in this source. Its date 
 called 1171-0X67101. The word is omitted must be early in 826, if not in 825 ; 
 in the text of Genesios 47i, but Pseudo- for Photeinos was appointed strategos 
 Simeon (623 7 ), whose narrative is of Sicily in 826. 
 
 U
 
 290 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 were unequal to his task, and at his request Damianos, Count 
 of the Stable, was sent with reinforcements. The Saracens 
 routed the Greek army, Damianos was wounded, and Photeinos 
 escaped to the little island of Dios which faces Candia. A 
 second expedition was sent soon afterwards, under Krateros, 
 in command of a fleet of seventy ships. 1 A battle was fought 
 where the troops landed, and the Greeks were victorious, but 
 instead of following up their success they celebrated it by a 
 night of carousal, and in their sleep they were attacked and 
 almost annihilated by the enemy. Krateros escaped and was 
 pursued by the Arabs to Cos, where they caught him and 
 hanged him on a cross. 
 
 It was not only for the recovery of Crete, but also for the 
 protection of the islands of the Aegean that the Imperial 
 government was concerned. A third armament which Michael 
 despatched under the command of Ooryphas cleared the enemy 
 out of a number of small islands which they had occupied, 
 but it is not recorded that he renewed the attempt to recover 
 Crete. The Arabs did not confine their attacks to the islands 
 in the immediate vicinity of Crete ; they extended far and 
 wide, on both sides of the Aegean, depredations of which only 
 stray notices have been preserved by chance. We know that 
 Aegina was cruelly and repeatedly devastated ; 2 we know 
 that, some two generations later, Paros was a waste country, 
 which attracted only the hunter of the wildgoat. 3 Just after 
 the death of the Emperor Michael, an expedition from Crete 
 pillaged the coasts of Caria and Ionia, and despoiled the 
 monastery of Mt. Latros. 4 Constantine Kontomytes, the 
 
 1 Consisting partly of the Kibyrr- Ooryphas, because it is recorded in 
 
 haeot fleet (for Krateros was strategos Cbnt. Tk. before the Sicilian affair. 
 
 of the Kibyrrhaeot Theme) and partly The writer finishes what he has to say 
 
 of ships from the other naval themes of Crete before he goes on to Sicily, 
 
 (the Aegean and Hellas ?). This we We can only date the expedition of 
 
 learn from Cont. Th. (79), whose Ooryphas to the three years 827-829. 
 
 narrative otherwise coincides with For Ooryphas see above, Chap. IV. 
 
 that of Genesios. The date of the p. 144. 
 
 expedition may be 826 (so Muralt and 2 y^ Theodorae Thess. 2, cp. 26. 
 
 Vasil'ev) or 827. From Cont. Th. we vit. Lucae Jun. (Migne, 111, 441), 
 
 can only infer that it was "about the T fa yvvexfis <f>68ovs r&v tic rijs'Ayap. 
 
 same time " as the revolt of Euphemios, , . 
 
 but /caret rto afc-fr K <up6v (8li is too . Nicetas F^. Tkeoctistae Lesb. 8-9. 
 
 vague to fix the date more precisely. T owe tlie reference to Vasil ev. 
 
 It seems to me that Vasil'ev goes too 4 On the monasteries of Latros cp. 
 
 far in postulating 827 or end of 826 Delehaye, Analecta Bollandiana, xi, 
 
 for the subsequent enterprise of 14 sqq. (1892).
 
 SECT, i THE SARACEN CONQUEST OF CRETE 291 
 
 strategos of the Thrakesian Theme, surrounded the depredators 
 with a superior force and cut them to pieces. But about the 
 same time a Eoman fleet was completely destroyed in a battle 
 at Thasos, 1 and the Cretans for some years seem to have 
 worked their will unhindered in the Aegean Sea. 2 Their 
 attacks on Mt. Athos compelled the monks to abandon their 
 cells. 3 
 
 If the story is true that the original fleet of the Cretan 
 Arabs was burnt, it is clear that they had, however, speedily 
 furnished themselves with a considerable naval establishment. 4 
 At the same time, Sicily was in great danger. The Moslems 
 of Spain had hardly conquered Crete before the Moslems of 
 Africa descended upon the western island and set themselves 
 to accomplish a conquest which would give them a unique 
 position for winning the maritime lordship of the Mediter- 
 ranean. To rescue Sicily, to recover Crete, and to defend the 
 islands and coast which were exposed to the depredations of a 
 piratical enemy to the very precincts of the capital itself, a far 
 stronger naval equipment was necessary than that which the 
 Empire possessed. The navy which had saved Asia Minor 
 and the Aegean under the successors of Heraclius from the 
 Saracens in the first tide of their conquests, had been allowed 
 to decline, and the Amorian Emperors reaped the fruits of 
 this neglect. The naval question suddenly became the most 
 pressing interest of Imperial policy ; and, as we have seen, the 
 revival of the navy was begun by the efforts of the Amorian 
 dynasty. No further attempt, however, to recover Crete seems 
 to have been made in the reign of Theophilus, who may have 
 thought, perhaps justly, that it would be better to employ all 
 his available strength upon curbing the advance of the Arabs 
 in the island of Sicily. But after his death, Theoktistos 
 organized a great Cretan expedition which sailed in March 
 (A.D. 843) under his own command. 5 It seems to have been 
 far more powerful than those which had been despatched by 
 Michael II., and when it appeared the Saracens were in 
 consternation. But they found a means of playing upon the 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 137, October 829. 5 Simeon (Cont. Georg.. 814), who is 
 
 2 Ib. ; cp. Vit. Tlieodorae Imp. 9. the source, states that Theodora sent 
 
 3 Vasil'ev, 77. the expedition on the Sunday after 
 
 4 Probably many of the ships of the Proclamation of Orthodoxy, i.e. 
 Photeinos and Krateros fell into their on March 18, 843. 
 
 hands.
 
 292 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 general's fears for his own influence at the court of Theodora. 
 They bribed some of his officers to spread the rumour, or to 
 insinuate to Theoktistos, that the Empress had raised one of 
 his rivals to be the colleague of herself and her son. The 
 general, deeply alarmed, hastened to Constantinople, leaving 
 his army to do nothing, if not to meet with disaster. 1 
 
 Abu Hafs and his successors were virtually independent, 
 but they may have found it expedient to acknowledge the 
 overlordship of the Caliph, and to consider Crete as in some 
 sense affiliated to the province of Egypt. In any case they 
 continued to maintain relations with Egypt and to receive 
 supplies from Alexandria. It was probably in view of this 
 connexion that the government of Theodora decided on an ex- 
 pedition beyond the usual range of the warfare of this period. 2 
 Three fleets, numbering in all nearly three hundred ships, 
 were equipped. The destination of two of these armaments 
 is unknown ; perhaps they were to operate in the Aegean or 
 off the coast of Syria. 3 But the third, consisting of eighty- 
 five vessels and carrying 5000 men, under an admiral whose 
 true name is concealed under " Ibn Katuua," the corruption 
 of an Arabic chronicler, sailed to the coast of Egypt and 
 appeared before Damietta (May 22, 853). 
 
 In the ninth century Damietta was closer to the sea 
 than the later town which the Sultan Bibars founded in the 
 thirteenth. 4 The city lies on the eastern channel of the Nile 
 about seven miles from the mouth ; and less than a mile to 
 the east is Lake Menzale, which a narrow belt of sand severs 
 from the sea. When the Greek fleet arrived, the garrison 
 was absent at Fustat, attending a feast to which it had been 
 summoned by the governor Anbas, the last ruler of Arabic 
 descent. The inhabitants hastily deserted the undefended 
 
 1 KardXiireiv rbv ffrparbv fjuxalpas 85 ships. The two accounts are in- 
 Zpyov, loc. cit. If it had been actually dependent. We may take it that 300 
 destroyed, probably more would have is a round number. 
 
 been said. 
 
 2 The sources are Tabari (51-52) and _. '^asilev guesses they went to 
 Yakubi(lO). It is significant for the ?icily ( l ' ' ** the . natural in- 
 character of the Greek chronicles that ference from Tabari is that they 
 they utterly ignore the episode of <^P^ted in the east. One of them 
 Damietta. Tabari says that there wa ; s commanded by Ooryphas, the 
 were 300 ships, 100 under each com- ther W M r d (Tabari, 51). For 
 mander. But Yakubi, who only Ooryphas cp. above, Chap. IV. p. 
 mentions the fleet which attacked ^ 
 
 Damietta, says that it consisted of 4 Cp. Vasil'ev, 171.
 
 SECT, i THE SARACEN CONQUEST OF CRETE 293 
 
 city, which the Greeks plundered and burned. They captured 
 six hundred Arab and Coptic women, 1 and discovered a store 
 of arms which was destined for the ruler of Crete. 2 The 
 spoiling of Damietta detained them only two days, and they 
 sailed eastward to the island of Tinnis ; but fearing sand- 
 banks, they did not pass farther, and proceeded to the fortress 
 of Ushtum, a strongly walled place with iron gates. Burning 
 the war-engines which he found there, " Ibn Katuna " returned 
 home from an expedition which fortune had singularly 
 favoured. 3 
 
 If the conquests of Crete and Sicily taught the Komans 
 the necessity of a strong navy, the burning of Damietta was a 
 lesson which was not lost upon the Saracens of Egypt. An 
 Arabic writer observes that " from this time they began to 
 show serious concern for the fleet, and this became an affair 
 of the first importance in Egypt. Warships were built, and 
 the pay of marines was equalized with that of soldiers who 
 served on land. Only intelligent and experienced men were 
 admitted to the service." Thus, as has been remarked, 4 the 
 Greek descent on Damietta led to the establishment of the 
 Egyptian navy, which, a century later, was so powerful under 
 the dynasty of the Fatimids. 
 
 In the later years of Michael III. the Cretan Arabs 
 pursued their quests of plunder and destruction in the 
 Aegean. 5 We learn that Lesbos was laid waste, and that 
 monks were carried away from their cells in the hills of 
 Athos. 6 The last military effort of Michael and Bardas was 
 
 1 Yakubi gives a much larger 3 According to Makrizi, the Greeks 
 number. again made a successful descent on 
 
 2 Abu Hafs (Tabari). Doubts have Damietta with 200 ships in the follow - 
 beenfeltif he was still alive. Genesios ing year. Vasil'ev, Pril. 124. 
 
 gives the succession of Cretan rulers 4 g ee y. R. Rozen, Vasilii Bolga- 
 
 (47-48) as: Abu Hafs ; Saipes, his son; roboitsa, 273-274, and Vasil'ev, 173- 
 
 Babdel, son of S. ; Zerkunes, brother 17^ wno quote the passage of Makrizi 
 
 of B. ; the successor of Zerkunes was which I have abbreviated. 
 
 Emir in the time of Genesios. He 6 , , h 
 
 also implies that Babdel was con- d d saile / throu h the 
 
 temporary of Leo VI and we know ^ Proconnesus. 
 
 otherwise (Cont, Th. 299) that Saip cumbaria, 7 galleys, and 
 
 was Emir in the reign of Michael. J . ?, ? n ~ J 
 
 This evidence seems favourable to some sa^ot. Cant, Th. 196. 
 
 Tabari 's statement that Abu Hafs 6 Apparently c. A.D. 861-862. See 
 
 was alive in 853. For the Arabic forms Vit. Euthym. iun., 185 sq. Some 
 
 of the names (Shuaib, Abu Abdallah, years later they descended on the 
 
 Shirkuh) see Hopf, Gr. Gesch. 123 ; island of the Neoi, near Mt. Athos ; 
 
 Hirsch, 136, n. 2. ib. 188 sqq. Cp. Vasil'ev, 204.
 
 294 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 to organize a great Cretan expedition, which was to sail from 
 the shores of the Thrakesian Theme, a central gathering-place 
 for the various provincial fleets, and for those regiments of the 
 Asiatic themes which were to take part in the campaign. 
 We saw how this enterprise was frustrated by the enemies 
 of the Caesar. Another generation was to pass before the 
 attempt to recover Crete and secure tranquillity for the 
 Aegean was renewed. 
 
 2. The Invasion of Sicily 
 
 In the two great westward expansions of the Semite, in 
 the two struggles between European and Semitic powers for 
 the waters, islands, and coasts of the Mediterranean, Sicily 
 played a conspicuous part, which was determined by her 
 geographical position. The ancient history of the island, 
 when Greeks and Phoenicians contended for the mastery, 
 seems to be repeated a when, after a long age of peace under 
 the mighty rule of Rome, it was the scene of a new armed 
 debate between Greeks and Arabs. In both cases, the Asiatic 
 strangers were ultimately driven out, not by their Greek 
 rivals, but by another people descending from Italy. The 
 Normans were to expel the Saracens, as the Romans had ex- 
 pelled the Phoenicians. The great difference was that the 
 worshippers of Baal and Moloch had never won the whole 
 island, while the sway of the servants of Allah was to be 
 complete, extending from Panormos to Syracuse, from Messina 
 to Lilybaeum. 
 
 A fruitful land and a desirable possession in itself, Sicily's 
 central position between the two basins of the Mediterranean 
 rendered it an object of supreme importance to any Eastern 
 sea-power which was commercially or politically aggressive ; 
 while for an ambitious ruler in Africa it was the stepping- 
 stone to Italy and the gates of the Hadriatic. As soon as 
 the Saracens created a navy in the ports of Syria and Egypt, 
 it was inevitable that Sicily should be exposed to their attacks, 
 and the date of their first descent is only twenty years after 
 the death of Mohammad. 2 But no serious attempt to win a 
 
 1 This was pointed out by Grote, and the motif was developed by Freeman 
 in his characteristic manner. 2 A.D. 652.
 
 SECT, ii SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 295 
 
 permanent footing in the island was made till a century later. 
 The expeditions from Syria and Egypt were raids for spoil 
 and captives, not for conquest. The establishment of the 
 Saracen power in Africa and in Spain changed the situation, 
 and history might have taught the Roman Emperors that a 
 mortal struggle in Sicily could not be avoided. It was, how- 
 ever, postponed. The island had to sustain several attacks 
 during the first half of the eighth century, but they came to 
 little ; and the design of Abd ar-Eahman, governor of Africa, 
 who (A.D. 752) made great preparations to conquer both Sicily 
 and Sardinia, was frustrated by the outbreak of domestic 
 troubles. There was no further danger for many years, and 
 in the reign of Nicephorus there might have seemed to be 
 little cause for alarm concerning the safety of the Sicilian 
 Theme. Ibrahim, the first ruler of the Aghlabid dynasty, 1 con- 
 cluded (A.D. 805) a ten years' peace with Constantine the 
 governor of Sicily. 2 Just after this, Tunis and Tripoli cast 
 off their allegiance to Ibrahim and formed a separate state 
 under the Idrisids. 3 This division of Africa between Idrisids 
 and Aghlabids must have been a welcome event to the Imperial 
 government ; it afforded a probable presumption that it would 
 be less easy in the future to concentrate the forces of the 
 African Moslems against the tempting island which faced 
 them. In the meantime, commerce was freely carried on 
 between the island and the continent; and in A.D. 813 Abu 
 '1- Abbas, the son and successor of Ibrahim, made a treaty with 
 Gregory, the governor of Sicily, by which peace was secured 
 for ten years and provision was made for the safety of 
 merchants. 4 
 
 It was after the expiration of this ten years' peace that 
 the temptation to conquer Sicily was pressed upon the African 
 ruler by an invitation from Sicily itself. The distance of the 
 island from Constantinople had once and again seduced 
 ambitious subjects into the paths of rebellion. The governor, 
 Sergius, had set up an Emperor in the reign of Leo III., and 
 more recently, under Irene, Elpidios had incurred the suspicion 
 of disloyalty and had fled to Africa, where the Saracens 
 
 1 Lane-Poole, Moh. Dyn. 36. Cp. 3 See Lane-Poole, ib. 35. 
 
 above, p. 244. 4 Amari, Storia, 229. 
 
 a Amari, Storia, i. 225.
 
 296 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 welcomed him as Roman Emperor and placed a crown on his 
 head. 1 He does not appear to have had a following in the 
 island ; nor is there evidence that the inhabitants were 
 actively discontented at this period against the government 
 of Constantinople. The rebellion of Thomas the Slavonian 
 may have awakened hopes in the breasts of some to detach 
 Sicily from the Empire, 2 but there is nothing to show that 
 there was any widespread disaffection when, in the year 826, 
 an insurrection was organized which was destined to lead to 
 calamitous consequences. 
 
 A certain Euphemios was the leader of this movement. 
 Having distinguished himself by bravery, probably in maritime 
 warfare, he was appointed to an important command, when an 
 incident in his private life furnished an excuse for his disgrace, 
 and this, a reason for his rebellion. Smitten with passion for 
 a maiden who had taken the vows of a nun, he persuaded or 
 compelled her to marry him ; and the indignant brothers of 
 Homoniza repaired to Constantinople and preferred a complaint 
 to the Emperor. 3 Although the example of Michael's own 
 marriage with Euphrosyne might have been pleaded in favour 
 of Euphemios, 4 Michael despatched a letter to the new strategos 
 of Sicily, Photeinos, bidding him to investigate the case and, 
 if the charge were found to be true, to cut off the nose of the 
 culprit who had caused a nun to renounce her vow. 5 
 
 Photeinos, whom we have already met as the leader of a 
 disastrous expedition to Crete, had only recently arrived in 
 Sicily (perhaps in the spring of A.D. 826). He had already 
 appointed Euphemios commander of the fleet, with the official 
 title of turmarch, and Euphemios had sailed on a plundering 
 expedition to the coasts of Tripoli or Tunis. 6 He returned 
 laden with spoil, but to find that an order had gone out for 
 his arrest. He decided to defy the authority of the strategos, 
 and, sailing to the harbour of Syracuse, he occupied that city. 
 
 1 A.D. 781-782. Theoph. 456. 4 Cp. Cont. Th. 81 a . 
 
 2 Amari (ib. 249 sqq.) thinks that 5 xarA rr]i> rov vbp.ov aKplfieiav, ib. 
 there was a rebellion in the early years 82 6 . See Edoga, 17, 23 ; Epanagoge, 
 of Michael ; but the evidence is in- 40, 59. 
 
 sufficient. For the sources for the 6 As it appears from the subsequent 
 
 revolt of Euphemios see Appendix IX. negotiations of Euphemios with the 
 
 3 Cont. Th. 82. The woman's name Aghlabid Emir that the peace with 
 is preserved in Chron. Salern., p. 498. the Aghlabids had not been violated, 
 For the date of the marriage see it may be inferred that Euphemios 
 Appendix IX. attacked the territory of the Idrisids.
 
 SECT, it SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 297 
 
 His fleet was devoted to him, and he gained other adherents 
 to his cause, including some military commanders who were 
 turmarchs like himself. 1 Photeinos marched to drive the 
 rebel from Syracuse, but he suffered a defeat and returned to 
 Cataua. The superior forces of Euphemios and his confederates 
 compelled him to leave that refuge, and he was captured and 
 put to death. 
 
 Compromised irretrievably by this flagrant act of rebellion, 
 Euphemios, even if he had been reluctant, had no alternative 
 but to assume the Imperial title and power. He was pro- 
 claimed Emperor, but he was almost immediately deserted by 
 one of his most powerful supporters. This man, whom he 
 invested with the government of a district, is designated by 
 the Arabic historians as Palata a corrupt name which may 
 denote some palatine dignity at the Court of the usurper. 2 
 Palata and his cousin Michael, who was the military com- 
 mander of Panormos, repudiated the cause of Euphemios 
 and declared for the legitimate Emperor. At the head of a 
 large army they defeated the tyrant and gained possession of 
 Syracuse. 
 
 Too weak to resist the forces which were arrayed in 
 support of legitimacy, and knowing that submission would 
 mean death, Euphemios determined to invoke the aid of the 
 natural enemy of the Empire. His resolve brought upon 
 Sicily the same consequences which the resolve of Count 
 Julian had brought upon Spain. It may be considered that 
 it was the inevitable fate of Spain and of Sicily to fall a prey 
 to Saracen invaders from Africa, but it is certain that the 
 fate of each was accelerated by the passion and interests of 
 a single unscrupulous native. 
 
 Euphemios crossed over to Africa 3 and made overtures to 
 Ziadat Allah, the Aghlabid Emir. He asked him to send an 
 army over to Sicily, and undertook to pay a tribute when his 
 own power was established in the island. The proposal was 
 debated in Council at Kairawan. 4 The members of the 
 Council were not of one mind. Those who were opposed to 
 granting the request of Euphemios urged the duty of observing 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 82 9 . Saracen fleet sailed to Sicily in June 
 
 2 See Appendix IX. 827. 
 
 3 Probably early in A.D. 827, as the 4 Riad an-Nufus, 77.
 
 298 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 the treaty which the Greeks, so far as was ascertained, had 
 not violated. 1 But the influence of the Cadi Asad, who 
 appealed to texts of the Koran, of which he was acknowledged 
 to be an authoritative interpreter, stirred the religious 
 fanaticism of his hearers and decided them in favour of war. 
 Ziadat named Asad to the command of the expedition, and 
 he was allowed to retain the office of Cadi, although the 
 union of military and judicial functions was irregular. 2 
 
 The fleet of Euphemios waited in the bay of Susa till the 
 African armament was ready, and on the 14th day of June, 
 A.D. 827, 3 the allied squadrons sailed forth together, on an 
 enterprise which was to prove the beginning of a new epoch 
 in Sicilian history. The forces of the Moslems are said to 
 have consisted of ten thousand foot soldiers, seven hundred 
 cavalry, and seventy or a hundred ships. In three days they 
 reached Mazara, where they were expected by the partisans 
 of Euphemios.' When Asad disembarked his forces, he 
 remained inactive for some days. A skirmish between some 
 Greek soldiers who were on the side of Euphemios, and Arabs 
 who mistook them for enemies, was an evil omen for the 
 harmony of this unnatural alliance. It was desired that the 
 friends of Euphemios should wear a twig in their headgear 
 to avert the repetition of such a dangerous error ; but Asad 
 declared that he did not need the help of his confederate, 
 that Euphemios and his men should take no part in the 
 military operations, and that thus further accidents would be 
 avoided. The intention of the Moslem commander to take 
 the whole conduct of the campaign in his own hands and to 
 use the Greek usurper as a puppet, was thus shown with 
 little disguise. 
 
 It was not long before the general, whom in ignorance of 
 his true name we are compelled to distinguish as Palata, 
 appeared in the neighbourhood with forces considerably 
 superior to those of the invaders. Mazara, now Mazzara del 
 Vallo, lies at the mouth of a like-named stream, to the south- 
 east of Lilybaeum. South-eastward from Mazara itself, a 
 
 1 This argument proves that the ten 3 Nuwairi, 174. ouXiw in Cambridge 
 years' treaty of A.D. 813, which ex- Chron. 24, must be a mistake for 
 pired in A.D. 823, had been renewed lowly. Riad an-Nufus and other 
 or extended. Arabic sources agree with Nuwairi as 
 
 2 Ib. 78. to the month.
 
 SECT, ii SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 299 
 
 coast plain stretches to the ruins of Selinus, 1 and this was 
 perhaps the scene of the first battle-shock in the struggle 
 between Christendom and Islam for the possession of Sicily. 
 Asad marched forth from Mazara, and when he came in sight 
 of the Greeks and marshalled his army, he recited some verses 
 of the Koran in front of the host and led it to victory. 
 Palata fled to the strong fort of Castrogiovanni, and thence 
 to Calabria, where he died. 
 
 The first object of the victors was the capture of Syracuse. 
 Leaving a garrison in Mazara, they advanced eastward along 
 the south coast. 2 At a place which their historians call 
 Kalat-al-Kurrat, and which is perhaps the ancient Acrae, 3 a 
 strong fort in the hills, between Gela and Syracuse, an embassy 
 from Syracuse met them, offering to submit and pay tribute, 
 on condition that they should not advance farther. Asad 
 halted for some days ; we do not know why he delayed, but 
 the interval was advantageous to the Greeks, whose overtures 
 were perhaps no more than a device to gain time to strengthen 
 the defences and bring provisions and valuable property into 
 the city. In the meantime Euphemios had repented of what 
 he had done. He had discovered too late that he had loosed 
 a wind which he could not bind. What he had desired from 
 the ruler of Africa was a force which he could himself direct 
 and control. He found himself a puppet in the hands of a 
 fanatical Mohanimadan, whose designs and interests did not 
 coincide with his own, and who, as he could already surmise, 
 aimed not at establishing his own authority but at making a 
 new conquest for Islam. We are not told whether he 
 accompanied Asad in the march across the island, but he 
 entered into negotiations with the Imperialists and urged 
 
 1 Nuwairi, ib., says that the plain (the ancient Phintias). A church de- 
 where the battle was fought bore the dicated to S. Euphemia was founded 
 name of Balata. Amari observes that in Sicily towards the end of the 8th 
 this points to the word platea, which century by Nicetas Monomachos (cp. 
 is common in local designations in Baronius Ann. ecc. ed Pagi, xiii. 316). 
 Sicily. He notes that the Punta di Another station, which Amari tran- 
 Granitola, some eight miles south of scribes as the Church of al-Maslaquin, 
 Mazara, is called Cape Balat by Idrisi, is quite uncertain. 
 
 so that the identification of the plain 3 So Amari and Vasil'ev. Acrae 
 
 "Balata" has some plausibility. still preserves its name in Palazzolo 
 
 Amari, Storia, i. 266. Acreide. The Arabs would naturally 
 
 2 They passed on their march the leave the coast at Gela (Terranova), 
 "Church of Euphemia," a point on and march to Syracuse by Biscari, 
 the coast, which Amari seeks at Licata Chiaramonte-Gulfi, and Acrae.
 
 300 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 them to resist the foes whom lie had himself invoked against 
 them. Seeing that further delay would only serve the Greeks, 
 Asad advanced on Syracuse, where he was joined by his fleet. 
 He burned the vessels of the Greeks and closed the greater 
 and the lesser Harbours with his own ships. The fortifica- 
 tions were too strong to be assaulted without siege engines, 
 with which the Arabs were not provided, and Asad could 
 only blockade the town, while he waited for reinforcements 
 from Africa. He encamped among the quarries, south of 
 Achradina. 
 
 As all the provisions had been conveyed into the city from 
 the surrounding country, the Saracen army suffered from want 
 of food, and the discontent waxed so great that a certain Ibn 
 Kadim advised the general to break up his camp and sail 
 back to Africa ; " The life of one Musulman," he said, " is 
 more valuable than all the goods of Christendom." Asad 
 sternly replied, " I am not one of those who allow Moslems, 
 when they go forth to a Holy War, to return home when 
 they have still such hopes of victory." He quenched the 
 mutiny by threatening to burn the ships and punishing with 
 stripes the audacious Ibn Kadim. 1 Presently reinforcements, 
 and probably supplies, arrived from Africa. 2 
 
 Meanwhile the Emperor had taken measures to recall 
 Sicily to its allegiance. The story was told that when the 
 tidings of the rebellion of Euphemios reached him, he sum- 
 moned the magister Irenaeus and said, " We may congratulate 
 ourselves, Magister, on the revolt of Sicily." " This, sir," 
 replied Irenaeus, " is no matter for congratulation," and turn- 
 ing to one of the magnates who were present, he solemnly 
 repeated the lines : 
 
 " Dire woes will fall upon the world, what time 
 The Babylonian dragon 'gins to reign, 
 Greedy of gold and inarticulate." 3 
 
 1 Riad an-Nufus, 78. from Spain, without the authority of 
 
 2 Also from Spain : Ibn Adari, 146, the Omayyad government. 
 Nuwairi, 174. Vasil'ev believes that 3 Pseudo-Simeon, 622 : 
 
 the Spaniards were really some of the & ^ KaK ^ <7r/)0(r?>7re(re r TU T fj x e ov l 
 
 Cretan Arabs (who were originally ^ KaTA ^ r ^ L/Si/Xwos S/wLcwv 
 
 from Spam) arguing the improbability 5lVyX a,cr<n, S V*?" K al 0iX6x/>wros \lav. 
 of co-operation at this time between 
 
 the Aghlabids and Omayyads. So We may conjecture that these verses 
 
 Amari, Storia, i. 274, n. 1. But are an oracle invented in the earlier 
 
 surely adventurers may have come ages of the Sassanid wars.
 
 SECT. ii. SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 301 
 
 The anecdote may be apocryphal, invented in the light of 
 subsequent disasters, as a reflexion on the ruler in whose reign 
 such grave losses had befallen the Empire. But if Michael, 
 who sent fleet after fleet to regain Crete, and was even then 
 perhaps engaged in organizing a new expedition, jested at the 
 news from Sicily, the jest was bitter. The pressing concern 
 for Crete and the Aegean islands hindered him from sending 
 any large armament to the west. The naval establishment 
 was inadequate to the defence of the Empire ; this had been 
 the consequence of its neglect since the days of Leo the 
 Isaurian. The loss of Crete and the jeopardy of Sicily were 
 to bring home to the Imperial government the importance 
 of sea-power, and the strengthening of the navy was one of 
 the chief tasks which successors of Michael II. would be 
 forced to take in hand. 
 
 Some troops were sent to Sicily, but the Emperor at this 
 crisis looked for help from a western dependency, whose own 
 interests were undoubtedly involved in not suffering the 
 Moslem to gain a footing on Sicilian soil. The proximity 
 of such a foe to the waters of the Hadriatic sea would be 
 a constant distress and anxiety to the city of Venice. It 
 was therefore a fair and reasonable demand, on the part of the 
 Emperor, that Venice should send a squadron to cope with the 
 invaders of Sicily, and it is not improbable that she was bound 
 by definite agreement to co-operate in such a case. The Duke, 
 Justinianus, sent some warships, but it does not appear that 
 they achieved much for the relief of the Syracusans. 1 
 
 The besiegers had in the meantime entrenched themselves, 
 surrounding their camp with a ditch, and digging in front of 
 it holes which served as pitfalls for the cavalry of the 
 Greeks. The besieged, finding themselves hard pressed, sought 
 to parley, but their proposals were rejected, and the siege 
 was protracted through the winter, till the invaders were 
 confronted with a more deadly adversary than the Greeks. 
 Pestilence broke out in their camp, and Asad, their in- 
 domitable leader, was one of its victims (A. D. 828). The 
 army itself elected a new commander, a certain Mohammad, 
 but fortune had deserted the Arabs ; the epidemic raged 
 among them as it had raged among the Carthaginians of 
 1 Dandulus, Chron. 170 (A.D. 827).
 
 302 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 Hamilcar who had sought to master Syracuse twelve hundred 
 years before. The new reinforcements came from Constanti- 
 nople, and a second squadron was expected from Venice. 1 
 The besiegers despaired and decided to return to Africa. 
 They weighed anchor, but found that they were shut in by 
 the ships of the enemy. They disembarked, set fire to 
 their ships, and, laden with many sick, began a weary march 
 in the direction of Mineo. 
 
 Euphemios served them as a guide. He had not parted 
 from his foreign friends, though he had, for a time at least, 
 secretly worked against them. But now that they were 
 chastened by ill-success and no longer led by the masterful 
 Asad, he expected to be able to use them for his own purpose. 
 The town of Mineo surrendered, and when the army recovered 
 from the effects of the plague, it divided into two parts, of 
 which one marched westward and captured Agrigentum. The 
 other, accompanied by Euphemios, laid siege to the im- 
 pregnable fortress which stands in the very centre of the island, 
 the massive rock of Henna, which was called in the ninth 
 century, as it is to-day, Castrogiovanni. 
 
 The garrison of Castrogiovanni opened negotiations with 
 Euphemios, offering to recognise him as Emperor and to cast 
 in their lot with him and his Arab confederates. But these 
 overtures were only an artifice ; the men of Castrogiovanni 
 were loyal to the Emperor Michael. Euphemios fell into the 
 trap. At an appointed hour and place, he met a deputation 
 of the townsmen. "While some fell down before him, as their 
 sovran, and kissed the ground, others at the same moment 
 stabbed him from behind. 2 
 
 With the disappearance of Euphemios from the scene, the 
 warfare in Sicily was simplified to the plain and single issue 
 of a contest between Moslem and Christian for the lordship 
 of the island. It was a slow and tedious contest, protracted 
 for two generations ; and although the advance of the Moslems 
 
 1 Joannes, Chron. Ven. 109 " iterum (Nuwairi, 175). The Greek story is 
 imperatore efflagitante exercitum ad different, attributing his death to the 
 Sicilian! preparaverunt ; qui etiam plot of two brothers and placing it at 
 reversus est absque triumpho." The Syracuse. But it is not suggested (as 
 last clause suggests that the Venetians Vasil'ev thinks, p. 71) that these 
 arrived after the raising of the siege brothers were the brothers-in-law of 
 and did not take part in forcing the Euphemios. Cont. Th. 83 5t;o 
 Saracens to burn their ships. &8f\<t>ot. 
 
 2 Such is the Arabic account
 
 SECT, ii SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 303 
 
 was steady, it was so slow that an observer might have 
 forecast its result as an eventual division between the two 
 races, a repetition of the old division between Greeks and 
 Phoanicians. But history did not repeat itself thus. The 
 Greek states in the days of Gelon and of Dionysios were of 
 different metal from the provincials who were under the 
 protection of the Eastern Emperors. The Arabs were to do 
 what the Phoenicians had failed to do, and make the whole 
 island a portion of Asia in Europe. 
 
 The record, which has come down to us, of the incidents 
 of the warfare chronicles the gradual reduction of town after 
 town, fort after fort, but is so meagre that it offers little 
 instruction or interest We may note the most important 
 stages in the conquest and observe the efforts made by the 
 Imperial government to drive out the invaders. The forces 
 which had been sent by the Emperor Michael to the relief of 
 Syracuse were commanded by Theodotos, a patrician who was 
 not without military talent. 1 He followed the enemy to 
 Castrogiovanni, where he was defeated 2 and driven to take 
 refuge in the fortress, which the Arabs, after the death of 
 Euphemios continued to besiege. 3 But Theodotos soon had 
 his revenge. Sallying forth and gaining a victory, he 
 surrounded and besieged the camp of the besiegers. They 
 tried to escape at night, but the Greek general, foreseeing 
 such an attempt, had secretly abandoned his own camp, and 
 laid an ambush. Those who escaped from his trap made 
 their way to Mineo, where he blockaded them so effectively 
 that they were reduced to eating the flesh of dogs. 
 
 The Arab garrison in Agrigentum, seeing that the tide 
 had turned, withdrew to Mazara ; and in the summer of 
 A.D. 829 only Mazara and Mineo, far distant from each other, 
 were held by the invaders. At this moment a powerful 
 armament from Constantinople might have been decisive. 
 But no reinforcements were sent. The successes of Theodotos 
 
 ! A seal of Theodotos (Sia-virdr^ "Patrician" is used very loosely by 
 
 irarpiKi^ /3a<riXtK<{5 irpuTOffiradapiy Arabic writers, and here can mean no 
 
 dioiKijrfi SiKeXi'as) is preserved, and as it more than officer. Vasil'ev seems to 
 
 may be referred to the ninth century take it literally (74). 
 
 probably belongs to this Theodotos. 3 During the siege Mohammad died 
 
 Schlumberger, tiig. 215. and the army elected Zuhair to the 
 
 2 Nuwairi (175) says that ninety command, 
 "patricians" were taken prisoners.
 
 304 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 were probably taken to show that he would be able to complete 
 his task alone, and then the death of Michael intervened. 
 But if the government reckoned thus, it reckoned without 
 Africa and Spain. Two hostile fleets sailed to the Sicilian 
 shores. Ziadat Allah sent a new armament l , and a Spanish 
 squadron came to join in the warfare, for the sake of plunder, 
 not of conquest, under Asbag ibn Wakil. 2 The African 
 Moslems, hard pressed at Mineo, proposed common action to 
 the Spanish adventurers, and the Spaniards agreed on con- 
 dition that Asbag should be the commander-in-chief and that 
 the Africans should provide horses. But the confederates 
 carried on their operations separately. Asbag and his men 
 marched first to Mineo, which, still blockaded by Theodotos, 
 must have been suffering the last distresses of hunger. They 
 defeated the besiegers and Theodotos fell in the battle. 3 
 Asbag burned Mineo, but his career was almost immediately 
 cut short. A pestilence broke out among his troops while he 
 was besieging another stronghold, 4 and, like Asad, he fell a 
 victim to the infection. His followers returned to Spain. 
 
 Meanwhile the Africans had laid siege to Panormos. 
 This city held out for a year, but it seems to have been an 
 easier place to besiege than Syracuse or Castrogiovanni. In 
 the autumn of A.D. 831 the commander of the garrison 
 surrendered, 5 having bargained for the safety of himself, his 
 family, and his property. The inhabitants were treated as 
 prisoners of war. 6 The bishop of Panonnos escaped to 
 Constantinople, bearing the news of the calamity. 7 The 
 anxiety of the Emperor Theophilus to come to terms with the 
 
 1 Ibn al-Athir, 94 (A.D. 829). He 5 The siege began Aug. 830 
 adds "the general number of ships (Nuwairi, ib.) : the date of the capitu- 
 reached 300." Amari, Storia, i. 288. lation was Sept. 831. See 1. Ibn 
 
 2 The Arabic writers are not clear al-Athir, 94, in the month corre- 
 about the date. They mention the spending to Aug. 14-Sept. 12, 831 ; 
 arrival of the Andalusians under A.H. and 2. Cambridge Chronicle, 24, A. M. 
 214 = A.D. 829 March-830 Feb. (Ibn 6340, ind. 10, which began Sept. 1, 
 Adari, 146, Ibn al-Athir, ib.), but from 831. These notices together fix the 
 Ibn Adari's narrative we may probably date between the 1st and 12th of Sept. 
 date it (with Amari and Vasil'ev) to Cp. Vasil'ev, 107. 
 
 A.H. 215. On the other hand, there 6 See Joann> Ne 430 . De & 
 
 seems no reason for not accepting Phi i areto (who was put to death) in 
 
 A.D. 829 as the date of the sending 4.3.8 April 8 t i 753 ' 
 of the reinforcements from Africa. 
 
 3 July-August : Nuwairi, 175. 7 He was accompanied by Simeon, 
 
 4 G. 1- wali (Ibn Adari, ib.) Perhaps a spatharios (it has been conjectured 
 Calloniana = Caltanisetta (Vasil'ev, that he was the governor, cp. Vasil'ev, 
 106). 107). Joann. Neap. 430.
 
 SECT, ii SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 305 
 
 Caliph Mamun, 1 points to his desire to concentrate the forces 
 of the Empire on the defence of Sicily. But though he failed 
 to secure peace in the East, we should expect to find that he 
 made some extraordinary effort on the news of the fall of 
 Panormos. There is, however, no record of the despatch of any 
 new armament or relief to the western island at this time. 
 
 The winning of such an important basis and naval 
 station marks the completion of the first stage in the Moslem 
 conquest. If the operations hitherto had been somewhat of 
 the nature of an experiment, the African Emir was now con- 
 firmed in his ambitious policy of annexing Sicily, and 
 Panormos was the nucleus of a new province over which he 
 appointed Abu Fihr as governor. It is probable that during 
 the next few years progress was made in reducing the western 
 districts of the island, but for nine years no capture of an 
 important town or fortress marked the advance of the 
 invaders. Abu Fihr and his successors 2 won some battles, 
 and directed their arms against Castrogiovanni, which on one 
 occasion almost fell into their hands. 3 Kephaloedion, on the 
 north coast, now called Cefalii, was attacked in A.D. 838, 
 but timely help arriving from Constantinople forced the 
 enemy to raise the siege. 4 It is probable that the success of 
 the Greeks in stemming the tide of conquest was due to the 
 ability of the Caesar Alexios Muscle, who was entrusted with 
 the command of the Sicilian forces. 5 He returned to Con- 
 stantinople (perhaps in A.D. 839) accused of ambitious designs 
 against the throne, and after his departure the enemy made 
 a notable advance by reducing the fortresses of Corleone, 
 Platani, and Caltabellotta the ancient Sican fortress of 
 Kamikos (A.D. 840). 6 Two or three years later, Al-Fald 
 
 1 See above p. 255. 5 Simeon (Cent. Georg. 794) <rrpan>i- 
 
 2 FaldibnYakubandAbu'l-Aglilab 11 
 
 Ibrahim (A.D. 835). appointment seems to have followed 
 
 soon after the marriage with Maria 
 
 8 A.D. 837. Vasil'ev, 113. Some ( c . A.D. 836, see Appendix VI.). Ace. 
 
 fortresses were taken (apparently on to Cont. Th. 108, Alexios was sent to 
 
 the north coast) in A.D. 836, 837. " Lono-obardia. " 
 
 Ibn al-Athir, 95 ; Ibn Adari, 147 Kurlun, Iblatanu, Hisn al-Ballut 
 
 (\vhoseM-d-naristakenby Amari to (Ibn al-Athir, ib.) He adds Marw, 
 
 represent Tyndaris ; Amari ad loc. and while Nuwairi (175) adds M.r.a. and 
 
 Storia, i. 305-306). The ^ Arabs also H.rha. The last is supposed to be 
 
 operated in the region of Etna in A.D. Gerace. M.r.a or Marw has been con- 
 
 836, Ibn al-Athir, ib. jectured to be Marineo, or Calatamauro. 
 
 4 Ibn al-Athir, ib. " large maritime See Vasil'ev, 149. Amari, Storia, 
 
 forces of the Greeks arrived in Sicily." i. 310. 
 
 X
 
 306 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 achieved the second great step in the conquest, the capture 
 of Messina. Aided by Naples, which had allied itself to the 
 new power in Sicily, he besieged the town by land and sea, 
 and after all his assaults had been repelled, took it by an 
 artifice. Secretly sending a part of his forces into the 
 mountains which rise behind the city, he opened a vigorous 
 attack from the sea-side. When all the efforts of the 
 garrison were concentrated in repelling it, the concealed 
 troops descended from the hills and scaled the deserted 
 walls on the landward side. The town was compelled to 
 capitulate. 1 
 
 The invaders had now established themselves in two of 
 the most important sites in Sicily; they were dominant in 
 the west and they held the principal city in the north-east. 
 In a few years the captures of Motyke 2 and its neighbour 
 Kagusa 3 gave them a footing for the conquest of the south- 
 east. An army which the Empress Theodora sent to the 
 island, where a temporary respite from the hostilities of the 
 Eastern Saracens had been secured, was defeated with great 
 loss ; 4 and soon afterwards the warrior who had subdued 
 Messina captured Leontini. When Al-Fald laid siege to it, 
 the Greek strategos marched to its relief, having arranged 
 with the garrison to light a beacon on a neighbouring hill 
 to prepare them for his approach. Al-Fald discovered that 
 this signal had been concerted, and immediately lit a fire 
 on three successive days. On the fourth day, when the 
 relieving army ought to have appeared, the besieged issued 
 from the gates, confident of victory. The enemy, by a 
 
 1 The siege began in 843 or end of that the Greek army was largely 
 842 (in A.H. 228 which began Oct. 16, composed of troops of the Charsian 
 842, Ibnal-Athir, 95). In the same year province. The army would have been 
 M.s.kan was taken: Amari (Storia, sent soon after the exchange of 
 i. 314) identifies it with Alimena, captives in A.D. 845 (see above, p. 275), 
 north-west of Castrogiovanni. and the battle may have been fought 
 
 2 Modica, A.D. 845. Cambridge early in 846 (Vasil'ev). It is probably 
 Chron. 26, ind. 8 tiridff6riffa.v TO. to be identified with the battle which 
 KcurTAXia TTJS TovpaKivaias /cat 6 dyios Ibn al-Athir (96) records in A.D. 
 'Avaciaj XT}? Moi)rt*cas. Can Turakinaia 843-844, for he says that more than 
 conceal Trinakia ? 10,000 Greeks fell, and ace. to the Cam- 
 
 ,, ., bridge Chron. 9000 were slain. Ibn 
 
 A.D. 848. togusa(Po7oO seems to al ./ tllir meutions the lace of the 
 
 be the ancient Hybla. battle ag g h . r . t; Ama ' ri (flrf fo&) 
 
 4 Cambridge Chron. ind. 9 (Sept. would identify it with Butera north of 
 
 845-Aug. 846) tytvero 6 ir6\e/j.os TOV Gela. The Saracen general was 
 
 Xapfaviri, which Amari and Vasil'ev Abu '1-Aghlab al-Abbas, afterwards 
 
 explain with probability by supposing governor.
 
 SECT, ii SARACEN INVASION OF SICILY 307 
 
 feigned flight, led them into an ambush, and the city, mean- 
 while, was almost undefended and fell an easy prey. 1 
 
 The irregularity in the rate of progress of the conquest 
 may probably be explained, at least in part, by the fact that the 
 Moslems were engaged at the same time in operations in 
 Southern Italy, which will presently claim our attention. 
 For more than ten years after the fall of Leontini, the 
 energy of the invaders appears to have flagged or expended 
 itself on smaller enterprises ; 2 and then a new period of 
 active success begins with the surrender of Kephaloedion 
 (A.D. 8 5 7-8 5 8). 3 A year or so later, the mighty fortress of the 
 Sicels 4 and now the great bulwark of the Greeks in the centre 
 of the island, Castrogiovanni, 5 was at last subdued. The 
 capture of this impregnable citadel was, as we might expect, 
 compassed with the aid of a traitor. A Greek prisoner 
 purchased his life from the Arab governor, Abbas, by under- 
 taking to lead him into the stronghold by a secret way. 
 With two thousand horsemen Abbas proceeded to Castro- 
 giovanni, and on a dark night some of them penetrated into 
 the place through a watercourse which their guide pointed 
 out. The garrison had no suspicion that they were about to 
 be attacked ; the gate was thrown open, and the citadel was 
 taken (Jan. 24, A.D. 859). It was a success which ranked in 
 importance with the captures of Pauormos and Messina, and 
 the victors marked their satisfaction by sending some of the 
 captives as a gift to the Caliph Mutawakkil. 
 
 The fall of Castrogiovanni excited the Imperial govern- 
 ment to a new effort. 6 A fleet of three hundred warships 
 
 1 Date : between Aug. 846 and Aug. In the following year the Arabic 
 847 : Ibn al-Athir, ib., Cambridge writers chronicle depredations and 
 Chron. 26. the captures of unnamed forts. 
 
 2 In 851 Caltavuturo (in the * A. H. 243 = April 857- April 858. 
 mountains south of Cefalu) was taken. 4 The Cambridge Chronicle calls it 
 In the same year the governor Abu by its old name : "Ewe (28). 
 '1-Aghlab Ibrahim died and Abu 5 The strategos of Sicily had re- 
 '1-Aghlab Abbas was elected in his moved his headquarters from Syracuse 
 stead. A.D. 854 was marked by the to Castrogiovanni, as a safer place, 
 siege of Butera (Bo6r)p) : the Cambridge Ibn al-Athir, 97. 
 
 Chronicle, 28, states that it was taken ' In A.D. 858 a naval battle was 
 
 then, but Ibn al-Athir (103) that fought, in which the Greeks were 
 
 after a siege of five or six months victorious. The Greek vessels, forty 
 
 the inhabitants bought themselves in number, were commanded by " the 
 
 off. So Ibn Adari (147 and in Cretan " (Nuwairi 175) whom Vasil'ev 
 
 Vasil'ev, Pril. 114), who adds that proposes to identify with Joannes 
 
 S-kh (or m)-r-n was taken. Amari Creticus, strategos of Peloponnesus 
 
 conjectures Kamarina (Sloria, i. 324). under Basil I. (Cont. Th. 303). The
 
 308 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 arrived at Syracuse in the late autumn under the command 
 of Constantine Kontomytes. 1 The army landed, but was 
 utterly defeated by Abbas, who marched from Panormos. 
 The coming of the Greek fleet incited some of the towns in 
 the west to rebel against their Arab lords, but they were 
 speedily subdued, and Abbas won a second victory over the 
 Greek forces near Cefalu. This was the last effort of the 
 Amorian dynasty to rescue the island of the west from the 
 clutch of Islam. Before the death of Michael III. the 
 invaders had strengthened their power in the south-east by 
 the captures of Noto 2 and Scicli, and in the north-east the 
 heights of Tauromenium had fallen into their hands. 3 
 Syracuse was still safe, but its fall, which was to complete 
 the conquest of Sicily, was only reserved for the reign of 
 Michael's successor. 4 
 
 3. The Invasion of Southern Italy 
 
 As a result of the Italian conquests of Charles the Great, 
 two sovran powers divided the dominion of Italy between 
 them. The Eastern Empire retained Venice, a large part of 
 Campania, and the two southern extremities ; all the rest of 
 the peninsula was subject to the new Emperor of the West. 
 But this simple formula is far from expressing the actual 
 situation. On one hand, the nominal allegiance to 
 
 sources differ as to this battle, Ibn Taken in 864 it had to be retaken in 866 
 
 al-Athir and Ibn Adari representing (Cambridge Ohron. 30). During these 
 
 the Moslems as victorious, while the years (862-867) Hafaja ibn Sufyan was 
 
 Cambridge Chronicle says (28) iirid- governor. Abbas had died in 861 at 
 
 ffOi]<Tai> T& Kap&fua. rov 'AXi?. Nuwairi q-r-q-nah {Ibn al-Athir, 97 ; Calta- 
 
 acknowledges the defeat, but places girano ? Vasil'ev), where he was 
 
 it at Crete. buried. The Greeks dug up his 
 
 1 Cambridge Chron. 28 (ind. 8 = 859- corpse and burned it. 
 
 60) KarfrOev 6 Ko^v^Trrjs. The Arabic 8 Ibn a i. A thir, 98. Amari (Storia, 
 
 version has < < the J andami landed. L 347) thinks it possible that Troina 
 
 I suspect that Qandam^ (Kondy- (west of Etna) is meant> But Vasil'ev 
 
 me[tes]) was intended The letters has no doubts that Taormina is in . 
 
 fa and qaf differ only by a dot dicated> Envoys from Taormina met 
 
 Constantine Kontomytes, strategos of Hafa - a near Mount Etna ftnd 
 
 Sicily is mentioned in Cont. Th. d terms Haf sent his ;, ife 
 
 175. Vasil ev distinguishes him from and s(m to the cit J and a treat was 
 
 Constantine Kontomytes, who was concluded . But the inhabitants broke 
 
 strategos of the Tlirakesian Theme the treat and fche governor sent his 
 
 under Theophilus (Cont. 2k. 137). son against it and it was taken (866). 
 
 see no reason for not identilying them. g j bn a i. A t]ji r 
 
 2 rb N^ros (between Syracuse and 
 
 Motyke), north of the modern Noto. * May 878.
 
 SECT, in SARACEN INVASION OF SOUTH ITALY 309 
 
 Charles which the great Lombard Duchy of Beneventum 
 pretended to acknowledge, did not affect its autonomy or 
 hinder its Dukes from pursuing their own independent policy 
 in which the Frankish power did not count ; on the other 
 hand, the cities of the Campanian coast, while they respected 
 the formal authority of the Emperor at Constantinople, 
 virtually, like Venice, managed their own affairs, and were 
 left to protect their own interests. The actual power of 
 Charles did not reach south of the Pontifical State and the 
 Duchy of Spoleto ; the direct government of Nicephorus 
 extended only over the southern parts of Calabria and 
 Apulia. These relatively inconsiderable Byzantine districts 
 were now an appendage to Sicily ; they were administered 
 by an official entitled the Duke of Calabria; but he was 
 dependent on the Sicilian strategos. In Calabria the 
 ancient Bruttii the northern boundary of his province was 
 south of Cosenza and Bisignano, which were Lombard ; 1 m 
 Apulia, the chief cities were Otranto 2 and Gallipoli. These 
 two districts were cut asunder by the Lombards, who were lords 
 of Tarentum ; so that the communications among the three 
 territories which formed the western outpost of the Eastern 
 Empire Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia were entirely maritime. 
 In the eighth century the city of Naples was loyally 
 devoted to Constantinople, and the Emperors not only 
 appointed the consular dukes who governed her, but exercised 
 a real control over her through the strategoi of Sicily. It 
 seemed probable that under this Byzantine influence, Naples 
 would, like Sicily and Calabria, become Graecised, and her 
 attitude was signally hostile to Eome. But in the reign 
 of Irene, a duke named Stephen played a decisive role in 
 the history of the city and averted such a development. 
 He aimed at loosening, without cutting, the bonds which 
 attached Naples to Constantinople, and founding a native 
 dynasty. His regime is marked by a reaction in favour of 
 Latin ; he is determined that the Neapolitan clergy shall 
 inherit the traditions of Latin and not of Greek Christendom. 3 
 And if he is careful to avoid any rupture with the Empire 
 
 1 The most important places in Lombards. Cod. Carolinus, Ep. 17, 
 
 Byzantine Calabria were Reggio, p. 515 (M.G.H., Epp. Her. et Kar. 
 
 Cotrone, Rossano and Amantea. aevi, i. ed. Gundlach). 
 
 a Recovered c. A.r>. 758 from the 3 Gay, L' 'Italic mfr. 18-19.
 
 310 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 and to secure the Imperial assent to the succession of his son 
 Stephen II., the head of the Emperor soon disappears from 
 the bronze coinage of Naples and is replaced by that of 
 Januarius, the patron saint of the city. 1 This assertion of 
 independence was followed by years of trouble and struggles 
 among competitors for the ducal power, which lasted for a 
 generation, and once in that period the authority reverted 
 briefly to representatives of the Imperial government. Weary 
 of anarchy, the Neapolitans invited the Sicilian governor to 
 nominate a duke, and for three years the city was subject to 
 Byzantine officials. Then (in A.D. 821) the people drove out 
 the protospatharios Theodore, and elected a descendant of 
 Stephen. 2 But twenty years more elapsed before the period 
 of anarchy was finally terminated by the strong arm of 
 Sergius of Cumae, who was elected in A.D. 840. 
 
 Gaeta 3 and Amalfi belonged nominally to the Duchy of 
 Naples, and, like Naples, to the Eastern Empire. But they 
 were virtually independent city states. Gaeta lay isolated 
 in the north. For Terracina belonged to the Pope, and 
 Minturnae, as well as Capua, with the mouths of the Liris 
 and Vulturnus, belonged to the Lombard lords of Beneventum. 
 The great object of the Lombards was to crush the cities of 
 the Campanian coast, and the struggle to hold her own 
 against their aggression was the principal preoccupation of 
 Naples at this period. In this strife Naples displayed 
 wonderful resourcefulness, but the Lombards had all the 
 advantages. The Duchy of Beneventum comprised Samnium, 
 the greater part of Apulia, Lucania, and the north of Calabria ; 
 moreover it came down to the coasts of Campania, so that 
 Naples and Amalfi were isolated between Capua and Salerno. 
 If the Beneventan power had remained as strong and con- 
 solidated as it had been in the days of Arichis, there can be 
 small doubt that Naples and her fellows must have been 
 absorbed in the Lombard state. They were delivered from 
 the danger by the outbreak of internal struggles in the 
 Beneventan Duchy. 
 
 The Lombards had never had a navy ; but Arichis, the 
 
 1 For examples see Capasso, ii. 2, 3 The chief magistrate of Gaeta was 
 251-253. entitled hypatus, cp. Capasso, i. 263 
 
 2 Chron. episc. Neap, (Capasso, i. ), (document of A.D. 839). 
 205, 207.
 
 SECT, in SARACEN INVASION OF SOUTH ITALY 311 
 
 great Prince who dominated southern Italy in the reign of 
 Constantino V. and Irene (A.D. 758-787), seems to have 
 conceived the plan of creating a sea-power, and he made a 
 second capital of his Principality at Salerno, where he often 
 resided. The descent of Charles the Great into Italy, and the 
 need of furnishing no pretext to that sovran for interfering in 
 South -Italian affairs, prevented Arichis from pursuing the 
 designs which he probably entertained against Naples and 
 the Campanian cities. He hoped to find at Constantinople 
 support against the Franks and the Roman See which regarded 
 him with suspicion and dislike ; and this policy necessarily 
 involved peace with the Italian cities which were under the 
 Imperial sovranty. Shortly before Jjis death, he sent an 
 embassy to the Empress Irene, requesting her to confer on 
 him the title of Patrician and offering to acknowledge her 
 supremacy. 1 Her answer was favourable, but the Prince was 
 dead when the ensigns of the Patriciate arrived. In connexion 
 with this Greek policy of Arichis, we may note the fact that 
 Byzantine civilisation was exercising a considerable influence 
 on the Lombard court at this period. 2 
 
 Though the son of Arichis was compelled to accept the 
 suzerainty of Charles the Great, his Principality remained 
 actually autonomous. But his death (A.D. 806) marked the 
 beginning of a decline, which may be imputed to the growing 
 power of the aristocracy. 3 Insisting on their rights of election, 
 the nobles would not recognise a hereditary right to the office 
 of Prince, and the struggles of aspirants to power ended in 
 the disruption of the state. The most important Princes of 
 this period were Sicon and Sicard, 4 and their hands were 
 heavy against the Campanian cities. Amalfi was pillaged 
 and reduced for some years to be a dependency of Salerno. 
 Naples was compelled to avert the perils and miseries of a 
 siege by paying tribute ; she sought repeatedly, but in vain, 
 the succour of the western Emperor ; at length she turned to 
 another quarter. 
 
 It was less than ten years after the Moslems of Africa 
 began the conquest of Sicily, that the Moslems of Sicily were 
 
 1 See Letter of Pope Hadrian to 3 Ib. 43-44. 
 
 Charles in A.D. 788, Cod. Carol, p. 4 Sicon, A.D. 817-831 ; Sicard, A.D. 
 
 617. 831-839. 
 
 2 Gay, op. tit. 46-48.
 
 312 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 tempted to begin the conquest of southern Italy ; and here, 
 as in the case of Sicily, their appearance on the scene was 
 provoked by an invitation. Naples, besieged by Sicard, sought 
 aid from the Saracen governor of Panormos. A Saracen fleet 
 was promptly despatched, and Sicard was compelled to raise 
 the siege and conclude a treaty. 1 The alliance 2 thus begun 
 between Naples and Panormos was soon followed by active 
 aggression of the Moslems against the enemy of their Christian 
 allies. Brundusium was the first sacrifice. The Moslems 
 suddenly surprised it ; Sicard marched to expel them ; but 
 they dug covered pits in front of the walls, and drawing the 
 Lombard cavalry into the snare gained a complete victory. 
 Sicard prepared for % new attempt, and the Arabs, feeling 
 that they were not strong enough to hold out, burned the 
 city and returned to Sicily. 8 
 
 The assassination of Sicard shortly after this event was 
 followed by a struggle between two rivals, Sikenolf his brother 
 and Radelchis. The Principality was rent into two parts ; 
 Salernum was ranged against Beneventum ; and the contest 
 lasting for ten years (A.D. 839-849) furnished the Moslems 
 with most favourable opportunities and facilities for laying the 
 foundations of a Mohammadan state in southern Italy. 
 Tarentum fell into their hands, 4 and this led to the interposi- 
 tion of the Emperor Theophilus, whose possessions in Italy 
 were now immediately threatened. He did not send forces 
 himself, but he requested or required his vassal, Venice, to 
 deliver Tarentum. He could indeed appeal to Venetian interests. 
 The affair of Brundusium may have brought home to Venice 
 that the danger of Saracen fleets in the Hadriatic waters, of 
 Saracen descents on the Hadriatic coasts, could no longer be 
 ignored. In response to the pressure of the Emperor, a 
 Venetian armament of sixty ships sailed to the Gulf of Tarentum 
 (A.D. 840), where it encountered the powerful fleet of the 
 Arabs who had lately captured the city. 5 The Venetians were 
 
 1 A.D. 836. Joann. Neap. 431 (Cap- surrounded by Arabic letters. Vasil'ev, 
 asso, i. 210). Text of treaty between 144, who refers to D. Spinelli, Alonetc 
 Sicard and Andrew, Duke of Naples : cufiche battute da principi longobaidi, 
 Capasso, ii. 2, 147-156. Andrew is normanni, esvevi, p. xxvi. (Naples, 
 entitled macjister militum in this in- 1844) ; cp. Capasso, i. 80. 
 strument (149). 3 Chron. Sakrn. 503. The date is 
 
 2 An interesting memorial of this uncertain (perhaps 838, Vasil'ev). 
 confederacy is a gold coin inscribed 4 Chron. Sal. 508 
 
 with the name of (Duke) Andreas, 5 Joann. Yen. 114 ; D&nd. Chron. 175.
 
 SECT, in SARACEN INVASION OF SOUTH ITALY 313 
 
 utterly defeated, and a few months later (April, A.D. 841), the 
 first expedition of the enemy up the Hadriatic proved that 
 the Mohammadan peril was no idle word, but might soon reach 
 the gates of St. Mark's city. The town of Ossero on the isle 
 of Cherson off the Dalmatian coast, and on the Italian shore 
 the town of Ancona, were burned ; and the fleet advanced as 
 far as the mouth of the Po. 1 A year later the Arabs renewed 
 their depredations in the gulf of Quarnero, and won a complete 
 victory over a Venetian squadron at the island of Sansego. 2 
 
 The strife of two rivals for the principality of Beneventum 
 furnished the Moslems with the opportunity of seizing Bari. 3 
 The governor of that city in order to aid his master 
 Eadelchis, had hired a band of Saracens. One dark night 
 they fell upon the sleeping town, and, killing the governor, 
 took it for themselves. The capture of Bari (A.D. 84 1) 4 was 
 as important a success for the advance of the Mohammadans 
 in Italy as that of Panormos for the conquest of Sicily. But 
 their aggression in Italy was not as yet organized. It is 
 carried out by various bands African or Spanish, who act 
 independently and sometimes take opposite side in the 
 struggles of the Lombard princes. The Saracens of Bari, who 
 had wrested that place from Radelchis, become his allies ; 5 
 but the chief of Tarentum supports his enemy, Sikenolf. 
 Another Saracen leader, Massar, is employed by Eadelchis to 
 defend Beneventum against Sikenolf s Lombards of Salerno. 
 
 If the civil war in the Lombard Principality was favourable 
 to the designs of the Saracens, it was advantageous to Naples 
 and her neighbours. No sooner did the struggles break out than 
 Amalfi recovered her independence ; and Naples, relieved from 
 the pressure of Lombard aggression was able to change her 
 policy and renounce the alliance with the Moslems with 
 whom she had not scrupled to co-operate. She had helped 
 them to take Messina, but she realised in time that such a 
 friendship would lead to her own ruin. Duke Sergius saw 
 clearly that the Saracens, who were occupying the Archipelago 
 
 1 Locc. citt. Lentz, B.Z. iii. 71, dates 177 ; Sansego is near Lussin. 
 
 these events to A.D. 840 ; and so Gay. 3 Erchempert, 240 ; Chron. Casin. 
 
 51.Vasil'ev adopts 839, and so Kretsch- 223, 225 ; Amari, Storia. i. 360-1 
 mayr, 93. Diiminler. Slawen in Dal- 
 
 m'.Men, 399, places the capture of ' See Schl P a > Salerno > "' 
 
 Tarentum in 843. 5 They wasted Sikenolf s lands and 
 
 2 Joann. Yen. ib. ; Dand. Chron. burned Capua, ib. 99-100.
 
 314 \EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 of Ponza and were active on the coast south of Salerno, were 
 an imminent danger to the Campanian cities. Through his 
 exertions, an alliance was formed by Naples with Surrentum, 
 Amalfi, and Gaeta to 'assist the aggression of the power which 
 they now recognized as a common enemy (A.D. 84 5). 1 The 
 confederate fleet won a victory over a Sicilian squadron near 
 Cape Licosa. 2 Rome too seems to have -been aware that the 
 unbelievers might at any moment sail against the great city 
 of Christendom. Pope Gregory IV. had built a fort at Ostia 
 and strengthened the town by a wall and foss. 3 Not long 
 after his death, they took Ostia and Porto and appeared before 
 the walls of Eome (August A.D. 846). 4 It is probable that 
 their quest was only booty and that they had not come with 
 the thought of besieging the city. They were driven off by 
 the Margrave of Spoleto, but not till they had sacked the 
 churches of St. Peter and St. Paul outside the walls A large 
 body encamped before Gaeta (September), 5 where a battle was 
 fought, but the arrival of Caesarius, son of Duke Sergius, with 
 a fleet forced them to retreat to Africa. 6 
 
 Three years later the Romans were disturbed by the 
 alarming news that the enemy had equipped a great fleet to 
 make another attack upon their city. Pope Leo IV. concluded 
 an agreement with the league of Gaeta, Amalfi, and Naples, 
 for the defence of Rome. The naval forces of the four powers 
 gathered at Ostia, and the leaders of the confederates swore 
 solemnly in the Lateran palace to be true to the cause. But 
 their task proved unexpectedly easy, for the forces of the 
 elements charged themselves with the defence of the city of 
 the Popes. The hostile fleet arrived and the battle began, 
 but a storm suddenly arose and scattered the Arab ships. The 
 Italians had little to do but to pick up captives from the 
 waters. This success must have contributed much to establish 
 the power and authority of Duke Sergius at Naples. 
 
 In the same year (A.D. 849) the domestic dissensions in 
 
 1 Capasso, i. 212 : Joann. Neap. 432. rovius, Hist, of Home, iii. 87 sqq. 
 
 2 Ib.; the Sicilian Emir revenged Amari, Storia, i. 365 sqq. See also 
 himself by sending an expedition to Bbhmer-Miihlbacher, Regesta Imperii, 
 pillage the neighbourhood of Naples. i- 4 *9 sq. (1889). 
 
 Misenum was destroyed. 8 Lib. Pont. ii. 99-101 ; Joann. Neap. 
 
 t r-t r> t 432-433; Capasso, i. 212 ; Chron. Cas. 
 
 3 Lib. Pont. 11. 82. He died in 844. 225-226 
 
 4 Cp. Ann. Bert., s.a. 846. Grego- 6 Cp. Schipa, ib. 104.
 
 SECT, in SARA CEN INVA SION OF SO UTH ITAL Y 315 
 
 the Lombard state were terminated by a treaty of partition. 
 It was divided into two independent States, the Principality of 
 Beneventum, and the Principality of Salerno. The latter 
 included, along witli Lucania and the north of Calabria, 
 Capua and the greater part of Lombard Campania. But the 
 Counts of Capua refused to acknowledge the authority of the 
 Prince of Salerno, and thus three independent States arose 
 from the disruption of the old Principality of Beneventum. 
 
 The Western Emperors, Lewis the Pious and Lothar, much 
 occupied with other parts of their wide dominions, had hitherto 
 kept aloof from South Italian affairs. But the danger which 
 threatened Rome at the hands of the infidels moved Lothar to 
 an intervention which appeals from Naples for help against 
 the Lombards, or from one Lombard power for support against 
 another, or from the Eastern Emperor for common action 
 against the Saracens, had failed to bring about. Towards the 
 end of A.D. 846 he decided to send an expedition against the 
 Moslems. It was led by his son Lewis, who appeared with an 
 army, chiefly recruited from Gaul, and was active within the 
 Lombard borders during the following years (A.D. 847-849). 
 At the same time he doubtless helped to arrange the 
 agreement between the Lombard rivals. He was bent upon 
 making his authority real, making South Italy a part of 
 his Italian kingdom in the fullest sense, and he was bent upon 
 driving the Saracens out. He expelled them from Beneventum, 
 but this was only the beginning of his task. The Saracens of 
 Bari, whose leader took the title of Sultan, dominated Apulia, 
 in which he was master of twenty-four fortresses and from 
 which he ravaged the adjacent regions. Bari was strongly 
 fortified, and Lewis was beaten back from its walls (A.D. 852). 
 For fourteen years he seems to have been able to make no 
 further effort to cope with the invaders. North Italian 
 affairs, and especially his struggle with Pope Nicolas I., claimed 
 his attention, and it was as much as he could do to maintain 
 authority over his Lombard vassals. During this time the 
 Saracens were the terror of the South ; but the confederate 
 fleet of Naples and her maritime allies appears to have secured 
 to those cities immunity from attack. 1 
 
 1 In Constantine Them. 62 the ]50 strongholds in Italy before the 
 Saracens are said to have possessed Christians began to recover the land in
 
 316 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, ix 
 
 As against the Saracens, the interests of the Eastern and the 
 Western Empires were bound together, and, when Lewis once 
 more set himself earnestly to the task of recovering Apulia, he 
 invoked the co-operation of Constantinople. How he succeeded, 
 and how his success turned out to the profit of his Greek allies, 
 is a story which lies beyond our present limits. 
 
 the reign of Basil I. But in the name puzzled historians (cp. Hirsch, 
 
 parallel passage in Genesios (116) the 169), but I have shown that it was a 
 
 number 150 may include their con- stronghold on the Liris, and explains 
 
 quests in Sicily, and thus is possibly the modern name of that river, Gari- 
 
 right. Genesios says that Gallerianon gliano ( The Treatise DC adm. imp. 
 
 is not counted in this enumeration. The 550).
 
 CHAPTEE X 
 
 RELATIONS WITH THE WESTERN EMPIRE. VENICE 
 
 WHEN Nicephorus I. ascended the throne, he was confronted 
 on the western borders of his dominion by the great Western 
 State which was founded by the genius of Charles the Great. 
 It included the whole extent of the mainland of western 
 Europe, with the exception of Spain and the small territories 
 in Italy which still belonged to the lord of Constantinople. 
 It was far larger in area than the Eastern Empire, and to 
 Charles it might well have seemed the business of a few short 
 years to drive the Byzantine power from Venetia, from the 
 southern extremities of Italy, and from Sicily itself. He had 
 annexed Istria ; he had threatened Croatia ; and his power 
 had advanced in the direction of the Middle Danube. But 
 his Empire, though to himself and his friends it might appear 
 as a resurrection of the mighty empire of Augustus or 
 Constantine, was not built up by the slow and sure methods 
 which the Eoman republic had employed to extend its sway over 
 the world. Though it was pillared by the spiritual influence 
 and prestige of Eome, it was an ill-consolidated fabric which 
 could not be strengthened and preserved save by a succession 
 of rulers as highly gifted as Charles himself. A few years 
 after his death the disintegration of his Empire began ; it had 
 been a menace, it never became a serious danger, to the 
 monarch s of Constantinople. 
 
 A treaty had been concluded between Charles and Irene 
 in A.D. 798, by which the Empress recognised the lordship of 
 the King in Istria and Beneventum, while he probably acknow- 
 ledged her rights in Croatia. 1 Soon afterwards, induced 
 
 1 Ann. r. F., s.a. See Harnack, Die Bcziehungen, 39. 
 317
 
 318 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, x 
 
 perhaps by overtures from a disloyal party in the island, 
 Charles seems to have formed a design upon Sicily, and in 
 A.D. 800 it was known at Constantinople that he intended to 
 attack the island ; l but his unexpected coronation led him to 
 abandon his design. 
 
 Unexpected ; when the diadem was placed on his head in 
 St. Peter's on Christmas Day, and he was acclaimed Imperator 
 by the Eomans, he was not only taken by surprise, but even 
 vexed. 2 The Pope, who performed the coronation, was merely 
 in the secret ; he consented to, but he did not initiate, a 
 scheme, which was far from being obviously conducive to the 
 interests of pontifical policy. It has been shown 3 that the 
 scheme was conceived and carried through by friends and 
 counsellors of the king, who were enthusiastic admirers of 
 their master as a conqueror and a statesman. In poems and 
 letters, these men Alcuin, Theodulf, Angilbert, Paulinus, Arno 
 ventilated, as we may say, the Imperial idea, not formulating 
 it in direct phrases, but allusively suggesting it. Thus 
 Angilbert wrote : 
 
 Rex Karolus, caput orbis, amor populique decusque, 
 Europae venerandus apex, pater optimus, heros, 
 Augustus. 4 
 
 It was not enough for the authors of the scheme to assure 
 themselves of the co-operation of Pope Leo, for they were 
 sufficiently versed in the Imperial theory to know that the 
 constitutional legitimacy of a Eoman Emperor depended not 
 on his coronation but on his election. It was essential to 
 observe the constitutional form : the Emperor must be 
 acclaimed by the Eoman Senate, and army, and people. 
 There was no Senate in the old sense, but the term senatus 
 was applied to the Eoman nobles, and this sufficed for the 
 purpose. 5 There were soldiers and there was a populace. It 
 
 1 The evidence (cp. Harnack, 40) is : 2 Einhard, Vita Karoli, 28. 
 
 Ann r F., s.a. 799 an envoy of 3 By Kleinclausz, L' Empire caro- 
 
 Michael, the governor of Sicily visited u ^ 169-192. On the general 
 
 Charles and was dismissed with great t of the eyent consult & B 
 
 honour ; Theoph s.a 800, Char es ^ Roman E ire , 
 was crowned KO.I pouAijt/ets Kara 2iiKe\iav 
 
 7rapaTda<r0<u rr6X v fiere^di) ; Ann. Poctae Latini aevi Karolini, ed. 
 
 r.F.,s.a.8M, Leo, a spathar, a Sicilian, Diiramler, i. 368, vv. 92-94. Cp. 
 
 fled to Charles at Rome in 801, and re- Alcuin, Ep. 174 (Epp. Kar. aev. pp. 
 
 maiued with him till 811, when peace 288-289). 
 
 was concluded between the Empires. G See Kleinclausz, 196.
 
 CHAP, x CORONA TION OF CHARLES THE GREA T 319 
 
 was necessary to prepare the Eomans for an exercise of sovran 
 authority, which had long ceased to be familiar to them. 
 When they assembled in the Church of St. Peter to celebrate 
 mass on Christmas Day, there was perhaps no one in the 
 great concourse except Charles himself, who was unaware of 
 the imminent event. When the Pope placed the crown on 
 the head of the King, who was kneeling in prayer, the con- 
 gregation the Senate, and the Roman people acclaimed him 
 three times, " Life and victory to Charles, Augustus, crowned 
 by God, great and pacific Emperor of the Eomans." l The 
 Pope, who had simply fulfilled the same function as a Patriarch 
 of Constantinople in a similar case, fell down and adored him 
 as a subject. 
 
 If the first emotions of the new Emperor, who had thus 
 been taken unawares, were mixed with anxiety and disquiet, 
 one of the chief causes of his misgiving was probably the 
 ambiguous attitude which he now occupied in regard to 
 Constantinople. The legitimacy of the Emperors who ruled 
 in the East as the successors of Constantine had never been 
 questioned in Europe ; it had been acknowledged by Charles 
 himself; it was above all cavil or dispute. The election of 
 Charles it mattered not whether at Eome or elsewhere 
 without the consent of the sovran at Constantinople was 
 formally a usurpation. It was all very well to disguise or 
 justify the usurpation by the theory that the Imperial throne 
 had been vacant since the deposition of Constantine VI., 
 because a woman was incapable of exercising the Imperial 
 sovranty ; 2 but such an argument would not be accepted in 
 Byzantium, and would perhaps carry little w r eight anywhere. 
 Nor would Irene reign for ever ; she would be succeeded by a 
 man, whose Imperial title would be indisputable. Charles 
 saw that, elected though he was by the Eomans and crowned 
 by the Pope, his own title as Eoman Imperator and Augustus 
 could only become perfectly valid if he were recognised as a 
 colleague by the autocrat of Constantinople. There are many 
 " empires " in the world to-day ; but in those days men could 
 only conceive of one, the Eomau imperium, which was single 
 
 1 Ann. r. F., s.a. 801, p. 112. cessabat de parte Graecorum nomen 
 
 2 Ann. Lauresharnenses (At.G.H., imperatoris et femineum imperium 
 Scr. i.), p 38: " quia iam tune apud se abebant. "
 
 320 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, x 
 
 and indivisible ; two Roman Empires were unimaginable. 1 
 There might be more than the one Emperor ; but these others 
 could only be legitimate and constitutional if they stood to 
 him in a collegial relation. If, then, the lord of Constantinople, 
 whose Imperial title was above contention, refused to acknow- 
 ledge the lord of Eome as an Imperial colleague, the claim of 
 Charles was logically condemned as illegitimate. 
 
 That Charles felt the ambiguity of his position keenly is 
 proved by his acts. To conciliate Constantinople, and obtain 
 recognition there, became a principal object of his policy. He 
 began by relinquishing the expedition which he had planned 
 against Sicily. A year later (very early in 802) he received 
 at Aachen envoys from Irene. The message which they bore 
 is unknown, but when they returned home they were accom- 
 panied by ambassadors from Charles, who were instructed to 
 lay before the Empress a proposal of marriage. 2 It is said 
 that Irene was herself disposed to entertain the offer favour- 
 ably, and to acquiesce in the idea of a union between the two 
 realms, which would have restored the Empire to something 
 like its ancient limits. The scheme was a menace to the 
 independence of the East, and Irene's ministers must have 
 regarded it with profound distrust. They had no mind to 
 submit to the rule of a German, who would inevitably have 
 attempted to impose upon Byzantium one of his sons as 
 successor. The influence of the patrician Aetius hindered 
 Irene from assenting, 3 and before the Frankish ambassadors 
 left the city they witnessed her fall. This catastrophe put 
 an end to a plan which, even if it had led to a merely 
 nominal union of the two States, would have immensely 
 strengthened the position of Charles by legalising, in a signal 
 way, his Imperial election. It was, however, a plan which 
 was in any case doomed to failure ; the Greeks would never 
 have suffered its accomplishment. 
 
 Nicephorus, soon after his accession, sent an embassy with 
 some proposals to Charles. We do not know what the points 
 at issue were, but Charles agreed, and at the same time wrote 
 
 1 The theory is quite consistent 2 Ann. r. F. t s.a. 802. Theoph., 
 
 with the convenient expression orientale A.M. 6294. 
 
 et occidentale imperium, which first '* " Indem Aetius die Vermahing 
 
 occurs in the letter of Charles to verhinderte, rettete er die Selbst- 
 
 Michael I. Sec Harnack. 5f>. standigkcit desOstens" (ITarnack, 43).
 
 CHAP, x CHARLES THE GREAT AND NICEPHORUS 321 
 
 a letter to the Emperor. 1 This letter is not preserved, but we 
 may conjecture, with high probability, that its purport was 
 to induce Nicephorus to recognise the Imperial dignity of 
 the writer. 2 Nicephorus did not deign to reply, and peace 
 between the two powers was again suspended (A.D. 803). 
 Active hostilities soon broke out, of which Venetia was the 
 cause and the scene. 
 
 We are accustomed, by a convenient anticipation, to use 
 the name Venice or Venetia in speaking of the chief city of 
 the lagoons long before it was thus restricted. For it was not till 
 the thirteenth century that " Venice " came to be specially 
 applied to the islands of the Eialto, nor was it till the ninth 
 century that the Kialto became the political capital. Venetia 
 meant the whole territory of the lagoon state from the Brenta 
 to the Isonzo. Till the middle of the eighth century the 
 centre of government had been Heracliana 3 on the Piave, which 
 had taken the place of Oderzo when that city (c. 640) was 
 captured by the Lombards. No traces remain to-day of the 
 place of Heracliana, which sank beneath the marshes, even 
 as its flourishing neighbour Jesolo, which was also peopled by 
 fugitives from Oderzo and Altino, has been covered over by 
 the sands. In A.D. 742 an epoch in the history of Venice 
 the direct government of the Venetian province by Masters of 
 Soldiers was exchanged for the government of locally elected 
 Dukes, and at the same time the seat of office was transferred 
 from Heracliana to the island of Malamocco. The noble 
 families of Heracliana and Jesolo followed the governor, in 
 such numbers that Malamocco could not hold them, and the 
 overflow streamed into the islands known as Eivus Altus 
 the Eialto. The first consequence of this movement was the 
 foundation of a bishopric in the northern island, the see of 
 Olivolo, which has been signalized as the first act in the 
 foundation of the city of Venice. 4 
 
 But Malamocco, the seat of government and the residence of 
 the prominent families, was not the centre of commerce or the 
 
 1 See letter of Charles to Nicephorus fidence from the whole context of 
 
 in Epp. Kar. aev. 547 ; Ann. r. F., events (cp. Harnack. 44). 
 
 sa. 803. In Ann. Sithienses (M.G.H., 3 The same as Civita Nova T ^ T4 
 
 Scr. xin.), p 3/ it is asserted that y ^ in Const De adm t 125 f 
 peace was made per conscriptionem 
 
 pacti." 4 Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Vene- 
 
 - We can deduce this with con- dig, 52. 
 
 Y
 
 322 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, x 
 
 seat of ecclesiastical power. The northern lagoon-city of Grado, 
 originally built as a port for Aquileia, was the residence of the 
 Patriarch, and doubtless surpassed in the luxuries of civiliza- 
 tion, as it certainly excelled in artistic splendour, the secular 
 capitals Heracliana and Malamocco. For the superabund- 
 ance of wealth at this time was in the coffers of the Church. 1 
 
 The centre of trade was Torcello, well protected in the 
 northern corner of the lagoons, and it did not surrender to 
 the Eialto its position as the great Venetian market-place till 
 the tenth or eleventh century. The home products which the 
 Venetians exported consisted chiefly in salt and fish, and their 
 only native industry seems to have been basket-work. The 
 commercial importance of Venice in these early ages lay in 
 its serving as a market-place between the East and the West ; 
 and its possession had for Constantinople a similar value to 
 that of Cherson in the Euxine. Greek merchants brought to 
 Torcello the rich products of the East silk, purple, and linen 
 peacocks, wines, articles of luxury; and Venetian traders 
 distributed these in Italy, Gaul, and Germany. The Greek 
 exports were paid for by wood, and metals, and slaves. The 
 traffic in slaves, with Greeks and Saracens, was actively 
 prosecuted by the merchants notwithstanding the prohibitions 
 of the Dukes. 2 
 
 The Dukes remained unswervingly loyal to the Empire 
 throughout the eighth century. In A.D. 778 the Duke 
 Maurice introduced into the Dukedom the principle of 
 co-regency, similar to that which was customary in the Imperial 
 office itself; he appointed his son as a colleague, and this was 
 a step towards hereditary succession. This innovation must 
 have received the Emperor's sanction; Maurice was invested 
 with the dignities of stratelates and hypatos, and his official 
 title ran, magister militum, consul et imperialis dux Venetiarum 
 provinciae. 3 
 
 The Italian conquest of Charles the Great and his advance 
 
 1 Kretschmayr, 80 sqq. For the contributory help from Greek carvers." 
 
 cathedral Basilica of Grado, built in The capitals of the columns of the 
 
 the last quarter of the sixth century, nave are Byzantine, 
 
 see Rivoira (Lombardic Architecture, 2 j^ 75.97 
 i. 94-95), who considers it as well as 
 
 the small adjacent Church of Sta. 3 Cp. Kretschmayr, 51. I take it 
 
 Maria delle Grazie as "probably a that mag. mil. translates the title 
 
 work of the School of Ravenna, with oT/oarijXd-njs, conferred 5ta /3pa/3e/ov.
 
 CHAP, x VENICE 323 
 
 to the north of the Hadriatic threatened to interrupt the 
 peaceful development of Venice and to rob the Empire of a 
 valuable possession. The bishops of Istria were subject to the 
 Patriarch of Grado. When Charles conquered Istria (A.D. 
 787-788), he transferred them to the See of Aquileia ; he had 
 already promised the Pope to submit to his spiritual dominion 
 both Istria and Venetia (A.D. 774). At Grado he won an 
 adherent in the Patriarch himself, who, however, paid the 
 penalty for his treason to the Empire. The young Duke 
 Maurice sailed to Grado and hurled the Patriarch from the 
 pinnacle of a tower (c. A.D. 802). This act of violence did 
 not help the government ; it gave a pretext to the disaffected. 
 Fortunatus, a friend of Charles the Great, was elected Patriarch 
 (A.D. 8 3), and with some Venetians, who were opposed to the 
 government, he seceded to Treviso, and then went by himself 
 to Charles, with whom he discussed plans for overthrowing 
 the Imperial Dukes. The disloyal party at Treviso elected a 
 certain Obelierius to the Dukedom ; the loyal Dukes fled ; 
 and Obelierius with his adopted brother took unhindered 
 possession of the government in Malamocco. 
 
 This revolution (A.D. 804) was a rebellion against 
 Constantinople, and the new Dukes signalized their hostility 
 to the Empire by a maritime attack on the Imperial province 
 of Dalmatia. At first they seem to have contemplated the 
 design of making their State independent both of the Frank 
 and of the Greek, for they refused to allow Fortunatus, the 
 confidential friend of Charles, to return to Grado. 1 But they 
 soon abandoned this idea as impracticable ; they submitted 
 unreservedly to the Western potentate and visited him at his 
 Court (Christmas, A.D. 805). He conferred upon them the 
 Duchy of Venetia as a fief, and when he divided the Empire 
 prospectively among his sons (Feb. A.D. 806) he assigned 
 Venetia, Istria, and Dalmatia to Pippin. 2 
 
 It is not improbable that in making this submission 
 Venice hoped to induce Charles to remove the embargo which 
 he had placed upon her trade in A.D. 787, but if she counted 
 on this, she was disappointed. 3 It may be that Charles himself 
 did not calculate on the permanent retention of Venetia, and 
 it belonged to his Empire for little more than a year. In 
 1 See Kretschmayr, 55-56. 2 Simson, Karl, 347. 3 Lentz, i. 32.
 
 324 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, x 
 
 the spring of A.D. 807 the Emperor Nicephorus dispatched a 
 fleet to recall the rebellious dependency to its allegiance. The 
 patrician Nicetas, who was in command, encountered no 
 resistance ; the Dukes submitted ; Obelierius was confirmed in 
 his office and created a spathar ; his brother l was carried as a 
 hostage to Constantinople along with the bishop of Olivolo. 
 Fortunatus, who had been reinstated at Grado, fled to Charles. 
 
 Thus Venice was recovered without bloodshed. Pippin, 
 who, with the title of King, was ruling Italy, was unable to 
 interfere because he was powerless at sea, and he concluded a 
 truce with the Byzantine admiral till August 808. But the 
 trial of strength between the Western and the Eastern powers 
 was only postponed. Another Greek fleet arrived, under the 
 patrician Paulus, strategos of Kephallenia, wintered in Venice, 
 and in spring (809) attacked Comacchio, the chief market of 
 the Po trade. The attack was repelled, and Paulus treated 
 with Pippin, but the negotiations were frustrated by the 
 intrigues of the Dukes, who perhaps saw in the continuance 
 of hostilities a means for establishing their own independence 
 between the two rival powers. 2 Paulus departed, and in the 
 autumn Pippin descended upon Venetia in force. He attacked 
 it from the north and from the south, both by land and by 
 sea. His operations lasted through the winter. In the north 
 he took Heracliana, in the south the fort of Brondolo on the 
 Brenta ; then Chioggia, Palestrina, and Albiola ; 3 finally 
 Malamocco. 4 The Dukes seem to have fallen into his hands, 
 and a yearly tribute was imposed 5 (A.D. 810). Paulus again 
 appeared on the scene, but all he could do was to save 
 Dalmatia from an attack of Pippin's fleet. 
 
 The news quickly reached Constantinople, and Nicephorus 
 sent Arsaphios, an officer of spathar rank, to negotiate with 
 Pippin. When he arrived, the King was dead (July 810), 
 and he proceeded to Aachen (October). 6 
 
 Charles was now in a better position to bargain for his 
 recognition as Imperator than seven years before. He had 
 now a valuable consideration to offer to the monarch of 
 
 1 Beatus ; he returned to Venice, imp. 124). 
 
 with the title of hypatos, in 808 ; and 4 Constantine, ib., describes the 
 
 he and Obelierius adopted their brother siege of Malamocco, which he says 
 
 Valentine as a third co-regent Duke. lasted six months. 
 
 2 Lentz, i. 37. 5 Ib. 
 
 3 'Aet/36\as (Constantine, De adm. 6 Cp. Ann. r. F. p. 133.
 
 CHAP, x ; VENICE 325 
 
 Constantinople, and he proved, by what he was ready to pay, 
 how deeply he desired the recognition of his title. He agreed 
 to restore to Nicephorus Venetia, Istria, Liburnia, and the 
 cities of Dalmatia which were in his possession. He entrusted 
 to Arsaphios a letter to the Emperor, and handed over to him 
 the Duke Obelierius to be dealt with by his rightful lord. 1 
 Arsaphios, who was evidently empowered to make a provisional 
 settlement at Venice, returned thither, deposed the Dukes, 
 and caused the Venetians to elect Agnellus Parteciacus, 
 who had proved his devotion and loyalty to the Empire 
 (Spring 8 II). 2 
 
 In consequence of the death of Nicephorus in the same 
 year, the conclusion of peace devolved upon Michael I. He 
 agreed to the proposals, his ambassadors saluted Charles as 
 Emperor Basileus at Aachen (812), and Charles, who had 
 at last attained the desire of his heart, signed the treaty. 
 The other copy was signed by the successor of Michael and 
 received by the successor of Charles (814). 3 This transaction 
 rendered valid retrospectively the Imperial election of A.D. 800 
 at Eome, and, interpreted strictly and logically, it involved 
 the formal union of the two sovran realms. For the recognition 
 of Charles as Basileus meant that he was the colleague of the 
 Emperor at Constantinople ; they were both Eoman Emperors, 
 but there could be, in theory, only one Eoman Empire. In 
 other words, the Act of A.D. 812 revived, in theory, the position 
 of the fifth century. Michael I. and Charles, Leo V. and 
 Lewis the Pious, stood to one another as Arcadius to Honorius, 
 as Valentinian III. to Theodosius II. ; the imperium Romanum 
 stretched from the borders of Armenia to the shores of the 
 Atlantic. The union, of course, was nominal, and glaringly 
 unreal, and this has disguised its theoretical significance. The 
 bases of the civilizations in east and west were now so different, 
 the interests of the monarchs were so divergent, that there 
 could be no question of even a formal co-operation of issuing 
 laws, for instance, in their joint names. And even if closer 
 
 1 Ann. r. F., ad duminum suum, p. forms. As Charles, not Lewis, had 
 134. The letter of Charles is extant : been recognized by Leo, Lewis sent 
 Epp. Kar. aev. 546-548. two envoys (along with the Greek am- 
 
 2 Cp. Lentz, i. 43. bassadors)to Constantinople, to obtain 
 
 3 About July A.D. 814. Simson, a new document (ib. 32). They re- 
 Ludivig, i. 30. It is worth noting turned with it towards the end of 815 
 the punctiliousness of the diplomatic (ib. 63).
 
 326 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, x 
 
 intimacy had been possible, there was no goodwill on the part 
 of Constantinople in conceding the Imperial dignity, for which 
 a substantial price had been paid. Nor did the Eastern 
 Emperors consider that the concession was permanent. It 
 became hereafter a principle of their policy to decline to 
 accord the title of Basileus to the Western Emperor, unless 
 they required his assistance or had some particular object to 
 gain. Thus in diplomatic negotiations they had the advantage 
 of possessing a consideration cheap to themselves, but valuable 
 to the other party. 
 
 To return to Venice, the treaty between the two sovran 
 powers contained provisions which were of high importance 
 for the subject state. The limits of its territory were probably 
 defined ; the embargo on its trade in the empire of Charles 
 was at last removed ; and its continental possessions, in the 
 borders of Frankish Italy, were restored to it, on the condition 
 of paying a yearly tribute of about 1550 to the Italian king. 1 
 Commercially, this treaty marks the beginning of a new period 
 for Venice ; it laid the foundations of her mercantile prosperity. 
 
 Not so politically ; 2 the state of things which had existed 
 before the Frankish intervention was restored. The Venetians 
 gladly acquiesced in the rule of Constantinople. They had 
 felt the conquest of Pippin as a profound humiliation ; their 
 historians afterwards cast a veil over it. 3 Their long and 
 obstinate defence of Malamocco showed their repugnance to the 
 Franks. A Greek writer 4 tells us that, when Pippin called 
 upon them to yield, they replied, " We will be the subjects of 
 the Emperor of the Romans, not of thee." This, at all events, 
 expresses their feeling at the time. There are signs that 
 during the following years the Imperial government manifested 
 a closer and more constant interest in Venetian affairs and 
 perhaps drew the reins tighter. Two yearly tribunes were 
 appointed to control the Duke. 5 On the accessions of Leo V. 
 
 1 36 Ibs. of gold ; it was still paid Dandulus, Chron. 151, 163 ; Lentz, i. 
 
 rif Kar^x VTi T& p^yo-Tov rrjs 'IraX/as 45. 
 ijrot Hairtas (Pavia) in the 10th cent. 2 Cp. Lentz, i. 47. 
 
 See Constantine, Deadm. imp. 124-125, 3 Kretschmayr, 58. 
 
 who considers it a continuation, 4 Constantine, ib. 
 
 diminished in amount, of the tribute 6 Such tribunes had been appointed 
 
 (TrXaora irdxra) exacted by Pippin. before when Monegarius was duke in 
 
 For the provisions of the treaty see A.D. 756. Kretschmayr, 51, 61, 423.
 
 CHAP, x CHARLES THE GREA T AND MICHAEL I. 327 
 
 and Michael II., Agnellus sent his son l and his grandson to 
 Constantinople to offer homage. The Venetians were also 
 called upon to render active aid to the Imperial fleets against 
 the pirates of Dalmatia who infested the Hadriatic and against 
 the Saracens in Sicilian waters. 
 
 The Prankish occupation was followed by a change which 
 created modern Venice. The Duke Agnellus moved the seat 
 of government from Malamocco to the Eivus Altus (A.D. 811), 
 and in these islands a city rapidly grew which was to take 
 the place of Torcello as a centre of commerce, and to over- 
 shadow Grado in riches and art. 2 The official house of 
 Agnellus stood on the site of the Palace of the Doges, and hard 
 by, occupying part of the left side of the later Church of St. 
 Mark, arose the Chapel of St. Theodore, built by a wealthy 
 Greek. The Emperor Leo V. himself took an interest in the 
 growth of the Rialto ; he founded at his own expense, and sent 
 Greek masons to build, the nunnery of S. Zaccaria, which 
 stands further to the east. 3 Soon afterwards St. Mark, perhaps 
 replacing St. Theodore, became the patron saint of Venice. 
 Leo V. had issued an edict forbidding the merchants of his 
 empire to approach the ports of the infidels in Syria and 
 Egypt. This command was enforced by the Dukes ; but not- 
 withstanding, about A.D. 828, some Venetian traders put in 
 at Alexandria, and stole what they supposed to be the corpse 
 of Mark the Evangelist. When the precious remains, which 
 Aquileia vainly claimed to possess, reached the Eialto, they 
 were hidden in a secret place in the Duke's house until a 
 fitting shrine should be prepared to receive them. The Duke 
 Justinian bequeathed money for the building, and before seven 
 years had passed, the first Church of St. Mark had been reared 
 between the Chapel of St. Theodore and the ducal palace, by 
 Greek workmen, a purely Byzantine edifice. 4 The Cathedral of 
 S. Piero in the south-eastern extremity of Castello was erected 
 in these years, which also witnessed the building of S. Ilario, 
 
 1 Justinian, who was duke 827-829, see Cattaneo, Architecture in Italy 
 and styled himself Imperialis hypatus from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century, 
 et humilis dux Venetiae. Lentz has Eng.tr. 1896. Kretschmayr, op. cit. 
 shown (i. 52 sqq.) the part which 85-87. 
 
 Byzantine influence played in the 3 See the charter in Tafel and 
 
 struggle between Justinian and his Thomas, Urkundenzur alteren Handcls- 
 
 brother John for the position of co- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik 
 
 regent duke. Venedig (1856), i. 1-3. 
 
 2 On the early buildings in Venice, 4 See Cattaneo, op. cit. 285 sqq.
 
 328 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, x 
 
 on the mainland due north of Kialto, a basilica with three 
 apses, of which the ground plan was excavated not long ago. 1 
 
 A conspiracy (A.D. 836) terminated the rule of the 
 Parteciaci. The last duke was relegated to a monastery at 
 Grado, and he was succeeded by Peter Trandenicus, an illiterate, 
 energetic man, under whose memorable government Venice 
 made a long leap in her upward progress. For she now 
 practically asserted, though she did not ostentatiously proclaim, 
 a virtual independence. There was no revolution ; there was 
 no open renunciation of the authority of the Eastern Empire ; 
 the Venetians still remained for generations nominally Im- 
 perial subjects. But the bonds were weakened, the reins 
 were relaxed, and Venice actually conducted herself as a 
 sovran state. Her independence was promoted by the duty 
 which fell upon her of struggling against the Croatian 
 pirates ; the fleet of the Empire, occupied with the war in 
 Sicily, could not police the upper waters of the Hadriatic. 
 Hitherto Venice had used the same craft for war and 
 trade ; Peter Trandenicus built her first warships chelandia 
 of the Greek type. Theophilus created him a spathar ; 
 he styled himself " Duke and Spathar," but he did not, 
 like his predecessors, describe himself as "submissive" (humilis); 
 presently he assumed the epithet of " glorious." It is 
 significant that in the dates of public documents anni 
 Domini begin to replace the regnal years of the Emperor. 2 
 But the most important mark of the new era is that Venice 
 takes upon herself to conclude, on her own account, agree- 
 ments with foreign powers. The earliest of these is the con- 
 tract with the Emperor Lothar (Feb. 22, 840), which among 
 other provisions ensured reciprocal freedom of commerce by 
 land and sea, and bound the Venetians to render help in 
 protecting the eastern coasts of Frankish Italy against the 
 Croatian pirates. This, the oldest monument, as it has been 
 called, 3 of independent Venetian diplomacy, may be said to 
 mark the inauguration of the independence of Venice. 4 
 
 If Venice was thus allowed to slide from under the con- 
 
 1 See Cattaneo, op. cit. 235 sqq. Kretschmayr, 95. 
 
 2 Capitularia, n. 233, p. 130 sqq. 4 For the change in the position of 
 (cp. Lentz, ii. 112 sqq.). Venice summarised in this paragraph, 
 
 3 Along with the Praeceptum of and the dukedom of Peter, see Lentz, 
 Lothar, A.D. 841 (Capitularia, n. 234), ii. 64 sqq. ; Kretschmayr, 92 sqq.
 
 CHAP, x THE EASTERN AND WESTERN EMPIRES 329 
 
 trolling hand of the Emperors, without scandal or ill-feeling, 
 she retained her supreme importance for Byzantine commerce, 
 and for the next two centuries she was probably as valuable 
 to the Empire, of which she was still nominally a part, as if 
 she had remained in her earlier state of strict subordination. 
 
 The conquest of Istria by the Franks affected not only 
 the history of Venetia, but also that of Dalmatia. The realm 
 of Charles the Great was now adjacent to the province of 
 Dalmatia, which included the Eoman cities and islands of the 
 coast, from Tarsatica in Liburnia to Cattaro, and also to the 
 Slavs of the " hinterland " who were in a loose subjection to 
 the government of Constantinople. In the treaty of A.D. 798, 
 the Franks acknowledged the Imperial rights over the Slavs ; l 
 but in the following years both the heads or 2upans of these 
 Slavs, and even the Eoman communities of the coast, seem to 
 have discerned, like the Venetians, in the rivalry between the 
 two Imperial powers an opportunity for winning independence. 
 The duke and the bishop of Zara 2 went to the court of Charles, 
 along with the duke of Venice, in A.D. 806, and paid him 
 homage. About the same time some of the more northern 
 Slavonic tribes submitted to him, a submission which was 
 nominal and involved no obligations. 3 But this, like the 
 corresponding political change in Venice, was only transient. 
 By the treaty of A.D. 812 the old order was formally restored 
 and the Franks undertook not to molest or invade the 
 Dalmatian communities. Some particular questions concerning 
 the boundaries in the north were settled in the reign of Leo V., 4 
 and no further attempts were made by the Western Empire to 
 seduce Dalmatia from its allegiance. But this allegiance was 
 
 1 Just after this, in A.D. 799, the lecture, i. 152) agrees that it dates 
 Margrave of Friuli was slain near from his time, and points out that it 
 Tarsatica (Tersatto, Trsat), " insidiis was "inspired directly by San Vitale 
 oppidanorum, " Ann. r. F. p. 108, and at Ravenna." 
 
 three years later there was a revolt in 3 Especially the Slavs of Liburnia 
 
 this region against Nicephorus (on (Einhard, Vit. Kar. 15), cp. Harnack, 
 
 his accession) led by one Turcis. 48. , 
 
 The Emperor destroyed (?) Tarsatica 4 Leo sent an envoy, Nicephorus, to 
 
 (" tantumodo solum Tarsaticum de- Lewis in A.D. 817, "de finibus Dalma- 
 
 struere potuit ") ; the rebel submitted torum Romanorum et Sclavorum " 
 
 and was pardoned. Joann. Yen. 100. (Ann. r. F., s.a.), and another embassy 
 
 On Tersatto, cp. Jackson, Dalmatia,, in A.D. 818. See Simson, Ludwig, 78 
 
 iii. 166 sqq. and 110 ; Harnack, 60. Nicephorus 
 
 2 The circular church of San Donato and Cadolah, the Margrave of Friuli, 
 at Zara is a memorial of this bishop, were sent to arrange a settlement on 
 Donatus. Rivoira (Lombardie Arclii- the spot.
 
 330 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, x 
 
 unstable and wavering. The Slavonic zupans acknowledged 
 no lord in the reign of Michael III. or perhaps at an earlier 
 date. 1 The Eoman communities of the coast, which were 
 under their own magistrates, subject to an Imperial governor 
 or archon, are said to have asserted their autonomy in the time 
 of Michael II. and this may well have happened when he 
 was engaged in the struggle with Thomas. 2 But the control 
 of Constantinople was soon reimposed, and Dalmatia continued 
 to be a province or Theme, under an archon, though the cities 
 enjoyed, as before, a measure of self-government, which re- 
 sembled that of Cherson. 3 
 
 The settlement of another question in the reign of Michael 
 II. tended to pacify the relations between the two empires. 
 The Istrian bishops who were subjects of the Western 
 Emperor had been permitted by the Peace of A.D. 812 to 
 remain under the Patriarch of Grado, who was a subject of 
 the Eastern Emperor. This was an awkward arrangement, 
 which probably would not have been allowed to continue if 
 the Patriarch Fortunatus had not proved himself a good 
 friend of the Franks. 4 But it was satisfactory to both 
 Emperors to transfer the Istrian churches from the See of 
 Grado to that of Aquileia, so that the ecclesiastical juris- 
 dictions were coincident with the boundaries between the two 
 realms. This settlement was effected in A.D. 827 by a synod 
 held at Mantua. 5 
 
 1 Cont. Th. ( Vita Basilii], 288 ; Cou- when that leader raised the Croatians 
 stantine, De adm. imp. 128. Note of Pannonia in rebellion against the 
 that in the former passage only the Franks ; and when Lewis summoned 
 revolt of the Slavs is mentioned, while him to answer the charge, he fled to 
 in the latter the emphasis is on the Zara and thence to Constantinople 
 Dalmatian provincials, who are said (A.D. 821). He accompanied Michael's 
 to have become autonomous in the embassy to Lewis in 824, and was 
 reign of Michael II. See next note. sent on to the Pope, but died on the 
 
 2 This date is accepted by Hopf way. See Ann. r. F., s. 821 and 824 ; 
 (Griechische Geschichte, 119), and Mur- Michael, Ep. ad Lud. 419 ; Joann. 
 alt (410); and is defended by Harnack, Ven. 108. 
 
 70, against Hirsch, who (198) argues 5 Mansi, xiv. 493 sqq. Cp. Harnack, 
 
 .that in De'adm. imp.'(and Cont. Th. 67-69. The question was probably one 
 
 84) Michael II. is confounded with of the objects of the embassies which 
 
 Michael III. The passage in Cont. passed between Michael II. and Lewis 
 
 Th. 288, is not really inconsistent in A.D. 827, 828. The Oekonomos of 
 
 with the assertion of autonomy by the St. Sophia was the head of the Greek 
 
 Slavs before the reign of Michael III. embassy, which presented to the 
 
 3 See above, p. 223. Western Emperor a Greek text of the 
 
 4 Fortunatus seems to have been a works of Dionysios the Areopagite. 
 born intriguer. He was accused of The Frank envoys, who were honour- 
 rendering secret support to Liudewit, ably received, brought back from
 
 CHAP, x THE EASTERN AND WESTERN EMPIRES 331 
 
 The letter which the Emperor, Michael II., addressed to 
 Lewis the Pious has already demanded our attention, in 
 connexion with the iconoclastic controversy. Although his 
 recognition of the Imperial title of Lewis was grudging and 
 ambiguous, Lewis, who consistently pursued the policy of 
 keeping on good terms with Constantinople, did not take 
 offence. 1 Under Theophilus the relations between the two 
 great powers continued to be friendly. The situation in the 
 Mediterranean demanded an active co-operation against the 
 Saracens, who were a common enemy ; Theophilus pressed for 
 the assistance of the Franks ; but the Western Empire was 
 distracted by the conflicts between Lewis and his sons. 2 In 
 the last year of his life, Theophilus proposed a marriage 
 between Lewis, the eldest son of Lothar, and one of his own 
 daughters (perhaps Thecla), and Lothar agreed. But after 
 the Emperor's death the project was allowed to drop, nor can 
 we say whether Theodora had any reason to feel resentment 
 that the bridegroom designate never came to claim her 
 daughter. 3 There seems to have ensued a complete cessation 
 of diplomatic intercourse during the reign of Michael III., 
 and it is probable that there may have been some friction in 
 Italy. 4 But, as we have already seen, the struggle between 
 Photius and the Pope led to an approximation between the 
 Byzantine court and the recreant bridegroom, who was pro- 
 claimed Basileus in Constantinople (A.D. 867). During the 
 following years, the co-operation against the Saracens, for 
 which Theophilus had hoped, was to be brought about ; the 
 Emperor Lewis was to work hand in hand with the generals 
 of Basil in southern Italy. 
 
 Constantinople valuable relics, which This was the "tragedy" which the 
 
 were placed in the Cathedral of envoys witnessed, according to Vit. 
 
 Cambrai. See Ann. r.F., s. 827, 828. Hhidov. (M.G.H., Scr. ii.) 49, p. 636 
 
 Simson, op. cit. 278-279. a passage which Hirsch (148) has 
 
 1 He showed his goodwill in a small misunderstood ; cp. Harnack, 69. (2) 
 matter which arose in southern Italy, A.D. 839, Ann. Bert., s.a. See above, 
 between Naples and Beneventum : p. 273, and below, p. 418. (3) A.D. 
 Erchempert, c. 10, and Ann. r. F., s.a. 842, see next note. 
 
 826 ; Harnack, 67. 3 Ann. Bert., s. 842 and 853 : "Graeci 
 
 2 Three embassies from Theophilus contra Hludovicum . . . concitantur 
 to the Franks are recorded : (1) in propter filiam imp. Cplitani ab eo 
 A.D. 833 ; the object is not stated, desponsatam sed ad eius nuptias 
 but we know that the envoys bore venire differentem " (i.e. Hludovicum) ; 
 gifts for Lothar, which they delivered, Gen. 71, Cont. Th. 135. Also Dandu- 
 and for Lewis, which they could not lus, Chron. 176. 
 
 deliver, as he was his son's captive. * Ann. Bert., s. 853, loc. cit.
 
 CHAPTEK XI 
 
 BULGAEIA 
 
 1. The Bulgarian Kingdom 
 
 THE hill-ridge of Shumla, which stretches from north-west to 
 south-east, divides the plain of Aboba from the plain of 
 Preslav, and these two plains are intimately associated with 
 the early period of Bulgarian history. It must have been 
 soon after the invaders established their dominion over 
 Moesia, from the Danube to the Balkans, that they transferred 
 their capital and the seat of their princes from a marshy 
 fortress in the Dobrudzha to a more central place. Their 
 choice fell upon Pliska. It is situated north-east of Shumla, 
 in the plain of Aboba, and near the modern village of that 
 name. 1 Travellers had long since recognized the site as an 
 ancient settlement, but it was taken for granted that the 
 antiquities which the ground evidently concealed were of 
 Eoman origin, and it has only recently been discovered by 
 excavation that here were the great entrenched camp and 
 the royal palace of the early khans of Bulgaria. 
 
 The camp or town formed a large irregular quadrilateral, 
 and some idea of its size may be conveyed, if it is said that 
 its greatest length from north to south was four miles, and 
 that its width varied from two miles and a half to about 
 one mile and three-quarters. It was enclosed by a fortification, 
 consisting of a ditch outside a rampart of earth, the crown of 
 which appears to have been surmounted by a wooden fence. 
 Although early destruction and later cultivation have done 
 
 1 This account of Pliska is based on Constantinople, cited as Aboba (see 
 the publication of the excavations of Bibliography), 
 the Russian Archaeological Institute of 
 
 332
 
 SECT, i THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM 333 
 
 what they could to level and obliterate the work, the lines 
 can be clearly traced, and it has been shown that the town could 
 be entered by eleven gates. Near the centre of the enclosure 
 was an inner stronghold, and within this again was the palace 
 of the Khans. The stronghold, shaped like a trapezium, was 
 surrounded by thick walls, which were demolished at an 
 ancient date, and now present the appearance of a rampart 
 about ten feet high. Four circular bastions protected the 
 four angles, and two double rectangular bastions guarded each 
 of the four gates, one of which pierced each of the four walls. 
 The walls were further strengthened by eight other pentagonal 
 bastions. The main entrance was on the eastern side. 
 
 Within this fortress stood a group of buildings, which is 
 undoubtedly to be identified as the palatial residence of the 
 Khans. The principal edifice, which may be distinguished as 
 the Throne-palace, was curiously constructed. A large room 
 in the basement, to which there seems to have been no 
 entrance from without, except perhaps a narrow issue under- 
 neath a staircase, points to the fact that the ground-floor was 
 only a substructure for an upper storey. This storey con- 
 sisted of a prodomos or entrance-hall on the south side, to 
 which the chief staircase ascended, and a hall of audience. 
 The hall was nearly square, and was divided by rows of 
 columns into three parts, resembling the nave and aisles of 
 a church. The throne stood in a round apse, in the centre 
 of the northern wall. Not far from this building stood a 
 rectangular temple, which in the days of Krum and Omurtag 
 was devoted to the heathen cult of the Bulgarians, but was 
 converted, after the adoption of Christianity, into a church. 
 
 The fortress and the palace, which seem to have been 
 built much about the same time, certainly belong to no later 
 period than the first half of the ninth century. The archi- 
 tecture of the Throne-palace bears the impress of Byzantine 
 influence, and has a certain resemblance to the Trikonchos of 
 Theophilus, as well as to the Magnaura. 1 It was doubtless 
 constructed by Greek masons. The columns may have been 
 imported from Constantinople ; it is recorded that Krum, 
 
 1 It resembled the Triklinos of the an upper storey and in being entered 
 
 Magnaura by its throne-apse and the through the prodomos, as the Trikon- 
 
 rows of columns in the "nave" ; it chos was entered through the Sigma, 
 
 resembled the Trikonchos in being to which external stairs ascended.
 
 334 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 when he attacked that city, carried off works of art from the 
 suburban buildings. 
 
 The title of the rulers of Bulgaria was kanas uvegd, 
 " sublime khan," l but even while they were still heathen, they 
 did not scruple to have themselves described sometimes in their 
 official monuments as " rulers by the will of God." 2 Of the 
 political constitution of the kingdom little can be ascertained. 
 The social fabric of the ruling race was based on the clan 
 system, 3 and the head of each clan was perhaps known as a 
 zupan. From early ages the monarchy had been hereditary in 
 the clan of Dulo, but in the middle of the eighth century, 
 Kormisos, who belonged to another family, ascended the throne, 
 and after his death Bulgaria was distracted for some years by 
 struggles for the royal power. We may probably see in these 
 events a revolt of the clans against the hereditary principle 
 and an attempt to make the monarchy elective. There were 
 two ranks of nobility, the boilads and the bagains, 4 and among 
 the boilads there were six or perhaps twelve who had a con- 
 spicuous position at the court. When a Bulgarian ambassador 
 arrived at Constantinople, etiquette required that the foreign 
 minister should make particular inquiry first for " the six 
 
 preceding the name 192). Okhsun, of the family of Kuri- 
 
 (frequent in the inscriptions). 1)^717 ger, is described as 6 'fowwdv (190) ; 
 
 has been satisfactorily equated (by Okorses as 6 Koirav6s (where K seems 
 
 Tomaschek) with the Cuman - Turk to be an error for f, ib.) ; and in an- 
 
 6weghii= "high, glorious"; cp. Mar- other inscription (No. 7, p. 192) in 
 
 quart, Streifziige, 495 ; Chron. 40. honour of some one yeveas 'E/> . . . dp-rjs, 
 
 2 Omurtag in the Chatalar inscrip- I would supply at the beginning 
 tion(A.D. 821-822), IK Ocov&pxwv, Aboba, ovirav]os. As the title Zhupan was 
 545 ; and Malamir, o tn 6. &., ib. 230 used by South Slavonic peoples for 
 ( = C.I.G. 8691). The use of the title the head of a tribe, it is a reasonable 
 by Omurtag disproves Uspenski's con- conjecture that it designated a tribal 
 jecture (ib. 197-198) that the Roman prince among the Bulgarians. See 
 government conferred it on Malamir Uspenski, ib. 199. The word is sup- 
 because Christianity had spread in posed to occur in the form faawav in 
 Bulgaria in his reign. Marquart's the early inscription of Marosh in 
 view is (Chron. 41-42) that the title was Hungary, which is believed to relate 
 meant as a translation of the Turkish to the Gepids (ib.). 
 
 Tangrida bolmys qan, "heaven- * Cp. C.I.G. 86916, KO\ roi)s /3o:Xd5as 
 
 created khan." It was the regular K&1 fiayalvovs ZdwKev fj.eyd\a tvia. Cp. 
 
 style of the Christian princes, cp. Uspenski, Aboba, 201-202. Borlas, in 
 
 Constantino, Cer. 681. Mansi, xvi. 158, has been rightly 
 
 3 So among the Magyars (x et ^ corrected to boelas (/3or?Xfis, usual form 
 ^Kdffrrj ycvea dpxovra, Const. De adm. in the inscriptions) by Marquart 
 imp. 174). Besides the clans of Dulo, (Chron. 41). Vagantus or vaganlus, 
 Ukil, and Ugain, mentioned in the in the same passage, is doubtless 
 Regnal list, we have various yfveai vaganius (jBaydivos), cp. Uspenski, op. 
 recorded in ninth cent, inscriptions, cit. 204. /SoijXas passed into Slavonic 
 e.g. ~Kvpiyr)p, Kou/Sid/JTjs (Aboba, 190- as boliarin (the Russian boiar).
 
 SECT, i THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM 335 
 
 great boilads," and then for the other boilads, " the inner and 
 the outer." l There were thus three grades in this order. 
 We do not know whether the high military offices of tarkan 
 and kaukhan 2 were confined to the boilads. The khan himself 
 had a following or retinue of his own men, 3 which seems to 
 have resembled the German comitatus. The kingdom was 
 divided into ten administrative divisions, governed by officers 
 whose title we know only under the equivalent of count* 
 
 The Bulgarians used the Greek language for their official 
 documents, 5 and like the ancient Greeks recorded their public 
 acts by inscriptions on stones. Mutilated texts of treaties and 
 records of important events have been discovered. They are 
 composed in colloquial and halting Greek, not in the diplomatic 
 style of the chancery of Byzantium, and we may guess that they 
 were written by Bulgarians or Slavs who had acquired a 
 smattering of the Greek tongue. Among these monuments 
 are several stones inscribed by the khans in memory of valued 
 officers who died in their service. One of them, for instance, 
 met his death in the waters of the Dnieper, another was 
 drowned in the Theiss. 6 This use of the Greek language for 
 
 1 In Constantine, Cer. 681, we find Const. Porph. De adm. imp. 158 17 , 
 the six great boilads (tenth cent.), dXo-fioyoTovp, as Marquart corrects 
 but in De adm. imp. 154, we learn of for dXoyoporotp), the Turkish bagadur, 
 the capture of "the twelve great from which the Russian bogatyr 
 boilads " by the Servians (ninth cent. ). ( = hero) is derived ; and frvpyov (zerco, 
 It seems plain that inner and outer in Mansi, xvi. 158 ; see Uspenski, ib. 
 simply mean a higher and lower grade. 204). /coXo/fyos (Kov\ovj3pos) seems to 
 For we find exactly the same terms, have been a title of rank, not a post 
 great, inner, and outer applied to the or office ; Tomaschek equates it with 
 three Bulgarias. There were the Turkish qolaghuz, a guide, and Mar- 
 Great Bulgarians on the Danube, the quart (Chron. 41) compares J3ovKo\a{lpS.s 
 Inner Bulgarians on the Sea of Azov, in Theoph. Simocatta, i. 8. 2, who 
 and the Outer Bulgarians on the explains it as fj.dyos or tepefy. 
 
 Volga. See below, p. 410 sq. 3 dpeirroi &v6pwiroi, frequent in the 
 
 2 The rapKavos (inscriptions) was un- inscriptions. See Uspenski's long dis- 
 doubtedly a military commander. We cussion, ib. 204 sqq. 
 
 meet this Turkish title in Menander's * Ann.Bert.,suba.866(p.85),"inti& 
 
 account of an embassy of the Turkish decem comitatus." Silistria was the 
 
 Khan Dizabul to Justin II. (fr. 20). chief place of one of the counties : 
 
 The ambassador's name was Tagma, inscription, Simeon, Izv. Kpl. iii. 186, 
 
 diwfjLa 5e avr^ Tapxdv. See also Cont. /c6jtr/s Apiffrpov. Cp. also Theophy- 
 
 Th. 413, KaXovrepicdvos (leg. KaXoi) lactus, Hist, mart., P.O., 126, 201, 213. 
 
 repitdvos), and Const. Cer. 681, o See Aboba, 212. 
 
 /SoiA/as rapKavos. See Uspenski, op. s Some mysterious epigraphic frag- 
 
 cit. 199-200 ; Marquart, Chron. 43-44. ments have also been discovered, 
 
 For the icavxdvos see inscriptions, written, partly at least, in Greek letters, 
 
 Aboba, 220, 233, and Simeon (Cont. but not in the Greek tongue. They 
 
 Georg. ed. Muralt, 819, ed. Bonn 893), are very slight and little can be made 
 
 (LfM icavKdvy. Other dignities were of them. See Aboba, c. viii. 
 
 (iayaTovp or fioyorop (inscriptions ; also 6 Aboba, 190-194.
 
 336 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 their records is the most striking sign of the influence which 
 was exercised on the Bulgarians by the civilization of Con- 
 stantinople. We can trace this influence also in their buildings, 
 and we know that they enlisted in their service Greek engineers, 
 and learned the use of those military engines which the Greeks 
 and Eomans had invented for besieging towns. Notwith- 
 standing the constant warfare in which they were engaged 
 against the Empire, they looked to Constantinople much as 
 the ancient Germans looked to Home. Tervel had been created 
 a Caesar by the gratitude of Justinian II., and two of his 
 successors found an honourable refuge in the Imperial city 
 when they were driven by rivals from their own kingdom. 
 Tserig fled to the court of Leo IV. (A.D. 777), accepted baptism 
 and the title of Patrician, and was honoured by the hand of 
 an Imperial princess. 1 It might be expected that the Bulgarians 
 would have found it convenient to adopt the Koman system of 
 marking chronology by indictions or even to use the Eoman 
 era of the Creation of the world, and we actually find them 
 employing both these methods of indicating time in their 
 official records. 2 But they had also a chronological system of 
 their own. They reckoned time by cycles of sixty lunar years, 
 starting from the year A.D. 659, memorable in their history as 
 that in which they had crossed the Danube and made their 
 first permanent settlement in Moesia. 3 For historical purposes, 
 this system involved the same disadvantage as that of Indictions, 
 though to a much smaller degree ; for instance, when an event 
 was dated by the year shegor alem or 48, it was necessary also 
 to know to what cycle the year referred. But for practical 
 purposes there was no inconvenience, and even in historical 
 records little ambiguity would have been caused until the 
 Bulgarian annals had been extended by the passage of time 
 into a larger series. It is possible that the Bulgarian lunar 
 years corresponded to the years of the Hijra, and if so, this 
 would be a remarkable indication of Mohammadan influence, 
 which there are other reasons for suspecting. We know that in 
 the ninth century there must have been some Bulgarians 
 who were acquainted with Arabic literature. 4 
 
 1 Krum's sister married a Greek 4 JRcsponsa Nicolai, 103, " libri 
 deserter. profani quos a Saracenis vos abstulisse 
 
 2 See Aboba, 227 and 546. ac ajnid vos habere perhibetis." Op. 
 
 3 See Bury, Chronol. Cycle. Jirecek, Geschichtf, 134.
 
 SECT, i THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM 337 
 
 But the Bulgarians had other neighbours and foes besides 
 the Eomans, and political interests in other directions than in 
 that of Constantinople. It is recorded that the same prince 
 who crossed the Danube and inaugurated a new period in 
 Bulgarian history, also drove the Avars westward, 1 and the 
 record expresses the important fact that in the seventh century 
 the Bulgarians succeeded to the overlordship which the Avar 
 khans had exercised over Dacia in the reigns of Maurice and 
 Heraclius. This influence extended to the Theiss or beyond. 
 Eastward, their lordship was bounded by the Empire of the 
 Khazars, but it is impossible to define the precise .limit of its 
 extent. There can be no doubt that in the seventh and 
 eighth centuries Bulgaria included the countries known in 
 later times as Walachia and Bessarabia, 2 and the authority of 
 the khans may have been recognised even beyond the Dniester. 
 At all events it appears to be certain that in this period 
 Bulgarian tribes were in occupation of the coastlands from 
 that river wellnigh to the Don, and this Bulgarian continuity 
 was not cleft in twain till the ninth century. The more 
 easterly portion of the people were known as the Inner 
 Bulgarians, and they were probably considered to belong to 
 the Empire of the Khazars. But we cannot decide whether it 
 was at the Dniester or rather at the Dnieper that the authority 
 of the Khazars ended and the claims of the Great Bulgarians 
 of Moesia began. 
 
 South of the Danube, the kingdom extended to the Timok, 
 which marked the Servian frontier. 3 The Bulgarians lived on 
 terms of unbroken friendship with the Servians, and this may 
 perhaps be explained by the fact that between their territories 
 the Empire still possessed an important stronghold in the city 
 of Sardica. 
 
 For the greater security of their country the Bulgarians 
 reinforced and supplemented the natural defences of mountain 
 
 1 [Moses of Chorene], Geography to limit the Bulgarians on their eastern 
 (seventh cent. ), cited in Westberg, Bei- frontier, and there is no probability 
 trage, ii. 312 ; Marquart, Chron. 88. that the Khazars e% r er exerted author- 
 
 2 Scr. Incertus, 345. Eov\yapiav ity further than the Dniester, if as 
 tKeWfv Tov'lffrpov irora.ij.ov ( = Pseudo- far. 
 
 Simeon, 615). There is no reason to 3 One point on the frontier (Con- 
 suppose that when Isperikh settled stantine, De adm. imp. 155) seems to 
 in the Dobrudzha, he abandoned Bess- have been Rasa (Novi Bazar, Jireek, 
 arabia. Till the ninth century there Geschichte, 150). 
 was no power but that of the Khazars
 
 338 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 and river by elaborate systems of fortification and entrench- 
 ment. 1 Their kingdom, almost girt about by an artificial 
 circumvallation, might be compared to an entrenched camp, 
 and the stages in its territorial expansion are marked by 
 successive ramparts. Beyond the Danube, a ditch and earthen 
 wall connected the Pruth with the Dniester in northern 
 Bessarabia, and a similar fence protected the angle between 
 the mouths of the Sereth, the Danube, and the Pruth. 2 The 
 early settlement of Isperikh at Little Preslav, near the mouth 
 of the Danube, was fortified by a rampart across the 
 Dobrudzha, 3 . following the line of older Eoman walls of earth 
 and stone, but turned to confront a foe advancing from the 
 south, while the Eoman defences had been designed against 
 barbarians descending from the north. When the royal 
 residence was moved to Pliska, a line of fortifications was con- 
 structed along the heights of Haemus ; and a trench and 
 rampart from the mountains to the Danube marked the 
 western frontier. When their successes at the expense of the 
 Empire enabled the conquerors to bestride the mountains, a 
 new fence, traversing Thrace, marked the third position in 
 their southward advance. 4 The westward expansion is 
 similaiiy separated by two more entrenchments connecting 
 the Haemus with the Danube, while the right bank of that 
 river was defended by a series of fortresses and entrenchments 
 from Little Preslav to the neighbourhood of Nicopolis. 
 
 The main road from Constantinople to the capital of the 
 Bulgarian kings crossed the frontier, east of the Tundzha, near 
 the conspicuous heights of Meleona, 5 which, still covered with 
 
 1 The following brief description is in Southern Bessarabia between the 
 based on Shkorpil's, in Aboba, c. xx. Pruth and Lake Kunduk ; ib. 524. 
 503 sqq. ; cp. also Prilozh. ii. 566-569. See Schuchhardt, Arch. - ep. Mitthei- 
 Masudi describes the " dominion " lungen, ix. 216 sqq. (1885). 
 
 of the Bulgarians as surrounded by 3 Schuchhardt, ib.&7 sqq. ; Tocilesco, 
 
 a thorn fence, with openings like Fouilles et rccherches arcMologiques en 
 
 wooden windows, and resembling a Roumanic, 1900 (Bucharest), 
 
 wall and canal (Harkavi, Skazaniia, 4 See below, p. 361. 
 
 126). Uspenski (Aboba, 15) takes 5 Aboba, 564-565, 514, the heights of 
 
 " dominion " to mean the royal aula, Bakadzhik. Shkorpil remarks that 
 
 and relates the description to Aboba. they "could serve as a natural 
 
 This is a strained interpretation ; but boundary, before the construction of 
 
 possibly Masudi's source mentioned the Erkesiia." It is certain that by 
 
 both the circumvallation of the king- the middle of the eighth century at 
 
 dom and the fortifications of Pliska, latest the Bulgarian frontier had 
 
 and Masudi confused them. moved south of Mount Haemus. The 
 
 2 There was also an entrenchment text bearing on this question is Theoph.
 
 SECT, i THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM 339 
 
 the remains of Bulgarian fortifications, marked an important 
 station on the frontier, since they commanded the road. To 
 the north-west of Meleona, the Bulgarians held Diampolis, 
 which preserves its old name as Jambol, situated on the 
 Tundzha. The direct road to Pliska did not go by Diampolis, 
 but ran northward in a direct course to the fortress of 
 Marcellae, which is the modern Karnobad. 1 This stronghold 
 possessed a high strategic importance in the early period of 
 Bulgarian history, guarding the southern end of the pass of 
 Veregava, 2 which led to the gates of the Bulgarian king. Not 
 far to the west of Veregava is the pass of Verbits, through 
 which the road lay from Pliska to Diampolis. The whole 
 route from Marcellae to Pliska was flanked by a succession of 
 fortresses of earth and stone. 
 
 2. Krum and Nicephorus /. 
 
 In the wars during the reign of Irene and Constantine 
 VI., the Bulgarians had the upper hand ; king Kardam 
 repeatedly routed Bonian armies, and in the end the Empress 
 submitted to the humiliation of paying an annual tribute to 
 the lord of Pliska. A period of peace ensued, lasting for 
 about ten years (A.D. 797-807). We may surmise that the 
 
 497, who relates that Krum sought to Kormisos, Jirec'ek in the ninth century 
 renew with Michael I. (see below) (cp. Aboba, 568). See below p. 361. 
 the treaty concluded "in the reign l Aboba, 564, cp. 562. Jirefiek (Arch.- 
 of Theodosius of Adramyttion and ep. Mitth. x. 158) wished to place 
 the patriarchate of Germanus " with Marcellae at Kaiabash. His identifica- 
 Kormisos, "then ruler of Bulgaria." tion is based on Anna Comnena, i. 244 
 There is an error here, as Tervel was and ii. 71 (ed. Reiflerscheid), and 
 the Bulgarian king in the reign of he places Lardeas at Karnobad. But 
 Theodosius III., and Constantine V. Shkorpil finds Lardeas at the pass of 
 was Emperor in the reign of Kormisos Marash (565). Both place Goloe (also 
 (743-760). If we accept Theodosius, mentioned by Anna) near Kadirfakli. 
 the treaty was in A.D. 716 ; if we Kadirfakli, Kaiabash, and the Marash 
 accept Kormisos, it was a generation defile lie in this order on the south- 
 later. My view is that the treaty on ward road from the Verbits pass to 
 which Krum based his negotiations Jambol. 
 
 was between Kormisos and Constantine 2 The identification of the K\ei<rovpa 
 
 V., but that in the text of that treaty TSepeydpuv with the Rish Pass is un- 
 
 an older treaty between Theodosius questionably right. Cp. Aboba, 564 ; 
 
 and Tervel was referred to. The JireSek, Heeresstrasse, 149-150. Jirec'ek 
 
 decision of this question does not, of also identifies Veregava with the irv\ai 
 
 course, decide the date of the Erkesiia, (riSijpai or 2i5i?/ja of Greek historians, 
 
 as Meleona (TOI>S 6'pous dtro ~Mri\ewvwi> but Shkorpil (Aboba, 565) takes ^.idrjpd 
 
 TTJS 0ppKT?s, ib. ) may have been the to be the Verbits pass. I am inclined 
 
 boundary many years before its con- to agree with Jirec'ek. The two 
 
 struction. Zlatarski dates it in the neighbouring passes are together 
 
 reign of Tervel, Shkorpil in that of known as the Gyrlorski Pass (ib. 548).
 
 340 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 attention of the Bulgarian king was at this time preoccupied 
 by the political situation which had arisen in the regions 
 adjacent to the Middle Danube by the advance of the Frank 
 power and the overthrow of the Avars. On the other hand, 
 Nicephorus who, soon after his accession, was embroiled in war 
 with the Saracens, may have taken some pains to avoid 
 hostilities on his northern frontier. It is at all events 
 significant that he did not become involved in war with 
 Bulgaria until the tide of the eastern war had abated. We 
 do not know what cause of provocation was given, but so far 
 as our record goes, it was the Eoman Emperor who began 
 hostilities. Kardam had in the meantime been succeeded by 
 Krum, 1 a strong, crafty, and ambitious barbarian, whose short 
 reign is memorable in the annals of his country. 
 
 It was in A.D. 807 that Nicephorus set forth at the head 
 of an army to invade Bulgaria. 2 But when he reached 
 Hadrianople a mutiny broke out, and he was compelled to 
 abandon his expedition. The next hostile movement of which 
 we hear we cannot say which occurred was the appearance 
 of a Bulgarian army in Macedonia, in the regions of the 
 Strymon, towards the close of the following year. 3 Many 
 regiments of the garrison of the province, with the strategos 
 himself and the officers, were cut to pieces, and the treasury 
 of the khan was enriched by the capture of 1100 Ibs. of gold 
 (47,520) which had been destined to pay the soldiers. It 
 would seem that the Romans had not expected an attack so 
 
 1 We are quite ignorant of the that the statements of Theophanes 
 internal history of Bulgaria from 797 more naturally point to the last months 
 to 807, and know neither in what year of 808 (A.M. 6301=: September 608- 
 Krum acceded nor whether he was August 609). For after describing 
 the immediate successor of Kardam. the affair of the Strymon the chronicler 
 JireCek places his accession in 802-807 proceeds rf 8' auTtf) ^rei -npb rrjs eoprrjs 
 (Geschichte, 143). For the various TOV lldcrxa KpoD/u/xos KT\. Now if the 
 forms of Krum's name, in Greek, Latin, Bulgarians had immediately proceeded 
 and Slavonic sources, cp. Loparev, against Sardica, Theophanes would 
 Dvie Zamietki, 341, n. 1. That Krum hardly have written r$ 8' airry gr, 
 is the right form is shown by the which implies that two events are 
 Shumla inscription (KpoO/xos : Aboba, independent or separated in time ; 
 233 ; cp. Shkorpil, Arch.-cp. Mittli. and it is clear tliat as the capture of 
 xix. 243). On the alleged legislation Sardica took place before Easter 809, 
 of Krum (Suidas, s.v. BotiXyapoi) see it must have, been immediately pre- 
 G. Kazarow, E.Z. xvi. 254-257 (1907). ceded by the victory on the Strymon, 
 
 2 Theoph., A.M. 6299-806-807. in case that vic * or / u wa ? won in n ^ e 
 
 same spring. I therefore conclude 
 
 3 Theoph., A. M. 6301. This event is that 808 is the right date; and it 
 placed by all historians in 809 (Jirecek, seems more natural that the soldiers 
 Geschichte, 144). But it seems to me should have been paid before winter.
 
 SECT, ii KRUM AND NICEPHORUS I. 341 
 
 late in the year ; but the presence of a considerable force in the 
 Strymon regions points to the fact that the Bulgarians had 
 already betrayed their designs against Macedonia. In the 
 ensuing spring (809) Krum followed up his success on the 
 Strymon by an attack on the town of Sardica, which seems at 
 this time to have been the most northerly outpost of the Empire 
 towards the Danube. He captured it not by violence, but 
 by wily words, and put to death a garrison of six thousand 
 soldiers and (it is said) the population of the place. It does 
 not appear that he had conceived the idea of annexing the 
 plain of Sardica to his realm. He dismantled the fortifications 
 and perhaps burned the town, which was one day to be the 
 capital of the Bulgarian name. When the tidings of the calamity 
 arrived, Nicephorus left Constantinople in haste on the Tuesday 
 before Easter (April 3). Although the monk, who has related 
 these events, says nothing of his route, we can have no doubt 
 that he marched straight to the mountains by Meleona and 
 Marcellae, and descended on Pliska from the Veregava Pass. 
 For he dispatched to the city an Imperial letter in which he 
 mentioned that he spent Easter day in the palace of the 
 Bulgarian king. 1 The plunder of Pliska was a reprisal for 
 the sack of Sardica, to which Nicephorus then proceeded for 
 the purpose of rebuilding it. We are not told what road he 
 took, but he avoided meeting the victorious army of the 
 enemy. It is said that some officers who had escaped the 
 massacre asked Nicephorus in vain for a promise that he 
 would not punish them, and were forced to desert to the 
 Bulgarians. 
 
 The Emperor desired to rebuild Sardica as speedily and 
 as cheaply as possible, and, fearing that the soldiers would 
 be unwilling to submit to a labour which they might say 
 was not a soldier's business, he prompted the generals and 
 officers to induce the soldiers to address a spontaneous request 
 to the Emperor that the city might be rebuilt. But the men 
 saw through this stratagem, and were filled with indignation. 
 They tore down the tents of their superiors, and, standing in 
 front of the Emperor's pavilion, cried that they would endure 
 
 1 Theophanes malevolently insinu- TTJC ^a<n\LSa ir6\it> 
 ates a doubt of the truth of the Sn KT\. (485 14 ). 
 Emperor's statement : trd/cpcuj
 
 342 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 his rapacity no more. It was the hour of noon and Nicephorus 
 was dining. He directed two patricians to attempt to tran- 
 quillise the army ; the noise abated ; the soldiers formed a 
 company on a hillock hard by, " and, forgetting the matter in 
 hand, kept crying, ' Lord, have mercy ! ' ' This unorganized 
 mutiny was soon quelled by Imperial promises, 1 and the 
 officers were all on the Emperor's side. Punishment, however, 
 was afterwards inflicted on the ringleaders. 
 
 Nicephorus viewed with anxiety the western provinces of 
 his Empire in Macedonia and Thessaly. The Slavs, on whose 
 fidelity no reliance could be placed, were predominant there, and 
 it was the aim of the Bulgarians to bring the Macedonian 
 Slavs under their dominion. To meet the dangers in this 
 quarter the Emperor determined to translate a large number 
 of his subjects from other parts of the Empire and establish 
 them as Roman colonists in what was virtually a Slavonic 
 land. They could keep the Slavs in check and help in 
 repulsing Bulgarian aggression. The transmigration began 
 in September 809 and continued until Easter 810. It seems 
 to have been an unpopular measure. Men did not like to 
 leave the homes to which they were attached, to sell their 
 property, and say farewell to the tombs of their fathers. The 
 poor cling far more to places than the rich and educated, and 
 it was to the poor agriculturists that this measure exclusively 
 applied. Some, we are told, were driven to desperation and 
 committed suicide rather than go into a strange and distant 
 land ; and their richer brethren sympathized with them ; in 
 fact, the act was described as nothing short of " a captivity." 
 But though it may have been hard on individuals, it was a 
 measure of sound policy ; and those who on other grounds 
 were ill-disposed to the government exaggerated the odium 
 which it aroused. Nicephorus, who, as we are told, prided 
 himself greatly on this act,' 2 seems to have realised the danger 
 that the Slavonic settlements in Macedonia and Greece might 
 eventually be gathered into a Bulgarian empire ; and these 
 new colonies were designed to obviate such a possibility. 
 
 1 On the next day Nicephorus made says "most" were punished by 
 
 a speech full of asseverations of his stripes, banishment, or compulsory 
 
 goodwill to the soldiers and their tonsure, and the rest were sent to 
 
 children. He then returned to Cple., Chrysopolis (486). 
 
 leaving Theodosius Salibaras to 2 Theoph. 496. 
 discover the ringleaders. Theophanes
 
 SECT, ii KRUM AND NICEPHORUS I. 343 
 
 Meanwhile the Emperor was preparing a formidable 
 expedition against Bulgaria, to requite Krum for his cruelties 
 and successes. In May 811 the preparations were complete, 
 and Nicephorus marched through Thrace at the head of a 
 large army. The troops of the Asiatic Themes had been 
 transported from beyond the Bosphorus ; Romanus, general of 
 the Anatolics, and Leo, general of the Armeniacs, were 
 summoned to attack the Bulgarians, as their presence was no 
 longer required in Asia to repel the Saracen. When he 
 reached Marcellae, at the foot of the mountains, where he 
 united the various contingents of his host, ambassadors arrived 
 from Krum, who was daunted by the numbers of the Romans.* 
 But the Augustus at the head of his legions had no thought 
 of abandoning his enterprise, and he rejected all pleadings for 
 peace. He knew well that a humiliating treaty would be 
 violated by the enemy as soon as his own army had been 
 disbanded ; yet nothing less than a signal humiliation could 
 atone for the massacres of Sardica and the Strymon. The 
 march, difficult for a great army, through the pass of Veregava, 
 occupied some time, and on the 20th of July the Romans 
 approached the capital of Krum. Some temporary consterna- 
 tion was caused by the disappearance of a trusted servant of 
 the Emperor, who deserted to the enemy with the Imperial 
 apparel and 100 Ibs. of gold. 
 
 No opposition was offered to the invaders, and the Roman 
 swords did not spare the inhabitants. Arriving at Pliska, 
 Nicephorus found that the king had fled ; he set under lock 
 and key, and sealed with the Imperial seal, the royal treasures, 
 as his own spoil ; and burned the palace. Then Krum said, 
 " Lo, thou hast conquered ; take all thou pleasest, and go in 
 
 1 It is supposed by Uspenski that certainly more probable that Niceph- 
 
 the Kady-keui inscription (Aboba, orus is the-Emperor, than, for instance, 
 
 228) may relate to the war of Nicephorus, an engineer, who took 
 
 Nicephorus with Krum, on account service under the Bulgarian king (see 
 
 of the words Kal elff^XBev 6 NtK770[6/>os Theoph. 498). If the Emperor is meant, 
 
 (1. 3). In 1. 2 we have TOI)S Tpixofc I conjecture that the events described 
 
 eij Mct/>/c(VX\as and 11. 6-10 are may be connected with his abortive 
 
 concerned with the actions of a expedition in A.D. 807 and the 
 
 certain Ekusoos, whom " the Greeks military mutiny. This is suggested 
 
 met" and who "went to Hadrian- by 11. 5, 6, IK Triicpias avrov (apparently 
 
 ople." It is impossible to restore referring to Nicephorus "in his 
 
 a connected sense, without some ex- anger ") //.TJ crupeij [ffucriv 5w<i/ueis ?] . . . 
 
 ternal clew, and the supplements of ol TpaiKol Kal TTO\IV taupev^aav. 
 Uspenski are quite in the air. It is
 
 344 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 peace." But the victor disdained to listen. Perhaps it was 
 his hope to recover Moesia and completely to subdue the 
 Bulgarian power. But if this was his design it was not to 
 be realised ; Nicephorus was not to do the work which was 
 reserved for Tziniiskes and Basil Bulgaroktonos. He allowed 
 himself to be drawn back into the mountain where Krum and 
 his army awaited him. It is generally supposed that an 
 obvious precaution had been neglected and that the Romans 
 had not taken care to guard their retreat by leaving soldiers 
 to protect the mountain pass behind them. But it seems 
 probable that the pass of Veregava was not the scene of the 
 disaster which followed, and the imprudence of Nicephorus 
 did not consist in neglecting to secure the road of return. So 
 far as we can divine, he permitted the enemy to lure him into 
 the contiguous pass of Verbits, where a narrow defile was 
 blocked by wooden fortifications which small garrisons could 
 defend against multitudes. Here, perhaps, in what is called 
 to-day the Greek Hollow, 1 where tradition declares that many 
 Greeks once met their death, the army found itself enclosed as 
 in a trap, and the Emperor exclaimed, " Our destruction is 
 certain ; if we had wings, we could not escape." The Bulgarians 
 could conceal themselves in the mountains -and abide their 
 time until their enemies were pressed by want of supplies ; 
 and as the numbers of the Eoman army were so great, they 
 would not have to wait long. But the catastrophe was 
 accelerated by a successful night attack. The defiles had been 
 fortified on Thursday and Friday, and on Sunday morning 
 just before dawn the tent in which Nicephorus and the chief 
 patricians were reposing was assailed by the heathen. The 
 details of the attack are not recorded ; perhaps they were 
 never clearly known ; but we must suppose that there was 
 some extraordinary carelessness in the arrangements of the 
 Koinan camp. The Roman soldiers, taken unawares, seem to 
 have been paralysed and to have allowed themselves to be 
 massacred without resistance. Nicephorus himself was slain, 
 and almost all the generals and great officers who were with 
 him, among the rest the general of Thrace and the general 
 of the Anatolics. 2 
 
 1 Groshki-Dol, between the heights as to the scene of the battle I have 
 of Kys-tepe and Razboina : Shkorpil adopted. 
 Aboba, 564, and 536), whose view 2 The others specially mentioned
 
 SECT, ii KRUM AND NICEPHORUS I, 345 
 
 This disaster befell ou the 26th of July. It seemed more 
 shameful thaii any reverse that had happened throughout the 
 invasions of the Huns and the Avars, worse than any defeat 
 since the fatal day of Hadrianople. After the death of 
 Valens in that great triumph of the Visigoths, no Roman 
 Augustus had fallen a victim to barbarians. During the 
 fifth and sixth centuries the Emperors were not used to fight, 
 but since the valour of Heraclius set a new example, most of 
 the Roman sovrans had led armies to battle, and if they were 
 not always victorious, they always succeeded in escaping. 
 The slaughter of Nicephorus was then an event to which no 
 parallel could be found for four centuries back, and it was a 
 shock to the Roman world 
 
 Kruni exposed the head of the Emperor on a lance for a 
 certain number of days. He then caused the skull to be 
 hollowed out in the form of a large drinking bowl, 1 and lined 
 with silver, and at great banquets he used to drink in it to 
 the health of his Slavonic boliads with the Slavonic formula 
 " zdravitsa." 2 
 
 A memorial of this disaster survived till late times at 
 Eskibaba in Thrace, where a Servian patriarch of the seventeenth 
 century saw the. tomb of a certain Nicolas, a warrior who had 
 accompanied the fatal expedition of Nicephorus and seen a 
 strange warning dream. The Turks had shrouded the head of 
 the corpse with a turban. 3 
 
 3. Krum and Michael I. 
 
 Sated with their brilliant victory, the Bulgarians did 
 not pursue the son and son-in-law of the Emperor, who 
 escaped from the slaughter, and they allowed the Romans 
 ample time to arrange the succession to the throne, which, 
 
 are the patricians Aetius, Peter, comrades were burnt alive in a con- 
 
 Sisinnios Triphyllios, Theodosiua flagration of the wooden palisades 
 
 Salibaras, and the Prefect (it is very (rip TT?S crovdas irvpi). 
 
 strange to find the Prefect of the City 1 Cp. Herodotus iv. 65, and 26. 
 
 who can only be meant taking See Blasel, Die Wanderziige der 
 
 part in a campaign) ; also the Langobarden, 112 sq. 
 
 Domesticus of the Excubitors ; the 2 ffSpd/SiTfa. 
 
 Drungarios of the Watch ; and many 3 In the diary of a journey to 
 
 other officers. Theoph. 491. In what Jerusalem by Arseny Cernojevic (A.D. 
 
 manner Nicephorus was slain him- 1683), published in the Glasnik (33, 
 
 self no one could tell. Some of his 189) ; see Jire6ek, op. cit. 144.
 
 346 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 as we have seen, was attended by serious complications. 
 But Michael I. had not been many months established in 
 the seat of Empire, when he received tidings that the enemy 
 had invaded Thrace (A.D. 812). The city which Krum first 
 attacked was near the frontier. On an inner curve of the 
 bays, on whose northern and southern horns Anchialus and 
 Apollonia faced each other, lay the town of Develtos. It 
 might pride itself on its dignity as an episcopal seat, or on 
 its strength as a fortified city. But its fortifications did not 
 now avail it, nor yet its bishop. Krum reduced the place, 
 and transported inhabitants and bishop beyond the mountains 
 to Bulgaria. The Emperor meanwhile prepared to oppose 
 the invader. On the 7th day of June he left the capital, 
 and the Empress Procopia accompanied him as far as 
 Tzurulon, 1 a place which still preserves its name as Chorlu, 
 on the direct road from Selymbria to Hadrianople. 
 
 It does not seem that Michael advanced farther than to 
 Tzurulon. The news of the fate of Develtos came, and a 
 mutiny broke out in the army. It was thought that the 
 Emperor had shown incompetence or had followed injudicious 
 advice. While we can well understand that little confidence 
 could be felt in this weak and inexperienced commander, we 
 must also remember that there was in the army a large 
 iconoclastic section hostile to the government. The Opsikian 
 and Thrakesian Themes played the most prominent parts in 
 the rioting. A conspiracy in favour of the blind brothers of 
 Constantine V. followed upon this mutiny, and Michael re- 
 turned to the City. The field was thus left to the Bulgarians, 
 who prevailed in both Thrace and Macedonia. But the alarm 
 felt by the inhabitants caused perhaps more confusion than 
 the actual operations of the invaders. It does not indeed 
 appear that the Bulgarians committed in this year any 
 striking atrocities or won any further success of great moment. 
 But the fate of the Eoman Emperor in the previous year 
 had worked its full effect. The dwellers in Thrace were 
 thoroughly frightened, and when they saw no Roman army 
 
 1 It was a town on a hill close to by the terrible hordes of Zabergan ; 
 
 the tributary of the Erginus, which and in the reign of Maurice, the 
 
 is called Chorlu - su. See Jirecek, valiant general Prisons was besieged 
 
 Heerstrasse, 51, 101. In the days of in this fortress by the Avars. 
 Justinian, Tzurulon had been stormed
 
 SECT, in KRUM AND MICHAEL I. 347 
 
 in the field they had not the heart to defend their towns. 
 The taking of Develtos brought the fear home to neighbouring 
 Anchialus on the sea. Anchialus had always been one of the 
 firmest and strongest defences against the barbarians against 
 the Avars in olden days and against the Bulgarians more 
 recently. Fifty years ago the inhabitants had seen the 
 Bulgarian forces defeated in the neighbouring plain by the 
 armies of the Fifth Constautine. But Michael was not like 
 Constantino, as the men of Anchialus well knew ; and now, 
 although the defences of their city had recently been restored 
 and strengthened by Irene, they fled from the place though 
 none pursued. Other cities, not only smaller places like 
 Nicaea and Probaton, but even such as Beroe and the great city 
 of Western Thrace, Philippopolis, did likewise. The Thracian 
 Nicaea is little known to history ; it seems to have been 
 situated to the south - east of Hadrianople. Probaton or 
 Sheep -fort, which is to be sought at the modern Provadia, 
 north-east of Hadrianople, had seen Roman and Bulgarian 
 armies face to face in a campaign of Constantine VI. (A.D. 791). 
 Stara Zagora is believed to mark the site of Beroe, at the 
 crossing of the Eoman roads, which led from Philippopolis 
 to Anchialus and from Hadrianople to Nicopolis on the 
 Danube. It was in this neighbourhood that the Emperor 
 Decius was defeated by the Goths. The town had been 
 restored by the Empress Irene, who honoured it by calling 
 it Irenopolis ; l but the old name persisted, as in the more 
 illustrious cases of Antioch and Jerusalem. Macedonian 
 Philippi behaved like Thracian Philippopolis, and those 
 reluctant colonists whom Nicephorus had settled in the 
 district of the Strymou seized the opportunity to return to 
 their original dwellings in Asia Minor. 2 
 
 Later in the same year (812) Krum sent an embassy to 
 the Roman Emperor to treat for peace. 3 The ambassador 
 whom he chose was a Slav, as his name Dargamer 4 proves. 
 The Bulgarians wished to renew an old commercial treaty which 
 seems to have been made about half a century before between 
 king Kormisos and Constantine V. ; 5 and Krum threatened that 
 
 1 For restoration of Anchialus and 3 In October : cp. Theoph. 497, 498. 
 Beroe, see Theoph. 457 ; for Oonstan- 4 That is Dragomir. 
 
 tine \ I. at Upoftdrov Kdyrpov, ib. 46<. 
 
 2 See above, p. 342. 5 See above, p. 339.
 
 348 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 he would attack Mesembria if his proposals were not immediately 
 accepted. The treaty in question (1) had defined the frontier 
 by the hills of Meleona ; (2) had secured for the Bulgarian 
 monarch a gift of apparel and red dyed skins to the value 
 of 1350; (3) had arranged that deserters should be sent 
 back ; and (4) stipulated for the free intercourse of merchants 
 between the two states in case they were provided with seals 
 and passports ; l the property of those who had no passport 
 was to be forfeited to the treasury. 2 
 
 After some discussion the proposal for the renewal of this 
 treaty was rejected, chiefly on account of the clause relating 
 to refugees. True to his threat, Krum immediately set his 
 forces in motion against Mesembria and laid siege to it about 
 the middle of October (812). Farther out on the bay of 
 Anchialus than Anchialus itself, where the coast resumes 
 its northward direction, stood this important city, on a 
 peninsula hanging to the mainland by a low and narrow 
 isthmus, about five hundred yards in length, which is often 
 overflowed by tempestuous seas. 3 It was famous for its 
 salubrious waters ; it was also famous for its massive fortifica- 
 tions. Here had lived the parents of the great Leo, the 
 founder of the Isaurian Dynasty. Hither had fled for refuge 
 a Bulgarian king, driven from his country by a sedition, in 
 the days of Constantine V. Krum was aided by the skill 
 of an Arab engineer, who, formerly in the service of Nicephorus, 
 had been dissatisfied with that Emperor's parsimony and had 
 fled to Bulgaria. 4 No relief came, and Mesembria fell in a 
 fortnight or three weeks. Meanwhile the promptness of 
 Krum in attacking had induced Michael to reconsider his 
 decision. The Patriarch was strongly in favour of the proposed 
 peace ; but he was opposed by Theodore, the abbot of Studion, 
 who was intimate with Theoktistos, the Emperor's chief 
 adviser. The discussion which was held on this occasion 
 (November 1) illustrates how the theological atmosphere of 
 
 1 Sia ffiyi\\twv teal crQpayiduv. (according to Theophanes). He in- 
 
 2 This clause is not in our extant structed the Bulgarians in every poli- 
 MSS. but is preserved in the Latin orcetic contrivance (-n-da-av fj.ayyavLKrjv 
 translation of Anastasius. T^X"^")- Theophanes mentions also 
 
 3 Cp. Jirec'ek, Fiirstenthum, 526. the desertion of a certain spathar 
 
 4 Nicephorus settled him in Hadrian- named Eumathios, who was fjL-rjxa-viKTJs 
 ople, and when he grumbled at not fyureipos, in the year 809 ; but there is 
 receiving an adequate remuneration no reason for supposing that these two 
 for his services, struck him violently were the same person.
 
 SECT, in KRUM AND MICHAEL I. 349 
 
 the time was not excluded from such debates. The war party 
 said, " We must not accept peace at the risk of subverting 
 the divine command ; for the Lord said, Him who cometh 
 unto me I will in no wise cast out," referring to the clause 
 concerning the surrender of refugees. The peace party, on 
 their side, submitted that in the first place there were, as a 
 matter of fact, no refugees, and secondly, even if there were, the 
 safety of a large number was more acceptable to God than the 
 safety of a few ; they suggested, moreover, that the real motive of 
 those who rejected the peace was a short-sighted parsimony, 1 and 
 that they were more desirous of saving the 30 Ibs. worth 
 of skins than concerned for the safety of deserters ; these 
 disputants were also able to retort upon their opponents passages 
 of Scripture in favour of peace. The war party prevailed. 
 
 Four days later the news came that Mesembria was taken. 
 The barbarians had found it well stocked with the comforts 
 of life, full of gold and silver ; and among other things they 
 discovered a considerable quantity of " Eoman Fire," and 
 thirty-six engines (large tubes) for hurling that deadly sub- 
 stance. But they did not occupy the place ; they left it, 
 like Sardica, dismantled and ruined. It would seem that, 
 not possessing a navy, they judged that Mesembria would 
 prove an embarrassing rather than a valuable acquisition. 
 
 All thoughts of peace were now put away, and the 
 Emperor made preparations to lead another expedition against 
 Bulgaria in the following year. In February (813) two 
 Christians who had escaped from the hands of Krurn announced 
 that he was preparing to harry Thrace. The Emperor 
 immediately set out and Krum was obliged to retreat, not 
 without some losses. In May all the preparations were ready. 
 The Asiatic forces had been assembled in Thrace, and even 
 the garrisons which protected the kleisurai leading into Syria 
 had been withdrawn to fight against a foe who was at this 
 moment more formidable than the Caliph. Lycaonians, 
 
 1 So I interpret Theophanes, TrXovrflv peace, and this is an instructive case 
 
 and fjuKpov nepdos (498). The majority of the autocrat being overruled by the 
 
 at least of the Senate were opposed opinion of the Senate. Cp. Bury, 
 
 to the peace, S.TOTTOV ((pavrj TO rCiv irpoff- Constitution of L.R.E., 31. The Con- 
 
 (ftvyuv TOIS TT)S ffvK\"firov /3oi/X?;s (Cent. tinuator of Theophanes remarks that 
 
 Theoph. 13) ; the opinion of Theo- the Bulgarian kings feared lest all 
 
 ktistos probably weighed heavily. the population should by degrees 
 
 Michael himself was in favour of migrate to Roman territory (ib.).
 
 350 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 Isaurians, Cilicians, Cappadocians, and Galatians were compelled 
 to march northwards, much against their will, and the Armeniacs 
 and Cappadocians were noticed as louder than the others in 
 their murmurs. As Michael and his generals issued from the 
 city they were accompanied by all the inhabitants, as far as 
 the Aqueduct. 1 Gifts and keepsakes showered upon the 
 officers, and the Empress Procopia herself was there, 
 exhorting the Imperial staff to take good care of Michael and 
 " to fight bravely for the Christians." 
 
 Michael, if he had some experience of warfare, had no 
 ability as a general, and he was more ready to listen to the 
 advice of the ministers who had gained influence over him in 
 the palace than to consult the opinion of two really competent 
 military men who accompanied the expedition. These were 
 Leo, general of the Anatolics, whom, as we have already seen, 
 he had recalled from exile, and John Aplakes, the general 
 of Macedonia. During the month of May the army moved 
 about Thrace, and was little less burdensome to the inhabitants 
 than 'the presence of an enemy. It was specially remarked 
 by contemporaries that no attempt was made to recover 
 Mesembria. Early in June Krum entered Eoman territory 
 and both armies encamped near Versinicia, 2 a place not far 
 from Hadrianople. At Versinicia, nearly twenty years before, 
 another Emperor had met another Khan. Then Kardani had 
 skulked in a wood, and had not ventured to face Constantine. 
 Krum, however, was bolder than his predecessor, and, contrary 
 to Bulgarian habit, did not shrink from a pitched battle. 
 For fifteen days they stood over against one another, neither 
 side venturing to attack, and the heat of summer rendered 
 this incessant watching a trying ordeal both for men and 
 for horses. At last John Aplakes, who commanded one wing, 
 composed of the Macedonian and Thracian troops, lost his 
 patience and sent a decisive message to the Emperor : " How 
 long are we to stand here and perish ? I will strike first in 
 the name of God, and then do ye follow up bravely, and 
 we can conquer. We are ten times more numerous than 
 
 1 For the position of Keduktos see ment of Scriptor Incertus. The latter 
 above, p. 101. is the fuller, and from it we learn the 
 
 2 Theoph. 500. Of this affair we details of the courage of John Aplakes 
 have two independent accounts, one (337 sqq. ) Jirecek (Geschicf/te, 145) 
 by Theophanes, the other in the Frag- wrongly places the battle in July.
 
 SECT, in KRUM AND MICHAEL I. 351 
 
 they." The Bulgarians, who stood on lower ground in the 
 valley, fell before the charge of Aplakes and his soldiers who 
 descended on them from a slight elevation ; but the brave 
 strategos of Macedonia was not supported by the centre and 
 the other wing. 1 There was a general flight without any 
 apparent cause, and the Anatolics were conspicuous among 
 the fugitives. Aplakes, left with his own men, far too few to 
 hold their ground, fell fighting. The enemy were surprised 
 and alarmed at this inexplicable behaviour of an army so far 
 superior in numbers, so famous for its discipline. Suspecting 
 some ambush or stratagem the Bulgarians hesitated to move. 
 But they soon found out that the flight was genuine, and 
 they followed in pursuit. The Romans threw away their 
 weapons, and did not arrest their flight until they reached 
 the gates of the capital. 
 
 Such was the strange battle which was fought between 
 Hadrianople and Versinicia on June 22, A.D. 813. It has 
 an interest as one of the few engagements in which an army 
 chiefly consisting of Slavs seems to have voluntarily opposed 
 a Roman host on open ground. As a rule the Slavs and 
 Bulgarians avoided pitched battles in the plain and only 
 engaged in mountainous country, where their habits and their 
 equipment secured them the advantage. But Kruin seems to 
 have been elated by his career of success, and to have conceived 
 for his opponents a contempt which prompted him to desert 
 the traditions of Bulgarian warfare. His audacity was rewarded, 
 but the victory was not due to any superiority on his side in 
 strategy or tactics. Historians have failed to realise the 
 difficulties which beset the battle of Versinicia, or to explain 
 the extraordinary spectacle of a Roman army, in all its force, 
 routed in an open plain by a far smaller army of Slavs 
 and Bulgarians. It was a commonplace that although the 
 Bulgarians were nearly sure to have the upper hand in moun- 
 tainous defiles they could not cope in the plain with a Roman 
 army, even much smaller than their own. The soldiers knew 
 this well themselves, 2 and it is impossible to believe that the 
 
 1 Our sources do not state the order and, perhaps, the Cappadocians ; the 
 
 of battle, but we may conclude that Opsikians, Armeniacs, and others would 
 
 Michael commanded the centre, have been in the centre. 
 Aplakes and Leo the two wings. 2 Scr. Incert. 338, tfaOev dt 
 
 Leo's wing consisted of the Anatolics KO./J.TTOV viKrjffai avrovs -
 
 352 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 Anatolic troops, disciplined by warfare against the far more 
 formidable Saracens, were afraid of the enemy whom they met 
 in Thrace. 
 
 The only reasonable explanation of the matter is treachery, 
 and treachery was the cause assigned by contemporary report. 1 
 The Anatolic troops feigned cowardice and fled ; their flight 
 produced a panic and the rest fled too. Others may have 
 been in the plot besides the Anatolics, but the soldiers of Leo, 
 the Armenian, were certainly the prime movers. The political 
 consequences of the battle show the intention of the Asiatic 
 troops in courting this defeat. The Emperor Michael lost 
 credit and was succeeded by Leo. This was what the Asiatic 
 soldiers desired. The religious side of Michael's rule was 
 highly unpopular in Phrygia and the districts of Mount Taurus, 
 and Michael himself was, probably, a Thracian or Macedonian. 
 The rivalry between the Asiatic and European nobles, which 
 played an important part at a later period of history, was 
 perhaps already beginning ; and it is noteworthy that the 
 Thracians and Macedonians under Aplakes were the only troops 
 who did not flee. Eeviewing all the circumstances, so far as 
 we know them, we cannot escape the conclusion that the 
 account is right which represents the regiments of Leo, if not 
 Leo himself, as guilty of intentional cowardice on the field of 
 Versinicia. It was planned to discredit Michael and elevate 
 Leo in his stead, and the plan completely succeeded. 
 
 1 The question really is, how far of Leo's conduct, one adverse and one 
 
 Leo was himself privy to the conduct favourable : (a) that Leo's retreat was 
 
 of his troops. Hirsch acquits Leo of treacherous ; (/3) that he was posted 
 
 eBeXoKada (p. 125). The data are as at a distance from the army by 
 
 follows : (1) Theophanes does not hint Michael and bidden not to take part 
 
 at intentional cowardice on the part in the combat at least this seems to 
 
 of either general or soldiers. But we be the meaning. Hirsch thinks that 
 
 must remember that Theophanes (a) was derived from some pasquinade 
 
 wrote the end of his history just at or Spottgedicht. (5) In Cont. Th. (14), 
 
 the time of Leo's accession, and says there are likewise two accounts : (a) 
 
 nothing unfavourable to that monarch. Leo led the flight, TTJV /3a.ffi\fiav det 
 
 (2) The Scriptor Incertus accuses the TTWS eTnftrGiv. This the author pro- 
 
 Qfya T&V avaroXiKuv, without specially fesses to have got from a written 
 
 mentioning the commander. As the source, tyypcKpus (from Ignatius ?). 
 
 author is violently hostile to Leo, (/3) Leo and his soldiers stood their 
 
 this silence is in Leo's favour. (3) ground bravely ; it was the soldiers 
 
 Ignatius, Vita Nicephori, c. 31, ac- commanded by the Emperor who fled, 
 
 cuses Leo as the author of the defeat My conclusion from all this is that 
 
 (p. 163) : TT/S iJTTTris Atuv TrpwrepydTys Leo was really in the plot, but played 
 
 yei>6fj.evos TTO.VTI T<$ ffrpaTOTrtdqi ryv fj.fr' his cards so cleverly that nobody could 
 
 alffxtivris fayty (paieta-aTO. (4) Genesios prove anything against him, although 
 
 states that there were two reports there were the gravest suspicions.
 
 SECT, iv BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 353 
 
 4. The Bulgarian Siege of Constantinople (A.D. 813) 
 
 After his victory over the army of Michael, the king of 
 the Bulgarians resolved to attempt the siege of two great 
 cities at the same time. He had good reason to be elated by 
 his recent successes against the Eoman Empire ; he might well 
 dream of winning greater successes still. He had achieved 
 what few enemies of the Empire in past time could boast that 
 they had done. He had caused the death of two Emperors 
 and the downfall of a third ; for he might attribute the 
 deposition of Michael to his own victory ; and within two 
 years he had annihilated one Koman army and signally defeated 
 another. In point of fact, these successes were due rather to 
 luck than to merit ; the Bulgarian king had shown craft 
 but no conspicuous ability in generalship ; the battles had not 
 been won by superiority in tactics or by signal courage. But 
 the facts could not be ignored ; the head of a Eoman 
 Emperor was a drinking-cup in the palace of Pliska, and a 
 large Eoman army had been routed near Hadrianople. 
 
 It was an ambition of Leo the Armenian, as has been 
 already noticed, to emulate the great Isaurian Emperors of 
 the previous century; and fortune gave him, at his very 
 accession, an opportunity of showing how far he could approach 
 in military prowess the Fifth Constantine, whom the Bulgarians 
 had found so formidable. Krum left his brother to blockade 
 the city of Hadrian, and advanced himself to lay siege to the 
 city of Constantine. He appeared before it six days after the 
 accession of the new Emperor. In front of the walls he made 
 a display of his power, and in the park outside the Golden 
 Gate he prepared sacrifices of men and animals. The Eomans 
 could see from the walls how this " new Sennacherib " laved 
 his feet on the margin of the sea and sprinkled his soldiers ; 
 they could hear the acclamations of the barbarians, and witness 
 the procession of the monarch through a line of his concubines, 
 worshipping and glorifying their lord. 1 He then asked the 
 Emperor to allow him to fix his lance on the Golden Gate as 
 an emblem of victory ; and when the proposal was refused he 
 
 1 These details are given by the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian 
 Scriptor Incertus (342). Krum's head- (ib. 343). 
 quarters seem to have been near the 
 
 2 A
 
 354 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 retired to his tent. 1 Having produced no impression by his 
 heathen parade, and having failed to daunt New Rome, he 
 threw up a rampart and plundered the neighbourhood for 
 several days. But there was no prospect of taking the queen 
 of cities where so many, greater than he, had failed before, and 
 he soon offered terms of peace, demanding as the price a large 
 treasure of gold and raiment, and a certain number of chosen 
 damsels. 2 The new Emperor Leo saw in the overtures of the 
 enemy a good opportunity to carry out a design, which in the 
 present age public opinion would brand as an infamous act of 
 treachery, but which the most pious of contemporary monks, 
 men by no means disposed to be lenient to Leo, regarded as 
 laudable. The chronicler Theophanes, whom Leo afterwards 
 persecuted, said that the failure of the plot was due to our sins. 3 
 
 The Emperor sent a message to Krum : " Come down to 
 the shore, with a few unarmed men, and we also unarmed will 
 proceed by boat to meet you. We can then talk together 
 and arrange terms." The place convened was on the Golden 
 Horn, just north of the seawall ; and at night three armed 
 men were concealed in a house 4 outside the Gate of Blachern, 
 with directions to issue forth and slay Krum when a certain 
 sign was given by one of Leo's attendants. 
 
 Next day the Bulgarian king duly rode down to the shore, 
 with three companions, namely his treasurer, 5 a Greek deserter, 
 Constantine Patzikos, who had married Krum's sister, and the 
 son of this Constantine. Krum dismounted and sat on the 
 ground ; his nephew held his horse ready, " saddled and 
 bridled." 6 Leo and his party soon arrived in the Imperial 
 barge, and while they conversed, Hexabulios, 7 who was with 
 Leo, suddenly covered his face with his hands. The motion 
 offended the sensitive pride of the barbarian ; highly offended 
 he started to his feet and leaped upon his horse. Nor was 
 he too soon ; for the gesture was the concerted sign, and the 
 
 1 Theoph. 503. Simeon transcribes 3 Theophanes, however, clearly 
 Theophanes with inconsiderable verbal wrote these pages in the first years of 
 changes (Leo Gr. 207). Leo's reign. 
 
 2 K al Kopbna MXeKra^TTjrdT^a. 4 iv Sw/MaTiol , Tl<Tiv rS)V rdX X,,. 
 These facts and the details of the 5 
 
 attempt to slay Krum are recorded by Mrywenff. 
 
 the Scriptor Incertus. Loparev (op. cit. 6 9Tfph xoXtrqulrOf' (Scr. Inc. 
 
 345) suggests that Krum was insist- 343). 
 
 ing on the fulfilment of the treat y of 7 Doubtless John Hexabulios (see 
 
 Kormisos or, as he thinks, of Tervel. above, p. 27).
 
 SECT, iv BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 355 
 
 armed ambush rushed out from the place of hiding. The 
 attendants of Krum pressed on either side of him as he rode 
 away, trying to defend him or escape with him ; but, as they 
 were on foot, the Greeks were able to capture them. Those 
 who watched the scene from the walls, and saw, as they 
 thought, the discomfiture of 'the pagan imminent, cried out, 
 " The cross has conquered " ; the darts of the armed soldiers 
 were discharged after the retreating horseman ; but though 
 they hit him he received no mortal wound, 1 and escaped, now 
 more formidable than ever, as his ferocity was quickened by 
 the thirst of vengeance. His treasurer was slain ; his brother- 
 in-law and nephew were taken alive. 
 
 On the next day the wrath of the deceived Bulgarian 
 blazed forth in literal fire. The inhabitants of the city, look- 
 ing across the Golden Horn, witnessed the conflagration of the 
 opposite suburbs, churches, convents, and palaces, which the 
 enemy plundered and destroyed. 2 They did not stay their 
 course of destruction at the mouth of the Golden Horn. They 
 burned the Imperial Palace of St. Mamas, which was situated 
 opposite to Scutari, at the modern Beshik-tash, to the south of 
 Orta Keui. 3 They pulled down the ornamental columns, and 
 carried away, to deck the residence of their king, the sculptured 
 images of animals which they found in the hippodrome of the 
 palace and packed in waggons. 4 All living things were 
 butchered. Their ravages were extended northwards along 
 the shores of the Bosphorus, and in the inland region behind. 5 
 But this was only the beginning of the terrible vengeance. The 
 suburbs outside the Golden Gate, straggling as far as Ehegion, 
 were consigned to the flames, and we cannot suppose that 
 their energy of destruction spared the palace of Hebdomon. 
 
 1 Ann. r. F., A.D. 813 "graviter (some placing it near Blachernae), 
 vulneratum." The notice in these has been demonstrated by Pargoire, 
 annals of the Bulgarian War and the S. Mamas. 
 
 accession of Leo was derived from the 4 Scr. Inc. ib. TO fwS/a. Theophanes, 
 
 Greek ambassadors who visited the 503, gives details : a bronze lion, a 
 
 court of Lewis in A.D. 814. Op. Neues bear, and a serpent, and other nd.pfj.apoi 
 
 Archiv, 21, 55. 4wl\eKToi. Shkorpil asserts (Ababa, 
 
 2 Scr. Inc. 344, clearly designates 116), that according to our sources 
 the locality by avrurtpav rrjs 7r6\eus. Krum also carried away some marble 
 Some of the larger churches here had columns. He may have done so, but 
 been recently restored by Irene, Nice- our sources do not say so. Scr. Inc. 
 phorus, and Michael. says that the Bulgarians TOI>J 
 
 3 The position of the palace, as to KarticXaffav. 
 
 which totally false ideas were current 5 Scr. Inc. ib. Kal rrjv &vw.
 
 356 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 The fort of Athyras and a bridge of remarkable size and 
 strength 1 over the river of the same name, which flows into 
 the Propontis, were destroyed. Along the western highroad 
 the avenger advanced till he reached Selymbria, where he 
 destroyed the churches and rased the citadel. The fort of 
 Daonin 2 was levelled, and the first obstacle in the path of 
 destruction was the strong wall of Heraclea which had once 
 defied Philip of Macedon. Unable to enter it the Bulgarians 
 burned the suburbs and the houses of the harbour. Continu- 
 ing their course, they rased the fort of Rhaedestos 3 and the 
 castle of Apros. Having spent ten days there, they marched 
 southward to the hills of Ganos, 4 whither men and beasts 
 had fled for concealment. The fugitives were easily dislodged 
 from their hiding-places by the practised mountaineers ; the 
 men were slain ; the women, children, and animals were sent 
 to Bulgaria. After a visit of depredation to the shore of the 
 Hellespont, the desolater returned slowly, capturing forts as 
 he went, to Hadrianople, which his brother had not yet 
 succeeded in reducing by blockade. Poliorcetic engines were 
 now applied ; hunger was already doing its work ; no relief 
 was forthcoming ; and the city perforce surrendered. All the 
 inhabitants, including the archbishop Manuel, were trans- 
 ported to " Bulgaria " beyond the Danube, 5 where they were 
 permitted to live in a settlement, governed by one of them- 
 selves and known as " Macedonia." 6 
 
 It was now the turn of the Imperial government to make 
 overtures for peace, and of the victorious and offended 
 Bulgarian to reject them. Leo then took the field himself 7 
 
 1 irapa^evov ofoav icai irdvv dxupu- Simeon (ib. 817) numbers the cap- 
 Tarrjv. For the locality see above, tives as 10,000 men, as well as women. 
 p. 102. The Chronography of Theophanes 
 
 2 The old Daunion teichos on the ends with the capture of Hadrianople 
 road from Selymbria to Heraclea. KO! Taijrrjv e\wv. The capture of 
 
 3 At this point the road left the the Archbishop Manuel we learn from 
 coast and reached the fort of Apros, the history of Basil I. by Constantine 
 more than twenty Roman miles W. of Porphyrogennetos, forming the 5th 
 Rhaedestos (Bisanthe). See Kiepert's Book of the Continuatio Theophanis, 
 Map of Illyricum and Thrace. 216. The parents of Basil lived in 
 
 4 On the coast of the Propontis, Hadrianople and were on this occasion 
 .over against Proconnesus. carried into captivity. 
 
 5 Scr. Inc. 345 e/s BovXyaplav tKeWev 6 See below, p. 370. 
 
 rov "Iffrpov TroTa/j.ou. Simeon (Cont. 7 This campaign is not noticed by 
 
 Oeorg. 765), Kal ^era \aov vXela-rov George or by the Scriptor Incertus. 
 
 SiaTrepdcras TU>V re cuyevwv Ma/ceSivwi', Our authority is the combined testi- 
 
 Ka,Tf<ricr)vwo'ev tv r<p Aacou/3t(f> irora,^. mony of Cont. Th. (24-25) and Genesios
 
 SECT, iv BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 357 
 
 and by a stratagem, successfully executed, he inflicted an 
 overwhelming defeat on the army of the enemy, or a portion of 
 it which was still active in the neighbourhood of Mesembria. 
 Entrenching himself near that city and not far from the 
 Bulgarian camp, he waited for some days. The Eoman troops 
 had command of abundant supplies, but he soon heard that the 
 Bulgarians were hard pressed for food. Confiding his plan 
 only to one officer, Leo left the camp by night with a company 
 of experienced warriors, and lay in ambush on an adjacent hill. 
 Day dawned, and the Eomans, discovering that the Emperor 
 was not in the camp, imagined that he had fled. The tidings 
 reached the camp of the enemy before evening, and the 
 barbarians thought that their adversaries were now delivered 
 an easy prey into their hands. Intending to attack the 
 Koman camp on the morrow, and meanwhile secure, they left 
 aside the burden of their arms and yielded to the ease of sleep. 
 Then Leo and his men descended in the darkness of the night 
 and wrought great slaughter. The Roman camp had been 
 advised of the stratagem just in time to admit of their co- 
 operation, and not soon enough to give a deserter the 
 opportunity of perfidy. The Bulgarians were annihilated ; 
 not a firebearer, to use the Persian proverb, escaped. This 
 success was followed up by an incursion into Bulgaria ; 
 and Leo's policy was to spare those who were of riper 
 
 (12-13), who drew here from a common bearing on the question, as his chronicle 
 
 source which is most fully reproduced ends with the capture of Hadrianople, 
 
 in Cont. Th. The .campaign must be and Leo's expedition was certainly 
 
 placed in the late autumn of A. D. 813, later. George's notices of military 
 
 after the capture of Hadrianople, events are so scrappy and meagre that 
 
 which probably determined Leo to his silence proves nothing. The Scr. 
 
 sue for peace. Jirecek assigns it to Inc. says that during the Bulgarian 
 
 A.D. 814 (Geschichte, 146), placing ravages which he has described Leo 
 
 Krum's death in A.D. 815. But it is did not leave the city (346 need TOVTUV 
 
 clear from the narrative of the Script. yfvofj^vwvoA.^uvTTj^-iroXewsovK^rjXOev). 
 
 Inc. that only one winter passed be- This was literally true, but the author, 
 
 tween Leo's accession and Krum's death bitterly hostile to Leo, cannot be 
 
 (346 sq.). Hirsch (125-126) regards considered incapable of having deliber- 
 
 this episode as a legend, suggesting ately suppressed a subsequent success, 
 
 that it was invented to explain the and his silence is not a convincing 
 
 name J3owbs A^OP-TOS. His grounds argument. The imputation of Ignatius 
 
 seem to be the silence of Theophanes came similarly from the hostile camp, 
 
 and Simeon, a statement of the Scr. which employed every weapon of 
 
 Inc. "iiber den ungiinstigen Verlauf calumny against the iconoclast. The 
 
 des Feldzuges," and the charge of details in Cont. Th. do not suggest a 
 
 inactivity brought against Leo in legend, and the account has been 
 
 Ignatius, Vit. Niceph. c. 34. But accepted by all historians (including 
 
 these arguments have no weight. Finlay, Hopf, and Hertzberg). 
 The silence of Theophanes has no
 
 358 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 years, while he destroyed their children by dashing them 
 against stones. 
 
 Henceforward the hill on which Leo had lain in ambush 
 " was named the hill of Leo, 1 and the Bulgarians, whenever 
 they pass that way, shake the head and point with the finger, 
 unable to forget that great disaster." 
 
 The ensuing winter was so mild, and the rivers so low, 
 that an army of 30,000 Bulgarians crossed the frontier and 
 advanced to Arcadiopolis. They passed the river Erginus and 
 made many captives. But when they returned to the river, 
 they found that a week's rain had rendered it impassable, and 
 they were obliged to wait for two weeks on the banks. The 
 waters gradually subsided, a bridge was made, and 50,000 
 captives were led back to Bulgaria, while the plunder was 
 carried in waggons, loaded with rich Armenian carpets, 
 blankets and coverlets, raiment of all kinds, and bronze 
 utensils. 2 His censorious critics alleged that the Emperor was 
 remiss in not seizing the opportunity to attack the invaders 
 during the enforced delay. 
 
 Shortly after this incursion, tidings reached Constantinople 
 that it was destined soon to be the object of a grand Bulgarian 
 expedition. Krum was himself engaged in collecting a great 
 host ; " all the Slavonias " were contributing soldiers ; and, from 
 his Empire beyond the Danube, Avars as well as Slavs were 
 summoned to take part in despoiling the greatest city in the 
 world. Poliorcetic machines of all the various kinds which 
 New Eome herself could dispose of were being prepared for 
 the service of Bulgaria. The varieties of these engines, of 
 which a list is recorded, must be left to curious students of 
 the poliorcetic art to investigate. There were " three-throwers " 
 and " four-throwers," tortoises, fire-hurlers and stone-hurlers, 
 rams, little scorpions, and " dart-stands," besides a large 
 supply of balls, slings, long ladders, levers, and ropes (opva<i), 
 and the inevitable " city-takers " (eXe-TroXet?). 3 In the stables 
 of the king fed a thousand oxen destined to draw the engines, 
 and five thousand iron-bound cars were prepared. The attempt 
 which had been made on his life still rankled in Krum's 
 
 1 6 flovvbs Atot>Tos. X a ^ K ^ aTa i$6fTUftai TTCLVTO, els 
 
 2 Scriptor Incertus, p. 347 'Ap/j.evia- He calls the Erginos the 'Prjylv 
 TIK& ffTpayXo/maXurdpia Kal vaKordirrp-a 3 Ib. 
 
 dvureoa Kal 1/j.a.Tia/j.bv iroXf/v Kal
 
 SECT, iv BULGARIAN SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 
 
 359 
 
 memory, and he determined to direct his chief efforts against 
 Blachernae, the quarter where the arrow had wounded 
 him. 
 
 Leo had taken measures for the defence of the city. He 
 employed a large number of workmen to build a new wall 1 
 outside that of Heraclius, and he caused a wide moat to be 
 dug. But, as it turned out, these precautions proved un- 
 necessary ; and, indeed, the work was not completed when 
 the death of Krum changed the situation. The most formid- 
 able of the Bulgarian monarch s with whom the Empire had 
 yet to deal died suddenly through the bursting of a blood- 
 vessel on the 14th of April 814, 2 and his plan perished 
 with him. 
 
 5. The Reign of Omurtag 
 
 After the death of Krum, Bulgaria was engaged and 
 distracted by a struggle for the throne. Of this political 
 crisis we have no clear knowledge, 3 but it appears that it 
 ended by the triumph of a certain Tsok over one, if not two, 
 rivals. The rule of Tsok is described as inhumane. He is 
 said to have required all the Christian captives, both clerical 
 and lay, to renounce their religion, and when they refused, 
 to have put them to death. But his reign was brief. It 
 
 1 See above, p. 94. 
 
 2 dopdrws ff<f>ayiaffdeis, streams of 
 blood issuing from mouth, nose, and ears 
 (Scr. Incert. 348). The cause of Attila's 
 death was similar. The date, accord- 
 ing to Roman captives who returned 
 from Bulgaria, was "the great Fifth 
 of Paschal," that is Holy Thursday- 
 April 14, 814 (Krug, Kritischer 
 Versuch, 156 ; Loparev, Dvie Zamietki, 
 348). The date 815 maintained by 
 Schafarik and Jire6ek cannot be 
 accepted in view of the data in Scr. Inc. 
 (see above, p. 357, n. 8). 
 
 3 In the Slavonic Prologue (ed. 
 Moscow, 1877, under Jan. 2, p. 42) 
 it is stated that after Krum's death 
 Dukum seized the throne, but died 
 and was succeeded by the cruel 
 Ditseng, who mutilated the hands of 
 Archbishop Manuel (see above, p. 356), 
 and was succeeded by Omurtag. In 
 the Menologion of Basil II., Tf<kos 
 6 dflewraroj is named as the successor 
 
 of Krum, and his persecution of the 
 Christian captives noticed (Pars ii., 
 Jan. 22, in Migne, P.O. 117, 276-277). 
 Loparev (op. cit. 348-349) thinks that 
 Dukum, Ditseng, and Tsok were only 
 military leaders who played an im- 
 portant role. I am disposed to 
 conjecture that Ditseng (who is 
 described as cruel and was slain) and 
 Tsok were one and the same. These 
 intermediate reigns are not mentioned 
 in the Greek chronicles, and Theo- 
 phylactus (as well as Cent. Th. 217) 
 represents Omurtag as Krum's successor 
 (Hist. xv. mart. 192). The name Tsok 
 occurs in the form Tfwfos in an in- 
 scription found north of Aboba, and 
 dated to the year A.M. 6328 = A. D. 819- 
 820, but so mutilated that little can be 
 madeofit(^6o6a, 226-227). According 
 to the Menol. Bas. it was Krum who 
 mutilated Archbishop Manuel, who 
 (ace. to Cont. Th. 217) was put to 
 death by Omurtag.
 
 360 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 was possibly before the end of the year (A.D. 814) that he 
 was slain, and succeeded by Omurtag, the son of Krum. 1 
 
 The first important act of the sublime Khan Omurtag 2 was 
 to conclude a formal treaty of peace with the Roman Empire 
 (A.D. 815-816). It is probable that a truce or preliminary 
 agreement had been arranged immediately after Krum's death, 3 
 but when Krum's son ascended the throne negotiations were 
 opened which led to a permanent peace. 4 The contracting 
 parties agreed that the treaty should continue in force for 
 thirty years, with a qualification perhaps that it should be 
 confirmed anew at the expiration of each decennium. 6 A 
 fortunate chance has preserved a portion of what appears to 
 be an official abstract of the instrument, inscribed on a 
 marble column and set up in the precincts of his residence at 
 Pliska by order of the Bulgarian king. 6 Provision was made 
 for the interchange and ransom of captives, 7 and the question 
 of the surrender of deserters, on which the negotiations 
 between Krum and Michael I. had fallen through, was settled 
 in a manner satisfactory to Omurtag. All the Slavs who 
 had been undoubtedly subject to the Bulgarians in the period 
 before the war, and had deserted to the Empire, were to be 
 sent back to their various districts. The most important 
 articles concerned the delimitation of the frontier which 
 
 1 That Omurtag was son of Krum expiration (avveir^pow cxeS&v, Gen. 
 is directly affirmed by Theophylactus loc. cit.). Jirecek dates the treaty A.D. 
 (loc. cit.) ; and would be probable from 815, Loparev and Zlatarski 816. I 
 the fact that Omurtag's son Malamir am inclined to believe that 815-816 
 calls Krum " my grandfather " (inscrip- is right (not 814, as I argued op. cit.). 
 tion in Aboba, 233) the alternative We must not press too far the <rx S v 
 being that Omurtag was Krum's son-in- of Genesios ; and other evidence makes 
 law. it likely that the twentieth year of 
 
 2 The true form of the name, attested the period determined c. 836, and the 
 by his inscriptions ('tifj-ovprdy), is thirtieth c. 846. 
 
 preserved in Latin sources (Omortag). 6 This seems to be implied in the 
 
 Theophylactus (Hist. xv. mart, 192) calls passage of Genesios. 
 
 him '0/j.^pirayos, the Greek chronicles 6 The inscription of Suleiman-keui 
 
 have Moprdyui> or Movrpdyuv. (Aboba, 220 sqq. ). Uspenski proposed 
 
 3 I have conjectured (Bulgarian to refer it to the beginning of the 
 Treaty of A.D. 814, pp. 286-287) that a reign of Michael II. I have shown 
 fragment of such an agreement may (op. cit.) that it contains a text or 
 be preserved in the inscription of abstract of the Thirty Years' Treaty. 
 Eski-Juma (Aboba, 226). 7 The common people (private 
 
 4 Cont. Th. expressly ascribes the soldiers) were to be interchanged, 
 treaty to Omurtag (658 irpbs atrbv), man for man. A ransom of so much a 
 Genesios (41 717)65 atiroijs) leaves it open. head was to be paid for Roman officers. 
 For the further evidence of the in- A special arrangement was made for 
 scription of Malamir see rny article on the redemption of Greeks who had 
 the treaty (op. cit.). In 823 the first been found in forts which the com- 
 decennium of the thirty years was near manders had deserted.
 
 SECT, v THE REIGN OF OMURTAG 361 
 
 divided Thrace between the two sovrans. 1 The new boundary 
 ran westward from Develtos to Makrolivada, a fortress situated 
 between Hadrianople and Philippopolis, close to the junction 
 of the Hebrus with its tributary the Arzus. At Makrolivada 
 the frontier-line turned northward and proceeded to Mt. 
 Haemus. The Bulgarians, who put their faith in earthworks 
 and circumvallations, proposed to protect the boundary, and 
 give it a visible form, by a rampart and trench. The Imperial 
 government, without whose consent the execution of such a 
 work would have been impossible, agreed to withdraw the 
 garrisons from the forts in the neighbourhood of the frontier 
 during the construction of the fortification, in order to avoid 
 the possibility of hostile collisions. 
 
 The remains of the Great Fence, 2 which marked the 
 southern boundary of the Bulgarian kingdom in the ninth 
 and tenth centuries, can be traced across Thrace, and are 
 locally known as the Erkesiia. 3 Some parts of it are visible 
 to the eye of the inexperienced traveller, while in others the 
 line has disappeared or has to be investigated by the diligent 
 attention of the antiquarian. Its eastern extremity is near 
 the ruins of Develtos, 4 on that inlet of the Black Sea whose 
 horns were guarded by the cities of Anchialus and Apollonia. 
 It can be followed easily in its westward course, past 
 Eusokastro, as far as the river Tundzha, for about forty miles ; 
 beyond that river it is more difficult to trace, 5 but its western 
 extremity seems to have been discovered at Makrolivada, near 
 the modern village of Trnovo-Seimen. 6 The line roughly 
 
 1 It is possible that some new orders, by men and women, and so 
 small district was conceded to the pressing was the work that only one 
 Bulgarians. Michael Syr. 26 states woman was left at home to take care 
 that Leo made peace with them, sur- of nine children. The same story is 
 rendering to them the marsh for which told elsewhere among the Slavs, of the 
 they fought. erection of great buildings. 
 
 2 fjLfyaXi) crovda, Cedrenus, ii. 372. 4 Colonia Flavia PacisDeultensium, 
 
 3 So called from the Tmkishjerkesen, or Deultum, founded by Vespasian, 
 a cutting in the earth. The eastern was called in Byzantine times Ae/3e\T6s. 
 part of its course is described by The traces of the " wall " begin at the 
 Jirecek, Fiirstenthum, 505 sq. Sur- west end of the lagoon of Mandra. 
 viving legends as to the origin of the 5 The length of the western section 
 structure are mentioned by Jirec'ek from the Tundzha is 64 kils., a little 
 (Arch.-ep. Mitth. x. 137) and Shkorpil less than the eastern. 
 
 (Aboba, 542). Jirecek heard at Ruso- 6 Near the junction of R. Hebrus and 
 
 kastro the tradition that the rampart R. Arzus, now called Sazly-dere. The 
 
 was sinor (yuvopov) a boundary (be- Roman station Arzus is doubtless to 
 
 tween the dominions of two brothers : be identified with the ruins at Teke- 
 
 Shkorpil) ; it was wrought, by a tsar's Musachevo, and here the rampart was
 
 362 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 corresponds to the modern boundary between Turkey and 
 Bulgaria. The rampart was on the north, the ditch on the 
 south, showing that it was designed as a security against the 
 Empire ; the rampart was probably surmounted, like the wall 
 of Pliska, by timber palisades, 1 and the Bulgarians maintained 
 a constant watch and ward along their boundary fences. 2 
 In the eastern section, near the heights of Meleona, the line 
 of defence was strengthened by a second entrenchment to 
 the south, extending for about half a mile in the form of a 
 bow, and locally known as the Gipsy Erkesiia, but we do not 
 know the origin or date of this fortification. 3 It would seem 
 that the Bulgarians contented themselves with this fence, for 
 no signs have been discovered of a similar construction on the 
 western frontier, between Makrolivada and the mountains. 
 
 Sanctity was imparted to the contract by the solemn 
 rites of superstition. Omurtag consented to pledge his faith 
 according to the Christian formalities, while Leo, 011 his part, 
 showing a religious toleration only worthy of a pagan, 
 did not scruple to conform to the heathen customs of the 
 barbarians. Great was the scandal caused to pious members 
 of the Church when the Eoman Emperor, " peer of the 
 Apostles," poured on the earth a libation of water, swore 
 upon a sword, sacrificed dogs, and performed other unholy 
 rites. 4 Greater, if possible, was their indignation, when the 
 
 cut by the great military road from 1 Cp. Theoph. 490, the use of 
 Hadrianople to Philippopolis. The tyXiva oxvp^ara. 
 western section was cut by another 2 Nicolaus, Responsa, 25. 
 road which branched off from the 3 Aboba, 542-543. Tradition says 
 military road at Lefke and led over that the Tsar's soldiers were called 
 the Balkans to Nicopolis on the away before they had completed the 
 Jantra ; and also by the road from chief entrenchment, and ordered the 
 Hadrianople to Kabyle (Sliven), which gipsies to finish it. The gipsies de- 
 followed the right bank of the fleeted the line to the south, and the 
 Tundzha (Aboba, 539-540). Shkorpil soldiers when they returned continued 
 thinks that the frontier continued their entrenchment in its previous 
 westward (no traces of the wall are direction. 
 
 found beyond Teke - Musachevo) to * Ignatius, Vit. Nie. p. 206. This 
 
 Constantia (S. Kostenets) in the passage is ignored by Bulgarian his- 
 
 northern foothills of Rhodope, and torians, though it points to some 
 
 thence northward to the pass of Succi curious and obscure customs, tv ah 
 
 (BovXyapiicri AcXetcrts) near Ichtiman ; (ffv/jiftafffffi) fivopavrov /SacrtA^a 'Pw/zcu'wi' 
 
 whence beyond the mountains it fol- IK KI'I\IKOS vdup /card yrjs tiriXelfiovTa, 
 
 lowed the line of the middle entrench- tTrio-d'Yfji.aTa. 'iiriruv avrovpyus avaarpt- 
 
 ment of West Bulgaria (from Khairediu <povra, 1/jLdvTuv ivrpiruv airTofj.fvov, Kal 
 
 to Kiler-bair-kale on the Danube). %6proj/ et's v\j/os aXpovra. Kal 8ia iravruv 
 
 But Constantia, which is mentioned TO^TUV eavrov tirapu>/j.evov. For the 
 
 in the inscriptions as on the frontier, sacrifice of dogs see Cont. Th. p. 31 ; 
 
 was probably a different place. Jirecek, Geschichte, p. 132.
 
 SECT, v THE REIGN OF OMURTAG 363 
 
 heathen envoys were invited to pollute by their touch a 
 copy of the Holy Gospels ; and to these impieties earth- 
 quakes and plagues, which happened subsequently, were 
 attributed. 1 
 
 This peace, which the Bulgarians considered satisfactory 
 for many years to come, 2 enabled Omurtag to throw his 
 energy into the defence of his western dominions against the 
 great German Empire, which had begun to threaten his 
 influence even in regions south of the Danube. The Slavonic 
 peoples were restless under the severe yoke of the sublime 
 Khan, and they were tempted by the proximity of the 
 Franks, whose power had extended into Croatia, to turn to 
 the Emperor Lewis for protection. The Slavs of the river 
 Timok, on the borders of Servia, who were under Bulgarian 
 lordship, had recently left their abodes and sought a refuge 
 within the dominion of Lewis. 3 Their, ambassadors presented 
 themselves at his court in A.D. 818, but nothing came of the 
 embassy, for the Timocians were induced 4 to throw in their 
 lot with Liudewit, the Croatian 2upan, who had defied the 
 Franks and was endeavouring to establish Croatian inde- 
 pendence. It seemed for a moment that the Croatian leader 
 might succeed in creating a Slavonic realm corresponding to 
 the old Diocese of Illyricum, and threatening Italy and Bavaria; 
 but the star of Liudewit rose and declined rapidly ; he was 
 unable to cope with the superior forces of Lewis, and his 
 flight was soon followed by his death (A.D. 823). 5 The 
 Franks established their ascendency in Croatia, and soon after- 
 wards Bulgarian ambassadors appeared in Germany and 
 sought an audience of the Emperor (A.D. 824). 6 It was the 
 first time that a Frank monarch had received an embassy 
 from a Bulgarian khan. The ambassadors bore a letter from 
 Omurtag, who seems to have proposed a pacific regulation of 
 
 1 Gen. 28. raised that he would fix his sword els 
 
 2 It was doubtless renewed at the ryv %aXK^v &\uva rfjs ai)\^s avrwv 
 expiration of the decennial and even if it had any value obviously 
 vicennial periods. Michael Syr. 50 (cp. refers to the situation before the peace 
 73) says the Bulgarians submitted to (Epist. Synod, ad Theoph. 368). 
 Theophilus This, if it means any- 3 Ann . ^ Fr . 818 p . 149 . 
 
 thing, probably means that on the . 
 
 accession of Theophilus the peace was lb - 8iy > ?' 15U ' 
 
 confirmed. As to hostile designs of 5 lb. p. 161. 
 
 Leo against Bulgaria after the treaty, 6 Ib. p. 164. The embassy arrived 
 
 there is no evidence. The anecdote at the beginning of the year, and re- 
 
 that Sabbatios (see above, p. 59) pro- turned at Christmas (p. 165).
 
 364 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 the boundaries between the German and Bulgarian dominions. 1 
 Their empires touched at Singidunum, which was now a 
 Croatian town, 2 under its new Slavonic name of Belgrade, 
 the " white city," and the Bulgarian ruler probably claimed 
 that his lordship extended, northward from Belgrade, as far 
 perhaps as Pest, to the banks of the Danube. The Emperor 
 Lewis cautiously determined to learn more of Bulgaria and 
 its king before he committed himself to an answer, and he 
 sent the embassy back along with an envoy of his own. 3 
 They returned to Bavaria at the end of the year. In the 
 meantime an embassy arrived from a Slavonic people, whose 
 denomination the German chroniclers disguised under the 
 name Praedenecenti. 4 They were also known, or were a 
 branch of a people known, as the Abodrites, and must be 
 carefully distinguished from the northern Abodrites, whose 
 homes were on the Lower Elbe. This tribe, who seem to 
 have lived on the northern bank of the Danube, to the east 
 of Belgrade, suffered, like the Timocians, under the oppressive 
 exactions of the Bulgarians, and, like them, looked to the 
 advance of the Franks as an opportunity for deliverance. 
 Lewis, whom they had approached on previous occasions, 5 
 received their envoys in audience, and kept the Bulgarians 
 waiting for nearly six months. Finally he received them at 
 Aachen, and dismissed them with an ambiguous letter to their 
 master. 6 
 
 It is clear that Lewis deemed it premature to commit his 
 policy to a definite regulation of the boundaries of the south- 
 eastern mark, or to give any formal acknowledgment to the 
 Bulgarian claims on the confines of Pannonia and Croatia ; 
 but he hesitated to decline definitely the proposals of the 
 
 
 
 1 Ib. " velut pacis faciendae "; 167, denecenti is a corruption of a name 
 " de terminis ac finibus inter Bulgaros connected with Branitschevo, which 
 ac Francos constituendis." lay on the Danube, where the Mlava 
 
 2 Constantine, De adm. imp. 151, flows in, and corresponded to the 
 enumerates rb J$e\6ypa8oi> among the ancient Viminacium. The site is 
 Croatian towns. Op. 153 8 . marked by the ruins of Branitsc he vats 
 
 3 Ann. r. Fr. p. 164, "ad explo- and Kostolats. See Schafarik, ii. 209 ; 
 randam diligentius insolitae et nun- Diimmler, Slawen in Dalm. 376 ; Sim- 
 quam prius in Franciam venientis son, Ludwiy der Fr. i. 139. 
 legationis causam." 5 In A.r>. 818 (Ann. r. Fr. 149) and 
 
 4 Ib. 165, " Abodritorum qui vulgo A.D. 822 (ib. 159). Cp. Diimmler, 
 Praedenecenti vocantur et contermini Siidostl. Marfcen, 28. 
 
 Bulgaris Daciam Danubio adiacentem 8 Ib. 167. Astronomus, Vila Hludo- 
 
 incolunt." It is supposed that Prae- vici, c. 39 (M.G.H., Scr. ii.).
 
 SECT, v THE REIGN OF OMURTAG 365 
 
 Khan. Omurtag, impatient of a delay which encouraged the 
 rebellious spirit of his Slavonic dependencies, indited another 
 letter, which he dispatched by the same officer who had been 
 the bearer of his first missive (A.D. 826). 1 He requested the 
 Emperor to consent to an immediate regulation of the frontier ; 
 and if this proposal were not acceptable, he asked that, 
 without any formal treaty, each power should keep within 
 his own borders. The terms of this message show that the 
 principal object of Omurtag was an agreement which should 
 restrain the franks from intervening in his relations to his 
 Slavonic subjects. Lewis found a pretext for a new postpone- 
 ment. A report reached him that the Khan had been slain 
 or dethroned by one of his nobles, and he sent an emissary 
 to the Eastern Mark to discover if the news were true. As 
 no certain information could be gained, 2 he dismissed the envoy 
 without a letter. 
 
 The sublime Khan would wait no longer on the Emperor's 
 pleasure. Policy as well as resentment urged him to take 
 the offensive, for, if he displayed a timid respect towards the 
 Franks, his prestige among the Slavs beyond the Danube 
 was endangered. The power of Bulgaria was asserted by an 
 invasion of Pannonia (A.D. 827). A fleet of boats sailed from 
 the Danube up the Drave, carrying a host of Bulgarians who 
 devastated with fire and sword the Slavs and Avars of Eastern 
 Pannonia. The chiefs of the Slavonic tribes were expelled 
 and Bulgarian governors were set over them. 3 Throughout 
 the ninth century the Bulgarians were neighbours of the 
 Franks in these regions, and seem to have held both Sirmium 
 and Singidunum. 4 We may be sure that Omurtag did 
 not fail to lay a heavy hand on the disloyal Slavs of 
 Dacia. 
 
 The operations of Omurtag in this quarter of his empire 
 are slightly illustrated by an incidental memorial, in a stone 
 recording the death of Onegavon. This officer, who was one 
 of the king's " men " and held the post of tarkan, was on his 
 
 1 Ib. 168. parently in summer. 
 
 2 This was early in the year. As 4 Cp. Diimmler, Siidb'stl. Marken, 
 late as June nothing certain could be 28-29, and Slawen in Dalm. 46 sqq. ; 
 ascertained (ib. 170). This illustrates Schafarik, ii. 176. For Singidunum 
 the lack of communications between (Belgrade) cp. Pope John VIII. Letter 
 Bulgaria and the West. to Boris, Mansi, xvii. 64 ; Vita Clemen- 
 
 3 Ib. 173. The expedition was ap- tis, ed. Miklosich, c. 16, p. 22,
 
 366 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 way to the Bulgarian camp and was drowned in crossing the 
 river Theiss. 1 
 
 A similar memorial, in honour of Okorses, who in proceed- 
 ing to a scene of war was drowned in the Dnieper, 2 shows 
 that the arms of Omurtag were also active in the East. The 
 situation in the Pontic regions, where the dominion of the 
 Bulgarians confronted the empire of the Khazars, is at this time 
 veiled in obscurity. The tents of the Magyars extended over 
 the region between the Don and the Dnieper. 3 The country to 
 the west was exposed to their raids, and not many years later 
 we shall find their bands in the neighbourhood of the Danube. 
 The effect of the Magyar movement would ultimately be to 
 press back the frontier of Great Bulgaria to the Danube, but 
 they were already pressing the Inner Bulgarians into a small 
 territory north of the Sea of Azov, and thus dividing by an 
 alien and hostile wedge the continuous Bulgarian fringe 
 which had extended along the northern coast of the Euxine. 
 Although the process of the Magyar advance is buried in 
 oblivion, it is not likely that it was not opposed by the 
 resistance of the lords of Pliska, and it is tempting to surmise 
 that the military camp to which the unlucky Okorses was 
 bound when the waters of the Dnieper overwhelmed him was 
 connected with operations against the Magyars. 
 
 From the scanty and incidental notices of Omurtag which 
 occur in the Greek and Latin chronicles, we should not have 
 been able to guess the position which his reign takes in 
 the internal history of Bulgaria. Bub the accidents of 
 time and devastation have spared some of his own records, 
 which reveal him as a great builder. He constructed two new 
 palaces, or palatial fortresses, one on the bank of the Danube, 
 the other at the gates of the Balkans, and both possessed 
 strategic significance. Tutrakau, the ancient Transmarisca (to 
 the east of Kustchuk), marks a point where the Danube, 
 divided here by an island amid-stream, offers a conspicuously 
 convenient passage for an army. Here the Emperor Valens 
 built a bridge of boats, and in the past century the Kussians 
 have frequently chosen this place to throw their armies across 
 
 1 Aboba, 191 'Slveyapov . . . [dirJeXflwc ~ lb. 190 'ftKopcrijs 6 KOWO.VOS. 
 
 k] rb (f)ov<ra.rov tirvlyijv ei's TT}\V~\ 3 For the Hungarians see below, p. 
 
 ria-av rbv irora.iJ.bv. 423 and Appendix XII.
 
 SECT, v THE REIGN OF OMURTAG 367 
 
 the river. 1 The remains of a Bulgarian fortress of stone and 
 earth, at the neighbouring Kadykei, 2 probably represent the 
 stronghold which Omurtag built to command the passage of 
 Transmarisca. 3 On an inscribed column, 4 which we may still 
 read in one of the churches of Tyrnovo, whither the pagan 
 monument was transported to serve an architectural use, it is 
 recorded that " the sublime Khan Omurtag, living in his old 
 house (at Pliska), made a house of high renown on the 
 Danube." But the purpose of this inscription is not to 
 celebrate the building of this residence, but to chronicle the 
 construction of a sepulchre which Omurtag raised half-way 
 between his " two glorious houses " and probably destined for 
 his own resting-place. The measurements, which are carefully 
 noted in the inscription, have enabled modern investigators to 
 identify Omurtag's tomb with a large conical mound or 
 kurgan close to the village of Mumdzhilar. 5 The memorial 
 concludes with a moralising reflexion : " Man dies, even if he 
 live well, and another is born, and let the latest born, con- 
 sidering this writing, remember him who made it. The name 
 of the . ruler is Omurtag, Kanas Ubege. God grant that he 
 may live a hundred years." 
 
 If the glorious house on the Danube was a defence, in 
 the event of an attack of Slavs or other enemies coming 
 from the north, Omurtag, although he lived at peace with the 
 Koman Empire, thought it well to strengthen himself against 
 his southern neighbours also, in view of future contingencies. 
 The assassination of Leo and the elevation of Michael II., 
 whose policy he could not foresee, may have been a determin- 
 ing motive. At all events it was in the year following this 
 change of dynasty 6 that Omurtag built a new royal residence 
 and fortress in the mountains, on the river Tutsa, 7 command- 
 
 1 Cp. Abobn, 562. discovery of an official inscription there 
 
 3 Uspenski, ib. 552, identifies (Aboba, 228) justify the identification 
 
 Kadykei with the Roman Nigrinianae. of Uspenski. See ib. 519, 551-552. 
 
 Under the remains of the Bulgarian 4 Printed by Jiredek, Geschichte, 
 
 fortress there is a stratum of Roman 148 ; by Uspenski, with improved 
 
 work. text, in drevn. gor. Tyrnova, 5. 
 
 3 The inscription (see next note) Jirecek's translation is in several 
 
 gives 40,000 dpyvicu as the distance points incorrect. 
 
 between the old and the new palace. 5 Aboba, 553. 
 
 This (45 kilometres) corresponds to 6 A.D. 821-822. See inscription 
 
 the distance of Pliska from Silistria translated below. 
 
 and from Kadykei. The Bulgarian 7 Now called the Great Kamchiia. 
 
 fortress at the latter place and the It is mentioned by Theophanes (436 2 ),
 
 368 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 ing the pass of Veregava, by which Eoman armies had been 
 wont to descend upon Pliska, as well as the adjacent pass of 
 Verbits. We do not know how the new town which the King 
 erected in front of the mountain defiles was called in his own 
 tongue, but the Slavs called it Preslav, " the glorious," a name 
 which seems originally to have been applied to all the palaces 
 of the Bulgarian kings. 1 It is not probable that Omurtag 
 intended to transfer his principal residence from the plain to 
 the hills, 2 but his new foundation was destined, as Great Pre- 
 slav, to become within a hundred years the capital of Bulgaria. 
 The foundation of the city is recorded on a large lime- 
 stone column which was dug out of the earth a few years ago 
 at Chatalar, 3 about four miles from the ruins of Preslav. " The 
 sublime Khan Omurtag is divine ruler in the land where he 
 was born. Abiding in the Plain 4 of Pliska, he made a palace 
 (aule) on the Tutsa and displayed his power to the Greeks and 
 Slavs. 5 And he constructed with skill a bridge over the 
 Tutsa. And he set up in his fortress 6 four columns, and 
 between the columns he set two bronze lions. 7 May God 
 grant that the divine ruler may press down the Emperpr with 
 his foot so long as the Tutsa flows, 8 that he may procure 
 
 where the texts give elffrfKOev (sc. 4 is ris HXcr/cas rov KO.(^}TTOV. Doubt- 
 
 Constantine V.) eh Rov\yaplav ws rov less /cd/xTros designates not the whole 
 
 Tfi/cas, but one MS. has ToiVfas. In ireoiov of Aboba, but the fortified 
 
 Anna Comnena (7. 3) it is called enclosure of Pliska. 
 
 Rirfiva. See Aboba, 547. 5 KCLI [ ] rr\v 5itva.fj.lv TOV [t's] 
 
 1 Preslav corresponds to Trd^/w, r P MK ^ . l a > Sfd^. Uspenski 
 the adjective applied to the house on supplies ftnrye. But Omurtag lived at 
 the Danube and to Pliska in the peace with the Greeks. I would supply 
 Tyrnovo inscription (TO, dvo VKO rov (Se & (*W . r TT some equivalent, and 
 Kanftfw, a genitive plural wrongly "".tore " = (Uspenski Art) 
 
 taken for oltov rbv TT. by Jiredek ; see r . /MW".] al frflM s *T& 
 
 Bury, App. 10 to Gibbon, vi.). The T{* f^T^T (Uspenski). K^rpov, I 
 
 palace on the Danube is also called f^fe. V 3 ri S ht > but ^r,vey K ev very 
 
 vireptwos (ib.). Cp. rb apxaibrarov aoubttul. 
 
 Mptw* and IM$ Inurar tfw in " l re , ad Kal ^ a M" * uv .' ^ 
 
 an inscription of Malamir ( Aboba, 233). foui ; colum s narked a space in the 
 
 This word, like preslav, evidently c ? ntr , e of ^ lch were thc two ions, or 
 
 translated a Bulgarian appellative. " cl , se two columns were on either side 
 
 x ^ ot a gateway and the lions between 
 
 2 Uspenski thinks that the use of them. Uspenski restores Kal [eh fv]a. 
 av\r} in the inscription implies the ("and placed two lions on one of the 
 " transference of the capital " (Aboba, columns "), an arrangement which 
 547). But why should not the Khan sounds too inartistic to be credible, 
 have two av\al ? 8 ^ T ^ v ^[da] avrov rbv /3cwiX<?a 
 
 3 See Aboba, 546 sqq., for the inscrip- Ka^^eiv ?ws Tpe]x[y] V ToOrfa. I 
 tion and the circumstance of its read Kd/j.ij/iv (the future is required) ; 
 discovery. Chatalar is close to the Uspenski gives /cci/wi-mc. Karapa\ew 
 railway station of Preslav-Krumovo. might also be thought of.
 
 SECT, v THE REIGN OF OMURTAG 369 
 
 many captives for the Bulgarians, 1 and that subduing his foes 
 he may, in joy and happiness, live for a hundred years. The 
 date of the foundation was the Bulgarian year shegor alem, or 
 the fifteenth indiction of the Greeks" (A.D. 821-822). In 
 this valuable record of the foundation of Preslav, we may 
 note with interest the hostile reference to the Roman Emperor 
 as the chief and permanent enemy of Bulgaria, although at 
 this time Bulgaria and the Empire were at peace. It was 
 probably a standing formula which had originally been 
 adopted in the reign of some former king, when the two 
 powers were at war. 
 
 It has been already related how Omurtag intervened in 
 the civil war between Michael and Thomas, how he defeated 
 the rebel on the field of Keduktos, and returned laden with 
 spoils (A.D. 823). This was his only expedition into Eoman 
 territory: the Thirty Years' Peace was preserved inviolate 
 throughout his reign. The date of his death is uncertain. 2 
 
 6. The Reigns of Malamir and Boris 
 
 Omurtag was succeeded by his youngest son Presiam, 3 
 though one at least of his elder sons was still living. 
 Presiam is generally known as Malamir, a Slavonic name which 
 he assumed, perhaps toward the end of his reign. The 
 adoption of this name is a landmark in the gradual process of 
 the assertion of Slavonic influence in the Bulgarian realm. 
 We may surmise that it corresponds to a political situation in 
 which the Khan was driven to rely on the support of his 
 Slavonic subjects against the Bulgarian nobles. 
 
 We have some official records of the sublime Khan 
 Malamir, 4 though not so many or so important as the records 
 
 1 /ecu [5]6cr[77 ai'x^aXw]Tous 7ro\Xoi)s eldest son and survived Omurtag, ac- 
 /3ou\7d[/3]iy. I translate this extremely cording to the story told by Theophy- 
 uncertain restoration of Uspenski, only lactus, op. cit. 192. See below, p. 382. 
 substituting Slxriv, i.e. duo-eiy, for his 4 We know that Malamir was ruler 
 duffy. of Bulgaria in the reign of Theophilus 
 
 2 Later than A.D. 827. See above, from Simeon (Cont. Georg. 818). The 
 p. 365. Zlatarski dates the reign as vers. Slav. 101 calls him Vladimir, 
 814-831/2 (see Aboba, 236). and so the Cod. Par. 854 and Vatic. 
 
 3 The evidence, as I hold, points to 1807 ; the printed texts of Cont. 
 the identity of Presiam with Malamir ; Georg., Leo Gr., and Theod. Mel. 
 see Appendix X. Enravotas, also have Ba.X5ifj.ep. The error may have 
 called Boivos (is this Bulgarian Baian arisen from confusion with a later 
 or Slavonic "warrior"?), was the Khan Vladimir, who succeeded Boris, 
 
 2 B
 
 370 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 of his father. We have a memorial column of Tsepa, a boilad 
 and king's liegeman who died of illness. 1 From another 
 stone we learn that Isbules, the kaukhan, who was one of the 
 king's old boilads, built an aqueduct for Malamir at his own 
 expense. This aqueduct was probably to supply one of the 
 royal palaces. Malamir celebrated the occasion by giving a 
 feast to the Bulgarians, and bestowing many gifts upon the 
 boilads and bagains. 2 
 
 There was some risk that the treaty with the Empire 
 might be denounced during the reign of Theophilus. 
 
 The Thracian and Macedonian captives who had been 
 transported by Krum to regions beyond the Danube 3 formed 
 a plan to return to their homes. This colony of exiles, who 
 are said to have numbered 12,000 not counting females, were 
 permitted to choose one of their own number as a governor, 
 and Kordyles, who exercised this function, contrived to make 
 his way secretly to Constantinople and persuaded Theophilus 
 to send ships to rescue the exiles and bring them home. 
 This act was evidently a violation of the Thirty Years' Peace, 
 and at the same moment the Bulgarian ruler was engaged in a 
 
 and Zlatarski suggests that the return of the captives in this chronicle 
 narrative was derived by Simeon is confused, but has no legendary 
 from a hagiographical work (where details and is evidently based upon 
 such a confusion would not be sur- genuine facts. One difficulty lies in 
 prising). But it may be suggested the position of Kordyles. He is 
 that Simeon or his source wrote described as ffTparriXdT-rjs tv Ma/ceSov/p, 
 MaXi^/j ; the form of /j. in tenth-cent. and he left his son "to govern the 
 MSS. was liable to confusion with /3, Macedonians beyond the Danube " 
 and if the word was read BaXt/^/> the instead of himself. Then, after their 
 further corruption was almost inevit- failure to escape across Bulgaria, the 
 able. In any case the identification captives, who are throughout called 
 is certain. Simeon states that "the Macedonians," make Kordyles 
 " Baldimer " was grandson of Krum, and Tzantzes their leaders. It seems 
 and Malamir was Omurtag's son. In clear that there is a confusion between 
 the inscriptions his name is written Macedonia and the "Macedonian" 
 MaXa^p and MaXa^ip. Zlatarski settlement in Bulgaria, and that 
 (who distinguishes Presiam from M. ) Kordyles was not strategos of Mace- 
 thinks that M. reigned from 831/2 to donia, but governor of the Macedonian 
 836/7 ; cp. Appendix X. exiles. This is confirmed by the state- 
 
 1 Abrfoa 191 ment that Kordyles had to use a device 
 
 (/jLera /jLr)xa-vTJs TIV&S) to reach Theo- 
 
 2 Ib. 230-231. av&ppvrov is the word philus ; if he had been strat. of 
 which I follow Zlatarski and Uspenski Macedonia, this would be inexplicable. 
 in interpreting "aqueduct." The in- We can infer the interesting fact that 
 scription concludes with the prayer the captives were established as a 
 that "the divine ruler may live a colony with a governor of their own, 
 hundred years along with Isbules the a nd that as a large number of these 
 kaukhan." were Macedonians, the region which 
 
 3 Simeon (ConL Georg. 818 ; vers. they inhabited was known as 
 Slav. 101-102). The account of the Macedonia.
 
 SECT, vi THE REIGN OF MALAMIR 371 
 
 hostile action against the Empire by advancing to Thessalonica. 
 It can hardly be an accident that the date to which our 
 evidence for their transaction points (c. A.D. 836) coincides 
 with the termination of the second decad of the Peace, and 
 if it was a condition that the Treaty should be renewed at the 
 end of each decad, it was a natural moment for either ruler 
 to choose for attempting to compass an end to which the other 
 would not agree. We cannot determine precisely the order of 
 events, or understand the particular circumstances in which 
 the captives effected their escape. We are told that the whole 
 population began to cross over a river, 1 in order to reach the 
 place where the Imperial ships awaited them. The Bulgarian 
 Count of the district 2 crossed over to their side to prevent 
 them, and being defeated with great loss, sought the help of 
 the Magyars, who were now masters of the north coast of the 
 Euxine as far as the Bulgarian frontier. Meanwhile the 
 Greeks crossed, and were about to embark when a host of 
 Magyars appeared and commanded them to surrender all their 
 property. The Greeks defied the predatory foe, defeated them 
 in two engagements, and sailed to Constantinople, where they 
 were welcomed by the Emperor and dismissed to their various 
 homes. 3 
 
 We have no evidence as to the object of the expedition 
 to Thessalonica, but it has been conjectured 4 that the Mace- 
 donian Slavs, infected by rebellious movements of the Slavs 
 in Greece, 5 were in a disturbed state, and that the Bulgarian 
 monarch seized the opportunity to annex to his own kingdom 
 by peaceful means these subjects of the Empire. In support 
 of this guess it may be pointed out that not many years later 
 his power seems to have extended as far west as Ochrida, 6 
 and there is no record of a conquest of these regions by arms. 
 And a movement in this direction might also explain the war 
 
 Simeon (Leo Gr. 232). The year of his birth is fixed to A.D. 
 
 The chronicler probably meant the 812/3, as he was born in the reign of 
 
 Danube (the only river mentioned in Michael I. (Cont. Georg. 817) and was 
 
 the narrative), and if this is right, the in swaddling-clothes when his parents 
 
 captives crossed from the left to the were carried off from Hadrianople in 
 
 right bank. A.D. 813 (Cont. Th. 216). He was 
 
 Perhaps the officer who was called 25 years old when the captives re- 
 
 T 
 
 the Count of Durostorum (ApoTpov). turned (Cont. Georg. 819). This gives 
 
 Cp. Uspenski, Starobolg. nadp. 230. A.D. 837/8 as the year of escape. 
 
 1 The approximate date can be * Zlatarski, op. cit. 38. 
 
 inferred from data as to the age of 5 See below, p. 379. 
 
 Basil I., who was one of the captives. 6 Cp. Zlatarski, 40, and below, p. 384.
 
 372 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 which broke out between Bulgaria and Servia in the last years 
 of Theophilus. 
 
 About this time the Servians, who had hitherto lived in a 
 loose group of independent tribes, acknowledging the nominal 
 lordship of the Emperor, were united under the rule of 
 Vlastimir into the semblance of a state. If it is true that 
 the extension of Bulgarian authority over the Slavs to the 
 south of Servia was effected at this epoch, we can understand 
 the union of the Servian tribes as due to the instinct of self- 
 defence. Hitherto they had always lived as good neighbours 
 of the Bulgarians, but the annexation of western Macedonia 
 changed the political situation. Vlastimir 's policy of con- 
 solidating Servia may have been a sufficient motive with 
 Malamir to lose no time in crushing a power which might 
 become a formidable rival, and he determined to subjugate it. 
 But it is not unlikely that the Emperor also played a hand in 
 the game. Disabled from interfering actively by the necessities 
 of the war against the Moslems, he may have reverted to 
 diplomacy and stirred up the Servians, who were nominally 
 his clients, to avert a peril which menaced themselves, by 
 driving the Bulgarians from western Macedonia. The prospect 
 of common action between the Empire and the Servians would 
 explain satisfactorily Malamir 's aggression against Servia. 1 The 
 war lasted three years, and ended in failure and disaster for 
 the Bulgarians. 2 
 
 These speculations concerning the political situation in 
 the Balkan peninsula in the last years of Theophilus depend 
 on the hypothesis, which cannot be proved, that the Bulgarians 
 had succeeded in annexing the Slavonic tribes to the west of 
 Thessalonica. In any case, whatever may have occurred, the 
 Thirty Years' Peace had been confirmed, and remained inviolate 
 till its due termination in A.D. 845-846. It was not renewed, 
 and soon afterwards a Bulgarian army under the general 
 Isbules seems to have invaded Macedonia and operated in the 
 regions of the Strymon and the Nestos ; 3 while the Imperial 
 
 1 For these conjectures, see Jirec'ek, stantine, De adm. imp. 154 ; he calls 
 Archiv fur slavische Philologie, xxi. the Bulgarian ruler Ilpeo-tdyu, the only 
 609 sq. ; Zlatarski, op. cit. 40 sqq. evidence we have for the name. 
 Z. supposes that Theophilus offered Vlastimir's date is given by Schafarik 
 the Servians an acknowledgment of as A.D. 836-843 (ii. 250). 
 
 their complete independence. 3 I adopt Zlatarski's intcrpreta- 
 
 2 The source for the war is Con- tion (49 sq.) of the Villoison inscrip-
 
 BORIS 
 
 373 
 
 government retaliated by reinforcing the garrisons of the 
 frontier forts of Thrace in order to carry out a systematic 
 devastation of Thracian Bulgaria. 1 This plan released 
 Macedonia from the enemy ; Isbules was recalled to defend his 
 country. The absence of the Thracian and Macedonian troops, 
 which these events imply, is explained, if they were at this 
 time engaged in reducing the Slavs of the Peloponnesus. 2 
 
 These hostilities seem to have been followed by a truce, 3 
 and soon afterwards Malamir was succeeded by his nephew 
 Boris (c. A.D. 852). 4 This king, whose reign marks an 
 important epoch in the development of Bulgaria, was soon 
 involved in war with the Servians and with the Croatians. 
 He hoped to avenge the defeats which his uncle had suffered 
 in Servia. 5 But the Servians again proved themselves 
 superior and captured Vladimir, the son of Boris, along with 
 the twelve great boliads. The Bulgarian king was compelled 
 to submit to terms of peace in order to save the prisoners, and 
 fearing that he might be waylaid on his homeward march he 
 asked for a safe-conduct. He was conducted by two Servian 
 
 tion (C.I. G. iv. 8691 b) found near 
 Philippi. Its obvious meaning is 
 that the Bulgarian king sent Isbules 
 with an army and that he operated in 
 the district of the Smoleanoi, who, we 
 know, lived on the middle course of 
 the Nestos. Cp. Appendix X. 
 
 1 Simeon (Cont. Georg. 821). This 
 notice comes immediately after that 
 of the death of Methodius, which 
 occurred in June 847. Zlatarski, 43 
 sq., has made it quite clear that 
 Simeon refers here to different events 
 from those recorded by Genesios, 85 
 sq. (see below). He is almost certainly 
 right in referring the important in- 
 scription of Shumla (Aboba, 233) to 
 operations at this period in Thrace 
 (51 sq, ), though otherwise I cannot 
 accept his interpretation (see 
 Appendix X.). The forts of Proba- 
 ton and Burdizos which are mentioned 
 in it would be two of the Kaa-rpa 
 referred to by Simeon, with whose 
 notice the words v ypvKv e/Mj/xo<rd (ol 
 TpaiKol (prjfjLucrav) are obviously in 
 accordance. 
 
 2 There is no independent evidence 
 as to the date of the Peloponnesian 
 war (see below, p. 379). 
 
 3 Zlatarski, 53. 
 
 4 The date of the accession of Boris 
 is determined by Zlatarski, 46-47. He 
 reigned thirty -six years (Theophy- 
 lactus, Mart. 201), his successor 
 Vladimir four years (ib. 213). Vladi- 
 mir was still alive in 892 (Ann. Fuld., 
 s.a.), but was succeeded by Simeon 
 not later than 893. This gives 852- 
 853 for accession of Boris (Golubinski 
 and Jirecek had already dated it to 
 852-856). 852 is rendered probable by 
 the Bulgarian embassy sent to Lewis 
 the German in that year (Ann. Fuld., 
 s.a.), which was probably to announce 
 the accession and confirm the treaty 
 of 845 (ib., s.a.). 
 
 5 Constantine, De adm. imp. 154- 
 155 (Servian war), 150 (Croatian war : 
 unsuccessful and followed by peace). 
 Zlatarski dates these wars to 854-860 
 (55). Diimmler (Slawen in Dalm. 
 397) conjectures that the Croatian 
 war was successful, and that the 
 Croatians ceded Bosnia to Boris. He 
 bases this guess on the apparent fact 
 that about this time the Croatian 
 power seriously declined. He supposes 
 that soon after the conquest, Boris 
 was defeated in his war with the 
 Servians and compelled to surrender 
 Bosnia to them.
 
 374 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xi 
 
 princes to the frontier at Rasa, where he repaid their services 
 by ample gifts, and received from them, as a pledge of friendship, 
 two slaves, two falcons, two hounds, and ninety skins. 1 This 
 friendship bore political fruits. The two princes were sons of 
 Muntimir, one of three brothers, who, soon after the Bulgarian 
 invasion, engaged in a struggle for supreme power, and 
 when Muntimir gained the upper hand he sent his rivals to 
 Bulgaria to be detained in the custody of Boris. 
 
 During the reign of Boris peace was maintained, not- 
 withstanding occasional menaces, 2 between Bulgaria and the 
 Empire ; and before the end of the reign of Michael III. the 
 two powers were drawn into a new relation, when the king 
 accepted Christian baptism. But the circumstances of this 
 event, which is closely connected with larger issues of 
 European politics, must be reserved for another chapter. 
 
 1 yofoas. with the conversion of the Bulgarians. 
 
 2 Genesios, 85-86, says that the Zlatarski (54 sq.) accepts the king's 
 Bulgarian ruler (unnamed) threatened name from Cent. Th. and gives reasons 
 to invade Roman territory, but Theo- for dating the incident to A. D. 852. 
 dora declared that she would lead an He thinks that this writer has corn- 
 army in person against him. " It bined the passage in Genesios with 
 will be no glory to you to defeat a another source the same from which 
 woman ; if she defeats you, you will he drew the stories about Theodore 
 be ridiculous." The Bulgarian thought Kupharas, the sister of Boris, and the 
 better of his purpose, and remained painter Methodios. I doubt whether 
 quiet in his own country. Gont. Th. the anecdote has any value ; but it 
 162 says (1) that the king was Boris may be based on the circumstance 
 (B&ywpis), and (2) that he purposed to that Boris on his accession renewed 
 break the treaty, but renewed it ; (3) the truce with Byzantium. 
 
 brings the incident into connexion
 
 CHAPTEK XII 
 
 THE CONVERSION OF THE SLAVS AND BULGARIANS 
 
 1. TJie Slavs in Greece 
 
 THE ninth century was a critical period in the history of the 
 Slavonic world. If in the year A.D. 800 a political prophet 
 had possessed a map of Europe, such as we can now construct, 
 he might have been tempted to predict that the whole eastern 
 half of the continent, from the Danish peninsula to the 
 Peloponnesus, was destined to form a Slavonic empire, or at 
 least a solid group of Slavonic kingdoms. From the mouth of 
 the Elbe to the Ionian Sea there was a continuous line of 
 Slavpnic peoples the Abodrites, the Wilzi, the Sorbs, the 
 Lusatians, the Bohemians, the Slovenes, the Croatians, and the 
 Slavonic settlements in Macedonia and Greece. Behind them 
 were the Lechs of Poland, the kingdom of Great Moravia, 
 Servia, and the strongly organized kingdom of Bulgaria ; while 
 farther in the background were all the tribes which were to 
 form the nucleus of unborn Russia. Thus a vertical line from 
 Denmark to the Hadriatic seemed to mark the limit of the 
 Teutonic world, beyond which it might have been deemed 
 impossible that German arms would make any permanent 
 impression on the serried array of Slavs ; while in the Balkan 
 peninsula it might have appeared not improbable that the 
 Bulgarian power, which had hitherto proved a formidable 
 antagonist to Byzantium, would expand over Illyricum and 
 Greece, and ultimately drive the Greeks from Constantinople. 
 Such was the horoscope of nations which might plausibly 
 have been drawn from a European chart, and which the history 
 of the next two hundred years was destined to falsify. At 
 
 375
 
 376 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 the beginning of the eleventh century the Western Empire of 
 the Germans had extended its power far and irretrievably 
 beyond the Elbe, while the Eastern Empire of the Greeks had 
 trampled the Bulgarian power under foot. And in the meantime 
 the Hungarians had inserted themselves like a wedge between 
 the Slavs of the north and the Slavs of the south. On the 
 other hand, two things had happened which were of great 
 moment for the future of the Slavonic race : the religion of 
 the Greeks and the Teutons had spread among the Slavs, and 
 the kingdom of Russia had been created. The beginnings of 
 both these movements, which were slow and gradual, fall in 
 the period when the Amorian dynasty reigned at New Home. 1 
 It was under the auspices of Michael III. that the unruly 
 Slavonic tribes in the Peloponnesus were finally brought under 
 the control of the government, and the credit of their subjuga- 
 tion is probably to be imputed to Theodora and her fellow- 
 regents. The Slavs were diffused all over the peninsula, but 
 the evidence of place-names indicates that their settlements 
 were thickest in Arcadia and Elis, Messenia, Laconia, and 
 Achaia. 2 In the plains of Elis, on the slopes of Taygetos, and 
 in the great marshlands of the lower Eurotas, they seem almost 
 entirely to have replaced the ancient inhabitants. Somewhere 
 between Sparta and Megalopolis was the great Slavonic town 
 Veligosti, of which no traces remain. Of the tribes we know 
 only the names of the Milings and the Ezerites. The Milings 
 had settled in the secure fastnesses of Taygetos ; the Ezerites, 
 or Lake-men, abode in the neighbouring Helos or marshland, 
 from which they took their name. 3 Living independently 
 under their own 2upans, they seized every favourable opportunity 
 of robbery and plunder. In the reign of Nicephorus (A.D. 807) 
 they formed a conspiracy with the Saracens of Africa 4 to 
 
 1 The introduction of Christianity undoubtedly Albanian, from fj.a\\j, 
 among the Croatians and Servians was " mountain," as Philippson points out 
 of older date. (ib. 8). Goritsa is often enumerated 
 
 2 See Philippson, i. 3-4 ; Grego- among the Slavonic names, but it 
 rovius, Athen, i. 113 sqq. ; G. Meyer, may come from A-goritsa (dyopd). 
 Aufsdtze und Studien (1885), 140. The But there are plenty about which 
 place-names still require a thorough- there can be no doubt (such as 
 going investigation. Not a few, which Krivitsa, Garditsa, Kamcnitsa). 
 have been taken for Slavonic, may be 3 JSze.ro, Slavonic for lake. 
 
 Greek or Albanian. E.g. Malevo the * The source is Constantino, De adm. 
 
 name of Parnou and other mountains imp. c. 49. He says that the story 
 
 was explained as Slavonic by Fall- was told orally (dypdfiws) during 
 
 merayer and Gregorovius, but it is their lifetime by contemporaries to
 
 SECT, i THE SLA VS IN GREECE 377 
 
 attack the rich city of Patrae. The strategos of the province 
 whose residence was at Corinth, delayed in sending troops 
 to relieve the besieged town, and the citizens suffered from 
 want of food and water. The story of their deliverance 
 is inextricably bound up with a legend of supernatural aid, 
 vouchsafed to them by their patron saint. A scout was sent 
 to a hill, east of the town, anxiously to scan the coast road 
 from Corinth, and if he saw the approach of the troops, to 
 signal to the inhabitants, when he came within sight of the 
 walls, by lowering a flag ; while if he kept the flag erect, it 
 would be known that there was no sign of the help which was 
 so impatiently expected. He returned disappointed, with his 
 flag erect, but his horse slipped and the flag was lowered in 
 the rider's fall. The incident was afterwards imputed to the 
 direct interposition of the Deity, who had been moved to 
 resort to this artifice by the intercessions of St. Andrew, the 
 guardian of Patrae. The citizens, meanwhile, seeing the 
 flag fall, and supposing that succour was at hand, immediately 
 opened the gates and fell upon the Saracens and the Slavs. 
 Conspicuous in their ranks rode a great horseman, whose more 
 than human appearance terrified the barbarians. Aided by 
 this champion, who was no other than St. Andrew himself, the 
 Greeks routed the enemy and won great booty and many 
 captives. Two days later the strategos arrived, and sent a 
 full report of all the miraculous circumstances to the Emperor, 
 who issued a charter for the Church of St. Andrew, ordaining 
 that the defeated Slavs, their families, and all their belongings 
 should become the property of the Church " inasmuch as the 
 
 the younger generation. But the to infer that there was an Avar settle- 
 genuine source was the <riyi\\ov (seal) ment in the Peloponnesus, that Avars 
 or charter of Nicephorus, to which joined the Slavs in the attack, and 
 he refers, and which was extant in were mentioned in the Chrysobull of 
 the eleventh century. For it is cited Nicephorus ? I drew this inference in 
 in a Synodal Letter of the Patriarch a paper on Navarino (Hermathena, 
 Nicolaus in the reign of Alexius I. ; xxxi. 430 sqq., 1905), connecting it 
 seeLeunclavius, Jus Graeco-Komanum, with the interpretation of Avarinos 
 p. 278 (1596), or Migne, P.O. 119, 877. the original name of Navarino as an 
 Here the occurrence is briefly de- Avar settlement. See also Miller in 
 scribed, and dated 218 years after the Eng, Hist. Review, 20, 307 sqq (1905). 
 occupation of the Peloponnesus, which But another possible derivation is 
 the Patriarch connected with the in- from the Slavonic jawrii, "maple," so 
 vasion of A.D. 589 (Evagrius, vi. 10). that the name would mean "maple- 
 Hence we get the date A.D. 807 for wood"; cp. 'A/3apir<ra in Epirus, 
 the siege of Patrae (cp. Fallmerayer, "A/Sopos in Phocis : G. Meyer, Analecta 
 Morea, i. 185). But the Patriarch Graeciensia, 12 (1893). 
 speaks of Avars, not of Slavs. Are we
 
 378 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xu 
 
 triumph and the victory were the work of the apostle." A 
 particular duty was imposed upon these Slavs, a duty which 
 hitherto had probably been a burden upon the town. They 
 were obliged to provide and defray the board and entertainment 
 of all Imperial officials who visited Patrae, and also of all 
 foreign ambassadors who halted there on their way to and 
 from Italy and Constantinople. For this purpose they had to 
 maintain in the city a staff of servants and cooks. 1 The 
 Emperor also made the bishopric of Patrae a Metropolis, and 
 submitted to its control the sees of Methone, Lacedaemon, and 
 Korone. 2 It is possible that he sent military colonists from 
 other parts of the Empire to the Peloponnesus, as well as 
 to the regions of the Strymon and other Slavonic territories, 3 
 and if so, these may have been the Mardaites, whom we find 
 at a later period of the ninth century playing an important 
 part among the naval contingents of the Empire. 4 We may 
 also conjecture with some probability that this settlement was 
 immediately followed by the separation of the Peloponnesus 
 from Hellas as a separate Theme. 5 
 
 It would be too much to infer from this narrative that 
 the Slavonic communities of Achaia and Elis, which were 
 doubtless concerned in the attack on Patrae, were permanently 
 reduced to submission and orderly life on this occasion, and 
 that the later devastations which vexed the peninsula in the 
 
 1 ^x VTe ^ iSiovs Kal TpairefroTroiobs /ecu rCiv icard. He\OTr6i>i>r]<rov ffrparitaTwv 
 /j.ayeipovs KT\. The Slavs defrayed the Kal M.ap5aiT&i>, 311 rut> KOTO, IIcX. 
 expense d,7r6 Sictpo/xiys Kal <rvvdo<rias TTJS MapSamDi' Kal TafarcDi'. As they 
 6/j.dSos avT&v. The passage is interest- belonged to the marine establishment, 
 ing, as it shows incidentally that, as they were probably settled in the 
 we should expect, the ordinary route coast towns. See Bury, Naval Policy, 
 of travel from Italy to Constantinople 29, where their settlement in Greece 
 was by Patrae and Corinth. is connected with the later subjugation 
 
 2 Nicolaus, Synodal Letter, cil. supra. by Theoktistos, and this seems to me 
 
 3 Theoph. 486 TCL ffTparevfjiaTa ira-vrri rather more probable. 
 
 raireivucrai cncei/'d/uei'oy Xpicmcwofo air- 5 See above, p. 224. Michael I. ap- 
 
 ouciffas IK iravTOs Ofyaros eirl roil pointed Leo Skleros strategos of Pelo- 
 
 2/cXawi'taj yfv{<r6ai IT poatroi^ev (A.D. ponnesus, Scr. Inc. 336. We may 
 
 809-10) ; 496 ol rbv ^rpv/jLuva oiKovrres probably attribute to Leo V. the erec- 
 
 fji^TOLKOi irpo<t>a<re(i}s dpad/j.evoi tv rois tion of a watch-tower somewhere in 
 
 Idiots fatiyovTes iiravrfkOov. (Cp. Hopf, the Peloponnesus, to warn the city of 
 
 98,126.) See next note. the approach of enemies, doubtless the 
 
 4 The western Mardaites (ot M. TTJS Saracens, recorded in the inscription 
 5t5<rews) took part in the Cretan expedi- (Corp. Inscr. Gr. iv. No. 8620) : 
 
 tion of A.D. 902 and numbered with & ^ g , MdSf 
 
 their officers 4087 men (Const. Porph ^ Trpotpalvw r*to \6 X ovs ruv 
 
 Cer. 11. 44. p. 655). They had fought SapSdpw/ 
 
 against the Saracens in Sicily in the 
 
 reign of Basil I. ; Cont. Th, 304 Cp. Hopf, 105.
 
 SECT, i THE SLA VS IN GREECE 379 
 
 reigns of Theophilus and Michael III. were wrought by the 
 Slavs of Laconia and Arcadia. It is more probable that the 
 attack on Patrae was not confined to the inhabitants of a 
 particular district ; and that all the Slavs in the peninsula 
 united in another effort to assert their independence before 
 the death of Theophilus. Their rebellion, which meant the 
 resumption of their predatory habits, was not put down till 
 the reign of his son, and we do not know how soon. We may, 
 however, conjecture that it was the Empress Theodora 1 who 
 appointed Theoktistos Bryennios the first recorded member 
 of a family which was long afterwards to play a notable part 
 in history to be strategos of the Peloponnesian Theme, and 
 placed under his command large detachments from the Themes 
 of Thrace and Macedonia, to put an end to the rapine and 
 brigandage of the barbarians. Theoktistos performed efficiently 
 the work which was entrusted to him. He thoroughly 
 subjugated the Slavs throughout the length and breadth of the 
 land, and reduced them to the condition of provincial subjects. 2 
 There were only two tribes with whom he deemed it convenient 
 to make special and extraordinary terms. These were the 
 Milings, perched in places difficult of access on the slopes of 
 Mount Taygetos, and the Ezerites in the south of Laconia. 
 On these he was content to impose a tribute, of 6 nomismata 
 (about 35) on the Milings, and 300 (about 180) on the 
 Ezerites. They paid these annual dues so long at least as 
 Theoktistos was in charge of the province, but afterwards they 
 defied the governors, and a hundred years later their independ- 
 ence was a public scandal. 
 
 The reduction of the Peloponnesian Slavs in the reign of 
 Michael prepared the way for their conversion to Christianity 
 and their hellenization. 3 The process of civilization and 
 
 1 The sole source is Constantino, dating 847-850 plausible ; see above, 
 
 op. cit. 220-221. The narrative, not p. 373. 
 
 suggesting that the revolt lasted long, 2 They retained their lands and 
 
 is in favour of supposing that the customs, but their social organization 
 
 Slavs were reduced early in the reign under zupans seems to have come to 
 
 of Theodora and Michael. We cannot an end. (Cp. Hopf, 127.) The word 
 
 go further than this. The date (c. 849) zupan survives in Modern Greek, 
 
 given by Muralt and Hopf (Geschichte, r^av-travis, in the sense of "herd." 
 
 127) rests on the false identification 3 The foundation of monasteries and 
 
 of Theoktistos Bryennios with Theo- churches was one of the principal means 
 
 ktistos the Logothete (cp. Hirsch, by which the change was effected. The 
 
 220) ; but there is another considera- christianization progressed rapidly 
 
 tion which renders the approximate under Basil I. and his siiccessors.
 
 380 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 blending required for its completion four or five centuries, 
 and the rate of progress varied in different parts of the 
 peninsula. The Milings maintained their separate identity 
 longest, perhaps till the eve of the Ottoman conquest ; but 
 even in the thirteenth century Slavonic tribes still lived 
 apart from the Greeks and preserved their old customs in the 
 region of Skorta in the mountainous districts of Elis and 
 Arcadia. 1 We may say that by the fifteenth century the 
 Slavs had ceased to be a distinct nationality ; they had 
 become part of a new mixed Greek-speaking race, destined to 
 be still further regenerated or corrupted under Turkish rule 
 by the absorption of the Albanians who began to pour into 
 the Peloponnesus in the fourteenth century. That the 
 blending of Slavonic with Greek blood had begun in the 
 ninth century is suggested by the anecdote related of a 
 Peloponnesian magnate, Nicetas Rentakios, whose daughter 
 had the honour of marrying a son of the Emperor 
 Romanus I. He was fond of boasting of his noble Hellenic 
 descent, and drew upon himself the sharp tongue of a 
 distinguished grammarian, who satirized in iambics his 
 Slavonic cast of features. 2 But the process of hellenization 
 was slow, and in the tenth century the Peloponnesus and 
 northern Greece were still regarded, like Macedonia, as 
 mainly Slavonic. 3 
 
 1 See Finlay, iv. 21, 22. It is re- yapaa-doeiS^ 6\f/is 
 
 markable that in the Chronicle of 
 
 Morea it is only in connexion with evidently one verse of an epigram on 
 
 Slavonic regions that the word d P 6yyos, NicetB* The meaning of yapavdoetSv 
 
 "defile," S used: 6 5. ruv SicXojS^ 1S a well-known puzzle. Finlay s 
 
 , . 
 
 4605, 6 5. roO Ue\iyyov 4531, cp. 2993, P r posal, yaSapoe^ (from ytifcyot, 
 
 6 5. TW ZKOPTW 5026. But notwith- an ass), is unlikely, and the explana- 
 
 standing, the etymology is not the tion of Sattes (^ Gregorovms, oj). erf. 
 
 Slavonic dragu, "wood," as G. Meyer ^ "with the countenance of a 
 
 would have it (op. cit. 135) ; Sp6yyos Zoroastrian (Zapa<r5as) is extremely 
 
 is the same word as ftw&w*, gf-fctohed. I suggested that the 
 
 drungus, the Byzantine military Slavonic proper name Gorazd may 
 
 term, which is derived from Germanic underlie -yoparfc . (Gorazd, e.g., was the 
 
 (Rug. throng). See J. Schmitt's ed. of name , of n ? f \ he P u P lls f th 
 
 Chronicle of Morea, p. 605. There are apostle Methodius) ; this would suit 
 
 very few Slavonic words in Modern the c T onte ^ (English Historical Eemew, 
 
 Greek. Miklosich has counted 129 VL Jan< lii91 ' P- Ib2 >- 
 
 ("Die slavischen Elemente im Neu- 3 See the tenth-century scholiast on 
 
 griechischen," S.B. of Vienna Acad. Strabo 7. p. 1251 (ed. Amsterdam, 
 
 Ixiii., 1869). 1707), and, for Elis, 8. p. 1261 (diravra. 
 
 2 Const. Porph. Them. 53 lS,v(pri/j.iov yap ravra Stcvdai v^ovrai). The com- 
 
 fKewov rbv irepLfibyTov ypa/j.fj.ariKbv plicated question of race-hlending in 
 
 ui'J/ai ets avrbv rovrot rb QpvKov- Greece requires still a thoroughgoing 
 
 /a/x/3etoi' investigation, as Krumbacher observes
 
 SECT, i THE SLA VS IN GREECE 381 
 
 We can designate one part of the Peloponnesus into which 
 the Slavonic element did not penetrate, the border-region 
 between Laconia and Argolis. Here the old population seems 
 to have continued unchanged, and the ancient Doric tongue 
 developed into the Tzakonian dialect, which is still spoken 
 in the modern province of Kynuria. 1 
 
 It is interesting to note that on the promontory of 
 Taenaron in Laconia a small Hellenic community survived, 
 little touched by the political and social changes which had 
 transformed the Hellenistic into the Byzantine world. Sur- 
 rounded by Slavs, these Hellenes lived in the fortress of 
 Maina, and in the days of Theophilus and his son still 
 worshipped the old gods of Greece. But the days of this 
 pagan immunity were numbered ; the Olympians were soon 
 to be driven from their last recess. Before the end of the 
 century the Mainotes were baptized. 2 
 
 2. The Conversion of Bulgaria 
 
 Christianity had made some progress within the Bulgarian 
 kingdom before the accession of Boris. It is not likely that 
 the Eoman natives of Moesia, who had become the subjects of 
 the Bulgarian kings, did much to propagate their faith ; but 
 we can hardly doubt that some of the Slavs had been con- 
 verted, and Christian prisoners of war seem to have improved 
 the season of their captivity by attempting to proselytize 
 their masters. The introduction of Christianity by captives 
 is a phenomenon which meets us in other cases, 3 and we are 
 
 (B.Z. 10. 368). Meanwhile consult presents difficulties. Thumb holds 
 A. Philippson, "Zur Ethnographic that the loss of I was a rule in the 
 des Peloponnes," i. and ii., in Peter- Tzakonian dialect, and suggests the 
 manns Mitteilungen aus Justus etymology : et's AaKuvlav, 's AKuvta(v), 
 Perthes' geographischer Anstalt, vol. 2a/cwaa, TtraK&w'a (comparing <rtp- 
 xxxvi., 1890. povXov : ro-tpfiovXe). The chief town 
 1 The Tzakonian dialect perplexed in the Tzakonian district is Leonidi. 
 philologists and was variously taken Its extent is exhibited in the ethno- 
 for Slavonic (Kopitar, Hopf, Philipp- graphical map in Philippson, op. cit. 
 son) and Albanian (Sathas). But the The TfAtowes are mentioned in Con- 
 studies of Deffner (cp. his Zakonische stantine, Cer. 696. 
 Grammatik, 1881) and Thumb (" Die 
 
 ethnographische Stellung der Za- ' In the reign of Basil I See Con- 
 
 konen," in Indogermanische Forschun- stantine, De adm. ^mp. 224 ; Hopf, 
 gen, iv. 195 sqq., 1894) have demon- 
 
 strated that the Tzakones and their 3 E.g. the Goths (Wulfilas) and the 
 
 language are Greek. The name Iberians.
 
 382 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 not surprised to learn that some of the numerous prisoners 
 who were carried away by Krurn made efforts to spread 
 their religion among the Bulgarians, not without success. 
 Omurtag was deeply displeased and alarmed when he was 
 informed of these proceedings, and when threats failed to 
 recall the perverts to their ancestral cult, he persecuted both 
 those who had fallen away and those who had corrupted 
 them. 1 Amongst the martyrs was Manuel, the archbishop of 
 Hadrianople. 2 The most illustrious proselyte is said to have 
 been the eldest son of Omurtag himself, 3 who on account of 
 his perversion was put to death by his brother Malarnir. 
 
 The adoption of Christianity by pagan rulers has 
 generally been prompted by political considerations, and has 
 invariably a political aspect. This was eminently the case 
 in the conversion of Bulgaria. She was entangled in the 
 complexities of a political situation, in which the interests of 
 both the Western and the Eastern Empire were involved. The 
 disturbing fact was the policy of the Franks, which aimed at 
 the extension of their power over the Slavonic states on their 
 south-eastern frontier. Their collision with Bulgaria on the 
 Middle Danube in the reign of Omurtag had been followed 
 by years of peace, and a treaty of alliance was concluded in 
 A.D. 845. The efforts of King Lewis the German were at 
 
 1 Theodore Stud. (Parva Cat. Ixiii. Manuel to death, cutting off his arms 
 pp. 220 sgq.) relates that the Bulgarian from his shoulders, then cleaving him 
 ruler, whose name, unfortunately, he in twain with a sword, and throwing 
 does not mention (and the date of the remains to wild beasts. It is 
 this catechesis is unknown), issued a added that Krum's act caused such 
 decree that all Christians should eat disgust among the Bulgarians that 
 meat in Lent on pain of death. Four- they strangled him with ropes. All 
 teen resisted the order. One was put this is evidently a sensational and 
 to death, and his wife and children impudent invention. For the persecu- 
 given as slaves to Bulgarian masters. tion of Tsok, see above, p. 359. 
 
 as an example ; but the others held 3 Theophyl. op. cit. 193 sqq. 
 
 out, and were also executed. The Malamir released the captive Kinamon 
 
 khan has been supposed to be Krum ; from prison at the requtst of his 
 
 cf. Auvray's note, p. 647. Theophy- brother Enravotas. Kinamon con- 
 
 lactus (Hist. mart. 192) relates that verted Enravotas, who was put to 
 
 one of Krum's captives, Kinamon, was death by Malamir as an apostate, 
 
 assigned to Omurtag, who became Malamir, according to this narrative 
 
 greatly attached to him, and tried to ( 197), died three years later ; this would 
 
 induce him to apostatize. As he was give 848-849 for the deathof Enravotas. 
 
 obstinate, he was thrown into a foul We have an earlier instance of apostasy 
 
 prison, where he remained till after on the part of a royal Bulgarian in 
 
 Omurtag's death. Telerig,the refugee who accepted bap- 
 
 2 Cont. Th. 217. According to the tism at the court of Leo IV. (Theoph. 
 Menologion Basilii, Pars ii., Jan. 22, 451). 
 
 Migne, P.O. 117, 276, Krum put
 
 SECT, ii THE CONVERSION OF BULGARIA 383 
 
 this time directed to destroying the independence of the 
 Slavonic kingdom of Great Moravia, north of the Carpathians. 
 Prince Eostislav was making a successful stand against the 
 encroachments of his Teutonic neighbours, but he wanted 
 allies sorely and he turned to Bulgaria. He succeeded in 
 engaging the co-operation of Boris, who, though he sent an 
 embassy to Lewis just after his accession, formed an offensive 
 alliance with Eostislav in the following year (A.D. 853). 
 The allies conducted a joint campaign and were defeated. 1 
 The considerations which impelled Boris to this change of 
 policy are unknown ; but it was only temporary. Nine 
 years later he changed front. When Karlmann, who had 
 become governor of the East Mark, revolted against his 
 father Lewis, he was supported by Eostislav, but Boris sided 
 with Lewis, and a new treaty of alliance was negotiated 
 between the German and Bulgarian kings (A.D. 862). 2 
 
 Moravia had need of help against the combination of 
 Bulgaria with her German foe, and Eostislav sent an embassy 
 to the court of Byzantium. It must have been the purpose 
 of the ambassadors to convince the Emperor of the dangers 
 with which the whole Illyrian peninsula was menaced by the 
 Bulgaro-German alliance, and to induce him to attack Bulgaria. 3 
 
 The Byzantine government must have known much more 
 than we of the nature of the negotiations between Boris and 
 Lewis. In particular, we have no information as to the 
 price which the German offered the Bulgarian for his active 
 assistance in suppressing the rebellion. But we have clear 
 evidence that the question of the conversion of Bulgaria to 
 Christianity was touched upon in the negotiations. 4 As a 
 means of increasing his political influence at the Bulgarian 
 court, this matter was of grdat importance to Lewis, and 
 Boris did not decline to entertain the proposition. The 
 interests of the Eastern Empire were directly involved. 
 Bulgaria was a standing danger ; but that danger would be 
 seriously enhanced if she passed under the ecclesiastical 
 supremacy of Eome and threw in her lot with Latin 
 Christianity. It was a matter of supreme urgency to detach 
 Boris from his connexion with Lewis, and the representatives 
 
 1 Ann. Bert., s.a. 2 Cp. Zlatarski, 59. 
 
 3 Zlatarski, 61. 4 Cp. Ann. Bert., s.a. 864 ; Zlatarski, 60.
 
 384 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 of Eostislav may have helped Michael and his advisers to 
 realize the full gravity of the situation. It was decided to 
 coerce the Bulgarians, and in the summer of A.D. 863 
 Michael marched into their territory at the head of his army, 
 while his fleet appeared off their coast on the Black Sea. 1 
 The moment was favourable. Bulgarian forces were absent, 
 taking part in the campaign against Karlmarm, and the 
 country was suffering from a cruel famine. In these cir- 
 cumstances, the Emperor accomplished his purpose without 
 striking a blow ; the demonstration of his power sufficed to 
 induce Boris to submit to his conditions. It was arranged 
 that Bulgaria should receive Christianity from the Greeks and 
 become ecclesiastically dependent on Constantinople ; 2 that 
 Boris should withdraw from the offensive alliance with Lewis 
 and only conclude a treaty of peace. 3 In return for this 
 alteration of his policy, the Emperor agreed to some territorial 
 concessions. He surrendered to Bulgaria a district which 
 was uninhabited and formed a march between the two 
 realms, extending from the Iron Gate, a pass in the Stranja- 
 Dagh, northward to Develtos. 4 It has been supposed that at 
 the same time the frontier in the far west was also regulated, 
 and that the results of the Bulgarian advance towards the 
 Hadriatic were formally recognized. 5 
 
 The brilliant victory which was gained over the Saracens 
 
 1 The meaning of this expedition the southern point of the region in 
 has been first satisfactorily explained question, and identifies it with a pass 
 by Zlatarski, 62 sqq. The source is called Demir Kapu, "Iron Gate," in 
 Simeon (Gont. Georg. 824). the north-western hills of the Stranja- 
 
 2 .The consent to accept Christianity Planina, north of Losen-grad, which is 
 was perhaps unexpected. Photius, near Kovchat. He places the western 
 Up. 4. p. 168 els TTJV rCiv xpuTTiavuv point of the surrendered district 
 7ra/m56ws ^eTeveKevrplvOriaav irlariv. at the Sakar Planina. The other 
 
 3 This treaty was maintained for region, between the Eastern Balkans 
 many years to come. and the Erkesiia, was also called 
 
 4 "Gont. Theoph. 165 StSwKev tp-nwv Zagora ( = " behind the mountains "). 
 oScrav ryviKavTa T^V a.wb StSTj/jas, TCH/T-^S c Zlatarski, 70 sqq. Ochrida and 
 5i r6re 8pioi> Tvyx<woiLi<Tr)s 'Pu/j.aiuv re Glaviriitsa were Bulgarian in the reign 
 Kal O.VTUV &xpt T-??S Ae/3Arou, ^ns OVTU of Boris (Vita dementis, c. 17. p. 24, cd. 
 KoAemu Zd-yo/ra Trap' atrrots (tprj/J-ri is Miklosich : Kephalenia = Glavinitsa). 
 the antecedent of T}TIS). The credit Zlatarski carefully discusses the 
 of having explained this passage whereabouts of this place and con- 
 belongs to Zlatarski, op. cit. 65 sqq. eludes that (distinct from the region 
 Hitherto ^tdrjpa had been explained of of Cape Glossa, on the bay of Avlonia, 
 the so-named Balkan pass (Veregava, which was called Glavinitsa) there 
 see above, p. 339, n. 2), but the was an inland fortress Glavinitsa, 
 district stretching from the Balkans between the rivers Voiusa (ancient 
 to Develtos was already Bulgarian. Aous) and Ozum (ancient Apsus), 
 Zlatarski has seen that Zidypa. marks near Mount Tomor ; and he would
 
 SECT, ii THE CONVERSION OF BULGARIA 385 
 
 in the autumn of the same year at Poson was calculated to 
 confirm the Bulgarians in their change of policy, 1 and in the 
 course of the winter the details of the treaty were arranged. 
 The envoys whom Boris sent to Constantinople were baptized 
 there ; 2 this was a pledge of the loyal intentions of their 
 master. "When the peace was finally concluded (A.D. 864-5), the 
 king himself received baptism. 3 The Emperor acted as his 
 sponsor, and the royal proselyte adopted the name of Michael. 
 The infant Church of Bulgaria was included in the see of 
 Constantinople. 4 
 
 Popular and ecclesiastical interest turned rather to the 
 personal side of the conversion of the Bulgarian monarch 
 than to its political aspects, and the opportunity was not lost 
 of inventing edifying tales. According to one story, Boris 
 became acquainted with the elements of Christian doctrine by 
 conversations with a captive monk, Theodore Kupharas. The 
 Empress Theodora offered him a ransom for this monk, and 
 then restored to him his sister who had been led captive by 
 the Greeks and honourably detained in the Imperial palace 
 at Constantinople, where she had embraced the Christian faith. 
 When she returned to her country she laboured incessantly 
 to convert her brother. He remained loyal to his own religion 
 until Bulgaria was visited by a terrible famine, and then he 
 was moved to appeal to the God whom Theodore Kupharas 
 and his own sister had urged him to worship. 5 There are 
 
 define the western frontier of Bulgaria, speaking of the Latin priests sent 
 
 in the reign of Boris, as drawn from from Rome towards the end of A.D. 
 
 Lake Ostrovo south-west by Kastoria, 866, remarks that the Bulgarians at 
 
 taking in Mount Grammes, reaching that time had been Christians for less 
 
 the middle course of the Voiusa, then than two years (ovS' et's 5vo evtavrovs). 
 
 turning north, reaching the Ozum This gives the date as A.D. 864-865. 
 
 and following its tributary the Devol, For A.D. 865 see my Chronological 
 
 crossing the Skumbi west of Elbasam, Cycle, p. 142, where I point out that 
 
 thence northward to the Black Drin, the Bulgarian date for the baptism, 
 
 which it followed to the Servian frontier. given in the Posluslone of Tudor (apud 
 
 The reader will find these places on any Kalaidovich, Joannes Exarkh, p. 98), 
 
 good modern map of the Balkan is to be explained as tokh vechem, 
 
 peninsula (e.g. in the Times Atlas, which, on my interpretation of the 
 
 Maps 69-70). chronological system, =A.D. 865. The 
 
 1 Cp. Gen. 97. date A.M. 6377 = A.D. 869 is given in 
 
 2 Zlatarski, 80 sq. Vita S. dementis, c. 4. p. 7, for the 
 
 3 In Bulgaria (ib.). Cp. Gen. ib., " call " (/cX^erts) of the Bulgarians. 
 Cent. Th. 163. 5 Cont. Th. 162-163. The captivity 
 
 4 The narrative fixes 864 as the of a sister of Boris seems highly im- 
 earliest date for the baptism of Boris. probable, but it is of course quite 
 There is other evidence. Photius, possible that he had a sister who was 
 writing in A.D. 867 (Ep, 4. p. 168) and a convert. 
 
 2 c
 
 386 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 two points of interest in this tale. It reflects the element of 
 feminine influence, which is said to have played a part in the 
 conversions of many barbarian chiefs, and which, for all we 
 know, may have co-operated in shaping the decision of Boris ; 
 and it represents the famine, which prevailed in Bulgaria at 
 the time of Michael's invasion, as a divine visitation designed 
 to lead that country to the true religion. 1 Another tale, which 
 bears on the face of it a monkish origin, is of a more sensa- 
 tional kind. 2 Boris was passionately addicted to hunting, 
 and he desired to feast his eyes upon the scenes of the chase 
 during those nocturnal hours of leisure in which he could not 
 indulge in his favourite pursuit. He sent for a Greek monk, 
 Methodius by name, who practised the art of painting, but 
 instead of commanding him to execute pictures of hunting as 
 he had intended, the king was suddenly moved by a divine 
 impulse to give him different directions. " I do not want you to 
 depict," he said, " the slaughter of men in battle, or of animals 
 in the hunting-field ; paint anything you like that will strike 
 terror into the hearts of those that gaze upon it." Methodius 
 could imagine nothing more terrible than the second coming 
 of God, and he painted a scene of the Last Judgment, ex- 
 hibiting the righteous receiving their rewards, and the wicked 
 ignominiously dismissed to their everlasting punishment. In 
 consequence of the terror produced by this spectacle, Boris 
 received instruction in Christian doctrine and was secretly 
 baptized at night. 
 
 In changing his superstition, Boris had to reckon with his 
 people, and the situation tested his strength as a king. 3 He 
 forced his subjects to submit to the rite of baptism, 4 and his 
 policy led to a rebellion. The nobles, incensed at his 
 apostasy, stirred up the people to slay him, and all the 
 Bulgarians of the ten districts of the kingdom gathered round 
 
 1 Cont. Th. 163-164. Methodius Bert. (i.e. Hincmar) A.D. 866, p. 85, 
 the painter has sometimes been con- which gives the details ; and (3) the 
 founded with Methodius the apostle brief notice in Cont. Th. 164. In 
 of the Slavs. the latter there is nothing miraculous, 
 
 2 It is probable enough that the but in the words oi)s KCU juera TIV&V 
 famine also had its psychological in- 6\iyw>> KaTa7ro\eju?7<raj it agrees with 
 fluence. Cp. Ann. Bert. 85, "Deo . . . the general drift of Hincmar. 
 
 signis atque atflictionibus in populo 4 Nicolaus, Responsa, ib. " postquam 
 
 regni sui monente." baptisati fuere." In Cont. Th. the 
 
 3 The sources for the rebellion are baptism seems to follow the suppres- 
 (1) Nicolaus, Responsa, 17 ; (2) Ann. sion of the revolt.
 
 SECT, ii THE CONVERSION OF BULGARIA 387 
 
 his palace, perhaps at Pliska. We cannot tell how he 
 succeeded in suppressing this formidable revolt, for the rest 
 of the story, as it reached the ears of Bishop Hincmar 
 of Keims, is of a miraculous nature. Boris had only forty- 
 eight devoted followers, who like himself were Christians. 
 Invoking the name of Christ, 1 he issued from his palace 
 against the menacing multitude, and as the gates opened 
 seven clergy, each with a lighted taper in his hand, suddenly 
 appeared and walked in front of the royal procession. Then 
 the rebellious crowd was affected with a strange illusion. They 
 fancied that the palace was on fire and was about to fall on 
 their heads, and that the horses of the king and his followers 
 were walking erect on their hind feet and kicking them 
 with their fore feet. Subdued by mortal terror, they could 
 neither flee nor prepare to strike ; they fell prostrate on the 
 ground. When we are told that the king put to death fifty- 
 two nobles, who were the active leaders of the insurrection, 
 and spared all the rest, we are back in the region of sober facts. 
 But Boris not only put to death the magnates who had 
 conspired against his life ; he also destroyed all their children. 2 
 This precaution against future conspiracies of sons thirsting 
 to avenge their fathers has also a political significance as a 
 blow struck at the dominant race, and must be taken in 
 connexion with the gradual transformation of the Bulgarian 
 into a Slavonic kingdom. 3 
 
 Greek clergy now poured into Bulgaria to baptize and 
 teach the people and to organize the Church. The Patriarch 
 Photius indited a long letter to his " illustrious and well- 
 beloved son," Michael, the Archon of Bulgaria, whom he calls 
 the " fair jewel of his labours." 4 In the polished style which 
 could only be appreciated and perhaps understood by the well- 
 trained ears of those who had enjoyed the privilege of higher 
 education, the Patriarch sets forth the foundations of the 
 Christian faith. Having cited the text of the creed of Nicaea 
 
 1 So Hincmar ; according to Cont. similar expressions, Valettas (p. 202, 
 Th. he carried a cross on his breast. note) hastily infers that Photius 
 
 2 Nicolaus, Respoiisa, ib. "omnes personally converted Boris. But it is 
 primates eorum atque maiores cum not likely either that Boris came to 
 omni prole sua." Constantinople or that Photius went 
 
 3 So Uspenski (Aboba, 105). to Bulgaria. The Patriarch was 
 
 4 cD KO.\&I> S.ya\fj.a T&V eft-Cov ir6t>ui>, doubtless active in bringing about 
 Ep. 9. p. 204. From this and other the conversion.
 
 388 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 and Constantinople, he proceeds to give a brief, but too long, 
 history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, in order to secure 
 his new convert against the various pitfalls of heresy which 
 lie so close to the narrow path of orthodox belief. The second 
 part of the letter is devoted to ethical precepts and admoni- 
 tions. Having attempted to deduce the universal principles 
 of morality from the two commandments, to love God and 
 thy neighbour as thyself, Photius traces the portrait of the 
 ideal prince. Isocrates had delineated a similar portrait for 
 the instruction of Nicocles, prince of Cyprus, and Photius has 
 blended the judicious counsels of the Athenian teacher with 
 the wisdom of Solomon's Proverbs and Jesus the son of Sirach. 1 
 The philosophical reader observes with interest that it is not 
 Christian but pre-Christian works to which the Patriarch 
 resorts for his practical morality. Seldom has such a lecture 
 been addressed to the patient ears of a barbarian convert, and 
 we should be curious to know what ideas it conveyed to the 
 Bulgarian king, when it was interpreted in Bulgarian or 
 Slavonic. The theological essay of the Patriarch can hardly 
 have simplified for the minds of Boris and his subjects those 
 abstruse metaphysical tenets of faith which the Christian is 
 required to profess, and the lofty ideal of conduct, which he 
 delineated, assuredly did not help them to solve the practical 
 difficulties of adjusting their native customs to the demands 
 of their new religion. 
 
 Not only Greek priests, but Armenians and others, busied 
 themselves in spreading their faith, and the natives were 
 puzzled by the discrepancies of their teaching. 2 A grave 
 scandal was caused when it was discovered that a Greek who 
 baptized many was not really a priest, and the unfortunate 
 man was condemned by the indignant barbarians to lose his 
 ears and nose, to be beaten with cruel stripes, and driven from 
 the country which he had deceived. 3 A year's experience of 
 the missionaries by whom his dominion was inundated may 
 probably have disappointed Boris. Perhaps he would not 
 have broken with Byzantium if it had not become evident 
 
 1 This has been shown by Valettas 2 Nic. Resp, 106. Snopek (Konst.- 
 
 in his notes. There are many re- Cyr. 17) states that the Armenians 
 
 semblances between the precepts of mentioned here were Paulicians. 
 
 Photius and the Admonitions (Hap- This seems highly probable, 
 
 of Basil I. to his son Leo VI. 3 Ib. 14.
 
 SECT, ii THE CONVERSION OF BULGARIA 389 
 
 that the Patriarch was determined to keep the new Church 
 in close dependence on himself, and was reluctant to appoint 
 a bishop for Bulgaria. But it is evident that Boris felt 
 at the moment able to defy the Imperial government. The 
 strained relations which existed between Rome and Con- 
 stantinople suggested the probability that the Pope might 
 easily be induced to interfere, and that under his authority 
 the Bulgarian Church might be organized in a manner more 
 agreeable to the king's views. Accordingly he despatched 
 ambassadors to Eome who appeared before Pope Nicolas 
 (August A.D. 866), asked him to send a bishop and priests to 
 their country, 1 and submitted to him one hundred and six 
 questions as to the social and religious obligations which their 
 new faith imposed upon their countrymen. They also 
 presented to him, along with other gifts, the arms which the 
 king had worn when he triumphed over his unbelieving 
 adversaries. 2 Boris at the same time sent an embassy to 
 King Lewis, begging him to send a bishop and priests. 3 
 The Pope selected Paul, bishop of Populonia, and Formosus, 
 bishop of Porto, as his legates, to introduce the Roman rites 
 in Bulgaria, and add a new province to his spiritual empire. 
 He provided them with the necessary ecclesiastical books and 
 paraphernalia, and he sent by their hands a full reply in 
 writing to the numerous questions, trivial or important, on 
 which the Bulgarians had consulted him. 
 
 This papal document is marked by the caution and 
 moderation which have generally characterized the policy of 
 the ablest Popes when they have not been quite sure of their 
 ground. It is evident that Nicolas was anxious not to lay 
 too heavy a yoke upon the converts, and it is interesting to 
 notice what he permits and what he forbids. He insists on 
 the observance of the fasts of the Church, on abstinence from 
 
 1 Ann. Bert. 86 ; for the date, Vit. vestments, and books for the use of 
 
 Nicol. pap. 156. The names of the the Bulgarian Church ; " unde Karolus 
 
 Bulgarian envoys were Peter, a relative ab episcopis regni sui non parvam 
 
 of Boris, John.and Martin ; Mansi, xvii. summam accipiens misit ei ad diri- 
 
 128 (in a letter of Pope John viii.). gendum regi (I have inserted misit, 
 
 which seems indispensable). Lewis 
 Ann. Bert ib. King Lewis, when sent a Msh with sts and deacons 
 
 he heard of this bade the Pope send but fori^/that the bishops sent by 
 the arms, etc. to him. ^he p ope were already active iy engaged 
 3 Ib. Lewis asked his brother the in baptizing, they immediately re- 
 Emperor Charles to send him vessels, turned : Ann. FiM. 380 (A.D. 867).
 
 390 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xir 
 
 work on holy days, 011 the prohibition of marriages within 
 the forbidden degrees. Besides these taboos, he lays down 
 that it is unlawful to enter a church with a turban on the 
 head, 1 and that no food may be tasted before nine o'clock in 
 the morning. On the other hand, he discountenances some 
 taboos which the Greek priests had sought to impose, that it 
 is unlawful to bathe on Wednesdays and Fridays, and to eat 
 the flesh of an animal that has been killed by a eunuch. But 
 he rules that it is not allowable to taste an animal which has 
 been hunted by a Christian if it has been killed by a pagan, 
 or killed by a Christian if it has been hunted by a pagan. 
 The Bulgarians had inquired whether they should adopt the 
 habit of wearing drawers ; he replied that it was a matter of 
 no importance. It was the custom for their king to eat in 
 solitary grandeur, not even his wife was permitted to sit beside 
 him. The Pope observes that this is bad manners and that 
 Jesus Christ did not disdain to eat with publicans and sinners, 
 but candidly affirms that it is not wrong nor irreligious. He 
 bids them substitute the cross for the horse's tail which was 
 their military standard. He strictly prohibits the practice 
 of pagan superstitions, the use of healing charms, and swearing 
 by the sword. He commands them to discontinue the singing 
 of songs and taking of auguries before battle, and exhorts 
 them to prepare for combat by reciting prayers, opening 
 prisons, liberating slaves, and bestowing alms. He condemns 
 the superstition of sortes liblicae to which the Greeks resorted. 2 
 A pleasing feature of the Pope's Responses is his solicitude 
 to humanize the Bulgarians by advising them to mitigate their 
 punishments in dealing with offenders. He sternly denounces, 
 and supports his denunciation by the argument of common 
 sense, the use of torture for extracting confessions from accused 
 persons. 3 He condemns the measures which had been taken 
 to destroy the rebels and their families as severe and unjust, 4 
 and censures the punishment which had been inflicted on the 
 Greek who had masqueraded as a priest. He enjoins the 
 right of asylum in churches, and lays down that even parricides 
 and fratricides who seek the refuge of the sanctuary should be 
 treated with mildness. But in the eyes of the medieval 
 
 1 Nic. Eesj>. 66 (cum ligatura lintei). 2 Ib. 77. :i Ib. 86. 
 
 4 See above, p. 387.
 
 SECT, ii THE CONVERSION OF BULGARIA 391 
 
 Christian, murder, which the unenlightened sense of antiquity 
 regarded as the gravest criminal offence, was a more pardonable 
 transgression than the monstrous sin of possessing two wives. 
 " The crime of homicide," the Pope asserts, " the crime of Cain 
 against Abel, could be wiped out in the ninth generation by 
 the flood ; but the heinous sin of adultery perpetrated by 
 Lamech could not be atoned for till the seventy-seventh 
 generation by the blood of Christ." 1 The Bulgarians are 
 commanded, not indeed, as we might expect, to put the 
 bigamist to death, but to compel him to repudiate the un- 
 fortunate woman who had the later claim upon his protection 
 and to perform the penance imposed by the priest. 
 
 The treatment of unbelievers was one of the more pressing 
 questions which Nicolas was asked to decide, and his ruling 
 on this point has some interest for the theory of religious 
 persecution. A distinction is drawn between the case of 
 pagans who worship idols and refuse to accept the new faith, 
 and the case of apostates who have embraced or promised to 
 embrace it, but have slidden back into infidelity. No personal 
 violence is to be offered to the former, no direct compulsion is 
 to be applied, because conversion must be voluntary ; but they 
 are to be excluded from the society of Christians. In the 
 case of a backslider, persuasive means should first be employed 
 to recall him to the faith ; but if the attempts of the Church 
 fail to reform him, it is the duty of the secular power to crush 
 him. " For if Christian governments did not exert themselves 
 against persons of this kind, how could they render to God an 
 account of their rule ; for it is the function of Christian kings 
 to preserve the Church their mother in peace and undiminished. 
 We read that King Nebuchadnezzar decreed, when the three 
 children were delivered from the flames, 'Whosoever shall 
 blaspheme the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall 
 perish, and their houses shall be destroyed.' If a barbarian 
 king could be so wroth at blasphemy against the God of Israel 
 because lie could deliver three children from temporal fire, 
 how much greater wrath should be felt by Christian kings at 
 the denial and mockery of Christ who can deliver the whole 
 world, with the kings themselves, from everlasting fire. Those 
 who are convicted of lying or infidelity to kings are seldom if 
 
 1 Nic. Resp. 51.
 
 392 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP; xn 
 
 ever allowed to escape alive ; how great should be the royal 
 anger when men deny, and do not keep their promised faith to, 
 Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Be zealous 
 with the zeal of God." Thus was the principle of the Inquisi- 
 tion laid down by Rome for the benefit of Bulgaria. 
 
 In the eyes of Boris the most important question submitted 
 to the Pope was the appointment of a Patriarch. On this 
 point Nicolas declined to commit himself. He said that he 
 could not decide until he had heard the report of his legates ; 
 but he promised that in any case Bulgaria should have a 
 bishop, and when a certain number of churches had been built, 
 an archbishop, if not a Patriarch. The prospect of an arch- 
 bishopric seems to have satisfied the king. He welcomed the 
 papal legates and, expelling all other missionaries from the 
 kingdom, committed to them exclusively the task of preaching 
 and baptizing. 1 Formosus succeeded so well in ingratiating 
 himself, that Boris destined him for the future archbishopric ; 
 but the Pope declined to spare him from his Italian see, and 
 sent out other bishops and priests, promising to consecrate as 
 archbishop whichever of them the king should select. 
 
 The Latin ecclesiastics worked for more than a year (A.D. 
 866-867) in the land which the Pope hoped he had annexed 
 to the spiritual dominion of Rome. 2 Bulgaria, however, was 
 not destined to belong to the Latin Church ; her fate was 
 linked in the religious as in the political sphere to Con- 
 stantinople. But the defeat of papal hopes and the triumph 
 of Byzantine diplomacy transcend the limits of the present 
 volume. 
 
 3. The Slavonic Apostles 
 
 The Slavonic land of Moravia, which extended into the 
 modern Hungary as far eastward as the river Gran, was split 
 into small principalities, the rivalries of whose lords invited 
 the interference of the Franks. The margraves of the East 
 Mark looked on the country as a client state ; the archbishops 
 of Passau considered it as within their spiritual jurisdiction ; 
 and German ecclesiastics worked here and there in the land, 
 though Christian theology had penetrated but little into the 
 
 1 Vit. Nic. pap. 157. tices by Photius, see above, Chap. VI. 
 
 2 For the denunciation of their prac- p. 200.
 
 SECT, in THE SLA VONIC APOSTLES 393 
 
 wilds, and only by an abuse of terms could Moravia be described 
 as Christian. 1 The Moravian Slavs chafed under a dependency 
 which their own divisions had helped to bring about, and we 
 have seen how Rostislav, a prince who owed his ascendancy 
 in the land to the support of King Lewis the German, sent an 
 embassy to Constantinople. 
 
 Ecclesiastical tradition affirms that his envoys, who arrived 
 at the court of Michael III. in A.D. 8 6 2-8 6 3, 2 requested the 
 Emperor to send to Moravia a teacher who knew Slavonic and 
 could instruct the inhabitants in the Christian faith and 
 explain the Scriptures. " Christian teachers have been amongst 
 us already, from Italy, Greece, and Germany, teaching us con- 
 tradictory doctrines ; but we are simple Slavs and we want 
 some one to teach us the whole truth." 3 
 
 We may confidently reject this account of the matter as 
 a legend. The truth probably is that, when the Moravian 
 embassy arrived, the Patriarch Photius saw an opportunity of 
 extending the influence of the Greek Church among the 
 Slavs, and incidentally of counteracting, in a new field, the 
 forms of Western Christianity which he so ardently detested. 
 The suggestion may have come to him from his friend 
 Constantine the Philosopher, a man of Thessalonica, who 
 had a remarkable gift for languages and was a master of 
 that Slavonic tongue which was spoken in the regions around 
 his birthplace. 
 
 There is not the least reason to suppose that the family of 
 Constantine (more familiarly known under his later name of 
 Cyril) was not Greek. 4 His elder brother, Methodius, had 
 entered the public service, had held the post of governor of 
 some region where there were Slavonic settlements, 5 and had 
 then retired to a monastery on Mt. Olympus in Bithynia. 
 Constantine (born about A.D. 827) 6 had been devoted to 
 
 1 At the Synod of Mainz in A.D. 852 above, p. 383, for its real object, 
 we hear of the ' ' rudis adhuc chri- 3 Vit. Meth. c. 5 ; cp. Translatio, 
 
 stianitasgentisMarahensium : M. G.H. c. 7, "qui ad legendum eos et ad 
 
 (Leg.) i. 414. Cp. Jagid, Entstehungs- perfectam legem ipsam edoceat. " 
 (jeschichte, i. 7. 4 JireSek's attempt to claim the 
 
 2 A.D. 860 or 861, ace. to Jagic, apostles as Slavs (Geschichte, 151) is 
 
 Entstehungsgeschichte, i. 6. As Con- unconvincing. 
 
 stantine probably did not go to Moravia 5 Fit. Met. c. 3, drzati slovensko, 
 
 till A.D. 864 (see below,-p. 396), it seems principatum Slovenicum. 
 more likely that the embassy arrived 6 When he died (A.D. 869, February 
 
 in 863 or at earliest 862. So too 14) he was 42 years old (Vit. Const. 
 
 Bretholz, Geschichte Mdhrens, 66. See c. 18).
 
 394 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 learning from his youth. Legend said that at the age of seven 
 years he had chosen, in a dream, Wisdom as his bride. The 
 promise of his boyhood excited the interest of the statesman 
 Theoktistos, who fetched him to Constantinople to complete 
 his education. He pursued his studies under two eminent men 
 of learning, Leo l and Photius. But he disappointed the hopes 
 of his patron, who destined him for a secular career and 
 offered him the hand of his god-daughter, a wealthy heiress. 
 He took orders and acted for some time as librarian of the 
 Patriarch's library, a post which, when Photius was Patriarch, 
 could not have been filled by one who was not exceptionally 
 proficient in learning. But Constantine soon buried himself 
 in a cloister, 2 which he was with difficulty persuaded to leave, 
 in order to occupy what may be described as an official chair 
 of philosophy at Constantinople. 3 His biographer says that 
 he was chosen by the Emperor to hold a disputation with 
 Saracen theologians on the doctrine of the Trinity. 4 Sub- 
 sequently he retired to live with his brother on Mount 
 Olympus. He was in this retreat when envoys from the 
 Chagan of the Khazars arrived at Constantinople and asked 
 the Emperor to send him a learned man to explain the tenets 
 of Christianity, so that the Khazars might judge between 
 it and two other faiths, Judaism and Mohammadanisin, 
 which were competing for their acceptance. Michael, by the 
 advice of Photius, entrusted the mission to Constantine, who, 
 accompanied by Imperial envoys, travelled to Cherson with 
 the embassy of the Khazars. 5 At Cherson he remained some 
 months to learn the Khazar language, 6 and to seek for the 
 body of St. Clement, the first bishop of Rome, who had 
 suffered martyrdom in the neighbourhood. But St. Clement 
 was a name almost forgotten by the natives, or rather the 
 
 1 See below, p. 436. since, according to the source, Fit. 
 
 a On the Stenon, i.e. the Bosphorus Const. 6, he was aged 24. The author 
 
 (Vit, Const, c. 4). of this life describes the debate at 
 
 3 See below, p. 439. His friendship length. 
 
 with Photius did not deter him from B Cp. below, p. 423. The source 
 
 entering into a speculative controversy for the discovery of the body of St. 
 
 with the learned Patriarch, who had Clement is the Translatio of Gauderic, 
 
 written a treatise to maintain the rash cp. Appendix XL 
 
 doctrine that two souls inhabited the 6 Translatio, c. 2. In Vit. Const. 
 
 human body. Anastasius, Praef. 6, c. 8 he is represented as studying 
 
 " fortissimo eius amico. " Hebrew and Samaritan at Cherson 
 
 4 Cp. Appendix XI. The date, if the Hebrew evidently for the purpose of 
 story were true, would be A.D. 851, disputing with the Jews.
 
 SECT, in THE SLA VONIC APOSTLES 395 
 
 strangers, 1 who inhabited Cherson ; the church near which his 
 coffin had been placed on the seashore was fallen into decay ; 
 and the coffin itself had disappeared in the waves. But it 
 was revealed to the Philosopher where he should search, and 
 under miraculous guidance, accompanied by the metropolitan 
 and clergy of Cherson, he sailed to an island, where diligent 
 excavation was at length rewarded by the appearance of a 
 human rib " shining like a star." The skull and then all 
 the other parts of what they took to be the martyr's sacred 
 body were gradually dug out, and the very anchor with which 
 he had been flung into the sea was discovered. Constantine 
 wrote a short history of the finding of the relics, in which he 
 modestly minimized his own share in the discovery ; and to 
 celebrate the memory of the martyr he composed a hymn and 
 a panegyrical discourse. Of his missionary work among the 
 Khazars nothing more is stated 2 than that he converted a 
 small number and found much favour with the Chagan, who 
 showed his satisfaction by releasing two hundred Christian 
 captives. 
 
 In this account of Constantine's career the actual facts 
 have been transmuted and distorted, partly by legendary 
 instinct, partly by deliberate invention. We need not hesitate 
 to accept as authentic some of the incidents which have no 
 direct bearing on his titles to fame, and which the following 
 generation had no interest in misrepresenting. The date of 
 his birth, for instance, the patronage accorded to him by the 
 Logothete (Theoktistos), the circumstances that he taught 
 philosophy and acted as librarian of the Patriarch, there is no 
 reason to doubt. 3 His visit to the Khazars for missionary 
 purposes is an undoubted fact, and even the panegyrical tradition 
 does not veil its failure, though it contrives to preserve his 
 credit ; but the assertion that he was sent in response to a 
 
 1 Translatio^ ib., " ut pote non to his disciples, one of whom was 
 
 indigenae, sed diversis ex gentibus probably the author of Vit. Const. 
 
 advenae." The chronological order, of course, 
 
 o rr-, n need not be accurate. For instance, 
 
 f i Flt - nst - cc - 9 > 1 J "' rel * tes f it is natural to conjecture that the 
 
 at length disputations at the court of learned Constantine, whom we know 
 
 the Klmzars. C p. Pastrnek Dcj-my otherwise to have b ' ee n intimate with 
 
 si. Ap 58 sq., and see below, Ap- PhotiuSj was Patriarchal librarian 
 
 under him, i.e. not earlier than A.D. 
 
 3 These facts, known to Methodius, 859. The narrative in Vit. Const. 
 
 could have been handed down by him would certainly imply an earlier date-
 
 396 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 request of the Chagan is of one piece with the similar assertion 
 in regard to his subsequent mission to Moravia. His discovery 
 of the body of St. Clement is a myth, 1 but underlying it is 
 the fact that he brought back to Constantinople from Cherson 
 what he and all the world supposed to be relics of the 
 Eoman saint. 
 
 The visit to the Khazars may probably be placed in the 
 neighbourhood of A.D. 860, 2 and it was not long after 
 Constantino's return to Constantinople that the arrival of the 
 Moravian envoys suggested the idea of a new sphere of 
 activity. We are quite in the dark as to how the arrange- 
 ments were made, but it was at all events decided that 
 Constantine and his brother Methodius should undertake the 
 task of propagating Christianity in Moravia. They set out 
 not later than in the summer of A.D. 864. 3 
 
 According to the naive story, which, as we have seen, 
 represents Eostislav as begging for teachers, Constantine 
 accomplished, in the short interval between the embassy and 
 his departure, what was no less than a miracle. He invented 
 a new script and translated one of the Gospels or compiled a 
 Lectionary 4 in the Slavonic tongue. If we consider what this 
 means we shall hardly be prepared to believe it. The alphabet 
 
 1 Anastasius believed in it, but he they remained 40 months in Moravia ; 
 heard it from Metrophanes, bishop of according to Fit. Meth. c. 6, 3 years. 
 Smyrna. Constantine himself, whom (The Translatio, c. 7, gives 4 years, 
 he knew personally (at Rome in A.D. but there may be an error through 
 868), declined to say how the relics confusion of iii. with iu.). They left 
 had been obtained (Ep. ad Gauderi- probably before the end of A.D. 867 ; 
 cum, apud Pastrnek, 247 : " quae see below. 
 
 praedictus philosophus fugiens arro- 4 Jagic, op. cil. i. 17, who thinks 
 
 gantiae notam referre non passus est"). that Constantino's work as a translator 
 
 This admission enables us to judge the consisted of (besides the Lectionary) 
 
 story. Cp. Franko, Beitrage, 236. liturgical books containing psalms 
 
 Franko, in this article, points out that and prayers. These books may have 
 
 there was another legend which relates been begun before his arrival in 
 
 the discovery of St. Clement to the Moravia, but the evidence of the old 
 
 reign of Nicephorus I. (231 sg^.). Glagolitic Psalter (ed. by Geitler in 
 
 2 If we assume that he was a 1883) points to the conclusion that 
 librarian of Photius and that he some of the Psalms were translated in 
 held this office before the Khazar Moravia (ib. ii. 51). For the con- 
 mission (as the Vit. Const, states). sultation of the Latin text (likely in 
 We have a certain confirmation of this Moravia, highly improbable at Con- 
 in the probability that he could hardly stantinople) is evident in several 
 have undertaken the mission until he passages, e.g. Ps. 118, 130, ij 5?;Xw- 
 was in priest's orders. As 30 was the eris rCiv \6yuv <roi/ <f>uTiei KO.I ffweriti 
 minimum age (Cone. Trull, can. 14), vyirlovs where the Slavonic razum 
 and he was born in 827, he could not daet for ffvvertei is obviously influenced 
 have been ordained priest before 857. by the Latin intcllcdum dat. 
 
 3 According to Vit. Const, c. 15,
 
 SECT, in THE SLA VONIC APOSTLES 397 
 
 of the early Slavonic books that were used by Constantine and 
 his brother in Moravia was a difficult script, derived from 
 Greek minuscule characters, so modified that the origin 
 can only be detected by careful study. It would have been 
 impossible to invent, and compose books in, this Glagolitic 
 writing, as it is called, in a year. It has been suggested that 
 the Macedonian Slavs already possessed an alphabet which they 
 employed for the needs of daily life, and that what Constantine 
 did was to revise this script and complete it, for the more 
 accurate rendering of the sounds of Slavonic speech, by some 
 additional symbols which he adapted from Hebrew or 
 Samaritan. 1 His work would then have been similar to that 
 of Wulfilas, who adapted the Kunic alphabet already in use 
 among the Goths and augmented it by new signs for his 
 literary purpose. But we have no evidence of earlier Slavonic 
 writing; and the Glagolitic forms give the impression that 
 they were not the result of an evolution, but were an artificial 
 invention, for which the artist took Greek minuscules as his 
 guide, but deliberately set himself to disguise the origin of the 
 new characters. 
 
 It must have been obvious to Constantine that the Greek 
 signs themselves without any change, supplemented by a few 
 additional symbols, were an incomparably more convenient 
 and practical instrument. And, as a matter of fact, his name 
 is popularly associated with the script which ultimately super- 
 seded the Glagolitic. The Cyrillic script, used to this day by 
 the Bulgarians, Servians, and Russians, is simply the Greek 
 uncial alphabet, absolutely undisguised, expanded by some 
 necessary additions. That tradition is wrong in connecting 
 it with Cyril, it is impossible to affirm or deny ; it is certain 
 only that he used Glagolitic for the purpose of his mission to 
 Moravia and that for a century after his death Glagolitic 
 remained in possession. To expend labour in manufacturing 
 such symbols as the Glagolitic and to use them for the 
 purpose of educating a barbarous folk, when the simple Greek 
 forms were ready to his hand, argues a perversity which would 
 be incredible if it had not some powerful motive. It has been 
 pointed out that such a motive existed. 2 In order to obtain 
 a footing in Moravia, it was necessary to proceed with the 
 
 1 Cp. Jagic, op. cit. ii. 28. 2 Briickner, 219 sq<
 
 398 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 utmost caution. There could be no question there, in the 
 existing situation, of an open conflict with Eome or of falling 
 foul of the German priests who were already in the country. 
 Rostislav would never have acquiesced in an ecclesiastical 
 quarrel which would have increased the difficulties of his 
 own position. The object of Photius and Constantine, to 
 win Moravia ultimately from Rome and attach her to 
 Byzantium, could only be accomplished by a gradual process 
 of insinuation. It would be fatal to the success of the 
 enterprise to alarm the Latin Church at the outset, and 
 nothing would have alarmed it more than the introduction 
 of books written in the Greek alphabet. Glagolitic solved 
 the problem. It could profess to be a purely Slavonic script, 
 and could defy the most suspicious eye of a Latin bishop to 
 detect anything Greek in its features. It had the further 
 advantage of attracting the Slavs, as a proper and peculiar 
 alphabet of their own. 
 
 But the important fact remains that the invention of 
 Glagolitic and the compilation of Glagolitic books required 
 a longer time than the short interval between the Moravian 
 embassy and the departure of the two apostles. There is no 
 ground for supposing, and it is in itself highly improbable, 
 that the idea of a mission to that distant country had been 
 conceived before the arrival of Eostislav's envoys. Moreover, 
 if the alphabet and books had been expressly designed for 
 Moravian use, it is hard to understand why Constantine should 
 have decided to offer his converts a literature written in a 
 different speech from their own. He translated the Scripture 
 into the dialect of Macedonian Slavonic, which was entirely 
 different from the Slovak tongue spoken in Moravia. 1 It is 
 true that the Macedonian was the only dialect which he knew, 
 and it was comparatively easy for the Moravians to learn its 
 peculiarities ; but if it was the needs of the Moravian mission 
 that provoked Constantino's literary services to Slavonic, the 
 natural procedure for a missionary was to learn the speech of 
 the people whom he undertook to teach, and then prepare 
 books for them in their own language. 
 
 The logical conclusion from these considerations is that 
 
 1 Cp. Jagid, op. cit. i. 9-11. Slovak belongs to the Bohemian group of 
 Slavonic languages.
 
 SECT, in THE SLA VONIC APOSTLES 399 
 
 the Glagolitic characters were devised, and a Slavonic ecclesi- 
 astical literature begun, not for the sake of Moravia, but for 
 a people much nearer to Byzantium. The Christianization 
 of Bulgaria was an idea which must have been present to 
 Emperors and Patriarchs for years before it was carried out, 
 and Constantine must have entertained the conviction that 
 the reception of his religion by the Bulgarian Slavs would 
 be facilitated by procuring for them Scripture and Liturgy in 
 their own tongue and in an alphabet which was not Greek. 
 That he had some reason for this belief is shown by the 
 resistance which Glagolitic offered in Bulgaria to the Greek 
 (Cyrillic) alphabet in the tenth century. The Slavs of 
 Bulgaria spoke the same tongue as the Slavs of Macedonia, 
 and it was for them, in the first instance, that the new 
 literature was intended. The Moravian opportunity unex- 
 pectedly intervened, and what was intended for the Slavs of 
 the south was tried upon the Slavs beyond the Carpathians 
 experimentum in corpore vili. 
 
 " If Constantine had been really concerned for the interests 
 of the Moravians themselves, he would have written for them 
 in their own language, not in that of Salonika, and in the 
 Latin, not in an artificially barbarous or Greek, alphabet." 1 
 But he was playing the game of ecclesiastical policy ; Photius 
 was behind him ; and the interest of the Moravian adventure 
 was to hoodwink and out-manosuvre Rome. 
 
 The adventure was a failure so far as Moravia itself was 
 concerned. It brought no triumph or prestige to the Church 
 of Constantinople, and the famous names of Constantine and 
 Methodius do not even once occur in the annals of the Greek 
 historians. 
 
 The two apostles taught together for more than three 
 years in Moravia, and seem to have been well treated by the 
 prince. But probably before the end of A.D. 867 they returned 
 to Constantinople, 2 and in the following year proceeded to 
 
 1 Bruckner (219), with whose views right ; for Constantine brought the 
 in the main points I agree, though I relics of Clement to Rome, and it is 
 do not go so far as to reject the not to be supposed that he would have 
 embassy of Rostislav. taken, or been allowed to take, them 
 
 2 Fit. 3feth. c. 5, " reversi sunt to Mora via from Constantinople. Their 
 ambo ex Moravia." This statement, arrival in Rome was probably in 868 ; 
 inconsistent with other sources which the j>ost quern limit is Dec. 14, 867 ; 
 describe their journey to Rome through see next note. 
 
 Pannonia and by Venice, is obviously
 
 400 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xn 
 
 Kome. Pope Nicolas, hearing of their activity in Moravia, 
 and deeming it imperative to inquire into the matter, had 
 addressed to them an apostolic letter, couched in friendly 
 terms and summoning them to Kome. They had doubtless 
 discovered for themselves that their position would be soon 
 impossible unless they came to terms with the Pope. The 
 accession of Basil and the deposition of Photius changed the 
 situation. A Patriarch who was under obligations to the 
 Roman See was now enthroned, and Constantine and Methodius, 
 coining from Constantinople and bearing as a gift the relics 
 of St. Clement, could be sure of a favourable reception. They 
 found that a new Pope had succeeded to the pontifical chair. 1 
 Hadrian II., attended by all the Eoman clergy, went forth at 
 the head of the people to welcome the bearers of the martyr's 
 relics, which, it is superfluous to observe, worked many miracles 
 and cures. 
 
 The Pope seems to have approved generally of the work 
 which Constantine had inaugurated. Methodius and three of 
 the Moravian disciples were ordained priests ; 2 but Moravia 
 was not made a bishopric and still remained formally dependent 
 on the See of Passau. Hadrian seems also to have expressed 
 a qualified approval of the Slavonic books. The opponents of 
 the Greek brethren urged that there were only three sacred 
 tongues, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, appealing to the super- 
 scription on the Cross. The Pope is said to have rejected this 
 " Pilatic " dogma in its extreme form, and to have authorized 
 preaching and the reading of the Scriptures in Slavonic ; but 
 he certainly did not, as was afterwards alleged, license the 
 singing of the service of the Mass in the strange tongue, even 
 though it were also chanted in Latin, 3 nor did he cause the 
 Slavonic liturgy to be recited in the principal churches of 
 Rome. 4 
 
 At this time, the most learned man at Rome was the 
 librarian Anastasius, who knew Greek, kept himself in contact 
 with the Greek world, and translated into Latin the Chronicle 
 
 1 Nicolas died A.D. 867, Nov. 13, Methodius became bishop of Pannonia 
 Hadrian succeeded Dec. 14. at a later period ( Vit. Meth. c. 8 ad 
 
 2 Vit. Meth. c. 6. The addition to fin.). 
 
 the Translatio (c 9 ad fin ) states See the spurious letter of Hadrian 
 that both Constantine and Methodius . V4t Ml , n . L s 
 
 11-1 ii* * ili * "" iM-tsv/vt L> O. 
 
 were consecrated bishops, and this is 
 
 accepted by Snopek, op. cit. 126 sqq. 4 Vit. Const, c. 17.
 
 THE SLA VONIC APOSTLES 
 
 401 
 
 of Theophanes. He made the acquaintance of Constantine, 
 of whose character and learning he entertained a profound 
 admiration. Writing at a later time to the Western Emperor, 
 Anastasius mentions that Constantine knew by heart the 
 works of Dionysios the Areopagite and recommended them 
 as a powerful weapon for combating heresies. 1 But the days 
 of Constantine the Philosopher were numbered. He fell ill 
 and was tonsured as a monk, assuming the name of Cyril. 
 He died on February 14, A.D. 869, 2 and his body was 
 entombed near the altar in the church which had been 
 newly erected in honour of St. Clement. 3 
 
 The subsequent career of Methodius in Moravia and 
 Pannonia lies outside our subject. He was in an untenable 
 position, and the forces against him were strong. He was 
 determined to celebrate mass in Slavonic, yet he depended on 
 the goodwill of the Roman See. His disciples, soon after 
 their master's death, were compelled to leave the country, 
 and they found a more promising field of work in Bulgaria, 
 the land for which, as we have seen reason to think, Cyril's 
 literary labours were originally intended. 
 
 discovered close to the place where 
 Constantine was buried, representing 
 the translation of the saint's relics 
 into the church, the inscription 
 ACIRIL occurs (apparently referring to 
 their discovery and restoration by 
 Cyril). Rossi dates the frescoes to 
 the tenth century. See Bullettino 
 di archeologia cristiana, i. 9 sqq., 1863 ; 
 ii. 1 sqq., 1864 ; and G. Wilpert, Le 
 pitture della basilica primitiva di San 
 Clemente (1906). Cp. Pastrnek, op. 
 cit. 91. 
 
 1 Ep. ad Car., apudGinzel, Anhang, 
 p. 44. Anastasius is mentioned in 
 Vit. Const, c. 17 one of the details 
 which show that the writer (who also 
 knew that Constantino's disciples were 
 consecrated by bishops Formosus and 
 Gauderic) had some good information. 
 
 2 Vit. Const, c. 18 ; Translatio, c. 10. 
 
 3 It was built by Gauderic, bishop 
 of Velletri, who was interested in St. 
 Clement, to whom the Church of 
 Velletri was dedicated (Anastasius, 
 Ep. ad Gaudyicum). On old frescoes 
 
 2 D
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 
 THE EMPIRE OF THE KHAZARS AND THE PEOPLES 
 OF THE NORTH 
 
 1. The Khazars 
 
 AT the beginning of the ninth century the Eastern Empire had 
 two dependencies, remote and isolated, which lived outside the 
 provincial organization, and were governed by their own 
 magistrates, Venice and Cherson. We have seen how Venice, 
 in the reign of Theophilus, virtually became independent of 
 Constantinople ; under the same Emperor, the condition of 
 Cherson was also changed, but in a very different sense it was 
 incorporated in the provincial system. The chief value of 
 both cities to the Empire was commercial ; Venice was an 
 intermediary for Byzantine trade with the West, while Cherson 
 was the great centre for the commerce of the North. And 
 both cities lay at the gates of other empires, which were both an 
 influence and a menace. If the people of the lagoons had to 
 defend themselves against the Franks, the Chersonites had as 
 good reason to fear the Khazars. , 
 
 In the period with which we are concerned, it is probable 
 that the Khan of the Khazars was of little less importance in 
 the view of the Imperial foreign policy than Charles the Great 
 and his successors. The marriage of an Emperor to the 
 daughter of a Khazar king had signalised in the eighth century 
 that Byzantium had interests of grave moment in this quarter 
 of the globe, where the Khazars had formed a powerful and 
 organized state, exercising control or influence over the barbarous 
 peoples which surrounded them. 
 
 Their realm extended from the Caucasus northward to the 
 Volga and far up the lower reaches of that river ; it included 
 
 402
 
 SECT, i THE KHAZARS 403 
 
 the basin of the Don, it reached westward to the banks of the 
 Dnieper, and extended into the Tauric Chersonese. In this 
 empire were included peoples of various race the Inner 
 Bulgarians, the Magyars, the Burdas, and the Goths of the 
 Crimea ; while the Slavonic state of Kiev paid a tribute to the 
 Chagan. The Caucasian range divided the Khazars from Iberia 
 and the dependencies of the Caliphate ; towards the Black Sea 
 their neighbours were the Alans and the Abasgi ; the Dnieper 
 bounded their realm on the side of Great Bulgaria; in the 
 north their neighbours were the Bulgarians of the Volga, 
 and in the east the Patzinaks. All these folks came within 
 the view of Byzantine diplomacy; some of them were to 
 play an important part in the destinies of the Eastern 
 Empire. 
 
 The capital of the ruling people was situated on the 
 Caspian Sea, at the mouths of the Volga, and was generally 
 known as Itil. 1 It was a double town built of wood. The 
 western town was named Saryg-shar, or Yellow City, in which 
 the Chagan resided during the winter ; over against it was the 
 eastern town of Chamllch or Khazaran, in which were the 
 quarters of the Mohammadan and the Scandinavian merchants. 
 Chamllch seems to have lain on the eastern bank of the eastern 
 branch of the river, while Saryg-shar was built on the island 
 and on the western shore of the western mouth, the two 
 portions being connected by a bridge of boats ; so that Itil is 
 sometimes described as consisting of three towns. 2 The island 
 was covfered with the fields and vineyards and gardens of the 
 Chagan. 
 
 Three other important towns or fortresses of the Khazars 
 lay between Itil and the Caspian gates. Semender was situated 
 at the mouth of the Terek stream at Kizliar. 3 It was a place 
 rich in vineyards, with a considerable Mohammadan population, 
 
 1 The name of the Volga. The three towns are mentioned : in the 
 western arm of the delta was called largest of them is the Queen's palace, 
 Ugru (Westberg would read Ulug}, the in the smallest the King's palace, be- 
 eastern Buzan. See Westberg, K. ween (? around) whose walls flows the 
 analizu, ii. 41. river. See Marquart, Streifzuge, xlii. 
 
 2 Ibn Rusta and Ibn Fadhlan speak Saryg - shar was called al - Baidha 
 of two towns or parts of the town (the ("the white ") by older Arabic writers 
 former designates the eastern as Habu (Westberg, op. tit. ii. 14). Westberg 
 balyg). Masudi (Sprenger, 406-407) has shown that the later name of 
 speaks of three parts, and places the Itil was Saksin (ib. 37 sqq., and Bei- 
 King's palace in the island. This trage, ii. 288 sqq.}. 
 
 agrees with the Letter of Joseph, where 3 Westberg, K analizu, ii. 41 sqq.
 
 404 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xin 
 
 who lived in wooden houses with convex roofs. 1 The fortress 
 of Belenjer, which lay on the lower course of the Sulek, on the 
 road which leads southward from Kizliar to Petrovsk, 2 seems 
 to have played some part in the earlier wars between the 
 Khazars and the Saracens. 3 Further south still was the town 
 of TarJcu, on the road to Kaiakend and the Caspian gates. 4 
 
 The Arabic writers to whom we owe much of our knowledge 
 of Khazaria suggest a picture of agricultural and pastoral 
 prosperity. The Khazars were extensive sheep-farmers ; 5 their 
 towns were surrounded by gardens and vineyards ; they were 
 rich in honey and wax ; and had abundance of fish. The richest 
 pastures and most productive lands in their country were known 
 as the Nine Eegions, and probably lay in the modern districts 
 of Kuban and Ter. 6 The king and his court wintered in Itil, 
 but in the spring they went forth and encamped in the plains. 7 
 According to one report, the Chagan had twenty-five wives, 
 each the daughter of a king, and sixty concubines eminent for 
 their beauty. Each of them had a house of her own, a quliba 
 covered with teakwood, surrounded by a large pavilion, and 
 each was jealously guarded by a eunuch who kept her from 
 being seen. 8 But at a later period a Chagan boasts of his 
 queen, her maidens, and eunuchs, and we are left to wonder 
 whether polygamy had been renounced or was deliberately 
 concealed. 9 
 
 The Chagan himself seems to have taken no direct share in 
 the administration of the state or the conduct of war. His 
 sacred person was almost inaccessible ; when he rode abroad, 
 all those who saw him prostrated themselves on the ground 
 and did not rise till he had passed out of sight. On his death, 
 a great sepulchre was built with twenty chambers, suspended 
 
 1 Ibn Haukal and Istachri describe 6 ra evvta. K\i/j,ara TTJS Xafaplas, from 
 it ; see Marquart, Streifzuge, xlii. n. 3, which was derived ij waaa fwri ical 
 and 1-2. Istachri says that it was d^Oovta r?ys X. ; they were on the side 
 governed by a prince who was a Jew towards the land of the Alans (see 
 and related to the Chagan. This below). Const. DC adm. imp. 80. 
 refers to a period after the conversion 7 Cp. Gurdizi, p. 96 (tr. Barthold). 
 to Judaism. See also der chaz. Konigsbrief, 80. 
 
 2 \y es tberg ib 8 Cp. Ibn Fadhlan ( Fe<. Mem.}, 592 ; 
 
 3 For the evidence see Marquart, Marquart,. *! * 2. When the 
 op. cit. 16-17. He wrongly identifies Cha 8 an w | shed to emb / ac , e ne ? f hls 
 
 Tarku with Semender. ""f*.*; h h to <* ' er '". f 
 
 instant to Ins quoba, waited outside, 
 
 Westberg, ' am ] t h en reconducted her. 
 
 5 Westberg, o/>, cit. ii. 13. 9 Der chaz. KiJnigslrief, 79.
 
 SECT, i THE KHAZARS 405 
 
 over a stream, so that neither devils nor men nor worms might 
 be able to penetrate it. The mausoleum was called paradise, 
 and those who deposited his body in one of its recesses were 
 put to death, that the exact spot in which he was laid might 
 never be revealed. A rider who passed it by dismounted, and 
 did not remount until the tomb could be no longer seen. 
 When a new Chagan ascended the throne, a silk cord was 
 bound tightly round his neck and he was required to declare 
 how long he wished to reign ; when the period which he 
 mentioned had elapsed, he was put to death. But it is 
 uncertain how far we can believe the curious stories of the 
 Arabic travellers, from whom these details are derived. 1 
 
 We have no information at what time the active authority 
 of the Chagan was exchanged for this divine nullity, or why he 
 was exalted to a position, resembling that of the Emperor of 
 Japan, in which his existence, and not his government, was 
 considered essential to the prosperity of the State. The labours 
 of government were fulfilled by a Beg or viceroy, 2 who com- 
 manded the army, regulated the tribute, and presided over the 
 administration. He appeared in the presence of the Chagan 
 with naked feet, and lit a torch ; when the torch had burnt 
 out he was permitted to take his seat at the right hand of 
 the monarch. When evil times befell, the people held 
 the Chagan responsible and called upon the Beg to put him 
 to death ; the Beg sometimes complied with their demand. 3 
 The commander of an army who suffered defeat was cruelly 
 treated : his wife, children, and property were sold before 
 his eyes, and he was either executed or degraded to menial 
 rank. 4 
 
 The most remarkable fact in the civilisation of this Turkish 
 people was the conversion of the Chagan and the upper rank 
 of society to Judaism. The religion of the Hebrews had 
 exercised a profound influence on the creed of Islam, and it 
 had been a basis of Christianity ; it had won scattered prose- 
 
 1 Ibn Fadhlan, ib. 592-593. He is x.cuya.vos (Kfwos icai 6 irtx Xafapias 
 called by Arabic writers the Ishad (text 6 icai irtx erroneously, which we 
 (Gurdizi, tr. Barthold, 120 ; Isha, could correct even without the right 
 Ibn Rusta ; = al-shad, cp. Marquart, reading in Cont. Th. 122). Ibn Fadh- 
 op. cit. 24). But he was probably also Ian, ib. 592. Cp. Masudi (Sprenger), 
 known as the bul-khan, see below, p. 410. 
 
 406, n. 1. 3 Masudi, ib. 411. 
 
 2 Const. DC adm. imp. 178, 6 ybp 4 Ibn Fadhlan, ib. 593.
 
 406 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xin 
 
 lytes; but the conversion of the Khazars to the undiluted 
 religion of Jehovah is unique in history. The date of this 
 event has been disputed, and the evidence variously assigns it to 
 the first half of the eighth century or to the beginning of the 
 ninth. 1 There can be no question that the ruler was actuated 
 by political motives in adopting Judaism. To embrace 
 Mohammadanism would have made him the spiritual dependent 
 of the Caliphs, who attempted to press their faith on the 
 Khazars, and in Christianity lay the danger of his becoming 
 an ecclesiastical vassal of the Koman Empire. Judaism was a 
 reputable religion with sacred books which both Christian and 
 Mohammadan respected ; it elevated him above the heathen 
 barbarians, and secured him against the interference of Caliph 
 or Emperor. But he did not adopt, along with circumcision, 
 the intolerance of the Jewish cult. He allowed the mass of 
 his people to abide in their heathendom and worship their 
 idols. 2 
 
 The circumstances of the conversion are as uncertain as the 
 date. Joseph, the Chagan whose Hebrew letter to the Eabbi 
 Chisdai of Cordova in the tenth century is preserved, states that 
 the Koman Emperor and the Caliph, whom he respectively 
 styles the King of Edom and the King of the Ishmaelites, sent 
 embassies laden with rich gifts and accompanied by theological 
 sages, to induce his ancestor to embrace their civilisations. 
 The prince found a learned Israelite and set him to dispute 
 with the foreign theologians. When he saw that they could 
 
 1 For the former date, our authority in the accounts of that mission the 
 is the Khazar tradition preserved in Chagan is not represented as a Jew. 
 the Letter of Joseph ; it, is supported But the Arabic accounts of the Khazars 
 by Westberg, K. anal. ii. 34. For (Ibn Rusta, etc. ), which depend on an 
 the latter (reign of Harun), Masudi older source prior to A.I). 850, assume the 
 (Sprenger), 407. According to Joseph, Judaism of the Khazars at that time, 
 the name of the King who was con- Marquart endeavours to explain away 
 verted was Bulan, who passed through this evidence by assuming that it is 
 the Gates of Dariel and reached the a later addition of an intermediate 
 land of Ardebil. We know from Arabic source, Gaihani. The passage which 
 and Armenian sources that such an he cites from the commentary on 
 expedition was conducted by Bulkhan Matthew by Druthmar (on Matt. 24, 
 in A.D. 731. Bulkhan was the major- 34, Max. bibl. veterum patrum Lugdun. 
 domo (irtx)> as Westberg says ; and xv. 158, 1677), who was writing soon 
 we may suspect that this was his title, after the conversion of the Bulgarians, 
 not his name. Marquart (who denies proves nothing as to the chronology, 
 the genuineness of Joseph's Letter) except that the conversion of the 
 places the conversion to Judaism in Khazars was prior to A.D. 865, the 
 the second half of the ninth century, date of the conversion of the Bui- 
 after the mission of Constantino garians. Cp. Westberg, op. cit. 36. 
 (Streifziige, 5-17), on the ground that 2 So Gurdizi and Ibn Riista.
 
 SECT, i THE KHAZARS 407 
 
 not agree on a single point, he said, " Go to your tents and 
 return on the third day." On the morrow, the Chagan sent 
 for the Christian and asked him, " Which is the better faith, 
 that of Israel or that of Islam ? " and he replied, " There is no 
 law in the world like that of Israel." On the second day the 
 Chagan sent for the learned Mohammadan and said, " Tell me 
 the truth, which law seems to you the better, that of Israel or 
 that of the Christians ? " And the Mohammadan replied, 
 " Assuredly that of Israel." Then on the third day the Chagan 
 called them all together and said, " You have proved to me by 
 your own mouths that the law of Israel is the best and purest 
 of the three, and I have chosen it." l 
 
 The truth underlying this tradition which embodies the 
 actual relation of Judaism to the two other religions seems to 
 be that endeavours were made to convert the Chagans both to 
 Christianity and to Islam. And, as a matter of fact, in the 
 reign of Leo III. the Caliph Marwan attempted to force the 
 faith of Mohammad upon the Khazars, and perhaps succeeded 
 for a moment. He invaded their land in A.D. 737, and 
 marching by Belenjer and Semender, advanced to Itil. The 
 Chagan was at his mercy, and obtained peace only by consent- 
 ing to embrace Islam. 2 As Irene, who married the Emperor 
 Constantine V., must have been the daughter or sister of this 
 Chagan, it is clear that in this period there were circumstances 
 tending to draw the Khazars in the opposite directions of 
 Christ and Mohammad. And this is precisely the period to 
 which the evidence of the Letter of Joseph seems to assign the 
 conversion to Judaism. We may indeed suspect that Judaism 
 was first in possession a conclusion which the traditional 
 
 1 Der cliaz, Konigsbrief, 74 sqq. In tradition, recorded by Joseph, has 
 
 its main tenor this story coincides been modified, in the Arabic source, 
 
 with that told by Bakri (whose source in a sense unfavourable to Christianity 
 
 here Marquart considers to beMasudi, and favourable to Islam. In the twelfth 
 
 Streifziige, 7). The Chagan had adopted century the Spanish poet Juda Halevi 
 
 Christianity, but found it to be a wrote a curious philosophical religious 
 
 corrupt religion. He sent for a work in the form of a dialogue between 
 
 Christian bishop, who, questioned by a king of the Khazars and a Jewish 
 
 a Jewish dialectician in the king's rabbi. It has been translated into 
 
 presence, admitted that the Law of English by H. Hirschfeld (Judah 
 
 Moses was true. He also sent for a Jfallevi's Kitab al Khazari, 1905). 
 Mohammadan sage, but the Jew con- 2 Baladhuri, apud Marquart, Streif- 
 
 trived to have him poisoned on his ziige, 12. The invasion of Marwan was 
 
 journey. The Jew then succeeded in a reprisal for an expedition of Khazars, 
 
 converting the king to the Mosaic who in A.D. 730 penetrated to Adar- 
 
 religion. It is clear that the same biyan.
 
 408 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xin 
 
 story unintentionally suggests. 1 The Jewish influence in 
 Khazaria was due to the encouragement given by the Chagans 
 to Hebrew merchants. 2 Of the Jewish port of Tamatarkha 
 more will be said presently ; and we may notice the Jewish 
 population at Jundar, a town in the Caucasus, which was 
 governed in the ninth century by a relation of the Chagan, 
 who is said to have prayed impartially with the Moslems on 
 Friday, with the Jews on Saturday, and with the Christians 
 on Sunday. 3 
 
 Somewhat later in the eighth century a princess of the 
 Khazars married the Saracen governor of Armenia, and there 
 was peace on the southern frontier till the reign of Harun al- 
 Rashid. 4 In A.D. 798 another marriage alliance was arranged 
 between a daughter of the Chagan and one of the powerful 
 family of the Barmecides. The lady died in Albania on the 
 way to her bridal, and the officers who were in charge of her 
 reported to her father their suspicion that she had been 
 poisoned. The suggestion infuriated the Chagan, and in the 
 following year the Khazars invaded Armenia, by the Gates of 
 Derbeud, and returned with an immense booty in captives. 5 
 Then Harun's son, Mamun, carried his arms victoriously into 
 the land of the Khazars. 6 
 
 8 2. The Subjects and Neighbours of the Kliazars 
 
 The Khazars had never succeeded in extending their 
 lordship over their neighbours the ALANS, whose territory 
 extended from the Caucasus to the banks of the river Kuban 
 and was bounded on the west by the Euxine. The Alans, who 
 
 1 The Jewish rabbi who disputes is 4 Baladhuri (Marquart, op. cit. 37). 
 already on the spot. The Letter of 5 Marauart -,, r 
 
 Joseph gives the date as about 340 arquart, ^b. 5. 
 
 years before his own time (c. A.D. 960). 6 The authority is Mukaddasi, who 
 
 340 is clearly corrupt, and if we read says that Mamun required the Chagan 
 
 240 with Westberg (op. cit. ii. 34), to embrace Islam (Marquart, ib. 3). 
 
 we get c. A.D. 720 as the date. Mamun governed Khurasan, under his 
 
 2 In the ninth century, Ibn Khur- father, from A.D. 799. He was also in 
 dadhbah mentions that Jewish Khurasan, as Caliph, between A.D. 
 merchants from Spain used to come 813 and 818. Marquart does not 
 regularly overland, through the coun- decide the date of the campaign in 
 try of the Slavs, to the capital of Khazaria. It is natural to suppose 
 the Khazars (Chamlich). Marquart, that it was the reply to the Khazar 
 op. cit. 24. invasion of A.D. 799, and to assign it 
 
 3 Ibn Rusta and Gurdizi, 190 ; to the earlier period ; but cp. Mar- 
 Marquart, op. cit. 20. quart, 476,
 
 SECT, ii SUBJECTS AND NEIGHBOURS OF KHAZARS 409 
 
 have survived to the present day under the name of the 
 Ossetians, were a mainly pastoral people ; their army consisted 
 in cavalry; and they had a fortress, which was virtually 
 impregnable, at the so-called Alan-gate of the Caucasus or Pass 
 of Dariel. 1 We are told that the habitations of the people 
 were so close together that when a cock crowed in one place 
 he was answered by all the cocks in the rest of the kingdom. 
 At some time before the tenth century the king adopted 
 Christianity, but the mass of his subjects remained heathen. 2 
 He received his Christianity from Constantinople, and the 
 Emperors appropriated to him the special title of exusiastes? 
 Between the Alans and the Khazars were the habitations of 
 the SAKIKS, a heathen people whose name does not come into 
 the annals of Byzantium. 4 
 
 North of the Alans, between the rivers Kuban and Don, 
 the territory of the Khazars extended to the shores of the 
 Maeotic lake, 5 and at the mouth of that water they possessed 
 the important town of Tamatarkha, the modern Taman, which 
 had arisen close to the ancient Phanagoria, over against the 
 city of Bosporos on the other side of the straits. The com- 
 mercial importance of Tamatarkha, which had a large Jewish 
 population, will claim our attention presently. Bosporos itself, 
 the ancient Pantikapaion, was under the control of the 
 Khazars, and the Tetraxite Goths, who occupied the greater 
 part of the Crimea, were subject to their sway. The Gothic 
 capital, Doras, had been taken by the Khazars before A.D. 787, 
 and in the following years the Goths, under the leadership of 
 their bishop, had made an attempt to throw off the yoke of 
 their powerful neighbours. 6 
 
 1 For descriptions of the Alans, see 4 Of the Sarirs an account is pre- 
 Gurdizi and Ibn Rusta, 193-194, and served by Ibn Rusta and Gurdizi (187 
 Masudi (Sprenger), 434 sqq. Cp. Mar- sqq. ), derived from their common ninth- 
 quart, op. cit. 164 sqq. The King's century source. 
 
 title was baghdyar (Ibn R.) or kar- 5 This country had been the habita- 
 kunddj (i/Las.). Arabic writers call the tion of the Utigurs the ira\aia 
 Alans Nandar, or Tulash (?), with the Eov\yapia of Theophanes and Nice- 
 second part of which Marquart connects phorus. Cp. Marquart, op. cit. 503. 
 the Georgian name Oicsi ( = Old Russian After the sixth century we hear 
 Fast), whence the modern Ossetian. nothing more of this people, but their 
 
 2 That the Alans were still pagans descendants may have still been there, 
 in the ninth century is shown by Kula- though of no political importance, 
 kovski, Viz. Vrem. v. 1 sqq. (1898). 6 Shestakov, Pamiatniki, 35 sq. Tit. 
 
 3 Constantine, Cer. 688. He was Joann. ep. Gotthiae, 191. The bishop 
 a spiritual son of the Emperors John was taken prisoner, but succeeded 
 (Trvfv/j.aTiKbi> THJ.WV TCKVOV}. in escaping to Amastris.
 
 410 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xm 
 
 North of the Don and extending to the banks of the 
 Dnieper were the tents and hunting-grounds of the MAGYARS 
 or Hungarians. 1 The continuous history of this Finnish 
 people, who lived by hunting and fishing, 2 begins in the ninth 
 century, and if we think we can recognise it under other names 
 in the days of Attila and the early migrations, our conclusions 
 are more or less speculative. It is, however, highly probable 
 that the Magyars had lived or wandered for centuries in the 
 regions of the Volga, had bowed to the sway of the great Hun, 
 and had been affected by the manners of their Turkish neigh- 
 bours. 3 They spoke a tongue closely akin to those of the 
 Finns, the Ostyaks, the Voguls, and the Samoyeds, but it is 
 likely that even before the ninth century it had been modified, 
 in its vocabulary, by Turkish influence. 4 A branch of the 
 people penetrated in the eighth century south of the Caucasus, 
 and settled on the river Cyrus, east of Tiflis and west of Partav, 
 where they were known to the Armenians by the name of 
 Sevordik or " Black children." 5 These Black Hungarians, in 
 the ninth century, destroyed the town of Shamkor, and the 
 governor of Armenia repeopled it with Khazars who had been 
 converted to Islam (A.D. 854-855). 
 
 On the northern shore of the Sea of Azov, and extending 
 towards the Dnieper, was the land of the Inner or BLACK 
 BULGARIANS/ which thus lay between the Magyars and the 
 
 1 For criticism of the Arabic sources but it was profoundly modified by 
 (Gurdizi, etc.) see Westberg, op. cit. Turkish. The well-known able attempt 
 20 sqq., Beitr. i. 24 sqq. Marquart, of Vambery to prove that it was 
 (op. cit. 30-31, 516) places the Hun- originally a Turkish tongue (in his A 
 garians between the Don and the magyarok eredete) has not convinced 
 Kuban, but his interpretation has me, nor has it persuaded Marquart, 
 been refuted by Westberg. who has pertinent observations on the 
 
 2 Regino, s.a. 889, p. 132, ed. Kurze. subject (49). 
 
 This is an insertion of Regino in his B Constantino, Cer. 687 fls rote y 
 
 general description which is transcribed fyxovras T & v ^fpfioriwv (leg. Zf/Jo/maw, 
 
 from Justinus, ii. 1-3. Marquart) r(av \eyop.tvuv fiavpa waiSia. 
 
 3 Marquart finds their ancestors in Hence Marquart explains 2a/3d/3rot 
 the Akatzirs (cp. Priscus, fr. 8 in &<r<f>a\oi., said in De adm. imp. 169 to 
 F.H.G. iv. 89; Jordanes, Get. c. 5) be the old name of the Hungarians, as 
 and the Unigurs (op. cit. 40 sqq.) ; but "the lower Sevordik " (op. cit. 39-40) ; 
 see the important work of K. Nemati, -ordik, children, he considers only an 
 Nagy - Magyarorszdg ismeretlen to'rte- Armenian transformation by popular 
 nelmi okmdnya (1911), where the etymology of Orgik Ugrians. See 
 passage in the Origines of Isidore of also W. Pecz in B.Z. vii. 201-202, 
 Seville (ix. 2, 66, in Migne, P.L. 82, 618-619. 
 
 334) is fully discussed. He likewise 6 For this we have the good authority 
 
 identifies them with the Unigurs. of Baladhuri, who calls the Sevordik 
 
 4 Cp. Marquart, 53. The basis of Sdvardi. Marquart, ib. 36. 
 the Hungarian language was Ugrian, 7 See above, p. 337.
 
 SECT, ii SUBJECTS AND NEIGHBOURS OF KHAZARS 411 
 
 Goths. The lower Dnieper seems to have formed the western 
 boundary of the Khazar Empire, but their influence extended 
 up that river, over some of the Eastern Slavs. The Slavs 
 round Kiev 1 paid at one time tribute to the Chagan, who 
 perhaps ensured them against the depredations of the Magyars. 
 
 On the central Volga was the extensive territory of the 
 BuRDls, 2 who were subject to the Khazars, and formed a 
 barrier against the Outer Bulgarians, their northern neighbours, 
 whose dominion lay on the Volga and its tributary the Kama, 
 including the modern province of Kasan. 3 
 
 If the Burdas served the Khazars as a barrier against the 
 northern Bulgarians, they were also useful in helping to hold 
 the PATZINAKS in check. This savage people possessed a wide 
 dominion between the Volga and the Ural ; their neighbours 
 were, to the north-west the Burdas, to the north the Kipchaks, 
 to the east the Uzes, to the south-west the Khazars. It would 
 seem that some of their hordes pressed early in the ninth 
 century, west of the Volga, into the basin of the Don, and 
 became the formidable neighbours of the most easterly Slavonic 
 tribes. 4 
 
 3. The Russians and their Commerce 
 
 Such, in the early part of the ninth century, was the 
 general chart of the Turkish Empire of the Khazars, their 
 clients, and their neighbours. Before we consider the import 
 of this primitive world for the foreign policy of the Eoman 
 Empire, it is necessary to glance at yet another people, which 
 was destined in the future to form the dominant state in the 
 region of the Euxine and which, though its home still lay beyond 
 
 1 The Poliane ; see below, p. 412. tributary (ib. 19, and i. 385). Cp. 
 Constantino, De adm. imp. 75, men- Masudi (Sprenger) 412, and see Mar- 
 tions that Kiev was called Sambatas quart, xxxiii. and 336. 
 
 (which has not been satisfactorily ex- , ^ h w fi j 
 
 plained ; cp. \\ estberg, K. anal. 11. 12 ; ,, -.-, , ,, ., \ 
 
 Marquart, 198). The capital of the * he , Sf could sail down the 
 
 Slavs, called Jirbab or Hruab by Ibn SftSig? m 9 ^f * 
 
 Rusta (179), Jiraut by Gurdizi (178), < Ibn Fadhlan > 202 >- 
 
 is probably Kiev, and "Westberg (ib. * For the boundaries of the Patzinaks 
 
 24) would read in the texts Chdyab. according to the early Arabic source 
 
 2 Ibn Rusta and Gurdizi, 158 sqq. of the ninth century, see Westberg, 
 For the orthography see Westberg, K. anal. ii. 16 sqq., Beitr. i.^212-213. 
 K. anal. ii. 14. He distinguishes the The Patzinaks or Pechenegs were 
 Burdas from the Mordvins, and shows known to the Slavs as the Polovtsi, 
 that the river Burdas means the the name they bear in the Chronicle 
 central course of the Volga, not a of Pseudo-Nestor.
 
 412 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAI-. xm 
 
 the horizon of Constantinople and Itil, was already known to 
 those cities by the ways of commerce. The KUSSIANS or Eiis 
 were Scandinavians of Eastern Sweden who, crossing the 
 Baltic and sailing into the Gulf of Finland, had settled on 
 Lake Ilmen, where they founded the island town, known as 
 Novgorod, the Holmgard of Icelandic Saga, at the point where 
 the river Volkhov issues from the northern waters of the 
 lake. 1 They were active traders, and they monopolized all the 
 traffic of north-eastern Europe with the great capitals of the 
 south, Constantinople, Baghdad, and Itil. Their chief wares 
 were the skins of the castor and the black fox, swords, and 
 men. The Slavs were their natural prey ; 2 they used to 
 plunder them in river expeditions, and often carry them off, 
 to be transported and sold in southern lands. Many of the 
 Slavs used to purchase immunity by entering into their 
 service. The Eussians did not till the soil, and consequently 
 had no property in land ; when a son was born, his father, 
 with a drawn sword in his hand, addressed the infant : " I 
 leave thee no inheritance ; thou shalt have only what thou 
 winnest by this sword." They were, in fact, a settlement of 
 
 1 The following account of the J)e adm. imp. 79), south of Novgorod, 
 Russians and their commerce is derived towards Smolensk; the Viatichi, on 
 from the early Arabic source and from the river Oka, south of Moscow ; the 
 the somewhat later book of Ibn Radimishchi, on the river Sozh', east 
 Khurdadhbah, as elucidated by West- of the Dnieper ; the Siever, on the 
 berg, K. anal. ii. 23 sqq. and i. 372 sqq. river Desna, which joins the Dnieper 
 As for the Scandinavian (Swedish) north of Kiev; the Poliane ("plain- 
 origin of the Russians (Rus 'Ptis), the men "), probably west of Kiev ; the 
 evidence is overwhelming, and it is Drievliane ("men of the woods"; 
 now admitted by all competent in- Aep/SXectj/oi, Const, op. cit. 166), per- 
 vestigators. The theory that they haps north of the Poliane ; the 
 were Slavs of which llovaiski was Dregovichi (ApovyoujStrat, ib. 79), 
 the ablest exponent was crushingly between the rivers Pripet and Diina ; 
 refuted by Pogodin, Kunik, and also the Tiver'tsi, on the Dniester 
 Thomsen. The " Norman " or " Var- (whom Schafarik, ii. 133, finds in Con- 
 angian " question which raged in stantine, ib., reading TUI> Te^ep/3tdvwi' 
 Russia at one time is no longer sub for rCiv re B.) ; their neighbours the 
 iudice. For a full examination of the Uglichi (identified by Schafarik with 
 data, the English reader should con- Constantino's Oi)Xr?foi, ib. 166) ; the 
 suit Thomsen's Ancient Russia (see Bujani, so called from their habitation 
 Bibliography, ii. 5). The theory pro- on the river Bug. Schafarik (ii. 113) 
 pounded by Vasil'evski, in his old age, explains Constantino's Aevfyvwoi (loc. 
 that the Russians were (Crimean) cit. ) as Luchane, whom he considers a 
 Goths, and that 'Pws is a corruption of portion of the Krivitsi. The localities 
 ra.v-poff-K'uda.i, may be mentioned as a of these tribes are mainly determined 
 curiosity. by the data in Pseudo-Nestor. See 
 
 2 The general disposition of the further Schafarik, ii. sect. 28, and cp. 
 Slavonic tribes, as the Russians found the relevant articles in Leger's Index 
 them, seems to have been as follows : to his Chronique de Nestor. 
 
 the Krivichi (Kpi^ir^ai, Constantino,
 
 SECT, in THE RUSSIANS AND THEIR COMMERCE 413 
 
 military merchants it is said their numbers were 100,000 
 living by plunder and trade. They had a chief who received 
 a tithe from the merchants. 1 
 
 The Kussian traders carried their wares to the south by 
 two river routes, the Dnieper and the Volga. The voyage 
 down the Dnieper was beset by some difficulties and dangers. 2 
 The boats of the Russians were canoes, 3 and were renewed 
 every year. They rowed down as far as Kiev in the boats of 
 the last season, and here they were met by Slavs, who, during 
 the winter had cut down trees in the mountains and made 
 new boats, which they brought down to the Dnieper and sold 
 to the merchants. The gear and merchandise were tran- 
 shipped, and in the month of June they sailed down to the 
 fort of Vytitshev, 4 where they waited till the whole flotilla 
 was assembled. 5 South of the modern Ekaterinoslav the 
 Dnieper forces its way for some sixty miles through high walls of 
 granite rock, and descends in a succession of waterfalls which 
 offer a tedious obstacle to navigation. 6 The Slavs had their 
 own names for these falls, which the Russians rendered into 
 Norse. For instance, Vlnyi-prag' was translated literally by 
 Baru-fors, both names meaning " billowy waterfall," 7 and this 
 " force " is still called Volnyi, " the billowy." In some cases 
 the navigators, having unloaded the boats, could guide them 
 through the fall ; in others it was necessary to transport them, 
 as well as their freights, for a considerable distance. This 
 passage could not safely be made except in a formidable com- 
 
 1 The Arabic writers designate him Chernigov, Vyshegrad, and Teliutsa 
 the Chagan of the Russians, and so he (Liubech), but it is uncertain whether 
 is called (chacanus) in Ann. Bert., s.a. any of these settlements were prior to 
 839. This Turkish title was evidently the settlement at Kiev. 
 
 applied to him by the Khazars, and 6 There are eleven porogi (waterfalls 
 
 was adopted from them by the Arabs extending over the whole bed of the 
 
 and perhaps by the Greeks (in the river), of which Constantine enumer- 
 
 letter of Theophilus to Lewis ?). ates seven, and six zabori (only par- 
 
 2 The following account is derived tial obstructions). 
 
 from Constantine, De adm. imp. c. 9. ' The fifth in Constantine's enu- 
 
 Though composed at a later time, meration : Eov\vijirpdx, Rapov(j>6pos 
 
 when the Patzinaks were in the (volna is the Russian, b&ra the Old 
 
 neighbourhood of the Dnieper, it Norse, for "wave"). All the names 
 
 obviously applies to the earlier period are not quite so clear, but they have 
 
 too. been explained, some with certainty, 
 
 3 nov6v\a, "one-plauker#." others probably, by Thomsen, op. cit. 
 
 4 BiTtr&p-r). The name still exists. Lect. ii. These double names are one 
 
 5 Constantine says that the mer- of the most important items in the 
 chants came not only from Novgorod, overwhelming evidence for the fact 
 but also from Miliniska (Smolensk), that the Russians were Scandinavians.
 
 414 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xm 
 
 pany ; a small body would have fallen a prey to predatory 
 nomads like the Hungarians and the Patziuaks. On reaching 
 the Black Sea, they could coast westwards to Varna and 
 Mesembria, but their usual route was to Cherson. There they 
 supplied the demands of the Greek merchants, and then 
 rounding the south of the peninsula, reached the Khazar town 
 of Tamatarkha, where they could dispose of the rest of their 
 merchandise to the Jewish traders, who in their turn could 
 transport it to Itil, or perhaps to Armenia and Baghdad. But 
 the Eussians could also trade directly with Itil and Baghdad. 
 The Volga carried them to Itil, where they lodged in the 
 eastern town ; then they embarked on the Caspian Sea and 
 sailed to various ports within the Saracen dominion ; some- 
 times from Jurjan they made the journey with camels to 
 Baghdad, where Slavonic eunuchs served as their interpreters. 
 This commerce was of high importance both to the 
 Emperor and to the Chagan, not only in itself, but because 
 the Emperor levied a tithe at Cherson on all the wares which 
 passed through to Tamatarkha, and the Chagan exacted the same 
 duty on all that passed through Chamlich to the dominion of the 
 Saracens. The identity of the amount of the duties, ten per 
 cent, was the natural result of the conditions. 
 
 4. Imperial Policy. The Russian Danger 
 
 The first principle of Imperial policy in this quarter of 
 the world was the maintenance of peace with the Khazars. 
 This was the immediate consequence of the geographical 
 position of the Khazar Empire, lying as it did between the 
 Dnieper and the Caucasus, and thus approaching the frontiers 
 of the two powers which were most formidable to Byzantium, 
 the Bulgarians and the Saracens. From the seventh century, 
 when Heraclius had sought the help of the Khazars against 
 Persia, to the tenth, in which the power of Itil declined, this 
 was the constant policy of the Emperors. The Byzantines 
 and the Khazars, moreover, had a common interest in the 
 development of commerce with Northern Europe ; it was to 
 the advantage of the Empire that the Chagan should exercise 
 an effective control over his barbarian neighbours, that his 
 influence should be felt in the basin of the Dnieper, and that
 
 SECT, iv IMPERIAL POLICY IN THE NORTH 415 
 
 this route should be kept free for the trade of the north. 
 It is not improbable that attempts had been made to convert 
 the Khazars to Christianity, for no means would have been 
 more efficacious for securing Byzantine influence at Itil. 
 The Chagaus were not impressed by the religion of Christ ; 
 but it was at least a matter for satisfaction at Byzantium 
 that they remained equally indifferent to the religion of 
 Mohammad. 
 
 While the relations of Constantinople and Itil were 
 generally peaceful, there were, however, possibilities of war. 
 The two powers were neighbours in the Crimea. We have 
 seen how the sway of the Khazars extended over the Crimean 
 Goths and the city of Bosporos or Kerch, and it was their 
 natural ambition to extend it over the whole peninsula, and 
 annex Cherson. The loss of Cherson, the great commercial 
 port and market-place in the north-east, would have been a 
 sensible blow to the Empire. There were other forts in the 
 peninsula, in the somewhat mysterious Roman territory or 
 frontier which was known as the Klimata or Regions. 1 
 The business of defence was left entirely to the Chersonites ; 
 there was no Imperial officer or Imperial troops to repel the 
 Khazars, who appear to have made raids from time to time. 
 But Imperial diplomacy, in accordance with the system which 
 had been elaborated by Justinian, discovered another method 
 of checking the hostilities of the Khazars. The plan was to 
 cultivate the friendship of the Alans, whose geographical 
 position enabled them to harass the march of a Khazar army 
 to the Crimea and to make reprisals by plundering the most 
 fertile parts of the Khazar country. Thus in the calculations 
 of Byzantine diplomacy the Alans stood for a check on the 
 Khazars. 2 
 
 The situation at Cherson and the movements in the 
 
 1 Cp. Constantino, De adm. imp. century, De adm. imp. 80, but it was 
 
 80 17 , ISOfcj. In the Fragments of the equally applicable to the eighth or 
 
 Toparcha Goticus a single fort was ninth. Constantine also points out 
 
 called K\r)fj.a.Ta (some think this the that the Black Bulgarians could be 
 
 right orthography), and Westberg pro- used against the Khazars (ib. 81); 
 
 poses to identify it with the Gothic and also the Uzes (80), who, however, 
 
 fortress Doras. See Westberg's ed. were not on the horizon of Byzantium 
 
 of the Fragments (Zap. imp. Ak. in the ninth century. The Patzinaks 
 
 Nauk, v. 2, 1901) pp. 83 sgq. would have been available, if the 
 
 8 This principle of policy is stated Emperors had had cause to approach 
 
 by Constantine VII. in the tenth them.
 
 416 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiu 
 
 surrounding countries must have constantly engaged the 
 attention of the Imperial government, but till the reign of 
 Theophilus no important event is recorded. This Emperor 
 received (c. A.D. 833) an embassy from the Chagan and the Beg 
 or chief minister of the Khazars, requesting him to build a 
 fort for them close to the mouth of the Don, 1 and perhaps 
 this fort was only to be the most important part of a long line 
 of defence extending up that river and connected by a fosse 
 with the Volga. 2 Theophilus agreed to the Chagan's proposal. 
 He entrusted the execution of the work to an officer of 
 spatharo-candidate rank, Petronas Kamateros, who sailed for 
 Cherson with an armament of ships of the Imperial fleet, 
 where he met another contingent of vessels supplied by the 
 Katepano or governor of Paphlagonia. 3 The troops were 
 re-embarked in ships of burden, which bore them through the 
 straits of Bosporos to the spot on the lower Don where 
 this stronghold was to be built. As there was no stone in 
 the place, kilns were constructed and bricks were prepared 4 
 by embedding pebbles from the river in a sort of asbestos. 
 The fort was called in the Khazar tongue Sarkel, or White 
 House, and it was guarded by yearly relays of three hundred 
 men. 5 
 
 When Petronas returned to Constantinople he laid a report 
 of the situation before the Emperor and expressed his opinion 
 that there was grave danger of losing Cherson, and that the best 
 means of ensuring its safety would be to supersede the local 
 
 1 The account will be found in begin where the line of the Don 
 Constautine, De adm. imp. 177 sqq. = ended. The theory of Uspenski that 
 Gont. Th. 122 sqq. The date seems to Sarkel was built for the Empire, not 
 be soon after A.D. 832 ; for in Cont. for the Khazars, and in the reign of 
 Th. c. 26 ad fin. the elevation of John Leo VI., c. 904 A.D. (propounded in 
 to the Patriarchate is dated ; then, the Kievskaia Starina, May and June 
 c. 27, prophecies are recorded relative 1889), has found no adherents : it 
 to John ; then c. 28 T< i-jnbvri XP^> V V was answered by Vasil'evski, in the 
 ("in the following year") there is Zhurnal min. nar. prosv. , Oct. 1889, 
 warfare with the Saracens, and /card 273 sqq. 
 
 rbv avTw Kaipbv the Khazar embassy 3 Petronas, on reaching Cherson, 
 
 arrives. TO. /j.ti> x eAt ^' a fvptv tv Xepa-wvi (De 
 
 2 For the position of Sarkel, see adm. imp. 178 8 ). I formerly suspected 
 Westberg, Beitragc, i. 226. Ibn Kusta f %p ev (B.Z. xv. 570), but now see that 
 says that "the Khazars once sur- it means "found the Paphlayonian 
 rounded themselves by a ditch, chelandia " already there. 
 
 through fear of the Magyars and other 4 /Siyo-aXo? = bessalis (later). 
 
 neighbouring peoples " ; see Marquart, 5 ev $ raewrcu Kad^ovrai. r& Kara 
 
 28, who suggests that Sarkel was xpt> vov tva.\\a.<rfft>/jLevoi, De adm. imp. 
 
 connected with a whole line of de- 177, where ra is clearly an error for r' 
 
 fences. If so, the fosse would probably (Cont. Th., ib., has
 
 SECT, iv THE RUSSIAN DANGER 417 
 
 magistrates and commit the authority to a military governor. 1 
 The advice of Petronas was adopted, and he was himself 
 appointed the first governor, with the title of " Strategos of the 
 Klimata." 5 The magistrates of Cherson were not deposed, but 
 were subordinated to the strategos. 
 
 In attempting to discover the meaning and motives of 
 these transactions we must not lose sight of the close chrono- 
 logical connexion between the service rendered by the Greeks 
 to the Khazars, in building Sarkel, and the institution of the 
 strategos of Cherson. The latter was due to the danger of 
 losing the city, but we are not told from what quarter the 
 city was threatened. It is evident that the Khazars at the 
 same moment felt the need of defence against some new and 
 special peril. The fortification cannot have been simply 
 designed against their neighbours the Magyars and the 
 Patzinaks ; for the Magyars and Patzinaks had been their 
 neighbours long. We can hardly go wrong in supposing that 
 the Khazars and the Chersonites were menaced by the 
 same danger, and that its gravity had been brought home 
 both to the Emperor and to the Khazar ruler by some recent 
 occurrence. The jeopardy which was impending over the 
 Euxine lands must be sought at Novgorod. 
 
 It was not likely that the predatory Scandinavians would 
 be content with the gains which they earned as peaceful 
 merchants in the south. The riches of the Greek towns on 
 the Euxine tempted their cupidity, and in the reign of 
 Theophilus, if not before, they seem to have descended as 
 pirates into the waters of that sea, 3 to have plundered the 
 coasts, perhaps venturing into the Bosphorus, 4 and especially to 
 
 1 Shestakov, op. cit. 44, thinks that of St. George of Amctstris and the Life 
 the danger may have been the dis- of St. Stephen of Surozh (Sugdaia). 
 loyalty of the citizens. A certain Vasil'evski (who has edited the texts 
 disloyalty is not impossible, for the in Kussko-vizantiiskiia Izsliedovaniia, 
 Chersonese had been a refuge for Vyp. 2, 1893, a work which it is 
 many monks during the persecution impossible to procure) seems to have 
 of the iconoclasts, and there may have shown that the whole legend of George 
 prevailed a feeling highly unfavourable of Amastris (whose Vita he would 
 to Theophilus ; but there was no real ascribe to Ignatius the deacon) was 
 danger of Cherson inviting the rule of complete before A.D. 843. See V. 
 another power. Jagic in Archiv f. slavische Philologie, 
 
 2 This was the official title (Takt. xvi. 216 sqq. (1894). 
 
 Uspenski, 123). * See Vita Georg. Am. (vers. Lat., 
 
 3 The evidence for these early A.S. April 23, t. iii. 278) : "aPropon- 
 Russian hostilities, unnoticed by the tide cladem auspicati omnemque oram 
 chroniclers, is to be found in the Life maritimam depasti." It should be 
 
 2 E
 
 418 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xin 
 
 have attacked the wealthy and well-walled city of Amustris, 
 which was said to have been saved by a miracle. We also 
 hear of an expedition against the Chersonese, the despoiling of 
 Cherson, and the miraculous escape of Sugdaia. 1 Such host- 
 ings of Eussian marauders, a stalwart and savage race, provide 
 a complete explanation of the mission of Petronas to Cherson, 
 of the institution of a strategos there, and of the co-operation 
 of the Greeks with the Khazars in building Sarkel. In 
 view of the Eussian attack on Amastris, it is significant that 
 the governor of Paphlagonia assisted Petronas; and we may 
 conjecture with some probability that the need of defending 
 the Pontic coasts against a new enemy was the motive which 
 led to the elevation of this official from the rank of katepano 
 to the higher status of a strategos. 
 
 The timely measures adopted by Theophilus were efficacious 
 for the safety of Cherson. That outpost of Greek life was 
 ultimately to fall into the hands of the Eussians, but it 
 remained Imperial for another century and a half; and when 
 it passed from the possession of Byzantium, the sacrifice was 
 not too dear a price for perpetual peace and friendship with 
 the Eussian state, then becoming a great power. 
 
 Some years after the appointment of the strategos of 
 Cherson, Eussian envoys arrived at the court of Theophilus 
 (A.D. 838-839). Their business is not recorded; perhaps 
 they came to offer excuses for the recent hostilities against 
 the Empire. But they seem to have dreaded the dangers 
 of the homeward journey by the way they had come. 
 The Emperor was dispatching an embassy to the court of 
 Lewis the Pious. He committed the Eussians to the care of 
 the ambassadors, and in his letter to Lewis requested that 
 sovran to facilitate their return to their own country through 
 Germany. 2 
 
 noted that the Russians were also a Prince Bravalin, sailing from Cherson 
 
 danger for Trapezus (Trebizond), a to Kerch, attacked Surozh, which was 
 
 great entrepot for trade between saved by the miraculous intervention 
 
 Roman aud Saracen merchants (see of St. Stephen. The date 6360 would 
 
 Le Strange, Eastern Caliphate, 136), be 852 ; but the dates of the Russian 
 
 though we do not hear that they chronicles for this period are untrust- 
 
 attacked it. worthy. Pseudo-Nestor, for instance, 
 
 1 Besides the Life of Stephen, see places the accession of Michael III. 
 
 the passage of the Russian Chronicle in 852. 
 
 of Novgorod (A.M. 6360) quoted by 2 Ann. Bert., s.a. 839. The embassy 
 
 Muralt, Chron. byz. 426-427 (s.a. 842). arrived at the court of Lewis in April 
 
 A Russian band of Novgorodians, under or May. It is quite possible that these
 
 SECT, iv THE RUSSIAN DANGER 419 
 
 In their settlement at Novgorod, near the Baltic, the 
 Russians were far away from the Black Sea, to the shores of 
 which their traders journeyed laboriously year by year. But 
 they were soon to form a new settlement on the Dnieper, 
 which brought them within easy reach of the Euxine and the 
 Danube. The occupation of Kiev is one of the decisive 
 events in Eussian history, and the old native chronicle assigns 
 it to the year 862. If this date is right, the capture of Kiev 
 was preceded by one of the boldest marauding expeditions 
 that the Eussian adventurers ever undertook. 
 
 In the month of June, A.D. 860, 1 the Emperor, with all 
 his forces, was marching against the Saracens. He had 
 probably gone far 2 when he received amazing tidings, which 
 recalled him with all speed to Constantinople. A Eussian 
 host had sailed across the Euxine in two hundred boats, 3 entered 
 the Bosphorus, plundered the monasteries and suburbs on its 
 banks, and overrun the Islands of the Princes. 4 The in- 
 habitants of the city were utterly demoralised by the sudden 
 horror of the danger and their own impotence. The troops 
 (Tagmata) which were usually stationed in the neighbourhood 
 of the city were far away with the Emperor and his uncle ; 5 
 and the fleet was absent. Having wrought wreck and ruin in 
 
 Russians belonged to a different com- lyn., are in perfect accordance. The 
 
 munity from those who had attacked other sources for the episode are 
 
 Oherson and Amastris. Novgorod Photius, Homiliai, 51 and 52; 
 
 was hardly the only settlement at this Simeon (Leo. Gr. 240-241); Joann. 
 
 time. But here we are quite in the Ven. 117. 
 
 dark. For the embassy see above, a Simeon (Cont. Georg. ed. Muralt, 
 
 P- , 273 - , 736 ; vers. Slav. 106) yeyevrj^vov ijd-r) 
 
 1 The date of the Russian expedition Kard rbv Mau/ ,o7r6ra M o^. This place 
 
 (which used to be placed in A.D. 866) (cp . above p . 274> n _ 4) has not been 
 
 is now incontrovertibly fixed to A.D. certainly identified. 
 
 860 by the investigation of de Boor , . , . 
 
 (Der Anqriffder RMs). The decisive Ano "' Com **' and Simeon ' 
 
 proof is 'the notice in a brief anony- Joann ' Ven " sa y s 360 ' 
 
 mous chronicle (from Julius Caesar to ' Nicetas, Vit. Ign. 236: "The 
 
 Romanus III.) published by Cumont, bloody race of the Scythians, ol 
 
 Anecdota Bruxellensia, I. Chroniques AeyV^oi 'Pcis, having come through 
 
 byzantines du Mscr. [Brux.] 11,376 the Euxine to the Stenon (Bosphorus) 
 
 (Ghent, 1894). The passage is f)\e v and plundered all the places and all 
 
 'Pcbj <riii> vavtrl SiaKoviais ot Sid, irpeir^fiuv the monasteries, overran likewise the 
 
 rrjs ira.vv/Mi>r)Tov QeoroKov KareKvpievBriffav islands around Byzantium." The ex- 
 
 virb r(av Xpiffriavuv /cai Kara /cpdros Patriarch, then at Terebinthos, was in 
 
 7]TTrj0riffdi> re Kal f)<pa.v'iad-r]cra.v, June 18, danger. 
 
 hid. 8, A.M. 6368, in fifth year of 5 The absence of Bardas seems a safe 
 
 Michael III. Note the accurate state- inference, as only Ooryphas the prefect 
 
 ment of the date (Michael's sole reign is mentioned as being left in charge 
 
 began in March 856). The chrono- (Simeon). For Ooryphas see above, 
 
 logical data supplied by Nicetas, Vila Chap. IV. p. 144.
 
 420 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xin 
 
 the suburbs, the barbarians prepared to attack the city. At 
 this crisis it was perhaps not the Prefect and the ministers 
 entrusted with the guardianship of the city in the Emperor's 
 absence who did most to meet the emergency. The learned 
 Patriarch, Photius, rose to the occasion ; he undertook the 
 task of restoring the moral courage of his fellow- citizens. If 
 the sermons which he preached in St. Sophia were delivered 
 as they were written, we may suspect that they can only have 
 been appreciated by the most educated of his congregation. 
 His copious rhetoric touches all sides of the situation, and no 
 priest could have made better use of the opportunity to 
 inculcate the obvious lesson that this peril was a punishment 
 for sin, and to urge repentance. 1 He expressed the general 
 feeling when he dwelt on the incongruity that the Imperial 
 city, " queen of almost all the world," should be mocked by a 
 band of slaves, a mean and barbarous crowd. 2 But the 
 populace was perhaps more impressed and consoled when he 
 resorted to the ecclesiastical magic which had been used 
 efficaciously at previous sieges. The precious garment of the 
 Virgin Mother was borne in procession round the walls of 
 the city ; 3 and it was believed that it was dipped in the 
 waters of the sea for the purpose of raising a storm of wind. 4 
 No storm arose, but soon afterwards the Eussians began to 
 retreat, and perhaps there were not many among the joyful 
 citizens who did not impute their relief to the direct inter- 
 vention of the queen of heaven. Photius preached a sermon 
 of thanksgiving as the enemy were departing ; 5 the miraculous 
 deliverance was an inspiring motive for his eloquence. 
 
 It would be interesting to know whether Photius re- 
 
 1 In his first sermon (Horn. 51). relic of the Virgin ; the preacher iu- 
 Gerland (in a review of the ed. of the sists exclusively on human efforts. 
 
 , . 7, - 52 > P- 42 - Si me on errone- 
 
 ' o? S I" C % , ^ X1 ' ' ousl y represents the Emperor as pres- 
 
 1903 p. 719) suggests that this address ent & ^ cere . 
 
 may have been delivered on June 23. 
 
 2 Horn. 51, p. 20 (pappapiKT] ical Simeon, loc. cit. , according to which 
 
 raTreivr) T(flp). The absence of troops * ne wind immediately rose in a dead 
 
 is referred to, p. 17: "Where is the calm - But in llis second sermon 
 
 Basileus ? where are the armies ? the Photius represents the Russians as re- 
 
 arms, machines, counsels, and prepara- treating unaffected by a storm. Joann. 
 
 tions of a general? Are not all these v ?n. 117 lets them return home in 
 
 withdrawn to meet the attack of other triumph. 
 
 barbarians"? It is to be observed 5 Horn. 52. The Emperor was not 
 
 (cp. de Boor, op. cit. 462) that in this yet in the city (p. 42 ; cp. de Boor, 
 
 sermon there is no reference to the 460).
 
 SECT, iv THE RUSSIAN DANGER 421 
 
 garded the ceremony which he had conducted as a powerful 
 means of propitiation, or rather valued it as an efficacious 
 sedative of the public excitement. He and all who were not 
 blinded by superstition knew well that the cause which led to 
 the sudden retreat of the enemy was simple, and would have 
 sufficed without any supernatural intervention. It is evident 
 that the Eussians became aware that the Emperor and his 
 army were at hand, and that their only safety lay in flight. 1 
 But they had delayed too long. Michael and Bardas had 
 hurried to the scene, doubtless by forced marches, and they 
 must have intercepted the barbarians and their spoils in the 
 Bosphorus. There was a battle and a rout ; 2 it is possible 
 that high winds aided in the work of destruction. 3 
 
 The Russians had chosen the moment for their surprise 
 astutely. They must have known beforehand that the 
 Emperor had made preparations for a campaign in full force 
 against the Saracens. But what about the fleet ? Modern 
 historians have made this episode a text for the reproach that 
 the navy had been allowed to fall into utter decay. We 
 have seen, on the contrary, that the Amorians had revived 
 the navy, and the impunity which the barbarians enjoyed 
 until the arrival of the Emperor must be explained by the 
 absence of the Imperial fleet. And, as a matter of fact, it 
 was absent in the west. The Sicilian fortress of Castrogiovanni 
 had been captured by the Moslems in the previous year, and 
 a fleet of 300 ships had been sent to Sicily. 4 The possibility 
 of an attack from the north did not enter into the calculations 
 of the government. It is clear that the Russians must have 
 been informed of the absence of the fleet, for otherwise they 
 would never have ventured in their small boats into the jaws 
 of certain death. 
 
 1 This is obviously the true explana- jecture ; but possibly on receiving the 
 
 nation of the sudden retreat, which news he had ordered ships to sail from 
 
 began spontaneously, before the battle. Amastris to the Bosphorus. Two 
 
 It is impossible to accept Gerland's iambic poems on the Church of 
 
 view that the battle was fought during Blachernae, Anthol. Pal. i. 120, 121, 
 
 the procession, perhaps in sight of the most probably refer to the rout of the 
 
 praying people. Russians. Cp. 121, vv. 10, 11 : 
 
 2 Of the battle we know no more than ^aa viava. ro 
 
 the notice in Anon. Cumont. Simeon a "" Xe " avTOV < aVTl X6 * 6 ' s v8a P- 
 
 ascribes the destruction entirely to the where Stadtmiiller ad loc. misses the 
 
 miraculous storm. How the land forces point by proposing eia-dSy. 
 
 of the Emperor operated against the 3 Cp. Gerland, op. cit. 720. 
 
 boats of the enemies we can only con- 4 See above, p. 307.
 
 422 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xin 
 
 The episode was followed by an unexpected triumph for 
 Byzantium, less important in its immediate results than as 
 an augury for the future. The Northmen sent ambassadors to 
 Constantinople, and this is the Byzantine way of putting 
 it besought the Emperor for Christian baptism. We cannot 
 say which, or how many, of the Russian settlements were 
 represented by this embassy, but the object must have been 
 to offer amends for the recent raid, perhaps to procure the 
 deliverance of prisoners. It is certain that some of the 
 Russians agreed to adopt Christianity, and the Patriarch 
 Photius could boast (in A.D. 866) that a bishop had been 
 sent to teach the race which in cruelty and deeds of blood 
 left all other peoples far behind. 1 But the seed did not fall 
 on very fertile ground. For upwards of a hundred years we 
 hear no more of the Christianity of the Russians. The treaty, 
 however, which was concluded between A.D. 860 and 866, led 
 probably to other consequences. We may surmise that it 
 led to the admission of Norse mercenaries into the Imperial 
 fleet 2 a notable event, because it was the beginning of the 
 famous Varangian 3 service at Constantinople, which was 
 ultimately to include the Norsemen of Scandinavia as well 
 as of Russia, and even Englishmen. 
 
 It has been already observed that the attack upon 
 Constantinople happened just before the traditional date of 
 a far more important event in the history of Russia the 
 foundation of the principality of Kiev. According to the old 
 Russian chronicle, 4 Rurik was at this time the ruler of all 
 the Scandinavian settlements, and exercised sway over the 
 northern Slavs and some of the Finns. Two of his men, 
 Oskold and Dir, 5 set out with their families for Constantinople, 
 and, coming to the Dnieper, they saw a castle on a mountain. 
 On enquiry they learned that it was Kiev, and that its 
 inhabitants paid tribute to the Khazars. They settled in the 
 place, gathered many Norsemen to them, and ruled over the 
 
 1 Photius, Up. 4, p. 178. The 3 The connotation of Varangian is 
 Russians are said to have placed them- equivalent to Norse or Scandinavian. 
 selves iv viryK&uv Kal irpoi-tvuv T<{. Arabic geographers and Pseudo-Nestor 
 tiir. refers to ecclesiastical dependence, call the Baltic " the Varangian Sea." 
 Trpof. to political friendship. The other In Kekaumenos (ed. Vasilievski and 
 source is Cont. Th. 196. Jernstedt) 97 Harald Hardrada is " son 
 
 2 Under Leo VI. (A.D. 902) there of the Emperor of Varangia." 
 were 700 'Pc6j in the fleet (Constantino, 4 Pseudo-Nestor, xv. p. 10. 
 Cer. 651). r> Scandinavian names.
 
 SECT, iv THE RUSSIAN DANGER 423 
 
 neighbouring Slavs, even as Eurik ruled at Novgorod. 
 Some twenty years later Rurik's son Oleg came down and 
 put Oskold and Dir to death, and annexed Kiev to his sway. 
 It soon overshadowed Novgorod in importance, and became 
 the capital of the Eussian state. It has been doubted whether 
 this story of the founding of Kiev is historical, but the date 
 of the foundation, in chronological proximity to A.D. 860, is 
 probably correct. 1 
 
 5. The Magyars 
 
 The Eussian peril had proved a new bond of common 
 interest between the Empire and the Khazars, and during the 
 reign of Michael (before A.D. 862), 2 as we have seen, a Greek 
 missionary, Constantine the Philosopher, made a vain attempt 
 to convert them to Christianity. 3 
 
 About this time a displacement occurred in the Khazar 
 Empire which was destined to lea"d to grave consequences 
 not only for the countries of the Euxine but for the history 
 of Europe. At the time of Constantine's visit to the Khazars, 
 the home of the Magyars was still in the country between the 
 Dnieper and the Don, for either in the Crimea itself or on his 
 journey to Itil, which was probably by way of the Don, his 
 party was attacked by a band of Magyars. 4 A year or two 
 later the Magyar people crossed the Dnieper. 
 
 1 Pseudo-Nestor's date is A.M. 6370 the embassy of Rostislav, see above, 
 =A.D. 862 (but events extending over p. 393) ; but we can limit it further 
 a considerable time are crowded into by the Magyar incident, cp. Appendix 
 his narrative here). The chronicler XII. The circumstance that in A.D. 
 attributes to Oskold and Dir the attack 854-855, Bugha, the governor of 
 on Constantinople, which he found in Armenia and Adarbiyan, settled 
 the Chronicle of Simeon and dates to Khazars, who were inclined to Islam, 
 A.D. 866. I am inclined to think that in Sham-kor (see above, p. 410, n. 6), 
 there is a certain measure of historical may, as Marquart suggests (Streifzuge, 
 truth in the Pseudo-Nestor tradition, 24), have some connexion with the 
 if we do not press the exact date. If religious wavering of the Chagan. 
 Kiev was founded shortly before A.D. 
 
 860 as a settlement independent of See above ' P' 394 s ^ 
 
 Novgorod, and if the Kiev Russians 4 Vita Constantini, c. 8. The at- 
 
 attacked Cple., we can understand the tack of the Hungarians is related 
 
 circumstances of the conversion. It before Constantine (c. 9) starts for 
 
 was the rulers of Kiev only who accepted the country of the Khazars, to which 
 
 baptism, and when the pagans of Nov- he is said to have sailed by the 
 
 gorod came and slew them a few years Maeotis. If this order of events is 
 
 later, Christianity, though we may accurate, we must suppose that the 
 
 conjecture that it was not wiped out, Magyars made an incursion into the 
 
 ceased to enjoy official recognition. Crimea, and perhaps the incident 
 
 2 The posterior limit is usually occurred in the territory of the Goths, 
 given as A.D. 863 (the latest date for See Appendix XII.
 
 424 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xin 
 
 The cause of this migration was the advance of the 
 Patzinaks from the Volga. We may guess that they were 
 pressed westward by their Eastern neighbours, the Uzes ; we 
 are told that they made war upon the Khazars and were de- 
 feated, and were therefore compelled to leave their own land 
 and occupy that of the Magyars. 1 The truth may be that 
 they made an unsuccessful attempt to settle in Khazaria, and 
 then turned their arms against the Magyar people, whom they 
 drove beyond the Dnieper. 2 The Patzinaks thus rose above 
 the horizon of the Empire and introduced a new element 
 into the political situation. They had no king ; they were 
 organized in eight tribes, with tribal chiefs, and each tribe 
 was subdivided into five portions under subordinate leaders. 
 When a chief died he was succeeded by a first cousin or a 
 first cousin's son ; brothers and sons were excluded, so that 
 the chieftainship should be not confined to one branch of the 
 family. 3 
 
 The Magyars now took possession of the territory lying 
 between the Dnieper and the lower reaches of the Pruth and 
 the Seret 4 a country which had hitherto belonged to the 
 dominion of the Khans of Bulgaria. They were thus close to 
 the Danube, but the first use they made of their new position was 
 
 1 Constantine, De adm. imp. 169. it is said to be called Kara ryv tiruvv- 
 In the later movement of the /j.lav TWV ^Keive 8vruv -irora.u,u>v, which 
 Patzinaks to the west of the Dnieper are enumerated as the Bapovx ( = 
 (in the reign of Leo VI.), we are Dnieper, cp. Var in Jordanes, Get. 
 expressly told that they were driven c. 52, and Bory-sthenes), the Koi>/3oO 
 from their land by the Uzes and (=Bug), the TpoOXXos ( = Dniester: 
 Khazars, ib. 164. Turla, Tyras, cp. Roesler, 154), the 
 
 2 Constantine says that a portion BpoOroj ( = Pruth), and the S^peroy. 
 of the Magyars joined their kinsmen, Atel or Etel means river (and was 
 the Sabartoi asphaloi in " Persia," i.e. specially applied to the Volga the 
 the Sevordik in Armenia (see above "Itil" cp. Constantine, ib. 164 9 ). 
 p. 410). Zeuss (Die Deutschen v,nd die Nach- 
 
 3 Constantine, ib. 165. He gives barstamme, 751), Kuun (Relat. Hung. 
 the names of the eight yevt al or 6^/j.ara, i. 189), Marquart (op. cit. 33), explain 
 in two forms, simple and compound, kuzu as between (cp. Hungarian koz, 
 e.g. Tzur and Kuarti-tzur, Ertem and iii geographical names like Szamos- 
 labdi-ertem. koz) ; so that Atelkuzu would mean 
 
 4 This country was called (by the Mesopotamia. But Westberg (Kanal. 
 Hungarians or Patzinaks, or both) ii. 48) explains Kocho in the 
 Atel-kuzu : Constantine, ib. 169 e/s Geography of Pseudo- Moses as the 
 TOITOVS roi)s tirovo[j.ao/j.ti>ovs ' Arf\Koij^ov. Dnieper, and identifies the name with 
 The name is explained, ib. 173, as Kuzu. He supposes that in Con- 
 Kara TT)i> (wuviifj-Lav TOV tKeiffe Ste/j^o- stantiue, p. 169, the true reading is 
 fj^vov TroTa/uoO J 'ET\ Kal Koufori (where (as on p. 173), 'ArX icai KOV^OIJ, and 
 there seems to be an error in the text, that Atel and Kuzu were alternative 
 as 'E. Kal K., two rivers, is incon- names ((ca/="or") for the region of 
 sistent with rov irora/uoO) and p. 171 the lower Dnieper.
 
 SECT, v THE MAGYARS 425 
 
 not against Bulgaria. 1 In A.D. 862 they showed how far they 
 could strike by invading territories in central Europe which 
 acknowledged the dominion of Lewis the German, 2 the first 
 of that terrible series of invasions which were to continue 
 throughout a hundred years, until Otto the Great won his crush- 
 ing victory at Augsburg. If we can trust the accounts of 
 their enemies, the Magyars appear to have been a more 
 terrible scourge than the Huns. It was their practice to put 
 all males to the sword, for they believed that warriors whom 
 they slew would be their slaves in heaven ; they put the old 
 women to death ; and dragged the young women with them, 
 like animals, to serve their lusts. 3 Western writers depict 
 the Hungarians of this period as grotesquely ugly, but, on the 
 other hand, Arabic authors describe them as handsome. We 
 may reconcile the contradiction by the assumption that there 
 were two types, the consequence of blending with other races. 
 The original Finnish physiognomy had been modified by 
 mixture with Iranian races in the course of many generations, 
 during which the Magyars, in the Caucasian regions, had pursued 
 their practice of women-lifting. 4 
 
 Up to the time of their migration the Magyars, like the 
 Patzinaks, had no common chieftain, but among the leaders 
 of their seven tribes 5 one seems to have had a certain pre- 
 eminence. His name was Lebedias, 6 and he had married a 
 noble Khazar lady, by whom he had no children. Soon after 
 the crossing of the Dnieper, the Chagan of the Khazars, who 
 still claimed the rights of suzerainty over them, proposed to 
 the Magyars to create Lebedias ruler over the whole people. 
 The story is that Lebedias met the Chagan but we must 
 interpret this to mean the Beg at Kalancha in the gulf of 
 Perekop, 7 and refused the offer for himself, but suggested 
 
 1 Their attack on the Slavs of Kiev Megere ( = Magyar?), Kurtygermatu, 
 cannot be dated. Pseudo - Nestor, Tarianu, Genakh, Kare, Kase. Cp. 
 xix., p. 12 ; Marquart, op. cit. 34. Kuun, i. 148-158. 
 
 2 Ann. Bert. (Hincmar), s.a. "sed 6 Kuun (op. cit. i. 205, 208) thinks 
 et hostes antea illis populis inexperti that Lebedias is identical with Eleud of 
 qui Ungri vocantur regnura eiusdem the Notary of King Bela. His title was, 
 populantur." no doubt, Kende, see Ibn Rusta, 167. 
 
 s Cp. Ann. Sangall., s.a. 894 7 Constantine, op. cit. 169 rov irpds 
 
 (M.G.H. Scr. I.). avrbv diroffTaXrjvai XeXdvSta rbv Trpurrov 
 
 4 This hypothesis is Marquart's, op. atirCiv fiotpoSov. Banduri saw that 
 cit. 144. Xf\dv5ia was a proper name, and e/s 
 
 5 Constantine (op. cit. 172) gives has probably fallen out of the text, 
 the names of the tribes : Neke, See Kuun, i. 208, Marquart, 35.
 
 426 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xm 
 
 Salmutzes, 1 another tribal chief, or his son Arpad. The 
 Magyars declared in favour of Arpad, and he was elevated on 
 a shield, according to the custom of the Khazars, and re- 
 cognized as king. In this way the Khazars instituted king- 
 ship among the Magyars. But while this account may be 
 true so far as it goes, it furnishes no reason for such an im- 
 portant innovation, and it is difficult to see why the Khazar 
 government should have taken the initiative. We shall 
 probably be right in connecting the change with another fact, 
 which had a decisive influence on Magyar history. Among 
 the Turks who composed the Khazar people, there was a tribe 
 or tribes known as the Kabars, who were remarkable for 
 their strength and bravery. About this time they rose 
 against the Chagan ; the revolt was crushed ; and those who 
 escaped death fled across the Dnieper and were received and 
 adopted by the Magyars, to whose seven tribes they were 
 added as an eighth. Their bravery and skill in war enabled 
 them to take a leading part in the counsels of the nation. 
 We are told that they taught the Magyars the Turkish 
 language, and in the tenth century both Magyar and Turkish 
 were spoken in Hungary. 2 The result of this double tongue is 
 the mixed character of the modern Hungarian language, which 
 has supplied specious argument for the two opposite opinions 
 as to the ethnical affinities of the Magyars. 3 We may suspect 
 that the idea of introducing kingship was due to the Kabars, 
 and it has even been conjectured that Arpad belonged to this 
 Turkish people which was now permanently incorporated in 
 the Hungarian nation. 4 
 
 1 Almus in the Hungarian chron- subject throughout, and consequently 
 icles. On Arpad's date, see Appendix TOV Aiovvriva rbv vibv TOV 'ApTrddr) el^ov 
 XII. &PXOVTO. means that Levente, Arpad's 
 
 2 Constantino, op.cit. 171-172. Vam- son, was ruler of the Kabars. I can- 
 b6ry, A magyarok eredete, 140, explains not accept this strict interpretation of 
 the name Kabar as "insurgent." the grammar. I feel sure that the 
 
 3 See above, p. 410, n. 4. subject of the verbs (SifTrtpaffav, fix 01 ', 
 
 4 Marquart makes this assertion etc.) is not the Kabars, but the 
 (op. cit. 52), basing it on the passage Hungarians (oi Tovptcoi), who include 
 in Constantino (op. cit. 172 14 . 2 i), the Kabars. Levente was &px&v of 
 where, he observes, oi Kd/3apot is the the Hungarians.
 
 CHAPTEE XIV 
 
 ART, LEARNING, AND EDUCATION IN THE AMORIAN PERIOD 
 
 THROUGHOUT the Middle Ages, till its collapse at the begin- 
 ning of the thirteenth century, the Eastern Koman Empire 
 was superior to all the states of Europe in the efficiency of its 
 civil and military organization, in systematic diplomacy, in 
 wealth, in the refinements of material civilization, and in 
 intellectual culture. It was the heir of antiquity, and it 
 prized its inheritance its political legacy from Eome, and its 
 spiritual legacy from Hellas. These traditions, no less than 
 the tradition of the Church, which was valued most of all, 
 may be said to have weighed with crushing force upon the 
 Byzantine world ; conservatism was the leading note of the 
 Byzantine spirit. Yet though the political and social fabric 
 always rested on the same foundations, and though the 
 authority of tradition was unusually strong and persistent, the 
 proverbial conservatism of Byzantium is commonly exaggerated 
 or misinterpreted. The great upheaval of society in the 
 seventh century, due to the successive shocks of perilous crises 
 which threatened the state with extinction, had led to a 
 complete reform of the military organization, to the creation 
 of a navy, to extensive innovations in the machinery of the 
 civil and financial government, to important changes in the 
 conditions of the agricultural population and land-tenure ; 
 and it is a matter of no small difficulty to trace the organiza- 
 tion of the eighth and ninth centuries from that of the age 
 of Justinian. But even after this thoroughgoing transforma- 
 tion, the process of change did not halt. The Emperors were 
 continually adjusting and readjusting the machinery of 
 government to satisfy new needs and meet changing circum- 
 
 427
 
 428 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 stances. The principles and the framework remained the same ; 
 there was no revolution ; but there was constant adaptation 
 here and there. It will be found, for instance, that the 
 administrative arrangements in the twelfth century differ in 
 endless details from those of the ninth. To this elasticity, 
 whicb historians have failed to emphasize, the Empire owed 
 its longevity. Byzantium was conservative ; but Byzantine 
 uniformity is a legend. 
 
 The history of the period described in this volume ex- 
 hibits the vitality of the Empire. It experienced losses and 
 reverses, but there are no such symptoms of decline as may 
 be detected in the constitution of its rival, the Caliphate, and 
 no tendencies to disintegration, like those which in the same 
 period were at work in the Carolingian realm. The Amorian 
 age, however, is apt to be regarded as an inglorious interval 
 between the rule of the Isaurians who renovated the strength 
 of the Empire and the brilliant expansion under Basil I. and 
 his successors. The losses of Crete and Sicily have been 
 taken as a proof of decline ; the character and the regime of 
 Theophilus have been viewed with antipathy or contempt ; 
 and the worthlessness of Michael III. has prejudiced posterity 
 against the generation which tolerated such a sovran. This 
 unfavourable opinion is not confined to the learned slaves of 
 the Papacy, who are unable to regard with impartial eyes the 
 age of Theophilus the enemy of icons, and of Photius the 
 enemy of the Pope. The deepest cause of the prevalent view 
 has been the deliberate and malignant detraction with which 
 the sovrans and servile chroniclers of the Basilian period 
 pursued the memory and blackened the repute of the Amorian 
 administration ; for modern historians have not emancipated 
 themselves completely from the bias of those prejudiced 
 sources. 
 
 In the foregoing pages we have seen that while even 
 detraction has not ventured to accuse the Amorian rulers of 
 exceptional rigour in taxing their subjects, the Empire was 
 wealthy and prosperous. We have seen that it maintained 
 itself, with alternations of defeat and victory, but without 
 losing ground, against the Caliphate, that peace was preserved 
 on the Bulgarian frontier, and that the reduction of the 
 Slavs in Greece was completed. Oversea dominions were
 
 CHAP, xiv CHARACTER OF AMORIAN PERIOD 429 
 
 lost, but against this we have to set the fact that the Amorian 
 monarchs, by taking in hand the reconstruction of the naval 
 establishment, which the Isaurians had neglected, prepared 
 the way for the successes of Basil I. in Italy. We have still 
 to see what services they rendered to art, education, and 
 learning. In these spheres we shall find a new pulse of 
 movement, endeavour, revival, distinguishing the ninth 
 century from the two hundred years which preceded it. We 
 may indeed say that our period established the most fully 
 developed and most pardonably self-complacent phase of 
 Byzantinism. 
 
 It is a striking fact, and may possibly be relevant in this 
 connexion, that the Armenian element, which had long been 
 an ethnical constituent of the Empire, comes conspicuously 
 forward in the ninth century. Before now, Hellenized 
 Armenians had often occupied high posts, once even the 
 throne ; but now they begin to rise in numbers into social 
 and political prominence. The pretender Bardanes, Leo V., 
 Basil would not be significant if they stood alone. But 
 the gifted family of the Empress Theodora was of Armenian 
 stock ; it included Manuel, Bardas, and Petronas. Through 
 his mother, Photius the Patriarch ; John the Grammarian 
 and his brother (who held a high dignity), were also of 
 Armenian descent ; and Alexius Musele and Constantine 
 Babutzikos are two other eminent examples of the Armenians 
 who rose to high rank and office in the Imperial service. 1 
 All these men were thorough Byzantines, saturated with the 
 traditions of their environment ; but their energy and ability, 
 proved by their success, suggest the conjecture that they 
 represented a renovating force which did much to maintain 
 the vitality of the State. 
 
 1. Art 
 
 It is commonly supposed that the iconoclastic movement 
 was a calamity for art, and the dearth of artistic works dating 
 from the period in which religious pictures were discouraged, 
 
 1 Constantine, Druugary of the Michael III. were Armenians. On 
 
 Watch under Michael III., is another this subject see Ram baud, L 'Empire 
 
 instance. Several of the fellow- grec, 536, and cp. Bussell, Const. 
 
 conspirators of Basil in the murder of History, ii. 166, 344-345.
 
 430 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 proscribed, or destroyed, seems, at first sight, to bear out this 
 opinion. If, however, we examine the facts more closely, we 
 shall find that the iconoclastic age was far from being inartistic, 
 and that it witnessed the insurrection of new ideas and 
 tendencies which exercised a potent and valuable influence 
 upon the religious art of the succeeding period. 1 One 
 immediate effect, indeed, which may be considered a loss and 
 a calamity, the doctrine of the image- breakers produced. It 
 exterminated a whole branch of art, it abolished sculpture. 
 The polemic against images had carried weight with orthodox 
 opinion so far that sculptured representations of holy persons or 
 sacred scenes were discontinued by common consent. It was 
 a partial victory for the iconoclasts, an illogical concession of 
 the image-worshippers. No formal prohibition was enacted 
 by Church or State; the rejection of plastic images was a 
 tacit but authoritative decree of public opinion. 
 
 The iconoclastic sovrans were not unfriends of pictorial 
 art as such. Two of the most illustrious and uncompromising, 
 Constantine V. and Theophilus, who desired to abolish entirely 
 religious pictures of a monumental kind, sought a substitute 
 in secular painting for the decoration of both sacred and 
 profane buildings. The antique traditions of profane art had 
 never disappeared in the Byzantine world, but they had 
 become inconspicuous and uninfluential through the domination 
 of religious art, with its fixed iconographic types, which had 
 ascended to its highest plane of excellence in the sixth 
 century. Under the auspices of the iconoclasts, profane art 
 revived. Constantine V. caused the church of Blachernae to 
 be decorated with landscapes, trees, and birds and animals ; 
 Theophilus followed his example. 2 This was not really a 
 novelty ; it was a return to the primitive decoration of early 
 Christian churches, which had been gradually abandoned. 
 Scenes de genre, pictures of the chase, scenes in the hippodrome, 
 were demanded from the artists who adorned the halls of the 
 Imperial Palace. Of such frescoes and mosaics we know only 
 what chroniclers tell us, but some ivory coffers which were 
 
 1 This has been shown in some bril- D. V. Ainalov, Ellinisticheskiia osnovy 
 
 liant pages of Diehl's L' Art byzantin, vizantiiskago iskusstva, 1900. 
 
 339 sqq., 372 sqq. To this masterly 2 Cont. Th. 99. See above, p. 130 
 
 work the following pages are indebted. sqq., for the decoration of his new 
 
 For the influence of Hellenistic on buildings in the Palace. 
 Byzantine painting and design, see
 
 SECT, i ART 431 
 
 carved in the ninth century illustrate the revival of profane 
 art under the iconoclasts. One of them may be seen in 
 London, exhibiting scenes of pagan mythology, such as the 
 rape of Europa and the sacrifice of Iphigeneia. 1 
 
 The taste for rich ornament also characterized this period, 
 and did not expire with the defeat of iconoclasm. It is apparent 
 in the description of the sumptuously decorated buildings of 
 Theophilus ; and Basil I., in the new palaces which he erected, 
 did not fall behind the splendour of the impious . Amorian. 
 This taste displayed itself also in the illumination of books, of 
 which brilliant specimens are preserved dating from the tenth 
 and eleventh centuries. 
 
 Even under the iconoclastic dispensation, artists who 
 desired to represent religious subjects had an outlet for the 
 expression of their ideas in the illustration of manuscripts. A 
 psalter is preserved at Moscow 2 which is supposed to have 
 been written in the early part of the ninth century in the 
 monastery of Studion. It is simply and elegantly illustrated 
 by coloured vignettes in the margins, animated and realistic, 
 free from the solemnity which we associate with Byzantine 
 art. 3 The proud who " set their mouth against the heavens 
 and their tongue walketh through the earth " 4 are portrayed 
 by two bearded men with long tongues touching the ground, 
 and upper lips, like beaks, which touch a bowl, surmounted by 
 a cross, representing the sky. 
 
 The iconoclastic controversy itself supplied the monastic 
 artists with motives to point the moral and adorn the text of 
 sacred writ. In another psalter which must have been written 
 in the generation succeeding the triumph of orthodoxy, the 
 congregation of the wicked is exemplified by a picture of the 
 Synod of A.D. 815. We see Leo the Amorian on a throne, 
 the Patriarch Theodotos seated by his side, and two men 
 defacing with long spears the icon of Christ. The assembling 
 of the righteous is depicted as the Council of A.D. 843, where 
 Jannes is trampled under foot by the orthodox Patriarch who 
 holds the image of Christ in his hand, while above we see the 
 
 1 The coffer of Veroli in the Victoria and is known as the Khludov Psalter, 
 and Albert Museum. See Diehl, op. cit. 353-354. 
 
 2 In the monastery of St. Nicolas. 3 n . , , ., 
 It has been studied by Koudakov, 
 
 Miniatures d'un manuscrit grec du 4 Ps. 73. 9. This picture is repro- 
 psautier de la collection Chloudof (1878), duced in Diehl, ib.
 
 432 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 Biblical sorcerer Simon hurled down by St. Peter. 1 In another 
 book of the same period, designed for popular instruction, the 
 Physiologus, some of the illustrations are allusive to the recent 
 controversy and inspired by monastic spite; but this manuscript 
 exhibits at the same time the influence of the profane art which 
 the iconoclasts had revived, in the realism of its pictures and 
 in the pagan subjects, such as sirens, nymphs, and centaurs. 2 
 
 The employment of art in the service of controversy, or as 
 an outlet for controversial spite, seems to be characteristic of 
 the age. The archbishop Gregory Asbestas, the friend and 
 supporter of Photius, had some skill in painting, and he 
 illustrated a copy of the Acts of the synod which condemned 
 Ignatius with realistic and somewhat scurrilous caricatures. 
 At the beginning of the first Act he depicted the flogging of 
 the Patriarch, above whose head was inscribed " the Devil." 
 The second picture showed the bystanders spitting upon him 
 as he was haled to prison ; the third represented him, " the 
 son of perdition," suffering dethronement ; the fourth, bound 
 in chains and going into exile. In the fifth his neck was in 
 a collar ; and in the sixth he was condemned to death. Each 
 vignette had an insulting legend ; and in the seventh, and last, 
 the head of " Antichrist " was severed from his body. This 
 manuscript, in a rich cover of purple silk, was found among 
 the books of Photius, and was burned, with others, at the Eighth 
 Ecumenical Council. 3 
 
 Enough has been said to indicate the significance of the 
 iconoclastic movement for the history of art. A ban was 
 placed on certain forms of pictorial work ; but whatever 
 temporary disadvantages this may be thought to have entailed, 
 they were far outweighed by the revival of other styles which 
 were in danger of complete extinction. If there had been no 
 iconoclastic movement, the dead religious art of the seventh- 
 century decadence might have continued, without reanimation, 
 to the end. Under the Isaurian and Amorian dynasties profane 
 art revived ; there was a renaissance of the old picturesque 
 decorative style which, originating in Alexandria, had spread 
 
 1 The Barberini Psalter (in the 3 Vita Ign. 260. A second copy 
 Vatican). Tikkanen, Die Psalter- had been prepared, destined for the 
 illustrationimMittelalter,189o. Diehl, Emperor Lewis. A companion MS., 
 355-356. containing the Acts of the Council 
 
 2 Strzygowski, Der Bilderkreis des which condemned Pope Nicolas, seems 
 griechischen Physiologus, 1899. not to have been illustrated.
 
 SECT, i ART 433 
 
 over the world, and profoundly influenced the development of 
 the art of the early Church. Alexandrine decoration, with its 
 landscapes, idyllic scenes, mythological themes, still life, and 
 realistic portraits, came to life again in the iconoclastic period ; 
 a school of secular artists, who worked for the Emperors and 
 the Court, arose ; and the spirit of their work, with its antique 
 inspiration, did not fail to awaken religious painters from their 
 torpor. For the second great period of her art, which coincided 
 with the Macedonian dynasty, Byzantium was chiefly indebted 
 to the iconoclastic sovrans. 1 Or rather we should say that art 
 revived under the Amorians, religious art under their successors. 
 Wealth was a condition of this artistic revival, of which 
 a chief characteristic was rich and costly decoration. In the 
 work of the age of Justinian the richness of the material had 
 been conspicuous; in the subsequent period, when all the 
 resources of the State were strained in a life and death struggle 
 with formidable enemies, there were no funds for the luxuries 
 of art. By the ninth century the financial prosperity of the 
 Empire had revived ; the Imperial coffers were well filled ; 
 and the Emperors could indulge their taste or their pride in 
 artistic magnificence. In the flourishing condition of the 
 minor arts of the jeweller and the enameller, from the ninth 
 to the twelfth century, we may also see an indication of the 
 wealth of Constantinople. Here, too, we may probably suspect 
 oriental influence. The jewellers did not abandon repousse 
 work, but they devoted themselves more and more to the colour 
 effects of enamel decoration ; the richest altars and chalices, 
 crosses and the caskets which contained crosses or relics, the 
 gold and silver cups and vessels in the houses of the rich, gold- 
 embroidered robes, the bindings of books, all shone with cloisonne 
 enamels. 2 The cloisonne technique was invented in the East, 
 probably in Persia, and though it seems to have been known 
 at Byzantium in the sixth century, 3 we may ascribe its 
 domestication and the definite abandonment of the old champ- 
 leve method to the oriental influences of the ninth. Portable 
 objects with enamel designs, as well as embroidered fabrics, 
 
 1 On the formation of a new system treasury of the Sancta Sanctorum at 
 of iconography between the ninth and Rome, ascribed to this period, is 
 eleventh centuries, see Diehl, 381 sqq. wrought in cloisonne enamel (not 
 
 2 Diehl, op. cit. 642. glass). 
 
 3 Ib. A cross preserved in the 
 
 2F
 
 434 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 easily travelled, and were frequently offered by the Emperors 
 to foreign potentates ; they must have performed an appreciable 
 part in diffusing in Western Europe the influence of the motives 
 and styles of Byzantine art. 1 
 
 2. Education and Learning 
 
 Among the traditions which the Empire inherited from 
 antiquity, one of the most conspicuous, but not perhaps duly 
 estimated in its importance as a social fact, was higher educa- 
 tion. The children of the well-to-do class, from which the 
 superior administrative officials of the State were mainly drawn, 
 were taught ancient Greek, and gained some acquaintance at 
 least with some of the works of the great classical writers. 
 Illiterateness was a reproach among reputable people ; and the 
 possession of literary education by laymen generally and women 
 was a deep-reaching distinction between Byzantine civilisation 
 and the barbarous West, where the field of letters was mono- 
 polized by ecclesiastics. It constituted one of the most 
 indisputable claims of Byzantium to superiority, and it had 
 an important social result. In the West the cleavage between 
 the ecclesiastical and lay classes was widened and deepened by 
 the fact that the distinction between them coincided with the 
 distinction between learned and ignorant. In the East there 
 were as many learned laymen as learned monks and priests ; 
 and even in divinity the layman was not helplessly at the 
 mercy of the priest, for his education included some smattering 
 of theology. The Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus must 
 have acquired, before they were suddenly moved into the 
 spiritual order, no contemptible knowledge of theology ; and 
 Photius, as a layman, was a theological expert. Thus layman 
 and cleric of the better classes met on common ground ; there 
 was no pregnant significance in the word clerk ; and ecclesiastics 
 never obtained the influence, or played the part, in administra- 
 
 1 This has been rightly insisted on nople to the Abbey of Stavelot in 
 
 by Diehl. The enamelled reliquaries Belgium has recently been sold in 
 
 preserved at Limbourg and Gran are London. It contains a relic of the 
 
 well known, and there are many fine true Cross. Many churches in France 
 
 specimens in the Treasury of St. Mark and Germany possess rich silks, with 
 
 at Venice, including the Pala d' Oro. embroidered or woven designs, from 
 
 An enamelled gold triptych brought the factories of Constantinople (tenth 
 
 in the twelfth century from Constanti- and eleventh centuries).
 
 SECT, ii EDUCATION AND LEARNING 435 
 
 tion and politics which their virtually exclusive possession of 
 letters procured for them in Western Europe. 
 
 The circumstance, however it may be explained, that the 
 period from the Saracen invasion in the reign of Heraclius 
 to the beginning of the ninth century is sterile in literary 
 productions, must not be suffered to obscure the fact that the 
 traditions of literary education were not interrupted. There 
 rose no men of eminent secular learning ; the Emperors did 
 not encourage it ; but Homer did not cease to be read. The 
 ninth century witnessed a remarkable revival of learning and 
 philosophy, and it is highly probable that at Constantinople 
 this intellectual movement stimulated general education, im- 
 proved its standards, and heightened its value in public opinion. 
 It is to be noticed that our oldest Byzantine manuscripts of 
 classical writers date from this century, the age of Photius, 
 who stands out, not only above all his contemporaries, but 
 above all the Greeks of the Middle Ages, as a scholar of 
 encyclopaedic erudition. 
 
 It is, however, in the field of philosophy and science, more 
 definitely than in that of literature and rhetoric, that we can 
 speak of a revival of learning at this period. 1 During the 
 reign of Michael III. there were three eminent teachers of 
 philosophy at Constantinople Photius himself, Constantine 
 who became the apostle of the Slavs, and Leo the mathe- 
 matician. Both Leo and Constantine were official professors, 
 endowed by the State, and the interest taken by the Court in 
 science and learning is perhaps the greatest title of the 
 Amorian dynasty to importance in the history of Byzantine 
 civilisation. Since the age of Theophilus and Bardas, although 
 some generations were not as fruitful as others, there was no 
 interruption, no dark period, in the literary activity of the 
 Greeks, till the final fall of Constantinople. 
 
 Theophilus was a man of culture, and is said to have 
 been taught by John, whom he afterwards raised to the 
 patriarchal throne, and who possessed considerable attainments 
 in science and philosophy. 2 His intimacy with the learned 
 Methodius is also a sign of his interest in speculation. He 
 seems to have realized what had not occurred to his pre- 
 
 1 This did not escape Gibbon. " In dawnings of the restoration of Science " 
 the ninth century we trace the first (vi. 104). 2 Cont. Th. 154.
 
 436 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 decessors, that it behoved a proud centre of civilisation like 
 Byzantium to assert and maintain pre-eminence in the 
 intellectual as well as in other spheres. Hitherto it had been 
 taken for granted that all the learning of the world was con- 
 tained within the boundaries of the Empire, and that the 
 Greeks and Eomans alone possessed the vessel of knowledge. 
 Nobody thought of asking, Have we any great savants among 
 us, or is learning on the decline ? But the strenuous cultiva- 
 tion of scientific studies at Baghdad under the auspices of 
 Harun and Mamun, and the repute which the Caliphs were 
 winning as patrons of learning and literature, awakened a 
 feeling at the Byzantine court that the Greeks must not 
 surrender their pre-eminence in intellectual culture, the more 
 so as it was from the old Greek masters that in many branches 
 of science the Saracens were learning. If the reports of the 
 magnificence of the palaces of Baghdad stimulated Theophilus 
 to the construction of wonderful buildings in a new style at 
 Constantinople, we may believe that Mamun's example 
 brought home to him the idea that it was a ruler's duty to 
 foster learning. We need not accept the story of the career 
 of Leo, the philosopher and mathematician, as literally exact 
 in all its details, but it probably embodies, in the form of an 
 anecdote, the truth that the influence of suggestion was 
 exercised by the court of Baghdad upon that of Byzantium. 
 
 Leo was a cousin of John the Patriarch. He had studied 
 grammar and poetry at Constantinople, but it was in the 
 island of Andros that he discovered a learned teacher who made 
 him proficient in philosophy and mathematics. 1 Having 
 visited many monastic libraries, for the purpose of consulting 
 and purchasing books, he returned to Constantinople, where he 
 lived poorly in a cheap lodging, supporting himself by 
 teaching. His pupils were generally successful. One, to 
 whom he had taught geometry, was employed as a secretary by 
 a strategos, whom he accompanied in a campaign in the East. 
 He was taken prisoner and became the slave of a Saracen, who 
 must have been a man of some importance at Baghdad and 
 treated him well. .One day his master's conversation turned 
 
 1 A monument of the cultivation of Ptolemy's Geography, illustrated in 
 
 science about the time at which Leo the reign of Leo V. (perhaps at Con- 
 
 was a youthful student exists in the stantinople) after an older MS. See 
 
 Vatican Library : a manuscript of Diehl, 07?. cit. 350.
 
 SECT, ii EDUCATION AND LEARNING 437 
 
 on the Caliph, and he mentioned Mamun's interest in geometry. 
 " I should like," said the Greek youth, " to hear him and his 
 masters discourse on the subject." The presence in Baghdad 
 of a Greek slave who professed to understand geometry came 
 to the ears of Mamun, who eagerly summoned him to the 
 Palace. He was confronted with the Saracen geometers. 
 They described squares and triangles ; they displayed a most 
 accurate acquaintance with the nomenclature of Euclid ; but 
 they showed no comprehension of geometrical reasoning. At 
 their request, he gave them a demonstration, and they inquired 
 in amazement how many savants of such a quality Constanti- 
 nople possessed. " Many disciples like myself " was the reply, 
 " but not masters." " Is your master still alive ? " they asked. 
 " Yes, but he lives in poverty and obscurity." Then Mamuu 
 wrote a letter to Leo, inviting him to come to Baghdad, 
 offering him rich rewards, and promising that the Saracens 
 would bow their heads to his learning. The youth, to whom 
 gifts and honours and permission to return to his country 
 were promised if he succeeded in his mission, was dispatched 
 as ambassador to Leo. The philosopher discreetly showed the 
 Caliph's letter to Theoktistos, the Logothete of the Course, who 
 communicated the matter to the Emperor. By this means 
 Leo was discovered, and his value was appreciated. Theophilus 
 gave him a salary and established him as a public teacher, at 
 the Church of the Forty Martyrs, between the Augusteon and 
 the Forum of Constantine. 1 
 
 Mamun is said to have afterwards corresponded with Leo, 
 submitting to him a number of geometrical and astronomical 
 problems. The solutions which he received rendered the 
 Caliph more anxious than ever to welcome the eminent 
 mathematician at his court, and he wrote to Theophilus 
 begging him to send Leo to Baghdad for a short time, as an 
 act of friendship, and offering in return eternal peace and 
 2000 pounds of gold (86,400). But the Emperor, treating 
 science as if it were a secret to be guarded like the manu- 
 facture of Greek fire, and deeming it bad policy to enlighten 
 
 1 In the Middle St. near the Forum Th. 189 has evidently more precise 
 
 of Constantine (cp. Theoph. 267, and information. In the following reign, 
 
 Patria, 234). Ace. to Simeon (Add. Leo did teach in the Magnaura ; see 
 
 Georg. 806), Theophilus established him below, 
 in the palace of Magnaura ; but Cont.
 
 438 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 barbarians, declined. He valued Leo the more, and afterwards 
 arranged his election as archbishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 840). 1 
 The interest of Mamun in science and learning is an 
 undoubted fact. He founded a library and an observatory at 
 Baghdad ; 2 and under hirn and his successors many mathe- 
 matical, medical, and philosophical works of the ancient Greeks 
 appeared in Arabic translations. 3 The charge that the Arabic 
 geometers were unable to comprehend the demonstrations of 
 Euclid is the calumny of a jealous Greek, but making every 
 allowance for the embellishments with which a story-teller 
 would seek to enhance the interest of his tale, we may accept 
 it as evidence for the stimulating influence of Baghdad upon 
 Byzantium and emulation between these two seats of culture. 
 And in this connexion it is not insignificant that two other 
 distinguished luminaries of learning in this age had relations 
 with the Caliphate. We have seen how John the Patriarch 
 and Photius were sent on missions to the East. Constantine 
 the Philosopher is said to have been selected to conduct a 
 dispute with learned Mohammadans on the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, which was held by the Caliph's request. 4 The 
 evidence for this dispute is unconvincing, yet the tradition 
 embodies the truth that there was in the ninth century 
 a lively intellectual interest among the Christians and 
 the Mohammadans in the comparative merits of their 
 doctrines. It is not impossible that there were cases of 
 proselytism due not to motives of expediency but to conviction. 
 The controversial interest is strongly marked in the version 
 of the Acts of the Amorian Martyrs composed by Euodios, 5 
 
 1 The date is inferred from the fact ticians (ib. 204). Mohammad ibn 
 that he held the office for three years Musa (al-Khwarizmi), who belongs to 
 (Gont. Th. 192) and must have been this period, wrote treatises on algebra 
 deposed after the Council of Orthodoxy and arithmetic, which, translated into 
 in 843. Latin, were much used in Europe in 
 
 2 Brockelmann, GescMchte der arab. the later Middle Ages (216). Tabit 
 Lit. i. 202. Cp. Gibbon, vi. 29 sqq. ibn Kurra (born 836), a distinguished 
 (and recent books mentioned in mathematician, translated into Arabic 
 editorial note 67). For the sources the 5th book of the Conic Sections of 
 of Abu-'l-Faraj and D'Herbelot, on Apollonius of Perge (217). Hunain 
 whom Gibbon relies, cp. M. Stein- ibn Ishak (born 809) translated works 
 Schneider," Die arabischenUbersetzun- of Plato, Aristotle, and Hippocrates 
 gen aus dem Griechischen," \nBeihefte (205-206). 
 
 zum Centralblalt fur Bibliothekswesen, 4 Vita Const, c. 6. See above, p. 394. 
 
 v. pp. 11, 13 (1889). B He seems to have been well ac- 
 
 3 Ib. Balabakhi, c. 835, who quainted with Islam and to have 
 became a Christian, translated from known the Koran. One of the 
 Euclid, Heron, and other mathema- Mohammadan arguments was the
 
 SECT, ii EDUCATION AND LEARNING 439 
 
 but the great monument of the concern which the creed of 
 Islam caused to the Greeks is the Refutation of Mohammad 
 by Nicetas of Byzantium, a contemporary of Photius. 1 The 
 fanaticism of the two creeds did not exclude mutual respect. 
 We have an interesting instance in the friendship of Photius 
 with an Emir of Crete. The Patriarch, says one of his pupils, 
 writing to the Emir's son and successor, " knew well that 
 though difference in religion is a barrier, yet wisdom, kindness, 
 and the other qualities which adorn and dignify human nature 
 attract the affection of those who love fair things ; and there- 
 fore, notwithstanding the difference of creeds, he loved your 
 father, who was endowed with those qualities." 2 
 
 When Leo, as an iconoclast, was deposed from his see, he 
 resumed the profession of teaching, and during the regency of 
 Theodora there were three eminent masters at Constantinople 
 Leo, Photius, and Constantine. It was to Theoktistos that 
 Constantiue owed the official chair of philosophy which he 
 was induced to accept ; but Leo and Photius belonged to the 
 circle of Bardas, who seems to have had a deeper and sincerer 
 interest in intellectual things than either Theophilus or 
 Theoktistos. To Bardas belongs the credit and his enemies 
 freely acknowledge it of having systematically undertaken 
 the task of establishing a school of learning. 3 In fact, he 
 revived, on new lines and apparently on a smaller scale, the 
 university of Constantinople, which had been instituted by 
 Theodosius II., and allowed to decay and disappear under the 
 Heraclian and Isaurian dynasties. Leo was the head of this 
 school of advanced studies, which was known as the School of 
 Magnaura, 4 for rooms in the palace of Magnaura were assigned 
 for the purpose. His pupils Theodore, Theodegios, and Kometas 
 became the professors of geometry, astronomy, and philology. 5 
 
 wonderful success of Moslem arms. 3 Cont. Th. 185 ; he used often to 
 
 Cp. Acta 4^ mart. Amor. 102. The attend the demonstrations (ib. 192). 
 
 disputations in Vita Const, cc. 6 and From the passage 184-185, one would 
 
 11 were probably intended for the infer that the school of Magnaura 
 
 edification of Bulgarian ecclesiastics. was founded by the influence of 
 
 1 This treatise is published in Bardas before the fall of Theoktistos. 
 Migne, P. G. 105. Cp. Krumbacher, He endowed it richly (ib. 8a\f/i\ws 
 G.B.L. 79 ; and ib. 78 for Bartholomew eirapicuv). 
 
 of Edessa, whose controversial work 4 Ib. TTJS Kara TTJV Mtrypai'/xu' (f>i\o- 
 
 (Migne, 104, 1383 sqq.), of uncertain ffd<f>ov axoX^s. 
 
 date, shows great knowledge. 5 Ib. rijs ras <pwvas i;e\\iivioijor)s 
 
 2 Nicolaus Mysticus, Ep. 2 (Migne, ypan(j.aTiKTJs. Arethas seems to have 
 P. G. 111. p. 37). taken down a lecture of Leo on
 
 440 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 The intensity of this revival of profane studies, and the 
 new prestige which they enjoyed, might be illustrated by the 
 suspicious attitude of a monk like the Patriarch Ignatius 
 towards secular learning. But the suspicion which pre- 
 vailed in certain ecclesiastical or monastic circles is violently 
 expressed in a venomous attack a upon Leo the Philosopher 
 after his death 2 by one Constantino, a former pupil, who had 
 discovered the wickedness of Hellenic culture. The attack is 
 couched in elegiacs, and he confesses that he owed his ability 
 to write them to the instruction of Leo : 
 
 I, Constantine, these verses wrought with skill, 
 Who drained the milk of thy dear Muse's rill. 
 The secrets of thy mind I searched and learned, 
 And now, at last, their sinfulness discerned. 
 
 He accuses his master of apostasy to Hellenism, of reject- 
 ing Christ, of worshipping the ancient gods of Greece : 
 
 Teacher of countless arts, in worldly lore 
 The peer of all the proud wise men of yore, 
 Thy soul was lost, when in the unhallowed sea 
 Thou drankest of its salt impiety. 
 The shining glory of the Christian rite 
 With its fair lustrous waters, the awful might 
 Of the great sacrifice, the saintly writ, 
 Of all these wonders recking not one whit, 
 Into the vast and many-monster'd deep 
 Of heathen Greece did thy fair spirit leap, 
 The prey of soul-devouring beasts to be. 
 Who would not pity and make moan for thee ? 
 
 Then a chorus of good Christians is invited to address the 
 
 Euclid vi. def. 5. See J. L. Heiberg, c. Ixi. sqq. The verses are quite good, 
 
 Der byz. Mathematiker Leon, in for the period. 
 
 Bibliotlwca mathematica, i. 2, 34 sqq. 2 g ee below, p. 441, n. 4. Leo had 
 
 (1887), where attention is also drawn two pupils named Constantine the 
 
 to a note at the end of the Florentine Slavonic apostle (see above, p. 394) and 
 
 MS. of the treatise of Archimedes on the Sicilian. The latter is doubtless 
 
 the Quadrature of the Parabola : the pupil in question. He wrote good 
 
 evrvxolris, Ktov yeuytrpa, TTO\\OVS els Anacreontics (conveniently accessible 
 
 XuKdpavTas Tois TroXt) <f>i\rare Mowrats. j n Bergk's Poetae Lyrici Graeci, ed. 4, 
 
 Leo is to be distinguished from Leo M8 sqq.). The yddpiov tpuriKfo (351 
 
 Magister, a diplomatist in the reign sgy.) is pleasing. It begins : 
 of Leo VI.; cp. de Boor, B.Z. 10, 
 
 63. Trora/xoO fitaov Karetdov 
 
 1 Printed with the works of Leo VI. TTOT rbv y6vov K.v6i?ipi)s t 
 
 (suruamed 6 cro^os and hence confused ivevtix* irpoiratfav 
 
 with the Philosopher) in Migne, 107, ve
 
 SECT, ii EDUCATION AND LEARNING 441 
 
 apostate who had made Zeus his divinity, in the following 
 strain : 
 
 Go to the house of gloom, yea down to hell, 
 
 Laden with all thine impious lore, to dwell 
 
 Beside the stream of Pyriphlegethon, 
 
 In the fell plain of Tartarus, all undone. 
 
 There thy Chrysippus shalt thou haply spy, 
 
 And Socrates and Epicure descry, 
 
 Plato and Aristotle, Euclid dear, 
 
 Proclus, 1 and Ptolemy the Astronomer, 2 
 
 Aratus, Hesiod, and Homer too 
 
 Whose Muse is queen, in sooth, of all that crew. 3 
 
 The satire was circulated, and evoked severe criticism. 
 The author was sharply attacked for impiety towards his 
 master, and some alleged that he was instigated by Leo's 
 enemies to calumniate the memory of the philosopher. Con- 
 stantine replied to these reproaches in an iambic effusion. 4 
 He does not retract or mitigate his harsh judgment on Leo, 
 but complacently describes himself as " ths parricide of an 
 impious master even if the pagans (Hellenes) should burst 
 with spite." 5 His apology consists in appealing to Christ, 
 as the sole fountain of truth, and imprecating curses on all 
 heretics and unbelievers. The spirit of the verses directed 
 against Hellenists may be rendered thus : 
 
 Foul fare they, who the gods adore 
 Worshipped by Grecian folk of yore ! 
 Amorous gods, to passions prone, 
 Gods as adulterers well known, 
 Gods who were lame, and gods who felt 
 The wound that some mean mortal dealt ; 
 And goddesses, a crowd obscene, 
 Among them many a harlot quean ; 
 Some wedded clownish herds, I trow, 
 Some squinted hideously enow. 
 
 1 Among some epigrams ascribed to is an extraordinary error, which, so 
 
 Leo, one is in praise of Proclus and far as I know, has not been hitherto 
 
 the mathematician Theon. pointed out. The opening lines state 
 
 '' /cat Tiro\efj.a.(rTpov6fj.ovs. that the author was reviled for having 
 
 3 This homage to Homer is not accused his master Lto of apostasy, 
 ironical. It is a genuine though We learn from 1. 14 that Leo was dead 
 ambiguous tribute. when Constantine published his attack. 
 
 4 Migne, ib. 660 sq. The poem is (I may note that in 1. 25 
 here described (after Matranga, from should be corrected to ^iw/j,fv 
 whose Anecdota Graeca, vol. ii. , it is re- 
 printed) as an Apology of Leo the Philo- o *aTpopal<nw Swrffepov, 
 sopher, vindicating himself against ' **" " *W'y' E ^" ^ 
 the calumnies of Constantine. This M<^T i v \6yow TeX X ir,
 
 442 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 The sentiment is quite in the vein of the early Fathers 
 of the Church ; but it would not have displeased Xenophanes 
 or Plato, and the most enthusiastic Hellenist could afford to 
 smile at a display of such blunt weapons. The interest of 
 the episode lies in the illustration which it furnishes of the 
 vitality of secular learning (?; OvpaOev a-otyia) in the ninth 
 century. Though the charges which the fanatic brings against 
 Leo may be exaggerations, they establish the fact that he was 
 entirely preoccupied by science and philosophy and uncon- 
 cerned about Christian dogma. The appearance of a man of 
 this type is in itself significant. If. we consider that the 
 study of the Greek classics was a permanent feature of the 
 Byzantine world and was not generally held to clash with 
 orthodox piety, the circumstance that in this period the 
 apprehensions of fanatical or narrow-minded people were 
 excited against the dangers of profane studies confirms in a 
 striking way our other evidence that there was a genuine 
 revival of higher education and a new birth of enthusiasm 
 for secular knowledge. Would that it were possible to speak 
 of any real danger, from science and learning, to the prevail- 
 ing superstitions ! Danger there was none. Photius, not 
 Leo, was the typical Byzantine savant, uniting ardent devotion 
 to learning with no less ardent zeal for the orthodox faith. 
 
 Another sign of the revival of secular studies is the 
 impression which some of their chief exponents made on the 
 popular imagination preserved in the stories that were told 
 of Leo, of John the Patriarch, and of Photius. It was said 
 that when Leo l was archbishop of Thessalonica the crops 
 failed and there was a distressing dearth. Leo told the people 
 not to be discouraged. By making an astronomical calcula- 
 tion he discovered at what time benignant and sympathetic 
 influences would descend from the sky to the earth, and directed 
 the husbandmen to sow their seed accordingly. They were 
 amazed and gratified by the plenteousness of the ensuing 
 harvest. If the chronicler, who tells the tale, perfunctorily 
 observes that the result was due to prayer and not to the 
 
 1 That Leo was actually interested bacher, G. B. L. 631) and of a fragment- 
 in the arts of discovering future events ary astrological treatise on Eclipses 
 may be argued from the attribution to (published in Hermes, 8, 174 sqq.,1874), 
 him of a /^0o3os irpoyvu<rTiKT) rov ayiov ' which is evidently copied from a work 
 evayye\iov f) TOV if/a\Ti]piov (Krum- dating from the pre-Saracenic period.
 
 SECT, ii EDUCATION AND LEARNING 443 
 
 vain science of the archbishop, it is clear that he was not 
 unimpressed. 
 
 But Leo the astrologer escaped more easily than his 
 kinsman John the Grammarian the iconoclast Patriarch 
 who was believed to be a wicked and powerful magician. 1 
 His brother, the patrician Arsaber, had a suburban house 
 on the Bosphorus, near its issue from the Euxine, a large and 
 rich mansion, with porticoes, baths, and cisterns. Here the 
 Patriarch used constantly to stay, and he constructed a 
 subterranean chamber accessible by a small door and a long 
 staircase. In this " cave of Trophonius " he pursued his 
 nefarious practices, necromancy, inspection of livers, and other 
 methods of sorcery. Nuns were his accomplices, perhaps his 
 " mediums " in this den, and scandal said that time was 
 spared for indulgence in forbidden pleasures as well as for 
 the pursuit of forbidden knowledge. An interesting legend 
 concerning his black magic is related. An enemy, under 
 three redoubtable leaders, was molesting and harassing the 
 Empire. 2 Theophilus, unable to repel them, was in despair, 
 when John came to the rescue by his magic art. A three- 
 headed statue was made under his direction and placed among 
 the statues of bronze which adorned the euripos in the 
 Hippodrome. Three men of immense physical strength, 
 furnished with huge iron hammers, were stationed by the 
 statue in the dark hours of the night, and instructed, at a 
 given sign, simultaneously to raise their hammers and smite 
 off the heads. John, concealing his identity under the 
 disguise of a layman, recited a magical incantation which 
 translated the vital strength of the three foemeu into the 
 statue, 3 and then ordered the men to strike. They struck ; 
 
 1 Cp. above, p. 60. His nick- \6yoi transferred to the statue the 
 name Lekanomantis refers to the use Swa/us of the leaders )) fJM\\ov (to 
 of a dish in magic practices, and may speak more accurately) TTJV ofaav 
 be illustrated by the lanx rotunda, irp6repov ev T$ avdpiavn [5vi>a/j.iv~\ 
 ex diversis metallicis materiis fabri- KaTafjaXuv K TTJS r<2i> vToi.-xti.uff6.vTuv 
 facta, employed in the operations Svvdneus (which seems to imply that 
 described by Ammianus, xxix. 1. 29- the image had been constructed out of 
 32. Michael Syr. 114-115 says that an old statue which had been origin- 
 John worshipped idols and practised ally aroixeuaO^v). This operation is 
 magic "behind the veil in the illustrated by an occurrence in the 
 sanctuary." reign of Romanus I. An astronomer 
 
 2 The insuperable enemy is as told the Emperor to cut off the head 
 legendary as the rest of the story. of a statue which was above the vault 
 
 3 The Greek writer (Cont. Tk. 156) of the Xerolophos and faced towards 
 explains that John by his <TTOIX'WTIKOJ the west, in order to procure the death
 
 444 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 two heads fell to the ground ; but the third blow was less 
 forceful, and bent the head without severing it. The event 
 corresponded to the performance of the rite. The hostile leaders 
 fell out among themselves; two were slain by the third, 
 who was wounded, but survived ; and the enemy retreated 
 from the Eoman borders. 
 
 That John practised arts of divination, in which all the 
 world believed, we need no more doubt than that Leo used his 
 astronomical knowledge for the purpose of reading the secrets of 
 the future in the stars. It was the medieval habit to associate 
 scientific learning with supernatural powers and perilous 
 knowledge, and in every man of science to see a magician. 
 But the vulgar mind had some reason for this opinion, as it is 
 probable that the greater number of the few men who devoted 
 themselves to scientific research did not disdain to study 
 occult lore and the arts of prognostication. In the case of 
 John, his practices, encouraged perhaps by the Emperor's 
 curiosity, 1 furnished a welcome ground of calumny to the 
 image-worshippers who detested him. The learning of 
 Photius also gave rise to legends which were even more 
 damaging and had a far more slender foundation. It was 
 
 of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, ai>r<p which Meleager's life depended on a 
 
 yap eoTotxeiukrflcu rr]i> -rouv!)Tf\v aTr)\t\v brand, or that of Del phis on the dayvs 
 
 (Skylitzes = Cedr. ii. 308, cp. Cont. ofSimaitha. Tli us we read of a statue 
 
 Th. 411) ; Romanus followed his advice which was the cFTOLxelov of one Phidalia 
 
 and Simeon died instantly. The ('EXX^Sos, a pagan ? Patria, 195). 
 
 magic process of 0"roix e '<><ns was regu- But we find the best illustration in 
 
 larly used when statues were erected. the story about the Emperor Alexander, 
 
 Legend said that many of the statues son of Basil I., who believed in sooth- 
 
 in Constantinople had been thus en- sayers, and was told by them (Cont. 
 
 chanted by Apollonius of Tyana (who Th. 379) that the bronze image of a 
 
 is called 0rotxwA""'K6s in Cedr. i. 346), wild boar in the Hippodrome aroixeiov 
 
 see Patria, 191, 206, 221. He was said avrov etrj, which is explained by 
 
 to have placed three stone images of the corresponding passage in Simeon 
 
 storks djTiTrpocruiTrws dXXijXotj opuvras, (Leo Gr.) 287 rb rov truaypov <TTX0 ( 
 
 to prevent storks from coming to the trol Ka.1 ry erf/ fwr; TrpoffavaKeirai. 
 
 city (ib. 11). The Tyche of the city in Compare the use of trrotxei6 in modern 
 
 the Milion was tffTOLxeiw^vov (ib. 166). Greek for spirit, bogey ; and I may 
 
 The Palladiou brought from Rome point out that aroix^ v r u T&TOV 
 
 to Constantinople is called a ffroixtiov occurs in Digenes ATcritas, vi. 320 (in 
 
 (ib. 174). Diels (Elementum, 54-57), Legrand's "Grotta-Ferrata" ed. 1892), 
 
 in discussing the history of ffToixelov , in the sense of ghost or genius of the 
 
 mentions the use of <rT<x<3 in the place. Illustrations of magic practices 
 
 sense of "bewitch" (and Dieterich, of this kind will be found in Dalzell, 
 
 Rheinisclies Museum, 56, 77 sqq. 1901, The Darker Superstitions of Scotland, 
 
 is certainly right in connecting the 328 sqq. (1834). The destruction of 
 
 meaning with the use of the letters of the three-headed statue by John is 
 
 the alphabet in magic), but has not pictured in the Madrid Skylitzes 
 
 realised that it means only a special (Beylie, L 'Habitation byzantine, 106). 
 
 kind of bewitching the sorcery by J Cp. Cont. Th. 121i .
 
 SECT, ii EDUCATION AND LEARNING 445 
 
 related that in his youth he met a Jew who said, "What will 
 you give me, young man, if I make you excel all men in 
 Grecian learning ? " " My father," said Photius, " will gladly 
 give you half his estate." "I need not money," was the 
 tempter's reply, " and your father must hear nought of this. 
 Come hither with me and deny the sign of the cross on which 
 we nailed Jesus ; and I will give you a strange charm, and 
 all your life will be lived in wealth and wisdom and joy." 
 Photius gladly consented, and from that time forth he devoted 
 himself assiduously to the study of forbidden things, astrology 
 and divination. Here the Patriarch appears as one of the 
 forerunners of Faustus, and we may confidently set down the 
 invention of a compact with the Evil One to the superstition 
 and malignancy of a monk. For in another story the monastic 
 origin is unconcealed. John the Solitary, who had been 
 conversing with two friends touching the iniquities of the 
 Patriarch, dreamed a dream. A hideous negro appeared to 
 him and gripped his throat. The monk made the sign of 
 the cross and cried, " Who are you ? who sent you ? " The 
 apparition replied, " My name is Lebuphas ; I am the master 
 of Beliar and the familiar of Photius ; I am the helper of 
 sorcerers, the guide of robbers and adulterers, the friend of 
 pagans and of my secret servant Photius. He sent me to 
 punish you for what was said against him yesterday, but you 
 have defeated me by the weapon of the cross." l Thus the 
 learning of Photius was honoured by popular fancy like the 
 science of Gerbert ; 2 legend represented them both as sorcerers 
 and friends of the devil. 
 
 The encyclopaedic learning of Photius, his indefatigable 
 interest in philosophy and theology, history and grammar, 
 are shown by his writings and the contents of his library. 
 He collected ancient and modern books on every subject, 
 including many works which must have been rarities in 
 his own time and have since entirely disappeared. We know 
 some of his possessions through his Bibliotheca, and the 
 circumstances which suggested the composition of this work 
 
 1 These stories about Photius are was probably d propos of the earth- 
 told only by Pseudo-Simeon, 670 sqq. quake of A.i>. 862, see above p. 198, 
 He mentions (673) that Photius n. 4. 
 
 preached a sermon to show that earth- 2 See Olleris, Vie de Gerbert, 321 
 
 quakes are not a consequence of our sqq. (1867). 
 sins but due to natural causes. This
 
 446 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 throw light on a side of Byzantine life of which we are seldom 
 permitted to gain a glimpse. A select circle of friends seems 
 to have been in the habit of assembling at the house of 
 Photius for the purpose of reading aloud literature of all 
 kinds, secular and religious, pagan and Christian. His 
 library was thus at the service of friends who were qualified 
 to appreciate it. His brother Tarasius was a member of this 
 reading-club, and when Photius was sent on a mission to the 
 East, Tarasius, who had been unable to attend a number of 
 the gatherings, asked him to write synopses of those books 
 which had been read in his absence. Photius complied with 
 this request, and probably began the task, though he cannot 
 have completed it, before his return to Constantinople. 1 
 
 He enumerates more than 270 volumes, 2 and describes 
 their contents sometimes very briefly, sometimes at considerable 
 length. As some of these works are long, and as many other 
 books must have been read when Tarasius was present, the read- 
 ing stances must have continued for several years. The range 
 of reading was wide. History was represented by authors 
 from the earliest to the latest period ; for instance, Herodotus, 
 Ktesias, Theopompus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian, 
 Josephus, Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Dion Cassius, Herodian, 
 
 1 See liis Prefatory dedication to assumption. A critical edition of the 
 
 Tarasius, which shows that he began work is much wanted, and the ground 
 
 the work when he was abroad. He is being prepared by E. Martini, who 
 
 had some difficulty in finding a in his Textgeschichte der Bibliotheke 
 
 secretary, and he implies that he des Pair. Photios von KpeL, I. Teil 
 
 wrote from memory. The articles (Abhandlungen der phil.-hist. Kl. der 
 
 vary greatly in length : the first 60 k. sdchs. Ges. der Wiss. xxviii. No. 6, 
 
 occupy less than 19 pages out of 544 in 1911), studies the MSS., and concludes 
 
 Bekker's edition ; the last 60 extend that the textual tradition depends 
 
 to 368 pages. There are many of the mainly on the Codd. Marciani 450 
 
 long analyses which we cannot suppose and 451. 
 
 Photius to have written without the 2 279 according to his Preface, 
 
 books before him ; and we may con- There are actually 280 articles, but 
 
 elude that he drew up the whole list there is no inconsistency, as vol. 268 
 
 and wrote the short articles at the (p. 496), the Orations of Lycurgus, was 
 
 beginning from memory, and continued not read. But there are a number of 
 
 the work on a larger scale when he doublets : several works are euumer- 
 
 returned. In determining the length ated twice though differently described 
 
 of his articles he was indeed guided by (Philostratus, VitaApollonii; Josephus, 
 
 another principle, which he notes in Archaeologia ; Isocrates ; Hierocles, 
 
 his Preface. He intended to treat more irepl Trpovolas ; Dionysius of Aegae ; 
 
 briefly those books which he might Diodorus ; Himerius). Evidently in 
 
 assume his brother would have read the drafting of the list, some repeti- 
 
 himself (/card, (reavrov). Krumbacher tions crept in ; and, as the work was 
 
 has suggested that the Preface may probably composed at intervals, Phot, 
 
 be entirely a literary fiction, but it could easily have forgotten one notice 
 
 seems quite explicable without that when he came to write the second.
 
 SECT, ii EDUCATION AND LEARNING 447 
 
 Procopius, to name some of the most familiar names. Geo- 
 graphers, physiologists, writers on medicine and agriculture, 
 grammarians, 1 as well as orators and rhetoricians, furnished 
 entertainment to this omnivorous society. All or almost all 
 the works of the ten Attic orators were recited, with the 
 exception of Lycurgus, whose speeches, we are expressly told, 
 there was no time to read. We may note also Lucian, the 
 life of Apollonius the Wonderworker by Philostratus, the lives 
 of Pythagoras and Isidore, and a work on Persian magic. 2 
 Fiction was not disdained. The romances of lamblichus, 
 Achilles Tatius, and Antonius Diogenes were read, as well 
 as the Aethiopica of Heliodorus, which Photius highly 
 appreciated. The theological and ecclesiastical items in the 
 list largely preponderate ; but it may gratify us to note that 
 their proportion to the number of pagan and secular works is 
 not more than double ; and we may even suspect that if we 
 could estimate not by the tale of volumes but by the number 
 of words or pages, we should find that the hours devoted to 
 Hellenic literature and learning were not vastly fewer than 
 those which were occupied with the edifying works of the 
 Fathers and controversial theologians. We are ourselves under 
 a considerable debt to Photius for his notices of books which 
 are no longer in existence. His long analysis of the histories 
 of Ktesias, his full descriptions of the novel of lamblichus and 
 the romance of Thule by Antonius Diogenes, his ample 
 summary of part of the treatise of Agatharchides on the Eed 
 Sea, may specially be mentioned. But it is a matter for our 
 regret, and perhaps for wonder, that he seems to have taken 
 no interest in the Greek poets. The Bibliotheca is occupied 
 exclusively with writers of prose. 
 
 Photius gave an impulse to classical learning, which 
 ensured its cultivation among the Greeks till the fall of 
 Constantinople. His influence is undoubtedly responsible 
 for the literary studies of Arethas, who was born at Patrae 
 towards the close of our period, and became, early fn the 
 tenth century, archbishop of Caesarea. 3 Arethas collected books. 
 
 1 Several lexicons and glossaries 3 On Arethas see Harnack, Die 
 were read to the patient audience Uberlieferung der gr. Apologeten des 
 (articles 145 sqq. ). 2sten Jahrh., in Texte u. Untersu- 
 
 2 By the heretic Theodore of chungen, i. pp. 36-46, 1883. Cp. also 
 Mopsuestia. Krumbacher, Gf.B.L. 524.
 
 448 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE CHAP, xiv 
 
 In A.D. 888 we find him purchasing a copy of Euclid; 1 and 
 seven years later the famous manuscript of Plato, formerly at 
 Patmos, and now one of the treasures of the Bodleian Library, 
 was written expressly for him. 2 Students of early Christianity 
 owe him a particular debt for preserving apologetic writings 
 which would otherwise have been lost. 3 
 
 It is notorious that the Byzantine world, which produced 
 many men of wide and varied learning, or of subtle intellect, 
 such as Photius, Psellos, and Eustathios to name three 
 of the best-known names, never gave birth to an original 
 and creative genius. Its science can boast of no new 
 discovery, its philosophy of no novel system or explanation of 
 the universe. Age after age, innumerable pens moved, lakes 
 of ink were exhausted, but no literary work remains which 
 can claim a place among the memorable books of the world. 
 To the mass of mankind Byzantine literature is a dead thing ; 
 it has not left a single immortal book to instruct and delight 
 posterity. 
 
 While the unquestioned authority of religious dogma, and 
 the tyranny of orthodoxy, confined the mind by invisible 
 fetters which repressed the instinct of speculation and in- 
 tellectual adventure, 4 there was another authority no less 
 fatal to that freedom which is an indispensable condition of 
 literary excellence as of scientific progress, the authority of 
 the ancients. We have seen the superiority of the Eastern 
 Empire to the contemporary European states in the higher 
 education which it provided. In this educational system, 
 which enabled and encouraged studious youths to become 
 acquainted with the great pagan writers of Greece, we might 
 have looked to find an outlet of escape from the theories of 
 the universe and the views of life dogmatically imposed by 
 religion, or at least a stimulus to seek in the broad field of 
 human nature material for literary art. But the influence of 
 the great Greek thinkers proved powerless to unchain willing 
 
 1 Subscription in the MS. in the much less than 40. 
 Bodleian (U'Orville, xi. inf. 2, 30), 3 Rarnack ib 46 
 
 1 . * . . j . . . i .1JLO.1 lldl/K. IV. rlU. 
 
 where the price he paid is stated, 
 
 4 nomismata = 2 : 8s. (equivalent in 4 Cp. Gibbon vi. 108, "The minds 
 
 value to about 12). of the Greeks were bound in the fetters 
 
 2 Clarkianus, 39. Arethas paid the of a base and imperious superstition, 
 scribe Stephen 13 nom. or7:16.s., a which extends her dominion round 
 sum equal in purchasing value to not the circle of profane science."
 
 SECT, ii EDUCATION AND LEARNING 449 
 
 slaves, who studied the letter and did not understand the 
 meaning. And so the effect of this education was to submit 
 the mind to another yoke, the literary authority of the ancients. 
 Classical tradition was an incubus rather than a stimulant ; 
 classical literature was an idol, not an inspiration. The 
 higher education was civilizing, but not quickening ; it was 
 liberal, but it did not liberate. 
 
 The later Greeks wrote in a style and manner which 
 appealed to the highly educated among their own con- 
 temporaries, and the taste of such readers appreciated and 
 demanded an artificial and laboured style, indirect, periphrastic, 
 and often allusive, which to us is excessively tedious and 
 frigid. The vocabulary and grammar of this literature were 
 different from the vocabulary and grammar of everyday life, 
 and had painfully to be acquired at school. Written thus in 
 a language which was purely conventional, and preserving 
 the tradition of rhetoric which had descended from the 
 Hellenistic age, the literature of Byzantium was tied hand 
 and foot by unnatural restraints. It was much as if the 
 Italians had always used Latin as their literary medium, and 
 were unable to emancipate themselves from the control of 
 Cicero, Livy, and Seneca. The power of this stylistic tradition 
 is one of the traits of the conservative spirit of Byzantine 
 society. 
 
 These facts bear upon the failure of Byzantine men of 
 letters to produce anything that makes an universal appeal. 
 Yet if the literature of the world is not indebted to the 
 Byzantines for contributions of enduring value, we owe 
 to them and to their tenacity of educational traditions 
 an inestimable debt for preserving the monuments of Greek 
 literature which we possess to-day. We take our inheritance 
 for granted, and seldom stop to remember that the manuscripts 
 of the great poets and prose-writers of ancient Greece were 
 not written for the sake of a remote and unknown posterity, 
 but to supply the demand of contemporary readers. 
 
 2 G
 
 APPENDIX I 
 
 THE LETTERS OF THEODORE OF STUDION 
 
 THEODORE OF STUDION carried on an extensive correspondence, 
 especially during the three periods in which he was living in 
 banishment. After his death his letters were collected by. his 
 disciples at Studion. The total number of letters thus collected 
 was at least 1124, of which over- 550 are extant, in several MSS., 
 none of which contains them all or preserves the same order. 
 They have been edited partly (1) by Sirmond, whose posthumous 
 ed. was reprinted in Migne, P.G. 99, and partly (2) by Cozza 
 Luzi (see Bibliography). 
 
 The Sirmond-Migne collection is derived from Vaticanus 1432 
 (V), a MS. of the first half of the twelfth century. The letters 
 which it contains are divided into two Books, and the division 
 professes to represent a chronological principle, Book I. comprising 
 letters written before A.D. 815, Book II. from A.D. 815 to the 
 writer's death. There are 54 letters in Book I. (nominally 57, but 
 in three cases, 45-47, there are only the titles of the correspondents) ; 
 and 219 in Book II. (No. 3 consists only of a heading, but No. 
 183 represents parts of two distinct letters). Two additional 
 letters were added to Book II. by Migne (as Nos. 220, 221) from 
 another MS., Vat. 633 ; so that this edition contains in all 275 
 letters. 
 
 The letters printed for the first time by Cozza Luzi are taken 
 from a MS. of the fifteenth century, Coislinianus 94. This book 
 contains 545 letters, including all but six of those contained in V. 
 The titles of the others had been published in Migne's ed. (Index, 
 nn. 272-548). Cozza Luzi proposed to print only the unpublished 
 letters, but he worked so carelessly that (in his total of 284) he 
 included 8 already printed (namely, Migne, ii. 2, 9, 21, 24, 29, 
 56, 183b, 211). For his text he also compared another MS., 
 Coislinianus 269. 
 
 The relations of these various MSS., and of another, Paris 894 
 (P) which was consulted for Sirmond's edition, have been 
 carefully investigated in a most important study by the late 
 B. Melioranski (see Bibliography), of which I may summarize the 
 chief results. 
 
 451
 
 452 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Coisl. 269 was written in the ninth century and is itself the 
 first volume of the original collection of Theodore's Epistles made 
 in the monastery of Studion. It contains 507 letters and is 
 divided into three Sections. Sect. 2 is written in a different hand 
 from that of Sects. 1 and 3 ; and Melioranski, on the ground of a 
 palaeographical comparison with the script of a copy of the Gospels 
 dated A.D. 835 and signed by a Studite named Nicolaus, makes it 
 probable that the copyist is no other than Theodore's disciple 
 Nicolaus, who had been his amanuensis and shared his persecution. 
 Melioranski also seeks to establish that the writer of Sects. 1 and 
 3 was the monk Athanasios who became abbot of Studion towards 
 the close of the ninth century. The letters of Sect. 2 belong 
 entirely to the years A.D. 815-819 and include all those published 
 by Cozza Luzi. 
 
 In the ninth century a copy was made of this Studite 
 collection, but the letters were rearranged in a new order. They 
 were divided into five Books. Books 1-4 contained at least 849, 
 and Book 5 275 letters. This MS. is not preserved, but it is 
 undoubtedly the collection which is referred to in Michael's Vita 
 Theodori (246 D) as consisting of five Books. We have an incomplete 
 copy derived from it in P, which contains a selection from Books 
 1-4. The importance of P lies in the circumstance that the copyist 
 has noted the numeration of each letter in the archetype. Thus 
 the letter numbered 170 in P ( = ii. 146, Migne) was 726 in the 
 archetype. The highest number in the archetype is 849. 
 
 V, like P, is an anthology ; it differs from P not in contents but 
 only in form ; l like P, it contains none of the letters of Book 5. 
 The two Books into which V is divided on a chronological principle 
 do not correspond to any of the Books of the Five-Book arrange- 
 ment. But from Book II. Ep. 37 onward the letters follow in the 
 same order as that of the older non-chronological collection, and 
 therefore the order in V has no chronological value ; the date of 
 each letter must be determined, if it can be determined, by its 
 contents. Obviously the anthologies V and P cannot be inde- 
 pendent of each other. 
 
 Coisl. 94 is also an anthology (non-chronological). It contains 
 more letters than any of the other MSS., and the last 275 are 
 Book 5 of the tenth-century collection. 
 
 A new edition of the Epistles of Theodore is desirable, and it 
 seems evident that it should be based on Coisl. 269. 
 
 1 The arrangement in P was based (b) those of the third exile. The 
 
 on two principles : (1) subject forty arrangement of V was purely chrono- 
 
 dogmatic epistles, on image - worship, logical. The tenth-century collection 
 
 were grouped together and placed at the from which both these anthologies were 
 
 beginning ; (2) chronology the remain- derived was not based on chronological 
 
 ing epistles were divided into two groups, order. 
 (a) those of the first and second exiles,
 
 APPENDIX II 
 GEORGE'S CHRONICLE 
 
 THE Chronicle of George the Monk is a world-chronicle be- 
 ginning with Adam and coming down to the first year of 
 Michael III. (842-843). Of the writer we only know that he was 
 a monk who lived in the reign of Michael III., and that he did 
 not put the last touch to his work till after the death of that 
 Emperor. 1 His interest was entirely ecclesiastical ; he had the 
 narrowest of monastic horizons ; and the latter portion of his 
 work, which concerns us, is inordinately brief and yields little to 
 the historian. His account of the reign of Theophilus, of whom 
 he must have been a contemporary, is contained in three and a 
 half short pages (in de Boor's edition), and of these more than a 
 page consists of a quotation from Gregory of Nazianzus. For 
 this portion (802-843) he made use of Theophanes ; Theosteriktos, 
 Vita Nicetae; Ignatius, Vita Nicephori; the Epistola synodica ad 
 Theophilum ; works of the Patriarch Nicephorus. (Cp. his Pro- 
 logue, pp. 1-2, where he refers to modern histories, chronographies, 
 and edifying works, which he laid under contribution). His 
 account of the reigns of Leo V., Michael II., and Theophilus has 
 no pretensions to be a historical narrative ; it is little more than 
 the passionate outpouring of a fanatical image-worshipper's rancour 
 against the iconoclasts. 
 
 The text of this chronicle is preserved in a variety of forms 
 which have caused great perplexity. A great many MSS. are 
 largely interpolated, and in many of these a Continuation has been 
 added, transcribed from the work of Simeon the Logothete (see 
 next Appendix). These MSS. are derived from an archetype in 
 which large additions were inserted in the margin, from the 
 Logothete's chronicle, and the MSS. vary according as the scribes 
 incorporated in the text various parts of these additions. From 
 
 1 The words fiera 5t QetxpiXov tpa- 27, 842, to Sept. 23, 867). But it would 
 
 ffi\evffe MtxaT/X wos avrou Zrr) xe' (p. be wrong, I think, to infer that George 
 
 801) surely imply that Michael's reign wrote this in April 867. Hirsch argued 
 
 was over. The author adds " he reigned that the joint reign of Michael with Basil 
 
 for fourteen years with his mother Theo- (from May 26, 866) was not included, 
 
 dora and was sole Emperor for eleven and that the words were written before 
 
 years and three mouths." This gives Michael's death, but he read t' ?TIJ, where- 
 
 twenty-five years three months ; it should as the evidence of the MSS. establishes 
 
 be twenty-five years eight months (Jan. ia trr] (see de Boor's critical note adloc.). 
 
 453
 
 454 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Leo V. forward they furnish a tradition of the Logothete's text. 
 In several of them the " Logothete's " authorship of the Continua- 
 tion is noticed. 
 
 The later part of the composite chronicle, from A.D. 813-948, 
 was printed by Combefis (1685) in the Paris ed. of the Scriptores 
 post Theophanem, and was reprinted by Bekker in the Bonn Corpus. 
 The text was based on a depraved Paris MS., but Bekker used 
 Hase's collation of codex Coislinianus 134, which contains the 
 Chronicle of George unadulterated by interpolations from the 
 Logothete, and signalised its variants. The whole composite work 
 was edited for the first time by Muralt (1859), who based his 
 text on a Moscow MS., which, as de Boor has shown, is " ita inter- 
 polatus ut a genuino textu omnium fere plurimum abesse iudi- 
 candus sit " (Georg. Mon. pp. x, Iviii). Muralt procured collations 
 of many other MSS., including Coislinianus 310, but he did not 
 reproduce them accurately, and he failed entirely to see their 
 relations, or even to grasp the problem. De Boor's judgment 
 on his edition is that " studiis Byzantinis non modo non profuit sed 
 valde nocuit" (ib. p. x). Nevertheless it was of some use to 
 Hirsch, who in his Byzantinische Studien (1876) made it generally 
 clear that the Coisliniani 310 and 134 preserve the genuine text 
 of George, and that the other MSS. with which he was acquainted 
 present an interpolated redaction (cp. p. 14). 
 
 The difficult problem of determining the original text of George 
 and explaining the interrelations of the numerous MSS. was 
 attacked by C. de Boor, and his edition of the genuine Chronicle of 
 George Monachus appeared in 1904 (see Bibliography, where his 
 preliminary studies on the subject are noted). He arrived at the 
 conclusion that George himself wrote out his chronicle twice. The 
 first copy was rough and perhaps incomplete, and a large number 
 of illustrative extracts from Biblical and other literature were 
 added in the margin. This rough copy was not destroyed, and in 
 the tenth century it was copied by a scribe who incorporated all 
 the marginal additions in the text. This later copy exists to-day 
 as Coislinianus 305 (the text only comes down to the reign of 
 Constantino V.). Afterwards, George prepared a revised copy, in 
 which he incorporated only parts of his marginal material and 
 treated the text of the excerpts very freely. All the other MSS. 
 are derived from this second edition (going back to an archetype 
 which is most faithfully produced in the tenth-century Coislin. 
 310 and in Coislin. 134), and it is this which the edition of de 
 Boor aims at reproducing. The hypothesis that these two dis- 
 tinct traditions are due to George himself explains the facts, but 
 cannot be considered certain, as rehandling by copyists is a con- 
 ceivable alternative. See the observations of Prachter in his review 
 of de Boor's edition (B.Z. xv. p. 312).
 
 APPENDIX III 
 
 THE CHRONICLE OF SIMEON, MAGISTER AND LOGOTHETE 
 
 THE author of the collection of Lives of Saints, Simeon 
 Metaphrastes, undertook this compilation under the auspices of 
 Constantine VII. , and it may be included (as Gibbon observed) 
 among the encyclopaedic collections which were formed at the 
 instance of that Emperor. It was not, however, completed in his 
 reign, for in one of the Lives, the Vita Samsonis, we find references 
 to Komanus II. and John Tzimiskes, so that the compiler survived 
 to the years 972-976. He held at one time the office of Logothete 
 of the Course, for he is styled the Logothete by Psellos and by 
 Yahya of Antioch. Psellos says that he was born in Constantinople 
 of a distinguished family and was very rich. 
 
 This Simeon is almost certainly the same as Simeon, the 
 magister, who was author of a world-chronicle, coming down to 
 the middle of the tenth century. Their identity was held by 
 Muralt and Eambaud, has been confirmed by the investigations of 
 Vasil'evski (0 zhizni i trud. Sim. Met.), and accepted as highly 
 probable by Krumbacher and Ehrhard (G.B.L. 200, 358). 1 A 
 number of Greek manuscripts contain chronicles ascribed to 
 " Simeon magister and logothete," representing various recensions 
 of the same original, and a Slavonic version is preserved which 
 describes the author as " Simeon metaphrastes and logothete." Our 
 material shows that the original chronicle ended in A.D. 944 or 
 948 (though in several of the MSS. the work is continued to later 
 dates). 2 The author was devoted to Romanus I. and his family, and 
 an epitaph from his hand on Stephen (son of Romanus), who died 
 in A.D. 963, is preserved (published by Vasil'evski, Dva nadgr. Stikh.). 
 
 For the Greek chronicles which bear the name of Simeon, and 
 
 1 The chronological objections of 2 Vasil'evski (Khronik Log. 133) 
 
 Hirsch (310), founded on a passage of argued that the chronicle ended in 944 
 
 the Vita Theoctistae where the writer and that the account of the years 944- 
 
 states that he took part in the Cretan 948 was an addition of Leo Grammaticus. 
 
 expedition c. A.D. 902, are removed by The Slavonic translation expressly notes 
 
 the fact that this life was written not by the termination of Simeon's work in 944. 
 Simeon but by Nicetas Magister. 
 
 455
 
 456 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 their mutual relations to one another, information will be found 
 in Krumbacher, G.B.L. 359-360, and in the discussions of de Boor 
 (Weiteres, etc.) and Shestakov (0 rukopisiakh). Cp. also Zlatarski, 
 Izviestiiata, 8 sq. The view of Vasil'evski (Khron Log.} that the 
 Old Slavonic translation supplies the best tradition of Simeon's 
 work is now largely held by Slavonic scholars. Shestakov (Par. 
 ruk.) has given reasons for thinking that the anonymous chronicle 
 in Cod. Par. 854 (of which the first part is printed, see below) is, 
 of all Greek texts, closest to the original. This conclusion is 
 questioned by de Boor (Weiteres, etc.), who doubts whether Simeon 
 was really the author of the chronicle, conjectures that he wrote 
 only the KooyxoTroua which is prefixed to it, and thinks that the 
 original chronicle is most faithfully represented by the Chrono- 
 graphy of Theodosius of Melitene. 
 
 Simeon's chronicle has come down to us under other titles 
 under the names of Leo Grammaticus, Theodosius of Melitene, and 
 partly in the expansion of George the Monk. These compilers 
 copied it with few and trifling alterations. 
 
 (1) Leo Grammaticus. The text of this chronicle, which is 
 preserved in Cod. Par. 1711, was written in A.D. 1013 by Leo, 
 who in the notice at the end of the work, which comes down to 
 A.D. 948, speaks of himself as a scribe rather than as an author. 
 The latter part of the text has been printed (from the accession of 
 Leo V.), and it was evidently transcribed from the Chronicle of 
 Simeon. In his edition of Leo, Bekker printed (though without 
 committing himself to the authorship) a portion of the chronicle 
 of Cod. Par. 854, coming down to the point at which Leo's text 
 begins. This had been originally printed by Cramer (Anecdota 
 Parisina, ii. 243 sqq.), who assumed that the chronicles of the two 
 MSS. were identical, and this view was accepted by Hirsch. It 
 has been shown by Shestakov that the texts are different (Par. 
 Ruk.}; he made it clear that Leo and the Continuation of George 
 are nearer to each other than either to Par. 854. 
 
 (2) The Chronography of Theodosius of Melitene, edited by 
 Tafel, is likewise no more than a transcript of Simeon, and like 
 Leo's text, it ends at A.D. 948. Vasil'evski called attention to a 
 note in Bekker's Anecdota Graeca, iii. 465, where, in a passage cited 
 from the commentary of Johannes Sikeliotes on the He/at ISewv of 
 Hermogenes, 6 MeAmv??? GeoSoo-ios is mentioned. Vasil'evski inferred 
 that Theodosius flourished c. A.D. 1120, but it is probable that 
 Johannes Doxopatres, called Sikeliotes, lived in the first half of the 
 eleventh century (Krumbacher, G.B.L. 462), and if so, Theodosius 
 may have lived in the eleventh century. The text of this version 
 resembles that of Leo Gramm. and the Contin. of George more 
 closely than it resembles Cod. Par. 854. For its relation to Leo 
 Grammaticus see Patzig (Leo Gramm.} and de Boor (Die Chron. des
 
 APPENDIX 457 
 
 Log. 267). It is much closer to the Contin. of George than to 
 Leo Gramm. ; the differences are chiefly stylistic. It is to be 
 observed that many of the omissions which occur in Leo and in 
 the Contin. are accidental, due to homoeoteleuton. 
 
 (3) The Chronicle of Cod. Par. 854. The latter part is 
 unpublished. See Shestakov, op. cit. 
 
 (4) It has been stated in the preceding Appendix that many 
 of the MSS. of George the Monk contain a considerable amplifica- 
 tion of George's text. His account of the reigns from the accession 
 of Leo V. to the accession of Michael III. has been expanded by 
 large additions from a chronicle of a different tone and character ; 
 and a continuation has been added coming down to A.D. 948 (in 
 some MSS. to later dates). In some MSS., at the point where 
 George's work ends in A.D. 843, we find the note ews &8e TO. 
 \poviKa Tewpyiov ' ciTrb TWV S>8e p.6vov TOV \oyo6fTov (ed. Muralt, 
 721); and at the year 948 Muralt's text has (851) 86a T<J> 0e<j> 
 irdvTtov e'veKO,' dp,rjV, TeTfAecrrai KOI TO, TOV Xoyo6eTOv. The close 
 resemblance of the text of the continuation to the texts which 
 have come down under the name of Simeon the Logothete renders 
 it virtually certain that Simeon is meant by TOV Aoyotffrov in these 
 notes. This applies not only to the continuation but to the 
 expansions of George's Chronicle from A.D. 813 to 843. For if 
 these expansions are separated, they furnish a text which coincides 
 with those of Theodosius and Leo. The word povov in the note 
 cited above probably refers to this interweaving of the works of 
 George and Simeon. 
 
 The portion of the expanded chronicle which concerns us, 
 A.D. 813 to 948, was printed from one MS. by Combefis (1685) 
 and reprinted by Bekker. Muralt's edition of the whole chronicle 
 is based on a Moscow MS., but contains collations of some other 
 MSS. 1 See above, Appendix II. 
 
 The Old Slavonic translation of Simeon (preserved in a MS. in 
 the Imperial Public Library of Petersburg), recently edited by 
 Sreznevski, implies an original which was closer to Leo than 
 to Theodosius (Sreznevski, p. xii.). A comparison with these 
 chronicles shows both omissions and additions (ib. xi sq.). 
 
 One of the chief sources of Simeon, up to the year A.D. 813, 
 was Theophanes ; another was George the Monk. For the 
 period A.D. '813-867, which alone concerns us here, Simeon is 
 one of our most important authorities. Unlike George, whose 
 attention is almost entirely directed to ecclesiastical affairs, he is 
 interested in profane history and furnishes a good deal of informa- 
 tion concerning the court intrigues ; ecclesiastical affairs are quite 
 in the background. (Cp. the analysis of Hirsch, 16-68.) 
 
 1 It would be useless here to enumer- articles cited, aud the Preface to his ed. 
 ate or discuss the MSS. See de Boor's of George.
 
 458 
 
 It is obvious from the character both of his shorter notices and 
 his longer narrations that the chronicler had a written source, dating 
 from a time not far removed from the events. Any one accustomed 
 to the investigation of sources can discern at once that Simeon's 
 work could not have been compiled from anecdote, oral traditions, 
 or Vitae Sanctorum. He has clearly used an older chronicle written 
 by some one who had a first-hand knowledge of the reign of 
 Michael III. and was in touch with contemporaries of Theophilus. 
 Can we discover anything about this lost chronicle ? 
 
 One of the features of Simeon's work is his admiration for 
 Romanus I.; another is the unfavourable light in which he presents 
 Basil I. Hirsch has observed that the treatment of Theophilus, 
 Michael III., and Bardas shows a certain impartiality, in the 
 sense that the author recounts their good deeds as well as those 
 which he esteems bad ; he does not blacken Theophilus and 
 Michael III. by lurid accounts of the persecutions of the former l 
 and the debaucheries of the latter. 
 
 The chronicle, then, which was the basis of this part of Simeon's 
 work was distinctly animated by hostility to Basil, and was not 
 unfavourable to the Amorians, though it did not conceal their 
 faults. We cannot say how favourable it was, because we are 
 unable to determine what Simeon may have omitted or what 
 touches of his own he may have added. The author of the lost 
 Amorian chronicle, as it might be called, was probably attached to 
 the Court in the reign of Michael III., and wrote his work during 
 the reign of Basil or Leo VI. There is one passage which perhaps 
 gives us an indication. Among the murderers of Michael III. are 
 mentioned Ba/aSas 6 Trarrjp Bao-iAetov TOV puiK-ropos KCU 2iy>i/3aTios 
 6 dSeA<bs BacriAeiou Kai AcruAaiwi> eaSeA<os BcuriAciov (Cont. Georg. 
 837 = Mur. 750, agreeing exactly with vers. Slav. 110). 2 Now 
 the post of Rector, which we know to have existed in A.D. 899, 
 was probably instituted either by Basil I. or Leo VI. 3 The 
 chronicler assumes Basil the Rector to be well known, for he 
 identifies the three conspirators Bardas, Symbatios, and Asylaion by 
 their relationship to him, and, as he does not himself play any 
 part in history, it is natural to suppose that he was Rector when 
 the chronicler was writing. His Rectorship we may reasonably 
 assume to have fallen before that of Joannes, who held the office 
 under Alexander and Romanus I. This could be established to a 
 certainty if we could be quite sure that Bao-iAetov in the text 
 means throughout Basil the Rector, and not Basil the Emperor 
 
 1 Hirsch notes (32) that the author (/cal SuyU/Sdrtos ot dSeX^ol /3a<r. 175) as 
 probably made use of the Vita Theodori well as to L. Gr. (251, where rov p. 
 Orapti. Ea<rt\flov is omitted ex homoeolcl. ). 
 
 2 In this passage the Cont. Oeorg. 3 See Bury, Imp. Administrative 
 text is markedly superior to Theod. Mel. System, 115 sq.
 
 APPENDIX 459 
 
 (as it has been interpreted). For if Asylaion, nephew of Basil, was 
 old enough to assist in the murder in 867, it is impossible to place 
 the uncle's rectorship later than that of Joannes. That Symbatios 
 and Asylaion were kinsmen of the Rector and not of the Emperor 
 is, in my opinion, virtually certain, from the facts that 
 (1) Marianos, the Emperor's brother, who is mentioned in the 
 same sentence, is not described as such here, and (2) that in 
 relating the murder of Bardas (Cant. Georg. 830), in which Symbatios 
 and Asylaion also took part, the chronicler describes Asylaion as 
 nephew of Symbatios, whereas it would have been obviously natural 
 to describe him as nephew of Basil (the future Emperor), had he 
 been his nephew. 1 
 
 In the account of the reign of Basil I. there are distinct traces 
 of the same hand which penned the chronicle of Michael III. I 
 am not sure where this work terminated or at what point Simeon 
 resorted to another source ; but it may be conjectured that what I 
 have termed the Amorian chronicle came down to the death of 
 Basil, for the brevity of Simeon's account of Basil's reign contrasts 
 with the comparative copiousness of the treatment of Leo VI., 
 though both alike are unfavourable to the Basilian dynasty. 
 
 It must be noted that the chronicle preserved in Cod. Par. 1712, 
 of which the later part has been printed by Combefis and Bekker 
 under the title of " Symeon magister," is a totally different com- 
 pilation and has nothing to do with Simeon. It is now generally 
 designated as Pseudo-Simeon. See Bibliography, and Krumbacher, 
 G.B.L. 359. It is important to observe that the chronological data 
 by which this chronicle is distinguished are worthless (see Hirsch, 
 342 sqq.). The chronicler's chief sources were, according to Hirsch 
 (318 sqq.), George, Simeon, Genesios, Cont. Th., Scriptor Incertus 
 de Leone Armenio, the Vita Ignatii by Nicetas ; but he also furnishes 
 a number of other notices (chiefly anecdotes), which are not found 
 in our other sources. 
 
 1 The texts are here again divergent : The Slav, version omits Asylaion ; Cont. 
 
 vers. Slav. 107, " Marianus, his [Basil's] Georg. omits Bardas. In Theod. Mel.- 
 
 brother ; and Symbatios and Bardas, his dde\<f>ol is an error for d.8f\<f>6s. As to 
 
 brother ; and Joannes Chaldos, etc." ; Bardas, there need be no inconsistency 
 
 Theod. Mel. 170 Map. d5eX06s avrov /cot with the passage enumerating the con- 
 
 Sijt/3. Kal BdpSaj dde\<f>ol aurov, 'A<rv\t(ai> spirators against Michael. Bardas may 
 
 6 ed5eX0os avrov ; Cont. Georg. 830 have been the name of the father of 
 
 lla.vpia.vbs Kal Si^jSanoj Kal 'A.<rv\aiuv 6 Symbatios and also of one of his brothers. 
 t. avrov ( cp. Muralt, 740 ad loc.).
 
 APPENDIX IV 
 
 GENESIOS AND THE CONTINUATION OF THEOPHANES 
 
 THE Basileiai of Genesios (written c. 944-948 A.D.) and the 
 Chronography (Books 1-4, written, under the auspices of 
 Constantine VIL, 949-950 A.D.) 1 known as the Continuation of 
 Theophanes, which along with George and Simeon are the chief 
 sources for the continuous history of our period, have been analysed 
 in detail by Hirsch in his Byzantinische Studien. He has determined 
 some of their sources, and he has made it quite clear that, as we 
 should expect, the author or authors of Cont. Th. used the work 
 of Genesios. Some of his particular results admit of reconsidera- 
 tion, but for the most part they are sufficient as a guide to the 
 historical student. There are two things, however, which may be 
 pointed out. 
 
 (1) Joseph Genesios was a kinsman of Constantine the 
 Armenian, for whom he evinces a particular interest in his history. 
 Constantine was Drungarios of the Watch under Michael III. (see 
 above, pp. 147, 157, etc.), and from Simeon (Leo Gr. 249 = Theod. 
 Mel. 174) we learn that he was 6 irar^p GW/AOI -n-arpLKiov Kal Tfvfo-iov. 
 Hirsch concluded that Genesios the historian was his son. But 
 de Boor (B.Z. x. 62 sqq.) has shown that Simeon refers to another 
 Genesios who was a magister in the reign of Leo VI., while 
 Joseph Genesios the historian was Chartulary of the Ink (6 ITTI 
 TOV KaviK\.iov) under Constantine VII. The relationship is 
 
 Constantine, Spovyy. T. /3tyA.as. 
 
 Thomas Genesios 
 
 (Aoy. T. Spofjiov). (/zayicrT^os). 
 
 Joseph Genesios 
 (o CTTI T. Kav.). 
 
 (2) It can be proved, I think, from a number of comparisons 
 
 1 Cp. Bury, Treatise De adm. imp. 570 sqq. 
 460
 
 APPENDIX 461 
 
 that the Continuators of Theophanes used, along with Genesios, the 
 source of Genesios. There are passages in Cont. Th. in which 
 the relationship to Gen. is plain, but there are additions which 
 cannot be explained either as amplifications invented by the author 
 or as derived from oral tradition, and which, therefore, probably 
 come from the source used by Gen. and were omitted by him. 
 It will be sufficient here to mention two examples. In the account 
 of the campaign of Theophilus in A.D. 837, the close inter- 
 dependence of Cont. Th. 124 and Gen. 63-64 is obvious in the 
 similar phraseology ; but while Gen. particularises only the 
 capture of Zapetra, Cont. Th. records that two other cities were 
 also taken. There is no probability that this record came from 
 any other source than that which Gen. used. Again, the two 
 relations of the rescue of Theophilus by Manuel, and Manuel's 
 subsequent flight (Gen. 61-62; Cont. Th. 117 sq.), are manifestly 
 interdependent. But Cont. Th. designates the person who accused 
 Manuel of treasonable designs, while Gen. confines himself to a 
 generality. Here, too, this addition probably comes from the 
 source which Gen. used ; and I suspect that the further particulars 
 of Manuel's services to the Saracens should be referred to the 
 same origin. For other additions in Cont. Th. which may be 
 derived from the common source, cp. above, pp. 46, 54, 87, 88, 
 93, 95, 97, 99, 106, 290.
 
 APPENDIX V 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE WAR BETWEEN MICHAEL II. AND 
 THOMAS THE SLAV 
 
 OUR authorities supply singularly few landmarks for the chrono- 
 logy of the Civil War. It will be well to set down in a list 
 exactly what determinations of time they furnish, before we con- 
 sider what inferences may or must be drawn. 
 
 (1) The whole revolt lasted three years. We have this on 
 early authority : George, p. 797 TOV fv rpurlv eVeo-t . . . TroXepov. 
 It is repeated by Genesios, 34 (cf. Cont. Th. 67). It might almost 
 be inferred also from the Letter of Michael to Lewis, which 
 describes the whole course of the rebellion, and was written in 
 April 824. 
 
 (2) The siege of Constantinople lasted a year. For this we 
 have the authority of the besieged Emperor himself in his Letter 
 (p. 418), and also that of George (797) e<f> '4va xpovov e/cTrop^o-as. 
 
 (3) The siege began in December of the 15th Indiction, that 
 is December 821 A.D. We get this date from Michael's Letter 
 (ib.). Cp. Cont. Th. 61 are 8rj KOL ^etytiwvos tTriyevofJifvov. 
 
 (4) Having wintered elsewhere, Thomas returned to the siege 
 of the city in the spring following (i.e. spring of 822). Cont. Th., 
 ib. ij8r) 8f TOV capos tjfji.fpov eTriAaju.Troi'TOS. 
 
 (5) The embassy of the Bulgarians is only indicated roughly 
 by Genesios as taking place when the first decade of the Thirty 
 Years' Peace with Leo was nearly coming to a close: p. 41 cu yap 
 vTrb Aeovros TOV /^atriAews irpos a.VTOv<$ rptaKOVTOvrets fnrov8al TjSr) T)V 
 TrputTTjv 8eKafTijpi,8a crvveTrXrjpovv cr^eoov. 
 
 (6) The battle of Diabasis belongs to the third year of the war : 
 Cont. Th. 67 Tpfaos yap (x/oovos) egrjvvfTo (wrongly rendered in the 
 Latin translation, cum -fluxisset) ; the third year was current. 
 
 (7) The siege of Arcadiopolis lasted five months : Michael's 
 Letter, p. 419. 
 
 (8) The tyrant Thomas was slain in the middle of October. 
 This we learn from Genesios, 45 pjvbs 'OKTufiptov /xeo-owros ^8-rj, 
 and Cont. Th. 70. 
 
 462 '
 
 APPENDIX 463 
 
 These are the dates with which we have to work. It is clear, 
 of course, that the three years of the war correspond to 821, 822, 
 and 823. The rebellion against Michael began with his accession 
 and lasted till the end of 823. 
 
 The first year was occupied with the movements in Asia Minor, 
 the visit to Syria, and the crossing to Thrace. In December 821 
 (3) the tyrant appeared at Constantinople and made the first grand 
 assault. Then he retired until March or April till spring was 
 well advanced (4) and made the second grand assault. Then 
 came the revolt of Gregory Pterdtos, and later the arrival of the 
 ships from Greece. During the later part of the year nothing 
 striking seems to have occurred. 
 
 From reading the Letter of Michael, or putting (2) and (3) 
 together, it would be natural to conclude that the siege was raised 
 in December 822. In that case we must suppose that the 
 negotiations with the Bulgarians belong to the end of 822, and 
 that the battle of Keduktos was fought either in December 822 
 or January 823 ; for it is clear from the story that it followed 
 hard upon the departure of Thomas from the city. 
 
 The vague date of Genesios does not help us here. Assuming 
 that the treaty of Leo with the Bulgarians was concluded as early 
 as the middle of 815, the first decade had not elapsed until the 
 middle of 825. If, then, the date of Genesios refers to December 
 822, the first decade had still two and a half years to run. His 
 o-xeSov must be taken in a wide sense. 
 
 But such an early date as January 823 for the battle of 
 Keduktos involves us in some difficulties. Our next positive date is 
 that of the death of Thomas in the middle of October 823. His 
 death followed immediately on the surrender of Arcadiopolis. 
 Therefore the siege of Arcadiopolis, which lasted five months (7), 
 probably began in the first half of the month of May. The battle 
 of Diabasis immediately preceded the siege the interval cannot 
 have been longer than a few days and therefore took place in 
 the first days of May or at the very end of April. 
 
 The question then is : how long an interval may we assume 
 between the battle of Keduktos and the battle of Diabasis. If the 
 first battle was fought in the first half of January and the second 
 in the latter half of April, Thomas was allowed to ravage the 
 neighbourhood of Constantinople for more than three months. 
 This seems improbable, and is not suggested by the accounts of 
 Genesios and the Continuer. We cannot believe that Michael 
 would have been so impolitic as to leave a foe, who had been 
 profligates by the Bulgarians, to gather new strength in such close 
 proximity to the city during such a long space of time. Prompti- 
 tude was certainly Michael's policy in the circumstances. 
 
 I therefore believe that the battle of Keduktos was fought in
 
 464 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 April or at earliest in the last days of March. I hold that we 
 should count the year of the siege from the spring of 822, and not from 
 December 821. For it was in spring 822 that the continuous 
 blockade really began. During the months which intervened 
 between December 821 and spring 822 the city was not formally 
 besieged. It is true that the Letter of Michael does not convey 
 this impression ; but, on the other hand, it does not really con- 
 tradict my interpretation. Michael is only giving a rough outline 
 of the events, and omits the details of the siege. It is quite 
 intelligible that he should have formally mentioned the date of 
 the first appearance of the tyrant before the walls ; that he should 
 have omitted to mention his second appearance and the beginning 
 of the regular siege ; and that then he should have stated the 
 length of the siege as a year, without explaining that he counted 
 from a later date than December. 
 
 This postponement of the Bulgarian episode lightens, though 
 but slightly, the burden that has to be laid on o-xSov in Genesios 
 (see above, Chap. XI. p. 360).
 
 APPENDIX VI 
 
 THE FAMILY OF THEOPHILUS 
 
 THERE is considerable difficulty in reconciling the evidence of 
 coins with the statements of the chronicles as to the children of 
 Theophilus and Theodora. There were two sons and five daughters. 
 The elder son, Constantine, is ignored by the chroniclers, but is 
 mentioned in the enumeration of the tombs in the Church of the 
 Apostles, in Const. Porph. Cer. 645, and his head appears on coins. 
 The younger, Michael III. (who was the youngest child of the 
 marriage), was born c. 839, for at the time of his father's death, 
 Jan. 842, he was rpirov eVos Siavvwv (Cont. Th. 148). The five 
 daughters were Thecla, Anna, Anastasia, Pulcheria, Maria, named 
 in this order in Cont. Th. 90 (though the story here rather suggests 
 that Pulcheria was the youngest). Maria is elsewhere described 
 as " the youngest of all " (-n)v eo-xar^i/ TTO.VTMV) and her father's 
 favourite, in Cont. Th. 107, but Simeon does not designate her as 
 the youngest (Cont. Georg. 794). She married Alexios Musele and 
 died in her father's lifetime (locc. citt.). Simeon (ib. 823) mentions 
 the four surviving daughters in the order Thecla, Anastasia, Anna, 
 Pulcheria, and adds that Pulcheria was her mother's favourite. 
 
 The evidence of the coins is thus classified by Wroth (Imp. Byz. 
 Coins, i. xlii-xliii) : 
 
 1. Coins of Theophilus, Theodora, Thecla, Anna, and Anastasia. 
 
 2. Coins of Theophilus, Michael (bearded), and Constantine 
 
 (beardless). 
 
 3. Coins of Theophilus and Constantine (beardless). 
 
 4. Coins of Theophilus and Michael (beardless). 
 
 Class 4 evidently belong to A.D. 839-842, the infancy of Michael, 
 and prove that Constantine had died before Michael's birth. As 
 to class 2 the difficulty which these coins present has been 
 satisfactorily cleared up by Wroth's solution, which is undoubtedly 
 right, that the bearded Michael is a memorial effigy of Michael II. ; 
 such a commemoration occurs in coins of the Isaurian Emperors, 
 e.g. coins of Constantine V. retain the head of Leo III. Thus 
 
 465 2 H
 
 466 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 classes 2 and 3 were issued not earlier than the end of 829, not 
 later than the beginning of 839. 
 
 Class 1 obviously belong to some time during the period of 
 ten years in which neither Constantino nor Michael existed. 
 Wroth dates them to the first years of the reign of Theophilus. 
 He suggests that Constantino was born some years after his father's 
 accession (say A.D. 832). 
 
 But the difficulty connected with the marriage of Maria (which 
 Wroth has not taken into account) bears on the interpretation of 
 the numismatic data. It has been discussed by E. W. Brooks 
 (B.Z. x. 544) and Melioranski (Viz. Frem. viii. 1-37). 
 
 As Theophilus married in spring 821, the earliest date for the 
 birth of his eldest child would be about Jan. 822. If Maria was 
 the fifth daughter, her birth could hardly be earlier than 826, or, 
 if we take into account the possibility of twins, 825. She would 
 not have reached the earliest possible age for marriage till after 
 the birth of her brother in 839. But such a date is incompatible 
 with the narrative and the probabilities. Her marriage was 
 evidently prior to the birth of Michael and intended to provide 
 for what seemed the probable eventuality of the Emperor's death 
 without a son to succeed him. 
 
 This argument forces us to reject the statement of Cont. Th. 
 that Maria was the youngest daughter. For we cannot entertain 
 the suggestion that Maria was not married, but only betrothed to 
 Alexios; the evidence that she was his wife (Cont. Th. 107, 108) 
 is quite clear. Nor can we admit, except as the last resort of 
 despair, the hypothesis that Theodora was the second wife of 
 Theophilus, and that some or all of his daughters were the 
 progeny of a first wife, of whose existence there is no evidence. 
 
 Melioranski, who contemplated the notion that Maria might 
 be the daughter of a former marriage, put forward the alternative 
 suggestion that she was his youngest sister (thus accepting the 
 (0-xo.rrjv, but rejecting the Bvyartpa of Cont. Th.). There is nothing 
 to be said for this hypothesis in itself ; and as it was unquestionably 
 the purpose of Theophilus to provide for the succession to the 
 throne, it is impossible to suppose that he would have chosen a 
 sister when he had daughters. 
 
 That Maria was the eldest daughter of Theophilus (so Brooks, 
 op. cit.) is the only reasonable solution (and it renders unnecessary 
 the hypothesis of a first marriage). Born, say, in January or February 
 822, she would have been fourteen in 836, and we could assign 
 her marriage to that year. But she was probably betrothed to 
 Alexios as early as A.D. 831 ; for in that year he is already Caesar, 
 as appears from the description of the triumph of Theophilus in 
 Constantino Porph. Hepl ra. 505 14 . 
 
 This result compels us to modify Wroth's chronology for the
 
 APPENDIX 467 
 
 coins. If class 1 belonged to the beginning of the reign of 
 Theophilus, the eldest daughter, Maria, would have appeared on 
 these coins. We are led to the conclusion that Constantino was 
 born just before or just after the accession of Theophilus, that he 
 died before the betrothal of his eldest sister, that she died before 
 the birth of Michael (839), and that class 1, representing Thecla, 
 Anna, and Anastasia, belong to the short interval between her 
 death and their brother Michael's birth. Thus we get the 
 chronology : 
 
 A.D. 829-830. Constantino born. 
 
 A.D. 830 . Issues of coins classes 2 and 3. 
 
 A.D. 836 . Marriage of Maria with Alexios Musele. 
 
 A.D. 837-838. Death of Maria. 
 
 A.D. 838-839. Issue of coins class 1. 
 
 A.D. 839 . Michael (III.) born. 
 
 A.D. 839-842. Issue of coins class 4. 
 
 Against this interpretation of the evidence can only be set 
 the statement in Cord. Th. that Maria was the youngest daughter. 
 But this statement is admitted by modern critics to be incompatible 
 with the facts, except on the hypothesis that all the daughters 
 were the issue of a former marriage. Such a hypothesis, however, 
 saves the authority of Cont. Th. in this one point, only to destroy 
 it in another and graver matter. For Cont. Th. unmistakably regards 
 the five daughters as the children of Theodora and the grandchildren 
 of Theoktiste (90 5 ). We can, moreover, conceive how the mistake 
 arose. Maria had died in her father's lifetime ; the other four 
 long survived him, and Thecla (who appeared on coins with her 
 mother and brother) was always known as the eldest ; so that we 
 can understand how a chronicler, wanting to place Maria in the 
 series, and finding in his source only the statement that she was 
 her father's favourite, and taking it for granted that Thecla was 
 the eldest, for the insufficient reason that she was the eldest in the 
 following reign, tacked Maria on at the end. 
 
 The accounts in Simeon, Add. Georg. 794, and Cont. Th. 108, of 
 the sending of Alexios Musele to the west, are inconsistent. 
 According to the former, he was sent to Sicily on account of the 
 Emperor's suspicions of his ambitious designs ; Maria died during 
 his absence; and Alexios, induced to return by promises of immunity, 
 was punished. According to the latter, the suspicions of his 
 disloyalty were subsequent to his command in the west (Longobardia, 
 i.e. South Italy), where he accomplished what he had to do to the 
 Emperor's satisfaction. It is impossible to draw any certain 
 conclusion. 
 
 As the coins of Theophilus have come under consideration,
 
 468 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 some changes which he made in the types may be mentioned here. 
 They are thus described by Wroth (xliii.) : " He restored the 
 cross (now the patriarchal cross) 1 on some specimens, and on the 
 folks an inscription in this case 0EOFILE AVTOVSTE SV 
 NICAS takes the place of the familiar mark of value M. He 
 also introduces on coins the legend Kvpie fto^dei TW <ro> SouAu so 
 familiar on Byzantine seals and other monuments. On some of 
 his coins Theophilus describes himself and his son Constantino as 
 the SouAoi of Christ : Justinian II., on his solidi, had called 
 himself Servus Christi." 
 
 1 J, not the cross potent ^ which appeared on the older coinage.
 
 APPENDIX VII 
 
 THE FALL OF THEODORA (chronology) 
 
 MICHAEL III. came to the throne January 21, 842, and died 
 September 23, 867, so that his whole reign lasted twenty -five years, 
 eight months. For the last year and four months, Basil was his 
 colleague (from May 26, 866), so that the rest of his reign, includ- 
 ing both the period of his minority and his sole reign after Theo- 
 dora's fall, lasted twenty-four years, four months. Now, according 
 to the contemporary chronicler George the Monk (801), he reigned 
 fourteen years with Theodora, ten years and three months by 
 himself. There is an error of a month, but here we are helped by 
 the Anonymi Chron. Synt., ed. Bauer, p. 68 (cp. also an addition 
 to the Chronography of Nicephorus, ed. de Boor, p. 101), where 
 the joint reign is given as fourteen years, one month, twenty-two 
 days. These figures are probably correct, 1 and so we can fix the 
 meeting of the Senate which signalised the formal deposition of 
 Theodora to March 15, 856. In any case, these data seem to be 
 independent, and they show that the deposition fell, not in 857 as 
 Schlosser and Finlay supposed, but early in 856. This is the con- 
 clusion rightly supported by Hirsch (61). It bears out the narrative 
 of the chroniclers (Simeonand Gen.) who connect Theodora's fall from 
 power immediately with the murder of Theoktistos, who was still 
 alive at the time of Michael's marriage, to which we cannot assign 
 an earlier date than 855. The two events must thus have been in 
 chronological proximity. 
 
 But a serious difficulty has arisen through the connexion of the 
 deposition of Ignatius from the Patriarchate and the expulsion of 
 Theodora from the Palace. This connexion rests on good authority, 
 the Libellus of Ignatius (composed by Theognostos) addressed to 
 
 1 The other figures given by this /J.TJVO. a here is omitted. The error 
 source here are incorrect : Michael is may have arisen in the additions to the 
 said to have reigned alone eleven years, Chron. of Nicephorus from a repetition 
 one month, nine days. Thus the total of fiTJva a in the preceding notice. The 
 reign would be twenty-five years, three list stops with Basil I., so that the corn- 
 months, instead of twenty -five years, piler must have written soon after A. D. 
 eight months. In the Cod. Matritensis 886. 
 
 469
 
 470 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Pope Nicolas (Mansi, xvi. 296) : " When the sovran, persuaded by 
 Bardas, wished to ostracize his mother and sisters from the Palace, 
 he ordered me to tonsure them, but I would not obey, because they 
 were unwilling ; for this reason too I was driven from the Church." 
 In accordance with this statement of the Patriarch is his biographer's 
 intimation that there was not a long interval (pera fuxpov) between 
 the two events (Vita Ignatii, 225). 
 
 According to the older view which was still held by Hirsch, 
 Ignatius was deposed in November 857, so that if these statements 
 are true, the tonsuring of the Imperial ladies cannot be placed 
 before 857. Hirsch therefore (loc. cit.) rejects them as inaccurate. 
 But it is quite impossible to set them aside. 
 
 We know now that the deposition of Ignatius falls in November 
 858 (not 857), and this seems to make the difficulty still greater. 
 The Patriarch could never speak as he does of a refusal to comply 
 with the Emperor's wishes early in 856 as the cause of his deposi- 
 tion near the close of 858. 
 
 The key to the solution of the difficulty is simple enough. 
 Both the chronological statement of George the Monk (who was 
 writing some ten years later) and the evidence of the Patriarch are 
 perfectly correct. The fall of Theodora from power is a distinct 
 event, chronologically divided by an interval, from her expulsion 
 from the Palace. The end of the joint reign fell in the beginning 
 (perhaps March) of 856, and was marked by the meeting of the 
 Senate recorded in Cont. Georg. 823. But Theodora continued to 
 live in the Palace and was expelled at a much later period. This 
 seems to be the obvious inference from the data. 
 
 It is true that any one reading the chronicles of Genesios and 
 Simeon would infer that the expulsion of Theodora from the Palace 
 ensued almost immediately upon the fall of Theoktistos. Gen. 90 KCU 
 
 v ra Kara rrfv Secnrowav eK'TapaxTerai ' 816 TOV Tra.Xo.riov 
 
 ai /crA. But the chronology of these writers is extremely 
 vague ; they furnish very few absolute dates, and they had no 
 precise information as to the intervals between events. Such 
 phrases as /^TO, Ppa.\v and pera piKpov generally conceal their 
 ignorance. Moreover, if we look more closely at the statements of 
 Simeon (Cont. Georg. 823), we find that they assume an interval 
 (which may be either short or long) between the murder of 
 Theoktistos and the expulsion of Theodora. (1) Michael tried to 
 pacify his mother, who was irreconcilable ; then (2) he endeavoured 
 to distress her : he expelled three of his sisters to Karianos, and 
 the youngest, Pulcheria, to the monastery of Gastria ; afterwards he 
 tonsured them all and confined them in Gastria. (3) He was 
 recognized by the Senate as sole ruler, and created Bardas Domestic 
 of the Schools. (4) He sent Theodora also to Gastria. Although 
 this account is confused and cannot be right in detail, yet it assumes
 
 APPENDIX 471 
 
 a distinct interval during which Theodora lived in the Palace after 
 her fall from power. And we may accept the statement, which 
 was not likely to be invented, that the removal of her daughters 
 to Karianos preceded her own expulsion. Against this we need not 
 press the actual words of Theognostos (quoted above), which 
 are accurate enough for his purpose if we suppose that all the ladies 
 were tonsured at the same time. 
 
 As this last event was connected with the deposition of Ignatius, 
 it can hardly have been prior to 858. It is, however, worth notic- 
 ing that the author of the Vita Ignatii (258) assigns fifteen years and 
 eight months to the joint reign of Michael and Theodora. The 
 period is one year, seven months, too long. But it is a possible 
 hypothesis that he reckoned not to her fall from power but to her 
 expulsion. In that case the date of her expulsion would be about 
 August or September 857. This would mean that Ignatius remained 
 Patriarch for some fourteen months after his refusal to obey the 
 Emperor's command. And it may be thought that this is quite 
 possible, since that refusal was certainly only one of the offences 
 which Ignatius committed in the eyes of Michael and Bardas, and 
 we might suppose that it simply began a breach between the 
 Patriarch and the Court. But this is not probable, and does not 
 do justice to the drift of the passage in the Libellus. 
 
 If we look more closely at the chronological text in the Vita 
 Ignatii, we observe that there is an error. Nine years are assigned 
 to Michael alone, which, with the fifteen years, eight months, of the 
 joint reign, makes twenty-four years, eight months, just a year too 
 little. My conjecture is that the author intended to count the 
 joint reign as extending to the expulsion of the Empress from the 
 Palace, but that he miscalculated by a year. He ought to have 
 written sixteen years, eight months. This would bring us to 
 August or September 858 for the expulsion a date which precedes 
 the fall of Ignatius by just about the interval we might expect.
 
 APPENDIX VIII 
 
 THE WARFARE WITH THE SARACENS IN A.D. 830-832 
 
 THE events and chronology of these years have been carefully 
 studied by Vasil'ev, from the Greek and Arabic writers ; but he 
 was not acquainted with the original Syriac Chronicle of Michael 
 Syrus, knowing it only through the Armenian abbreviation and 
 the compilation of Bar-Hebraeus, nor does he seem to have realised 
 its importance for the reign of Theophilus, and especially for the 
 last years of Mamun. Michael's source was the lost Chronicle of 
 Dionysios of Tell-Mahre, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch 
 (A.D. 818-845), who was not only a contemporary but was a friend 
 of Mamun and was with him at times during these years. He 
 visited the Caliph in his camp at Kasin in the autumn of A.D. 831 
 (Michael Syr. 74), and accompanied him in the following February 
 to Egypt (ib. 76). The evidence of Michael is therefore of the 
 highest importance. 
 
 It appears that in the spring of A.D. 830, Theophilus with 
 Theophobos and his new Persamenian allies crossed the mountains 
 and captured and burned the town of Zapetra, perhaps massacring 
 many of the inhabitants. 1 Mamun lost no time in retaliating. 
 In the same year, marching by Mosul, Zeugma, Membij, and 
 
 1 This capture of Zapetra, not men- Mamun in Cilicia ; further successes in 
 tioned by the Greek writers, is recorded Romania. This brings us to the begin- 
 by Michael Syr. 74, and must be accepted, ning of Ann. Sel. 1144 = October 832. 
 There is, however, some chronological It is clear that the capture of the four 
 confusion in this chapter of Michael. forts is here dated to the summer of 1141 
 Immediately after his notice of the and Manuel's flight to the same year 
 accession of Theophilus he records : (1) October 829 to October 830. It would 
 without date, the capture of Zapetra ; follow that the capture of Zapetra fell in 
 (2) "in the following year" the revolt of 1140, i.e. before October 829, i.e. before 
 Manuel, and Mamun 's capture, in or after the accession of Theophilus. Michael 
 June, of four forts; (3) in May 1142 = 831, has introduced a superfluous year. The 
 the siege of Lulon ; (4) in 11 43 = October true dates are: 1141 = 830, capture of 
 831 to October 832, Mamun's departure Zapetra, and Mamuii's capture of the 
 for Damascus, on hearing that Egypt forts ; 1142 (after October 1, 830), May, 
 had revolted ; the capture of Lulon ; siege of Lulon, etc. (Michael dates by 
 " at this period " the return of Manuel to Seleucid years, which began on October 1). 
 Theophilus ; the embassy of Theophilus ; 
 
 472
 
 APPENDIX 473 
 
 Antioch to Tarsus, he passed through the Cilician gates in July, 
 while his son Abbas, at the head of another force, advanced at the 
 same time from Melitene to cross the eastern frontier. Theophilus 
 himself had again taken the field with Manuel, the most eminent 
 of his generals, and Theophobos, but we have no intelligible account 
 of the military operations, which seem to have been chiefly in 
 Cappadocia. Several Greek fortresses were captured, 1 including 
 Koron, 2 from which Manuel was expelled, and a battle was 
 subsequently fought, in which Theophilus was defeated and barely 
 escaped with his life. 3 
 
 In the spring of the following year (A.D. 831), Theophilus 
 anticipated his enemies by invading Cilicia, where he gained a 
 victory over an army of frontier troops, collected from the 
 fortresses of Tarsus, Adana, Mopsuestia, and Anazarbus. 4 This 
 success he celebrated by a triumph. 
 
 If Theophilus was flushed with triumph at the success of his 
 raid, he may have desired that his own victory should terminate 
 the military operations of the year; it is said that he sent an 
 envoy with five hundred captives as a peace-offering to the Caliph. 
 Mamun was already at Adana, preparing to retaliate, and the 
 embassy did not check his advance. 5 The ensuing campaign 
 (from the beginning of July till end of September), like that of 
 the year before, seems to have been chiefly confined to Cappadocia. 
 Heraclea-Cybistra surrendered to the invaders without resistance, 
 and then the Caliph divided his army. His son Abbas, commanding 
 one of the divisions, captured some important forts, 6 and won a 
 
 1 These are named only in the Arabic Archelais), on the outskirts of Hassan Dagh 
 sources (Vasil'ev, 85-86) : Majid (perhaps (Mt.Argaios, thebeacon station): Ramsay, 
 near Lulon ; ib. 85, n. 2), Kurru (see Asia Minor, 355. Kurru was taken on 
 next note), Sundus, and Sinan. Vasil'ev July 21 (Yakubi, whose text gives Ancyra, 
 would identify Sundus with Soandos but must be corrected from Ibn Kutaiba 
 (Nev Sheher). These may be the " four 2 and Tabari 23). 
 
 fortresses " mentioned by Michael Syr. 3 Vasil'ev (Pril. ii. 133) places this in 
 
 ib. But Ibu-Kutaiba (2) mentions two the early part of the year, 
 
 others, Harshan and Shemal, evidently 4 The Saracen army was 20, 000 strong ; 
 
 Charsianon and Semalouos. Yakubi (7) the men of Irenopolis are also mentioned, 
 
 also mentions Shemal. Semalouos was See Constantine, Hepl rat;. 503. About 
 
 taken by Harun after a long siege in 1600 Moslems were slain according to 
 
 A.D. 780 ; it was in the Armeniac Theme Tabari ; 2000 according to the anonymous 
 
 a vague indication. The fort of Char- author of the Kitab al- Uyun (Vasil'ev, 
 
 sianon is placed by Ramsay at Alaja on Pril. 108). This Moslem defeat is ignored 
 
 the road between Euchaita and Tavion. by Michael. 
 
 It was taken by the Saracens in 730. We B Tabari, 24 (but he does not relate the 
 see that the Romans had been successful story with confidence), and Kitdb al- 
 ia recovering positions east of the Halys Uyun, 108. 
 which they had lost in the eighth century. 6 Kitdb al- Uyun, ib. Cp. Vasil'ev, 93. 
 
 2 Kurru in the Arab sources. Vasil'ev's Among the forts mentioned was Antigus, 
 identification with rb K6pot> ev rfj Kairwa- which Ramsay identifies with Tyriaion 
 SoKlq. mentioned in Simeon (Cont. Oeorg.) (Asia Minor, 141), south-west of Cae- 
 is acceptable. Cp. Constantine, Them. sarea. It was called by the Greeks rb r&v 
 21. It is supposed to be Viran Sheher, rvpavvtav xderpov (Leo. Diac. 122), and 
 ruins south-east of Ak- serai (Colonia Vasil'ev suggests that A ntig&s may be an
 
 474 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 battle in which Theophilus himself was at the head of the Roman 
 forces. 
 
 Mamun was at Kasin in September, where the Patriarch 
 Dionysios met him, and he retired for the winter to Damascus. 
 Early in A.D. 832 he proceeded to Egypt to quell an insurrection, 
 and was there from February 1 6 to April 4. 1 He returned rapidly 
 to renew the warfare in Asia Minor, and must have reached Adana 
 early in May. The important event of this campaign was the 
 capture of Lulon. Mamun besieged it in vain for one hundred 
 days ; then he instituted a blockade, and entrusted the conduct of 
 the operations to Ujaif ibn Anbas. The Romans had the luck to 
 capture this general, but Theophilus, who came to relieve the 
 fortress, was compelled to retire, without a battle, by a Saracen 
 force, and the commander of Lulon negotiated its surrender with 
 the captive Ujaif. 2 
 
 The capture of Lulon is placed both by the Arabic historians 
 and by Michael (who does not give the details) in A.D. 832. But 
 Michael also says that Mamun laid siege to Lulon in May, Ann. 
 Sel. 1142 = A.D. 831. From his narrative we might infer that the 
 siege lasted a year. This is out of the question, in view of the 
 other evidence. We must therefore infer that in 831 Mamun, 
 who was in the neighbourhood of Lulon, since he took Heraclea- 
 Cybistra, attacked Lulon unsuccessfully. 3 
 
 The dates of the flight and return of Manuel and of the 
 Emperor's overtures for peace remain to be considered. The 
 references of the Arabic authorities to Manuel are as follows : 
 
 1. Yakubi, 7, says that in A.D. 830 Mamun took "Ancyra" 
 (error for Kurru = Koron) and " the patrician Manuel escaped 
 from it." 
 
 2. Tabari, 24, says that in A.D. 830 Manuel and Mamun's son 
 Abbas met Mamun at Resaina, before the campaign. There seems 
 to be an error here, for, as Brooks has pointed out, Mamun did 
 not go near Resaina (B.Z. x. 297). 
 
 If we are to reconcile the statement of Yakubi with the Greek 
 sources, Manuel must have fled after the capture of Koron (July 
 830 : Tabari, 23). 
 
 Arabic translation (thaghiye, 'tyrant'). was taken in A.D. 831 (Tabari, 24). It 
 Another of the forts taken by Abbas was was fortified by Abbas in 833 (ib. 27 ; 
 Kasin, an underground stronghold, in cp. Michael, 76). For the embassy to 
 the plain which stretches south of Soandos Adana see Tabari, 24, and Kitab al- 
 to Sasima. The road through this plain Uyun, 108. 
 passes Malakopaia. Underground habi- i Yakubi 7. 
 
 tations are a feature of the district. See 9 r , c m , . _ ., , , T , 
 
 Ramsay, ib. 356 ; he has pointed out that Ib ' 8 ' Taban ' 25 ' Kltab al ' ^ Mn > 
 Kasin is the same name as Kases, a Turma 
 
 in the Cappadocian Theme. 3 Michael, 74. The Kitab al-Uyun 
 
 Yakubi (p. 7) says that twelve strong describes the capture of Lnlon before 
 
 places and many subterranean abodes the expedition to Egypt, misdating the 
 
 (podzemnie-metamir) were taken. Tyana latter by a year.
 
 APPENDIX 475 
 
 The dates given by Michael Syr. would go to support this con- 
 clusion. He places (74) the flight in the Seleucid year 1141 = 
 October 1, 829, to September 30, 830. This is consistent with the 
 date of the Arabic chroniclers, since A.H. 215 and Ann. Sel. 1141 
 overlap ; and thus the flight would be fixed to July-September 830. 
 
 Manuel's return to Theophilus is placed by Michael in 1143 = 
 October 1, 831, to September 30, 832. The Arabic chroniclers do 
 not mention it ; the Greek bring it into connexion with the 
 embassy of John the Grammarian. This embassy was prior to 
 April 21, A.D. 832, the date of John's elevation to the Patriarchal 
 throne ; and it must have been prior to February, as Mamun had 
 left Syria and reached Egypt by February 16. It would follow 
 that it belongs to October 8 31- January 832. 
 
 Another solution of the difficulties, which has a great deal 
 to be said for it, has been propounded by E. W. Brooks, in B.Z. 
 x. 297 sq. He suggests that Manuel fled before the accession of 
 Theophilus; that he prompted Mamun (as Michael states) to invade 
 Romania in 830 ; that he was with the Caliph's son at Resaina 
 (Tabari) and then escaped (the Greek sources say that he was 
 with Abbas when he escaped ; so that his defence of Koron was 
 subsequent to his return). Brooks argues that, having been 
 strategos of the Armeniacs under Leo V., he seems to have held 
 no post under Michael II., and suggests that " his recall should be 
 connected with the execution of Leo's assassins by Theophilus ; it 
 is, in fact, hardly credible that he should trust to the good faith 
 of an Emperor from whose jealousy he had fled." In supposing 
 that he held no post under Michael II., Brooks overlooks the 
 words of Gen. 68 7-775 Trpb TT)S <vy?/s o-T/aarr/y^o-ews, which naturally 
 suggest that Manuel was a strategos when he fled. 
 
 The details of the intrigue which led to Manuel's flight, as 
 given in the Greek sources, might easily be transferred to Michael's 
 reign. The chief objection to the solution of Brooks is that 
 Michael Syr. agrees with the Greek tradition in representing the 
 flight as a revolt against Theophilus. It must be observed, how- 
 ever, that there is a chronological confusion in the passage of 
 Michael (cp. above, p. 473, n. 1). 
 
 Brooks would also transfer the embassy of John the Gram- 
 marian to A.D. 829-830, just after the accession of Theophilus. 
 This dating would save the statement of Cont. Th. that John went 
 to Baghdad. In support of this Brooks cites the words of Cont. 
 Th. 95, that Theophilus TraAcuy tdei 7ro/xevos e/3ovAeTO rots rrj? 
 A.-yap ra rrjs avTOKparopias Troir/a-at, KaraS?;Aa (and therefore sent 
 John), interpreting the sentence to mean, " in accordance with old 
 usage wished to announce his accession to the Saracens." It 
 appears to me that this explanation is unquestionably right, and 
 as it is probable there is some foundation for the story that John
 
 476 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 helped to prepare for the return of Manuel, it supplies a consider- 
 able support for the view of Brooks as to the date of that officer's 
 flight and return. John may have afterwards acted as envoy to 
 Mamun when he was in Syria, and the two missions may have 
 been confounded. 
 
 I have assumed throughout that this Manuel is identical with 
 the uncle of Theodora, though some modern writers distinguish 
 them. Manuel the general was protostrator under Michael I., 
 and strategos of the Armeniacs under Leo V. (Cont, Th. 24). l He 
 was of Armenian race (ib. 110), and so was Manuel, Theodora's 
 uncle (ib. 148). The latter, at the death of Theophilus, had the 
 rank of magister; and Simeon, Cont. Georg. 798, states that the 
 former was created magister and Domestic of the Schools after his 
 return. These coincidences point clearly to identification. The 
 difficulty lies in another statement of Simeon (803), that Manuel 
 was wounded in saving the life of Theophilus and died. This 
 must be rejected, and we may set against it the statement of 
 Michael Syr. (113) that after the death of Theophilus Manuel was 
 appointed general-in-chief of the army. Brooks also contends for 
 the identity (B.Z. x. 543, n. 4). 
 
 Three other embassies from Theophilus to Mamun in A.D. 
 831-832 are mentioned by the Arabic historians. (1) The embassy, 
 referred to above, which found Mamun at Adana, before his 
 summer campaign in A.D. 831. (2) An embassy towards the close 
 of this campaign, while Mamun was still in Cappadocia; see 
 above, p. 473. The envoy was a bishop. Vasil'ev thinks he was 
 John the Grammarian (who was not a bishop yet), and that this 
 embassy to Mamun's camp was the historical basis for the Greek 
 tradition. This cannot be the complete explanation ; but it is 
 possible that John was the envoy, and a confusion between this 
 and his former embassy might have helped to lead to the chrono- 
 logical errors in the Greek sources. (3) The third embassy was 
 in A.H. 217 = February 7, 832, to January 26, 833, according to 
 Tabari, and this harmonises with the date of Michael, who, clearly 
 meaning the same negotiation, refers it to 1143 = October 831 to 
 September 832. 2 It was after the fall of Lulon, probably a conse- 
 quence of that event ; and if Vasil'ev is right in calculating that 
 Lulon did not surrender before September I, 3 the embassy must 
 fall in September. 
 
 1 TUIV 'Avaro\iKwv, ib. 110, in the text, order cannot be pressed. 
 
 is a mistake for rdv 'A.p/j.evia.Kuv. 3 Mamun, leaving Egypt in April, can 
 
 2 Michael, if we take the order of his hardly have reached the Cilician gates 
 narrative as chronological here, would before May 1 ; Mamun's siege lasted 
 imply that it was earlier than September, one hundred days, which brings us to c. 
 for after noticing the embassy he records August 1, and the blockade at least a 
 that Mamuu took several fortresses and month (according to Yakubi and Kitab 
 in September retired to Kasin. But the al-Uyun ; but otherwise Tabari).
 
 APPENDIX 477 
 
 I must finally notice a clear contradiction between Michael 
 and the Arabic chronicles as to the beginning of Mamun's campaign 
 in 831. Michael says that he invaded Eomania in the month of 
 May ; Tabari says that he entered Roman territory on July 4. 
 As Michael's source is of higher authority, we should accept it. 
 We must therefore infer that the invasion of Cilicia by Theophilus 
 was in April and early part of May.
 
 APPENDIX IX 
 
 THE REVOLT OF EUPHEMIOS 
 
 THE sources for this episode are 
 
 (1) Greek. Theognostos, a contemporary writer. His historical 
 work, of which we do not know the character or compass, is lost, 
 but the story of Euphemios in Cont. Th. is based upon it : p. 82 
 8r)Xoi Se Tavra cra<rraTa /cat irXaTiKU>Tpov r/ Tore ypa<eicra 9eoy vwcrrw 
 TO) -irepl 6p@o-ypa(f>ias yeypa<ori /cat et's X '/ as fXBovcra fjuwv <VurTOpia. 
 Or x/>ovoypa<ia> r)v 6 /3ovAoyuevos /xeTa^etyot^o/Aevos TO, Ka$ e/cacrrov 
 dvaStSax^o-cTcu. From this, the only notice of Theognostos as a 
 historian, we infer that he gave a detailed account of the incidents, 
 of which the passage in Cont. Th. is an abridgment. The work on 
 Orthography, which we could well spare, is preserved, and has been 
 published by Cramer (Anecd. Graec. ii. 1 sqq.). It is dedicated to the 
 Emperor Leo 
 
 TO> SOTTTOTI; p.ov /ecu <ro(f><i) crre<?7</>o/3a> 
 Aeovri TO> KpaTOVVTi TrdvTWV ev Aoyois, 
 
 a tribute which seems distinctly more appropriate to Leo VI. than 
 to Leo V. But, according to Cont. Th., the author was a contem- 
 porary of Euphemios and, if so, the Emperor can only be Leo V. 
 (so Villoison, Krumbacher, Vasil'ev; Hirsch leans to Leo VI., p. 197). 
 I am inclined to suspect that Theognostos the historian was a 
 different person from Theognostos the grammarian, and that the 
 Continuator of Theoph. confounded them. I find it hard to believe 
 that Leo of the dedication is not Leo the Wise. 
 
 (2) Arabic. Ibn al-Athir ; Nuwairi. 
 
 (3) Latin. Traditions preserved in South Italy : Chronicon 
 Salernitanum ; Joannes diaconus Neapolitanus. 
 
 There are many difficulties in connexion with the revolt. The 
 following points may be noticed. 
 
 (1) The date of the rebellion is given by Ibn al-Athir as A.H. 
 211 = A.D. 826, April 13, to 827, April 1. According to him, in this 
 year the Emperor appointed the patrician Constantine governor of 
 Sicily, and Constantine named Euphemios commander of the fleet. 
 Euphemios made a successful descent on Africa, and then the 
 
 478
 
 APPENDIX 479 
 
 Emperor wrote to Constantino and ordered him to seize and punish 
 Euphemios. 
 
 Nuwairi, under A.H. 212 ( = A.D. 827-828), states that in A.H. 
 201 ( = A.D. 816, July 30, to 817, July 19) the Emperor appointed 
 the patrician Constantino Sudes. What follows is the same as in 
 Ibn al-Athir, and it is evident that both accounts come from a 
 common source. Vasil'ev (Pril. 116, note) says that 201 must be 
 an error for 211. 
 
 (2) Photeinos, who was named strategos of Crete immediately 
 after the Arabs seized that island (A.D. 825), was, after his unsuc- 
 cessful attempt to recover it, appointed strategos of Sicily. Cont. Th. 
 77 T>)V TT^S SiKeAtas (rrpaT^yiSa a.Wi<s Trj<s K/O^TT/S aAAao-o-erai. This 
 cannot have been later than A.D. 826, and therefore Amari (followed 
 by Vasil'ev) identified Photeinos with the general who is called 
 Constantino by the Arabs and who was defeated and slain by 
 Euphemios. Caussin de Perceval (Novairi, p. 404) had called 
 attention to variants of the name in the text of Nuwairi Casantin, 
 Phasantin, Phastin and also proposed the identification. If we 
 could suppose that A.H. 201 in Nuwairi is not a mere error, we 
 might conclude that Constantino Sudes was the predecessor of 
 Photeinos, but the parallel passage of Ibn al-Athir seems to exclude 
 this solution. 
 
 The name of the strategos is not mentioned in the account of 
 the rebellion which Cont. Th. has abridged from Theognostos (82). 
 We can hardly doubt that Theognostos named him, and I con- 
 jecture that the Cretan portion of Cont. Th., where the appointment 
 of Photeinos to Sicily is mentioned (76-77), was derived from 
 Theognostos. 
 
 (3) From the notice of Joannes Neap. (429) that when 
 Euphemios fled to Africa (i.e. in A.D. 826-827) he took with him his 
 wife and sons ("cum uxore et filiis"), it has been inferred that his 
 marriage cannot have been later than A.D. 824 (Gabotto, 30 ; 
 Vasil'ev, 58). This would suggest a further consideration. The 
 Emperor did not take any steps against Euphemios till A.D. 826. 
 We should have then to suppose one of two things. Either the 
 brothers of the bride waited for a considerable time after the 
 marriage scandal to prefer their complaint ; or the delay was on 
 the side of the Emperor. The latter alternative would seem the 
 more probable; and the point might be adduced by those who 
 think it likely that in his action in regard to Euphemios Michael 
 was influenced by political reasons and used the matrimonial 
 delinquency as a pretext. 
 
 But it may be questioned whether the inference from the text 
 of Joannes is certain. The filii might be sons of a former wife. 
 According to Ibn al-Athir, it was the new strategos (Constantine = 
 Photeinos) who appointed Euphemios commander of the fleet.
 
 480 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 There is no evidence that he had held this post or been a turmarch 
 before the governorship of Photeinos. Now Theognostos (Cont. Th.) 
 speaks of him as contracting the marriage when he was turmarch 
 (rovpij.dxprj's reAwv), and the story as told by Cont. Th. does not 
 contemplate any considerable lapse of time between the marriage 
 and its consequences. Of course this is not conclusive, Cont. Th., in 
 abridging, may have foreshortened the chronology. Still, taking 
 the evidence such as it is, no chronological difficulty is involved if 
 we assume that Euphemios married the nun after his appointment 
 to the command of the fleet. We may suppose that Photeinos 
 arrived in Sicily, and appointed Euphemios turmarch, and that 
 Euphemios married Homoniza, in spring 826 ; that her brothers at 
 once sailed for Constantinople ; there is then, in the early summer, 
 time for dispatch of the Emperor's letter to Photeinos, and for the 
 expedition of Euphemios ; in the late summer and autumn, for 
 the warfare between Photeinos and Euphemios, and then between 
 Euphemios and Palata. 
 
 I do not put forward this view with any confidence, but merely 
 as a tenable interpretation of the evidence. But the fact that it is 
 a tenable (and perhaps the less unlikely) interpretation is important. 
 For it shows that we have no ground to conjecture that Euphemios 
 played any leading part in the island before A.D. 826. He had, 
 doubtless, distinguished himself as an officer ; to this he owed his 
 appointment by Photeinos. But there is no reason to suppose that 
 he was marked out as a politically dangerous person. 
 
 (4) The Arabic writers give Balata as the name of the adherent 
 of Euphemios, who turned against him. " (Euphemios) nominated 
 a man named Balata as governor over a part of the island ; and he 
 opposed Euphemios and rebelled ; and he and his cousin, by name 
 Michael, the governor of Palermo, joined together " (Ibn al-Athir, 
 apud Vasil'ev, 94). As p is often represented by b in Arabic repro- 
 ductions of Greek names, it is probable that Balata represents 
 Paled- ; and it looks as if the source of Ibn al-Athir had taken a 
 title of office or dignity for a personal name. Gabotto suggested 
 (28) that the person in question had been created curopalates by 
 Euphemios but we need not go further than to say that he was 
 probably invested with a palatine dignity. 
 
 It is not proved (as Gabotto assumes, and apparently Vasil'ev, 
 60) that Palata's cousin Michael was at first a supporter of 
 Euphemios. Ibn al-Athir does not say so. It is quite as likely 
 that he had remained inactive, and then induced his cousin to 
 change sides. 
 
 The speculation of Gabotto that this Michael is identical with 
 the Michael who was strategos of Sicily in 803, and that Palata is 
 the same as Gregory who was strategos in 813, has no evidence or 
 probability and has rightly been rejected by Vasil'ev (60-61).
 
 APPENDIX X 
 
 PRESIAM, MALAMIR 
 
 THE succession of the Bulgarian sovrans between Omurtag and 
 Boris (whose date of accession has been fixed by Zlatarski to A.D. 
 852) is a problem which has not been satisfactorily cleared up. 
 Theophylactus, the Bulgarian archbishop of Ochrida (in the 
 eleventh century), is the only writer who furnishes any con- 
 nected account of the succession of the kings. It is evident 
 from the details which he gives in his Historia martyrii xv. 
 martyrum that he had a source of information otherwise lost, and 
 I suspect that it was a hagiographical work a Vita Cinamonis 
 (cp. above, p. 382, n. 3). He states (p. 193) that Omurtag had three 
 sons, 3 Evpa/3toTa?, (the eldest), Zfiijvtrfo, and MaAAop/pds ; that the 
 last-named succeeded his father (<j> 8r/ KCU % TOV 7rarpo<s direKXrjpfuOr) 
 apx 7 ?)' an d P ut to death Enrabotas, who had been converted to 
 Christianity. The next ruler, after Malamir, was Boris, whom 
 Theophylactus designates as the son of Zvenitsa (197). 1 Thus, 
 according to him, there was only one reign, that of Malamir, 
 between the death of Omurtag and the accession of Boris. 
 
 It was long ago recognised that the MaAAo/^pos of Theophy- 
 lactus was identical with the BaA6Yp;ep or BAaSt'/wp whom Simeon 
 mentions in his account of the return of the Greek captives (see 
 above, p. 369, n. 4), a passage from which it can be inferred that 
 he was on the throne c. A.D. 836-837. 
 
 In recent years, the Greek inscriptions of Bulgaria throw 
 new light on this Khan, and show that the form of the name 
 given by Theophylactus is nearly right. The name in the inscrip- 
 tions is MaAap/p. 
 
 If our evidence were confined to these data, there would be no 
 problem. But (1) Constantine, De adm. imp. 154, mentions 
 Hpe<rid/j. as the Bulgarian king who, before Boris, made war on 
 Servia, and says that he was the father of Boris, and (2) we have 
 a fragmentary inscription (from Philippi), evidently of this 
 
 1 He says that M. was succeeded by the son of Z., and then goes on to speak 
 of B. as 6 prjdels Bw/^o^s. 
 
 481 2 I
 
 482 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 period, in which the name of the ruler (6 I* Oeov /X wv ) seems 
 to end in avos (C.I.G. iv. 8691 b), and the kaukhan Isbules 
 (known otherwise from inscriptions of Malamir) is mentioned. 
 Zlatarski (Izv. za Bolg v Khron. 49) combines these data, supplying 
 in the inscription the name Ilpeo-ijavos, for which he refers to 
 Skylitzes (Cedrenus, ii. 574) Ilpovo-idvov, where a Vienna MS. 
 gives IIpeatriavoi> (B. Prokic, Die Zusiltze in der Hs. des Joh. Skylitzes, 
 cod. Find. hist. Or. Ixxiv. p. 36) observing that Constantino's 
 for n/aeo-tav is parallel to the alternation Ma/3/Aa?/v 
 in the same treatise (157). 
 
 Jirecek (Geschichte, 170) had conjectured that Presiam and 
 Malamir were one and the same person ; but Zlatarski distinguishes 
 them, and regards Presiam as the successor of Malamir. He 
 places the accession of the former in A.D. 836-837, finding an 
 intimation of a change on the throne at this time in Simeon's 
 chronicle (vers. Slav. 102, Leo Gr. 232), where Malamir 
 (" Vladimir ") is first mentioned, and then suddenly, without 
 explanation, Michael (i.e. Boris). He supposes that Michael is an 
 error for his father Presiam. It is obvious, however, that this 
 argument has little weight. 
 
 In favour of the view that Malamir and Presiam are different 
 persons is (1) the fact that Presiam, according to Constantine 
 Porph. loc. cit., was father of Boris, while according to 
 Theophylactus, loc cit., Zvenitsa was father of Boris ; if both 
 statements are true, Presiam was identical with Zvenitsa, and 
 therefore distinct from Z.'s brother Malamir ; (2) the difficulty of 
 supposing that in the inscriptions the same ruler is designated 
 sometimes as MaAapy/o, sometimes as avos. 
 
 On the other hand, it is not easy to believe that if, during the 
 period between Omurtag's death (at earliest 827) and 852, 
 there were two khans, of whom one (Malamir) reigned at most 
 ten years, and the other, Presiam, fifteen years, the longer reign 
 should have been completely ignored by Theophylactus. 
 
 But the important Shumla inscription (Aboba, 233), which 
 Zlatarski claims for Presiam, has still to be considered. The 
 khan, for whom this stone was inscribed, designates Krum as 
 " my grandfather " l and Omurtag as " my father." 2 It seems to 
 record an invasion of Greek territory by Malamir with the 
 kaukhan Isbules, and the natural interpretation is that the 
 monument was inscribed for Malamir. But Zlatarski (op. cit. 51) 
 holds that the warlike operations were conducted by Presiam, not 
 by Malamir. Having stated that Omurtag made peace and lived 
 
 1 1. 1. I would restore 6 ptyas] &[px(w) 'Qpovprdy. That Omurtag's 
 &px(<j>v) 6 KpoO/ios 6 TrdTrTros nov /ue[r name must be supplied here follows 
 a verb. from the beginning of 1. 3 el]privi)i> re 
 
 2 1. 2. I read Kal 6 irar^p fj.ov 6 Troujcras,
 
 APPENDIX 483 
 
 peacefully with the Greeks (xaAa l^o-e pn-a TOUS TpiKovs), 1 the 
 text proceeds : 
 
 Kal ol YptKol /3?^u.a)o~a[v .... 
 1. 5 6 MaAa/iip [//.Jera TOV Kai'^avov Ho-/3ov\ov /cat ar . [_ * . . . . 
 
 .......... TOUS rplKOl'S TOU TLpOJ3a.TOV TOV KO.(TTpOV [ . . . 
 
 Kal TO Boi;p(Sio{>) 3 TO Kacrrpov Kal TO. X^P a T ^ v FpiKwv [ . . 
 [urrep] a,7rao~av (f)rjfj,rjv fTroirjcrev Kal ?jA$e eis < J?iAi7T7ro7ro[A6i' . . 
 . . Kat TOTTOVS 6 /cav^avos Ho~f3ov\.ri<s crvvTV^ia. |TT[ . . . 
 10 Kal TO ap^aiOTaTOV VTrep^rjfJLOV Trpooref .... 
 
 At the beginning of 1. 6 Zlatarski says that the letters 
 
 can be plainly read, and restores . . /<aAd efra-e ei's, so that the 
 statement would be that Malamir also lived peacefully with the 
 Greeks. But (1) if so it should precede the words Kal ol TpaiKol 
 ep^fjioxrav, which mark the opening of hostilities ; (2) the restoration 
 is incompatible with the words which follow, (COTO) TOU Hpoftdrov 
 KT\. ; (3) the association of the general Isbules with Malamir in 
 1.5 shows that we have to do with warlike action on the part of 
 Malamir. There cannot, I think, be the least doubt that an 
 expedition of Malamir is recorded, as the editors Jirecek and 
 Uspenski have supposed. 
 
 In 1. 6 the letters aAa (or AaA or SaA, etc.) are fairly clear in 
 the facsimile (PL xlv. in the Album to Aboba), and ^ I C are plain 
 before TOUS. Various restorations might be thought of ; e.g. aAa 
 might be part of MjoAoQup or f /"^Jo, Aa[oG. The sign ^ may 
 represent either e or /cat, so that the words might be /T[a Aa[ov 
 7roA<A>ou] /cat t's TOVS Fpt/covs. It does not seem certain (in the 
 facsimile) whether TpiKovs is written in full or only TpiK. It looks 
 to me as if the letters before TOV were T/O-OU (770- in ligature). I 
 cannot see any trace of either oVo or e/c, which Uspenski gives as 
 alternatives. 
 
 Now I have no doubt that Zlatarski is right in referring the 
 operations recorded on this stone to the years after the termination 
 of the Thirty Years' Treaty, i.e. to A.D. 846-849, and I therefore 
 conclude that Malamir was then reigning. The inference is that 
 Malamir and Presiam are one and the same person, Presiam being 
 his Bulgarian, and Malamir his Slavonic and official name. 
 
 The difficulties involved in this conclusion are, after all, not 
 serious. Theophylactus is probably right in making Boris son of 
 Zvenitsa and nephew of Malamir, and Constantino wrong in taking 
 him for the son of his predecessor (perhaps he was adopted by 
 
 1 After these words we may perhaps 3 Burdizos is the later Bulgarophygon, 
 
 restore 1. 3 [(*cat) ol EovXyapoi, 1. 4 now Eskibaba, on the highroad from 
 
 [Kara] rb apx^tov /caXa. ?ovv. Hadrianople to Constantinople. See 
 
 2 Possibly e7ro[X^u77cre or eirrjpe Jirecek, Heerstrasse, 100.
 
 484 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 his uncle). The fragmentary inscription of Philippi cannot count 
 largely in the question ; but if Zlatarski's plausible restoration is 
 right, it may be supposed that Presiam or Presian adopted the 
 name Malamir at a late period of his reign, perhaps in connexion 
 with the extension of his power (which Zlatarski has made 
 probable) over the western Slavs. As the inscription is probably 
 not prior to A.D. 847, it would be one of the last monuments of 
 Malamir under his earlier name.
 
 APPENDIX XI 
 
 ON SOME OF THE SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF CONSTANTINE 
 AND METHODIUS 
 
 (See Bibliography I. 4o) 
 
 I. FOR Constantine the Philosopher the most trustworthy witness 
 we have is his contemporary Anastasius, the librarian, who wrote 
 the later biographies in the Liber Pontificalis and translated the 
 chronicle of Theophanes. Anastasius had not only the advantage 
 of knowing Greek, but he was personally acquainted with 
 Constantine. Unfortunately the three texts of Anastasius which 
 we possess tell us nothing of his work as an apostle to the Slavs. 
 Before 1892 only two brief notices by this writer, relating to 
 Constantine, were known, namely, (1) Praef. 6, where he records 
 Constantino's opposition to Photius concerning the doctrine of the 
 two souls ; and (2) a letter to Charles the Bald (875 A.D.), where he 
 mentions that " Constantinus philosophus vir magnus et apostolicae 
 vitae praeceptor " knew the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite 
 by heart, and used to recommend them as an armoury against all 
 heresies ; further, that Constantine came to Rome in the pontificate 
 of Hadrian and restored the body of St. Clement to his see. 
 
 (3) In 1892 a more important document, a letter of Anastasius 
 to Gauderic, bishop of Velletri, was published by J. Friedrich in 
 the SB. of the Bavarian Academy, Hist, kl., 1892. The original 
 is in a fourteenth-century MS. (cod. 205) of the library of Alcobaza 
 at Lisbon, and a copy made by Heine (ob. 1848) passed with other 
 papers into the hands of Dollinger, in whose possession it 
 remained, apparently unexplored, till it was edited by Friedrich 
 after his death. 
 
 The subject of this letter is St. Clement, to whom the Church 
 of Velletri was dedicated. Gauderic, since the recovery of the 
 relics, was interested in promoting the cult of the saint, to whom 
 he built an oratory in Rome, spending all his wealth on the work. 
 He committed to a deacon named Johannes the task of writing 
 the saint's biography ; and in addition to the Latin material 
 
 485
 
 486 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 (diversorum Latinorum volumina) he desired to make use of any 
 Greek sources that might be available, and for this purpose had 
 applied to Anastasius asking him to translate into Latin any such 
 documents. Anastasius, in response, translated two works of 
 Constantino relating to the discovery of the relics ; namely, a brief 
 history of the discovery (brevis historia, storiola), and a rhetorical 
 Aoyos (sermo dedamatorius). The letter preserved at Lisbon is the 
 covering letter. Anastasius mentions that Constantino also com- 
 posed a hymn celebrating St. Clement, but he refrained from 
 translating it as he could not reproduce the metre and harmony of 
 the original. 
 
 But he also records the story of Constantino's discovery of the 
 relics near Cherson, which he derived from Metrophanes, bishop of 
 Smyrna, who had been banished to Cherson as an opponent of 
 Photius, and had heard a legend current there as to the circum- 
 stances of the discovery. Anastasius was in Constantinople at the 
 time of the Eighth Council, and had questioned Metrophanes 
 (curiose sciscilantibus) on the matter. 
 
 The biography of Clement was completed, and Gauderic 
 dedicated it to Pope John VIII. In the letter of dedication 
 (A,S. March 9, t. ii. 15) he explains its arrangement in three 
 Books, and we learn that Book 3 contained the story of C.'s exile 
 and martyrdom and " reversionis eius ad propriam sedem miracula." 
 
 Now we possess a document entitled Vita cum translatione 
 S. dementis, which its Bollandist editor, Henschen, considered to 
 be that portion of Gauderic's Book 3 which dealt with the 
 discovery and translation of the relics (A.S., ib.). The letter of 
 Anastasius to Gauderic has been taken to confirm Henschen's 
 conjecture ; and it certainly proves a close connexion between 
 this document and Gauderic's work. The nature and extent of 
 this connexion are debatable. 
 
 The Translatio, which is reprinted in the works of Ginzel, 
 Bil'basov, Goetz, and Pastrnek, is often called the Legenda Italica. 
 It may be described as a Life of Constantino, but its interest in 
 Constantino is due to his connexion with the relics of St. Clement. 
 His missions to the Khazars and the Moravians are subordinated to 
 the Clement-motif, and are only introduced to supply the necessary 
 setting and explanations. 
 
 Now in cc. 2 and 3 of the Translatio we find that the com- 
 munications of Anastasius to Gauderic have been utilised ; the 
 occurrence of the same expressions puts this beyond all doubt. 
 We must, therefore, infer that the Biography written by Gauderic 
 (or, more strictly, by Johannes) was a source of the Transl., if the 
 Transl. is not a part of it. Different views have been maintained. 
 Jagic has contended that the whole Transl. could not have been 
 included in the Biography, but only the episode of the discovery
 
 APPENDIX 487 
 
 of the relics and their translation to Rome ; the rest is irrelevant 
 to St. Clement. Friedrich designated cc. 2-5 and 7-9 (excepting 
 some sentences in 2 and 9) as the parts of the Transl. which belong 
 to the work of Gauderic. Goetz argued that cc. 1-9 are, as they 
 stand, Gauderic's account of the Translation, admitting only that 
 cc. 10-12 are a legendary addition. Nachtigall agrees with Goetz 
 for the most part, but (with Jagic") thinks that c. 7 is not part of 
 Gauderic's work. And there are other views. The simplest 
 explanation may be that the Translatio was written, if not by 
 Methodius, by one of his pupils, and that part of Gauderic's work 
 was incorporated with little change. 
 
 That Constantine brought the alleged relics of Clement from 
 Cherson to Constantinople there is no doubt, but the story of the 
 discovery has the stamp of a legend. Moreover, the bishop 
 George mentioned in Transl. 3 seems to have lived in the reign of 
 Nicephorus I., long before Constantine's visit, and there is another 
 story that the relics were discovered then (see Franko, 231 sqq.). 
 
 II. The Slavonic Vita Constantini and Vita Methodii have been 
 much discussed as to their authorship and place of origin. 
 Bruckner thinks that the V.C. was written, and the V.M. inspired, 
 by Methodius himself, and consequently that they originated in 
 Moravia. Voronov contended that they were both composed in 
 Bulgaria by the same author, a Bulgarian Slav, who wrote in 
 Greek (our texts being translations) about A.D. 925. He made 
 out a more plausible case for a Greek original in the case of V.C. 
 than of V.M. The Bulgarian origin of V.C. was accepted by 
 Jagic, and has been strongly supported by Snopek. It may 
 specially be noted that the argumentation against Paulician doctrine 
 (c. 15) Avould have been irrelevant in Moravia (though Bruckner 
 thinks otherwise) ; it was much to the purpose in Bulgaria. 
 
 One thing is clear, that the Lives have a pronounced tendency 
 and object to vindicate the Slavonic liturgy. On this all com- 
 petent critics, including Briickner and Snopek, writing from 
 different points of view, are agreed. The aim is "die Schaffung 
 der slavischen Liturgie als ein gottgefalliges und rechtglaubiges 
 Werk darzustellen " (Bruckner, 208). And we must obviously 
 connect the Lives, so far as this tendency is concerned, with the 
 short treatise written by the monk Chrabr (in the reign of Simeon) 
 concerning the invention of the Slavonic (i.e. Glagolitic) script. 
 Snopek, indeed, contends that Chrabr was the author of the two 
 Lives, also and even (taking a hint from Vondrdk) identifies him 
 with Clement, the pupil of Methodius, who became archbishop of 
 Bulgaria (ob. A.D. 916). 
 
 It emerges, so far as I can judge, from the voluminous dis- 
 cussions that the Lives were written in Bulgaria (the V.C. 
 certainly, and perhaps in Greek) for the purpose of defending the
 
 488 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 liturgy against the Greeks, by disciples of Methodius, who utilised 
 facts which they had learned from him. The Lives were also 
 intended to serve theological instruction ; to teach the Bulgarians 
 methods of apologetic and controversy (against Jews, Saracens, 
 and the Latin Church). We cannot regard as historical the 
 disputations (in V.C.} with John the ex-Patriarch or with the 
 Mohammadans ; and the arguments against the Jews and Khazars 
 are the work of the biographer. Briickner dwells on what he 
 calls schematism in the missions to the Mohammadans, the 
 Khazars, and the Moravians ; in each case Constantino is repre- 
 sented as being sent by the Emperor. The Mohammadan episode 
 is unhistorical, the others are historical ; but the part assigned to 
 the Byzantine government is probably a misrepresentation of fact. 
 But incidental bits of information, not necessary to the writer's 
 pragmatical purposes, are trustworthy with some reservations. 
 We may accept the statement about the parentage of the apostles, 
 the patronage accorded to Constantino by the logothete 
 (Theoktistos), his appointment as librarian of the Patriarch. His 
 friendship with Photius is known from Anastasius. If he was 
 appointed librarian by Photius, the date could not be earlier than 
 859, and it would follow that, if the order of events in V.C. is 
 correct, the visit to the Khazars could hardly have been earlier 
 than 860. But we can hardly accept the statement that he was 
 educated with the son of Theophilus, for he was at least ten years 
 older than Michael III. 1 
 
 1 Leger (Cyrille et Mtthode, 58) sug- meant. But his death occurred far 
 gests that Constantino, the Emperor's too early to suit the dates implied by 
 son who died in childhood, may be the narrative in V.C.
 
 APPENDIX XII 
 
 THE MAGYARS 
 
 1 . Date of the Second Magyar Migration (to Atelkuzu) 
 
 WESTBERG has put forward a new view as to the date of the 
 migration of the Hungarians to Atelkuzu (in K anal. ii. 49-51) 
 which he places c. A.D. 825. His argument is based on a passage 
 in Constantine, De adm. imp. 175, relating to the four sons and four 
 grandsons of Arpad. The descent may conveniently be represented 
 in a table. 
 
 Salmutzes (Almus) 
 
 I 
 Arpad 
 
 1 
 
 Tarkatzus 
 
 lelekh 
 
 lutotzas 
 
 Za 
 
 1 
 Tebeles 
 
 1 
 Ezelekh 
 
 1 
 
 Phalitzis 
 
 Ta 
 
 1 
 
 
 (Phales) 
 
 (Ta 
 
 Termatzus 
 
 When Constantine was writing (A.D. 950-952), Phalitzis was 
 the Hungarian king (rbv wvl apyovTa), Tebeles was dead, and his 
 son Termatzus was adult and had recently visited Constantinople on 
 an embassy (6 dpriw; dvfXOwv <i'Aos mistranslated by Westberg, as 
 by most others). 1 Westberg infers that Tebeles died not later 
 than 945, and that the surviving grandsons of Arpad, Phalitzis 
 and Taxis, 2 were advanced in years. Reckoning thirty years to 
 a generation, he goes on to place the death of Tarkatzus about 
 915, that of Arpad c. 885, that of Salmutzes c. 855. At the time 
 of the elevation of Arpad, Salmutzes was alive and considered (by 
 Lebedias) capable of ruling the Magyar nation. Therefore the 
 election of Arpad must belong to the second quarter of the ninth 
 century, not later than A.D. 850. But the migration to Atelkuzu 
 occurred not long before Arpad's election (De adm. imp. 169 14 ) ; so 
 
 1 I have pointed this out in B.Z. xv. who, he thinks, was the eldest son of 
 562. Arpad (B.Z. vi. 587-588). But the passage 
 
 2 I assume that Taxis and Tases are implies that Tases has been already men- 
 the same. Pecz, however, has conjectured tioned, and the identification with Taxis 
 that Tases was a son of Liuntis or Levente, seems inevitable. 
 
 489
 
 490 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 " the presence of the Magyars in Atelkuzu covers the period from 
 approximately 825 to 895." 
 
 This argumentation carries no conviction. We can readily 
 accept 885 as the approximate date of Arpad's death, for c. 889 
 his son Levente (who is not mentioned in this passage) was king. 
 But this does not necessitate the inference that Arpad was elected 
 before 850, or even before 860. Suppose that he was sixty years 
 old when he died ; then he would have been born in 825. Suppose 
 that Salmutzes, his father, was then twenty -five years old, he would 
 have been sixty, a " bodrii starik," in 860. This hypothesis, which 
 might .be varied (there is no reason to suppose that Arpad was old 
 when he died ; he may have been much younger than sixty), is 
 sufficient to show that Westberg's reasoning is arbitrary, and that 
 the data admit of no such conclusion as he draws. 
 
 Our fixed date ante quern for the first migration of the Magyars 
 is A.D. 862, the year in which they invaded the empire of the 
 Franks, for it is improbable that this invasion was undertaken 
 before they had settled west of the Dnieper. Our fixed date post 
 quern is the time of the visit of Constantino the Philosopher to 
 Cherson and the Khazars, which we can only define approximately 
 as before A.D. 863 (see above, p. 396). At that time, as we learn 
 from the Vita Constantini, the Magyars were still in the neighbour- 
 hood of the Crimea. Although there are many unhistorical details 
 in this Vita, the episode of the Hungarians evidently preserves a 
 genuine fact, for when the Vita was written the Hungarians were 
 far away, and no inventor of fiction would have dreamed of 
 introducing them on the scene. Westberg (ib. 51) admits the 
 genuineness of the notice, but seems to think that the Hungarians 
 invaded the Crimea from Atelkuzu. This is possible, but less 
 probable ; once they left their old seats, they were not likely to 
 return across the Dnieper and trespass on the hunting grounds of 
 the Patzinaks, whom they dreaded. 
 
 As the mission of Constantino was probably about A.D. 860, 
 we can deduce A.D. 860-861 as a probable date for the first 
 historical migration of the Magyars. Their second migration, to 
 their abiding home, occurred about 895, so that their period in 
 Atelkuzu was about forty years. The election of Arpad may be 
 placed roughly about A.D. 860. 
 
 The appearance of the Magyars west of the Dnieper c. A.D. 837 
 (see above, p. 371) proves only that, as we should expect, they made 
 predatory expeditions into Atelkuzu long before they occupied it. 
 
 2 . Date of the First Magyar Migration (to Lebedia) 
 
 The question of the date of the migration of the Magyars into 
 their earlier home between the Don and Dnieper is more difficult.
 
 APPENDIX 491 
 
 According to Constantino (op. cit. 168) they called this territory 
 Lebedia, after the name of their most important tribal leader, 
 Lebedias. I take this to mean that in later times, when they 
 were in Atelkuzu and Hungary, they described this territory, 
 having no other name for it, as the country of Lebedias the 
 country which they associated with his leadership. According 
 to the text of Constantino, ib., they occupied this country, on the 
 borders of the land of the Khazars, for three years (evicum>i>s rpeis). 
 This is certainly an error ; and we can indeed refute it from Con- 
 stantine himself, who goes on to say that during this period the 
 Magyars fought for the Khazars " in all their wars," a statement 
 which naturally presupposes a much longer period. The probability 
 is that there is a textual error in the number. Westberg (ib. 51) 
 proposes to read rpidKovra r/aeis or rpiaKovTa. If we adopted the 
 former, which is the less violent, correction, we should obtain 
 c. 822-826 as the date of the arrival of the Magyars in Lebedia. 
 
 It must be considered doubtful whether they had come to 
 Lebedia from beyond the Caucasus, where there were Magyars 
 known to the Armenians as the Sevordik. See above, p. 410. 
 Constantino indeed says that they were still known by this name 
 (2a/3a/3Toi ao-^aAoi) in Lebedia. It is true that the troubles which 
 distracted Armenia and the adjacent regions in the reign of 
 Mamun (see the account of Yakubi, apud Marquart, Streifziige, 
 457 sqq.) might have forced a portion of the Sevordik to seek a 
 new habitation under the protection of the Khazars. 
 
 We can say with certainty that the Magyars did not arrive in 
 Lebedia at a later period than in Mamun's reign, and there is 
 perhaps a probability that if they had been there long before that 
 period, some indication of their presence would have been pre- 
 served in our sources. The conjectural restoration of Constan- 
 tino's text (thirty-three years) cannot be relied on ; but it may be 
 noted that the Bulgarian warfare on the Dnieper in Omurtag's 
 reign (see above, p. 366), if it was provoked by the presence of the 
 Magyars, would be chronologically compatible. 
 
 Constantino does not tell us the source of his information 
 about the Magyars and their earlier history. We can, however, 
 form a probable opinion. While he was engaged in writing his 
 treatise known as De administrando imperio, or just before he had 
 begun it, an Hungarian embassy arrived at Constantinople (referred 
 to above, p. 489) consisting of Termatzus, a grandson of Arpad, 
 and Bultzus, who held the dignity of karchas (the third dignity 
 in the realm, after the king and the gylas). It seems very likely 
 that Constantino derived much of what he tells us about the 
 Magyars from this friendly embassy. Compare my paper on " The 
 Treatise De aclm. imp." E.Z. xv. 562-563.
 
 492 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 3. The names Magyar, Hungarian, Turk 
 
 While they were in Lebedia, the Hungarians seem already to 
 have called themselves Magyars, for they were known by this 
 name to an Arabic writer (before A.D. 850), who reproduced it as 
 Bazhghar (cp. Marquart, op. cit. 68). 1 In their own ancient 
 chronicles the name appears as Mogor. It is obviously identical 
 with the name of one of their tribes, the Meyeprj, mentioned by 
 Constantino. 2 We may conjecture that this was the tribe of 
 which Lebedias was chieftain, and that his pre-eminence was the 
 cause of its becoming a name for the nation. 
 
 To the Slavs and Latins, the Magyars were known by the 
 more comprehensive name of the Ugrian race, to which they 
 belonged : Ungri, whence Hungari and the Greek chronicle, which 
 describes their appearance west of the Dnieper in the reign of 
 Theophilus, likewise calls them Ovyypoi (Add. George 818). But 
 this designation in a Greek writer of the ninth and tenth centuries 
 is exceptional, for the Greeks regularly applied to them the term 
 TOU/OKOI, and even in this passage they are also called Tov^Koi 3 
 and Ovwoi. Why did the Greeks call them Turks ? The simplest 
 answer is that the name came into use after the union of the 
 Magyars with the Kabars who were Turks. 
 
 Marquart has put forward an ingenious but hardly convincing 
 explanation of TOU/OKOI. He identifies it with the 'IvpKai of 
 Herodotus 4. 22, who seem to appear in Pliny, vi. 19, as Tyrcae, and 
 in Pomponius Mela, i. 116, as Turcae. He supposes that lurkai 
 is the same word as lugra, Ugrian, with metathesis of r, that the 
 word afterwards acquired an initial t in Scythian dialects, and that 
 the Greeks borrowed it from the Alans as a designation of the 
 Magyars (op. cit. 54 sqq.) before their union with the Kabars. 
 According to this theory, the Turks are false " Turks," and the 
 Magyars are true "Turks," according to the original denotation 
 of the name ; in fact, the Ugrian name, in its Scythian form, came 
 in the course of history to be transferred from the Ugrian to the 
 Turanian race. 
 
 1 The Arabs used the same name to improbable that these Mdfapoi .are the 
 designate the Bashkirs, and this led to same as the ToD/>/coi (Magyars) who are 
 confusions, for which see Marquart, 69 mentioned a few lines below. Some 
 and 515. eastern people is meant I suspect the 
 
 2 It has been supposed that Mdfapot Bashkirs, who lived between the Patzinaks 
 in Const. De adm. imp. 164 10 means and the Bulgarians of the Kama. Prob- 
 Magyars ; so Hunfalvy, Roesler. The ably we should read Bafdpous (an instance 
 Patzinaks are said to have had as their of the frequent confusion of jj. and [3 in 
 neighbours, when they dwelled between eleventh-century MSS. ). 
 
 the Volga and Ural (Teijx)) T0 ^ s Te 3 But this does not prove that the 
 
 Mafcipot/s Kal TOI>S twovofj.at'ofj.frovs 0#f. Greeks called them fovpKOi in the reign 
 The context, however, renders it highly of Theophilus (as Ma.rqna.ri argues, p. 54).
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 THE following list includes most of the works cited in the notes of this 
 volume Those which it omits are referred to seldom or do not bear 
 directly on the period. The following abbreviations are used : A.S. = 
 Acta Sanctorum (Boll.); B.Z. = Byzantinische Zeitschrift; E.H.R. = English 
 Historical Review ; Izv. KpL = Izviestiia russkago arkheologicheskago 
 Instituta v Konstantinopolie ; J.H.S. = Journal of Hellenic Studies; 
 M.G.H. = Monumenta Germaniae historica ; Mansi = Mansi, Sacrorum 
 conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio ; Migne = Migne, Patrologia 
 Graeco-Latina (Migne, P.L. = Patr. Latina) ; SB. = Sitzungsberichte ; 
 Sbornik = Sbornik za narodnago umotvoreniia nauka i knizhnina (Sofia) ; 
 Viz. Vrem. = Vizantiiski Vremennik ; Zapiski imp. Ak. nauk = Zapiski 
 imperatorskoi Akademii nauk (St. Petersburg) ; Zhurn. min. n.p. = 
 Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosvieshcheniia. 
 
 In some cases I have added references to other editions than those 
 from which I cite, for the convenience of readers to whom they may 
 happen to be more accessible. 
 
 I. SOURCES 
 1. GENERAL 
 
 Acta Concilii A.D. 815. Les Actes du concile iconoclaste de 1'an 815. 
 
 Ed. D. Serruys. Melanges d'archdologie et d'histoire (Ecole 
 
 frangaise de Rome), xxiii. 346 sqq. Paris, Rome, 1903. 
 Acta Cone. viii. Acta Concilii generalis viii. ( = Constantinopolitani iv.). 
 
 Mansi, xvi. 308 sqq. 
 Anonymi chronographia syntomos e codice Matritensi No. 121 (nunc 
 
 4701). Ed. A. Bauer. Leipzig, 1909. 
 Anonymus. De Stauropatis. Mansi, xvi. 441 sqq. 
 Cedrenus, George. 2wo^as Icrropiiav. Vol. ii. Ed. Bekker. Bonn, 
 
 1839. 
 Constantine, Cer. ; Constantino, He/at rag. Constantinus Porphyro- 
 
 genitus, vol. i. [De cerimoniis, and Hcpl TWV /^acrtAiKwi/ 
 
 Taet8tW = Appendix ad librum primum]. Ed. Bekker. Bonn, 
 
 1829. 
 
 Constantine, Them. ; Constantine, De adm. imp. Constantinus Porphyro- 
 
 493
 
 494 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 genitus, vol. iii. [De thematibus, and De administrando imperio]. 
 Ed. Bekker. Bonn, 1840. 
 
 Cont. Th. Theophanes continuatus. Ed. Bekker. Bonn, 1838. 
 
 'Eirapxixov fiifiXiov. Ed. Nicole. Geneva, 1893. 
 
 Gen. Genesios. BcuriAeiai. Ed. Lachrnann. Bonn, 1834. 
 
 Epistola synodica Orientalium ad Theophilum imperatorem de cultu ss. 
 imaginum. Migne, 95, 345 sqq. 
 
 George. Georgius Monachus. Chronikon. Ed. C. de Boor. 2 vols. 
 Leipzig, 1904. The interpolated Chronicle, with its continua- 
 tion, ed. Muralt, Petersburg, 1859 ; the latter part, ed. Bekker 
 (with Cont. Th., q.v.}. See under Simeon. 
 
 Ignatius diaconus. Epistola e. Ed. M. Gedeon, under the title 
 
 rTToAa Nea f3i/3\io6r']Krj 
 i. 1. Constantinople, 1903. 
 [For the true authorship see Pargoire, Viz. Vrem. x. 633 sq.~\ 
 
 Libellus Ign. Ignatius patriarcha. Libellus (written by Theo- 
 gnostos). Mansi, xvi. 296 sqq. 
 
 Kasia. Ed. Krumbacher. Munich, 1897. 
 
 Leo Gramm. Leo grammaticus. 'H TOJV vecoi/ /^curtAewv \povoypafyla. 
 Ed. Bekker (pp. 207 sqq.). Bonn, 1842. 
 
 Methodius monachus. De schismate vitando. Migne, 140, 781 sqq. 
 
 Methodius patriarcha. Epistola ad Hierosolymorum patriarcham. 
 Pitra, luris ecclesiastic! Graecorurn historia et monumenta, ii. 
 355 sqq. Rome, 1868. 
 
 "EK$ecris irepl TWI/ dytwv ei/cdftov, ib. 357 sqq. 
 
 Epistola adv. Studitas. Migne, 100, 1293 sqq. (See also Pitra, 
 ib. 361-362.) 
 
 Metrophanes. Epistola ad Manuelem logothetam. Mansi, xvi. 413 sqq. 
 
 Narratio de ss. patriarchis Tarasio et Nicephoro. Migne, 99, 1849 sqq. 
 (Also Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, vii. xxix sqq. and Goar's com- 
 mentary on Theophanes, ed. Bonn, ii. 557 sqq.) 
 
 Naukratios. Encyclica de obitu S. Theodori Studitae. Migne, 99, 
 1825 sqq. 
 
 Nicephorus patriarcha. (1) Opera (including Apologeticus, and three 
 Antirrhetici). Migne, 100. (2) Other Antirrhetics in Pitra, 
 Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 302 sqq. ; iv. 233 sqq. 
 
 Petrus Siculus. Historia Manichaeorum. Ed. Gieseler. Gottingen, 
 1846. (Also in Migne, 104.) 
 
 Philotheos. Kletorologion. Ed. Bury. Supplemental Papers of British 
 Academy, i. 1911. (Also in Constantine, De cerimoniis [q.v., 
 supra], ii. cc. 52 and 53.) 
 
 Photius. Epistolae. (1) Ed. Valettas. London, 1864. (Also in 
 Migne, 102.) (2) Sanctissimi Patriarchae Photii, archiepiscopi 
 Constantinopoleos epistolae xlv. e codd. Montis Atho. Ed. 
 Papadopulos-Kerameus. Petersburg, 1896. 
 Opera. Migne, 101-104. 1860. 
 Monumenta Graeca ad Photium eiusque historiam pertinentia. Ed. 
 
 Hergenrother. Regensburg, 1869. 
 Contra Manichaeos. In Migne, 102.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 495 
 
 Adyoi KCU ofjiiXiat. Ed. Aristarchos. 2 vols. Constantinople, 
 
 1900. 
 
 Bibliotheca. Ed. Bekker. Berlin, 1824. (Also in Migne, 103.) 
 Pseudo-Simeon. Symeon Magister. Chronography. Ed. Bekker (along 
 
 with Cont. Th.). Bonn, 1838. 
 Scr. incert. Scriptor incertus de Leone Bardae F. Ed. Bekker (along 
 
 with Leo grammaticus). Bonn, 1842. 
 Patria. Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum. Ed. Preger. 
 
 Leipzig, 1901, 1907. 
 Simeon, vers. Slav. Simeon (magister, logothetes, metaphrastes). 
 
 Chronicle. Old Slavonic version. Spisanie niira ot bytia i lie- 
 
 tovnik. Ed. Sreznevski. Petersburg, 1905. [See Appendix III.] 
 Simeon, Add. Georg. Interpolated additions to Georgius Monachus 
 
 (q. v.}. Ed. Bekker. 
 Simeon, Cont. Georg. The Continuation of Georgius Monachus (q.v.). 
 
 Ed. Bekker. References to Muralt's edition are signified by Cont. 
 
 (or Add.) Georg. Mur. 
 Skylitzes, Joannes. Chronicle. (1) The original text down tOA.D. 1057 
 
 is unpublished, but we possess it virtually in the transcription of 
 
 Cedrenus, q.v. (2) Latin version. Historiarum Compendium 
 
 a Joanne curopalate Scillizzae. By J. B. Gabius. Venice, 1570. 
 Stylianos (of Neocaesarea). Epistola ad Stephanum papam. Mansi, xvi. 
 
 425 sqq. 
 Taktikon Uspenski. TOLKTLKOV. Ed. Th. Uspenski Izv. KpL iii. 
 
 109 sqq. 1898. 
 Theodoras Studita. Opera. Migne, 99. 1860. 
 
 Epistolae. (1) 76. (2) Ed. G. Cozza-Luzi, in Nova Patrum 
 
 Bibliotheca, viii. 1-236. 1871. [See Appendix I.] The collec- 
 tion in Migne is cited as Epp. ; that in Nova P.B. as Cozza-L. 
 Parva catechesis. Ed. Auvray. Paris, 1891. 
 
 Theodosius Melitenus. Chronographia. Ed. Tafel. Munich, 1859. 
 Theognostos. Libellus ad Nicolaum papam. See above, Ignatius 
 
 patriarcha. 
 Theoph. Theophanes confessor. Chronographia (with the Latin 
 
 version of Anastasius). 2 vols. Ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig, 1883. 
 Theophanes. De exsilio S. Nicephori et translatione reliquiaruin. Vers. 
 
 Lat. Migne, 100, 159 sqq. 
 Theophylactus (archiepiscopus). Historia . martyrii xv. martyrum. 
 
 Migne, 126, 192 sqq. 
 Zonaras. Epitome historiarum. Vol. iii. Ed. Buttner-Wobst. Bonn, 
 
 1897. 
 
 la. HAGIOGRAPHICAL 
 
 Acta David. Acta Graeca ss. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii Mytilenae in 
 insula Lesbo. Ed. Delehaye, Analecta Bollandiana, xviii. 209 sqq. 
 1899. 
 Acta 42 martyrum Amoriensium. 
 
 Skazaniia o 42 Amoriiskikh muchenikakh i cherkovnaia sluzhba
 
 496 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 im. Ed. V. Vasil'evski and P, Nikitin. Zapiski imp. Ak. nauk, 
 
 viii e ser. vii. 2, 1905. 
 Grecheskii tekst zhitiia soroka dvukh Amoriiskikh muchenikov. 
 
 Ed. A. Vasil'ev. Zapiski imp. Ak. nauk, viii e ser. iii. 3, 1898. 
 Krumbacher, K. Die Erzahlungen iiber die 42 Miirtyrer von 
 
 Amorion und ihre Liturgie. (Review of the publication of 
 
 Vasil'evski and Nikitin.) Gottingsche geL Anz., 1905, no. 12, p. 
 
 937 sqq. 
 
 RvfavTivbv l Eo/)ToAoyiov. Ed. Gedeon. Constantinople, 1899. 
 Narratio de Theophili imperatoris absolutione. See below, Vita 
 
 Theodorae Aug. 
 Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Ed. Delehaye. Propylaeum 
 
 ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris. Brussels, 1902. 
 Vita Athanasiae Aegineticae. A.S. August 14, t. iii. 170 sqq. 
 Vita Eudocimi. Bios TOV dyiou Kai SIKGUOU EuSoia/iov. Ed. Kh. Loparev. 
 
 Petersburg, 1893. Latin version in (1) AS. July 31, t. vii. 
 
 308 sqq. ; (2) Symeon Metaphr., Migne, 115, 487 sqq. 
 Vita Eustratii. Ed. Papadopulos-Kerameus. Analecta Hierosolymiticae 
 
 Bibliothecae, iv. 367 sqq., 1897. 
 Vita Euthymii junioris. By Basil of Thessalonica. Ed. L. Petit. 
 
 Revue de 1'orient chrdtien, viii. 155 sqq., 1903. 
 Vita Gregorii Decapolitae. Ed. loannu, Mv^eta dyioAoyiKa, 129 sqq. 
 
 Venice, 1884. 
 
 Vita Hadriani (II.) papae. Mansi, xv. 805 sqq. 
 Vita Ignatii patriarchae. By Nicetas Paphlagon. Mansi, xvi. 
 
 209 sqq. (Also Migne, 105, 488 sqq.) 
 Vita Irenes. A.S. July 28, t. vi. 602 sqq. 
 Vita Joannicii. By Sabas. Ed. van den Gheyn. A.S. Nov. 4, t. ii. 1, 
 
 332 sqq., 1894. 
 
 By Petrus. Ed. van den Gheyn. Ib. 384 sqq., 1894. 
 (By Simeon metaphrastes.) Migne, 116, 35 sqq. 
 Vita Joannis, episcopi Gotthiae. A.S. June 26, t. v. 190 sqq. 
 Vita Joannis Psichiotae. Ed. P. van den Ven. Museon, nouv. ser. iii. 
 
 97 sqq., 1902. 
 
 Vita Josephi hymnographi. I. By Theophanes. Ed. Papadopulos- 
 Kerameus, in Sbornik grecheskikh i latinskikh parniatnikov 
 
 kasaiushchikh Photiia Patriarkha, II. Petersburg, 1901. II. By 
 
 Joannes Diaconus. .Migne, 105, 931 sqq. (Also AS. April 3, 
 
 t. i. ad calc. xxxiv sqq.) 
 Vita Macarii. By Sabas. Ed. Delehaye, Analecta Bollandiana, xvi. 
 
 140 sqq., 1897. 
 Vita Methodii (patriarchae). A.S. June 14, t. ii. 960 sqq. (Also Migne, 
 
 100, 124 sqq.) 
 Vita Michaelis syncelli. (A.) Izv. Kpl. xi. 227 sqq., 1906. (Extracts in 
 
 BvavTivov 'EopToAoytov, q.v., 231 sqq. (B.) Izv. Kpl. ib. 260 sqq. 
 Vita Nicephori (patriarchae). By Ignatius diaconus. Ed. de Boor (in 
 
 Nicephori opuscula historica). Leipzig, 1880. 
 Vita Nicetae Mediciani. By Theosteriktos. A.S. April 3, t. i. ad calc. 
 
 xxii. sqq.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 497 
 
 Vita Nicolai (I.) papae. Mansi, xv. 143 sqq. (Also Migne, P.L. 117, 
 
 753 sqq.) 
 Vita Nicolai Studitae. Migne, 105, 863 sqq. (Latin version, A.S. Feb. 4, 
 
 t. i. 538 sqq.) 
 Vita Tarasii. By Ignatius diaconus. Ed. I. A. Heikel. (Acta soc. 
 
 scient. Fennicae, xvii.) Helsingfors, 1889. 
 
 Vita Theoctistae Lesbiae. (1) By Nicetas magister. Ed. loannu, 
 Mv^/zeia dyioAoyiKa, 1 sqq. Venice, 1884. (2) By Simeon 
 metaphrastes. Ib. 18 sqq. 
 
 Vita Theodorae Augustae. Ed. Eegel. Analecta Byzantino-russica. 
 Petersburg, 1891. (With two other texts : De Theophili 
 imperatoris absolutione, and De Theophili imp. beneficiis.) 
 Vita Theodorae Thessalonicensis. By Gregorios. Ed. E. Kurtz. 
 
 Zapiski imp. Ak. nauk, viii e ser. vi. 1. Petersburg, 1902. 
 Vita Theodori Grapti. By Simeon metaphrastes. Migne, 116, 
 
 653 sqq. 
 Vita Theodori Studitae. (1) By Michael Studita. Migne, 99, 233 sqq. 
 
 (2) By Anonym us (Pseudo-Michael). Ib. 113 sqq. 
 Vitae Theophanis confessoris. 
 
 By Anonymus [A.]. Ed. de Boor, in his ed. of Theophanes, ii. 
 
 3 sqq. (Also A.S. Mart. ii. 700 sqq.) 
 By Anonymus [B.]. Ed. Krumbacher. SB. Bavarian Acad. 1897, 
 
 371 sqq. 
 Enkomion, by Theodore protoasecretis. Ed. Krumbacher. SB. 
 
 Bavarian Acad. 1896, 608 sqq. 
 By Nicephorus skeuophylax of Blachernae. Ed. de Boor, ib. 
 
 13 sqq. 
 
 Ex officio festi eius. Ed. de Boor, ib. 28 sqq. 
 Ex Menologio. Ed. de Boor, ib. 30. 
 By Anonymus [C.]. Ed. Gedeon, in Bu^avrivov 'EoproAoytov, 
 
 290 sqq. 
 [The oldest Life, by the Patriarch Methodius, is contained in Cod. 
 
 Mosq. Synod. 159, but is still unpublished.] 
 
 Vita Theophanis Grapti. By Theodora Eaoulina Kantaktizene Palaeo- 
 logina. Ed. Papadopulos-Kerameus, Analecta Hierosolymiticae 
 Bibliothecae, iv. 185 sqq. 1897. 
 
 2. WESTERN 
 
 Anast. Praef. Anastasius (bibliothecarius). Praefatio in Concilium 
 
 Cplitanum iv. Mansi, xvi. 1 sqq. 
 Ann. Bert. Annales Bertiniani. Ed. Waitz, in Scr. rer. Germ., 1883. 
 
 (Also M.G.H. (Scr.) i. 423 sqq.) 
 Annales Fuldenses. M.G.H. (Scr.) i. 343 sqq. 
 A. r. F. Annales regni Francorum ( = Annales Laurissenses maiores et 
 
 Einhardi). Ed. Kurze, in Scr. rer. Germ., 1895. 
 Capitularia. Capitularia regurn Francorum. M.G.H., Leges ii, 
 
 Capitularia ii. 
 Chronicon Casinense (a. 568-867). M.G.H. (Scr.) iii. 222 sqq. 
 
 2K
 
 498 EA S TERN ROMA N EMPIRE 
 
 Chronicon Salernitaimm (a. 747-974). M.G.H. (Scr.) iii. 467 sqq. 
 Codex Carolinus. Ed. Gundlach, M.G.H. Epistolae, iii. 476 sqq. 1892. 
 
 (Also in Jaffe, Bibl. rer. Germ. iv. 1867 ; Migne, P.L. 98.) 
 Dandulus, Andreas. Chronicon. Muratori, S.R.I. xii. 13 sqq. 
 Einhard. Vita Karoli Magni. Ed. 4 Waitz, in Scr. rer. Germ., 1880. 
 Epp. Kar. aev. Ed. Diimmler, M.G.H. Epistolae Karolini aevi, ii. 1895. 
 
 (See also above, Codex Carolinus.) 
 Erchempert. Historia Langobardorum Ben even tanorum (a. 774-889). 
 
 Ed. Waitz, M.G.H. (Scr. rer. Lang.) 234 sqq. 1878. (Also 
 
 M.G.H. (Scr.) iii. 240 sqq.) 
 Joannes Venetus (diaconus). Chronicon Venetum. Ed. Monticolo, in 
 
 Fonti per la storia d' Italia : Cronache venez. antichissime, vol. i. 
 
 59 sqq., 1890. (Also M.G.H. (Scr.) vii. 1 sqq. ; and Migne, P.L. 
 
 139, 875 sqq.) 
 Joannes Neapolitanus (diaconus). Chronicon episcoporum S. Nea- 
 
 politanae ecclesiae ( = Gesta episc. Neap.). M.G.H. (Scr.) x. 
 
 531 sqq. (Also ed. Capasso in Monumenta ad Neapolitan! ducatus 
 
 historiam pertinentia, vol. i., Naples, 1881 ; and Migne, P.L. 96, 
 
 1465 sqq.) 
 
 Liber pontificalis. Ed. Duchesne. Vol. ii. Paris, 1892. 
 Nicolaus I. (papa). Epistolae. Mansi, xv. 159 sqq. (Also Epistolae et 
 
 Decreta. Migne, P.L. 117, 769 sqq.) 
 Eesponsa Nic. Nicolaus I. Responsa ad consulta Bulgarorum. Mansi, 
 
 xv. 401 sqq. (Also Migne, P.L. 117, 978 sqq.) 
 Sickel, Th. Die Urkunden der Karolinger. Part ii. (Acta regum et 
 
 imperatorum Karolinorum digesta et enarrata.) Vienna, 1867. 
 
 3. ORIENTAL 
 
 [Many of the Arabic authorities are cited in the notes by references 
 to the pages of the Italian, English, and Russian translations of relevant 
 parts by Amari, Brooks, and Vasil'ev, in the works included under their 
 names in the following list.] 
 
 Amari M. Biblioteca arabo-sicula. Versione italiana. Turin and 
 Borne, 1880. [Arabic texts, Leipzig, 1857.] 
 
 Arabski synaksar o bolgarskom pokhodie imperatori Nikiphori I. Ed. 
 A. Vasil'ev. In Sbornik statei, sostablenni uchenikami V. I. 
 Lamanskago, pp. 361-362. Petersburg, 1905. 
 
 Baladhuri. Liber expugnationum regionum. Translations of relevant 
 parts in Brooks and Vasil'ev. 
 
 Bar - Hebraeus. Gregorii Abulpharagii sive Bar-hebraei chronicon 
 Syriacum. Ed. Bruns and Kirsch, with Latin translation. Vol. ii. 
 Leipzig, 1789. 
 
 Brooks. Brooks, E. W. Byzantines and Arabs in the Time of the Early 
 Abbasids. I. Translations from Yakubi, Tabari, and the " Kitab 
 al-Uyun" (from A.D. 750 to 813), E.H.R. Oct. 1900; II. Trans- 
 lations from Baladhuri (for same period), ib. Jan. 1901. 
 
 Cambridge Sicilian Chronicle. La Cronaca siculo-saracena di Cambridge 
 [Arabic text in Cambridge MS.] con doppio testo greco [in a
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 499 
 
 Vatican and a Paris MS.]. Ed. Cozza Luzi (in Document! per 
 
 servire alia storia di Sicilia, 4 serie, vol. ii.). Palermo, 1890. 
 
 [The Arabic text also in Amari, Bibl. arabo-sic. 165 sqq.] 
 Ibn AdarL History of Africa and Spain. Parts relevant to Sicilian 
 
 history in Amari 145 sqq. (Also in Vasil'ev, 111 sqq.) [Text 
 
 ed. Dozy, 2 vols. Leiden, 1848-51.] 
 Ibn al-Athir. Chronicle. Parts relevant to Sicilian history in Amari, 
 
 90 sqq. (Also in Vasil'ev, 93 sqq.) 
 Ibn Khurdadhbah. Liber viarum et regnorum. Ed. De Goeje, with 
 
 French translation (76 sqq.). In Bibliotheca geographorum 
 
 Arab. vi. Leiden, 1889. 
 Kudama ibn Ja'far. Extraits du livre de 1'impot foncier. Ed. De 
 
 Goeje with French translation (196 sqq.). In Bibliotheca geo- 
 graphorum Arab. vi. Leiden, 1889. 
 Makkari. The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain. 
 
 Transl. by Gayangos. Vol. ii. London, 1843. 
 Masudi. The Golden Meadows. Text and French translation by Barbier 
 
 de Meynard. 9 vols. Paris, 1861-1877. 
 Liber commonitionis et recognitionis. French translation by Carra 
 
 de Vaux (Societe Asiatique). Paris, 1897. [Text in De Goeje's 
 
 Bibliotheca geographorum Arabicorum, vol. viii. Leiden, 1894.] 
 
 [Parts of both these works relevant to the Saracen wars in Vasil'ev, 
 
 65 sqq.] 
 Michael Syr. Michael Syrus, Chronicle. Ed. J. B. Chabot, with French 
 
 translation (Chronique de Michel le Syrien). VoL iii. 1 and 2. 
 
 Paris, 1905-6. (Cp. also the French translation of the Armenian 
 
 abridgment by Ishok, by V. Langlois, Chronique de Michel le 
 
 Grand. Venice, 1868.) 
 Nuwairi. Encyclopaedia. Parts relevant to Sicilian history in Amari, 
 
 173 sqq. (Also in Vasil'ev, 116 sqq.) 
 Iliad an-Nufus. Biographies of the learned men of Kairowan and Africa. 
 
 Parts relevant to Sicilian history in Amari, 75 sqq. (Also in 
 
 Vasil'ev, 76 sqq.) 
 
 Samuel of Ani. Chronicle. Latin transl. Migne, 19, 599 sqq. 
 Stephen of Taron. Armenian History. German transL by H. Gelzer 
 
 and A. Burckhardt. (Scrip tores sacri et profani, iv.) Leipzig, 
 
 1907. 
 
 Tabari. Annals. Translations of relevant parts in Brooks and Vasil'ev. 
 Yakubi, Ibn Wadhih al-. History. Kelevant parts in Brooks and 
 
 Vasil'ev. 
 Vasil'ev, A. Translations of Arabic sources in Prilozhenie I. to his 
 
 Vizantiia i Araby (see below, II. 4). 
 
 4. RELATING TO THE NORTH (SLAVS, KHAZARS, ETC. ETC.) 
 
 [In the notes, Ibn Rusta, Bakri, etc., are cited, except where otherwise 
 stated, from the Hungarian translation in A Magyar Honf. Kutf.] 
 
 Bakri. Book of Kingdoms and Roads. (1) Defr^mery, Journal 
 asiatique, iv e ser. xiii. 460 sqq., 1848. (2) Kunik and Rozen,
 
 500 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Izviestiia al-Bekri i drugikh avtorov o Rusi i Slavianakh. 
 Zapiski imp. ak. Nauk, xxxi. i. 2. Petersburg, 1878. (Cp. also 
 Magyar H. Kutf. 150, 195.) 
 
 Cassel, P. Der chazarische Konigsbrief aus dem 10. Jahrhundert (von 
 neuem iibersetzt und erklart). Berlin, 1876. [Hebrew text 
 published by Buxtorf (filius), in the introductory dissertation to 
 his edition of Juda Halevi's Kitab al-Khazari. Basel, 1660. 
 Cassel also included a translation in his Magyarische Alterthumer, 
 195 sqq.] 
 
 Garkavi, A. la. Skazaniia Musulmanskikh pisatelei o Slavianakh i 
 Eusskikh. Petersburg, 1870. 
 
 Gurdizi. Chronicle. Ed. Barthold, with Russian translation. Memoires 
 de 1'Acad. Imp. des Sciences, Petersburg, viii e se"r. i. No. 4, 1897. 
 Relevant parts in Magyar H. Kutf. 150 sqq. 
 
 Ibn Fadhlan. Relevant parts in Magyar H. Kutf. 199 sqq. Also Frahn, 
 C. M. : (1) Veteres memoriae Chazarorum ex Ibn Fozlano, Ibn 
 Haukale, et Schems-ed-dino Damascene. (With Latin transla- 
 tion.) Mdmoires de 1'Acad. Imp. des Sciences, Petersburg, viii. 
 577 sqq., 1822 ; (2) Die altesten arabischen Nachrichten liber die 
 Wolga-Bulgaren. Ib. vi e se"r. i. 527 sqq., 1832. 
 
 Ibn Haukal. Relevant parts in Magyar H. Kutf. 223 sqq. (See also 
 Frahn's first memoir cited under Ibn Fadhlan.) 
 
 Ibn Rusta. Book of Precious Jewels. In Khvol'son, Izviestiia, q.v. 
 [The Arabic text of Ibn Rusta is edited by De Goeje in Bibl. geo- 
 graphorum Arabicorum, vii. Leiden, 1892.] Relevant parts in 
 Magyar H. Kutf. 152 sqq. 
 
 Istachri. Relevant parts in Magyar H. Kutf. 223 sqq. 
 
 Khvol'son, D. A. Izviestiia o Khozarakh, Burtasakh, Bolgarakh, 
 Mad'iarakh, Slavianakh, i Russakh, Abu-Ali Akhmeda ben Omar 
 Ibn-Dasta. Petersburg, 1869. 
 
 A Magyar Honfoglalas Kiitfoi. Published by the Hungarian Academy 
 of Sciences. Budapest, 1900. 
 
 Masudi. Relevant, parts in Magyar H. Kutf. 247 sqq. Also: (1) 
 Historical Encyclopaedia entitled " Meadows of Gold and Mines of 
 Gems." Eng. tr. by A. Sprenger. Vol. i. 399 sqq. London, 1841. 
 (2) Charmoy, Ph. Relation de Mas'oudy et d'autres auteurs 
 musulmans sur les anciens Slaves. Memoires de 1'Acad. Imp. des 
 Sciences, Petersburg, vi e sdr. ii. 297 sqq., 1834. (3) See also 
 Masudi under I. 3 above. 
 
 Pseudo-Nestor. Chronica Nestoris. Ed. Miklosich. Vienna, 1860. 
 
 Chronique de Nestor. French translation by L. Leger. Paris, 1884. 
 
 4a. RELATING TO CONSTANTINE (CYRIL) AND METHODIUS 
 
 [For the works of Bil'basov, Ginzel, Goetz, and Pastrnek, in which many 
 of the following texts are printed conveniently for reference, see below, 
 II. 5a.] 
 
 Anastasius (bibliothecarius). Praefatio in Concilium Cplitanum iv. 
 Mansi, xvi. 1 sqq. (Also in Ginzel and Pastrnek.)
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 501 
 
 Epistola ad Carolum (calvum) regem. Ussher, Opera, iv. 67. (Also 
 
 in Ginzel and Pastrnek.) 
 Epistola ad Gaudericum. Ed. Friedrich. SB. of Bavarian Academy, 
 
 Heft 3, 1892. (Text reprinted in Goetz, 243 sqq., and Pastrnek, 
 
 246 sqq.) 
 Anonymus Salisburgensia. Historia conversionis Bagoariorum et Caran- 
 
 tanorum. M.G.H. (Scr.) xi. 1 sqq. (Also in Ginzel, Bil'basov, and 
 
 Pastrnek.) 
 
 [Constantine (philosophns).] Aoyos on St. Clement, in Slavonic trans- 
 lation. Kirillo-Methodievskii Sbornik, ed. by M. Pogodin, 
 
 319 sqq. Moscow, 1865. 
 Legenda SS. Cyrilli et Methodii ( = Legenda Moravica). A.S. March 9, 
 
 22 sqq., 1668. Revised ed. by Dobrowsky, in Abhandlungen 
 
 d. kon. bohmischen Gesellschaft d. Wiss., N.F., i 1 sqq., Prague, 
 
 1826. (Also in Ginzel and Bil'basov.) 
 Johannes VIII. (papa). Letters collected in Pastrnek, 249 sqq. (including 
 
 fragments published by Ewald, in Neues Archiv, v., 1879). 
 Stephanus V. (papa). Letters collected in Pastrnek, 259 sqq. (including 
 
 Commonitorium published by Ewald in Neues Archiv, v. 408 
 
 sqq., 1879). 
 Vita cum translatione S. Clementis ( = Legenda Italica). AS. March 9, 
 
 19 sqq., 1668. (Also in works of Ginzel, Bil'basov, Goetz, and 
 
 Pastrnek.) 
 Vita S. Clementis ( = Legenda Bulgarica). Ed. Miklosich (graece), Vienna, 
 
 1847. (Also in Bil'basov. Latin version of part in Ginzel.) 
 Vita Constantini. Serbo-slovenic text and Latin translation. Ed. E. 
 
 Diimmler and F. Miklosich. Denkschriften of Vienna Academy, 
 
 xix. 214 sqq., 1870. (Also in Pastrnek.) 
 Vita Methodii ( = Legenda Pannonica). Ed. Miklosich (russico-slovenice 
 
 et latine), Vienna, 1870. (Also in Bil'basov and Pastrnek. 
 
 Latin translation in Archiv Kunde osterr. Geschichtsquellen, 
 
 xiii. 1, 156 sqq., Vienna, 1854 ; in Ginzel and Goetz.) 
 Texts of less importance will be found (reprinted from older editions) in 
 
 the books of Ginzel and Bil'basov, namely : 
 Legenda Thessalonicensia, a short slovo of Cyril, in Slavonic. 
 Legenda Bohemica (de S. Litdmilla). 
 Legenda Serbica (very short vita C. et M. sctorum). 
 Legenda Ochridica (Greek). 
 Legenda Macedonica (Greek). 
 Obdormitio S. Cyrilli (old Slavonic). 
 
 5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL (INCLUDING COINS AND SEALS) 
 
 Aboba. Materialy dlia bolgarskikh drevnostei Aboba-Pliska. (With 
 album of plates.) By Th. Uspenski, K. Shkorpil, and others. 
 Izv. Kpl. x., 1905. 
 
 Konstantopulos, K. M. Ev^avriaKo. /ioAv/38d/3ovAAa ev T<j> e#vi/ca> 
 vop-Lo-fj-ariKw Mourctiy 'A^vwv. Journal international d'archeo- 
 logie numismatique, vols. ix. and x., Athens, 1906, 1907.
 
 502 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Panchenko, B. A. Katalog molybdobullov kollektsii Russkago Arkheol. 
 
 Instituta v Konstantinopolie. Izv. KpL viii. 199 sqq., 1903 ; ix. 
 
 342 sqq., 1904; xiii. 78 sqq., 1908. 
 Schlumberger, G. Sigillographie de 1'empire byzantin. Paris, 1884. 
 
 Melanges d'archdologie byzantine. Paris, 1895. 
 Uspenski, Th. drevnostiakh goroda Tyrnova. Izv. Kpl. vii. p. 1 sqq., 
 
 1902. 
 
 Starobolgarskaia nadpis' Omortaga. Izv. Kpl. vi. 1, p. 216 sqq., 1900. 
 Wroth, W. Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine Coins in the British 
 
 Museum. 2 vols. London, 1908. 
 
 A. CRITICISM, ETC., OF SOURCES 
 
 Boor, C. de. Romische Kaisergeschichte in byzantinischer Fassung, ii. 
 
 B.Z. ii. 1 sqq., 1893. 
 
 Die ChEonik des Logotheten. B.Z. vi., 1897. 
 Weiteres zur Chronik des Logotheten. Tb. x., 1901. 
 Der Bericht des Georgios Monachos iiber die Paulikianer. B.Z. 
 
 vii., 1898. 
 
 Zu Johannes Skylitzes. B.Z. xiii., 1904; xiv., 1905. 
 Brockelmann, C. Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, Bd. I. Weimar, 
 
 1898. 
 
 Bury, J. B. The Treatise De administrando imperio. B.Z. xv., 1906. 
 The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetos. E.H.R., 
 
 April and July 1907. 
 
 A Source of Symeon Magister [i.e. Pseudo-Simeon]. B.Z. i., 1892. 
 Friedrich, J. Der ursprungliche bei Georgios Monachos nur theilweise 
 erhaltene Bericht iiber die Paulikianer. SB. of the Bavarian 
 Academy, phiL-phil.-hist. Cl., 1896, Heft i 67 sqq. 
 Hirsch, F. Byzantinische Studien. Leipzig, 1876. 
 Krumbacher, G. B. L. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen 
 
 Literatur. Ed. 2, Munich, 1897. 
 
 Melioranski, B. Perechen vizantiiskikh gramot i pisem. I. Nieskolko 
 slov o rukopisakh i izdaniakh prepod. Theodora Studita. 
 Zapiski imp. Ak. nauk, viii. se>. t. iv., No. 5, 1899. 
 Patzig, E. Leo Grammaticus und seine* Sippe. B.Z. iii. 470 sqq., 1894. 
 Shestakov, S. Parizhskaia rukopis' Khroniki Simeona Logotheta. Viz. 
 
 Vrem. iv. 167 sqq., 1897. 
 
 O rukopisiakh Simeona Logotheta. Viz. Vrem. v. 19 sqq., 1898. 
 Vasil'evski, V. zhizni i trudakh Simeona Metaphrasta. Zhurn. 
 
 min. nar. prosv. 212, 379 sqq., 1880. 
 Khronika Logotheta v slavianskom i grecheskom. Viz. Vrem. ii. 
 
 78 sqq., 1895. 
 Dva nadgrobnykh stikhotvoreniia Simeona Logotheta. Viz. Vrem. 
 
 iii. 574 sqq., 1896. 
 Zlatarski, V. N. Izviestniata za Bolgaritie v Khronikata na Simeona 
 
 metaphrasta i logoteta. Sbornik xxiv., 1908. 
 
 Dva izviestni bolgarski nadpisa ot ix. viek. Sbornik xv. 131 sqq. 
 Sofia, 1898.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 503 
 
 II. MODERN WORKS 
 1. GENERAL HISTORIES 
 
 Bussell, F. W. Constitutional History of the Roman Empire from the 
 
 Accession of Doniitian (81 A.D.) to the Retirement of Nicephorus 
 
 III. (1081 A.D.). 2 vola. London, 1910. 
 
 Finlay. Finlay, G. History of Greece, vol. ii. Oxford, 1876. 
 Gelzer, H. Abriss der byzantinischen Kaisergeschichte. In Krum- 
 
 bacher, G. B. L. (See above under I. A) 
 Gibbon. Gibbon, E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vols. v. 
 
 and vi. Ed. Bury (revised ed.). London, 1910. 
 Hefele, C. J. von. Conciliengeschichte, voL iv., ed. 2. Freiburg i. B., 
 
 1879. 
 Lebeau, Ch. Histoire du Bas-Empire, vols. xii., xiii. Ed. Saint-Martin, 
 
 Paris, 1831, 1832. 
 Schlosser, F. C. Geschichte der bilderstiirmenden Kaiser des ostromischen 
 
 Reichs. Frankfurt, 1812. 
 
 2. MONOGRAPHS AND WORKS BEARING ON SPECIAL PORTIONS 
 OF THE SUBJECT 
 
 Boor, C. de. Der An griff der Rhos auf Byzanz. B.Z. iv., 1895. 
 Brehier, L. La querelle des images (viii e -ix e siecles). Ed. 2. Paris, 
 
 1904. 
 Brooks, E. W. On the Date of the Death of Constantine, the son of Irene. 
 
 B.Z. ix., 1900. 
 Bury, J. B. Mutasim's March through Cappadocia in A.D. 838. J.H.S. 
 
 xxix., 1909. 
 The Bulgarian Treaty of A.D. 814, and the Great Fence of Thrace. 
 
 E.H.R., April 1910. 
 
 The Embassy of John the Grammarian. E.H.R., April 1909. 
 The Identity of Thomas the Slavonian. B.Z. i., 1892. 
 Conybeare, F. C. The Key of Truth. A manual of the Paulician Church 
 
 of Armenia. Oxford, 1898. 
 
 Dobschiitz, von. Methodios und die Studiten. B.Z. xvii. 41 sqq., 1909. 
 Fallmerayer, Ph. Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea. 2 vols. Stuttgart and 
 
 Tubingen, 1830-6. 
 Gabotto, F. Eufemio e il movimento separatista nell' Italia byzantina. 
 
 Turin, 1890. 
 
 Gardner, A. Theodore of Studium, his Life and Times. London, 1905. 
 Gasquet. L'Empire byzantin et la monarchic franque. Paris, 1888. 
 Gay, J. L'ltalie meridionale et 1'empire byzantin. Paris, 1904. 
 Gerland. Photios und der Angriff der Russen auf Byzanz, 18 Juni 860. 
 
 Neue Jahrbiicher fur das klassische Altertum, xi., 1903. 
 Gfrorer. Byzantinische Geschichten. 3 vols. Graz, 1872-3. 
 Gregorovius, F. Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, vol. i. 
 
 Stuttgart, 1889.
 
 504 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Grossu, N. Prepodobny Theodor Studit, ego vremia, zhizn' i tvoreniia. 
 
 Kiev, 1907. 
 Harnack, 0. Die Beziehungen des frankisch-italischen zum byzantinischen 
 
 Eeiche unter der Regierung Karls des Grossen und der spateren 
 
 Kaiser karolingischen Stammes. Gottingen, 1880. 
 Hergenrother, J. Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, sein Leben, 
 
 seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma. 3 vols. Regensburg, 
 
 1867-9. 
 Holm, A. Geschichte Siciliens im Altertum, by Ad. Holm. Bd. iii. 
 
 Leipzig, 1898. 
 
 Jager. Histoire de Photius. Ed. 2, Paris, 1854. 
 Jirecek, C. Die Romanen in den Stiidten Dalmatiens wahrend des 
 
 Mittelalters. Part i. Denkschriften der K. Akademie der 
 
 Wissenschaften, Vienna, xlviii., iii., 1902. 
 Lebedev, A. P. Istoriia razdieleniia tserkvei v IX. -m, X. i XI. 
 
 viekakh. Moscow, 1900. 
 Lentz, E. Das Verhaltnis Venedigs zu Byzanz nach dem Fall des 
 
 Exarchats bis zum Ausgang des neunten Jahrhunderts. Teil i. 
 
 Venedig als byzantinische Provinz. Berlin, 1891 ; [Teil ii.] 
 
 Venedigs Abhangigkeit von Byzanz. B.Z. iii, 1894. 
 Melioranski, B. Iz semeinoi istorii amoriiskoi dinastii. Viz. Vrem. viii. 
 
 1 sqq., 1901. 
 Pargoire, J. Saint The"ophane le Chronographe et ses rapports avec saint 
 
 Theodore Studite. Viz. Vrem. ix. 31 sqq., 1902. 
 Ramsay, W. M. The War of Moslem and Christian for the possession of 
 
 Asia Minor. Contemporary Review, July 1906, London. 
 Schneider, G. A. Der hi. Theodor von Studion, sein Leben und Wirken. 
 
 (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, ed. Knopfler, Schrors, and Sdralek, 
 
 v. iii.) Miinster i. W., 1900. 
 Schwarzlose, K. Der Bilderstreit. Gotha, 1890. 
 Shestakov, S. P. Ocherki po istorii Khersonesa v VI.-X. viekakh po 
 
 R. Khr. (Pamiatniki Khristianskago Khersonesa.) 1908. 
 Ter Mkrttschian, Karapet. Die Paulikianer im byzantinischen 
 
 Kaiserreiche. Leipzig, 1893. 
 
 Thomas, C. Theodor von Studion und sein Zeitalter. Osnabriick, 1892. 
 Tiede, C. Quellenmassige Darstellung der Beziehungen Carls des Grossen 
 
 zu Ost-Rom. Rostock, 1892. 
 Vailh, S. Saint Michel le Syncelle et les deux freres Grapti, Saint 
 
 Theodore et Saint Thdophane. Revue de 1'Orient chretien, vi. 
 
 313 sqq., 610 sqq., 1901. 
 Vasil'ev, A. A. Proizkhozhdenie imperatora Vasiliia Makedonianina. 
 
 Viz. Vrem., xii. Petersburg, 1905. 
 Vasil'ev. Vasil'ev, A. A. Vizantiia i Araby [I.]. Politicheskiia 
 
 otnosheniia Vizantii i Arabov za bremia Amoriiskoi dinastii. 
 
 Petersburg, 1900. 
 Vogt, A. Basile P r . Paris, 1908.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 505 
 
 3. WORKS RELATING PRIMARILY TO WESTERN EUROPE 
 
 Bryce, James. The Holy Roman Empire. New ed. London, 1904. 
 Diimmler, E. Geschichte des ostfrankischen Belches, Bd. i. (to 860), 
 
 ed. 2. Leipzig, 1887. 
 Uber die siidostlichen Marken des frankischen Reiches unter den 
 
 Karolingern (795-907). Archiv fur Kunde osterreichischer 
 
 Geschichtsquellen, Bd. x. 
 Gregorovius, F. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, 
 
 transl. by Mrs. Hamilton, vol. iii. 1895. 
 Kleinclausz, A. L'Empire carolingien, ses origines et ses transformations. 
 
 Paris, 1902. 
 
 Kretschmayr, H. Geschichte von Venedig, Band i. Gotha, 1905. 
 Schipa, M. Storia del principato longobardo di Salerno. Archivio 
 
 storico per le province napoletane, anno XII., fasc. i. 79 sqq., 
 
 1887. 
 Sirnson, Karl. Simson, B. Jahrbiicher des frankischen Reiches uuter 
 
 Karl dem Grossen, Bd. ii. (789-814), Leipzig, 1883. 
 Simson, Liidwig. Simson, B. Jahrbiicher des frankischen Reiches 
 
 unter Ludwig dem Frommen. 2 vols. (814-840). Leipzig, 
 
 1874-6. 
 
 4. WORKS RELATING PRIMARILY TO EASTERN EUROPE OR THE 
 SARACENS 
 
 Amari, Storia. Amari, M. Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, voL i. 
 
 Florence, 1854. 
 Chamich, M. History of Armenia, translated by T. AvdalL 2 vols. 
 
 Calcutta, 1827. 
 Conde, J. A. History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain, transL 
 
 by Mrs. Foster, vol. i. London, 1854. 
 
 Dozy, R. Histoire des Musulmans d'Espagne, vol. ii. Leiden, 1861. 
 Ghazarian, M. Arinenien unter der arabischen Herrschaft bis zur 
 
 Entstehung des Bagratidenreiches. Marburg, 1903. 
 Kremer, Culturgeschichte. Culturgeschichte des Orients unter den 
 
 Chalifen, by A. von Krenier. 2 vols. Vienna, 1875. 
 Kremer, A. von. Geschichte der herrschenden Ideen des Islams. 
 
 Leipzig, 1868. 
 Kremer, A. von. Uber das Einnahmebudget des Abbasidenreichs. 
 
 Denkschriften of the Vienna Academy, xxxvi., 1887. 
 Kremer, Budget Harun. Kremer, A. von. Uber das Budget der 
 
 Einnahmen unter der Regierung des Harun alrasld nach einer 
 
 neu aufgefundenen Urkunde. Yerhandlungen des VII. inter- 
 
 nationalen Orientalisten-Congresses, semitische Section. Vienna, 
 
 1888. 
 Weil. G. Weil, Geschichte der Chalifen. Bd. ii. Mannheim, 
 
 1848.
 
 506 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 5. WORKS RELATING PRIMARILY TO NORTHERN EUROPE (SLAVS, 
 KDSSIANS, HUNGARIANS, ETC.) 
 
 Diimmler, E. Uber die iilteste Geschiehte der Slawen in Dalmatien 
 
 (549-928). SB. of the Imp. Acad. of Sciences, Vienna, xx. 353 
 
 sqq., 1856. 
 Gil'ferding, A. [Istoriia Serbov i Bolgar. In his collected works 
 
 (Sobranie Sochinenii), vol. L] Geschiehte der Serben imd 
 
 Bulgaren. 2 parts. Bautzen, 1856, 1864. 
 Htmfalvy, P. Magyarorszag Ethnographiaja. Budapest, 1876. 
 
 Die Ungern oder Magyaren. Vienna and Teschen, 1881. 
 Ilovaiski, D. Istoriia Rossii, vol. i., part i. Moscow, 1876. 
 Jirecek, C. J. Geschiehte der Bulgaren. Prague, 1876. 
 Loparev, Kh. M. Dvie zamietki po drevnei bolgarskoi istorii. Zapiski 
 
 imp. russkago arkheologicheskago obshchestva, iii. 341 sqq. 
 
 Petersburg, 1888. 
 Marquart, I. Osteuropaische und ostasiatische Streifziige. Leipzig, 
 
 1903. 
 
 Eoesler, R. Romanische Studien. Leipzig, 1871. 
 Schafarik, P. J. Slawische Altertiimer, ed. Wuttke. 2 vols. Leipzig, 
 
 1843-4. 
 Shishmanov, I. D. Kriticheii priegled na voprosa za proizkhoda na 
 
 prabolgaritie ot ezikovo gledishte i etimologiitie na ineto 
 
 "bolgarin." Sbornik, xvi.-xvii. 505 sqq. Sofia, 1900. 
 Thomsen, V. The Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia, 
 
 and the Origin of the Russian State. Oxford, 1877. 
 Vambery, A. A magyarok eredete. Budapest, 1882. 
 Westberg, F. Beitriige zur Klarung orientalischer Quellen liber Osteuropa, 
 
 L and ii. Izv. imp. Ak. nauk, xi. 4, 1899, Nov. and Dec. 
 K analizy vostochnikh istochnikhov o vostochnoi Evropie. 2 parts. 
 
 Zhurn. min. n.p. (N.S.) xiii. (Febr.) and xiv. (March), 1908. 
 
 5a. WORKS RELATING TO CONSTANTINE (CYRIL) AND METHODIUS 
 
 Avril, A. d'. S fc Cyrille et S* Methode. Paris, 1885. 
 Bil'basov, V. A. Kirill i Methodii. 2 parts. Petersburg, 1868-71. 
 Bretholz, B. Geschiehte Mahrens, voL i., part i. Briinn, 1893. 
 Bruckner, A. Thesen zur cyrillo-methodianischen Frage. Archiv fur 
 
 slavische Philologie, xxviii. 186 sqq., 1906. 
 Franko, Ivan. Beitrage zur Quellenkritik der cyrillo-methodianischen 
 
 Frage. Archiv f. slavische Philologie, xxviii. 229 sqq., 1906. 
 Ginzel, J. A. Geschiehte der Slawenapostel Cyrill und Method und der 
 
 slawischen Liturgie. Leitmeritz, 1857. 
 Goetz, K. Geschiehte der Slavenapostel Konstantinus (Kyrillus) und 
 
 Methodius. Gotha, 1897. 
 Jagic*, V. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache. 
 
 2 parts. Denkschriften der k. Ak. d. Wiss. in Wien, phil.-hist. 
 
 Cl., xlvii., 1900.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 507 
 
 VnoV naidennoe svidietel'stvo o dieiatelnosti Konstantina Philosopha 
 
 (sciL the Letter of Anastasius to Gauderic). Sbornik otdieL 
 
 russk. iazyka i slovennosti imp. Ak. nauk, liv. Petersburg, 
 
 1893. 
 Die neuesten Forschungen iiber die slavischen Apostel Cyrill und 
 
 Methodius. Archiv f. slavische Philologie, iv. 123 sqq., 1880. 
 Lamanski, V. Cyrillo-Methodiana. Archiv f. slavische Philologie, v. 
 
 544 sqq. (1905), vl 162 sqq. (1906). 
 Leger, L. Cyrille et Methode : etude historique sur la conversion des 
 
 Slaves au Christianisme. Paris, 1868. 
 Pastrnek, F. Dejiny slovanskych Apostolu Cyrilla a Method a. Prague, 
 
 1902. 
 Racki. Viek i djelovanje sv. Cyrilla i Methoda slovjenskih apoStolov. 
 
 Agram, 1857. 
 Snopek, F. Konstantinus-Cyrillus und Methodius, die Slavenapostel. 
 
 (Operum academiae Velehradensis tomus ii.) Kremsier, 1911. 
 Vondrak, W. Einige Bedenken gegen die Echtheit des Briefes v. P. 
 
 Hadrian II. in der Vita S. Methodii c. viii. Archiv slavische 
 
 Philologie, xx. 141 sqq., Berlin, 1898. 
 Voronov, A. Kirill i Methodii. Glavnieischie istochniki dlia istorii svv. 
 
 K. i M. Kiev, 1877. 
 
 6. ClVILZIATION 
 
 Diehl, Ch. Manuel d'art byzantin. Paris, 1910. 
 Etudes byzantines. Paris, 1905. 
 Figures byzantines (l re serie). Paris, 1906. 
 Gelzer, H. Byzantinische Kulturgeschichte. Tubingen, 1909. 
 Grenier, P. L'Empire byzantin, son evolution sociale et politique. 
 
 2 vols., Paris, 1904. 
 Hesseling, D. C. Essai sur la civilisation byzantine. (Translation from 
 
 the Dutch.) Paris, 1907. 
 Heyd, W. Geschichte des Levantehandels im Mittelalter, Bd. i. 
 
 Stuttgart, 1879. 
 
 French translation by Raynaud, vol. i. Leipzig, 1885. 
 Marin, L'abbe. Les Moines de Constantinople (330-898). Paris, 1897. 
 
 De Studio coenobio Constantinopolitano. Paris, 1897. 
 Nissen, Waldemar. Die Regelung des Klosterwesens im Rhomaerreiche 
 
 bis zum Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts. Hamburg, 1897. 
 Pargoire, J. L'Eglise byzantine de 527-847. Paris, 1905. 
 Rambaud, A. L'Empire grec au X e siecle. Paris, 1870. 
 Uspenski, Th. Ocherki po istorii vizantiiskoi obrazovannostL Peters- 
 burg, 1892. 
 
 7. ADMINISTRATION, INSTITUTIONS, LAWS 
 
 Andreades, A. Les Finances byzantines. Revue des sciences politiques, 
 ii., mai-s-avril 1911. (Also in German: Finanz- Archiv, xxvi, 
 Bd. ii., 1909.)
 
 508 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Brightman, F. Byzantine Imperial Coronations. Journal of Theological 
 
 Studies, vii. 1901. 
 Brooks, E. W. Arabic lists of the Byzantine Themes. J.H.S. xxi. 
 
 67 sqq., 1901. 
 Bury, J. B. The Constitution of the Later Roman Empire (Creighton 
 
 Memorial Lecture). Cambridge, 1910. 
 The Imperial administrative system in the ninth century, with a 
 
 revised text of the Kletorologion of Philotheos. (Proceedings of 
 
 the British Academy. Supplementary Papers i.) London, 1910. 
 The Naval Policy of the Roman Empire in relation to the Western 
 
 Provinces from the 7th to the 9th century. Centenario della 
 
 nascita di Michele Amari, vol. ii. 21 sqq. Palermo, 1910. 
 Gelzer, H. Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung. Abhand- 
 
 lungen der kon. sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, phil.- 
 
 hist. CL, xviii, 1899. 
 Das Verhaltnis von Staat und Kirche in Byzanz. Historische 
 
 Zeitschrift, N.F., 1. p. 193 sqq., 1901. 
 Kalligas, P. MeAerat KCU Aoyoi. Athens, 1882. 
 Mayer, E. Die dalmatisch-istrische Munizipalverfassung im Mittelalter 
 
 und ihre romischeii Grundlagen. Zeitschrift der Savigny- 
 
 Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte (germ. Abteilung) xxiv. 211 sqq. 
 
 1903. 
 Monnier, H. Etudes de droit byzantin. Nouvelle Revue historique de 
 
 droit franais et etranger, xvi. 125 sqq., 330 sqq., 497 sqq., 637 
 
 sqq. (1892), xviii 433 sqq. (1894), xix. 59 sqq. (1895). 
 Neumann, C. Die byzantinische Marina Historische Zeitschrift, N.F., 
 
 liv. 1 sqq., 1898. 
 Sickel, W. Das byzantinische Kronungsrecht bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. 
 
 B.Z. vi., 1897. 
 Zacharia von Lingenthal, K. E. Geschichte des griechisch-romischen 
 
 Rechts. Ed. 3, Berlin, 1892. 
 Zur Kenntnis des romischen Steuerwesens in der Kaiserzeit. 
 
 Me"moires de I'Acad&nie imp. des Sciences de S. Petersbourg, vii e 
 
 se"r., vi. 9, 1863. 
 
 8. GEOGRAPHY 
 
 Anderson, J. G. C. The Road-System of Eastern Asia Minor with the 
 evidence of Byzantine Campaigns (with map). J.H.S. xvii. 22 sqq., 
 1897. 
 
 See below : Studia Pontica. 
 Cumont, F. See below : Studia Pontica. 
 JireCek, C. J. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die 
 
 Balkanpasse. Prague, 1877. 
 Das Fiirstentum Bulgarien. Vienna, 1891. 
 Kanitz, F. Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan. 3 vols., 2nd ed. [esp. vol. 
 
 iii.], Leipzig, 1880. 
 
 Le Strange, G. Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate. Oxford, 1900. 
 The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate. London, 1905.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 509 
 
 Ramsay, Asia Minor. Ramsay, W. M. The Historical Geography of 
 Asia Minor. (Royal Geographical Society, Supplementary 
 Papers, voL iv.) London, 1890. 
 
 Ramsay, W. M. Cilicia, Tarsus, and the Great Taurus Pass. Geo- 
 graphical Journal, xxii. 4, p. 357 sqq. Oct. 1903. 
 Lycaonia. Jahreshefte des osterreichischen archaologischen Institutes, 
 vii. p. 60 sqq., 1904. 
 
 Studia Pontica. I. A Journey of Exploration in Pontus. By J. G. C. 
 Anderson. Brussels, 1903. II. Voyage d'exploration archeo- 
 logique dans le Pont et la petite Armenie. By F. Cumont and 
 
 E. Cumont. Brussels, 1906. III. Recueil des inscriptions 
 grecques et latines du Pont et de 1' Armenie. By J. G. C. A., 
 
 F. C., and H. Gregoire. Brussels, 1910. 
 
 Tomaschek, W. Zur Kunde der Hamushalbinsel. SB. of Imperial 
 
 Academy, Vienna, cxiii. 285 sqq., 1886. 
 
 Zur historischen Topographic von Kleinasien. SB. of Imp. Acad., 
 Vienna, cxxiv. Abh. viii., 1891. 
 
 8a. MAPS 
 
 Anderson, J. G. C. Asia Minor (in Murray's series of Handy Classical 
 
 Maps). 1903. 
 Auber, Major R. Empire ottoman : carte statistique des cultes chre"tiens. 
 
 (In 4 sheets.) Cairo, 1910. 
 Kiepert, H. Formae orbis antiqui. Berlin, 1894, etc. (ix. Asia 
 
 Provincia. xvii. Illyricum et Thracia.) 
 IIiva TOV [AearauaviKOV 'EA-A^vicr^ou Kara rrjv SeKaTfjv e 
 
 published by the Athenian 2vAAoyos irpos SiaSocrtv Ttov' 
 
 y/aa/A/xaTcov. (6 sheets.) Berlin, 1883. 
 Poole, R. L. Historical Atlas of Modern Europe. 1902. 
 Spruner-Menke. Handatlas. Ed, 3, Gotha, 1880. 
 
 9. TOPOGRAPHY OP CONSTANTINOPLE AND ADJACENT REGIONS 
 
 Bieliaev, D. Th. Byzantina : ocherki materialy i zamietki po vizan- 
 
 tiiskim drevnostiam, vols. i.-iii. Petersburg, 1891, 1893, 1908. 
 Bury, J. B. The Great Palace. B.Z. xx. 1911. 
 Dethier, P. A. Der Bosphor und Constantinopel. Ed. 2, Vienna, 
 
 1876. 
 Du Cange. Constantinopolis Christiana ( = Historia Byzantina duplici 
 
 commentario illustrata, ii.). Venice, 1729. 
 Ebersolt, J. Le Grand Palais de Constantinople et le livre des cdre- 
 
 monies. Paris, 1910. 
 Hammer, J. von. Constantinopolis und der Bosporos. 2 vols., Pest, 
 
 1822. 
 
 Labarte, J. Le Palais imperial a Constantinople. Paris, 1881. 
 Millingen, A. van. Constantinople : the walls of the city and adjoining 
 
 historical sites. London, 1899.
 
 510 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Mordtmann. Esquisse topographique de Constantinople. (With Plan.) 
 
 Lille, 1892. 
 Oberhummer, E. Constaiitinopolis. Abriss der Topographic und 
 
 Geschichte. Stuttgart, 1899. 
 
 Pargoire, J. A propos de Boradion. B.Z. xii. 449 sqq., 1903. 
 Hieria. Izv. Kpl. iv. 2, 9 sqq., 1899. 
 Les Monasteres de Saint Ignace et les cinq plus petits ilots de 
 
 1'archipel des Princes. Izv. Kpl. vii. 56 sqq., 1902. 
 Les SS. Mamas de Constantinople. Izv. Kpl. ix. 261 sqq., 1904. 
 Rufinianes. B.Z. viii., 429 sqq., 1899. 
 Paspates, A. G. BUO,VTIVCU /teAerat T07roy/oa<iKcu KCU urro/aiKai. 
 
 Constantinople, 1877. 
 
 Schlumberger, G. L'fle des Princes. Paris, 1884. 
 Stolpe, C. Text zum Plan von Constantinopel mit seinen Vorstiidten. 
 (With Plan.) Berlin, 1866. 
 
 10. CHRONOLOGY AND GENEALOGY 
 
 Andreev, J. Konstantinopol'skie Patriarkhi, vol. i. Sergiev Posad, 
 
 1895. 
 Bury, J. B. The Chronological Cycle of the Bulgarians. B.Z. xix. 
 
 127 sqq., 1910. 
 Du Cange. Familiae Byzantinae ( = Historia Byzantina duplici com- 
 
 mentario illustrata, i.). Venice, 1729. 
 Krug, Ph. Kritischer Versuch zur Aufklarung der byzantinischen 
 
 Chronologie. Petersburg, 1810. 
 
 Lane-Poole, S. The Mohammadan Dynasties. London, 1894. 
 Mas-Latrie, Comte de. Tresor de chronologic, d'histoire et de geographic. 
 
 Paris, 1889. 
 Muralt, E. de. Essai de chronographie byzantine (de 395 a 1057). 
 
 Petersburg, 1855.
 
 INDEX 
 
 I. ENGLISH 
 
 Abasgia, 89, 261, 274, 403 
 
 Abbas, son of Mamun, 258, 473, 474 
 
 Abbas, nephew of Mamun, 273 
 
 Abdallah ibu Tahir, 288 
 
 Abd ar-Eahman II., Emir of Cordova, 
 
 273 
 
 Aboba, plain of, 332 (see Pliska) 
 Abodrites, 364 
 Abu Dinar, 274 
 Abu Fihr, 305 
 Abu Hafs, 288 sqq. 
 Abu '1-Abbas, Aghlabid Emir, 295 
 Abu '1-Aghlab Ibrahim, 305, 307 
 Abu '1-Aghlab al-Abbas, 306 sqq. 
 Abu Said, 273 
 Abydos, taken by Thomas, 90 ; tollhouse 
 
 at, 213, 217 
 Acheiropoi&os, 141 
 Acrae, 299 
 Acrostic, 165 
 
 Ada Davidis, Simeonis, Georgii, 84 
 Ada 42 Mart. Amor., 271 
 Adana, 245 
 
 Adata, 244, 273 (see Hadath) 
 Aegina, 290 
 
 Aemilian, bishop of Cyzicus, 65, 75 
 Aetius, eunuch, minister of Irene, 2, 5, 
 
 7, 320 
 
 Aetius, patrician, 345 
 Aetius, stratOgos of Anatolics, 263, 267 
 
 sqq., 272 
 Africa, 295 sqq. 
 
 Afshin, Saracen general, 263 sqq. 
 Aghlabid dynasty, 244, 295 
 Agnellus Parteciacus, 325, 327; 
 Agrigeutum, 302, 303 
 Akatzirs, 410 
 Akilisene, 176 
 Akritas, promontory, 116 
 Alans, 89, 408 sq., 415 
 Albiola, 324 
 Alcuin, 318 
 
 Alexander, Emperor, 444 
 Alexandria, 288, 292, 327 ; Patriarch 
 
 of, 74 
 
 Alexios Musele, Caesar, 126 (and Appendix 
 
 VI.), 128, 305 
 AH ibn Yahya, 282, 284 
 Alimena, 306 
 AlMlengyon, 214 
 Almus (Salmutzes), 426 
 Altino, 321 
 
 Amain, 310, 311, 313, 314 
 Amantea, 309 
 Amara, 248, 278 
 Amasea, 282 
 
 Amastris, 253, 417, 418, 421 
 Amida, 279 
 Amin, Caliph, 251 
 Amisus, 283 
 
 Amorion, heretics at, 78 ; Mamun in- 
 tends to attack, 256 ; besieged and 
 
 destroyed by Mutasim, 262 sqq. ; 
 
 length of siege, 267 ; martyrs of, 
 
 271 sq. 
 
 Anastasia, daughter of Theophilus, 465 
 Anastasius L, Emperor, ecclesiastical 
 
 capitulations, 39 
 Anastasius, adopted son of Thomas, 92, 
 
 95, 103, 107 
 Anastasius, bibliothecarius, 396, 400 sq., 
 
 Appendix XI. 
 Anava, lake, 72 
 Anazarbos, 244, 250, 276 
 Anbar, 239 
 Anbas, 292 
 
 Anchialus, 345, 347, 361 
 Ancona, 313 
 Ancyra, attacked and taken by Saracens, 
 
 263 sqq. ; walls of, 266 
 Andrew, St., 377 
 Andrew, St,, island, 116, 140 
 Andrew, Duke of Naples, 312 
 Angilbert, 318 
 Ankl, 260 
 
 Anna, daughter of Theophilus, 465 
 Anthypatos (order of rank), 126, 261 
 Antigoni, island, 41, 140 
 Antigonus, son of Bardas, 161, 167, 171, 
 
 284 
 
 511
 
 512 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Antigus, fort, 473 
 
 Antioch, 88, 274 
 
 Antonius, monk, cousulted-by Leo V., 59 
 
 Antonius Kassymatas, bishop of Syllaion 
 (Patriarch), helps to prepare case 
 for iconoclasm, 61 sq. ; Patriarch, 
 81, 115, 134 
 
 Anzen, 265, 282 
 
 Apamea, 138 
 
 Aphusia, island (Arablar), 41, 136, 139 
 
 Aplakes, see John A. 
 
 Apollonia, Lake of, 72 
 
 Apollonia (in Thrace), 361 
 
 Apollonius of Perge, 438 
 
 Apollonius of Tyana, enchanter of 
 statues, 444 
 
 Apros, 356 
 
 Apulia, 309, 315 
 
 Aquileia, 322 
 
 Arabic translations from Greek, 438 
 
 Arabissos, 245, 248 
 
 Arabs, see Saracens 
 
 Aratus, astronomer, 441 
 
 Arcadiopolis, 103 sqq., 358, 462 sq. 
 
 Archimedes, MS. of, 440 
 
 Architecture, 129 sqq. 
 
 Archontes, 223, 330 
 
 Arethas, archbishop, 439, 447 sq. 
 
 Argaios, Mt. (1) S.E. of L. Tatta, 247, 
 285 ; (2) near Caesarea, 247 
 
 Argaus, 278 
 
 Arichis, 310 sq. 
 
 Aristotle, 438, 441 
 
 Arithmos ( Vigla), 5, 227 sq. 
 
 Armenia, 260 sq. 
 
 Armenians, importance and success in the 
 Empire, 43, 429 ; cp. 165 
 
 Army, Roman, organization of, 221 
 
 Army, Saracen, 237 sq. 
 
 Arpad, 426, 489 sq. 
 
 Arsaber, brother of John the Gram- 
 marian, 60, 443 
 
 Arsaber, magister, 155 
 
 Arsaber, quaestor, conspires against Ni- 
 cephorus, 14 ; father of Empress 
 Theodosia, 66 
 
 Arsaber, spatharios, 193 
 
 Arsakios, hermit, 147 
 
 Arsamosata, 260 
 
 Arsaphios, 324 sq. 
 
 Art, 429 sqq. 
 
 Artavasdos, hetaeriarch, 178 
 
 Artynia, lake, 72 
 
 Arzus, river, 361 
 
 Asad, 298 sqq. 
 
 Asbag ibn Wakil, 304 
 
 Ashnas, Saracen general, 263 sqq. 
 
 Ashot, son of Shapuh, 261 
 
 Ashot, Curopalates, 265 
 
 Asylaion, 178, 458 sq. 
 
 Asylum, right of, 390 
 
 Atel-kuzu, 424, Appendix XIT. 
 
 Athingani, 40, 78, 79 
 
 Athos, Mt., cells and monasteries, 150, 
 
 291, 293 
 
 Athyras, fort, 356 
 Athyras, river, 102, 356 
 Attalia, 282 
 
 Auxentios, St., Mount, 247, 284 
 Avars, 337, 358, 365, 377 
 
 Babdel, 293 
 
 Babek, 251 sqq., 257, 259, 262 
 
 Babutzikos, see Constantine B. and 
 Theodosius B. 
 
 Bagains, 334 
 
 Bagarat, 264 
 
 Bagatur, 335 
 
 Baghdad, palaces, 129, 240 sqq. ; founda- 
 tion and description, 238 sqq. ; 
 scientific studies at, 436 sqq. 
 
 Bahasna, 244 
 
 Balabakhi, 438 
 
 Baladhuri, 251 
 
 Balkan passes, 339, 344 
 
 Bambaludes, 267 
 
 Barca, see Theodosia, Empress. 
 
 Bardanes Turcus, rebellion of, 10 sqq., 
 
 OQ 010 
 
 oc, Zia 
 
 Bardas, Caesar, restores sea walls, 135 ; 
 not appointed regent, 144 ; 147 ; 
 155 ; wife of, 156, 188 ; overthrows 
 Theoktistos, 157 sq. ; Chartulary of 
 Kanikleion, 159; Domestic of Schools, 
 160 ; Curopalates, 161 ; Caesar, ib. ; 
 government of, 161 sqq. ; overthrows 
 Damianos, 169 ; fall, 170 sqq. ; re- 
 fused communion by Ignatius, 188 ; 
 action against Ignatius, 189 sqq. ; 
 letters of Photius to, 192, 195 ; inter- 
 view with Ignatius, 198 ; expedition 
 to Abasgia, 261 ; 284 ; in campaign 
 against Saracens, 419 ; encourage- 
 ment of learning, 439 
 
 Bardas, father of Symbatios, 178, 458 
 
 Bardas, nephew of Leo V., 68, 72 
 
 Bardas, nephew of Theodora, 156 
 
 Bari, 313, 315 
 
 Bartholomew of Edessa, 439 
 
 Bashkirs, 492 
 
 Basil I., Emperor (the Macedonian) : early 
 career of, 165 sqq., 356, 371 ; proto- 
 strator, 168 ; parakoemomeuos, 169 ; 
 marriage, ib. ; plot against Bardas, 
 170 sqq. ; magister, 174 ; coronation, 
 174 sq. ; murder of Michael III., 
 177 sqq. ; signature to Council of 
 A.D. 867, 202 ; ecclesiastical policy, 
 203 sq. ; 379 
 
 Basil, Prefect of City, 173 
 
 Basil, false legate at Synod of 867, 202 
 
 Basil, son of Leo V., 55, 184 
 
 Basil, archbishop of Thessalonica, 191 
 
 Basil, kleisurarch of Charsianon, 272
 
 INDEX 
 
 513 
 
 Basil, rector, 458 sq. 
 
 Basil, of St. Saba, 36, 37 
 
 Basiliskianos, 176 sqq. 
 
 Bassoes, 267, 271 
 
 Baths at Dorylaion, 229 
 
 Beacons, see Fire-signals 
 
 Beatus, Duke of Venice, 324 
 
 Belenjer, 404 
 
 Belgrade, 364, 365 
 
 Benedict III., Pope, 185, 193 
 
 Beneventura, duchy of, 309, 310 sqq., 
 331 ; partition of, 315 
 
 Beroe (in Thrace), 347 
 
 Bessarabia, 337, 338 
 
 Bisignano, 309 
 
 Bizye, 103, 105, 107 
 
 Boiditzes, 268 sq., 271 
 
 Boilads, 334 sq., 373 
 
 Bonita, 72 
 
 Books, classical, in the library of Photius, 
 446 sq. ; prices of, 448 
 
 Boots, red, Imperial, 175, 177 
 
 Boradion, 127 
 
 Boris (Michael), accession, 373 ; Servian 
 war, 373 sq. ; relations with the 
 Empire and the Franks, 382 sqq. ; 
 baptism, 385 ; his sister, ib. ; sup- 
 presses anti-Christian insurrection, 
 387 ; letter of Photius to, 387 sq. ; 
 invites Pope to send clergy, 389 ; 
 embassy to King Lewis, ib. (cp. 
 Appendix X.) 
 
 Bosporos (Kerch), 409, 415 
 
 Bravalin, 418 
 
 Bride-shows, of Stauracius, 15 ; of Theo- 
 philus, 81 sqq. ; of Michael III., 156 
 
 Brochthoi, 127 
 
 Brondolo, 324 
 
 Brundusium, 312 
 
 Bryas, palace of, 133 
 
 Bryennios, see Theoktistos Bryennios 
 
 Bugha, 423 
 
 Bujani, 412 
 
 Bulgar, town, 411 
 
 Bulgaria and Bulgarians, capital of, 332 
 sqq.; institutions, 334 sq. ; Greek 
 influence on, 335 sq. ; chronological 
 system, 336, 369, 385 ; boundaries 
 of kingdom, 337 ; relations to Servia, 
 337, 372 sqq. ; fortifications, 338 
 sq. ; palaces, 339, 366 sqq. ; ten dis- 
 tricts, 386 ; conversion to Christi- 
 anity, 381 sqq. ; Thirty Years' Treaty 
 with Empire, 360 sqq. ; truce (under 
 Malamir), 373 ; treaty in A.D. 863, 
 384 ; embassy to Constantinople in 
 A.D. 860, 279 ; customs, 362, 389 ; 
 Latin heresies in, 200 ; Latin clergy 
 in, 389, 392 ; Greek inscriptions in, 
 335 sq. ; Arabic literature in, 336. 
 (See under Krum, Omurtag, Malamir, 
 Boris.) 
 
 Bulgarians, Inner (Black), 335, 337, 366, 
 
 410 sq., 415 
 Outer, 335, 411 
 Bulgaros, see Peter Bulgaros 
 Biil-khan of Khazars, 405, 406 
 Bunos Leontos, battle of, 357 sq. 
 Burdas, 411 
 Burdizos, 373, 483 
 Butera, 306, 307 
 Butrentum, 246 
 Byrides, 98 
 
 Cadolah, margrave of Friuli, 329 
 
 Caesar, Alexios Muscle, 126 ; Bardas, 
 161 ; Tervel, 336 
 
 Caesarea in Cappadocia, 248 
 
 Caesarius, son of Sergius, Duke of Naples, 
 314 
 
 Caesaropapism, 207 (see Church) 
 
 Calabria, ecclesiastical province of, 194 
 sq., 197 ; duchy of, 309 
 
 Calatamauro, 305 
 
 Calloniana, 304 
 
 Calomaria, 155 sq., 157 sq. 
 
 Caltabellotta, 305 
 
 Caltagirano, 308 
 
 Caltavuturo, 307 
 
 Candia, 289 
 
 Cantatores, 229 
 
 Capitatio, 212 
 
 Captives, Eoman and Saracen, 101, 235 ; 
 description of interchange of, 275 sq. 
 
 Capua, 310, 315 
 
 Caria, 290 
 
 Caricatures; 431 sq. 
 
 Castrogiovanni, 299, 302, 305, 307 
 
 Catana, 297 
 
 Cattaro, 329 
 
 Chalcedon, 112 
 
 Chaldia, 86, 261 (see Themes) 
 
 Chaldos, see John C. 
 
 Chalkites (Halki), island, 37, 55 
 
 Chamaidrakon, see Leo C. 
 
 Chamllch, 403, 408 
 
 Chandax (Candia), 289 
 
 Charax (?), 288 
 
 Charles the Great, embassy to Constanti- 
 nople, A.D. 802, 1, 5, 320 ; pretext 
 for his Imperial coronation, 4 ; pro- 
 posal for marriage of a daughter of, 
 23 ; dominion of, 317 ; treaty with 
 Irene, ib. ; proclaimed Emperor, 318 
 sqq. ; negotiations with Nicephorus, 
 320 sq., 324 sq. ; with Michael I., 
 325 ; dealings with Venice, 323 sq. 
 
 Charsian kleisurarchy, see under Themes. 
 
 Charsianon, fort, 473 
 
 Chatalar, inscription of, 368 
 
 Chelidonian islands, 274 
 
 Chernigov, 413 
 
 Cherson, as place of exile, 37, 75, 417 ; 
 Constantine the Philosopher at, 394 ; 
 
 2 L
 
 514 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 commercial importance, 401, 414 ; 
 custom duties, 414 ; Petronas at, 
 416 ; placed under strategos, 417 ; 
 Russian attack on, 418 
 Cherson, Dalmatian island, 313 
 Chiliokomon, 265 
 Chioggia, 324 
 Chcereas, 107 
 
 Choirobakchoi, plain of, 102 
 Chonarion, 282 
 Chorlu, 346 
 Chozan, 260, 261 
 Chrabr, 487 
 
 Chrism of confirmation, 200 
 Christodulos, 137 
 
 Chronicle of Cod. Par. 854, 456 sq. 
 Chronicle (lost) of ninth century, 458 sq. 
 Chrysippus (Stoic), 441 
 Chrysopolis (Scutari), 126, 179 
 Church : theory and working of State 
 Church, 31, 42, 180 sqq. ; authority 
 of Emperors in, 36, 37, 180 sqq. ; 
 limited by capitulations, 39 
 Cilician Gates, 245 sq., 473 
 Cipher, secret, 37 
 Civilizations, mutual influence of Greek 
 
 and Saracen, 234 sq. 
 Civita Nova, 321 
 Clement, St., relics of, 394 sq., 400, 485 
 
 sqq. 
 
 Clement, archbishop of Bulgaria, 487 
 Coinage : Nicephorus I., 8, 14 ; Michael 
 I., 22, 40 ; Theophylactus, 23 ; 
 Leo V., 44 ; Theophilus, 465 sqq. ; 
 Michael and Theodora, 150, 154 ; 
 senzdton, 164 ; international cur- 
 rency, 221J 
 Comacchio, 324': 
 Commerciarii, 210, 217 
 Constantia (in Thrace), 362 
 Constantine V., sarcophagus, 197 ; anti- 
 monastic, 208 ; treaty with Bul- 
 garians, 339, 347 ; encouragement 
 of secular art, 430 
 Constantine VI., divorce of, 34 ; date of 
 
 death, 85 
 
 Constantine VII., Emperor (Porphyro- 
 
 gennetos), 162, 172, 415 ; De ad- 
 
 ministrando imperio, Appendix XII. 
 
 Constantine, Emperor, son of Leo V., 
 
 coronation, 58 ; mutilated, 55 
 Constantine, Emperor, son of Theophilus, 
 
 126, Appendix VI., 488 
 Constantine, Armenian, Drungary of 
 Watch, 147, 157 ; = Maniakes, 158 ; 
 167, 172, 176, 192 ; relationship to 
 Genesios, 460 
 
 Constantine Babutzikos, 155, 267, 271 
 
 Constantine (Cyril) the Philosopher, 
 
 Apostle of the Slavs : relations to 
 
 Photius, 187, 394 ; career, 394^. ; 
 
 423 ; professor at Constantinople, 
 
 435, 439 ; 440 ; alleged disputation 
 with Saracens, 438, 490 ; sources 
 for, Appendix XI. 
 Constantine (of Sicily), pupil of Leo the 
 
 Philosopher, 440 sqq. 
 Constantine Kapnogenes, 176 
 Constantine Kontomytes, 290, 308 
 Constantine Patzikos, 354 
 Constantine, strategos of Sicily, 295, 478 
 Constantine Toxaras, 178 
 Constantinople 
 
 Achilles, Diabatika of, 128 
 Anthemios, urban quarter, 127 
 Augusteon, 128 
 Barbyses, R., 93 
 Blachernae, 127, 354 
 Bous, 6 
 
 Brachionion, 94 
 Bridges, 93 
 
 Chain, Iron, of Golden Horn, 92, 93 
 Churches and Monasteries 
 Abraamios, St., 141 
 Apostles, 151, 182, 191, 195; 
 
 heroon, 197 
 Braka, 21 
 Chenolakkos, 115 
 Chora, 75, 147 
 Cosmidion (SS. Cosmas and Damian), 
 
 93, 94, 353 
 Dalmatos, 75 
 Diomede, St., 166 
 Forty Martyrs, 437 
 Gastria, 126, 142, 160, 470 
 Irene, St., 191 
 John, St. (Studion), 45 
 Karianos, 160, 188, 470 
 Kasia, 83 
 Katharoi, 75 
 
 (of Manuel) = Kefele mosque, 155 
 Mary Peribleptos, St., 142 
 Pege, 198 
 Procopia, St., 29 
 Procopius, St., 29 
 Psicha, 75 
 
 Sergius and Bacchus, SS., 73 
 Sophia, St., 23, 62, 64, 77 ; well 
 
 of, 128 ; 150, 174, 198, 420 
 Studion, 182 (see also Studites,'and 
 
 Theodore of Studion) 
 Virgin (Blachernae), 95, 122, 150, 
 
 421, 430 
 
 Virgin (Chalkoprateia), 171 
 Cisterns : Mokios, 127 ; Aspar, 155 
 Galata, castle of, 93, 94 
 Gates 
 
 Barbara, St., 135 
 Charisios (Polyandriou), 29, 96 
 Deirmen-kapussi, 1 35 
 Eugenics, 92 
 Golden, 127, 355 
 Gyrolimne, 96 
 Golden Horn, 92 sqq., 355 sqq.
 
 INDEX 
 
 515 
 
 Constantinople contd. 
 Harbours 
 
 Bucoleon (Hormisdas), 25, 91, 123 
 Eleutherios (Theodosius), 6, 91 
 Kaisarios (Neorion of Heptaskalon), 
 
 91, 92 
 
 Kontoskalion, 91 
 Sophian (Julian ; New), 91, 92 
 Hexakionion, 198 
 
 Hippodrome, Great : Kathisma, 19, 
 124; "roofed" and "unroofed," 
 19 ; communication with Palace, 
 53, 128 ; 159 
 
 ~Kofj.f3ii>o<TT(i<riov, meadow of, 127 
 Kyklobion, 98 
 Kynegion, 135 
 
 Mangana (military arsenal), 22, 135 
 Milion, 128, 175 
 Palaces and houses 
 Anthemios, 177 
 Blachernae, 94, 96 
 Bucoleon, 143 
 Dagistheus, 13 
 Eleutherios, 7, 8, 37, 74 
 Palace, Great 
 
 Asekreteia, 50, 158, 159 
 
 Baths, 50 
 
 Chalke Gate, 6, 45, 63, 128 ; 
 
 icon over, 140 
 Chrysotriklinos, 65, 129, 137 ; 
 
 icons in, 150, 168 
 Consistorion, 133 
 Daphne, 53, 129 
 Eidikon, 137, 158 
 Eros, 131 
 
 Horologion, 158, 168 
 Ivory Gate, 53 
 Justinian, Triklinos of (" Justini- 
 
 anos "), 129 sq., 138, 159 
 Kamilas, 132 
 Karianos, 132 
 Kyrios, Church of, 133 
 Lausiakos, 48, 50, 129 sq., 137, 
 
 158 
 Margarites (Pearl- chamber), 82, 
 
 131 
 
 Musikos, 132 
 Mysterion, 130 
 Nineteen Couches, Triklinos of, 
 
 157 
 
 Numera, 156, 191 
 Pentapyrgion, 134 
 Pharos, 247, 285 
 Pharos, Church of Virgin, 29, 53 
 Phiale, Mystic, 131 
 Pyxites, 131 
 Sigma, 130 sq, 
 
 Skyla, 45, 55, 128, 129, 159 
 Stephen, church of St., 53, 80, 
 
 157 
 
 Sweepers, quarter of, 51 
 Tetraseron, 130 
 
 Constantinople contd. 
 
 Palaces and houses contd. 
 Palace, Great contd. 
 
 Thermastra. 137, 158, 159 
 Tiberius, Gate of, 158 
 Trikonchos, 130 sq., 333 
 Hebdomon, 28, 98, 355 
 Karianos, 13 
 Lausos, 176 
 
 Magnaura : judicial court in, 10, 
 123 ; 125 ; situation and architec- 
 ture, 133, 134 ; TO IHUTTOV, 157 ; 
 333 
 Mamas, St., 127, 162, 176, 177, 
 
 285, 355 
 Marina, 178 
 Posis, 196 
 Psicha, 152 
 
 Patriarcheiou, 63, 67, 69, 147 
 Praetorium, 137, 139, 156 
 Prisons, 156 
 
 Statue of Justinian, in Augusteon, 66 
 Streets, 29, 150 sq. ; Middle Street, 
 
 128, 176 
 
 Suburbs : of Paulinus, 94 ; of An- 
 themios, 127, 177 ; Promotes, 191 
 Walls 
 
 of Heraclius, 94, 359 
 
 of Leo V., 94 sq., 96, 359 
 
 of Manuel I., 96 
 
 restorations of Michael II., Theo- 
 
 philus, and Bardas, 134 sq. 
 Xerolophos, 443 
 Zeuxippus, Baths of, 45, 128 
 Constantius, adopted son of Thomas the 
 
 Slavonian, 86, 90 ; death, 91 
 Continuation of Theophanes, chronicle, 
 352, 356, 374, 461 (see also under 
 Genesios) 
 
 Corcyra, revenue from, 220 
 Cordova, 287 
 Corleone, 305 
 
 Coronations, Imperial : Nicephorus, 6 ; 
 Stauracius, 14 ; Michael I., 20 ; 
 Procopia, 22 ; Theophylactus, 23 ; 
 Constantine, son of Leo V., 58 : 
 Michael II., 78 ; Theophilus, 80 ; 
 Basil, 174 sq. 
 oaths exacted by Patriarch on occasion 
 
 of, 20, 39 sq., 56 sq. 
 Cos, 290 
 Cosenza, 309 
 Cotrone, 309 
 Councils, ecclesiastical 
 
 A.D. 753, Constantinople, 61, 69, 70 
 A.D. 787, Seventh Ecumenical, Nicaea, 
 
 31, 38, 62, 148 
 A.D. 806, Constantinople, 34 
 A.D. 809, Constantinople, 36 
 A.D. 814, Constantinople, 62 
 A.D. 815, Constantinople (before 
 Easter), 67, 147 ; caricature of, 431 
 
 2 L 2
 
 516 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Councils, ecclesiastical contd. 
 
 A.D. 815, Constantinople (after Easter), 
 
 69 sq., 117 
 A.D. 825, Paris, 118 
 A.D. 827, Mantua, 330 
 A.D. 843, Constantinople, 147 sq. ; 
 
 date, 145 ; picture of, 431 
 A.D. 852, Mainz, 393 
 A.D. 854, Rome, 185 
 A.D. 859, Constantinople, 191, 196 
 A.D. 861, Constantinople, 195 sq., 
 
 205 (= " First and Second ") 
 A.D. 863 (April), Rome, 199 
 A.D. 863 (October), Rome, 200 
 A.D. 864, Rome, 199 
 A.D. 867 (in Lent), Constantinople, 200 
 A.D. 867, Constantinople, 201 sqq., 432 
 A.D. 869-70, Eighth Ecumenical, Con- 
 stantinople, 202, 204, 432 
 Count of Foederati, 12 (cp. Turmarch 
 
 of Federates) 
 Count of Schools, 124 
 Count of Stable (rov arav\ov), 122, 
 
 211, 290 
 
 Count of Tent (^/owjs rrjs K6prt)s), 12 
 Count of Walls, 156, 224, 228 
 Counts, captains of banda, 226 
 Counts, Bulgarian, 335 
 Crete, expedition to (A.D. 866), 170 ; 
 Saracen conquest of, 287 sqq. ; 
 Imperial attempts to recover, 289 
 sqq. ; government of, 224 ; Emirs 
 of, 186, 293, 439 
 expeditions to (A.D. 902 and 949), 
 
 227, 231 
 
 Croatia, 363 sq., 373 
 Curator, Great, 211 
 Curopalates : Michael, 14 ; Bardas, 161 ; 
 
 Ashot, 265 
 
 Custom-duties and houses, 217, 414 
 Cyclades, 293 
 
 Cyril, bishop of Gortyn, 289 
 Cyril, see Constantino the Philosopher 
 
 (Apostle of the Slavs) 
 Cyrillic script, 397 sqq. 
 
 Dalmatia, 223, 323, 329 sq. [The seal 
 of a irpuro/j.avSdrup TTJS Ad\/j.arias 
 is published by Schlumberger, Sig. 
 byz. 206.] 
 
 Damianos, Count of the Stable, 290 
 
 Damianos, parakoimomenos, 157 
 
 Damietta, 292 sq. 
 
 Danelis, 167 
 
 Daonin, 356 
 
 Dargamer, 347 
 
 Dariel, Pass of, 409 
 
 Dazimon, 264, 281 sq. 
 
 Death duties, 216 
 
 Denies, 128, 131, 174 
 
 Democracy, proposed by Emperor Staura- 
 cius, 18 
 
 Denderis, 141 
 
 Deputatoi, 229 
 
 Develtos, 346, 361, 384 
 
 Diabasis, battle of, 102 sq., 463 
 
 Diampolis, 339 
 
 Digisene, 260 
 
 Dinar, 226, 236 
 
 Dioeketai, 210 
 
 Dionysios, anti-iconoclast, 73 
 
 Dionysios the Areopagite, MS. of, 330, 
 
 401 
 Dionysios of Tell-Mahre, Patriarch and 
 
 chronicler, 21, 275, 472, 474 
 Dios, 290 
 Diplomatic forms (Emperor and Caliph), 
 
 254 
 
 Dir, 422 sq. 
 Dirham, 226, 236 
 Ditseng, 359 
 Dnieper river, waterfalls of, 413 sq. ; 
 
 names of, 424 
 Dobrudzha, 338 
 Doggerel verses, 137, 139, 176 
 Dogs sacrificed, 362 
 Dokimion, 130 
 
 Domestic of Excubitors, 227 ; Michael, 46 
 Domestic of Hikanatoi, 227 
 Domestic of Numeri, 156, 191, 228 
 Domestic of the Schools, 227 sq. ; Nicetas 
 Triphyllios, 5 ; Stephanos, 16 ; 
 Bardas, 160 ; Antigonus, 161 ; 
 Petronas, ib., 284 ; Manuel, 258 
 Donatus, bishop of Zara, 329 
 Doras, 409, 415 
 Dorylaion, 229, 247, 263, 266 
 Dregovichi, 412 
 Drievliane, 412 
 Drungaries, officers in thematic armies, 
 
 226 
 Drungary of the Fleet (rov TrXofyww), 
 
 230 ; Ooryphas, 144 
 
 Drungary of the Watch (TIJJ ^t'-yXaj), 227 
 sq. ; Petronas, 122 ; Ooryphas (?), 
 143 ; Constantino the Armenian 
 (q.v. ), 147; Constantine Babutzikos, 
 267 
 
 Dukum, 359 
 Dyrrhachium, 189 
 
 Earthquakes, 198, 363, 445 
 
 Ebissa, 81 
 
 Eclipses, solar, 274 sq., 442 
 
 Education, 434 sqq. 
 
 Egypt, naval expedition to, 230, 292 sq. ; 
 
 revolt against Mamun, 251, 263, 
 
 288 
 Eidikon, master of, (6 ttrl rov eldtKov), 
 
 210 sq., 212 
 Eikasia, see Kasia 
 Ekusoos, 343 
 Eleud, 425 
 Elpidios, 295
 
 INDEX 
 
 517 
 
 Embroidery, 193, 433 
 
 Enamelling, 433 
 
 Engelberta, Empress, 201, 203 
 
 Kit'b'lpia, 13, 198 
 
 Enravotas, 369, 382, 451 
 
 JSpibole, 214, 215 
 
 Epicurus, 441 
 
 Epiphaues, anti-iconoclast, 73 
 
 Epistola synodica Orientalium ad Theo- 
 
 philum, 138, 453 
 Epoptai, 210, 214 
 Erez, 176 
 
 Erkesiia (rampart in Thrace), 361 sq. 
 Esaias, hermit, 147 
 Estates, Imperial, 211, 212 
 Euchaita, 24 
 
 Euclid, MS. of, 448 ; 438, 441 
 Eudocia, Empress, wife of Michael III., 
 
 156, 169, 179, 284 
 Eudocia Ingerina, Empress, mistress of 
 
 Michael III., 156 sq. ; wife of Basil 
 
 I., 169 ; coronation, 175, 176 sqq. 
 Eudoxios, bishop of Amorion, 75 
 Eugenius, Pope, 118 
 Eulampios, bishop of Apamea, 185 
 Eulogios, 178 
 Eumathios, 348 
 Euodios, 271, 438 
 Euphemian, anti-iconoclast, 73 
 Euphemios, 296 sqq. and Appendix IX. 
 Euphrosyue, Empress, confusion with 
 
 Thecla, 80, 81 ; 111 ; retires to 
 
 cloister, 125 sq. 
 Eustathios, quaestor, 122 
 Euthymios, bishop of Sardis, 65, 75, 
 
 119, 139 
 
 Euthymios, of Thessalonica, 150 
 Eutychianos, 61 ; protoasekretes, 66 
 
 (probably same person) 
 JZcarch, of Patriarchal monasteries, 73, 
 
 198 
 
 Excubitors, 5, 227 sq. 
 Exusiastes, 409 
 Ezerites, 376, 379 
 
 Fald ibn Yakub, 305, 306 
 
 Farghana, mercenaries from, 238 ; cp. 228 
 
 Fasts, in Lent, 200 
 
 Finance : of the Roman Empire, Chap. 
 VII. 1 ; also of Irene, 3, 213 ; of Ni- 
 cephorus, 9, 212 sqq. ; of Amorian 
 Emperors, 218 sq. ; central ministers, 
 210 sqq. ; taxes, 212 sqq. ; con- 
 jectural estimate of revenue, 219 
 sqq. ; military expenditure, 225 
 sqq. ; naval, 231 
 of the Caliphate, 236 sq. 
 
 Finns, 422 
 
 Fire, Greek ("marine," "Roman,") 91, 
 96, 99, 349 
 
 Fire-signals in Asia Minor, 162, 246, 
 sqq., 285 
 
 Forgeries, documentary, 202 
 Formosus, bishop of Porto, 389, 392 
 Fortunatus, Patriarch of Grado, 117, 
 
 323, 330 
 Fustdt, 244 
 
 Gaeta, 310, 314 
 
 Gallerianou, 316 
 
 Gallipoli, 309 
 
 Ganos, Mt., 356 
 
 Garigliano, river, 316 
 
 Garmi, A1-, 223, 233 
 
 Gauderic, bishop, 401, 485 sqq. 
 
 Gazarenos, 108 
 
 Gaziura (Turkhal), 11, 264, 281 sq. 
 
 Gebeon, 189 
 
 Gebobasileutos, 189 
 
 Gela, 299 
 
 Gelam, 261 
 
 Genesios, Joseph, relations of his work 
 
 to Cont. Theoph. illustrated, 10, 11, 
 
 147, 172, 357 ; sources of, 25, 59, 
 
 157, 197, 289, 352, Appendix IV. 
 Geometry, 437 sq., 439 
 George, monk, Chronicle, 136, Appendix 
 
 II. ; Continuation of, 454, 457 
 George, St., of Amastris, 417 
 George, bishop of Mytilene, 75 
 George, brother of Simeon Stylites, 148 
 Gerace, 305 
 
 Germanicia, 244, 248, 263, 273 
 Geron, 258 
 Getae (Goths ?), 89 
 Gipsies, 40, 276, 362 
 Glagolitic script, 397 sqq. 
 Glavinitsa, two places of this name, 
 
 384 
 
 Glyceria, St., island, 74 
 Goloe, 339 
 
 Gorgo, daughter of Michael I., 14 
 Gorgonites, see John Gorgonites 
 Gortyn, 289 
 
 Goths of Crimea, 409, 415 
 Grado, 322, 323, 330 
 Grammos, Mt., 385 
 Greece : supports Thomas, 98 ; Slavs 
 
 of, rebellions suppressed, 376 sqq. ; 
 
 language question in, 207 ; late 
 
 survival of paganism in, 381 
 Greeks : antagonism between Greeks and 
 
 Latins, 194, 206 
 Gregory IV., Pope, 314 
 Gregory Asbestas, 184 sqq., 190, 191; 
 
 paints caricatures, 432 
 Gregory, son of Leo V. , 55, 184 
 Gregory, son of Musulakios, 5 
 Gregory Pterotos, 92, 97 
 Gregory, strategos of Sicily, 295, 450 
 Groshki-Dol, 344 
 Gryllos, 162 sq. 
 Gyberion, 108 
 Gyrin, 284
 
 518 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Hadath (Adata) 244, 263 
 
 Hadrian II., Pope, 202, 400 
 
 Hadrianople, Stauracius at, 16, 165 ; 
 Nicephorus I. at, 340, 348 ; attacked 
 by Bulgarians, 353, 356 ; parents 
 of Basil I. at, 356 
 
 Hafaja ibn Sufyan, 308 
 
 Hair, fashion of wearing, 124 
 
 Hakam, A1-, Emir of Cordova, 287 
 
 Halmyros, river, 101 
 
 Hanazit, 260 
 
 Harold Hardrada, 422 
 
 Harun al-Rashid, character, 233 ; revenue 
 under, 236 ; residence, 241 ; 244, 
 245 ; wars with the Empire, 249 
 sqq. 
 
 Haruniyah, 245 
 
 Hearth-tax, see Kapnikon 
 
 Hebdomon, see under Constantinople 
 
 Helena, St., Gastria legend of, 142 
 
 Helena, wife of Manuel, 145 
 
 miiaka, 132 
 
 Heraclea (on Propontis), 103, 107, 356 
 
 Heraclea (Kybistra), 246, 250, 473 
 
 Heracliana, 321, 344 
 
 Heron (mathematician), 438 
 
 Hesiod, 441 
 
 Hetaereia and ffetaeriarch, 12, 159 ; 
 Artavasdos, 178 
 
 Hexabulios, see John Hexabulios 
 
 Hieria, 191 ; palace of, 127, 133 
 
 Hieron, toll-house of, 213, 217 
 
 Hikanatoi instituted, 14, 227 sq. 
 
 Hilarion, Exarch of Patriarchal Monas- 
 teries, 73, 75, 139 
 
 Hincmar, of Reims, 387 
 
 Hippocrates, 438 
 
 Hisn as-Sakalibah, fort, 246 
 
 Hisn Mansur, fort, 244 
 
 Holmgard, 412 
 
 Holy Ghost, theory of Procession of, 
 200, 305 sq. 
 
 Homer, 435, 441 
 
 Homoniza, 296, 450 
 
 Horkosion, 91 
 
 Humandi, 288, 289 
 
 Hunain ibn Ishak, 438 
 
 Hungarians, see Magyars (cp. 492) 
 
 Huns, 89 
 
 Hurramites, 251, 257 
 
 Husain, poet, 266 
 
 Hyatros, island, 183 
 
 Hymns, 271 sq. 
 
 Ibn Kadim, 300 
 
 "Ibn Katuna," 292 
 
 Ibn Khurdadhbah, 226, 235, 237, 412 
 
 Ibn Kudama, 226, 237 
 
 Ibrahim, son of Aghlab, 244, 295 
 
 Iconoclasm : policy of Nicephorus I., 
 
 57 ; revived by Leo V., 57 sqq. ; 
 
 Christological aspect of, 70 ; policy 
 
 of Michael II., 112 sqq. ; of Theo- 
 philus, 135 sqq. ; end of, 144 sqq., 
 182, 193 
 
 Icons, 141, 150 ; iconography, 433 
 
 Idrisid dynasty, 295 
 
 Ignatius, deacon : lampoon on Thomas, 
 109 ; biographical works, 183 ; 
 Vita Nicephori Patr., 57 ; Canon 
 (hymn) on Amorian martyrs, 271, 
 417 
 
 Ignatius, Patriarch : birth, 14 ; Domestic 
 of Hikanatoi, 227 ; tonsured, 29 ; 
 his monasteries, 30 ; refuses to 
 tonsure Theodora, 160, 188 ; 163 ; 
 monastic work, 183 sq. ; Patriarch, 
 184 ; quarrel with Gregory, 184 sqq. ; 
 offends Bardas and Michael, 188 ; 
 arrested and exiled, 189 ; deposed, 
 191 ; sufferings, ib., 198 ; petition 
 to Pope, 198 sq. ; restored by Basil, 
 203 ; caricatured, 432 ; date of de- 
 position, 470 
 
 Image -worship, abuses of, 117 ; final 
 restoration, 144 sqq. (see Iconoclasm) 
 
 Indians (negroes), 89 
 
 Inheritances, taxation of, 216 
 
 Inscriptions 
 
 Byzantine, on land - walls of Con- 
 stantinople, 96 
 on sea-walls of Constantinople, 1 134 
 
 sq. 
 
 in Chrysotriklinos, 150 
 on bricks, 166 
 on walls of Ancyra, 266 
 on tower in Peloponnesus, 378 
 Bulgarian (Aboba), 365, 366 
 (Chatalar), 334, 368 sq. 
 (Eski-juma), 360 
 (Kady-keui), 343 
 (Philippi), 481 sq. 
 (Shumla), 373, Appendix X. 
 (Suleiman-keui), 360 
 (Tyrnovo), 367 
 various, 334 sq., 370 
 Latin (San Clemente, Rome), 401 
 
 Insects, 195 
 
 Inthronistic letters, 192, 193 
 
 Ionian Islands, 224 
 
 Irenaeus, magister, 300 
 
 Irene, Empress : career, policy, and fall, 
 1 sqq. ; death, 7 ; iconoclastic view 
 of her ecclesiastical acts, 69 ; tribute 
 to Harun, 249 ; embassy of Arichis 
 to, 311 ; negotiations with Charles 
 the Great, 317, 320 
 
 Irene, Empress, wife of Constantine V., 
 407 
 
 Irene, sister of Theodora, 156 
 
 Irene, mother of Photius, 156 
 
 Irene, Cappadocian, 156 
 
 Irenopolis, 347 
 
 Iron Gate, pass in Balkans, 339
 
 INDEX 
 
 519 
 
 Iron Gate, pass in Stranja hills, 384 
 
 Isbules, 370, 372 sq., 482 sq. 
 
 Isocrates, 388 
 
 Isperikh, 337, 338 
 
 Istria, 323, 325, 329, 330 
 
 Italy, southern, 308 sqq. 
 
 Itil, 403, 407, 412, 414 
 
 Jacobites, 242 
 
 Jafar ibn Dinar, 283 
 
 Jambol, 339 
 
 Januarius, St., 310 
 
 Jesolo, 321 
 
 Jewellers, at Constantinople, productions 
 of, 193, 433 
 
 Jews, at Amorion, 78 ; in Khazar empire, 
 405 sqq., 409, 414 
 
 Joannikios, hermit, 147, 184 
 
 Job, Palestinian monk, 75, 139 
 
 Job, Patriarch of Antioch, 88, 89 
 
 John III., Pope, 208 
 
 John, abbot of Katharoi, 75, 139 
 
 John Aplakes, 350 sq. 
 
 John, Bulgarian envoy, 389 
 
 John Chaldos, 171, 178 
 
 John of Damascus, 70 
 
 John, deacon : biography of St. Clement, 
 485 sq. 
 
 John Doxopatres (Sikeliotes), 456 
 
 John of Eukairia, 73 
 
 John Gorgonites, 197 
 
 John, bishop of Gotthia, 409 
 
 John the Grammarian (Patriarch) : 
 family, 60 ; learning, ib., 435 ; pre- 
 pares case for iconoclasm in A.D. 
 814-815, 60 sqq., 67 ; abbot of Saints 
 Sergius and Bacchus, 73 ; assists 
 in persecution, ib., 74, 75 ; brings 
 plan of palace from Baghdad, 133 ; 
 Synkellos, 256 ; Patriarch, 135 ; 
 assists in persecution, 135 sqq. ; 
 deposition, 147 sq. ; retirement, 
 151 sq. ; embassy to the Caliphate, 
 256 sqq., 475 sq. ; caricatured, 431 ; 
 magic practices, 443 sq. 
 
 John Hexabulios, advice to Michael I., 
 27 ; Logothete of Course, 49 ; advice 
 to Leo V., ib. ; advice to Michael II., 
 106 ; present at meeting of Leo V. 
 with Krum, 354 
 
 John Kolobos, 150 
 
 John, bishop of Monembasia, 73 
 
 John Neatokometes, 169, 171 
 
 John Parteciacus, 327 
 
 John, abbot of Psicha, 75 
 
 John Spektas, 61 
 
 Joseph, archbishop of Thessalonica, 35 
 
 Joseph, Chagan of Khazars, Hebrew 
 letter of, 406 sq. 
 
 Joseph, oeconomos of St. Sophia, 34 sqq. ; 
 second suspension of, 41 ; assists in 
 iconoclastic inquisition, 74 
 
 Jundar, 408 
 
 Jurjan, 414 
 
 Justice, administration of, Court of 
 Magnaura, 10, 123 ; Prefect of 
 City, 10; Quaestor, 10, 122 (see 
 also under Theophilus, Emperor) 
 
 Justin I., Emperor, compared with 
 Michael II., 79 
 
 Justinian Parteciacus, Duke of Venice, 
 80, 301, 327 
 
 Kaballa, 107 
 
 Kabars, 89, 426 
 
 Kabyle, 362 
 
 Kadykei, 367 
 
 Kairawan, 297 
 
 Kalancha, 424 
 
 Kalat al-Kurrat, 299 
 
 Kalavrye, 101 
 
 Kallistos Melissenos, Count of Schools, 
 124 ; Duke of Koloneia, 223 ; death 
 of, 271, 277 
 
 Kalonymos, island, 74 
 
 Kamarina, 307 
 
 Karnateros, see Petronas Kamateros 
 
 Kamchiia, Great, river, 367 
 
 Kanas uv$ge, 334 
 
 KaniJdeion, Chartulary of, Theoktistos, 
 159 ; Bardas, ib. 
 
 Kanisah as-Sawda, 245 
 
 Kapnikon, 212, 213 sq., 218 
 
 Kapnogenes, see Constantino Kapnogenes 
 
 Karbeas, Paulician, 277, 279 
 
 Kardam, 340, 350 
 
 Karkh, 241 
 
 Karlmann, son of Lewis the German, 383 
 
 Karnobad, see Marcellae 
 
 Kasia, 81 sq. 
 
 Kasin, 259, 472, 474 
 
 Kassiteras, see Theodotos Kassiteras 
 
 Kassymatas, see Antonius Kassymatas 
 
 Kastor, see Leo Kastor 
 
 Katakylas, Count of Opsikion, 87, 99, 
 
 102 
 
 Katathema, 182 
 Katepano, 222, 416 
 Kaukhan, 335, 370 
 Keduktos, battle of, 101 ; Michael I. at, 
 
 350 ; date of, 463 
 Keltzene, 176, 261 
 Kende, 425 
 Kentarchs, 227 
 Kephallenia (Kephalonia), Theme in 
 
 A.D. 810, 224 
 
 Kephaloedion, 305, 307, 308 
 Kepoi, 171 
 Keration, 214 
 
 Khazars, in Roman service, 228 ; 
 western extension of their Empire, 
 337 ; mission of Constantine the 
 Philosopher to, 394 sq. ; descrip- 
 tion of their empire and institutions,
 
 520 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 402 sqq. ; conversion to Judaism, 
 405 sqq. ; attempt to convert to 
 Islam, 407 ; wars with Saracens, 
 407 sq. ; relations of the Roman 
 Emperors to, 414 sqq. ; ask Theo- 
 philus to build Sarkel, 416 ; settle- 
 ment at Shamkor, 423 ; relations 
 to Magyars, 423 sqq., 491 
 
 Kiev, 411 ; occupation by Russians, 
 419, 422 sq. ; Magyar attack on, 
 425 
 
 Kinamon, 382 
 
 Kios, 13 
 
 Kipchaks, 411 
 
 Kleidion, 151 
 
 Kleisurarchies, 223, 249. See Themes 
 
 Klimata of Chersonesus, 223, 224, 415, 
 417 
 
 Knossos, 289 
 
 Kokusos, 248 
 
 Kolobos, see John Kolobos 
 
 Kometas, philologist, 439 
 
 Kontomytes, see Constantino Kontomytes 
 
 Koran, heresy as to the, 233 sq., 276 
 
 Kordyles, 370 
 
 Kormisos, 339, 347 
 
 Koron, fort, 473, 474 
 
 Korone, 378 
 
 Krambonitai, family, 54 
 
 Krateros, strategos of Kibyrrhaeots, 290 
 
 Krateros, see Theodore Krateros 
 
 Krenitai, family, 126 
 
 Krivichi, 412 
 
 Krum, 28, 46, 165 ; carries off works of 
 art from Constantinople, 333 sq., 
 355 ; his sister, 336 ; his brother, 
 353 ; reign of, 340 sqq. 
 
 Kupharas, see Theodore Kupharas 
 
 Kurru, see Koron 
 
 Kyminas, Mt., 150 
 
 Kynoschora, 277 
 
 Kynuria, 381 
 
 Lacedaemon, 378 
 
 Lagusae, island, 75 
 
 Lakku mitata, 112 
 
 Lalakaon, river, 284 
 
 Lalakon, see Leo Lalakon 
 
 Lanios, river, 275 
 
 Lampe, 75 
 
 Lampoons, 79, 109 (cp. Doggerel verses) 
 
 Land, large and small estates, 110, 
 
 214 sq. 
 
 Land-tax, 212, 214 sqq. 
 Lardeas, 339 
 Latifundia, see Land 
 Latros, Mt., 290 
 Lazarus, painter, 140 
 Learning, Byzantine, 434 sqq. 
 Lebedia, Appendix XII. 
 Lebedias, 425, 491 
 Lebuphas (name of the Devil), 445 
 
 Leo III., Emperor, admired by Leo V., 
 58 
 
 Leo V., Emperor: origin 11 ; Count of 
 the Federates, 13 ; strat. of Anatolics, 
 24 ; prophecies of his elevation, 25 ; 
 ambiguous conduct at Versiuicia, 26, 
 350 sqq. ; elevation, 28 sq. ; reign, 
 43 sqq. ; ecclesiastical policy, 56 
 sqq. ; dealings with Iberia, 265 ; 
 with Paulicians, 277 ; treaty with 
 Lewis the Pious, 325, 329 ; embassy 
 to Lewis in A.D. 817, 329 ; interest 
 in Venice, 327 ; war with Bulgarians, 
 353 sqq. ; Wall of, 359 ; erects 
 watch-tower in Greece, 378 
 
 Leo VI., Emperor : parentage of, 169 ; law 
 on interest, 217 ; military salaries 
 under, 225 
 
 Leo III., Pope : letter to Theodore Stud. , 
 37 ; crowns Charles, 318 sq. 
 
 Leo IV., Pope, 185, 193 
 
 Leo, bishop of Mytilene, 75 
 
 Leo, candidatus, envoy of Michael II. to 
 Lewis, 117 
 
 Leo Chamaidrakon, 124 
 
 Leo Grammaticus, chronicle, 456 
 
 Leo Kastor, 174 
 
 Leo Lalakon, 191 
 
 Leo, magister, 440 
 
 Leo, the Philosopher, warns Bardas of 
 danger, 170 ; constructs signal 
 clocks, 247 ; 271 ; professor at Con- 
 stantinople, 435, 437, 439 ; career, 
 436 sqq. ; invited to Baghdad, 436 ; 
 attacked posthumously for Hel- 
 lenism, 440 sqq, 
 
 Leo, protovestiarios, 258 
 
 Leo, sakellarios under Irene, 5 
 
 Leo, sakellarios under Michael II., 116 
 
 Leo Serantapechos, 5 
 
 Leo Skleros, 378 
 
 Leo, spatharios, flees to Charles the 
 Great, 318 
 
 Leo, strategos of Armeniacs, 343 
 
 Leo Triphyllios, 5 
 
 Leontini, 306 
 
 Leontios, iconoclastic monk, 61 
 
 Leontios, false legate at Council of 867, 
 202 
 
 Lesbos, 7, 90, 293 
 
 Levente, 426 
 
 Lewis the Pious, Emperor, 81 ; letter 
 of Michael II. to, 104, 117, 330 ; 
 attempts to settle iconoclastic 
 question, 118 ; embassies to Michael 
 II., ib. ; embassy of Theophilus to, 
 273, 418 ; treaty with Leo V., 325, 
 329 (cp. 355, n. 1) ; relations with 
 Bulgaria, 363 sqq. 
 
 Lewis II. , Emperor : negotiations with 
 Constantinople, 201 ; acclaimed 
 Basileus at Constantinople, 203 ;
 
 INDEX 
 
 521 
 
 campaign in Italy, 315 ; proposed 
 
 marriage with daughter of Theo- 
 
 philus, 331, 432 
 
 Lewis the German, 373, 382 sqq., 389, 425 
 Libellus Ignatii, 198 
 Liburnia, 325 
 Licata, 299 
 
 Licosa, cape, battle of, 314 
 Lipari, as place of exile, 37 
 Liudewit, 330, 363 
 Lizikos, 182 
 Logothete of tJie Course (TOV dpofj.ov), 35 ; 
 
 Hexabulios, 49, 106 ; Theoktistos, 
 
 144 ; Symbatios, 159 
 Logothete, General (TOV yeviKov), 
 
 functions, 210 ; Nicephorus, 5 ; 
 
 Phlotheos, 171 
 
 Logothete of the Herds (TUV ayeXuv), 211 
 Logothete, Military (TOV a-rpariuriKov), 
 
 210 
 
 Lombards of South Italy, 309 sqq. 
 Longoi, 102 
 
 Lothar, Emperor, 328, 331 
 Lothar II. of Lothringen, 200 
 Luchane, 412 
 Lulon, 245, 246 sq., 254, 280, 472, 474, 
 
 476 
 Lycaonia, Paulicianism in, 13 
 
 Macedonia, Bulgarians in, 340 ; Slavs of, 
 342 ; colonists from Asia Minor in, 
 342, 347 
 
 "Macedonia" beyond the Danube, 165 
 sq., 356, 370 
 
 Magic, 38, 433 sqq. 
 
 Magister (pd-yiffTpos, order of rank), 
 108 ; Theoktistos, 16 ; Alexios, 
 127 ; Arsaber, 156 ; Bardas, 160 ; 
 Basil, 174 ; Petronas, 284 ; chief 
 magister (irpwrofji.d'yiffTpos), 127 ; 
 Manuel, 144 ; Irenaeus, 300 
 
 Maglabitai, 53 
 
 Magnaura, school of, 437, 439 
 
 Magyars (ToOp/cot), 366, 371, 410; 
 migrations of, 423 sqq., and Appen- 
 dix XII. ; language, 426 ; tribes, 
 424 
 
 Mahdi, Caliph, 241 sq. 
 
 Mahdi, 253 
 
 Maina, 381 
 
 Majid, fort, 473 
 
 Makarios, abbot of Pelekete, 75, 139, 277 
 
 Makrolivada, 361 
 
 Malagina, 13 
 
 Malakopaia, 474 
 
 Malamir, reign of, 369 sqq., 382, Appen- 
 dix X. 
 
 Malamocco, 321 sq., 324, 327 
 
 Maleinos, see Nicephorus Maleiuos 
 
 Malevo, 376 
 
 Mamun, Caliph, supports Thomas the 
 Slavonian, 87 sqq. ; religious heresy, 
 
 233 sq. ; finance under, 237 ; at 
 Baghdad, 243, 259 ; struggle with 
 Amin, 251 ; with Babek, ib. ; war 
 with the Empire, 254 sqq., 472 sqq. ; 
 death, 256 ; expedition against 
 Khazars, 408 ; interest in science 
 and learning, 446 sqq. 
 
 Maniakes, see Constantine, Armenian 
 
 Manichaeanism imputed to Paulicians, 
 40, 200, 277 
 
 Manikophagos, 268, 271 
 
 Mansur, Caliph, 239 sq. 
 
 Manuel, protostrator, 27 ; strategos of 
 Armeniacs, 46 ; uncle of Theodora, 
 81 (cp. 476) ; regent for Michael 
 III., 144, 155 ; connection with 
 Studites, 145, 149 ; speech in 
 Hippodrome, 146 ; magister, 149 ; 
 flight of, 256 sq. (cp. 272, 461), 
 474 sqq. ; Domestic of Schools, 258 
 
 Manuel, archbishop of Hadrianople, 356, 
 359, 382 
 
 Marbles, 130, 132 
 
 Marcellae, 339, 341, 343 
 
 Mardaites, 378 
 
 Maria, Empress, wife of Constantine 
 VI., Ill 
 
 Maria, daughter of Theophilus, 126, 
 Appendix VI. 
 
 Maria, wife of Basil I., 169 
 
 Marianos, brother of Basil I. , 459 
 
 Marineo, 305 
 
 Marines, father of Empress Theodora, 
 81, 156 
 
 Marj-Uskuf, 284 
 
 Mark, St., corpse of, 327 
 
 Marriage with non-Christians and heretics, 
 124 
 
 Martin, Bulgarian envoy, 389 
 
 Martyropolis, 284 
 
 Marwan, Caliph, 407 
 
 Masalaion, 73 
 
 Massar, 313 
 
 Mathematics, 436 sqq. 
 
 Maurianos, 178 
 
 Maurice, Emperor, = Maruk, 241 sq. 
 
 Maurice, Duke of Venice, 322 ; his son 
 and colleague, Maurice, 323 
 
 Mauropotamon, 274, 282 
 
 Mazara, 298 sq. 
 
 Megere, Hungarian tribe, 492 
 
 Melas, R., 102 
 
 Meleona, 338, 341, 348, 362 
 
 Melissenoi, family of, 25, 67, 159 (see 
 Kallistos Melissenoi) 
 
 Melitene, 244, 260, 273, 278 
 
 Menzale, Lake, 292 
 
 Mesembria, 347, 350, 357 
 
 Messina, 306 
 
 Metamir, 474 
 
 Methodius, apostle of the Slavs, 393, 
 399, 400, 401 ; Appendix XI.
 
 522 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Methodius, Patriarch : abbot of Cheno- 
 lakkos, 73 ; at Rome, ib. ; brings 
 papal letter to Michael II., 115 ; 
 imprisoned, 116 ; treatment of, by 
 Theophilus, 139 sq., 435 ; share in re- 
 storing images, 145 sqq. ; Patriarch, 
 147 ; date of death, 145 ; scandalous 
 charge against, 151; moderate policy 
 against heretics, 152, 182 ; attacked 
 by Studites, 181 sqq. 
 
 Methodius, painter, 374, 386 
 
 Methone (in Peloponnesus), 378 
 
 Metopa, 71 
 
 Metrophanes, bishop of Smyrna, 151, 
 190 sq., 396, 486 
 
 Mezkert, 260 
 
 Michael I., Emperor : Curopalates, 14; 
 children, 14 ; relations to Stauracius, 
 17 sqq, ; reign, 21 sqq. ; policy, 23 
 sq. ; defeated by Bulgarians, 26 ; 
 fall, 29 ; death, 30 ; ecclesiastical 
 policy, 39 sqq. ; negotiations with 
 Charles the Great, 325 ; Bulgarian 
 war, 346 sqq. ; conspiracy of brothers 
 of Constantine V. against, 346 
 
 Michael II., Emperor : supports and 
 deserts Bardanes, 11 sq. ; Count of 
 the Tent, 12 ; relations with Leo V., 
 44 sqq. ; Domestic of Excubitors, 
 46 ; conspiracy against Leo V., 48 
 sqq. ; accession and coronation, 77 
 sq. ; character, 78 sqq., 112; second 
 marriage, 110 sq. ; ecclesiastical 
 policy, 111 sqq. ; letter to Lewis 
 the Pious, 117, 462 ; death, 118 ; 
 attitude to fellow - conspirators 
 against Leo V., 125 ; lightens hearth- 
 tax, 218 ; attempts to recover Crete, 
 289 sq. ; sends expedition to Sicily, 
 296 sqq. ; Dalmatia under, 330 
 
 Michael III., Emperor : birth, 126 (and 
 Appendix VI.) ; minority, 154 sqq. ; 
 marriage, 156 ; overthrows the re- 
 gency, 157 sqq. ; proclaimed sole 
 autokrator, 160 ; expels Theodora, 
 ib. ; consigns government to Bardas, 
 161 sqq. ; passion for horse races, 
 162, 176, 285 ; travesties ecclesias- 
 tical ceremonies, 162 sq. ; extrava- 
 gance, 164 ; relations with Eudocia 
 Ingerina, 156, 162 ; promotes Basil, 
 168 sqq. ; arranges murder of 
 Bardas, 170 sqq. ; letter to Photius, 
 172 ; elevates Basil to throne, 174 
 sq. ; murder of, 177 sq. ; called 
 Drunkard, 176 ; fortifies Ancyra, 
 266 ; campaigns against Saracens, 
 279 sqq., 419 ; suppresses fire 
 signals, 285 ; military demonstration 
 in Bulgaria, 384 ; acts as sponsor to 
 Boris, 385 ; repels Russians, 421 ; 
 length of reign, 468 
 
 Michael, Synkellos of Jerusalem, 75 ; 
 imprisoned by Theophilus, 139 ; 
 abbot of Chora, 147 
 Michael, commander at Panormos, 297, 
 
 450 
 
 Michael, strategos of Sicily, 450 
 Michael, bishop of Synnada, 65, 75 
 Michael Syrus, chronicle, 275, 462 sqq. 
 Miliarision, 214 
 Milings, 376, 379, 380 
 Miliniska, 413 
 Mineo, 302, 303, 304 
 Mines, 212 
 Miniatures, 431 sq. 
 Mint, 211, 212 
 Minturnae, 310 
 Misenum, 314 
 Moechiau controversy, 34 sqq. (cp. 38, 
 
 note 1) 
 
 Mohammad ibn Hu/aw, 288 
 Mohammad, African general in Sicily, 
 
 301 
 Mohammad ibn Musa (al-Khwarizmi), 
 
 438 
 
 Molos (in Lesbos), 75 
 Monasteries (see also under Constanti- 
 nople) 
 
 Agathos (Bosphorus), 68, 112 
 
 Agros (Sigriane), 74 
 
 Crescentius, 112 
 
 Despotai, 56 
 
 Kleidion, 151 
 
 Pelekete, 75 
 
 Phoberon, 140, 141 
 
 Satyros, 30, 133, 183 
 
 Sosthenes, 136 
 
 Theodore, St. (Bosphorus), 68, 112 
 
 Tryphon, St., 116 
 Monasteries, taxation of, 213, 215 
 Monasticism, 196, 208 sq. 
 Monegarius, 326 
 Monembasia, 73 
 
 Money, comparative value of, 220 
 Mopsuestia, 245, 250, 276 
 Moravia, Great, 383, 392 sqq. 
 Mordvins, 411 
 Morocharzamioi, family, 60 
 Moros, see Theodore Moros 
 Mosaics, 131 sq. 
 Mosmar, 86 
 Motyke, 306 
 
 Mumdzhilar, mound at, 367 
 Mummeries of Michael III., 162 sq., 
 
 176 
 
 Muntamir, 374 
 Mustain, Caliph, 243, 286 
 Mutasim, Caliph : religious views, 234 ; 
 Turkish bodyguard, 237 ; goes to 
 Samarra, 238, 243 ; war with 
 Empire, 259 sqq. 
 Mutawakkil, Caliph, 234, 307 
 Mutazalites, 233 sq.
 
 INDEX 
 
 523 
 
 Mutazz, Caliph, 286 
 
 Myron, father-in-law of Petronas, 257 
 
 Mytilene, 191 
 
 Naples, 309 sq., 311 sq., 313 sqq., 331 
 
 Nasar, strategos of Bukellarians, 283 
 
 Nasr, Saracen rebel, 259, 262, 265, 272 
 
 Nasr, envoy, 279 sq. 
 
 Naukratios of Studion, 192 
 
 Navarino, 377 
 
 Navy, 229 sqq., 291, 301, 421 ; Im- 
 perial, 91, 230, 421 ; Thematic, 
 90, 230 ; Saracen, 293 
 
 Neatokometes, see John Neatokometes 
 
 Negroes, 89, 124, 238 
 
 Neocaesarea, 108, 264 
 
 Neoi, island of, 293 
 
 Nestor, see Pseudo-Nestor 
 
 Nestorians, 243 
 
 Nicaea (in Thrace), 347 
 
 Nicephorus I., Emperor : General Logo- 
 thete, 5 ; conspires against Irene, 
 ib. ; coronation, 6 ; descent and 
 character, 8 ; reign and policy, 9 
 sqq. ; family, 14 ; age, ib. ; death, 
 15, 344 ; story of his hunting, 30 ; 
 ecclesiastical policy, 31 sqq., 57 ; 
 financial measures, 212 sqq. ; war 
 with Saracens. 249 sqq. ; fortifies 
 Ancyra, 266 ; negotiations with 
 Charles the Great, 320 sq. , 324 sq. 
 recovers Venice, 324 ; revolt against, 
 in Liburnia, 329 ; Bulgarian wars 
 of, 340 sqq. ; revolt of Peloponnesian 
 Slavs against, 376 sqq. 
 
 Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople : 
 political action in reign of Stauracius, 
 18 sq. ; requires capitulation from 
 Michael L, 20; election as Patriarch, 
 32 sqq. ; his praise of Leo V. , 47 ; 
 demands oath of orthodoxy from 
 Leo V., 56 sq. ; opposition to Leo, 
 62 sqq. ; illness, 66 sq. ; deposed, 
 67 ; his monasteries, 68, 112 ; 
 writings ,of, 69, 70 ; visited by 
 Theodore Studion, 112 ; buried in 
 Church of Apostles, 182 ; Life by 
 Ignatius, 183 ; relations to Roman 
 See, 208 
 
 Nicephorus Maleinos, 175 
 
 Nicephorus, envoy of Leo V. to Lewis 
 the Pious, 329 
 
 Nicephorus, engineer. 343 
 
 Nicetas, abbot of Medikion, 73 
 
 Nicetas Paphlagon, his Vita Ignatii, 
 470 sq. (The attribution has been 
 unsuccessfully assailed by Papado- 
 pulos-Kerameus.) 
 
 Nicetas, author of Refutation of 
 Mohammad, 439 
 
 Nicetas, bishop of Myra, 117 
 
 Nicetas Rentakios, 380 
 
 Nicetas Triphyllios, 5 
 
 Nicetas, commander of a fleet against 
 
 Venice, 324 
 Nicolas I. , Pope : letter to Theodora, 
 
 177 ; ideas and claims, 192 sq., 
 
 199 ; policy in the Ignatian schism, 
 correspondence with Michael and 
 Photius, 193 sqq. ; gifts of Michael 
 III. to, 193 ; claim to Sicily/ and 
 Illyricum, 194 sq. ; letter to Pastern 
 Patriarchs, 197 sq. ; sy/ods of, 
 199 ; opposition to, in f ,ue West, 
 
 200 sq. ; anathematised at Con- 
 stantinople, 201 ; responses to Bul- 
 garian questions, 389 sqq. ; summons 
 Cyril and Methodius to Rome, 400 ; 
 death, ib. 
 
 Nicolas, caretaker -of St. Diomede, 166 
 
 Nicolas, iconoclastic preacher, 38, 41 
 
 Nicolas Skutelops, 197 
 
 Nicolas, Studite monk, 71, 145, 192, 452 
 
 Nicomedia, 83 
 
 Nicopolis, on Danube, 338, 347 
 
 Nicopolis, on Jantra, 362 
 
 Nigrinianae, 367 
 
 Noto, 308 
 
 Novgorod, 412, 413, 417, 419, 423 
 
 Nyssa, 266 
 
 Obelierius, 323, 324, 325 
 
 Ochrida, 371, 384 
 
 Oderzo (Opitergium), 321 
 
 Oekonomos (ecclesiastical), 35, 108 
 
 Okorses, 366 
 
 Olbianos, strategos of Armeniacs, 87, 90, 
 
 99, 102 
 Oleg, 423 
 Olivolo, 321, 324 
 Omar, Emir of Melitene, 259, 281 sqq. ; 
 
 death, 284 
 Omurtag, Bulgarian king, aids Michael 
 
 II. against Thomas. 100 sqq. ; reign, 
 
 359 sqq. ; form of his name, 360 ; 
 
 buildings and inscriptions, 366 sqq. ; 
 
 persecution of Christians, 382 ; 
 
 children, 451 
 Onegavon, 365 sq. 
 Onopniktes, river, 112 
 Ooryphas, question of identity of persons 
 
 of this name, 143 sq. ; Nicetas, 191, 
 
 230 ; see also 290, 292, 419 
 Oracles, 300 ; books of, 51 
 Organs, 128, 134 
 Orthodoxy, Feast of, 150 sqq. 
 Oskold, 422 sq. 
 Ossero, 313 
 Ossetians, 409 
 Ostia, 314 
 Otranto, 309 
 Oxeia, island, 30, 36 
 
 Paganism, 381, 440 sqq.
 
 524 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Paideuomenos, see Theophilus Paideuo- 
 menos 
 
 Painting, 430 sqq. (see Pictures and Icons) 
 
 "Palata," 297, 299, 450 
 
 Palestrina, 324 
 
 Palin, 260 
 
 Panion, 103, 107 
 
 Pankaleia, 270 
 
 Pankalo, 165 
 
 Pankratios, father of John the Gram- 
 marian, 60 
 
 Pannonia, 365, 399, 401 
 
 Panormos (Antigoni), island, 41 
 
 Panormos (Palermo), 297, 304 sq., 308 
 
 Paphlagonia, 81 (see under Themes) 
 
 Papias (keeper of Great Palace), 51, 159, 
 178 
 
 Parakoemomenos (high chamberlain) : 
 Damianos, 157 ; Basil, 169 
 
 Parakondakes, 277 
 
 Paros, 290 
 
 Partav, 410 
 
 Parteciaci, of Venice, 328 (see Agnellus 
 Parteciaci) 
 
 Partridge, symbolic, 170 
 
 Paschal I., Pope : correspondence with 
 Theodore Stud., 71, 73 ; on image- 
 worship, 115 ; death, 118 
 
 Passau, archbishopric of, 392, 400 
 
 Patrae, 167, 377 sq. 
 
 Patriarchs of Constantinople, appointment 
 of, 189 sq., 196 ; oath of, 189 ; elec- 
 tion of laymen, 32, 33, 194, 196, 207 
 
 Patriarchs, oriental, 138, 192, 197, 200 
 
 Patrikes, architect, 132 
 
 Patzikos, see Constantino Patzikos 
 
 Patzinaks, 411, 424, 425, 492 
 
 Paulicians, under Nicephorus I. , 38 ; 
 persecution under Michael I., 40, 
 277 ; support Thomas, 86, 109 ; 
 persecuted by Theophilus and 
 Theodora, 276 sqq. ; settlements in 
 eastern Cappadocia, 278 ; in Bulgaria, 
 388 
 
 Paulus, strategos of Kephallenia, 324 
 
 Paulus, bishop of Populonia, 389 
 
 Peacocks, 322 
 
 Peganes, George, 175 sq. 
 
 Peloponnesus, 167, 224, 376 sqq. 
 
 Pentapyrgion, 134 
 
 Pentekontarchs, 227 
 
 Perekop, Gulf of, 425 
 
 Persecution of apostates enjoined by 
 Pope, 391 sq. 
 
 Persian element in Caliphate, 232 sq. ; 
 Persians (Persamenians), in Imperial 
 service, 252 sqq., 265 
 
 Peter, of Mt. Athos, 150 
 
 Peter, bishop of Nicaea, 65 
 
 Peter, relative of Boris, 389 
 
 Peter Bulgaros, 178 
 
 Peter, false legate at Council of 867, 202 
 
 Peter, bishop of Sardis, 185 
 
 Peter, patrician, slain in Bulgaria, 345 
 
 Peter Trandenicus, 328 
 
 Petronas, brother of Theodora : Druugary 
 of the Watch, 122, 143, 160; 
 Domestic of Schools, 161, 198 ; said 
 to have intrigued against Manuel, 
 257 ; stratOgos of Thracesians, 278 ; 
 campaigns against Saracens, 278 sq. ; 
 victory at Poson, 283 sq. ; Domestic 
 of Schools, 284 
 
 Petronas Kamateros (probably not. identi- 
 cal with preceding), 416 sq. 
 
 Phanagoria, 409 
 
 Pharganoi, 228, 238 
 
 Phiale, 131 
 
 Philaretos, of Panormos, 304 
 
 Philippi, 347 
 
 Philippopolis, 347, 483 
 
 Philomelion, 11, 59 
 
 Philosophy, teachers of, at Constantinople, 
 394 
 
 Philotheos, General Logothete, 171 
 
 Photeinos, 289 sq., 296 sq., 479 sq. 
 
 Photius, Patriarch : family of, 156 ; 163 ; 
 constructs genealogy for Basil I., 
 165 ; 171 ; letters to Michael III. 
 after murder of Bardas, 172 sqq., 
 175 ; career, 186 ; doctrine of two 
 souls, 187 ; Patriarch, 190 ; con- 
 ciliatory policy, 192 ; correspondence 
 with Pope Nicolas, 193 sqq. ; con- 
 demned by Roman synod, 199 ; 
 condemns Latin heresies, 200 ; 
 obtains condemnation of Pope, 201 ; 
 accused of forgery, 202 ; deposed, 
 203 ; death, 204 ; a Father of the 
 Church, ib. ; De mystagogia, 205 ; 
 champion of Greek national feeling, 
 206 ; letter to Boris, 387 sq. ; friend- 
 ship with Constantino the Philo- 
 sopher, 393 sq. ; sermons on the 
 Russian peril, 420 sq. ; sends bishop 
 to Russians, 422 ; books of, 432, 446 
 sq. ; learning, 435 ; alleged compact 
 with the devil, 444 sq. ; on earth- 
 quakes, 445 ; Bibliotheca, 445 sqq. ; 
 relations with Cretan Emirs, 439 
 Phrixu-limen, 127 
 
 Physiologus, illustrations of, 432 
 Pictures, 430 sqq. ; Last Judgment, 386 
 
 (see Icons and Skylitzes) 
 Pidra, 11 
 
 Pippin, King, 323 sq., 326 
 Piracy, 327 
 
 Pisidia, Paulicians in, 38 
 Platani, 305 
 Plate, island, 30, 183 
 Plateia Petra, fort, 176 
 Plato, abbot, 32 ; exiled, 34, 36 
 Plato, Bodleian MS. of, 448 ; Arabic 
 translations, 438, 441
 
 INDEX 
 
 525 
 
 Pliska, 332 sqq. ; Nicephorus I. plunders 
 
 (1) 341, (2) 343 ; 360 
 Podandos, 246, 256 
 Podreza, 167 
 Poetry (see also Political verses), vulgar, 
 
 108 ; of Constantino the Sicilian, 
 
 440 sq. 
 
 Poliane, 411, 412 
 Poliorcetic machines, 358 
 Political verses, 82 
 Ponza, archipelago of, 314 
 Poson, battle of, 283 sq., 385 
 Postmaster, of Caliphate, 236 
 Praedenecenti, 364 
 Praenete, 192 
 Praepositus, 127, 175 
 Praetorian Prefect of lllyricum, 223 sq, 
 Praktores, 210 
 Prefect of City (virapxos), 10, 124, 127 ; 
 
 " father of the city," 128 ; 137, 345 ; 
 
 Ooryphas, 144, 419 
 Presiam, 369, 370, Appendix X. 
 Preslav, Great, foundation of, 367 sq. 
 Preslav, Little, 338 
 Princes, Islands of, 419 (see Prinkipo, 
 
 Prote, Antigoni, etc.) 
 Prinkipo (Prince's Island), 7, 111, 116, 
 
 183 
 
 Probaton, 347, 373, 483 
 Proclus, 441 
 
 Proconnesian islands, 41, 293 
 Procopia (Empress), marriage, 14 ; 17, 
 
 19, 20 ; coronation, 22 ; jealousy of 
 
 wife of Leo V., 27 ; tonsured, 29 ; 
 
 196, 346, 350 
 
 Procopius, protovestiarios of Bardas, 171 
 Prote, island, 13, 30, 55, 184 
 Protoasekretis, Eutychian, 66 ; Photius, 
 
 186 
 
 Protostrator, Manuel, 27 ; 161 ; Basil, 168 
 Protovestiarios (Keeper of Private Ward- 
 robe), Leo Chamaidrakon, 124 ; 
 
 Theophanes, 157 ; Rentakios, 177 
 Prusa, 112 
 'Psalters: Khludov, 431; Barberini, 
 
 431 sq. 
 
 Pseudo-Xestor, 418, 423 
 Pseudo-Simeon, chronicle, 44, 459 
 Psicha, 152 
 Pteleae, 112 
 Ptolemy the Geographer, 441 ; Vatican 
 
 MS. of his work, 436 
 Pulcheria, daughter of Theophilus, 143, 
 
 160, Appendix VI. 
 Pylae (in Bithynia), 257 
 
 Quaestor, functions, 10 ; Theoktistos, 5 ; 
 
 Arsaber, 14 ; Eustathios, 122 
 Quaruero, Gulf of, 313 
 
 Radelchis, 312 sq. 
 Radimishchi, 412 
 
 Ragusa (in Sicily), 306 
 
 Rangabe, family, 22 
 
 Rasa, 337, 374 
 
 Ratramnus, of Corbie, 205 
 
 Receipts, tax-, duty on, 214 
 
 Regencies in case of minority, 144, 154 
 sq. 
 
 Reggio, 309 
 
 Relics, sacred : clothes of the Virgin, 
 95, 420 
 
 Reliquaries, 434 
 
 Rentakios, 177 (see Nicetas Rentakios) 
 
 Resaina, 258, 474 
 
 Rhaedestos, 195, 356 
 
 Rhegion (in Thrace), 355 
 
 Rhegion (in Calabria), see Reggio 
 
 Rodentos, 246 
 
 Rodsaldus, bishop of Porto, 193, 199 
 
 Roman us L, Emperor, 443, 455, 458 
 
 Romanus, strategos of Auatolics, 343 
 
 Rome, See of : question of appeal to, 114, 
 185, 199 ; theory of supremacy of, 
 115, 180, 194, 198, 199, 205 
 
 Rome, attacked by Saracens, 314 ; pro- 
 claims Charles the Great Emperor, 
 318 
 
 Rossano, 309 
 
 Rostislav, 383, 393, 396 
 
 Rufinianae, 133 
 
 Rurik, 422 
 
 Rusokastro, 361 
 
 Russians, origin and settlements, 412 ; 
 trade, 413 sq. ; plundering expedi- 
 tions, 417 sq. ; embassy to Theo- 
 philus, 418 ; attack Constantinople, 
 192, 419 sqq. ; conversion to Chris- 
 tianity, 422 ; foundation of Kiev, 
 419, 422 sq. 
 
 Sabbatians, 78 
 
 Sabbatios, hermit, 59, 363 
 
 Saffah, Caliph, 238 
 
 Safsaf, al-, 245 
 
 Saipes (Shuaib), 293 
 
 Sakellarios, functions, 211 sq. ; Leo, 5 
 
 Sakellion, 211 sq. 
 
 Sakellion, Cliartulary of, 211 
 
 Saksin, 403 
 
 Salerno, 310, 311 ; principality of, 315 
 
 Salibaras, see Theodosius Salibaras 
 
 Salmutzes, 426, 489 sq. 
 
 Samarra, 150, 271, 286 
 
 Sambatas, 411 
 
 Samosata, 279 
 
 Samothrace, 74 
 
 Sauiana, 108, 238 
 
 Sansego, 313 
 
 Saracens : hostilities in reign of Michael 
 II., 87 ; warfare with Empire in 
 Asia Minor, 249 sqq. (cp. Appendix 
 VIII.) ; attack Crete, 287 sqq. ; 
 attack Sicily, 294 sqq. ; attack South
 
 526 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Italy, 312 sqq. ; administration of 
 Caliphate, 235 sqq. ; captives, 101 
 (see under Captives) ; co-operate 
 with Peloponnesian Slavs, 376 sq. 
 theological disputations with Chris- 
 tians, 394, 438 sq. ; commerce, 414, 
 418 ; science and learning, 436 sqq. 
 
 Sardica (Sofia), 337, 341 sq. 
 
 Sarirs, 409 
 
 Sarkel, 416 
 
 Saryg-shar, 403 
 
 Sasima, 474 
 
 Satyros, see under Monasteries 
 
 Saximodeximon, 131 
 
 Sazly-dere, river, 361 
 
 Scholae (Scholarian Guards), 227 sq. 
 
 Scicli, 308 
 
 Science, 436 sqq. 
 
 Scriptor incertus de Leone, 352, 357 
 
 Sculpture, 152 sq., 430 
 
 Sebastea (Sivas), 244, 264, 281 
 
 Sebastopolis (Sulu-serai), 282 
 
 Selymbria, 356 
 
 Semalouos, fort, 473 
 
 Semender, 403 
 
 Senate, 110 sq., 124, 125, 160, 231, 349 
 
 Senate at Rome, 318 
 
 Senzaton (coinage) 164 
 
 Serantapechos, see Leo Serantapechos 
 
 Sergius, father of Photius, 156 
 
 Sergius, brother of Photius, 156 
 
 Sergius, Paulician leader, 276 
 
 Sergius, Duke of Naples, 310, 313, 314 
 
 Servia, 337, 372, 373 sq. 
 
 Sevordik, 410, 424, 491 
 
 Shamkor, 410, 423 
 
 Sicard, 311 sq. 
 
 Sicily, monks of, 183 ; ecclesiastical 
 government of, 194 sq. ; Saracen 
 invasion of, 294 sqq. 
 
 Sicon, 311 
 
 Siever, 412 
 
 Sigrene, 74 
 
 Sigriane, 74 
 
 Sikenolf, 312 
 
 Silention, 113, 125, 146 
 
 Silistria, 335 
 
 Simeon, magister : chronicle, 136, 170, 
 175, 176, 257, 369 sq., Appendix IV. 
 
 Simeon, monk, kinsman of Michael I., 20 
 
 Simeon, monk, correspondent of Theo- 
 dore Stud., 33, 38 
 
 Simeon, abbot, correspondent of Theo- 
 dore Stud., 36 
 
 Simeon, Cretan bishop, 163 
 
 Simeon, spatharios (in Sicily), 304 
 
 Simeon Stylites of Lesbos, 33 ; persecuted 
 by Leo V., 75 ; by Theophilus, 139 ; 
 interview with Theodora, 148 
 
 Simeon, Tsar, date of accession, 373 ; 
 story that he was killed by magic, 
 444 
 
 Sinan, fort, 473 
 
 Singidunum, 364, 365 
 
 Sinope, 252, 253, 282 
 
 Sirica, 248 
 
 Sirmium, 365 
 
 Sis, 248 
 
 Skeuophylax of S. Sophia, 198 
 
 Skleros, see Leo Skleros 
 
 Skorta, 380 
 
 Skutelops, see Nicolas Skxitelops 
 
 Skylitzes, John : Chronicle, 272, 278 ; 
 illustrations in Madrid MS. of, 28, 
 45, 55, 137, 141, 143, 163, 444 
 
 Skyros, 93 
 
 Slaves, duties on, 217 ; traffic in, 322 
 
 Slavonic alphabets and early theological 
 literature, 396 sqq., 487 
 
 Slavs, of Macedonia, 92, 342, 371, 399 ; 
 of Dalmatia, 329 ; of Croatia, 363 ; 
 of Peloponnesus, 373, 376 sqq. ; of 
 Russia, 411, 412 
 
 Smoleanoi, Slavonic tribe, 373 
 
 Smolensk, 413 
 
 Smyrna, Theodore Stud, at, 72 
 
 Soandos, 473 
 
 Socrates, 441 
 
 Sophene, Little, 260 sqq. 
 
 Sophia, sister of Theodora, 155 
 
 Sortes biblicae, 390 
 
 Souls, heresy of two, 187 
 
 Spain, 273, 287, 300, 304 
 
 Spanos, Mass of the, 163 
 
 Spektas, see John Spektas 
 
 Sper, 261 
 
 Stara Zagora, 347 
 
 Stauracius, Emperor, crowned, 14 ; 
 marriage, 15 ; reign, 16 sqq. 
 
 Stauracius, son of Michael I., 14, 29 
 
 Stenon (the Bosphorus), 394, 419 
 
 Stephanos, Domestic of the Schools, 1 6 ; 
 alternately suspected, 17, and trusted 
 by Stauracius, 19 ; under Michael 
 I., 27 
 
 Stephanos, nephew of Theodora, 156 
 
 Stephanos, patrician, 262 
 
 Stephanos, St., of Surozh, 417 
 
 Stephen I., Duke of Naples, 309 
 
 Stephen II., Duke of Naples, 310 
 
 Strategoi in command of more than one 
 Theme, 10. See Themes 
 
 Strobiles, 75 
 
 Studite monks, schism of, 36, 41 ; 
 friendship with Manuel, 145, 146 ; 
 theory of Church and opposition to 
 Patriarchs, 180 sqq., 209 ; excom- 
 municated by Methodius, 182 ; 
 monastic reform, 208 (see Theodore, 
 abbot of Studion) 
 
 Stylite saints, 33 
 
 Suda, bay of, 288 
 
 Sudee( = Afshin)? 264 
 Sugdaia, 417, 418
 
 INDEX 
 
 527 
 
 Sundus, fort, 473 
 
 Surnames, 22 
 
 Surozh, 417, 418 
 
 Surrentum, 314 
 
 Syllaion, 61 
 
 Symbatios (Constantine), son of Leo V., 
 
 55 
 Symbatios, cousin of Asylaion, 178, 458 
 
 sq. 
 Symbatios, son-in-law of Bardas Caesar, 
 
 159, 170, 174, 175 
 Synkellos (of Constantinople), 135 
 Synods, see Councils. 
 Syracuse, 296 sq. , 299 ; Saracen siege of, 
 
 300 sqq. ; 308 
 Syria, literature of, introduces Greek 
 
 learning to Arabs, 234 
 
 Tabit ibu Kurra, 438 
 
 Tagmata, 63, 227 sq., 265, 283, 491 
 
 (see Schools, Excubitors, Arithmos, 
 
 Hikanatoi) 
 Taktikon Uspenski (list of officials 
 
 compiled A.D. 842-856), 222, 223 
 Tamatarkha, 409, 414 
 Tarasius, Patriarch, crowns Nicephorus, 
 
 6 ; 13 ; policy, 31 ; death, 32 ; 
 
 opportunism, 34 ; Leo V. dreams of, 
 
 51 ; "Taraxios," 59 ; 156, 180 sq. 
 Tarasius, brother of Photius, 156, 446 
 Tarath, 241 
 Tarentum, 312, 313 
 Tarkan, 335, 365 
 Tarku, 404 
 Taron, 265 
 Tarsatica, 329 
 Tarsus, 245, 250, 256, 473 
 Tatta, Lake, 283 
 Tauromenium, 308 
 Taxation, 212 sqq. 
 Teke-Musachevo, 361 
 Telerig, 382 
 Teliutsa, 413 
 Tephrike, 278 
 
 Terebinthos, island, 183, 189, 191, 419 
 Terracina, 310 
 Tervel, 336, 339 
 Tetraxite Goths, 409 
 Thasos, 75, 291 
 Thecla, Empress, wife of Michael II., 80, 
 
 110 sq. 
 Thecla, Empress, daughter of Theophilus : 
 
 on coins, 154 ; paramour of Basil, 
 
 169; death, ib. ; 284, 331, Appendix 
 
 VI. 
 Themes : list of, 224 sq. 
 
 new, added under Theophilus and 
 
 Michael III., 222 sqq. 
 the Five, 10, 221 sq. ; the Seven, 222 ; 
 
 Eight, ib. 
 Aegean, 90, 230 
 Anatolic, 222, 225, 283, 352 ; strategoi : 
 
 Bardanes, 10; Leo Arm., 24; 
 Aetius, 263 ; Photeinos, 289 ; 
 Romanus, 343 
 
 Armeniac, 87, 226, 283, 350 ; strategoi : 
 87 ; Leo, 343 
 
 Bukellarian, 226, 283 ; strategoi : 
 Krateros (?) 266 ; Nasar, 283 
 
 Calabria, 223 
 
 Cappadocia, 222, 283, 350 
 
 Chaldia, 222 sq., 261 
 
 Charsianon, 222, 249, 283, 306 ; 
 kleisurarches : Basil, 272 
 
 Crete : strategos, Photeinos, 289 
 
 Dyrrhachium, 224 
 
 Hellas, 223 sq., 230, 378 
 
 Kephalonia, 224, 230, strategos : Paul, 
 324 
 
 Kibyrrhaeot, 90, 230 ; strategos : 
 Krateros, 290 
 
 Klimata (Cherson), 223 sq., 417 ; 
 strategos : Petronas, ib. 
 
 Koloneia, 223, 225, 283 ; dux, 223 
 
 Macedonia, 225, 352 ; strategoi : 166 ; 
 John Aplakes, 350 
 
 Opsikian, 87, 122, 283, 346 ; Counts : 
 Musulakios, 5 ; Katakylas, 87 ; 
 Peganes, 122 
 
 Paphlagonia, 222 sq., 230, 283, 416, 
 418 
 
 Peloponnesus, 224, 230, 378 ; strategoi : 
 Joannes Creticus, 307 ; Leo Skleros, 
 378 ; Theoktistos Bryennios, 379 
 
 Samos, 230 
 
 Seleucia, 222, 283 
 
 Sicily, 309 ; strategoi : Elpidios, 295 
 sq. ; Constantine, 295 ; Gregory, 
 ib. ; Photeinos, 296 ; Constantine 
 Kontomytes, 308 ; Michael, 318 
 
 Talaya, Tana, 224 
 
 Thrace, 225, 352 ; strategos : Leo 
 Triphyllios, 5 
 
 Thrakesian, 226, 283, 346 ; strategoi : 
 Bardas, 72 ; Symbatios, 175 ; 
 Petrouas, 278, 283 ; Constantine 
 Kontomytes, 291 
 Theodegios, astronomer, 439 
 Theodora, Empress : marriage, 81 sqq. ; 
 parentage, 81 ; speculates in mer- 
 chandise, 123 ; children of, 126, 
 Appendix VI . ; intercedes for Lazarus, 
 140 ; devotion to images, 141 sq. ; 
 regent, 144, 154 sqq. ; restoration of 
 images, 144 sqq. ; rule of, 154 sqq. ; 
 fall, 159 sq., 468 sqq. ; plots 
 against Bardas, 161 ; liberated, 169, 
 177 ; 179 ; Gebeon's slander of, 189 ; 
 savings of, 164, 211, 231 ; 284 ; 
 ransoms Theodore Kupharas, 385 
 Theodore, geometer, 439 
 Theodore Graptos, and his brother 
 Theophanes, persecuted by Leo V., 
 75 ; by Theophilus, 136 sqq.
 
 528 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 Theodore, abbot of Studiou : his flattery 
 of Irene, 4 ; relations to Theoktistos, 
 26 ; views on election of Patriarch 
 in 806 A.D., 32 sq. ; creates schism 
 on Moechian question, 34 sqq. ; 
 genealogy of, 35 ; godson of Theo- 
 phanes, 36 ; exile, 37 ; correspond- 
 ence, ib. ; letter to Empress Theo- 
 dosia, 56 ; opposition to Leo V., 
 
 64 ; protest against Caesaropapism, 
 
 65 ; theory of image-worship, 70 ; 
 agitation against Leo V., 71 ; exiled 
 and persecuted, ib. sqq. ; on second 
 marriage of Michael II., Ill ; 
 released from prison, 112 ; satisfac- 
 tion at death of Leo V., ib. ; works 
 for image-worship under Michael II., 
 113 sqq. ; death, 116; body removed 
 to Studion, 116 sq., 182 ; doctrine 
 of ecclesiastical government, 180 sq . ; 
 urges war with Bulgaria, 348 ; collec- 
 tions of his letters, Appendix I. 
 
 Theodore Krateros, 266, 267, 271 
 Theodore Kupharas, 374, 385 
 Theodore Moros, 197 
 Theodore, oekonomos of St. Sophia, 117 
 Theodore, protospatharios, governor of 
 
 Naples, 310 
 Theodore, strategos, envoy of Michael 
 
 II. to Lewis, 117 
 Theodosia, Empress, wife of Leo V.,= 
 
 Barca, 27, 50, 55 sq., 66 
 Theodosiopolis, 261 
 Theodosius III., Emperor, 339 
 Theodosius Babutzikos, 273 
 Theodosius, bishop of Chalcedon, 273 
 Theodosius of Melitene, Chronicle, 456 sq. 
 Theodosius Salibaras, 218, 342, 345 
 Theodote, Empress (of Constantino VI. ), 
 
 34 ; kinship to Theodore Stud., 
 
 35 ; brothers, 41 
 
 Theodotos Kassiteras, Patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople : family of, 25 ; friend of 
 
 Michael I., 25 ; supports Leo V. in 
 
 iconoclasm, 59, 67 ; Patriarch, 68 
 
 sq.,75 ; death, 114*5'. caricatured, 
 
 431 
 
 Theodotos, commander in Sicily, 303 sq. 
 Theognostos, Exarch of Monasteries, 198 
 
 sq., 469 
 
 Theognostos, historian, 479 
 Theoktiste, mother of Empress Theodora, 
 
 126, 142 sq. 
 Theoktistos, quaestor, 5 ; joins in plot 
 
 against Irene, ib. ; magister, 16 ; 
 
 works for the cause of Michael 
 
 Rangabe, 17 sqq. ; influence, 26 ; 
 
 advises him not to abdicate, 27 ; 
 
 urges war with Bulgaria, 348 
 Theoktistos, Logothete of Course, helps 
 
 in conspiracy against Leo V., 52 ; 
 
 regent for Michael III., 144, 154 
 
 sqq. ; share in restoring images, 145 
 sqq. ; power under Theodora, 154 
 sqq. ; house of, in Palace, 155 ; 
 murder of, 157 sqq. ; expedition to 
 Abasgia, 274 ; expedition to Crete, 
 291 ; patronizes Constantino the 
 Philosopher, 394, 395, 439 ; intro- 
 duces Leo the Philosopher to Theo- 
 philus, 437 
 
 Theoktistos Bryennios, 379 
 
 Theophanes, chronographer : tendency 
 and partiality, 6, 7, 13, 34, 354 ; 
 on fiscal policy of Nicephorus, 217 ; 
 last portion of his work, 20, 352, 
 354, 356, 357 ; disagreement with 
 Theodore Stud., 38, 181 ; perse- 
 cution of, by Leo V., 74 ; date of 
 death, ib. 
 
 Theophanes, brother of Empress Theo- 
 dosia, 67 
 
 Theophanes of Farghana, protovestiarios, 
 157, 238 
 
 Theophanes Graptos, see Theodore 
 Graptos ; bishop of Nicaea, 138 
 
 Theophano, Empress : marriage to Stau- 
 racius, 15 ; influence over him, 17 sq. ; 
 retires to cloister, 21, 23 
 
 Theophano, daughter of Michael I., 14 
 
 Theophilitzes, see Theophilus Paideuo- 
 menos 
 
 Theophilus, Emperor : coronation, 80 ; 
 marriage, 80 sqq. ; activity against 
 Thomas, 95, 99 ; administration, 
 120 sqq. ; love of justice, 122 sq. ; 
 laws, 124 ; family, 126 and Ap- 
 pendix VI. ; triumphs, 127 sqq., 
 261 ; buildings, 129 sqq. ; icono- 
 clastic policy, 135 sqq.'; death, 143 ; 
 not anathematized, 145 sqq. ; ad- 
 ministrative changes in Themes, 
 222 sq. ; financial solvency, 219, 
 231 ; war with Saracens, 252 sqq., 
 472 sqq. : life endangered in battle, 
 257, 473 ; embassies to Saracens, 
 476 ; embassies to the Franks, 273, 
 331 ; embassy to Venice, 312 ; 
 Slavonic movements in Greece 
 against, 379 ; relations with Khazars 
 and Cherson, 416 sqq. ; encourages 
 secular art, 430 sq. ; encourages 
 learning, 435 sqq. ; coins, Appendix 
 VI. 
 
 Theophilus Paideuomenos, 166 
 
 Theophilus, one of Amorian martyrs, 271 
 
 Theophobos, General, 143, 146, 252 sq., 
 261, 473 
 
 Theophylactus, Emperor, son of Michael 
 I., 14 ; coronation, 23 ; becomes 
 monk, 29 ; death, 30 
 
 Theophylactus, bishop of Nicomedia, 
 65, 75 
 
 Theophylactus, archbishopof Ochrida, 451
 
 INDEX 
 
 529 
 
 Theosteriktos, Vita Nicetae Mediciani, 8, 
 453 
 
 Thessalonica, 35, 223, 371, 393, 399, 
 438, 442 
 
 Thessalonica, vicariate of, 194 sq., 197 
 
 Thirty Years' Treaty with Bulgaria, 
 360 sqq., 462 sq. 
 
 Thomas the Slavonian, birth, 11 ; sup- 
 ports Bardaues, ib. ; Turmarch of 
 the Federates, 46 ; revolt against 
 Leo V., 48, 54, 85 ; civil war with 
 Michael II., 84 sqq. ; coronation at 
 Antioch, 88 sq. ; death, 105 sq. ; 
 attitude of leading image- worshippers 
 to, 116 ; 252, 288 ; chronology of 
 revolt, Appendix V. 
 
 Thomas, patrician, 66, 67 
 
 Timok, river, 337, 363 
 
 Tinnis, 293 
 
 Tiver'tsi, 412 
 
 Torcello, 322, 327 
 
 Torture denounced by Pope Nicolas I., 
 390 
 
 Toxaras, see Constantine Toxaras 
 
 Transmarisca, 366 sq. 
 
 Trapezus, 418 
 
 Treasure-trove, 216 
 
 Treasuries of State, 210 sqq. 
 
 Triphyllios, 345 (see Leo Triphyllios 
 and Nicetas Triphyllios) 
 
 Tripoli, 295 
 
 Triptych of Stavelot, 434 
 
 Trnovo-Seimen, 361 
 
 Troina, 308 
 
 Tsepa, 370 
 
 Tserig, 336 
 
 Tsok, 359 
 
 Tundzha, river, 361 
 
 Tunis, 295 
 
 Turcis, 329 
 
 Turks in Saracen service, 237, 263, 
 286 
 
 Turks, name for Hungarians, 492 
 
 Turmarch of Federates, 46 
 
 Tutrakan, 366 
 
 Tutsa, river, 367 
 
 Tyana, 245, 250, 264 
 
 Tyndaris, 305 
 
 Tyriaion, 473 
 
 Tzakonians, 381 
 
 Tzantzes, 166, 370 (there is probably 
 some confusion in the designation of 
 Tzantzes as strategos of Macedonia) 
 
 Tziphinarites, 171 
 
 Uglichi, 412 
 
 Ujaif ibu Anbas, 474 
 
 Unigurs, 410 
 
 Urban taxes, 212, 213 
 
 Urpeli, 261 
 
 Ushtum, 293 
 
 Usury, 216 sq. 
 
 Utigurs, 409 
 
 Uzes, 411, 415, 424 
 
 Valentine, Duke of Venice, 324 
 
 Vandals (?), 89 
 
 Varangians, 422 
 
 Vaspurakan, 264 sq. 
 
 Veligosti, 376 
 
 Venice : operations in defence of Sicily, 
 301 sq. ; changes of seat of govern- 
 ment, 321 sq., 327 ; commerce, 
 322, 326 ; history of, in ninth 
 century, 323 sqq. ; churches, 327 ; 
 beginning of independence, 328 ; 
 warships, ib. 
 
 Verbits, pass of, 339, 344, 368 
 
 Veregava, pass of, 339, 368 
 
 Verisa, 282 
 
 Versinicia, battle of, 26, 350 sqq. 
 
 Vezir, Grand, 236 
 
 Viatichi, 412 
 
 Vigla (/3fy\a), see Arithmos 
 
 Vladimir, son of Boris, 373 
 
 Vlastimir, Servian ruler, 372 
 
 Vyshegrad, 413 
 
 Vytitshev, 413 
 
 Walachia, 337 
 
 Waldrade, Queen, 200 
 
 Wall, Long, of Thrace, 224, 228 
 
 Wardrobe (TO fiaffiKiKOv fieffTidpiov), 
 
 210, 212 ; Chartulary of, 211 
 Wardrobe, Private (TO oiKeiaKov /3eori- 
 
 dpiov), 210 (see Protovestiarios) 
 Wardrobe of the Caesar, 171 
 Wathik, Caliph, 234, 271, 274 
 
 Xerolopha, 112 
 Xerxes, 283 
 
 Yahya al-Ghazzal, 83, 273 
 
 Zacharias, bishop of Anagni, 193, 199 
 
 Zacharias, bishop of Chalcedon, 201 
 
 Zacharias, bishop of Tauromenium, 184 
 
 Zagora, 384 
 
 Zapetra, 244, 251, 254, 260, 262, 472 
 
 Zara, 329 
 
 Zatts, 276 
 
 Zela, 265, 282 
 
 Zelix, 182 
 
 Zerkunes, 293 
 
 Zeugma, 472 
 
 Ziadat Allah, Aghlabid Emir, 297 sq., 304 
 
 Zichs, 89 
 
 Zimmi, 276 
 
 Zoe, Empress, wife of Leo VI., 289 
 
 Zoropassos, 264 
 
 Zosimas, monk, 61 
 
 Zubaidah, Princess, 251 
 
 Zuhair, African general in Sicily, 303 
 
 Zupans, 334 
 
 Zvenitzes, 451
 
 530 
 
 EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE 
 
 II. GREEK 
 
 s, 217 
 doe\<poiroir)ffts, 166 
 aer6s (garment), 45 
 ddiyyavos, 40 
 dfj.<J>6Tepoi ( = all), 83 
 dvdppvrov, 370 
 dTTOfj-ovevs, 6, 127 
 
 fiayarovp, 335 
 Bapoux (Dnieper), 424 
 /S^o-aXof, 416 
 /SoTjXas, 334 
 /Joi/KoXa/Jpfiy, 335 
 BpoOroj (Pruth), 424 
 
 5ifc, 380 
 (Ural), 492 
 
 v, 175 
 Sieirtav, 6, 127 
 dpbyyos, 380 
 5po/j.evs, 267 
 Spovyyos, 380 
 
 v, 258 
 
 'EXX7jj>iK6s ("E\X^) = (1) "classical," 79 
 (cp. 439, n. 5) ; (2) "pagan," 152, 441 
 
 S, 41 
 
 ea/>x i ' a (military), 10 
 EC /cai ^utru (nickname), 54 
 ^a/Si/5/fw, 217 
 
 os, 22, 44, 167 
 221 
 
 ovpyov, 335 
 
 cra (garment), 45 
 Opeirrol &v6puiroi, 335 
 
 Ka8o\iK6s, 166 
 Kdfj.iros, 351 
 K\Lnara, 404 (cp. 415) 
 K\ovpioi>, 132 
 Ko\6j3io>>, 45 
 KoXo/3/>os, 335 
 KovStros, 131 
 K07ra^6s, 334 
 Koi;)3oi/ (Bug), 424 
 
 , 131 
 
 , 81 
 
 Ma^opoi, 492 
 
 yaaXXiapoi, 207 
 IJ.effOK6.p5ia., 134 
 
 /J-fffOK^TTLOV, 138 
 
 fj.eff6Tra.Toi>, 132 
 fj.oSio\ov, 27 
 jUovofi/Xa, 413 
 
 6/j.6Sov\a, 214 5^ 
 , 215 
 
 ird/j.<f>r)/j.os, 368 
 TrapadwaffTevuv, 2, 155 
 Trapa.fj.oi'dpios, 166 
 TrepiypairTos (theological term), 70 
 TT^X, 405 
 TroXtTiipxat, 128 
 Tro\lTev/j.a, T6, 128 
 irpofffj-ovdpios, 166 
 128 
 
 , 326 
 
 /3o56/3orpus, 128 
 'Pcis, 412 
 
 2a/3ci/)rot &ff(f>a\oi, 410 
 ffyvp6s, 44 (see 
 , 345 
 v, 381 
 
 ffKapafj-dyyia, 128 
 <roi)5a, 345, 361 
 (TTrac^y, 22, 163 
 ffTavpo-a-fiyiov, 209 
 ffTe/j.fj.a, 80 
 ffTe<pdvufj.a, 80 
 
 444 
 r 'S) 443 
 
 131 
 
 343 
 
 Tfrpd/SijXa, 23 
 rfoi'Triij'ts, 379 
 Tov<f>a, 66 
 TpoOXXos (Dniester), 424 
 
 , 334 
 
 , 368 
 
 <f>a.KTiovdpr)s, 262 
 
 , rd (Epiphany), 51 
 
 Xa.pTia.TiKd, 214 
 XfXdi/Sta (Kalancha), 425 
 
 Printed by R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, Edinburgh.
 
 Works by Professor J. B. BURY 
 
 New Edition in Preparation. 
 
 A HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN 
 EMPIRE FROM ARCADIUS TO IRENE (395 A.D. 
 to 800 A.D.). Two Vols. 8vo. 
 
 CLASSICAL REV IE W. " Mr. Bury's volumes are an important and valuable 
 contribution to our knowledge of a period the history of which has been tc5o much 
 neglected by scholars." 
 
 GUARDIAN. "Mr. Bury's great merit lies in his wide and bold grasp of 
 oecumenical history. Nobody has better taken in the nature of that ' eternal 
 question,' the first stages of which are to be found recorded in the opening chapters 
 of Herodotus, and the latest (as yet) in the morning's news from Armenia or from 
 Crete. There is no need for any one to teach Mr. Bury the root of the matter. . . . 
 Mr. Bury has thoroughly grasped the true substance and meaning of his vast subject. ' ' 
 
 SATURDAY REVIEW. "Mr. Bury's volumes are the fruit of diligent and 
 independent work amongst a mass of difficult materials, and will have to be reckoned 
 with by all who follow in his steps. Moreover, Mr. Bury shows a commendable 
 resolve not to accept traditional views as a way out of difficulties. . . . He has taken 
 a larger view than any previous writer of the lives and characters, the resources and 
 dangers of the later Emperors. He has followed them into the details of their policy, 
 and has not considered anything undeserving of his attention. Still more he has done 
 his best to reproduce the life, the art, and the learning of Byzantium. Perhaps his 
 chapters on the literature of the times and his estimates of the authorities whom he 
 follows will have the most enduring influence on English scholars. " 
 
 A HISTORY OF GREECE FROM THE 
 EARLIEST TIMES TO THE DEATH OF ALEX- 
 ANDER THE GREAT* With numerous Maps and other 
 Illustrations. School Edition. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. Library 
 Edition. Two vols. 8vo. 255. net. 
 
 A THEN&UM. " In every way worthy of the author's reputation, learned yet 
 lucid, scholarly yet not too much given to a descent into superfluous minutiae. . . . 
 It would be hard to find a more useful book for the student who has grasped the 
 outlines of the subject, and wishes to start on an inquiry into the sources from which 
 the received narrative has been derived." 
 
 CLASSICAL REVIEW. " It is difficult to speak too highly of this History 
 as a whole. The greatest pains have been taken throughout to maintain the sense of 
 proportion." 
 
 HISTORY OF GREECE FOR BEGINNERS. 
 
 Globe Svo. 33. 6d. 
 
 GUARDIAN. " Reads pleasantly, and would serve admirably as a text-book 
 for any but the higher forms." 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.
 
 Works by Professor J. B. BURY 
 THE ANCIENT GREEK HISTORIANS. (Har- 
 
 vard Lectures.) 8vo. 75. 6d. net. 
 
 OUTLOOK. '' These eight admirable lectures are good examples of the work of 
 the new academic spirit in England. They are a monument of learning and critical 
 judgment, but they are totally unblemished by pedantry in any of its forms, gross or 
 subtle. The mind of the lecturer moves with easy freedom in a world of bygone men 
 and things, because that world is made alive and humanised by the constant play of/ 
 imagination and the fully developed sense of the unity of all history. . . . These 
 printed lectures then are profoundly interesting as well as profoundly learned." 
 
 A THENAiCJM. " The author's great learning is manifest notwithstanding the 
 popular character of the lectures, and this, combined as it is with a felicity of expres- 
 sion which is all his own, makes the book very welcome." 
 
 THE NEMEAN ODES OF PINDAR. Edited, 
 
 with Introduction and Commentary, by Professor J. B. BURY, 
 Litt.D. 8vo. i os. net. 
 
 A THEN/EUM. " Lovers of Pindar cannot be too grateful to Mr. Bury for the 
 wealth of minute criticism, both philological and literary, which he has lavished upon 
 his luxurious edition. . . . Every page evinces a genuine enthusiasm for his author, 
 great ingenuity of exegesis, and lively poetic imagination. ' ' 
 
 THE ISTHMIAN ODES OF PINDAR. Edited, 
 
 with Introduction and Commentary, by Professor J. B. BURY, 
 Litt.D. 8vo. 95. net. 
 
 ACADEMY. "We have not found one note that is not interesting nor one 
 translation that is not poetic and forcible." 
 
 SATURDA Y REVIEW. " It is marked throughout with scholarly acuteness, 
 and is in every respect worthy of the author's high reputation." 
 
 THE LIFE OF ST. PATRICK AND HIS 
 PLACE IN HISTORY. 8vo. i2s.net. 
 
 ATHENsEUM. "A life of St. Patrick, in which careful and minute research 
 has not quenched a bold and vivid imagination. . . . In no book have we found more 
 ingenuity in probing for historic truth amid a cloud of absurdities, and such weighing 
 of evidences as the appendix offers seems to us a model ot acuteness in conjectural 
 criticism." 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.
 
 1 
 
 [Ti s 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. 
 
 * 
 
 a 39 
 
 UCSD Libr.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000670128 8