« PrethodnaNastavi »
There is no evidence that he had held this post or been a turmarch before the governorship of Photeinos. Now Theognostos (Cont. Th.) speaks of him as contracting the marriage when he was turmarch (Tovpuáxpns tedôv), and the story as told by Cont. Th. does not contemplate any considerable lapse of time between the marriage and its consequences. Of course this is not conclusive, Cont. Th., in abridging, may have foreshortened the chronology. Still, taking the evidence such as 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 arrived in Sicily, and appointed Euphemios turmarch, and that Euphemios married Homoniza, 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 Photeinos, and for the expedition of Euphemios; in the late summer and autumn, for the warfare between Photeinos and Euphemios, and then between Euphemios and Palata.
I do not put forward this view with any confidence, but merely as a tenable interpretation of the evidence. But the fact that it is a 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. He had, doubtless, distinguished himself as an officer; to this he owed his appointment by Photeinos. But there is no reason to suppose that he was marked out as a politically dangerous person.
(4) 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 he opposed Euphemios and rebelled ; and he and his cousin, by name
.; Michael, the governor of Palermo, joined together” (Ibn al-Athir, apud Vasil'ev, 94). As p is often represented by b in Arabic reproductions of Greek names, it is probable that Balata represents Palat-; and it looks as if the source of Ibn al-Athir had taken a title of office or dignity for a personal name. Gabotto suggested (28) that the person in question had been created curopalates by Euphemios; but we need not go further than to say that he was probably invested with a palatine 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 between Omurtag and 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, the Bulgarian archbishop of Ochrida (in the eleventh century), is the only writer who furnishes any connected account of the succession of the kings. It is evident from the details which he gives in his Historia martyrii xv. martyrum that he had a source of information otherwise lost, and I suspect that it was a hagiographical work-a Vita Cinamonis
— (cp. above, p. 382, n. 3). He states (p. 193) that Omurtag had three sons, Ενραβωτάς, (the eldest), Ζβηνίτζης, and Mαλλομηρός; that the last-named succeeded his father (on kai Ý TOU matpos útekinpoon åpxń), and put to death Enrabotas, who had been converted to Christianity. The next ruler, after Malamir, was Boris, whom Theophylactus designates as the son of Zvenitsa (197). Thus, according to him, there was only one reign, that of Malamir, between the death of Omurtag and the accession of Boris.
It was long ago recognised that the Maldounpós of Theophylactus was identical with the Βαλδίμερ ο Βλαδίμερ whom Simeon mentions in his account of the return of the Greek captives (see above, p. 369, n. 4), a 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 adm. imp. 154, mentions Il peolán as the Bulgarian king who, before Boris, made war on Servia, and says that he was the father of Boris, and (2) we have à fragmentary inscription (from Philippi), evidently of this
1 He says that M. was succeeded by the son of Z., and then goes on to speak of B. as o ρηθείς Βωρίσης.
period, in which the name of the ruler (8 ék Deoü õpxov) seems to end in
—avos (C.I.G. iv. 8691 b), and the kaukhan Isbules (known otherwise from inscriptions of Malamir) is mentioned. Zlatarski (Izv. za Bölg v Khron. 49) combines these data, supplying in the inscription the name IIpeol]ávos, for which he refers to Skylitzes (Cedrenus, ii. 574) II povolávov, where a Vienna MS. gives IIpeaoiávov (B. Prokić, Die Zusätze in der Hs. des Joh. Skylitzes, cod. Vind. hist. Gr. lxxiv. p. 36) observing that Constantine's Πρεσιάμ for Πρεσιάν is parallel to the alternation ΜαρμαήνMapuanu in the same treatise (157).
Jireček (Geschichte, 170) had conjectured that Presiam and Malamir were one and the same person; but Zlatarski distinguishes them, and regards Presiam as the successor of Malamir. He places the accession of the former in A.D. 836-837, finding an intimation of a change on the throne at this time in Simeon's chronicle (vers. Slav. 102, Leo Gr. 232), where Malamir (“ Vladimir ”) is first mentioned, and then suddenly, without explanation, Michael (i.e. Boris). He supposes that Michael is an error for his father Presiam. It is obvious, however, that this argument has little weight.
In favour of the view that Malamir and Presiam are different persons is (1) the fact that Presiam, according to Constantine Porph. loc. loc. cit.,
father of Boris, while according to Theophylactus, loc cit., Zvenitsa was father of Boris ; if both statements are true, Presiam was identical with Zvenitsa, and therefore distinct from Z.'s brother Malamir; (2) the difficulty of supposing that in the inscriptions the same ruler is designated sometimes as Malapúp, sometimes as —avos.
On the other hand, it is not easy 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 at most ten years, and the other, Presiam, fifteen years, the longer reign should have been completely ignored by Theophylactus.
But the important Shumla inscription (Aboba, 233), which Zlatarski claims for Presiam, has still to be considered. The khan, for whom this stone was inscribed, designates Krum as “my grandfather” 1 and Omurtag as “my father.”2 It seems to record an invasion of Greek territory by Malamir with the kaukhan Isbules, and the natural interpretation is that the monument was inscribed for Malamir. But Zlatarski (op. cit. 51) holds that the warlike operations were conducted by Presiam, not by Malamir. Having stated that Omurtag made peace and lived
il. 1. I would restore ο μέγας] άρχων) ο Κρούμος ο πάππος μου με[τ
2 1. 2. I read και ο πατήρ μου και
å[px(wv) 'Nuovpráy. That Omurtag's name must be supplied here follows from the beginning of l. 3 ei]pñvnu te ποιήσας,
peacefully with the Greeks (καλά έζησε μετά τους Γρικούς), the text proceeds :
και οι Γρικοί ερήμωσα[ν. 1. 5 ο Μαλαμίρ [μετά του καυχάνου Ησβούλου και έπ.[?
τους Γρικούς του Προβάτου του κάστρου | και το Βουρδιζού) και το κάστρον και τα χώρα των Γρικών [.. [υπέρ] άπασαν φήμην εποίησεν και ήλθε εις Φιλιππόπο[λιν.
και τόπους και καυχάνος Ησβούλης συντυχία επ[ . . . 10 και το αρχαιότατον υπέρφημον προστε[ . At the beginning of l. 6 Zlatarski says that the letters
. ICSIC can be plainly read, and restores καλά έζησε εις, so that the statement would be that Malamir also lived peacefully with the Greeks. But (1) if so it should precede the words kai oi I'palko épņuwoav, which mark the opening of hostilities ; (2) the restoration is incompatible with the words which follow, (úró) Toù IIpoßátov kt.. ; (3) the association of the general Isbules with Malamir in 1.5 shows that we have to do with warlike action on the part of Malamir. There cannot, I think, be the least doubt that an expedition of Malamir is recorded, as the editors Jireček and Uspenski have supposed.
In 1. 6 the letters αλα (or λαλ or δαλ, etc.) are fairly clear in the facsimile (Pl. xlv. in the Album to Aboba), and SIC are plain before τους. Various restorations might be thought of; e.g. ada might be part of M]αλα[μίρ or of μετ]α λαου. The sign s
may represent either e or kaí, so that the words might be uet[à la[oû πολκλόου] και ές τους Γρικούς. It does not seem certain (in the facsimile) whether I'pikoús is written in full or only I'pik. It looks to me as if the letters before toû were noov (no in ligature). I cannot see any trace of either åró or ék, which Uspenski gives as alternatives.
Now I have no doubt that Zlatarski is right in referring the operations recorded on this stone to the years after the termination of the Thirty Years' Treaty, i.e. to A.D. 846-849, and I therefore conclude that Malamir was then reigning. The inference is that Malamir and Presiam are one and the same person,-Presiam being his Bulgarian, and Malamir his Slavonic and official name.
The difficulties involved in this conclusion are, after all, not serious. Theophylactus is probably right in making Boris son of Zvenitsa and nephew of Malamir, and Constantine wrong in taking him for the son of his predecessor (perhaps he was adopted by
1 After these words we may perhaps 3 Burdizos is the later Bulgarophygon, restore-1. 3 [(και) οι Βούλγαροι, 1. 4
skibaba, on the highroad from [κατά] το αρχαίον καλά έζουν.
Hadrianople to Constantinople. 2 Possibly & To[Xéuno e επήρε Jireček, Heerstrasse, 100. πόλεμον.
his uncle). The fragmentary inscription of Philippi cannot count largely in the question ; but if Zlatarski's plausible restoration is right, it may be supposed that Presiam or Presian adopted the name Malamir at a late period of his reign, perhaps in connexion with the extension of his power (which Zlatarski has made probable) over the western lavs. As the inscription is probably not prior to A.D. 847, it would be one of the last monuments of Malamir under his earlier name.