Antioch to Tarsus, he passed through the Cilician gatos in July, while 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, tho most eminent of his generals, and Theophobos, but we have no intelligible account of the military operations, which seem to have been chiefly in Cappadocia. Several Groek fortresses were captured, including Koron, from which Manuel was expelled, and a battle will subsequently fought, in which Theophilus was dofented 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 4 victory over an army of frontier troops, collected from the fortresses of Tilrsus, Adana, Mopsestin, ind Anazarbus. This success he celebrated by a triumph.

If Thcophilus was flushed with triumph at the success of his raid, he may bave desired that his own victory should terminate tho military operations of the year; it is said that ho sent an cnvoy with five hundred captives as a peace-offering to the Caliph. Mamun was already at Adana, preparing to retaliate, and the cmbissy did not check his advance. The ensuing campaign (from the beginning of July till ond of Soptember), like that of the year beforo, seems to have been chiefly confined to Cappadocia. Jleraclea-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 it

| These are named only in the Arabic Arcnelais).ontheoutskirts of lliussain Dagle sources (Vasiljev, 8.5-80): Mujiil (p*•rhiapas (Mt. Argi.ion, the beacon station): Rasty, Hur Lillon ; ill. 85, 11. 2), Kuru (sio Isi linor, 365. hurrui was taken oll 110xt note), Simous, and Sinan, Vasil'uv July 21 (Yakubi, whose text gives Anyra, woulil bilentily Sums willi Sonnos but must be correctvii from Ibu hutaila (Nev Shoher). These inny lue the four 2 2001 Taburi 23). fortresses Intentioned by Miclinul Syr. it Vasilov (Pril. ii. 133) places this in il. But letiltuikin (2) Mentions two the early part of tho year. others, Darshan and Shemal, eviilently + The Saracen army was 20,000 strong ; Chursiunion and Semalonios. Yakubi (7) the men of Ireliopolis are also mentionel. also mentions Sheinal. Semalonos Wals See ('onstiintine, llepi raš. 503. About taken by Harun after a long siege in 1600 Moslems were slain according to A.1), 780; it was in the Armeniae Thorne Tabari; 2000 according to the inonymous ---el vaglie indication. The fort of Char. author of the hitub vel. Uyun (Vasilev, sianon is placed by Ramsay it Alaja on l'ril, 108). This Morlem defeat is ignored the road between Euchaita and Tavion, by Michael. It was taken by the Saracens in 730. We 9. Tabari, 24 (but he does not relnte the Neo that the Romans had been successful Ntory with confidence), and Kitub al. in recovering positions east of the Hilly's l'yun, 108. which they haul lost in the cighth century. u l'itab al- l'yun, ib. Cp. Vasil'ev, 93.

? Kurru in the Aral sources. Visiller's Among the forts mentioned was Antigas, identification witlι το Κόρον έν τη Καππα. which Ramsay ilentities with Tyrinion doxia mentioned in Simeon (Cont. litory.) (otsiu Minor, 141), south-west of Caois misceptabilu. Cp. Constantine, Thein. naria. It was called by the Greeks TÒ Tŵr 21. It is supposed to be Viran Sheher, Ti'pávvwv Kdot pov (Leo. Dine: 12:-). and ruins south-east of Ak sorui (Colonia Visillow suggests that dutiyils may be un

battlu in which Theophilus himself was at the head of the Roman forces,

Manion wals at Kirsin in Suptember, whoro the Patriarch Dionysios met him, and he retirol for the winter to Damascus. Early in A.1). 832 ho proceeded to Egypt to qnell an insurrection, and was thero from Februry 16 to April 4,1 Jlo returned rapidly to renew tho war'fillo in Asia Minor, and must have reached Adana early in May. The important event of this campaign was tho capture of Lulon. Mimmun besieged it in vain for one hundred days; then he instituted a blockado, and entrusted the conduct of the operations to Ujaif ibn Anbas. The Romans had the luck to capture this general, but Theophilus, who came to relieve the fortress, wils compelled to retire, without a battle, by a Saracen force, and the commander of Lulon negotiated its surrender with the captive Ujitif.

The capture of Lulon is placed both by the Arabic historians anıl by Michael (who does not give the details) in A.1), 832. But Michiel also ways that Mamm laid siego to lalon in May, Ann. Sel: 1142 - 4.11,831. From his narrative we might infer that the

) sieve lasted it year. This is out of the question, in view of the other evidence. We must therefore infer that in 831 Mamun, who was in the neighbourhood of Lulon, since he took HeracleaCybistra, ittacked Lulon unsuccessfully."

The dates of the flight and return of Manuel and of the Emperor's overtures for peace remain to be considered. The references of the Arabic authorities to Manuel are as follows:

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

2. Tabari, 24, says that in A.D. 830 Mannel and Mamun's son Abbils met Mamun at Resain:., before the campaign. There soems to be an error here, for, ils Brooks has pointed out, Mamın did not go near Restina (15.2. x, 297).

The datos given by Michnol Syr. would go to support this con. clusion. Ho pluces (74) the fight in the Suloucid your 1141 = October 1, 829, to Suptember 30, 830. This is consistent with the date of the Arabic chroniclors, since A.H. 215 and Ann. Sel. 1141 overlap; and thus the flight would be fixed to July-Soptom bor 830.

Manuel's return to Theophilus is placed by Michaol in 1143 October 1, 831, to September 30, 832. Tho Arabic chroniclers do not inention it; the Greek bring it into connexion with the embassy of John the Grammarian. This embassy was prior to April 21, A.D. 832, the date of John's elevation to the Patriarchal throne; and it must have been prior to February, as Mamun had left Syria and reached Egypt by February 16. It would follow that it belongs to October 831-January 832.

Another solution of the difficulties, which has a great deal to be said for it, has been proponnded by E. W. Brooks, in B.Z. x. 297 sy. He suggests that Manuel fled before the accession of Theophilus; that he prompted Mamun (ils Michael states) to invale Kominin in 830; that he wils with the Caliph's son at Resnina (Tabiri) and then escaped (the Greek sources say that he was with Abbas when he escaped; so that his defence of Koron was subseqnent to his return). Brooks argues that, having been stratégos of the Armeniacs under Leo V., he seems to have held no post under Michael II., and suggests that "his recall should be connected with the execution of Lco's assassins by Theophilus ; it is, in fact, hardly credible that he should trust to the good faith of an Emperor from whose jealousy he had hell." In supposing that ho held no post under Michael II., Brooks overlooks the worls of Gen. 68 της προ της φυγής στρατηγήσεως, which naturally suggest that Manuel was a stratégos when he Hed.

The details of the intrigue which led to Manuel's flight, as given in the Greek sources, might easily be transferred to Michael's reign. The chief objection to the solution of Brooks is thitt Michael Syr. agrees with the Greek tradition in representing the flight is a revolt against Theophilus. It must be observed, however, that there is a chronological confusion in the passage of Michael (cp. above, p. 473, n. 1).

Brooks wondel ulso transfer the embilssy of John the Grammarian to A.1). 829-830, just after the accession of Theophilus. This dating would save the statement of cont. Th. that John went to Baghdad. In support of this Brooks cites the words of Cynt. Τh. 95, that Τheophilus παλαιο έθει επόμενος έβούλετο τους της "Ayup tù this untuk putopius focarui kutside and thereforo sent John), interpreting the sentenco to mean, "in accordance with old usage wished to announco his accession to the Saracens." It appears to me that this explanation is unquestionably right, and ils it is probablo there is somo foundation for the story that John helped to prepare for the roturn of Manuel, it supplies a considerable support for the viow of Brooks ils to tho dato of thut officor's flight ind return. Juhu mny huvo afterwards actod as onvoy to Mamun when hy was in Syria, and the two missions may have boon confoundod.

I havo ilgalmod throughout that this Mannol is identicn) with the uncle of Thcodora, though some modern writors distinguish them. Manuel the general wils protostrator under Michael I., and strategos of the Armeniacs under Lco V. (Cont. Th. 24).' Ho wils of Armenian race (ib. 110), and so was Mannel, Theodora's unele (il. 148). The latter, at the death of Theophilus, had the rank of magister; and Simcon, Cont. Georg. 798, states that the former was created magister and Domestic of the Schools after his return. These coincidences point clearly to identification. The ditliculty lies in another statement of Simeon (803), that Manuel Was wounded in saving the life of Theophilus and died. This must be rejected, and we may set against it the statemont of Michael Syr. (113) that after the death of Theophilus Manuel was ippointed general-in-chief of the army. Brooks also contends for the identity (B.2. x. 543, n. 4).

Three other embassies from Theophilus to Mamun in A.D. 831-8332 are mentioned by the Arabic historians. (1) The embassy, referred to above, which found Mamun it Adana, before his summer campaign in A.1). 831. (2) An embassy towards the close of this campaign, while Mamun was still in Cappadocia; sco above, p. 1783. The envoy was a bishop). Vasil'ov thinks he was John the Grammarian (who was not a bishop yet), and that this embassy to Mamun's camp was the historical basis for the Greek tradition. This cannot be the complete explanation ; but it is possible that John was the envoy, and a confusion between this and his former embassy might have helped to lead to the chronological errors in the Greek sources. (3) The third embassy was in A. ll. 2:17 = February 7, 832, to January 26, 833, itccording to Tabari, and this harmonises with the date of Michael, who, clearly meaning the same negotiation, refers it to 1143 = October 831 to September 8:32. It was after the fall of Lulon, probably il consequence of that event; and if Vasil'ev is right in calculating that Lulon did not surrender before September 1,3 the embassy must fall in September.

I must finally notice a clear contradiction between Michael and the Arabic chronicles as to the beginning of Mumun's campaign in 831. Michuel says that he invaded Romania in the month of May ; Taburi says that he entered Roman territory on July 4. As Michnol's source is of higher authority, we should accopt it. Wo must thoroforo infor that tho invasion of Ciliciu by Thoophilus was in April and early part of Muy.

1