APPENDIX II

GEORGE'S CITRONICLE

The Chronicle of George the Monk is a world-chronicle beginning 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. 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 ho must have been a contemporary, is contained in three and a half short pages (in du Boor's edition), and of these more than a page consists of a quotation from Gregory of Nazianzns. For this portion (802-843) he made 1180 of Theophanes ; Theosteriktos, Vita Nicetue; Ignatius, l'ilu Nicephori; the Epistola synvilicu au Theophilum ; works of the Patriarch Nicephorus. (Chis Pro

. loynio, pp. 1-2, where he refers to modern histories, chronographies, and etlifying works, which he laid under contribution). His account of the reigns of Leo V., Michael II., and Theophilus has no protensions to lo at historical nitrative; it is little more than tho passionate outpouring of a fanatical image-worshipper's rancour ugainst the iconoclasts.

Tho text of this chroniclo is presorved in a variety of forms which have caused great perploxity. A great many MSS, aro largely interpolated, and in many of these a Continuation has been alled, transcribed from the work of Simcon the Logothete (sce next Appendix). These MSS, are derived from an archetype in which largo uditions weru inserted in the margin, from tho Logothetu's chronicle, and the MSS. vary according its tho scribes incorporated in the toxt various parts of these additions. From

il

Loo V. forward they furnish a tradition of the Logothete's text. In several of them the.“ Logothete's” authorship of the Continuation is noticed.

The later part of the composite chronicle, from A.D. 813-948, was printed by Combotis (1685) in the Paris ed. of the Scriptores post Theopunem, and was reprinted by Bekker in the Bonn Corpus. The text wils based on a depraved Paris MS., but Bekkor used Hlaso's collation of codex Coisliniams 134, which contains the Chronicle of George Hadulterated by interpolations from the Logothoto, and signalised its variants. The whole composite work was elited for the first timo by Muralt (1859), who based his text on a Moscow MS., which, as de Boor has shown, is "ita intorpolitiis lit in genuino toxtii omnium fero plurimum abesso indi. candus sit” (Georg. Mon. pp. x, lviii). Muralt procureul collations of many other MSS., including Coisliniams 310, but he did not reproduce them accurately, and he failed entirely to sco their relations, or ovon to grasp the problem. Do Boor's judgment on his edition is that "studiis Byzantinis non modo non profuit sed valdo nocnit" (ili. p. x). Nevertheless it was of some use to Hirsch, who in his by uintinische Studien (1876) made it generally cleur that the Coisliniani 310 and 134 preserve the genuino text of George, and that the other MSS. with which he was acquainted present an interpolated reaction (cp. p. 14).

The ditlicult problem of determining the original text of George and explaining the interrelations of the numerous MSS. was attacked loy C. de Bour, in his ollition of the yornuine Chroniclo of George Monachus inppeared in 1904 (xco Bibliography, whero his preliminary studies on the suoject are noted). Hlo arrived it tho conclusion that (icorge himself wrote out his chronicle twico. Tho first copy was rongh ind perhaps incomplete, and a large number: of illustrativa extracts from Biblical and other literaturo wcro added in the margin. This rough copy was not destroyed, and in the tenth century it wils copied by a scribe who incorporated all the marginal additions in the text. This later copy exists to-day ils Coislinianus 305 (the text only comes down to the reign of Constantine V.). Afterwards, George prepared it 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 sccond edition (going back to an archetypo which is most faithfully produced in the tenth-century Coislin. 310 and in Coislin. 131), and it is this which the edition of de Boor aims at reproducing. The hypothesis that these two distinct trailitions are due to George himself explains the facts, but cannot be considered certain, as rehandling by copyists is a conceivable alternative.. See the observations of Prachter in his review of de Boor's ulition (B.2. xv. p. 312).

APPENDIX III

THE CHRONICLE OF SIMEON, MAGISTER AND LOGOTHETE

TAE 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 formod at the instanco of that Emperor. It was not, however, completed in his reign, for in one of the Livos, the Vitu Samsonis, we find references to Romanus II. and John Tzimiskes, so that the compiler survived to the years 972-976. Ho held at one time the office of Logothete of tho Course, for he is styleil the Logotheto by Psellos and by Yahya of Antioch. Psellos says that he was born in Constantinople of a distinguishod family and was vory rich.

This Simoon is almost certainly tho mitme ils Simeon, the magister, who was inithor of : world-chronicle, coming down to the middle of the tenth century. Their identity was held by Muralt and Ramblul, has been confirmed by the investigations of Viisil'ovski (0 :hirni i trul. Sim. allei.),' and accepted is highly probablo by Krumbacher and Ehrhard (G.B.L. 200, 358). A number of Greek mitmuscripts contain chronicles ascribed to “Simeon magister and logothete," representing various recensions of the same original, and a Slavonic version is preserved which describes the uuthor as “Simcon metaphrastes and logothcte.” Our material shows that the original chronicle ended in A.D. 944 or 9.18 (though in several of the MSS. the work is continued to later dates). 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, Deu nadyr. Stikk.).

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

? Vasilevski (l'hronik Lin. 133) Flirsch (310), founded on a passage of arylled that the chronicle uneil in 911 the l'ille Theoctistue where the writer anil that the account of the years 914. states that lie took part in the ('retan 918 was an addition of loeo Grammaticus, expeilition c. A.D), 902, are removed loy The Slavonic translation expressly notes the fact that this life was written not by the termination of Simeon's work in 911. Simeon but by Niretits Magister.

ܙܪܙ1

their mutual relations to one another, information will be found in Krumbacher, 6.B.I. 359-360, and in the discussions of de Boor (Il citeres, otc.) and Shestakov (O rukopisiukh). Cp. also Zlatarski, T:riestiindu, 8 sq. The view of Vasilevski (Khron Log.) that the OM Slavonic translation supplies the best tradition of Simoon's work is now largely held by Slavonic scholars. Shestakov (Par, ruk.) hils given reasons for thinking that the anonynious chronicle in Cod. Par. 854 (of which the first part is printed, sco below) is, of all (ircek texts, closest to the original. This conclusion is questioned by do Boor (Weiteres, etc.), who doubts whether Simeon was really the author of the chronicle, conjectures that he wroto only the Korputoria which is prefixel to it, and thinks that the original chronicle is most faithfully represented by the Chroniography of Theodosius of Melitene,

Simeonis chronicle has come down to 115 under other titles

or the bilmes of Leo Grammaticus, Theodosius of Molitone, ind pilntly in the expansion of licorgo the Monk. These compilers copied it with few and trilling alterations, (1) Leo Ciriommations. The text of this chronicle, which is

, preserved in Col. Par. 1711, was written in A.D. 1013 by Leo, who in the notice ilt the end of the work, which comes down to A.1), 918, speaks of himself is it scribe rather than is an author. The latter part of the text has been printed (from the accession of Leo V.), and it wils evidently transcribed from the Chronicle of Simeon. In his edition of Leo, Bekker printed (thongh without committing himself to the authorship) a portion of the chroniclo of ('ou. Par. 854, coming down to the point at which Leo's text begins. This has been originally printed by Cramer (Inecilola Purisina, ii. 2133 177.), who assume that the chronicles of tho two MSS. were identical, and this view is accepted by Hirsch. It hins been shown by Shestakov that the texts are different (Pur. link.); he made it clear that Lco and the Continuation of George are nearer to each other than either to Par. 854.

(C) The Chronography of Theodosis of Melitone, edited by Tafel, is likewise no more than it transcript of Simeon, and liko Lou's text, it ends at Ad), 9448. l'asilevski calledd attention to a note in Bekker's necilotu Crucru, iii. 165, where, in at passage cited from the commentary of Johannes Sikeliotes on the llepi iweo of Hermogenes, ó Medios Certos is mentioned. Vasilevski inferred that Theodosius flourished . A.1). 1120, but it is probable that Johannes Doxopatres, called Sikeliotes, lived in the first half of the cleventh century (Krumbacher, (i.B.L.. 16:2), and if so, Theodosins may have lived in the cleventh century. The text of this version resembles that of Leo Granım, and the Contin, of George more closely than it resembles Cod. Par. 854. For its relation to Leo Grammaticus see Patzig (Leo lirumm.) and de Boor (Die Chron, des Loy. 267). It is much closer to the Contin. of Goorge than to Leo Gramm.; the differences are chietly 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 Shestukov, op. cit.

(4) It has been stated in the preceding Appendix that many of the MSS. of Georgo the Monk contain a considerable amplification of Gcorge's text. His account of the reigns from the accession of Leo V, to the accession of Michael III. has been expanded by large auditions from a chronicle of a different tone and character ; and a continuation has been added coming down to A.D. 948 (in somo MSS, to liter dates). In some MSS., it the point where (ivoryo's work ends in A.1). 843, wo find the noto cws Ode tid χρονικά Γεωργίου από των ώδε μόνων του λογοθέτων (el. Murault, 7.21); and it the year 948 Muralt's text has (851) Su To Be πάντων ένεκα αμιν. Τετέλεσται και τα του λογοθέτου. The close rosemblance of the text of the continuation to the texts which have como down under the name of Simcon thu Logotheto renders it virtually certain that Simeon is meant by Toll duyubétov 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 tuxt which coincides with those of Theodosius and Lco. The word pórov in the note cited abovo probably refers to this interweaving of the works of George and Simcon.

The portion of the expanded chroniclo which concerns 118, A.1). 8133 to 918, was printed from ono MS. by Combefis (1685) ind reprinted by Bekker. Muralt's edition of the whole chroniclo is based on it 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 Sreznevski, implies all original which wils closer to Leo than to Theodosius (Sreznovski, p. xii.). A comparison with these chronicles shows both omissions and additions (ib, xi sy.).

Ono of tho chief sources of Simoon, up to tho year 1.1), 813, was Theophanes ; another wils Georgo the Monk. For the porio A.1). 813-807, which alone concerns 11s hero, Simoon is one of our most important authorities. Unliko George, whoso attention is almost entirely directed to occlosinstical atlairs, ho is interested in profano history and furnishes it good deal of informittion concerning the court intrigues; ecclesiastical affairs are quito in the background. (Cp the analysis of Hirsch, 16-68.)