Slike stranica

Pope Nicolas (Mansi, xvi. 296): “When the sovran, persuaded by Bardas, wishci to ostracize his mother and sisters from the Palace, he orilered me to tonsure them, but I would not oboy, because they were unwilling; for this reason too I was driven from the Church.” In accordance with this statement of the Patriarch is his biographer's intimation that there was not a long interval (metà pekpár) between the two events (Vita Ignatii, 225).

According to the older view which was still held by Hirsch, Ignatius was deposcd in November 857, so that if these statements are true, the tonsuring of the Imperial ladies cannot be placed before 8:57. Hirsch therefore (loc. cit.) rejects them as inaccurate. But it is quite impossible to set them aside.

We know now that the deposition of Ignatius falls in November 858 (not 857), and this seems to make the difficulty still greater. The Patriarch could never speak as he clocs of a refusal to comply with the Emperor's wishes carly in 856 as the cause of his deposition near the close of 858.

The key to the solution of the difficulty is simple enough. Both the chronological statement of George the Monk (who was writing some ten years later) and the evilence of the Patriarch are perfectly correct. The full of Thcolora from power is a distinct event, chronologically divilla ly sin interval, from her expulsion from the Prince. The end of the joint reign fell in the beginning (perhaps March) of 850, and was markal ly tho meeting of tho Sennto recorded in Cont. Gicorg. 8.2:3. But Thcoclora continue to : live in the l'alace and was expelled at it much Inter period. This scems to be the obvious inference from the data.

It is truc that any one reading the chronicles of Geriesios und Simeon would infer that the expulsion of Thcodora from the Palacc ensued almost immediately upon the fall of Theoktistos. Gen. 90 mui: μετά βραχύ τα κατά την δέσποιναν έκταράττεται· διό Toll Foundation

Ernst Paki[etul KTX. But the chronology of these writers is extremely vilgnc; they furnish very few absolute dates, and they had no precise information as to the intervals between events. Such phrilmCA ILM preth Bpuxú and peti puukpów generally conceal their ignorance. Morcover, if wo look more closely at the statements of Simcon (Coul. Cicorg. 8:23), wo find that they ilmnumo am interval (which may be either short or long) between the murder of Theoktistos and the expulsion of Thcodoral. (1) Michael tried to pacify his mother, who was irreconcilable; then (2) he endeavoured to distress her: he expelled three of his sisters to Karianos, and the youngest, Pulcheria, to the monastery of Gastria ; afterwards he tonsured them all and confincıl them in Gastria. (3) lle was recognized by the Senato als solc ruler, and created Bardils Domestic of the Schools. (4) lle sent Thcodorit illo to Gastrii. Although this succount is confirmed and comot loc right in detail, yet it ilsalimex

[ocr errors]

distinct interval during which Theodora lived in the Palace after her fall from power. And we may accept the statement, which was not likely to be invented, that the removal of her daughters to Karianos preceded her own expulsion. Against this we need not press the actual words of Theognostos (quoted above), which are accurate enough for his purpose if we suppose that all the ladies were tonsured at the samo time.

As this last event was connected with the deposition of Ignatius, it can hardly have been prior to 858. It is, however, worth noticing that the anthor of the Vita Ignatii (258) assigns fifteen years and cight months to the joint reign of Michael and Theodora. The period is one year, seven months, too long. But it is a possible hypothesis that he reckoned not to her fall from power but to her expulsion. In that case the date of her expulsion would be about August or September 857. This would mean that Ignatius remained Patriarch for some fourteen months after his refusal to obey the Emperor's command. And it may be thought that this is quite possible, since that refusal was certainly only one of the offences which Ignatius committed in the eyes of Michael and Birdas, and wo inight suppose that it simply began a breuch betwocn the Patriarch and the Court. But this is not probable, and does not co jumticu to the drift of the pilanngo in the Libellus.

If wo look more closely int tho chronological toxt in tho l'ita Ignalii, wo observe that thero in illi crror. Nino youli's nro insigned to Michael alono, which, with the fifteen years, cight months, of tho joint reign, makes twenty-four years, oight months, juister year too little. My conjecture is that the author intended to count the joint reign its extending to the expulsion of the Empress from the Palace, but that he miscalculated by a year. He onght to have written sixteen years, eight months. This would bring us to Augnst or September 858 for the expulsion-a date which precerles the fall of Ignatius ly just about the interval we might expect.



Tur events and chronology of thcso years havo hocn cnrofully studied by Visil'ev, from tho Grcek an Arabic writers; but he was not acquainted with the original Syriac Chronicle of Michael Syrus, knowing it only through the Armenian abbreviation and the compilation of Bar-Hebraeis, nor does he seem to have realised its importance for the reign of Theophilus, and especially for the last years of Mamun. Michael's source was the lost Chronicle of Dionysios of Tell-Mahre, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch (A.D. 818-845), who was not only a contemporary but was a friend of Mamun and was with him at times during these years. He visited the Caliph in his camp at Kasin in the autumn of A.D. 831 (Michael Syr. 74), and accompanied him in the following February to Egypt (ib. 76). The evidence of Michael is therefore of the highest importance.

It appears that in the spring of A.N. 830, Thcophilus—with Thcophobos and his new Persilmenian allies--crossed the mountains and captured and burned the town of Zapetra, perhaps massacring many of the inhabitants." Mamun lost no time in retaliating. In the same year, marching by Mosul, Zeugma, Membij, and

| This capture of Zaputra, not mcn. Mamum in Cilicia ; further successes in tioned by the Cireek writers, is recoriled Romania. This brings als to the benzin. by Michael Syr. 71, and must be accepted. ning of Aun. Sel. 1144 = October 832. There is, however, some chronological It is clear that the capture of the four confusion in this chapter of Michael. forts is here (lateil to the summer of 11.11 Immediately after his notice of the aml Manuel's llight to the same year arression of Theophilus he recorıls : (1) = October 829 to Octoler 830. It woulil without date, the capture of Zapetra ; follow that the capture of Zapetra fell in (2) " in the following year" the revolt of 1140, i.e. before October 829, i.e. before Manuel, aul Mamun's capture, in or after the accession of Theophilus. Michael June, of four sorts; (3) in May 1142 = 831, has introduced a superiluous year. The the siege of Lulon ; (4) in 1143=October true dates are : 1141=830, cajiture of 831 to O«toler 832, Jamu's departure Zapetra and Mamu's capture of the for Damascus, on hearing that Egypt forts ; 1142 (after October 1, 830), May, hail revolted; the capture of Lulon ; siege of Lulon, etc. (Michael dites loy " at this perioil" the solurn of Manuel to Seleucial years, which liegano11 October 1). Theopoliilia ; the embassy of Theophilus ;


[ocr errors]

Antioch to Tarsus, he passed through the Cilician gutes in July, whilo his son Abbas, at the head of another force, advanced at the same time from Melitene to cross the eastern frontier. Theophilus himself had again taken the field with Manuel, the most eminent of his generals, and Theophobos, but we have no intelligible account of the military operations, which seem to have been chiefly in Cappaulocin. Several Greck fortresses were cnptured, including

. Koron,” from which Mannol was expelled, and a battlo was subsequently fought, in which Theophilus was defeated and barely escaped with his life.3

In the spring of the following year (A.D. 831), Theophilus anticipated his enemies by invading Cilicia, where he gained a victory over an army of frontier troops, collected from the fortresses of Tarsus, Adana, Mopsnestin, and Anazarbus. This success. ho celebrated by a triumph.

If Thcophilus was flushed with triumph at the success of his raill, he may have desired that his own victory should terminato the military operations of the year; it is said that he mighi an cnvoy with five hundred captives as a peace-offering to tł. C.liph. Mamun was already at Adana, preparing to retaliate, and the embassy did not check his advance. The ensuing campaign (from the beginning of July till end of September), like that of the year before, seems to have been chiefly confined to Cappadocia. Heraclea-Cybistra surrendered to the invaders without resistance, and then the Caliph divided his army. His son Abbas, commanding one of the divisions, captured some important forts, and won a

| These are named only in the Arabic Arcielais), on theoutskirts of Ilassan Dagh sources (Vasil'ev, 8.5-86): Majidl (perhaps (Mt. Argaios, the beaconstation): Ramsay, near Lulon ; ih. 85, n. 2), Kurru (see alsia Minor, 355. Kurru was taken on next note), Sunlus, and Sinan. Vasil'ev July 21 (Yakubi, whose text gives Ancyra, woulil i lentify Sundus with Soanılos but must be corrected from Ibn Kutaiba (Nev Sheher). These may be the “four 2 anel Tabari 23). fortresses mentioned by Michael Syr. :t Vasil'ev (Pril. ii. 133) places this in il But Ibn-Kutaila (2) mentions two the early part of the year. others, llarshan and Shemal, eviilently + The Saracen army was 20,000 strong ; Charsianon anil Semalouos. Yakuli (7) the men of Irenopolis are also mentionell. also mentions Shemal. Semalonios was See ('onstantine, llepi rag. 503. · About taken liy Harun after a long siege in 1600 Moslems were slain nccoriling to A.1), 780; it was in the Armeniac Thieme Tllari; 2000 :u'coriling to the anonymous -a vaynic inlication. The fort of Char. author of the kitab al- Uyun (Vasil'ev, sianon is placed by Ramsay at Alaja on l'ril. 108). This Moslem (lefeat is ignored the road between Euchaita -and Tavion. by Michael. It was taken by the Saracens in 730. We Tabari, 24 (but he does not relate the see that the Roinans had been successful 'story with confidence), and Kitab al. in recovering positions east of the Halys L'yun, 108. which they hall lost in the eighth century. Kitab al-Uyun, ib. Cp. Vasil'ev, 93.

? Kurru in the Aralı sources. Vasil'er's Anong the forts mentioned was Antigas, identification with το Κόρον εν τή Καππα. which Ramsay i lentities with Tyriaion dokią mentioned in Simeon (Cuni. Cicory.). (i1sia Minor, 141), south-west of Cae. is acceptable. Cpo. Constantine, Them. sarea. It was callol hy the Greeks to TWY 21. It is supposcil to bic Viran Sheher, Trpávvwv Kdor pov (lco. Dinc. 122), and ruins south.cast or Ak-scrai (Colonia Visilier suggests that oIntiyors may be an

[ocr errors]



battle in which Theophilus himself was at the head of the Roman forces.

Mamun was at Kasin in September, where the Patriarch Dionysios met him, and he retired for the winter to Damascus. Farly in A.D. 832 he proceeded to Egypt to quell an insurrection, and was there from February 16 to April 4. He returned rapidly to renew the warfare in Asia Minor, and must have reached Adana early in May. The important event of this campaign was the capture of Lulon. Mamun besieged it in vain for one hundred days; then he instituted a blockade, and entrusted the conduct of the operations to Ujaif ibn Anbals. The Romans had the luck to capture this general, but Theophilus, who came to relieve the fortress, was compelled to retire, without a battle, by a Saracen force, and the conimander of Lulon negotiated its surrender with the captive Ujuif.?

The cupture of Lulon is placed both by the Arabic historians and by Michael (who does not give the details) in A.1). 832. But Michael also says that Milmun laid siege to Lulon in May, Ann. Sel. 114 = 1.1), 831. From his narrative we might infer that the siege lasted a year. This is out of the ynestion, in view of the other cvicence. We must therefore infer that in 8:31 Mamun, who was in the neighbourhood of Lulon, since he took HeracleaCybistra, atticked Lulon unsuccessfully:*

Tho dates of the flight and return of Manuel aiul of the Emperor's overtures for picace remain to be considered. Thu references of the Arabic anthorities to Miinnol are its follows:

1. Yakubi, 7, says that in A.D. 830 Mamun took “ Ancyra (error for Kurru = Koron) and "the patrician Manuel escaped from it."

... Tabari, 24, says that in A.D. 830 Mannel and Mamu's son Abbils met Mamun at Resaina, before the campaign. There seems to be an error here, for, as Brooks his pointed out, Mamun did not yo ricar Resaina (1.2. x. 297).

If we are to reconcile the statement of Yakubi with the Greek sources, Manuel must have fled after the capture of Koron (July 830 : Tabari, 23). araloje translation (thaghiye, 'tyrant'). was taken in A.1), 831 ("T:{bari, 21). It Another of the forts tikai logo abeloits was was fortiticed loy Ablis in $3:3 (ib. 27 ; Kitsin, an undergrounil strongliolil, in. cp. Michael, 76). For the embassy to the policin which stretches south of Somos Allana sec 'Taalari, 24, anel liitolo al. to Sisima. "The mosul through this plain Lynn, 108. passes Malakopia. Vineleruroum..habi.

i Yakubi, 7. titions are a feature of tlim olistrict. See Malmiy, ih. 3.0; le lias pointed out that

16. 8; Tabari, 25 ; kitab ul-llynn,

108. Kawin in the miline nainc ar levex, a Turma in the Capigu.louiau Theme.

:3, 74. The lilah al- Viquin Yakubi (p. 7) Niy's that twelve strong olescrilus the capture of lulllon Infore paters and many sitterranean alles the expreclition to bypt, misolating the (proudzom mine formir) were takıll. Trauit

litter loy a year.

« PrethodnaNastavi »