Slike stranica



to the

The author of the collection of Lives of Saints, Siméon Metaphrastes, undertook this compilation under the auspices of Constantine VII., and it may be included (as Gibbon observed) among tho 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 l'itu Samsonis, we find references to Romams II. and John Tzimiskes, so that the compiler survived

years 972-976. Ile held at one time the office of Logothete of the Course, for he is style the Logotheto by Psellos and by Yahya of Antioch. Puellos says that he was born in Constantinople of it distinguished family and wild very rich.

This Simoon is almost certainly tho simu 118 Simoon, tho magister, who was inthor of it world-chroniclo, coming down to the middle of the tenth century. Their identity was held by Muralt and Rambaud; has been confirmed by the investigations of Vasil'ovski (0 chizni i truul. Sim. Met.), and accepted as highly probable by Krumbacher and Ehrhard (G.B.L. 200, 358). A number of Greek manuscripts contain chronicles ascribed to “Simcon magister and logothetc,” 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 9.18 (thongh in several of the MSS. the work is continued to later dates)." The author was devoted to Romanus I. and his family, and in cpitaph from his hand on Stephen (son of Romanus), who died in A.1). 963, is preserved (published by Vasilevski, Dru nailyr. Stikh.).

For the Greek chronicles which bear the name of Simeon, and I The chronological objections of

Vasil'evski (Khronik Log. 133) Ilirsch (310), founded on a passage of argued that the chronicle onderd in 944 the l'ille Theocristac, where the writer anel that the account of the years 914states that lie took part in the Cretan 9.18 was an milition of leo Grammaticus, expellition c. 2.1). 902, are renover lige The Slavonic translation expressly notes the fiuct that this life was written not loy the termination of Simeon's work in 94% Simcon lout loy Nicetas Magister.

their mutual relations to one another, information will be found in Krumlucher, G.B.L. 359-360, and in the discussions of de Boor (I'eiteres, etc.) and Shestakov (O rukopisiakh). Cp. also Zlatarski, I:riestiinta, 8 84. The view of Vasilevski (Khron Lug.) that the Old Slavonic translation supplies the best tradition of Simeon's work is now largely held by Slavonic scholars. Shestakov (l'ur. ruk.) has given reasons for thinking that the anonymous chronicle in Col. Par. 854 (of which the first part is printcil

, scc below) is, of all Circek 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 KOROTUK which is prefixed to it, and thinks that the original chronicle is most faithfully represented by the Chroniography of Theodosius of Melitene.

Simeon's chronicle has come down to 11s: linier other titlesunder the names of Leo Grammaticus, Thcolosins of Melitene, and partly in the expansion of George the Monk. These compilers copicil it with few and tritling alterations.

(1) Leo (irilmmaticus. The text of this chronicle, which is preserved in Col. 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.1). 948, speaks of himself as al scribe rather than as an author. The latter part of the text has been printed (from the accession of Lco V.), and it was evidently transcribed from the Chroniclo of Simeon. In his edition of Leo, Bekker printed (thongh without committing himself to the anthorship) a portion of the chronicle of Coil. L'ar. 854, coming down to the point at which Lco's text begins. This had been originally printed by Cramer (ulnerilula Purisina, ii. :21:3 x97.), who assume that the chronicles of the two MSS. were identical, and this view was accepted by Hirsch. It hins been shown loy Shestakov that the texts are different (Por. link.); he made it clear that Leo and the Contimnation of (icorge are nearer to each other than cither to l'ar. 854.

(2) The Chronography of Theodosius of Melitene, edited loy Tafel, is likewise no more than it transcript of Simeon, and like loco's text, it ends at a.1). 948. Vasilevski called attention to a diote in Bekker's Luccilota Grucrat, iii. 465, where, in a passage cited from the commentary of Johannes Sikeliotes on the Ilepi ideor of Hermogenes, ó Meditimus Oculos is mentioned. Vasilevski inferred that Thcolosius flourished r. 1.1). 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 inay have lived in the cleventh century. The text of this version resembles that of Leo Gramm. and the Contin. of Gcorge more closely than it resembles Cod. Par. 854. For its relation to Leo Grammaticus scc Patzig (Ivo lirumm.) and olc Boor (Die ('hron. oles

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Log. 267). It is much closer to the Contin. of Gcorge than to Leo Gramm. ; the differences are chicily stylistic. It is to be observed that many of the omissions which occur in Leo and in the Contin. are accidental, due to homoeotoleuton.

(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 amplification of (icorge's text. llis account of the reigns from the accession of Lco V. to the accession of Michael III. has been expanded by large additions from a chronicle of a different tone and character; and it continuation has been added coming down to A.1). 948 (in some MSS. to later dates). In some MSS., at the point where licorge's work ends in 1.1). 8433, we find the noto cows de tin χρονικά Γεωργίου από των υδε μόνων του λογοθέτου (edd. Muralt, 7:21); and at the year 948 Muralt's text has (851) dvigu tos tem πάντων ένεκα «αμήν». Τετέλεσται και τα του λογοθέτουν. The close

. resemblance of the text of the continuation to the texts which have come clown under the name of Simcon the Loyothcte renders it virtually certain that Simcon is meant by Toll doyotétov in these notes. This applies not only to the continuation but to the expansions of George's Chroniclo from A.D. 813 to 843. For if these expansions are separated, they furnish a text which coincidles with those of Theodosius and Leo. The world pórov in the noto cited above probably refers to this interweaving of the works of George and Simcon.

The portion of the expanded chronicle which concerns us, a.1). 813 to 948, was printed from one MS. by Combefis (1685) iind reprinted by Bekker. Muralt's edition of the whole chronicle is bilsce on i Moscow MS., but contains collations of some other MSS. See above, Appendix II.

The Old Slavonic translation of Simeon (preserved in a MS. in the Imperial Public Library of Petersburg), recently edited by Sreznovski, implies an original which wils closer to Lco than to Theodosius (Sreznevski, p. xii.). A comparison with these chronicles shows both omissions and additions (ib, xi sy.).

One of the chief sources of Simeon, up to the year A.]), 813, was Theophanes ; another was George the Monk. For the period A.1). 813-867, which alone concerns is here, Simcon is one of our most important authorities. Unlike George, whose attention is almost entirely directed to ecclesiastical atlairs, he is interested in profane history and furnishes a good deal of information concerning the court intrigues ; ecclesiastical affairs are quite in the background. (Cp the analysis of Hirsch, 16-68.)

" It would be liseless here to animer. articles vitel, and the Preface to his erl. ate or discuss the MSS. See ile Buor's of licorge.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It is obvious from the character both of his shorter noticos and his longer narrations that the chronicler had a written source, dating froin a time not far removed from thic events, Any opic accustomed w the investigation of sources can liscern at once that Simcon's work could not have been compiled from anecdote, oral traditions, or Vitae Sunctorum. lle has clearly iiscd an older chronicle written by some one who had firet.- hand knowledge of the reign of Michael III. and was in touch with contemporaries of Theophilus. Can we discover anything about this lost chroniclc ?

One of the features of Simeon's work is his indmiration for Romanus I.; another is the unfavourabile light in which he presents Bilsil I. Hirsch hils observed that the treatment of Tlieophilus, Michael III., and Bardils shows a certain impartiality, in the sense that the author recount: their good cecils ils well as those which he cateemis bad; he does not backen Theophilus and Michael III. by lurid accounts of the perseruitions of the former ! and the debaucheries of the latter,

The chronicle, then, which wils the basis of this part of Simcon'ss work was clistinctly animate boy hostility to Bilsil, iind Wils not unfavourable to the Amorians, though it did not conceal their faults. We cannot say how favourable it was, becanse we are unable to determine whit Simeon may have omittel or what tonches of his own he may have added. The anthor of the lost Amorian chronicle, its it might be callel, wis 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 pissinge which perhaps gives is an indication. Among the murderers of Michael III. are mentionel Βιάδες και πατή» Βιιτελείου του μαίκτοκος και Συμβάτιος ο αδελφός Βασιλείου και 'Ατελαίων εξάδελφος Βασιλείου: (Cout. Gewrg. 837 = Mur. 7:10, greeing exactly with rurs. Sur. 110). Now the post of Rector, which we know to have existed in A.D. 899, was probably instituted either by Basil I. or 11." The chronicler issumes Basil the lector to be well known, for lie ilentities the three conspirators Burlis, Symbitios, and Asyluion by their relationship to him, ind), its he does not himself play any part in history, it is natural to suppose that he was lector when the chronicler was writing lis Ricciorship we may reasonably assume to have fallen before that of Joannes, who held the otfice under Alexander and Romans 1. This conid be established to it certainty if we could be quite sure that Besideior in the text means throughout Basil the lector, and not Basil the Emperor (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 inclou l'octorship later than that of Joanncs. That Symbatios ind Anylaion wero kinsnicn of tho Roctor 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 samo sentence, is not described as such here, and (2) that in relating the murder of Bardis (Cont. Georg. 830), in which Symbatios and Asylaion also took part, the chronicler describes Asylaion as nephew of Symbatios, whercas it would have been obviously natural to describe him as nephew of Busil (the future Emperor), had he been his nephew.'

1 Hirsch 2010 (32) that the outlior forubably mailu 11-c of the l'ile Themuuri Grapli.

2 In this poidssaye the Conil. Geory. text is markielly signerivor to Theol. Mel.

(και Συμβάτιoς οι αδελφοί βασ. 175) as well as to l.. (ir. (251, wlivre toll . Buolleiou is omittel er humanoolel.).

** See Bury, Imp. Jdministratiec Syslow, 115

. -'ܙ:

In the account of the reign of Basil I. there are distinct traces of thc same hand which penned the chronicle of Michael. III. I am not sure where this work terminated or it what point Simcon resorted to another source; but it may be conjectured that what I havo tormeil thu Amorinn chroniclo came down to the clonth of Bilsil, for the brevity of Simeon's account of Bilsil's reign contrasto with the comparativo copiousness of the treatment of Lco VI., thongh both alike are unfavourable to the Bilsilian 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 “Symcon magister," is a totally different conpilation and has nothing to do with Simeon. It is now generally designated as Pseudo-Simcon. Sce 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, 3342 99.). The chronicler's chief sources were, according to Hirsch (318 sw.), George, Simeon, Genesios, Cont. Th., Scriptor Incertus de Lcone Armenio, the l'itu Tymatii by Nicetis ; but he also furnishes a mmber of other notices (chictly necdotes), which are not found in our other sollices.

[ocr errors]

1 The texts are house aynin livergent : l'hie Slav. version omits Asylnion ; Cont. vers. Slar. 107, “ Marianus, bis (Basil's] liceryl. omits Barilas. In 'Theod. Mel. loro:her ; au Syubatios au Bardas, lois αδελφοί is an error for αδελφός. As to brother; and Joannes Chullos, etc." ; Barilas, there need love no incousistency Thewl. Mel. 170 Μαρ. αδελφός αυτού και with the passage enumerating the con. Συμβ. και Βάρδας αδελφοί αυτούς, 'Ασιλέων spirators against Miclmel. Barilas may :ošádelpos aitou ; (unt. licors. 830 halve been the name of the father of Μαυριανός και Συμβάτιος και 'Ασιλαίων ο . Symbatios and also of one of his brothers. iš aitou ( (P. Murult, 7:10 al loc.).

« PrethodnaNastavi »