It is obvious from the character both of his shorter noticos and his longer narrations that the chronicler had a written source, dating from i timo not far removed from the events. Any ono accustomed to the investigation of sources can discern at once that Simeon's work could not have been compiled from anecdote, oral traditions, or l'itae Sanctorum. He has clearly used an older chronicle written by some one who had a first-hand knowledge of the reign of Michael III. and was in touch with contemporaries of Theophilus. Can we discover anything about this lost chronicle ?

One of the features of Siincon's work is his admiration for Romans J.; another is the unfavourable light in which he presents Biisil I. Hirsch has observed that the treatment of Theophilus, Michael III., and Bardis shows a certain impartiality, in the sense that the anthor recounts their good deeds its well as those which he esteems bud; he does not backen Theophilus and Michael III. by lurid accounts of the persecutions of the former 1 and the debirucheries of the latter.

The chronicle, then, which was the basis of this part of Simeon's work wiis distinctly animated by hostility to Brasil, and wils not unfavourable to the Amorians, though it did not conceal their faults. We cannot say how favourable it was, becanse we aro unable to determine what Simeon may have omittod or what touches of his own he may have added. The author of the lost Amorian chronicle, ils it might be called, wils 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 pilsnage which perhaps gives us an indication. Among the murderers of Michael III. are mentioned Bepones ó mutip Buredelov tuh puniktopos kui Syebitios ó voedibis Burdeor kui Aowuiov esivedopos Buredeior (Cont. Georg. 8:37 = Mur. 750, agreeing exactly with rers. Sur. 110). Now the post of Rector, which we kiiow to have existed in A.D. 899, was probably iustituted either by Basil I. or Leo V1.3 The chronicler ilssumes Bisil the Rector to be well known, for he jilentities the three conspirators Biurdas, Symbitios, and Asylaion by their relationship to liim, and, as he does not himself play any part in history, it is natmal to supposo, that he was ector when the chronicler wily writing. His Rectorship we may reasonably

llis itssume io hive fallen before that of Joannes, who held the offico under Alexander and Romanis I. This conid be established to it. certitinty if we could be quite sure that Buodeiow in the text means throughout Basil thu Rector, and not Basil the Emperor

(as it has boon intorprotod). For if Asylaion, nophow of Busil, was
old enough to assist in tho murder in 867, it is impossiblo to place
thu unclo's roctorship later than that of Joannos. That Synıbatios
and Asylaion were kinsmon of the 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 Bardas (Cont. Georg. 830), in which Symbatios
and Asylaion also took part, the chronicler describes Asylaion as
nephew of Symbatios, whereas it would have been obviously natural
to describe him as nephew of Basil (the future Emperor), had he
been his nephew.

In the account of the reign of Basil I. there are distinct traces
of the same hand which penned the chronicle of Michael III. I
am not sure where this work terminated or ilt what point Simcon
resorted to another source; but it may be conjectured that what I
have termed the Amorian chroniclo camo down to the death of
Basil, for the brevity of Simeon's account of Bisil's reign contrasts
with the comparative copiousness of the treatment of Leo VI.,
though 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 "Symeon magister," is a totally different compilation and has nothing to do with Simeon. It is now generally designated as Pseudo-Simcon. See 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, 312 892.). The chronicler's chief sources were, according to Hirsch (318 sya.), George, Simeon, Genesios, Cont. Th., Scriptor Incertus de Leono Armenio, the l'itu Igautii by Nicetas; but he also furnishes a number of other notices (chictly anecdotes), which are not found in our other sources,

APPENDIX IV

GENESIOS ANI) TILE CONTINUATION OF THEOPIANES

The Bisileini of Genesios (writton c, 944-948 A.D.) and the Chronography (Books 1-4, written, under the auspices of Constantine VII., 9:19-950 A.D.)' known as the Continuation of Theophanes, which along with George and Simeon are the chief sources for the continuons history of our period, have been analysed in detail by Hirsch in his Byzantinische Stulien. 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 Genesios. Some of his particular results admit of reconsideration, but for the most part they are sufficient as a guide to the historical student. There are two things, however, which mny bo pointed out.

(1) Joseph (renesios was a kinsman of Constantine the Armenian, for whom ho ovinces i particular interest in his history. Constantine was Drungarios of the Watch under Michael III. (sce above, pp. 147, 157, etc.), and from Simeon (Leo Cir. 2-19 = Theod. Mel. 174) we learn that he was ο πατήρ Θωμά πατρικίου και Γενεσίου. Tirsch concluded that ienesios the historian was his son. But le Boor (15.2. x. 69, s.) has shown that Simcon refers to another Ciencsios who was a magister in the reign of Lco VI., while Joseph Cienesius the historian w.is Chartulary of the Ink (ó éri Toll Revenideron) under Constantine V11. Tlie relationship is

Constantine, Sporyy. 7. Biydus.

1 Thulmates

Violesios
" (λογ. τ. δρόμου).

Quyurtpos).
.
Juwepo Ciclesius

(á til T. KIV.). (2) It can be proved, I think, from a number of comparisons (. Bury, Torudise I won. dopr. 570 0997.

1

that the Continuators of Theophanes used, along with Genesios, the source of Genesios. There are passages in Cont. Th. in which the rolationship to Gen. is plain, but there are additions which cannot bo explained either as amplifications invented by the author or as derived from oral tradition, and which, therefore, probably como from the source used by Gon. and wore omittod by him. It will be sufficient here to mention two oxamples. In the account of the campaign of Theophilus in A.D. 837, tho closo interdopendenco of Cont. Th. 124 and Gon. 63-64 is obvions in the similar phraseology; but while Gen. particularises only the capturo of Zapetra, Cont. Th. records that two other cities were tso taken. There is no probability that this record uitmo from any other source than that which lien. used. Again, the two relations of the l'escue of Theophilus by Marmel, and Manuel's subsequent flight (Gen. 61-62 ; Cont. Th. 117 sq.), are manifestly interdependent. But Cont. Th. vlesignates the person who accused Manuel of treasonable designs, while Gen. confines himself to ir generality. llere, too, this addition probably comes from the source which Gen, used; and I suspect that the further particulars of Manuel's services to the Saracens should be referred to the sume origin. For other alditions in Cunt. Th. which nay be derived from the common source, cp. above, pp. 46, 54, 87, 88, 93, 95, 97, 99, 106, 290.

APPENDIX V

CHRONOLOGY OF TIIE WAR BETWEEN MICIIA EL II. AND

TUOMAS THE SLAV

Our authorities supply singularly few landmarks for the chronology of the Civil War. It will be well to set down in a list cxactly what determinations of time they furnish, boforo, wo consiiler what inferences may or must bo drawn. (1) The wholo revolt listed three years.

We have this on early authority : George, p. 797 τον έν τρισίν έτεσι ... πόλεμον. It is repeated 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) Tho siege of Constantinople listod a year. For this wo have the authority of the besieged Emperor himself in his Letter (p. 418), and also that of Cicoryo (797) édēvu xpórov é topápras.

(3) The siege began in December of the 15th Indiction, that is December 821 A.D). Wo get this Jate from Michael's Letter (il.). C. Cout. Τh. 61 άτε δή και χειμώνας επιγενομένου,

(4) Having wintered elsewhere, Thomas returned to the siege of the city in the spring following (i.e. spring of 822). Cont. Th., ile on o tor eu possippepov oteldup Tortos.

(5) The embiosy of the Bulgarians is only indicated roughly luy Genesios ils taking place when the first decade of the Thirty Years' l'ence with Leo was nearly coming to it close : p. 41 ui yùp υπό Λέοντος του βασιλέως προς αυτούς τριακοντούτοις σπονδιαί ήδη την πρώτην δεκαετηρίδα συνεπλήγουν σχεδόν.

(6) The bittle of Diabasis belongs to the third year of the war : Cout. Th. 67 Tpítos yap (xpóros) MeTo (wrongly rendered in the Latin translation, cum-jurisset); the third year was current.

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

(8) The tyrant Thomas was slain in the middle of October. This we learn from (Genesios, 45 μηνός Οκτωβρίων μεσούντος ήδη, and cont. Th. 70.