« PrethodnaNastavi »
The two powers exchanged their prisoners, and, though no regular peace was made, they desisted from hostilities for
The exchange of prisoners from time to time was such a characteristic feature of the warfare between the Empire and the Caliphate, that the formal procedure by which such exchanges were conducted is not without interest. A full account has been preserved of the redemption of captives in the year 845. In response to an embassy which the Roman government sent to Baghdad, a plenipotentiary arrived at Constantinople in order to obtain exact information as to the number of the Mohammadans who were detained in captivity. They were estimated as 3000 men, and 500 women and children; according to another account, they were 4362 in all. The Greek prisoners in the Saracen prisons were found to be less numerous, and in order to equalise the numbers, the Caliph bought up Greek slaves in Baghdad, and even added some females who were employed in the service of his palace. The place usually chosen for the interchange of prisoners of war was on the banks of the river Lamos, about a day's march from Tarsus and close to Seleucia. Here the Greeks and the Saracens met on September 16. The two Greek officers who were entrusted with the negotiation were alarmed to see that the other party was attended by a force of 4000 soldiers. They refused to begin business till the Saracens consented to an armistice of forty days, an interval which would permit the redeemed prisoners to return to their homes without the risk of being recaptured. There were preliminary disputes as to the method of exchange. The Romans declined to accept children or aged persons for able-bodied men, and some days were wasted before it was agreed to purchase man with man. enterprise. There was a total eclipse might possibly have been seen in in 840 (April 5) visible at Cple., and in Asia Minor. See Oppolzer, Canon der 841 (Oct. 18) an annular eclipse, which Finsternisse (p. 196 and) Blatt No. 98 an astronomer could have well observed for the tracks of these obscurations. at Khartum, and which might have
i Tabari, 47 sqq. been just partially visible at Cple.
2 Bar-Hebr. 194. After the death These data are obviously not satis- of Mutasim, Michael Syr. has no factory. If the expedition belonged information about the Saracen wars, to the reign of Theophilus, the only and very little about anything else eclipses I can find which might come till the reign of Romanus I. His under consideration are the total of source, the chronicle of Dionysios (who A.D. 833 (Sept. 17) and the annular died A.D. 845), came to an end at this of 834 (March 14), of which the latter point.
Two bridges were thrown across the river, and at the same moment at which a Christian passed over one, a Mohammadan traversed the other in the opposite direction. But the unfortunate Mohammadans were subjected to a religious test. The Caliph had appointed a commission to examine the theological opinions of the captives. Himself an adherent, like Mamun and Mutasim, of the pseudo-rationalistic school which denied the eternity of the Koran and the visible epiphany of Allah in a future life, he commanded that only those should be redeemed who denounced or renounced these doctrines. Many refused to sacrifice their convictions, and the application of the test was probably not very strict. The exchange was carried out in four days, and more than 4000 Saracens were redeemed, including women and children, as well as Zimmi, that is, Christian or Jewish subjects of the Caliph.
Between the religious bigotry of rulers of Islam like Wathik and Mutawakkil and that of Christian sovrans like Theophilus and Theodora there was little to choose. For the persecution of the Paulicians, which must be regarded as one of the greatest political disasters of the ninth century, Theophilus as well as Theodora was responsible, though the crime, or rather the glory, is commonly ascribed entirely to her. This sect, widely diffused throughout Asia Minor, from Phrygia and Lycaonia to Armenia, had lived in peace under the wise and sympathetic iconoclasts of the eighth century. They have been described as “the left wing of the iconoclasts”; their doctrines—they rejected images, pictures, crosses, as idolatrous—had undoubtedly a great influence on the generation of the iconoclastic movement; it has even been supposed
1 Hostilities were resumed in A.D. Anazarbos. D. MacRitchie's Account 851. In that year, and the two follow- of the Gypsies of India (London, 1886) ing, Saracen raids are recorded. In contains a translation of an article by 855 the Greeks attacked Anazarbos De Goeje on the history of the Gipsies in northern Cilicia, and took captive (published in the Memoirs of the the Zatts or Gipsies who had been Amsterdam Academy of Sciences, settled there since A.D. 835. The 1875). See also Bataillard, Sur les Caliph Muawia had settled in Syria origines des Bohémiens ou T'siganes these emigrants from India. Walid (Paris, 1876). Vasil'ev, 177-178. and Yazid II. assigned them settle- Cony beare, Key of Truth, cvi. For ments at Antioch and Mopsuestia. Sergius the leader, who was active in In the ninth century the Zatts behaved propagating Paulicianism in the first as if they were an independent people, quarter of the ninth century, see ib. and were suppressed with difficulty Ixviji., lxix. by Ujaif. They were then moved to
that Constantine V. was at heart a Paulician. We saw how they had been favoured by Nicephorus, and how Michael I. was stirred up by the ecclesiastics to institute a persecution. Michael committed the execution of his decree in Phrygia and Lycaonia to Leo the Armenian, as stratégos of the Anatolic Theme;? while the suppression of the heresy in Cappadocia and Pontus was enjoined on two ecclesiastics, the exarch or visitor of the Patriarchal monasteries in those parts, and the bishop of Neo-Caesarea. The evidence leaves us in doubt whether Leo, when he came to the throne, pursued the policy of which he had been the instrument. Did the reviver of iconoclasm so far desert the principles of his exemplar, Constantine V., as to pursue the Paulicians ? It is not incredible that he may have adopted this course, if it were only to dissociate himself from a sect which the Church maliciously or ignorantly branded as Manichaean ; for it is certain that the Paulicians were persecuted by Theophilus. It was either in the reign of Theophilus or during the earlier persecution that Karbeas, a Paulician who held an office under the general of the Anatolic Theme, led 5000 men of his faith to the region beyond Cappadocia, and placed himself under the protection of the Emir of Melitene. He is said to have been moved to this flight by the news that his father had been hanged. It is probable that there were already Paulicians in Cony beare, ib. cxvi. sqq.
Theophilus, meets there some “Pauli2 Theoph. 495. Photius (c. Man. C. anasts or Manichaeans "condemned to 24=Peter Sic. 52) says that Michael death. And it is suggested by the evi. and Leo his successor sent to all parts dence relating to Karbeas ; see next of the Empire and put heretics to note. death. This naturally implies that 5 Cont. Th. 166. It can now be Leo persecuted as Emperor ; but we shown that there is a grave chronocannot be certain, for the statement logical error in the account of this may have arisen from the fact that writer. The flight of Karbeas is Leo was associated with Michael's represented as a consequence of the persecution.
persecution of Theodora. But a docu3 Photius, ib. Parakondakes, the ment dating from A.D. 845-846 (Acta exarch, was, of course, not the Patri. 42 Mart. Amor. I 29) shows that at the archal exarch, but a provincial in- end of the reign of Theophilus, or imspector (cp. Ducange, s.v. čçapxos). mediately after, Karbeas and his people Afterwards some Paulician killed him, were already settled in the East under and the bishop was slain by the Saracen protection. We learn there Kynochoritae (the position of Kynos- that Kallistos, appointed by Theochora, a Paulician stronghold, is ,
philus governor of the district of unknown).
Koloneia (Kara-hissar), tried to convert 4 We have an incidental proof of some of his officers who were Paulicians. this in the Vita Macarii, 159. They betrayed him to the Paulicians Makarios, abbot of Pelekete (cp. above, of Karbeas (τοίς υπό την εξουσίας του p. 139, n. 4), thrown into prison by τριτάλανος Καρβέα τελούσι-αποστάταις). 2 Argaûs=Argovan, about 20 miles north of Melitene ; see Anderson, Road-system, 27. Tephrike is Devrik, much further north, and about 60 miles south-east of Sebastea. (Cp. Le Strange, Journal of R. Asiatic Society, 1896, p. 733 sqq.) Anderson (ib. 32) has made it probable that Amara or Abara lay near the modern Manjilik, about 25 miles north of Gurun, on the road from Sebastea to
the districts north and west of Melitene;' new fugitives continually arrived; and in their three principal cities, Argaûs, Tephrike, and Amara,” these martial heretics proved a formidable enemy to the State of which their hardy valour had hitherto been a valuable defence.
Seeing that even iconoclasts sought to suppress a religion with which they had important points in common, the Paulicians could expect little mercy after the triumph of image-worship. It was a foregone conclusion that Theodora, under the influence of orthodox ecclesiastical advisers, would pursue her husband's policy with more insistent zeal, and endeavour to extirpate the “Manichaean" abomination. A fiat went forth that the Paulicians should abandon their errors or be abolished from the earth which they defiled. An expedition was sent under several commanders to carry out this decree, and a wholesale massacre was enacted. Victims were slain by the sword, crucified, and drowned in thousands; those who escaped sought shelter across the frontier. The property of the Paulicians was appropriated by the Statepoor compensation for the loss of such a firm bulwark as the persecuted communities had approved themselves.
It is just after the fall of the Empress Theodora from power that we find the Paulicians effectively co-operating with the enemies of the Empire. Her brother Petronas, who was then stratêgos of the Thrakesian Theme, was entrusted with the supreme command of the army, and in the late summer
and he was presently taken to Samarra by the Caliph's orders and associated with the Amorians (see above). It follows that the flight of Karbeas must be dated in the reign of Theophilus, or else in the time of Michael I.-Leo V.
Cp. Karapet, Die Paulikianer, 117-118.
Arabissos and Germanicia. See his
3 We have a good source here in
Our text seems to be incomplete, for the names of the commanders are given more fully in Skylitzes (Cedrenus), ii. 154 και του 'Aργύρου (δε ήν Λέων) και ο του Δούκα (δουκός Cont. Τh.) ('Ανδρόνικος) και ο Σούδαλις. The names in brackets are omitted in Cont Th., of which otherwise the text of Skylitzes is no more than a transcript.
4 100,000, Cont. Th., a number which, of course, has no value.
5 Cont. Th. 167.
(A.D. 856), having made successful raids into the districts of Samosata and Amida, he proceeded against Tephrike, the headquarters of Karbeas, who had been actively helping the Emir of Melitene and the governor of Tarsus to waste the Roman borders. In this year begins a short period of incessant hostility, marked on one hand by the constant incursions of the commanders of Melitene and Tarsus, in co-operation with Karbeas, and on the other by the appearance in the field of the Emperor Michael himself, as well as his uncles Bardas and Petronas. The first expedition of Michael, who had now reached the age of twenty years, was directed against Samosata, under the guidance of Bardas. His army was at first successful, and the town was besieged. But the garrison made a sudden sally on a Sunday, choosing the hour at which the Emperor was engaged in the ceremonies of his religion. He escaped with difficulty, and the whole camp fell into the hands of the Saracens (A.D. 859). It was said that Karbeas performed prodigies of valour and captured a large number of Greek officers.3
In the ensuing winter negotiations were opened for the exchange of captives, and the Saracen envoy, Nasr, came to Constantinople. He wrote an interesting account of his mission. As soon as he arrived, he presented himself at the Palace, in a black dress and wearing a turban and a sword. Petronas (but it is not improbable that Bardas is meant) informed him that he could not appear in the Emperor's presence with a sword or dressed in black. Then,” said Nasr, “ I will go away.” But before he had gone far he was recalled, and as soon as the Emperor, who was then receiving a Bulgarian embassy, was disengaged, he was admitted to the hall of audience. Michael sat on a throne which was raised on another throne, and his patricians were standing around him. When Nasr had paid his respects, he took his place on a large chair which had been set for him, and the gifts which he had 1 Bardas was now curopalates (see
the Greeks had met the forces of the above, p. 161).
Emir of Melitene, with whom Karbeas 2 Gen. 91 records the disaster ;
used to act, and had driven them into Tabari, 55, only the initial) success.
Samosata. Cp. Vasil'ev, 185, n. 4.
4 Tabari has preserved it (57).
5 Petronas was general of the Thra3 Cont. Th. 176-177 (otherwise a re- kesians from 860 to 863. I suspect production of Genesios). The presence that Nasr wrote “his uncle"and that of Karbeas at Samosata suggests that Tabari added Petronas.