« PrethodnaNastavi »
THE REVOLT OF EUPHEMIOS
The sources for this episode are—
(1) Greek. --Theognostos, a contemporary writer. His historical work, of which we do not know the character or compass, is lost, but the story of Euphemios in Cont. Th. is based upon it: p. 8? δηλοί δε ταύτα σαφέστατα και πλατικώτερον η τότε γραφείσα θεογνώστω των περί ορθογραφίας γεγραφώτι και εις χείρας έλθούσα ημών <?ίστορία οι χρονογραφία» ν ο βουλόμενος μεταχειριζόμενος τα καθ' έκαστον arudioux Bijeretul. From this, the only notice of Theognostos as a historian, we infer that he gave a detailed account of the incirlents, of which the passage in Cont. Th. is an abridgment. The marti on Orthography, which we could well spare, is preserved, and has been published by Cramer (ci necil. Graec. ii. i 9.). It is dedicated to the Emperor Leo
το δεσπότη μου και σοβιο στεψηφόρο
Λέοντι τω κρατούντι πάντων εν λόγοις, a tribute which seems distinctly more appropriate to Leo VI. than to Leo V. But, according to Cont. Th., the author wils al contenporary of Euphemios and, if so, the Emperor can only bo Leo V. (so Villoison, Krumbacher, Vitsil'ev; Mirsch leans to Lco VI., p. 197). I am inclined to suspect that Theognontos the historian Wals il different person from Theoynostos the grammarian, and that the Continnator of Theoph. confounded them. I find it hard to believe that Leo of the dedication is not Leo the Wise.
(2) Arabic.-Ibn al-Athir; Yuwairi.
(3) Latin.—'Traditions preserved in South Italy : Chronicon Salernitanum ; Joannes diaconus Neapolitanus.
There are many ditficulties in connexion with the revolt. The following points may be noticed.
(1) The date of the rebellion is given by Ibn al-Athir as A.JI. 211 = A.D. 826, April 13, to 8:27, April 1. According to him, in this year the Emperor appointed the patrician Constantine governor of Sicily, and Constantine named Euphemios commander of the fleet. Euphemios made it sliccessful descent on Africa, and then the
Emperor wrote to Constantine and ordered him to seize and punish Euphemios.
Nuwairi, under A.H. 212 ( = A.D. 827-828), states that in A.H. 201 ( = A.D. 816, July 30, to 817, July 19) the Emperor appointed tho patrician Constantine Sudes. What follows is the same as in Ibn al-Athir, and it is evident that both accounts come from a
Vasil'ev (Pril. 116, note) says that 201 must be an error for 211.
(2) Photeinos, who was named stratégos of Crete immediately after the Arabs seized that island (A.D. 825), was, after his unsuccessful attompt to recover it, appointed stratêgos of Sicily. Cont. Th. 77 την της Σικελίας στρατηγίδια αύθις της Κρήτης αλλάσσεται. This cannot have been later than A.D. 826, and therefore Amuri (followed by Vasil'ev) identified Photeinos with the general who is called Constantine by the Arabs and who was defeated and slain by Euphemios. Canssin de Perceval (Novairi, p. 404) had called attention to variants of the name in the text of Nuwairi-Casuntin, Phasantin, Phustin--and also proposed the identification. could suppose that A.H. 201 in Nuwairi is not a mero error, we might cor.cludu that Constantino Sudes was thc predecessor of Photeinos, but the parallel pitssage of Ibn al-Athir scems to exclude this solution.
The name of the stratégos is not mentioned in the account of the rebellion which Cont. Th. has abridged from Theognostos (82). Wo can hardly doubt that Thcoynostos named him, and I conjecture thit the Cretan portion of Cont. T':., where the appointment of Photeinos to Sicily is mentioned (76-77), was derived from Theoynostos.
(3) From the notice of Joannes Neap. (429) that when Euphemios fled to Africa (i.e. ini A.V. 826.827) ho took with him his wife und sons (“cum nixorc et tiliis "), it has been inferred that his marringo cilimot have been Intor than A.1), 82.1 (linbotto, 30; Vasil'ov, 58). This would suggest a further consideration. The Emperor did not take any steps against Euphemios till A.D. 826. We should have then to suppose one of two things. Either the brothers of the bride waited for a considerable time after the marriage scandal to prefer their complaint; or the delay was on the side of the Emperor. The latter alternative would seem the more probable; and the point might be adduced by those who think it likely that in his action in regard to Euphemios Michael was influenced by political reasons and used the matrimonial delinquency as il pretext.
But it may be questioned whether the inference from the text of Joannes is certain. The filii might be sons of a former wife. According to Ibu al-Athir, it was the new stratégos (Constantino Photcinos) who appointed Euphemios commander of the feet.
There is no evidence that he had held this post or been a turmarch before the govornorship of Photoinos. Now Thoognostos (Cont. Th.) speaks of him as contracting the marriage when he was turmarch (touppáxpis Tedor), and the story as told by Cont. Th. does not contemplate any considerable lapwo of time between the marriage and its conseqnences. Of course this is not conclusive, Cont. Th., in abridging, may have foreshorteneil the chronology. Still, taking the evidenco such its it is, no chronological difficulty is involved if we assume that Euphemios married the nun after his appointment to the command of the fleet. We may suppose that Photeinos irrived in Sicily, and appointed Euphemios turmarch, and that Euphemios married llomonizi, 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 Photcinos, and for the expedition of Euphemios ; in the late summer and autumn, for the warfare between Photcinos and Euphemios, and then between Euphemios and Palata.
I do not put forward this view with any contidence, but merely ils a tenable interpretation of the evidence. But the fact that it is it 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. 826. Ho had, doubtless, distinguished himself as an officer; to this he owed his appointment by l'hoteinos. But there is no reason to suppose that be wils marked out is a politically dangerous person.
(+) The Arabic writers give Balata 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 ho opposed Euphemios and rebelled ; and he and his cousin, by name Michael, the governor of Palermo, joined together” (Ibn al-Atbir, apuil Visilev, 9.1). As p is often represented by b in Arabic reproductions of Greek names, it is probablo that Bulutu represents Palut-; and it looks as if the source of Ibn al-Athir had taken a title of oflice or dignity for it personal name. Ciabotto suggested (28) that the person in question had been created curopulates by. Euphemios; but we need not go further than to say that he was probably invested with a palatino dignity.
It is not proved (as Gabotto assumes, and apparently Vasil'ev, 60) that Palata's cousin Michael was at first a supporter of Euphemios. Ibn al-Athir does not say so. It is quite as 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 stratégos in 813, has no evidence or probability and has rightly been rejected by Vasil'ev (60-61).
THE succession of the Bulgarian sovrans bot woon Omurtag und Boris (whose date of accession has been fixed by Zlatarski to A.D. 852) is a problem which has not been satisfactorily cleared up. Theophylactus, tho Bulgarian archbishop of Ochrida' (in the eleventh century), is the only writer who furnishes any connocted account of the succession of the kings. It is evident from the details which ho gives in his llistoria murtyrii rr. martyrum that he had a sourco of information otherwise lost, and I suspect that it was a hagiographical work- Vita Cinamonis
i (op. above, p. 382, n. 3). He states (p. 193) that Omurtay had three sons, 'Evpußwtias, (the oldest), ZBruitsys, and Maddoppós; that the last-named succeeded his father (di, kui i Toû mutpos útrendypoon úpxý), and put to death Enrabotus, who had been converted to Christianity. The next ruler, ifter Malamir, was Bcris, whom Theophylactus designates is the son of Zvenitsa (197). Thus, according 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 Maddownpós of Thcophylactus was identical with the Buddipep or Baudígep whom Simeon mentions in his account of the return of the Creek captives (sco abovo, p. 369, 11. 4), il passage 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 name given by Theophylactus is nearly right. The name in the inscriptions is Μαλαμήρ.
If our evidence were confined to these data, there would be no problem. But (1) Constantine, De alm. imp. 154, mentions II periuje as the Bulgarian king who, before Boris, made war on Servia, and says that he was the father of Boris, and (2) we havo a fragmentary inscription (frowr. Philippi), evidently of this
Ille says that M. was succeeded by the son of 2., and then goes on to speak of B, as o ρηθείς Βωρίσης.
period, in which the name of the ruler (ó éx Ocoû ápxwv) seems to end in --uvos (C.I.G. iv. 8691 b), and the kaukhan Isbules (known otherwise from inscriptions of Malamir) is mentioned. Zlatarski (Izr. za Bilg v Khron. 49) combines these data, supplying in the inscription the name llpeur Jávos, for which he refers to Skylitzes (Celrenns, ii, 574) Ilpowiávov, where a Vienna MS. gives II pewuivov (B. Prokić, Die lusitze in der Ils, des Joh. Skylitzes, cuil. l'inl. hist. lit. lxxiv, p. 36) observing that Constantine's Il peripe for Il pecuár is parallel to the alternation MuppuuvMuppea üle in the same treatise (157).
Jireček (Ceschichte, 170) had conjectured that Presiam and Malanir were one and thu same person; but Zlatarski distinguishes them, and regards Presiam is the succesor of Malamir. llo places the accession of the former in A.D. 836-837, tinding in intimation of a change on the throne at this time in Simeon's chronicle (17's. Slar. 102, Leo Gr. 232), where Malamir ("Vadimir") is first mentioned, and then suddenly, without explanation, Michael (i.c. Boris). He supposes that Michael is an crror for his father Presiam. It is obvious, however, that this argument has little weight.
bu filvour of the view that Malamir and Presiam are different persons is (1) the fact that Presiam, according to Constantine Porph. loc. cit., father of Boris, while according to Theophylactus, loc cit., Zvenitsit was father of Boris ; if both statements are true, Presiam was identical with Zvenits, and therefore distinct from Z.'s brother Malamir; (2) the difficulty of supposing thint in the inscriptions the silme ruler is designated sometimes ils Mudapír, sometimes il8 —«VOS.
On the other hand, it is not ensy to believe that if, during the period between Omurtag's death (at earliest 827) and 852, there were two khans, of whom one (Malamir) reigned it most ten years, and the other, Presiam, fifteen years, the longer reign should have been completely ignored by Theophylactus.
But the important Shumla inscription (holu, 233), which Zlatarski claims for Presiam, hals, still to be considered. The khall, for whom this stone was inscribed, designates Krum is "my grandfather "land Omurtag als
It seems to record an invasion of Greek territory by Mulamir with tho kaukhan 1sbules, and the natural interpretation is that the monument was inscribed for Malamir. But Zlata'ski (op. cit. 51) holids that the warlike operations were conducted by l’resiam, not by Malumir. Having stated that Omurtng made peace and lived
1. 1. I would prostori ó megas) άρχων) ο Κρομος ο πάππος μου μεί, a sorbs
1. 2. I readl και ο πατήρ μου και
alex(ww) 'Suovpray. That Omurtay's alle must be supplied here follows from the beginning of l. 3 cilpnumu TE ποιήσας.