Slike stranica
PDF
ePub

All'ENDIX IV

GENESIOS AXI TIIE CONTINUATION OF THEOPILANES

[ocr errors]

Tile Basileini of Genesios (written. 944-948 A.1).) and the Chronography (Bouks 1-4, written, under the auspices of Constantine VII., 949-950 A.D.)? known as thc Continuation of Theophanes, which along with licorge and Simeon are the chief sources for the continuous history of our periul, 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 Gencsios. Some of his particular results admit of reconsideration, but for the most part they are sufficient as it guide to the historical student. There are two things, however, which may be pinted out.

(1) Joseph Genesios was a kinsman of Constantine the Armenian, for whom he evinces it particular interest in his history. Constantine was Drungarios of the Watch unler Michael III. (sce itlove, pp. 147, 157, etc.), ind from Simcon (Leo (ir. 2:19 = Theol. Mel. 174) we learn that he was ó mutip Owpice Tout prior kui l'erevior. Ilirsch concluded that (icnesios the historian wils his son. But de Beer (15.7. . 62 321) has shown that Simcon refers to another (ienesios who wils à magister in the reign of Leo VI., while Joseph Genesios the historian was Chartulary of the Ink (i ei TO Karendcior) under Constantine VII. The relationship is

Constantine, sporyy. 7. Biydus.
1

1
Thomas

lionesius
(λογ. τ. δρόμου»).

(μέγιστος).
1
Josepoli Cieniesios

(

or T. KLT.). (2) It can be proveel, I think, from a number of comparisons

' (). Bury, Trulise le odol. indep. 571) szex.

1

that tho Continuntors of Theophanes 11800, along with Genesios, the 8011rce of Gonosios.

There iro prasages in Cont. Th. in which the relationship to (ron. is plain, but there are alditions which cinnot be explained cither 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 Thcophilus in A.D. 837, the closc interdependence of Cont. Th. 124 and Gen. 63-64 is obvions in the o 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 treilsonable designs, while Gen. confines himself to a generality. llere, too, this addition probably comes from the source which Gen. used; and I suspect that the further particulars of Mannel's services to the Saracens should be referred to the same origin. For other additions in Cont. Th. which niay be derived from the common source, cp. above, pp. 46, 54, 87, 88, 93, 95, 97, 99, 106, 290.

1

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

CITRONOLOGY OF TIIE WAR BETWEEN MICIIAEL II. AND

TIIOMAS TIIE SLAV

Our authorities supply singularly few landmarks for the chronology of the Civil War. It will be well to sct down in a list cxilctly what determinations of time they furnish, before we consider what inferences may or must be drawn.

(1) The whole revoit listed three years. We have this on early authority : George, p. 797 Tin ev apurir ēteri . . . Tridepov. It is repcated 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 listed a year.

For this wc have the authority of the besiegel Emperor himself in his Letter (p. 418), and also that of George (797) é cru xpóror ektopijpas.

(3) The siege hegan in December of the 15th Indiction, that is December 8:1 A.D. We get this date from Michael's Letter (ill.). Cp). Cont. Th. 61 TE , Kui verorus èflyer'opévor.

() Having wintered clsewhere, Thomas returned to the sieye of the city in the spring following (i.c. spring of 822). Cont. Th., h. ήδη δε του έαρος ήμερων επιλόμποιτος.

(5) The embassy of the Bulgarians is only indicated roughly by Genesios is taking place when the first decade of the Thirty Y cars' Peace with Lco was nearly coming to a close: p. 4.1 ui yùp υπό Λέοντος του βασιλέως προς αυτούς τριακοντοίτεις «σπουδαί ήδη την πρώτη δεκαετηρίδι συνεπλήγουν σχεδόν.

(6) The battle of Diabasis belongs to the third year of the war: Cont. Th. 67 Tpitos yip (xpéros) Syrieto (wrongly rendered in the Latin translation, cum-Jurisset); the third year was current.

(7) The siege of Arcadiopolis lasted five months : Michael's Letter, p. 419.

(8) The tyrant Thomus was slain in the middle of October. This we learn from Genesios, 45 pris Oktoßpior eroriTOS », ind ('ont. Th. 70.

[ocr errors]

Thoso nro tho dates with which we havo to work. It is clear, of course, that the thrcu years of thu 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 assimult. Then he retircil until March or April—till spring was well rudvancel ()-ind made the second grand alssault. Then came the revolt of Gregory Pterotos, innd later the arrival of the ships from Circece. During the later part of the year nothing striking seems to hilve occurrcil.

From reduling the Letter of Michael, or putting (%) and (3) together, it would be nitural to conclude that the siege was raised in December 82).

In that casc

we must suppose that the negotiations with the Bulgarians belong to the end of 822, and that the battle of Koduktos was fought cither in December 822 or January 823; for it is clear from the story that it followed haril upon the departure of Thomas from the city.

The vayne date of Genesios does not help us here. Assuming that the treaty of Leo with the Bulgarians wils concluded as early, as the middle of 815, the first decadle had not clapsed until the middle of 825. If, then, the date of Genesios refers to December 822, the first decaule hall still two and a half years to run. His oyedór imist be tiiken in it wide sense.

But such an early date its January 823 for the battle of Koduktos involves 114 in some difficulties. Our next positive date is that of the death of Thomils in the midille of October 8:23. Ilis death followed immediately on the surrender of Arcadiopolis. Therefore the siege of Arcadiopolis, which listcod five months (7), probably began in the first half of the month of May. The battle of Diabasis immediately precedled the siege--the interval cannot have been longer than it few days--and therefore took place in the first days of Many or ilt the very end of April.

The question then is : how long an interval may we assumo between the battle of Keluktos and the battle of Diabasis. If the first battle wils fought in the first half of Jimary and the sccond 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 (icnesios ind tlic Continner. We cannot believe that Michael would have been so impolitic ils to leave it foe, who had been profligatus by the Bulgarians, to gather new strength in such close proximity to the city during such it long space of timc. Pronıptiinde was certainly Michael's policy in the circumstances.

I therefore believe that the battle of Koduktos was fought in April or at carlicst in the last days of March. I hold that we should count the yrar of the sieye from the spring of 822, and not from December 821. For it was in spring 822 that the continuous blockado really began. During tho months which intervened between December 821 and spring 822 the city was not formally besicyed. It is true that the Letter of Michael does not convey this impression ; but, on the other hand, it docs not really contradict my interpretation. Michael is only giving a rough outline of the eventy, and omits the details of the siege. It is quite intelligible that he shoulıl 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 wicge; and that then he should hive stated the length of the siege ils a year, without explaining that he counted fron a later date than December.

This justponement of the Bulgarian cpisodle lightens, though but slightly, the burylen that has to be laid on os periór in lienexios (sce itbove, Chip. XI. p. 360).

« PrethodnaNastavi »