« PrethodnaNastavi »
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 δηλοί δε ταύτα σαφέστατα και πλατικώτερον η τότε γραφείσα θεογνώστη τα περί ορθογραφίας γεγραφότι και εις χείρας έλθούσα ημών <?ιστορία Or χρονογραφία) ήν ο βουλόμενος μεταχειριζόμενος τα καθ' έκαστον åvadidaxonoetat. 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—
το δεσπότη μου και σοφο στεφηφόρο
Λέοντι τα κρατούντι πάντων εν λόγοις, a tribute which seems distinctly more appropriate to Leo VI. than to Leo V. But, according to Cont. Th., the author was a contemporary 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
Emperor wrote to Constantine 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 Constantine Sudes. What follows is the same as in Ibn al-Athir, and it is evident that both accounts come from a
Vasil'ev (Pril. 116, note) says that 201 must be an error for 211.
(2) Photeinos, who was named stratêgos of Crete immediately after the Arabs seized that island (A.D. 825), was, after his unsuccessful attempt to recover it, appointed stratêgos of Sicily. Cont. Th. 77 την της Σικελίας στρατηγίδα αύθις της Κρήτης αλλάσσεται. This cannot have been later than A.D. 826, and therefore Amari (followed by Vasil'ev) identified Photeinos with the general who is called Constantine by the Arabs and who was defeated and slain by Euphemios. Čaussin 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 Constantine Sudes was the predecessor of Photeinos, but the parallel passage of Ibn al-Athir seems to exclude this solution.
The name of the stratégos 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 conjecture 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 stratêgos (Constantine = Photeinos) who appointed Euphemios commander of the fleet.
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 (toupuáxpns tedôv), 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 reproductions of Greek names, it is probable that Balata represents Palat-; 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 stratêgos of Sicily in 803, and that Palata is the same as Gregory who was stratégos in 813, has no evidence or probability and has rightly been rejected by Vasilev (60-61).
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 connected 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, 'Evpaßwrâs, (the eldest), ZBnvirčys, and Maddounpós; that the last-named succeeded his father (88) kain toll tatpos áttekinpoon ápxý), and put 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). 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 Malloumpós of Theophylactus was identical with the Βαλδίμερ or Βλαδίμερ 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 inscriptions is Μαλαμήρ.
If our evidence were confined to these data, there would be no problem. But (1) Constantine, De adm. imp. 154, mentions II peocáy 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 o ρηθείς Βωρίσης.
period, in which the name of the ruler (ó ék Deoü õpxwv) 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 Bölg v Khron. 49) combines these data, supplying in the inscription the name IIperi]ávos, for which he refers to Skylitzes (Cedrenus, ii. 574) II povolávov, where a Vienna MS. gives IIpeao Lávov (B. Prokić, Die Zusätze in der Hs. des Joh. Skylitzes, cod. Vind. hist. Gr. lxxiv. p. 36) observing that Constantine's Πρεσιάμ for Πρεσιάν is parallel to the alternation Μαρμαήν– Mappańp in the same treatise (157).
Jireček (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),
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 Malauýp, 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 ”1 and Omurtag as “my father."2 It seems to
l 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
il. 1. I would restore ο μέγας] άρχ(ων) ο Κρούμος ο πάππος μου με[τ a verb.
2 1. 2. I read και ο πατήρ μου και
ά[ρχίων) Ώμουρτάγ. That Omurtag's name must be supplied here follows from the beginning of l. 3 ei]pývnu te ποιήσας,