« PrethodnaNastavi »
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 (rovpuáxpus tedôr), and the story as told by Cont. Th. does not contemplate any considerable lapse of time between the marriage and its conscquences. Of course this is not conclusive, Cont. Th., in abridging, may have foreshortened the chronology. Still, taking the cvilenco such as it is, no chronological difficulty is involved if We assume that Buphemios married the lilin after his appointment to the command of the flect. We may suppose that Photcinos arrived in Sicily, and appointed Euphenios turmarch, and that Euphemios married Homonizi, 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 ils 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. 8:26. Ho had, doubtless, distinguished himself is 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.
(1) The Arabic writers give Balatit' 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 Euphenios and rebelled ; and he and his cousin, by name Michael, the governor of Palermo, joined together" (Ibn al-Atbir, apul Vasil'ev, 91). As p is often represented by l in Arabic reproductions of Greek names, it is probable that Bulutu represents l'alut-; 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 hiud been created curopulates 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 Gahotto assumes, and apparently Vasil'ev, 60) that Palata's cousin Michael was at first a supporter of Euphemios. Ibn al-Athir (loes not say so. It is quite is 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 stratégos of Sicily in 803, and that Palata is the same as Gregory who was stratigos in 813, has no cvidence or probability and has rightly been rejected by Vasil'ov (60-61).
TUE succession of the Bulgarian sovrans betweon Omurtag und Boris (whose date of accession hils been fixcil by Zlatarski to A.D. 852) is a problem which has not been siltisfactorily cleared up. Thcophylactus, the Bulgarian archbishop of Ochrida (in the eleventh century), is the only writer who furnishes any conniected account of the succession of the kings. It is evident from the details which he gives in his llistoria martyrii rr. martyrum thiet he hiul il source of information otherwise lost, and I suspicct that it wils a hagiographical work— V'itu Cinamonis (op. above, p. 382, 11. 3). Hostates (p. 193) that Omurtag had three sons, 'Espaßuties, (the eldest); ZBoriss, and Maddoxnpós; that the last-nanel succeeded his father (ώ δη) και η του πατρός απεκληρώθη spxu), 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, ilccording to him, there was only one reign, that of Malamir, between the death of Omurtay and the accession of Boris.
It was long ago recognised that the Maddovenpois of Thcophylactus wals identical with the Buddiep or Baudiep whom Simeon mentions in his account of the return of the (ircek captives (sco above, p. 369, 11. 4), il pilssage 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 namo given by Theophylactis is nearly right. The name in the inscrip tions is Madameip.
If our evidence were confined to these data, there would be no problem. But (1) Constantine, De aum. imp. 154, mentions : IIperty as the Bulgar an king who, before Boris, made war on Servia, and says that he was tho father of Boris, and (?) we havo it fragmentary inscription (from Philippi), evidently of this
Ille unys that M. wils succeedel loy the son of 2., and then goes on to speak of B. as ó ondeis Bwplons.
period, in which the name of the ruler (o é Deon äpxov) scenis to end in -avos (C.I.G. iv. 8691 l), and the kankhan Isbules (known otherwise from inscriptions of Malamir) is mentioned. Zlatarski (Izr. za Bilge Khron. 49) combines these data, supplying in the inscription the name Il peur Járos, for which he refers to Skylitzes (Codremus, ii. 574) Il porniávor, where a Vienna MS. gives Ilpew uiror (B. Prokić, Die Zusitze in der IIs. rles Joh. Skylitzes, coil. l'iml. hist. lit. lxxiv. p. 36) observing that Constantine's Il periúge for Ilpesuir is parallel to the alternation Mappuyum Mupperire in the same treatisc (157).
Jirečck (Geschichte, 170) haud conjectured that Presiam and Malamir were one and the same person; but Zlatarski distinguishes them, and regards Presiam ils the successor of Malamir. Hc 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 (rers. Slar. 102, Leo Gr. 23:2), where Malamir (“ Vladimir ") is first mentioned, and then suddenly, without cxplanation, Michael (i.c. Boris). Ile supposes that Michael is an crror for his father l'resiam. It is obvious,, however, that this argument has little weight.
In fievour of the view that Malamir and I'resiam are different persons is (1.) the fact that Presian, accoriling to Constientino l'orph. loc. cit., was father of Boris, while according to Theophylactus, inc cit., Zvenitsit was father of Boris ; if both statements are truc, Presiam was identical with Zvenitsa, and therefore distinct from Z's brother Malamir ; (2) the difficulty of supposing that in the inscriptions the silme ruler is designated sometimes ils Mudapıp, sometimes ils —llos.
On the other hand, it is not cilsy to believe that if, during the period between Omurtag's death (at earliest 827) and 852, there were two khans, of whom one (Malanir) reigned at most ten years, ilud the other, l’rerinm, fifteen years, the longer rcign should have been completely ignoreil lvy Theophylactis.
But the important Shuma inscription (olbola, .233), which Zlatarski claims for Presiam, hax still to be considered. The khun, for whom this stone was inscribed, designates Krum als “my grandfather” ! and Omurtag as “my father.”? It seems to record an invasion of Greck territory by Malamir with the kaukhan Ishules, 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
II. 1. I wonlel restore o Mégas) αρχίων) ο Κρομος ο πάππος μου με
:: 1. 2 I reall και ο πατήρ μου και
áfrxlwv) 'Nuoripráy. That Omurtay's name must be supplieil here follows froin the beginning of l. 3 cilpivou te ποιήσας.
peacefully with the Greeks (καλά έζησε μετά τους Γρικούς), the text proceeds :
και οι Γρικοί ερήμωσα[ν. 1. 5 και Μαλαμίρ [μετά του καυχάνου Ησβούλου και επ.[?
τους Γρικούς του Προβάτου του κάστρου [.. και το Βουρδιζου) και το κάστρον και τα χώρα των Γρικών [. [υπέρ] άπασαν φήμην εποίησεν και ήλθε εις «Φιλιππόπο[λιν.
. και τόπους και καυχάνος Πασβούλης συντυχία επ[... 10 και το αρχαιότατον υπέρημον πρωκττε[. At the beginning of 1. 6 Zlatarski says that the letters
udus... ICSIC can be plainly read, and restores . . kudi yere eis, so that the statement would be that Malamir also lived peacefully with the Grecks. But (1) if so it should precede the words kui oi l'auroi eppunsur, which mark the opening of hostilities; (2) the restoration is incompatible with the words which follow, (utri) Tui Ilpoßitor Ktd. ; (3) the association of the general 1sbules with Malamir in 1.5 shows that we have to do with warlike action on the pilrt of Malamir. There cannot, I think, be the least doubt that an expellition of Malamir is recorded, ils the editors Jireček and Uspenski have supposel.
In I. 6 the letters andre (qr dad or Sud, etc.) are fairly clear in the facsimile (l'l. xlv. in the Album to Abobu), and SIC are plain before tuis. Various restorations might be thought of; 6.1. ada might be pirt of M Judo[reip or of her dia dului. The sign
The sign s may represent either e or vui, so that the words might be feet[à duloû odon] Kui is tuis l'peror's. It does not seem certain in the filcsimile) whether l'peror's is written in full or only I'pek. It looks to me as if the letters before con were wor (vje in ligature). I cannot see any trace of either úró or ék, which Uspenski gives as alternatives,
Now I havo no doubt that Ziltniski is right in referring the operations recorded on this stone to the years after the termination of the Thirty Years' Treaty, i.c. to A.D. 816-819, 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 Constantine wrong in taking him for the son of his predecessor (perhaps he was adopted by
After these worils we may perhaps :s Buritizos is the later Bulgaroplygoll, restore--1. 3 ((rai) oi Borilyapoi, l. 1 Now Eskibrilla, on the highroad from [κατά] το αρχαίον καλά ξζουν.
Tlalrianople to l'onstantinople. l'ossilily επο[λέμησε ianpe Jireček, llcerstresse, 100. πόλεμον.
his uncle). Tho fragmentary inscription of Philippi cannot count largely in the question ; but if Zlatierski'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 lits maule probable) over the western Slavs. As the inscription is probably not prior to A.D. 8-17, it would be one of the last monuments of Milamir under his earlier name.