APPENDIX ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE EDITOR

1.: AUTHORITIES — ( CH. XLV . sqq. AND VOL. IX. CH. L . sqq. )

GREEK (AND OTHER) SOURCES

For the later part of his history Menander (for whom see above, vol. vi. Appendix 2, p. 354) had access to the direct knowledge of contemporaries who were concerned in the political events. For the earlier years he possibly used THEOPHANES of Byzantium, who related in ten Books the events from AD 566 to 581. 1 Some extracts from Theophanes have been preserved by Photius (Müller, F.H.G. iv. 270; Dindorf, Hist. Græc. Min. vol. i.).

JOHANNES of Epiphania (see Evagrius, 5, 24) also wrote a history which overlapped with those of Theophanes and Menander. Beginning with AD 572 it came down to AD 598, and was chiefly concerned with Persian affairs, on which Johannes was well informed, being acquainted with Chosroes II. and other influential Persians, and knowing the geography of the countries in which the wars were waged. One long fragment of Bk. 1 has come down (Müller, F.H.G. iv. 272 sqq.; Dindorf, Hist. Græc. Min. vol. i.), but it is probable that we have much material derived from him in Theophylactus Simocatta, Bks. 4 and 5; and his work was also used by Evagrius (B. 6).

JOHN OF EPHESUS (or of ASIA, as he is also styled) was born about AD 505 at Amida, and brought up by Maron the Stylite in the Monophysitic faith. He came to Constantinople in AD 535, and in the following year was appointed bishop of the Monophysites (Bishop “of Ephesus,” or “of Asia”). He enjoyed the favour of the Emperor and Empress; and Justinian assigned him the mission of converting to Christianity the pagans who were still numerous in Asia, Phrygia, Lydia, and Caria; and afterwards ( AD 546) he was appointed to suppress idolatry in Constantinople itself. 2 It is remarkable that the orthodox Emperor should have committed this work to a Monophysite; the circumstance illustrates the policy of the Emperor and the influence of Theodora. John founded a Syrian monastery near Sycae and the Golden Horn; but he was deposed from his dignity of Abbot by the Patriarch John of Sirmium in the reign of Justin II., and imprisoned ( AD 571). He survived the year 585. His Ecclesiastical History, written in Syriac, began with the age of Julius Cæsar and came down to the reign of Maurice. It was divided into three parts (each of six Books), of which the first is lost. Of the second, large fragments are preserved in the chronicle of Dionysius of Tellmahrē (who was Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch from 818 to 845 AD ), 3 and have been translated into Latin by Van Douwen and Land (Johannis episc. Ephesi comment. de beatis orientalibus, 1889). Part 3 is extant and is one of our most valuable contemporary sources for the reigns of Justin II. and Tiberius. It has been translated into English by R. Payne Smith, 1860, and into German by J. Schönfelder, 1862. It begins with the year AD 571 — the year of the persecution of the Monophysites by Justin II. John tells us that this part of his history was mostly written during the persecution under great difficulties; the pages of his MS. had to be concealed in various hiding-places. This explains the confused order in part of his narrative. [W. Wright, Syriac Literature (1894; a reprint, with a few additions, of the article under the same title in the Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xxii.), p. 102 sqq. ]

EVAGRIUS (c. 536-600 AD ; born at Epiphania), an advocate of Antioch, is the continuer of the continuers (Socrates, c.) of Eusebius. His Ecclesiastical History, in six Books, begins with the council of Ephesus in AD 431 and comes down to AD 593. Apart from its importance as one of the main authorities for the ecclesiastical history of the long period of which it treats, this work has also some brief but valuable notices concerning secular history. Evagrius had the use of older works which are now lost, such as Eustathius (whose chronicle he used in Bks. 2 and 3; see above, vol. vi. p. 347) and Johannes of Epiphania (whose still unpublished work he was permitted to consult in composing Bk. 6). 4 Evagrius also made use of John Malalas (the first edition; see above, vol. vi. Appendix 2) and Procopius. An attempt 5 has been made to show that he used the work of Menander (directly or indirectly), but the demonstration is not convincing. The accuracy of Evagrius in using those sources which are extant enables us to feel confidence in him when his sources are lost. For the end of Justinian’s reign, for Justin, Tiberius, and Maurice, he has the full value of a contemporary authority. [Ed. H. Valesius, 1673; in Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. 86. A new, much-needed critical edition by MM. Parmentier and Bidez is in the press.]

THEOPHYLACTUS SIMOCATTES, born in Egypt, lived in the reigns of Maurice and Heraclius, and seems to have held the post of an Imperial secretary. He wrote, in euphemistic style, works on natural history, essays in epistolary form, and a history of the reign of Maurice. Theophylactus — the chief authority for the twenty years which his history deals with — may be said to close a series of historians, which beginning with Eunapius includes the names of Priscus, Procopius, Agathias, and Menander. After Theophylactus we have for more than three hundred years nothing but chronicles. Theophylactus had a narrow view of history and no discernment for the relative importance of facts (cp. Gibbon, c. xlvi., note 49); the affectation of his florid, periphrastic style renders his work disagreeable to read; but he is trustworthy and honest, according to his lights. Although a Christian, he affects to speak of Christian things with a certain unfamiliarity — as a pagan, like Ammianus or Eunapius, would speak of them. He made use of the works of Menander and John of Epiphania. [Best edition by C. de Boor, 1887.]

Contemporary with Theophylactus was the unknown author of the CHRONICON PASCHALE (or ALEXANDRINUM, as it is also called): a chronicle which had great influence on subsequent chronography. Beginning with Adam it came down to the year AD 629; but, as all our MSS. are derived from one (extant) Vatican MS., which was mutilated at the beginning and at the end, our text ends with AD 627. As far as AD 602 the work is a compilation from sources which are for the most part known (cp. above, vol. ii. Appendix 10, p. 365-6); but from this point forward its character changes, the author writes from personal knowledge, and the chronicle assumes, for the reigns of Phocas and Heraclius, the dignity of an important contemporary source, even containing some original documents (see above, p. 115, n. 127; 117, n. 129; 119, n. 132). From the prominence of the Patriarch Sergius, it has been conjectured that the author belonged, like George of Pisidia (see below), to the Patriarch’s circle. The chronology is based on the era which assigned the creation of the world to March 21, 5507, and is the first case we have of the use of this so-called Roman or Byzantine era. [Best edition by Dindorf in the Bonn series. For an analysis of the chronology, see H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, ii. 1, 138 sqq. ]

The poems of GEORGE PISIDES (a native of Pisidia) are another valuable contemporary source for the Persian wars of Heraclius, to whom he was a sort of poet laureate. It is indeed sometimes difficult to extract the historical fact from his poetical circumlocutions. The three works which concern a historian are written in smooth and correct Iambic trimeters, which, though they ignore the canon of the Cretic ending rediscovered by Porson, are subject to a new law, that the last word of the verse shall be barytone. They thus represent a transition to the later “political” verses, which are governed only by laws of accent. (1) On the (first) expedition of Heraclius against the Persians, in three cantos ( Akroaseis ). (2) On the attack of the Avars on Constantinople and its miraculous deliverance ( AD 626). (3) The Heracliad, in two cantos, on the final victory of Heraclius, composed on the news of the death of Chosroes ( AD 628). These works were utilised by Theophanes. George is the author of many other poems, epigrams, c. [See Migne, Patr. Gr. xcii., after Querci’s older edition; L. Sternbach, in Wiener Studien, 13 (1891), 1 sqq. and 14 (1892), 51 sqq. The three historical poems are printed in the Bonn series by Bekker, 1836.]

For the account of the siege of Constantinople in AD 626 (probably by THEODORE, private secretary of the Patriarch 6 ) see above, p. 111, n. 116. It is entitled περὶ τω̂ν ἀθέων Ἀβάρων τε καὶ Περσω̂ν κατὰ τη̂ς θεοϕυλάκτου πόλεως μανιώδους κινήσεως καὶ τῃ̑ ϕιλανθρωπίᾳ τον̂ θεον̂ διὰ τη̂ς θεοτόκου μετ’ αὶσχύνης ἀποχωρήσεως. The events of each day of the siege, from Tuesday, July 29, to Thursday, August 7, are related with considerable detail, wrapped up in rhetorical verbiage and contrasting with the straightforward narrative of the Chronicon Paschale, with which it is in general agreement. The account, however, of the catastrophe of the Slavs and their boats in the Golden Horn differs from that of the Chronicon Paschale. 7

In connection with this siege, it should be added that the famous ἀκάθιστος ὕμνος — which might be rendered “Standing Hymn”; the singers were to stand while they sang it — is supposed by tradition to have been composed by the Patriarch Sergius in commemoration of the miraculous deliverance of the city. It would be remarkable if Sergius, who fell into disrepute through his Monothelete doctrines, really composed a hymn which won, and has enjoyed to the present day, unparalleled popularity among the orthodox. A recent Greek writer (J. Butyras) has pointed out that expressions in the hymn coincide remarkably with the decisions of the Synod of AD 680 against Monotheletism, and concludes that the hymn celebrates the Saracen siege of Constantinople under Constantine IV. — a siege with which some traditions connect it. (Compare K. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byz. Litt., p. 672.) The hymn was, without due grounds, ascribed to George of Pisidia by Querci. The text will be found in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 92, p. 1335 sqq.; in the Anthol. Graeca of Christ and Paranikas, p. 140 sqq., and elsewhere.

The LIFE and martyrdom of ANASTASIUS, an apostate to Christianity from the Magian religion, who suffered on Jan. 22, 628, was drawn up at Jerusalem towards the end of the same year, and deserves some attention in connection with the Persian wars of Heraclius. It is published in its original form, distinct from later accretions, by H. Usener, Acta Martyris Anastasii Persae, 1894.

The History of Heraclius by SEBAEOS, an Armenian bishop of the seventh century, written in the Armenian tongue, was first brought to light through the discovery of a MS. in the library of Etzmiadzin some years before Brosset visited that library in 1848. The text was edited in 1851, and Patkanian’s Russian translation appeared in 1862. Two passages in the work show that Sebaeos was a contemporary of Heraclius and Constans (c. 30 ad fin., p. 122; and c. 34 ad init., p. 148, tr. Patk.); and this agrees with some brief notices of later writers, who state that Sebaeos was present at the Council of Dovin in AD 645 (of which he gives a full account in c. 33). It is also stated that he was Bishop of Bagratun. The work is not strictly confined to the reign of Heraclius. It begins in the reign of the Persian king Perozes in the fifth century, and briefly touches the reigns of Kobad and of Chosroes I., of whom Sebaeos relates the legend that he was converted to Christianity. The events connected with the revolt of Bahram and the accession of Chosroes II. are told at more length (c. 2-3), and especial prominence is given to the part played by the Armenian prince Musheg, who supported Chosroes. The next seventeen chapters are concerned chiefly with the history of Chosroes and his intrigues in Armenia during the reign of Maurice. It is not till the twenty-first chapter that we meet Heraclius, and not till the twenty-fourth that his history really begins.

In c. 32 we again take leave of him, and the rest of the work (c. 32-38), about a third of the whole, deals with the following twelve years (641-652). The great importance of Sebaeos (apart from his value for domestic and ecclesiastical affairs in Armenia) lies in his account of the Persian campaigns of Heraclius. [Besides the Russian translation, Patkanian published an account of the contents of the work of Sebaeos in the Journal Asiatique, vii. p. 101 sqq., 1866.]

For the ecclesiastical history of the seventh and eighth centuries we are better furnished than for the political, as we have writings on the great controversies of the times by persons who took part in the struggles. Unluckily the synods which finally closed the Monotheletic and the Iconoclastic questions in favour of the “orthodox” views enjoined the destruction of the controversial works of the defeated parties, so that of Monotheletic and Iconoclastic literature we have only the fragments which are quoted in the Acts of Councils or in the writings of the Dyothelete and Iconodule controversialists.

For the Monotheletic dispute we have (besides the Acts of the Council of Rome in AD 649, and of the Sixth General Council of AD 680) the works of the great defender of the orthodox view, the Abbot MAXIMUS ( AD 580-662). He had been a secretary of the Emperor Heraclius, and afterwards became abbot of a monastery at Chrysopolis (Scutari), where we find him AD 630. His opposition to Monotheletism presently drove him to the west, and in Africa he met the Monothelete Patriarch Pyrrhus and converted him from his heretical error ( AD 645). But the conversion was not permanent; Pyrrhus returned to his heresy. Maximus then proceeded to Rome, and in AD 653 was carried to Constantinople along with Pope Martin, and banished to Bizya in Thrace. A disputation which he held then with the Bishop of Caesarea led to a second and more distant exile to Lazica, where he died. A considerable number of polemical writings on the question for which he suffered are extant, including an account of his disputation with Pyrrhus. [His works are collected in Migne, Patr. Gr. xc. xci. (after the edition of Combefis, 1675).] Maximus had a dialectical training and a tendency to mysticism. “Pseudo-Dionysius was introduced into the Greek Church by Maximus; he harmonised the Areopagite with the traditional ecclesiastical doctrine, and thereby influenced Greek theology more powerfully than John of Damascus” (Ehrhard, ap. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byz. Litt. p. 63).

Another younger opponent of Monotheletism was ANASTASIUS of the monastery of Mount Sinai. He travelled about in Syria and Egypt, fighting with heresies (second half of seventh century). Three essays of his are extant (περὶ τον̂ κατ’ εἰκόνα) on Monotheletism; the third gives a history of the controversy. [Works in Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. lxxxix.]

JOHN OF DAMASCUS was the most important opponent of Iconoclasm in the reigns of Leo III. and Constantine V. The son of a Syrian who was known by the Arabic name of Mansur, and held a financial post under the Saracen government at Damascus, he was born towards the end of the seventh century. He was educated by a Sicilian monk named Cosmas. He withdrew to the monastery of St. Sabas before AD 736 8 and died before AD 753. What we know of his life is derived from a Biography of the tenth century by John of Jerusalem, who derived his facts from an earlier Arabic biography. (The life is printed in Migne, Patr. Gr. xciv. p. 429 sqq. ) The great theological work of John is the Πηγὴ γνώσεως, “Fountain of Knowledge,” a systematical theology founded on the concepts of Aristotelian metaphysics (here John owed much to Leontius of Byzantium). But the works which concern us are the essays against the Iconoclasts, three in number, composed between AD 726 and 736. The first Diatribe was written and published between the edict of Leo and the deposition of the Patriarch Germanus three years later. The second seems to have been written immediately after the news of this deposition reached Palestine; for John, referring to this, makes no reference to the installation of Anastasius which took place a fortnight later (see c. 12; Migne, Patr. Gr. xciv. p. 1297). The object of this dissertation was to elucidate the propositions of the first, which had excited much discussion and criticism. The third contains much that is in the first and second, and develops a doctrine as to the use of images. 9 The great edition (1712) of Lequien, with valuable prolegomena, is reprinted in Migne’s Patr. Gr. xciv.-xcvi. [Monographs: J. Langen, Johannes von D., 1879; J. H. Lupton, St. John of D., 1884.]

The defence of image-worship addressed “to all Christians and to the Emperor Constantine Kaballinos and to all heretics,” included in John’s works (Migne, vol. xcv. p. 309 sqq. ), is not genuine. It contains much abuse of Leo and Constantine. The story of Barlaam and Joasaph — a romance founded on the story of Buddha — assumed its Greek form in the 7th century, in Palestine, and the author of the Greek romance was a monk named John, who perhaps belonged to the monastery of St. Sabbas. This John was taken to be John of Damascus, and hence the story of Barlaam and Joasaph was ascribed to the famous writer of the 8th century and included in his collected works. The most important Christian source of the composition was the Apology of Aristides, which is practically written out in the sermon of Nachor, so that Mr. J. Armitage Robinson was able to restore the original Greek text with help of a Syriac translation (The Apology of Aristides, in Texts and Studies, i. 1, 1891).

When the Paschal Chronicle deserts us in AD 627, we have no contemporary historians or chroniclers for the general course of the Imperial history until we reach the end of the eighth century. There is a gap of more than a century and a half in our series of Byzantine history. The two writers on whom we depend for the reigns of the Heracliad dynasty and of the early Iconoclast sovereigns lived at the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century: the Patriarch Nicephorus and the monk Theophanes. They both used a common source, of which we have no record.

NICEPHORUS, Patriarch of Constantinople AD 806-815, has his place in history as well as in literature. At the time of the second council of Nicaea, AD 787, he was an Imperial secretary. In AD 806 he succeeded Tarasius in the Patriarchate (see above, p. 243) and stood forth as the opponent of the monastic party. Deposed by Leo V. he was, under this and the following Emperor, the most prominent champion of image-worship. He died in exile AD 829. He was greater as a theological than as an historical writer. His important works on the iconoclastic question were written during exile: (1) the Apologeticus minor, a short treatise defending image-worship; (2) in AD 817, the Apologeticus major, which is specially important as containing a number of quotations from an iconoclastic work by the Emperor Constantine V. These treatises are printed by Mai, Nova Patrum Bibl., i. 1 sqq., ii. 1 sqq., iii. 1 sqq. [For other works see Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, i. p. 302 sqq., iv. p. 233 sqq. Cp. Ehrhard, apud Krumbacher, Gesch. der byz. Litt. p. 72.] The historical works are two: (1) the Χρονογραϕικὸν σύντομον — “Concise list of dates,” — a collection of tables of kings, emperors, patriarchs, c., from Adam to the year of the author’s death; (2) the Ἱστορία σύντομος — “concise History,” — beginning with the death of Maurice and ending with AD 769. 10 It is a very poor composition; the author selects what is likely to interest an illiterate public and disregards the relative importance of events. The value of the work is entirely due to the paucity of other materials for the period which it covers. Yet Nicephorus seems to have bestowed some pains on the composition of the work. A MS. in the British Museum contains a text which seems to represent the author’s first compilation of his material before he threw it into the form in which it was “published.” See A. Burckhardt, Byz. Zeitsch. v. p. 465 sqq., 1896. [Excellent edition of the historical works by C. de Boor, 1880. This edition includes the life of Nicephorus by the deacon Ignatius written soon after his death.]

George, the syncellus or private secretary of the Patriarch Tarasius, had written a chronicle from the creation of the world, which he intended to bring down to his own time. But when death approached ( AD 810-11) he had only reached the accession of Diocletian, and he begged his friend THEOPHANES to complete the work. Theophanes belonged to a good and wealthy family. 11 He was of ascetic disposition and founded a monastery (ἡ μονὴ τον̂ μεγάλου Ἀγρον̂) called “Great Farm” near Sigriane not far from Cyzicus. 12 Theophanes undertook the charge of his dying friend and wrote his Chronography between AD 811 and 815. When Leo V. came to the throne, he took a strong position against the Emperor’s inconoclastic policy and was imprisoned in the island of Samothrace, where he died (817). The Chronography (from AD 284 to 813) is arranged strictly in the form of annals. The events are arranged under the successive Years of the World, which are equated with the Years of the Incarnation; and the regnal years of the Roman Emperors and of the Persian Kings (in later part, the Saracen caliphs), and the years of the bishops of the five great Sees, are also added in tabular form. Moreover many single events are dated by Indictions, although the indictions do not appear in the table at the head of each year. The awkwardness of dating events on three systems is clear.

Theophanes adopted the Alexandrian era of Anianus (March 25, BC 5493; see above, vol. iii. Appendix 14), and thus his Annus Mundi runs from March 25 to March 24. As the Indiction runs from Sept. 1 to Aug. 31, the only part of the year which is common to the A.M. and the Indiction is March 25 to Aug. 31. It is obvious that, without very careful precautions, the practice of referring to an Indiction under an A.M. which only partly corresponds to it is certain to lead to confusion. And, as it turns out, Theophanes loses a year in the reign of Phocas, whose overthrow he placed in the right Indiction (14th = AD 610-11), but in the wrong A.M. (6102 = AD 609-10). The mistake has set his dates ( A.M. ) throughout the seventh century a year wrong; we have always to add a year to the A.M. to get the right date (cp. the discrepancies with the Indiction under A.M. 6150 and 6171 13 ). The true chronology is recovered at the year 6193, and the indiction is found once more in correspondence under A.M. 6207. A new discrepancy arises some years later, for which see below, p. 429. In the earlier part of the work Theophanes used (besides Socrates, c.) a compilation of excerpts from Theodorus Lector (see above, vol. vi. Appendix 2, p. 347). For the sixth century he draws upon John Malalas, Procopius, Agathias, John of Epiphania, and Theophylactus; for the seventh George Pisides. It is possible that all these authors were known to him only indirectly through an intermediate source. He had, in any case, before him an unknown source for the seventh and most of the eighth century (if not more than one), and this was also a source of Nicephorus (see above, p. 400). For the reign of Constantine VI. and Irene, Nicephorus and Michael I., Theophanes has the value of a partial and prejudiced contemporary. [Previous editions have been superseded by De Boor’s magnificent edition (1883), vol. i. text; vol. ii. the Latin version of Anastasius, three lives of Theophanes, dissertations by the editor on the material for the text, and splendid Indices. Another Life of Theophanes has been edited by K. Krumbacher, 1897.]

The writings of THEODORE OF STUDION provide us with considerable material for ecclesiastical history as well as for the state of Monasticism at the end of the eighth and beginning of the ninth century. For his prominence in questions of church discipline, which assumed political importance (in connection with the marriage of Constantine VI. and the policy of Nicephorus I.), see above, p. 241 n. and 243 n.; and he was a stout opponent of Leo V. in the matter of image-worship. He was born AD 759 (his father was a tax-collector); under the influence of his uncle Plato, he and his whole family entered the monastery of Saccudion, where in AD 797 he succeeded his uncle as abbot. In the following year, he and his monks took up their abode in the monastery of Studion; and from this time forward Studion was one of the most important cloisters in the Empire. Three times was Theodore banished: (1) AD 795-7, owing to his opposition to the marriage of Constantine; (2) AD 809-11, for his refusal to communicate with Joseph who had performed the marriage ceremony; (3) AD 814-20, for his opposition to Leo V. Under Michael II. he was not formally banished, but did not care to abide at Constantinople. He died AD 826.

The following works of Theodore have historical interest: (1) The three λόγοι ἀντιρρητικοί, and other works in defence of image-worship; (2) the Life of abbot Plato, which gives us a picture of monastic life; (3) the Life of his mother Theoctista, with a most interesting account of his early education, and glimpses of family life; (4) a large collection of letters, of the first importance for the ecclesiastical history of the period; they show the abbot at work, not only in his pastoral duties, but in his ecclesiastical struggles for a quarter of a century. [Collected works in Migne, Patr. Gr. xcix.; but 277 letters, not included, are edited by J. Cozza-Luzi, Nova patrum Bibliotheca, viii. 1, 1 sqq., 1871.] 14

There are many Lives of Martyrs who suffered at the hands of the iconoclastic Emperors. The most important is that of St. Stephen of Mount Auxentius (distinguished from the protomartyr as “the younger”) who suffered in AD 767; the biography was written in AD 808 by Stephen, deacon of St. Sophia, and furnishes some important material for the history of the iconoclastic policy of Constantine V. For the persecution of Theophilus, we have a life of Theodore Graptus 15 and his brother Theophanes (ed. Combefis, Orig. rerumque Constantinop. manipulus, p. 191 sqq. ), containing a letter of Theodore himself to John of Cyzicus, of which Schlosser has made good use (Gesch. der bilderst. Kaiser, p. 524 sqq. ). Other Lives of importance for the history of the iconoclastic movement are those of Germanus the Patriarch (ed. Papadopulos-Kerameus in the Mavrogordateios Bibliothêkê, Appendix, p. 3 sqq. ), Theophanes, Confessor (see above); Nicetas, abbot of Medikion in Bithynia (died AD 824; Acta SS. April 1, Appendix, xxxiv.-xli.); Theodore of Studion (see above); Nicephorus, Patriarch (see above, p. 400); Tarasius, by the deacon Ignatius (ed. Heikel, 1889; Latin version in Acta SS. Febr. 25, 576 sqq. ); the Patriarch Methodius (Migne, Patr. Gr., vol. c. p. 1244 sqq. ). For the ecclesiastical history of the reign of Michael III., the life of Ignatius by Nicetas David Paphlagon is of great importance (Migne, Gr. Patr., cv. 487 sqq. ). These and other less important 16 biographies, in most instances composed by younger contemporaries, have great value in three ways: (1) they give us facts passed over by the chroniclers; (2) many of them were used by the chroniclers, and therefore are to be preferred as furnishing information at first hand; (3) they give us material for a social picture of the period (especially valuable in this respect is the Life of Plato by Theodore Studites; see above, p. 402).

The Life of the Empress Theodora, combined with relations of the deathbed repentance of Theophilus and of his good deeds, is highly important. It was the main source of the chronicler George Monachus for the events concerned. Ed. W. Regel, in Analecta Byzantino-Russica, p. 1 sqq. 17

For Leo the Armenian we have a mysterious fragment of what was clearly a valuable chronicle written by a contemporary, whose name is unknown. The piece which has survived (printed in the vol. of the Bonn series which contains Leo Grammaticus, under the title Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio) is of great value for the Bulgarian siege of Constantinople in AD 815.

Apart from this fragment, and the contemporary biographies of saints, the meagre chronicle of GEORGE THE MONK (sometimes styled George Hamartolus, “the sinner”) is the oldest authority for the thirty years after the point when the chronicle of Theophanes ended ( AD 813-842). George wrote in the reign of Michael III., and completed his chronicle, which began with the creation, towards the close of that Emperor’s reign. It is divided into four Books; the fourth, beginning with Constantine the Great and ending with the death of Theophilus, is based mainly on the chronicle of Theophanes. For the last thirty years, the author depends on his own knowledge as a contemporary and on oral information; but also makes use of the Vita Theodorae (see above) and the Vita Nicephori by Ignatius (see above, p. 401). Throughout the ecclesiastical interest predominates.

The chronicle of George became so popular and was re-edited so often with additions and interpolations, that it has become one of the most puzzling problems in literary research to penetrate through the accretions to the original form. Until recently the shape and extent of the chronicle and its author’s identity were obscured by the circumstance that a continuation, reaching down to AD 948 (in some MSS. this continuation is continued to still later epochs), was annexed to the original work of George. The original continuation to 948 18 was composed by “the Logothete,” who has been supposed to be identical with Symeon “Magister and Logothete” (for whose chronicle see below). [The only edition of the whole chronicle (with its continuation) is that of Muralt (1859), which is very unsatisfactory. Combefis edited the latter part from 813 to 948, and this has been reprinted in the Bonn series (along with Theophanes Continuatus), 1838. The material for a new critical edition has been collected by Professor C. de Boor. Much has been written on the problems connected with these chronicles; but I need only refer to F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien, 1876, which cleared the way to further investigation; and to the most recent study of De Boor on the subject, Die Chronik des Logotheten, in Byz. Zeitsch., vi. 233 sqq. ]

The chronicle of SYMEON MAGISTER, who is probably the same person as the hagiographer Symeon Metaphrastes, has not yet been published; but for practical purposes it is accessible to the historian in the form of two redactions which go under the name of Leo Grammaticus and Theodosius of Melitene. 19 Beginning with the creation it came down to AD 948. LEO GRAMMATICUS (according to a note in Cod. Par. 1711) “completed” the Chronography ( i.e., the original Chronicle of Symeon) in the year 1013; but otherwise he is only a name like THEODOSIUS OF MELITENE. [Leo is included in the Bonn series, 1842; Theodosius was published by Tafel, 1859.] This chronicle is different in tone from that of George Monachus; the work of a logothete, not of a monk, it exhibits interest in the court as well as in the church.

Another chronicle, which may be conveniently called the PSEUDO-SYMEON, comes down to the year 963. The last part of the work, AD 813-963, was published by Combefis (1685) and reprinted by Bekker (Bonn, 1838) under the name of Symeon Magister. The mistake was due to a misleading title on the cover of the Paris MS. which contains the chronicle. (On the sources of the unknown author, see F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien.)

In respect to these extremely confusing chronicles with their numerous redactions, Krumbacher makes a good remark: “In Byzantium works of this kind were never regarded as completed monuments of literary importance, but as practical handbooks which every possessor and copyist excerpted, augmented, and revised just as he chose” (p. 362).

JOSEPH GENESIUS (son of Constantine who held the office of logothete under Michael III.) wrote (between AD 945 and 959) at the suggestion of the Emperor Constantine VII. an Imperial History in four Books, embracing the reigns of Leo V., Michael II., Theophilus, and Michael III.: thus a continuation of Theophanes, who left off at the accession of Leo V. In Bk. iv. Genesius, clearly departing from the original plan, added a brief account of the reign of Basil I., so that his work reaches from AD 813 to 886. Besides oral information and tradition, from which, as he says himself, he derived material, he used the work of George Monachus, and the Life of Ignatius by Nicetas (see above, p. 403). His history is marked by (1) superstition, (2) bigotry (especially against the iconoclasts), (3) partiality to his patron’s grandfather Basil. [Ed. Lachmann in Bonn series, 1834. For the sources, c., see Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien; cp. also Wäschke in Philologus, 37, p. 255 sqq., 1878.]

A SICILIAN CHRONICLE, relating briefly the Saracen conquest of the island, from AD 827 to 965 is preserved in Greek and in an Arabic translation. It must have been composed soon after 965. There are three editions: P. Batiffol, 1890 (in Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres); Cozza-Luzi and Lagumina, with the Arabic text, 1890, in Documenti p. s. alla storia di Sicilia, 4ta serie, ii.; A. Wirth, Chronographische Späne, 1894.

It is unfortunate that the historical monograph which the grammarian THEOGNOSTOS, a contemporary of Leo V. and Michael II., dedicated to the revolt of Euphemius and the first successes of the Saracens in Sicily ( AD 827), is lost. The work is used by the compilers of Theophanes Continuatus (see p. 82, ed. Bonn).

We have a disappointing account of the siege and capture of Syracuse by the Saracens in 880, from the pen of THEODOSIUS, a monk, who endured the siege and was carried prisoner to Palermo, whence he wrote a letter describing his experiences to a friend. (Published in the Paris ed. of Leo Diaconus, p. 177 sqq. )

Besides stimulating Joseph Genesius to write his work, the Emperor Constantine VII. organised another continuation of Theophanes, written by several compilers who are known as the SCRIPTORES POST THEOPHANEM, the Emperor himself being one of the collaborateurs. It seems probable that the original intention was not to go beyond the death of Basil or perhaps of Leo VI., but the work was extended after the death of Constantine, and comes down to AD 961. It falls into six Books: Bk. 1, Leo V.; Bk. 2, Michael II.; Bk. 3, Theophilus; Bk. 4, Michael III.; Bk. 5, Basil I. (this Book was the composition of the EMPEROR CONSTANTINE ). So far the work conforms to a uniform plan; but Bk. 6, instead of containing only Leo VI., contains also Alexander, Constantine VII., Romanus I., Romanus II. It has been conjectured that the author of part of this supplement was THEODORE DAPHNOPATES, a literary man of the tenth century, known (among other things) by some official letters which he composed for Romanus I. The Continuation of Theophanes shows, up to the death of Basil, its semi-official origin by the marked tendency to glorify the Basilian dynasty by obscuring its Amorian predecessors. The main source of Bks. 1 to 5 is Genesius. Bk. 6 falls into two parts which are markedly distinct: A, Leo VI., Alexander, Constantine, Romanus I., Constantine, caps. 1-7; B, Constantine, 8-end, Romanus II. A is based upon the work of the Logothete (probably Symeon Magister) which has come down to us as a continuation of George Monachus (see above). Now the Logothete was an admirer of Romanus I. and not devoted to the family of Constantine VII.; and the sympathies of the Logothete are preserved by the compiler of A, notwithstanding their inconsistency with the tendencies of Bks. 1-5. The Logothete’s work appeared in the reign of Nicephorus Phocas, and must have been utilised almost immediately after its appearance by the compiler of A. It is probable that B was composed early in the same reign by a different author; it seems not to depend on another work, but to have been written from a contemporary’s knowledge. [Scriptores post Theophanem, ed. Combefis, 1685; Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Bekker, 1838 (Bonn). Analysis of sources, c., in Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien.]

The circumstances of the capture of Thessalonica by the Cretan pirates in AD 904 are vividly portrayed for us in the well-written narrative of JOHN CAMENIATES, a narrow-minded priest, ignorant of the world, but one who had lived through the exciting and terrifying scenes which he records and had the faculty of observation and the power of expressing his impressions. The work is printed in the Paris (1685) and in the Bonn (1838) series along with the Scriptores post Theophanem.

For the ecclesiastical history of the reign of Leo VI. we have a work of great importance in the anonymous VITA EUTHYMII published by C. de Boor (1888); cp. above, p. 263, note 43. The work was composed soon after the ex-Patriarch’s death ( AD 917). Professor E. Kurtz of Riga has since published two Greek texts on the life of Theophano, wife of Leo VI., which he published in the Mémoires of the St. Petersburg Academy, 1898, Classe Hist.-Phil. (Zwei griechische Texte über die Hl. Theophano). One of these documents is by a contemporary (Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τη̂ς . . . Θεοϕανώ). The other is a discourse on the pious lady’s life and merits by Nicephorus Gregoras.

With the history of LEO DIACONUS (Leo Asiaticus) we enter upon a new period of historiography. After an interval of more than three hundred years, he seems to re-open the series which closed with Theophylactus Simocatta. His history in ten Books embracing the reigns of Romanus II., Nicephorus Phocas, and John Tzimisces (959-975) is — although written after 992 — a contemporary work in a good sense; depending on personal knowledge and information derived from living peoples, not on previous writers. As Leo was born in 950 he is not a contemporary in quite the same sense for the earlier as for the later part of his work. He afterwards took part in the Bulgarian War of Basil II. [Included in the Paris and the Bonn series.]

[For the poem of Theodosius on the reconquest of Crete by Nicephorus, see below, vol. ix. p. 308, n. 135.]

The work of Leo Diaconus was continued by the most prominent and influential literary figure of the eleventh century, CONSTANTINE PSELLUS (born AD 1018, probably at Nicomedia). He adopted the legal profession; was a judge in Philadelphia under Michael IV.; an Imperial secretary under Michael V. He enjoyed the favour of Constantine IX., who founded a university at Constantinople and appointed Psellus Professor of Philosophy. But his services were required in political life; he became chief secretary (proto-asecretis) of the Emperor and one of his most influential ministers. Presently he left the world to become a monk and assumed the name of Michael, by which he is generally known. But monastic life hardly suited him, and after some years he returned to the world. He played a prominent part under Isaac Comnenus and Constantine Ducas; and was “prime minister” during the regency of Eudocia and the reign of Michael Parapinaces (a pupil who did him small credit). He died probably in 1078. As professor, Psellus had revived an interest in Plato, whose philosophy he set above Aristotle — a novelty which was regarded as a heresy. In this, he was stoutly opposed by his friend John Xiphilin, who was a pronounced Aristotelian. As young men, Psellus had taught Xiphilin philosophy, and Xiphilin had taught Psellus law. It was through the influence or example of Xiphilin (who withdrew to the monastery of Bithynian Olympus) that Psellus had assumed the tonsure. Xiphilin, who had written on law in his youth, wrote homilies in his later years, and became Patriarch of Constantinople in 1064; his old friend Psellus pronounced his funeral oration in 1075.

For success in the courts of the sovereigns whom Psellus served, candour and self-respect would have been fatal qualities. Psellus had neither; his writings (as well as his career) show that he adapted himself to the rules of the game, and was servile and unscrupulous. His Chronography reflects the tone of the time-serving courtier. Beginning at AD 976, it treats very briefly the long reign of Basil, and becomes fuller as it goes on. It deals chiefly with domestic wars and court intrigues; passing over briefly, and often omitting altogether, the wars with foreign peoples. The last part of the work was written for the eye of Michael Parapinaces, and consequently in what concerns him and his father Constantine X. is very far from being impartial.

The funeral orations which Psellus composed on Xiphilin, on the Patriarch Michael Cerularius (see above, p. 281), and on Lichudes, a prominent statesman of the time, have much historical importance, as well as many of his letters. [The Chronography and these Epitaphioi are published in vol. iv., the letters (along with other works) in vol. v., of the Bibliotheca Graeca medii aevi of C. Sathas.] These works are but a small portion of the encyclopaedic literary output of Psellus, which covered the whole field of knowledge. It has been well said that Psellus is the Photius of the eleventh century. He was an accomplished stylist and exerted a great influence on the writers of the generation which succeeded him. [For his life and writings see (besides Leo Allatius, De Psellis et eorum scriptis, 1634; cp. Fabricius, 10, p. 41 sqq. ) Sathas, Introductions in op. cit. vols. iv. and v.; A. Rambaud, Revue Historique, 3, p. 241 sqq.; K. Neumann, Die Weltstellung des byz. Reiches vor den Kreuzzugen, 1894; B. Rhodius, Beitr. zur Lebensgeschichte und zu den Briefen des Psellos, 1892.]

Important for the history, especially the military history, of the eleventh century is a treatise entitled Strategicon by CECAUMENOS. Of the author himself we know little; he was witness of the revolution which overthrew Michael V., and he wrote this treatise for his son’s benefit after the death of Romanus Diogenes. The title suggests that it should exclusively concern military affairs, but the greater part of the work consists of precepts of a general kind. Much is told of the author’s grandfather Cecaumenos, who took part in the Bulgarian wars of Basil II. Joined on to the Strategicon is a distinct treatise of different authorship (by a member of the same family; his name was probably Niculitzas): a book of advice to the Emperor “of the day” — perhaps to Alexius Comnenus on the eve of his accession. It contains some interesting historical references. [First published by B. Vasilievski in 1881 (in the Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnago prosviestcheniya; May, June, July), with notes; text re-edited by Vasilievski and Jernstedt (Cecaumeni Strategicon et incerti scriptoris de officiis regiis libellus), 1896.]

The latter part of the period covered in the history of Psellus has had another contemporary, but less partial, historian in MICHAEL ATTALEIATES, a rich advocate, who founded a monastery and a hostelry for the poor (ptochotropheion). 20 His abilities were recognised by Constantine Ducas and Nicephorus Botaneiates, from whom he received honorary titles (Patrician, Magister, Proedros), and held posts of no political importance. He accompanied Romanus Diogenes on his campaigns as a “military judge.” The history embraces the period 1034-1079, and was completed c. 1080; it is dedicated to Nicephorus III. [First published in the Bonn series, 1873.]

Just as Attaleiates overlaps Psellus and funishes important material for correcting and completing his narrative, so the work of the prince NICEPHORUS BRYENNIUS, son-in-law of Alexius Comnenus, overlaps and supplements the work of Attaleiates. Nicephorus had good opportunities for obtaining authentic information on the history of the times. His father had aspired to the throne and overthrown Michael VII. (see above, p. 284), but had been immediately overthrown by Alexius Comnenus and blinded. But, when Alexius came himself to the throne, Bryennius found favour at court; and his brilliant son was chosen by the Emperor as the husband of Anna and created Caesar. He played a prominent part on several occasions during the reign of Alexius, conducting, for instance, the defence of the capital against Godfrey of Bouillon in 1097. After his father-in-law’s death he refused (cp. above, p. 289) to take part in a conspiracy 21 which his wife organised against her brother John, under whose rule he continued to serve the state until his death in 1037. In his last years, at the suggestion of his mother-in-law Irene, he undertook the composition of a history of Alexius Comnenus, but death hindered him from completing it, and the work covers only nine years, AD 1070-9. He describes it himself as “historical material”; it is, as Seger observes, “less a history of the time than a family chronicle, which, owing to the political position of the families, assumes the value of ‘a historical source.’ ” It has the common defects of the memoirs of an exalted personage, whose interests have been connected intimately with the events he describes and with the people he portrays. Bryennius makes considerable use of the Chronography of Psellus, and also draws on Attaleiates and Scylitzes. [Included in the Bonn series, 1836. Monograph: J. Seger, Nikephoros Bryennios, 1888.] 22

The incomplete work of Bryennius was supplemented and continued by his wife, the literary princess ANNA COMNENA, whose Alexiad, beginning with the year 1069, was successfully carried down to 1118, the year of her father’s death. Anna ((born 1083) retired after the unsuccessful conspiracy against her brother (see above, p. 289) to the monastery of Kecharitomene, which had been founded by her mother Irene, who now accompanied her into retreat. The work which has gained her immortal fame was completed in 1148. Anna received the best literary education that the age could afford; she was familiar with the great Greek classics from Homer to Polybius, and she had studied philosophy. She was impregnated with the spirit of the renaissance which had been initiated by Psellus; she affects, though she does not achieve, Attic purism in her artificial and pedantic style. She had fallen far more completely under the spell of the literary ideals of Psellus than her husband, though he too had felt the influence. The book is a glorification of her father; and naturally her account of the crusades is highly unfavourable to the crusaders. But she was conscientious in seeking for information, oral and documentary. 23 [Ed. Bonn, vol. i., ed. Schopen, 1839; vol. ii., ed. Reifferscheid, 1878; complete ed. by Reifferscheid (Teubner), 1884. E. Oster, Anna Comnena (Programmes, 1, 1868; 2, 1870; 3, 1871); C. Neumann, Griech. Geschichtschreiber u. Geschichtsquellen im 12 Jahrh., 1888.]

The thread of Imperial history is taken up by JOHN CINNAMUS where Anna let it drop. He too, though in a less exalted position, had an opportunity of observing nearly the course of political events. Born in 1143 be became the private secretary of the Emperor Manuel, whom he attended on his military campaigns. His history embraces the reign of John and that of Manuel (all but the last four years 24 ), AD 1118-1180; but the reign of John is treated briefly, and the work is intended to be mainly a history of Manuel. It has been recently proved by Neumann that the text which we possess (in a unique MS.) does not represent the original work, but only a large extract or portion of it. 25 As a historian Cinnamus has some of the same faults as Anna Comnena. He is a panegyrist of Manuel, as she of Alexius; his narrow attitude of hostility and suspicion to Western Europe is the same as hers, and he treats the Second Crusade with that Byzantine one-sidedness which we notice in her treatment of the First; he affects the same purism of style. But he is free from her vice of long-windedness; there is (as Krumbacher has put it) a certain soldier-like brevity both in his way of apprehending and in his way of relating. As a military historian he is excellent; and he rises with enthusiasm to the ideas of his master. [In the Bonn series, 1836. Study of the work in C. Neumann, Gr. Geschichtschreiber und Geschichtsquellen im 12 Jahrhundert, 1888.]

NICETAS ACOMINATOS (of Chonæ). Nicetas filled most important ministerial posts under the Angeli, finally attaining to that of Great Logothete. He was witness of the Latin conquest of Constantinople, and afterwards joined the court of Theodore Lascaris at Nicæa. He was the younger brother of Michael Acominatos, archbishop of Athens, who was also a man of letters. The historical work of Nicetas (in twenty-one Books) begins where Anna Comnena ended, and thus covers the same ground as Cinnamus, but carries the story on to 1206. But he was not acquainted with the work of Cinnamus; and for John and Manuel he is quite independent of other extant sources. He differs remarkably from Anna and Cinnamus in his tone towards the Crusaders, to whom he is surprisingly fair. Nicetas also wrote a well-known little book on the statues destroyed at Constantinople by the Latins in 1204. See further below, vol. x. cap. lx. ad fin. [Ed. Bonn, 1835, including the essay De Signis. Panegyrics addressed to Alexius Comnenus II., Isaac Angelus, Theodore Lascaris, and published in Sathas, Bibl. Gr. med. aevi. vol. i. Monograph by Th. Uspensky (1874). Cp. C. Neumann, op. cit. ]

Another continuator of Theophanes arose in the eleventh century in the person of JOHN SCYLITZES (a curopalates and drungarios of the guard), a contemporary of Psellus. Beginning with AD 811 (two years before Theophanes ends) he brought his chronicle down to 1079. His chief sources are the Scriptores post Theophanem, Leo Diaconus, and Attaleiates; but he used other sources which are unknown to us, and for his own time oral information. His preface contains an extremely interesting criticism on the historiographers who had dealt with his period. Since Theophanes, he says, there has been no satisfactory epitome of history. The works of “the Siceliot teacher” (a mysterious person whose identity has not been established) 26 and “our contemporary Psellus” are not serious, and are merely bare records of the succession of the Emperors — who came after whom — and leave out all the important events. This notice is very important; the criticism cannot apply to the Chronography of Psellus which we possess, and therefore suggests that Psellus wrote a brief epitome of history which began at AD 813, and is now lost. Other historians have treated only short periods or episodes, like Genesius, Theodore Daphnopates, Leo Diaconus, and others; and all these have written with a purpose or tendency — one to praise an Emperor, another to blame a Patriarch. The whole text of Scylitzes has not yet been published, but is accessible for historical purposes in the Latin translation of B. Gabius (Venice, 1570), combined with the chronicle of Cedrenus, which (see below) contains practically a second ed. of Scylitzes up to AD 1057. The Greek text of the latter part of the work, AD 1057-1079, is printed in the Paris Byzantine series, and reprinted in the Bonn collection, along with Cedrenus. A complete critical edition is being prepared by J. Seger. [On sources, c. consult Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien.]

The Historical Synopsis of GEORGE CEDRENUS (c. 1100 AD ), from the creation to AD 1057, is a compilation, in its earlier part, up to AD 811, from Theophanes, George Monachus, Symeon Magister, and above all, the Psuedo-Symeon (see above). From AD 811 to the end Cedrenus merely wrote out Scylitzes word for word. [Bonn edition in two vols., 1838-9. Cp. Hirsch, op. cit. ]

JOHN ZONARAS, who flourished in the first half of the twelfth century, held important posts in the Imperial service (Great Drungarios of the Guard, and chief of the secretarial staff), and then retired to St. Glyceria (one of the Princes’ Islands), where as a monk he reluctantly yielded to the pressure of his friends to compose a profane history. The work begins with the creation and ends in the year AD 1118. In form it differs completely from such works as the Chronicles of Theophanes or Scylitzes. Zonaras never copies his sources word for word; he always puts their statements in his own way. But this mode of operation is purely formal and not critical; it is merely a question of style; he does not sift his material or bring intelligence to bear on his narrative. Yet he took more pains to collect material than many of his craftsmen; he did not content himself with one or two universal histories such as George Monachus; and he complains of his difficulty in getting books. His work has great importance from the fact that it has preserved the first twenty-one Books of Dion Cassius, otherwise lost. For the second half of the fifth and the first half of the sixth century Zonaras has some important notices derived from a lost source; though for the most part he follows Theophanes. For the last three centuries of his work Zonaras used George Monachus and the Logothete’s Continuation, the Continuation of Theophanes, Scylitzes, Psellus, c. [The Bonn ed. contained only Bks. 1-12 (1841-4) till 1896, when the third and concluding volume was added by T. Buttner-Wobst. There is also a complete edition by L. Dindorf in six volumes (1868-75). On the sources of Zonaras from AD 450-811 the chief work is P. Sauerbrei, De fontibus Zon. quaestiones selectae (in Comment. phil. Jen. i. 1 sqq. ), 1881; on the period AD 813-965, Hirsch, op. cit. For earlier Roman history there is a considerable literature on Zonaras. Cp. Krumbacher, op. cit. p. 375.]

Among the compilations which supplied Zonaras with material is a (nonextant) Chronicle, which is defined as a common source of Zonaras and a work known as the SYNOPSIS SATHAS, because M. C. Sathas first edited it from a Venetian MS. (1894; Bibl. Gr. med. aevi, vol. vii.). This “Chronological Synopsis” reaches from the creation to AD 1261. It is closely related to the (not yet published) chronicle of Theodore of Cyzicus which covers the same ground. On the common source, and the sources of that common source, see E. Patzig, Ueber einige Quellen des Zonaras, in Byz. Zeitsch. 5, p. 24 sqq. The author of the Synopsis lived in the latter part of the thirteenth century. The range of the chronicle will be understood when it is said that more than two thirds of it are devoted to the last two hundred years.

The chronicle which served as common source to both Zonaras and the Synopsis was also used by a contemporary of Zonaras, CONSTANTINE MANASSES, who treated the history of the world from its creation to the death of Nicephorus III. (1081) in “political” verses. (Other sources: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, John Lydus, John of Antioch, Pseudo-Symeon.) This versified chronicle was very popular, it was translated into Slavonic, and was one of the chief sources of a chronicle written in colloquial Greek (see K. Prächter, Byz. Zeitsch. 4, p. 272 sqq., 1895). Published in the Bonn series along with the worthless chronicle of JOEL (thirteenth century; sources: George the Monk, the Logothete’s Continuation, Scylitzes). See Hirsch, op. cit.

Another chronographer contemporary with Zonaras was MICHAEL GLYKAS. Of his life little is known except that he was a “secretary,” and that for some reason he was imprisoned and “blinded,” though not with fatal consequences to his eyesight. His chronicle (from the creation), of which Part iv. reaches from Constantine the Great to the death of Alexius I. (1118), differs considerably in general conception from other chronicles, and is marked, as Krumbacher has well pointed out, by three original features: digressions on (1) natural history and (2) theology, whereby the thread of the chronicle is often lost, and (3) the didactic form of the work, which is addressed to his son. The sources of the latter part are Zonaras, Scylitzes, Psellus, Manasses, Vita Ignatii. (Cp. Hirsch. op. cit. ) On his life, chronicle, and other works, see Krumbacher’s monograph, Michael Glykas, 1895. [Edition, Bonn, 1836.]

LATIN SOURCES

The paucity of other sources renders the LIBER PONTIFICALIS of considerable importance for the Imperial history of the seventh and eighth centuries in Italy. M. Duchesne, in the Introduction to his great edition of the work, has shown with admirable acuteness and learning how it grew into its present form. The primitive Liber Pontificalis was compiled at Rome under the pontificates of Hormisdas, John I., Felix IV., and Boniface II., after AD 514, and came down to the death of Felix IV. in AD 530. “For the period between 496 and 530 the author may be regarded as a personal witness of the things he narrates.” The work was continued a few years later by a writer who witnessed the siege of Rome in AD 537-8, and who was hostile to Silverius. He recorded the Lives of Boniface II., John II., and Agapetus, and wrote the first part of the Life of Silverius ( AD 536-7). The latter part of this Life is written in quite a different spirit by one who sympathised with Silverius; and it was perhaps this second continuator who brought out a second edition of the whole work (Duchesne, p. ccxxxi.). The Lives of Vigilius and his three successors were probably added in the time of Pelagius II. ( AD 579-90). As for the next seven Popes, M. Duchesne thinks that, if their biographies were not added one by one, they were composed in two groups: (1) Pelagius II. and Gregory I.; (2) the five successors of Gregory. From Honorius ( AD 625-38) forward the Lives have been added one by one, and sometimes more than one are by the same hand. Very rarely are historical documents laid under contribution; the speech of Pope Martin before the Lateran Council in AD 649 forms an exception, being used in the Lives of Theodore and Martin. In the eighth century the important Lives of Gregory II., Gregory III., Zacharias, c., were written successively during their lives. The biographer of Gregory II. seems to have consulted a lost (Constantinopolitan) chronicle which was also used by Theophanes and Nicephorus. (Cp. Duchesne, Lib. Pont. i. p. 411.) The Biography of Hadrian falls into two parts; the first, written in 774, contains the history of his first two years; the second, covering the remaining twenty-two years of his pontificate, is of a totally different nature, being made up of entries derived from vestry-registers, c. M. Duchesne has shown that most of these biographers to whose successive co-operation the Liber Pontificalis is due belonged to the Vestiarium of the Lateran; and when they were too lazy or too discreet to relate historical events they used to fall back on the entries in the registers of their office. [L. Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis; Texte, Introduction et Commentaire, t. 1 (1886).]

The Letters of Pope GREGORY THE GREAT (for whose life and work see above, p. 42 sqq. ) are the chief contemporary source for the state of Italy at the end of the sixth century. The Benedictines of St. Maur published in 1705 a complete collection of the Pope’s correspondence, which extends from AD 591 to 604. This edition, used and quoted by Gibbon, is reprinted in Migne’s Patr. Graeca, lxxvii. The arrangement of the letters in this collection was adopted without full intelligence as to the nature of the materials which were used. It depended mainly on a Vatican MS. containing a collection of the letters, put together in the fifteenth century by the order of an archbishop of Milan (John IV.). This collection was compiled from three distinct earlier collections, which had never been put together before to form a single collection. Of these (1) the most important is a selection of 681 letters, made under Pope Hadrian I. towards the end of the eighth century. The letters of Gregory range over fourteen indictions, and the “Hadrianic Register,” as it is called, falls into fourteen Books, according to the indictions. This is our basis of chronology. There is (2) a second collection of 200 letters without dates (except in one case), of which more than a quarter are common to the Hadrianic Register. It has been proved that all these letters belong to a single year ( AD 598-9); but in the text of the Benedictines they are scattered over all the years. (3) The third collection (Collectio Pauli) is smaller; it contained 53 letters, of which 21 are peculiar to itself. Here too, though the Benedictine edition distributes these letters over six years, it has been proved that they all belong to three particular years. These results were reached by very long and laborious research by Paul Ewald, whose article in the Neues Archiv of 1878 (iii. 433 sqq. ) has revolutionised the study of Gregory’s correspondence and established the order of the letters. A new critical edition, based on Ewald’s researches, has appeared in the Monumenta Germ. Historica, in two vols. Only Bks. 1-4 are the work of Ewald; but on his premature death the work was continued by L. M. Hartmann. Ewald also threw new light on the biographies of Gregory, proving that the oldest was one preserved in a St. Gall MS. (and known to, but not used by, Canisius). See his article: Die älteste Biographie Gregors I. (in “Historische Aufsatze dem Andenken an G. Waitz gewidmet”), 1886. For the Life by Paulus Diac. cp. above, p. 42, note 73; for the Life by John Diac. cp. p. 42, note 74. [Monographs: G. T. Lau, Gregor I. der Grosse nach seinem Leben und seiner Lehre geschildert (1845); W. Wisbaum, Die wichtigsten Richtungen und Ziele der Thätigkeit des Papstes Gregor des Gr. (1884); C. Wolfsgruber, die Vorpäpstliche Lebensperiode Gregors des Gr., nach seinen Briefen dargestellt (1886) and Gregor der Grosse (1890); Th. Wollschack, Die erhältnisse Italiens, insbesondere des Langobardenreichs nach dem Briefwechsel Gregors I. (1888); F. W. Kellett, Pope Gregory the Great and his relations with Gaul (1889). There is a full account of Gregory’s life and work in Hodgkin’s Italy and her Invaders, vol. v. chap. 7; and a clear summary of Ewald’s arguments as to the correspondence.]

The earliest historian of the Lombards was a bishop of Trient named Secundus, who died in AD 612. He wrote a slight work (historiola) on the Gesta of the Lombards, coming down to his own time; unluckily it is lost. But it was used by our chief authority on the history of the Lombard kingdom, PAUL THE DEACON, son of Warnefrid; who did for the Lombards what Gregory of Tours did for the Merovingians, Bede for the Anglo-Saxons, Jordanes for the Goths. Paul was born about AD 725 in the duchy of Friuli. In the reign of King Ratchis ( AD 744-9) he was at Pavia, and in the palace-hall he saw in the king’s hand the bowl made of Cunimund’s skull. He followed King Ratchis into monastic retirement at Monte Cassino, and we find him there an intimate friend and adviser of Arichis, Duke of Beneventum, and his wife. He guided the historical studies of this lady, Adelperga, and it was her interest in history that stimulated him to edit the history of Eutropius and add to it a continuation of his own in six Books (the compilation known as the Historia Miscella, see above, vol. iv. p. 353-4). Paul’s family was involved in the ruin of the Lombard kingdom ( AD 774); his brother was carried into captivity, and Paul undertook a journey to the court of Charles the Great, in order to win the grace of the conqueror. He was certainly successful in his enterprise, and his literary accomplishments were valued by Charles, at whose court he remained several years. When he returned to Italy he resumed his abode at Monte Cassino. His last years were devoted to the Historia Langobardorum. Beginning with the remote period at which his nation lived by the wild shores of the Baltic, Paul should have ended with the year in which the Lombards ceased to be an independent nation; but the work breaks off in the year AD 744; and the interruption can have been due only to the author’s death. Paul’s Life of Gregory the Great has been mentioned above; another extant work is his Lives of the Bishops of Metz.

For the legendary “prehistoric” part of his work, Paul’s chief source (apart from oral traditions) was the Origo gentis Langobardorum. This little work has been preserved in a MS. of the Laws of King Rotharis, to which it is prefixed as an Introduction. 27 It was probably composed c. 670. (There is also a Prologus to the Laws of Rotharis, containing a list of kings; it is important on account of its relative antiquity.) For the early history Paul drew upon Secundus (see above) and Gregory of Tours. When Secundus deserts him (Bk. iv. c. 41) he is lost, and for the greater part of the seventh century his history is very meagre. His chief sources for the period AD 612 to 744 are the Lives of the Popes in the Liber Pontificalis (from John III. to Gregory II.) and the Ecclesiastical History of Bede. The sources of Paul have been thoroughly investigated by R. Jacobi, Die Quellen der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diaconus (1877). 28 [Best edition by Waitz in the M.G.H. (Scr. rer. Lang.), 1878; and small convenient edition by the same editor in the Scr. rer. Germ., 1878. German translation by O. Abel (in the Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit), 1849 (second edition, 1878). Three important studies on Paul by L. Bethmann appeared in Pertz’s Archiv, vol. vii. p. 274 sqq.; vol. x. p. 247 sqq. and p. 335 sqq. The most recent edition of the Historia Romana (last six Books of the Hist. Miscella) is that of H. Droysen, 1879.]

The chronicle which goes under the name of FREDEGARIUS, on which we have to fall back for Merovingian History when Gregory of Tours deserts us, has also notices which supplement the Lombard History of Paul the Deacon. The chronicle consists of four Books. Bk. 1 is the Liber Generationis of Hippolytus; Bk. 2 consists of excerpts from the chronicles of Jerome and Idatius; Bk. 3 is taken from the Historia Francorum of Gregory of Tours; Bk. 4, which is alone of importance, continues the history of Gregory (from Bk. vi.; AD 583) up to AD 642. Two compilers can be distinguished; to one is due Bk. 1, Bk. 2, Bk. 4, chaps. 1-39; to the other (= Fredegarius) Bk. 3 and Bk. 4, chaps. 40 to end ( AD 613-642). For the last thirty years the work is contemporary. The lack of other sources makes Fredegarius, such as it is, precious. But for this work we should never have known of the existence, during the reign of Heraclius, of the large Slavonic realm of Samo, which united for a decade or two Bohemia and the surrounding Slavonic countries. [Ed. B. Krusch, in the M.G.H. (Scr. Hist. Merov., ii.), 1888, along with the subsequent continuations of the work to AD 568. Articles by Krusch in Neues Archiv, vii., p. 249 sqq. and p. 423 sqq., 1882.]

ORIENTAL SOURCES

[An excellent list of Arabic historians and their works will be found in Wüstenfeld’s Die Geschichtschreiber der Araber, 1882.]

I. : For the Life of Mohammad

(1) For the life of Mohammad the only contemporary sources, the only sources which we can accept without any reservation, are: ( a ) the KORAN 29 (for the early traditions of the text, see below, vol. ix. p. 41-3). The order of the Sūras has been thoroughly investigated by Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorâns, 1860, and by Weil; and (from the character and style of the revelations, combined with occasional references to events) they can be arranged in periods, and in some cases assigned to definite years. (Periods: (1) written at Mecca, (α) early, (β) late: (2) Medina, (α) early, (β) middle, (γ) late.) 30

( b ) A collection of TREATIES: see below.

(2) The other source for the life of Mohammad is tradition ( Hadīth ). The Ashāb or companions of Mohammad were unimpeachably good authorities as to the events of his life; and they told much of what they knew in reply to the eager questions of the Tābiūn or Successors, — the younger generation who knew not the Prophet. But it was not till the end of the first century of the Hijra or the beginning of the second that any attempt was made to commit to writing the knowledge of Mohammad’s life, which passed from lip to lip and was ultimately derived from the companions, few of whom can have survived the sixtieth year of the Hijra. The first work on Mohammad that we know of was composed at the court of the later Omayyads by al-Zuhri, who died in the year AD 742. It is deeply to be regretted that the work has not survived, not only on account of its relatively early date, but because a writer under Omayyad patronage had no interest in perverting the facts of history. Zuhri’s book, however, was used by his successors, who wrote under the Abbāsids and had a political cause to serve.

The two sources which formed the chief basis of all that is authentic in later Arabic Lives of the Prophet (such as that of Abū-l-Fidā) are fortunately extant; and, this having been established, we are dispensed from troubling ourselves with those later compilations. ( a ) The life by MOHAMMAD IBN ISHĀK (ob 768, a contemporary of Zuhri) has not indeed been preserved in an independent form; but it survives in Ibn Hishām’s (ob. 823) History of the Prophet, which seems to have been practically a very freely revised edition of Ibn Ishāk, but can be controlled to some extent by the copious quotations from Ibn Ishāk in the work of Tabarī. Ibn Ishāk wrote his book for Mansūr the second Abbāsid caliph ( AD 754-775); and it must always be remembered that the tendency of historical works composed under Abbāsid influence was to pervert tradition in the Abbāsid interest by exalting the members of the Prophet’s family, and misrepresenting the forefathers of the Omayyads. This feature appears in the work of Ibn Ishāk, although in the world of Islam he has the reputation of being an eminently and exceptionally trustworthy writer. But it is not difficult to make allowance for this colouring; and otherwise there is no reason to doubt that he reproduced truthfully the fairly trustworthy tradition which had been crystallised under the Omayyads, and which, in its general framework, and so far as the outer life of the Prophet himself was concerned, was preserved both by the supporters of the descendants of Alī and by those who defended the claims of the family of Abbās. [The work of Ibn Hishām has been translated into German by Weil, 1864.]

( b ) A contemporary of Ibn Hishām, named (Mohammad ibn Omar al) WĀKIDĪ (ob. 823), also wrote a Life of Mohammad, independent of the work of Ibn Ishāk. He was a learned man and a copious writer. His work met with the same fortune as that of Ibn Ishāk. It is not extant in its original form, but its matter was incorporated in a Life of Mohammad by his able secretary Ibn Sad (Kātib al-Wākidī, ob. 845) — a very careful composition, arranged in the form of separate traditions, each traced up to its source. But another work of Wākidī, the History of the Wars of the Prophet (Kitāb al-Maghāzi), is extant (accessible in an abbreviated German version by Wellhausen, 1882), and has considerable interest as containing a large number of doubtless genuine treaties. The author states that he transcribed them from the original documents. 31 Like Ibn Hishām, Wākidī wrote under the caliphate of Mamūn ( AD 813-833) at Bagdad, and necessarily lent himself to the perversion of tradition in Abbāsid interests.

AL-TABARĪ (see below) included the history of Mohammad in the great work which earned for him the compliment of being called by Gibbon “the Livy of the Arabians.” The original Arabic of this part of the Annals was recovered by Sprenger at Lucknow. It consists mainly of extracts from Ibn Ishāk and Wākidī, and herein lies its importance for us: both as (1) enabling us to control the compilations of Ibn Hishām and Ibn Sad and (2) proving that Ibn Ishāk and Wākidī contained all the authentic material of value for the Life of the Prophet, that was at the disposal of Tabari. The part of the work (about a third) which is occupied by other material consists of miscellaneous traditions, which throw little new light on the biography.

[For a full discussion of the sources see Muir, Life of Mahomet; essay at the end of edition 2 — introduction at the beginning of edition 3. For the life of the prophet: Weil, Mohammed der Prophet, 1840; Sprenger, Das Leben und die Lehre Mohammads, 1851; Wellhausen’s sketch in the Encyclopædia Britannica (sub nomine). For his spirit and teaching: Stanley Lane-Poole, The Speeches and Table-talk of the Prophet Mohammad, 1882. Observe that Mr. E. W. Brooks has collected and translated the notices in Arabic writers bearing on Saracen invasions of Asia Minor between AD 641 and 750 (including some notices on Syria and Armenia): The Arabs from Asia Minor, from Arabic Sources, in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, xviii. p. 182 sqq., 1898; and in the same Journal, xix. p. 19 sqq., 1899, he has given under the title: The Campaign of 716-718 from Arabic Sources, translations of two accounts of the siege of Constantinople (see Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 242 sqq. ) (1) that in the Khitab al-Uyun (an 11th century source); and (2) that of Al-Tabari.]

II. : For the Saracen Conquests

The most important authority for the history of the Saracen conquests is Abū-Jafar Mohammad ibn Jarīr, born in AD 839 at Āmul in Tabaristān and hence called AL-TABARĪ. He died at Bagdad in AD 923. It is only the immense scale of his chronicle that warrants the comparison with Livy. Tabarī had no historical faculty, no idea of criticising or sifting his sources; he merely puts side by side the statements of earlier writers without reconciling their discrepancies or attempting to educe the truth. Though this mode of procedure lowers our opinion of the chronicler, it has obvious advantages for a modern investigator, as it enables him to see the nature of the now lost materials which were used by Tabarī. Later writers like al-Makīn, Abū-l-Fidā, Ibn al-Athīr, found it very convenient to draw from the compilation of Tabarī, instead of dealing directly with the numerous sources from which Tabarī drew; just as later Greek chronographers used to work on such a compilation as that of George Monachus. Our gratitude to Tabarī for preserving lost material is seriously modified by the consideration that it was largely to his work that the loss of that material in its original form is due. His work was so convenient and popular that the public ceased to want the older books and consequently they ceased to be multiplied.

The Annals of Tabarī were carried down to his own time, into the tenth century, but his notices for the last seventy years are very brief. The whole work has not yet been translated. We have already made the acquaintance of the part of it bearing on Persian history in the translation of Nöldeke (1879). A portion of the history of the Saracen conquests has been edited and translated by Kosegarten (1831). For the history of the caliphate from 670 to 775, Weil had the original work of Tabarī before him (in MS.), in writing his Geschichte der Chalifen. A complete Arabic edition of Tabarī is being published by Prof. de Goeje (1879-97) and is nearly completed.

In the year 963 Mohammad Bilamī “translated” Tabarī into Persian, by the order of Mansūr I., the Sāmānid sovereign of Transoxiana and Khurāsān. This “translation” (which was subsequently translated into Turkish) has been rendered into French by Zotenberg (1867-74). But the reader will be disappointed if he looks to finding a traduction in our sense of the word. Bilamī’s work is far from being even a free rendering, in the freest sense of the term. It might be rather described as a history founded exclusively on Tabarī’s compilation; — Tabarī worked up into a more artistic form. References to authorities are omitted; the distinction of varying accounts often disappears; and a connected narrative is produced. Such were the ideas of translators at Bagdad and Bukhārā; and Weil properly observes that Ibn al-Athīr, for instance, who does not pretend to be bound to the text of Tabarī, will often reproduce him more truly than the professed translator.

For Persian history, the chief ultimate source of Tabarī was the Khudhāi-nāma or Book of Lords (original title of what was afterwards known as the Shāh-nāma or Book of Kings), officially compiled under Chosroes I. (see above, vol. vii. p. 201), and afterwards carried down to AD 628, in the reign of Yezdegerd III. This work was rhetorical and very far from being impartial; it was written from the standpoint of the nobility and the priests. It was “translated” into Arabic by Ibn Mukaffa in the eighth century; and his version, perhaps less remote from our idea of a translation than most Arabic works of the kind, was used by the Patriarch Eutychius of Alexandria (see below). Tabarī did not consult either the Pehlevi original or the version of Ibn Mukaffa, but a third work which was compiled from Ibn Mukaffa and another version. See the Introduction to Nöldeke’s invaluable work.

For Tabarī’s sources for the history of Mohammad, see above.

For the successors of Mohammad, Tabarī had Ibn Ishāk’s book on the Moslem conquests and Wākidī (see above); and a history of the Omayyads and early Abbāsids by (Alī ibn Mohammad al) Madāinī ( AD 753-840).

An independent and somewhat earlier source for the military history of the Saracen conquests is the Book of the Conquests by Abū-l-Hasan Ahmad ibn Yahyā al BILĀDHURĪ, who flourished in the ninth century (ob. AD 892) at the court of Bagdad. Among the sources which he cites are Wākidī, Ibn Hishām, and Madāinī. His work has been printed but not translated; and has been used by Weil and Muir for their histories of the caliphate. Weil has given an abridgment — very convenient for reference in studying the chronology — “Die wichtigsten Kriege und Eroberungen der Araber nach Beladori,” as an Appendix in vol. iii. of his Gesch. der Chalifen.

Another extant historical work is the Book of Sciences by (Abd-Allah ibn Muslim) IBN KUTAIBA (ob. c. 889), a contemporary of Bilādhurī. It is a brief chronicle, but contains some valuable notices.

Contemporary with these was IBN ABD-AL-HAKAM, who died in Egypt, AD 871. He wrote a Book of the Conquests in Egypt and Africa. See below, vol. ix. p. 191, note 158.

A much greater man than any of these was the traveller MASŪDĪ (Abū-l-Hasan Alī ibn al-Husain), born c. AD 900, died 956. He travelled in India, visited Madagascar, the shores of the Caspian, Syria, and Palestine, and died in Egypt. He wrote an encyclopaedic work on the history of the past, which he reduced into a shorter form; but even this was immense; and he wrote a compendium of it under the title of The Golden Meadows, which has come down to us (publ. in Arabic with French translation, 1861-77.) It contains valuable information respecting the early history of Islam, and the geography of Asia. He differs from contemporary Arabic historians in the multiplicity of his interests, and his wide view of history, which for him embraces not merely political events, but literature, religion, and civilisation in general.

The chronicle of EUTYCHIUS, patriarch of Alexandria, in the tenth century, is extant in the Arabic version edited and translated by Pocock, frequently cited by Gibbon. 32 It comes down to AD 937. We have seen that Eutychius used Ibn Mukaffa’s version of the Khudhāi-nāma; but a thorough investigation of his sources is still a desideratum. His chronicle was used in the thirteenth century by MAKIN (Elmacin, ob. 1275), a native of Egypt, whose history (coming down to 1260) was also much used by Gibbon (ed. Erpenius, 1625).

JOHN OF NIKIU, Jacobite bishop of Nikiu, in the latter part of the seventh century, composed (in Greek or Coptic?) a chronicle from the creation to his own time. It is extremely important for the history of Egypt in the seventh century, and in fact is the sole contemporary source for the Saracen conquest. It has come down, but not in its original form. It was translated into Arabic, from Arabic into Ethiopian ( AD 1601); and it is the Ethiopian version which has been preserved. The work has been rendered generally accessible by the French translation which accompanies Zotenberg’s edition (1883).

MICHAEL OF MELITENE, patriarch of Antioch in the twelfth century (1166-99), wrote a chronicle in Syriac, from the creation to his own time. The original work is preserved but not yet edited. An Armenian version, however, made (by Ishōk) in the following century (1248) has been translated into French by V. Langlois (1868); and the part of it which deals with the period 573-717 had been already published in French by Dulaurier in the Journal Asiatique, t. 12, Oct., 1848, p. 281 sqq. and t. 13, April to May, 1849, p. 315 sqq. In the preface to his work Michael gives a remarkable list of his sources, some of which are mysterious. He mentions Enanus of Alexandria (Anianos), Eusebīus, John of Alexandria, Jibeghu (?) Theodore Lector, Zacharias of Melitene [from Theodosius to Justinian], John of Asia (John of Ephesus) [up to Maurice], Goria, the learned (Cyrus, a Nestorian of sixth to seventh century) [from Justinian to Heraclius], St. James of Urfa [Edessa] (end of seventh century) [an abridgment of preceding histories], Dionysius the Deacon (of Tellmahrē) [from Maurice to Theophilus and Hārūn], 33 Ignatius of Melitene, Slivea of Melitene, John of Kesun (first half of twelfth century; cp. Assemani, 2, 364). See Dulaurier, J. As. t. 12, p. 288. [Wright, Syriac Literature (1894), p. 250 sqq. H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, ii. i. 402 sqq. ]

(In connection with Michael of Melitene it may be mentioned that since this notice was written Mr. E. W. Brooks published the text, and an English translation, of A Syriac Chronicle of the Year 846, whose author used partly the same sources as Michael. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, li. p. 569 sqq. )

Mar Gregor of Melitene, known as BAR-HEBRAEUS or ABULPHARAGIUS (Abū-l-Faraj), lived in the thirteenth century. He belonged to the Jacobite church, of which he was the maphriān (from 1264 to 1286), the dignitary second in rank to the patriarch. (1) He wrote in Syriac a chronicle of universal history, political and ecclesiastical, in three parts: Part 1, a political history of the world down to his own time. This was edited, with a Latin translation, by Bruns and Kirsch, 1789, Wright says that text and translation are equally bad (Syriac Literature, p. 278). Part 2, a history of the Church, which in the post-Apostolic period becomes a history of the Church of Antioch, and after the age of Severus deals exclusively with the monophysitic branch of the Antiochene church. Part 3 is devoted to the eastern division of the Syrian Church, from St. Thomas: “from the time of Mārūtha (629) it becomes the history of the monophysite maphriāns of Taghrīth” (Wright, op. cit. p. 279), up to 1286. These two ecclesiastical parts are edited, with translation, by Abbeloos and Lamy, 1872-7. (2) He also issued a recension of his political history, with references to Mohammadan writers, in Arabic, under the title of a Compendious History of the Dynasties, which, edited and translated by Pocock, 1663, was largely used by Gibbon. Bar-Hebraeus made considerable use of the chronicle of Michael of Melitene. [Best account: Wright, op. cit. p. 265 sqq. ]

MODERN WORKS. Finlay, History of Greece, vols. i., ii., iii.; K. Hopf, Geschichte Greiechenlands (in Ersch und Gruber’s Enzyklopädie, B. 85); G. F. Hertzberg, Geschichte Griechenlands, Pt. 1; F. C. Schlosser, Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser des oström. Reiches (1812); Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. ii.; Gfrörer, Byzantinische Geschichten, vol. iii. (1877); A. Rambaud, L’empire grec au dixième siècle, 1870; Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vols. v. and vi.; Ranke, Weltgeschichte, vols. iv., v. (H. Gelzer has written an able and original outline of Byzantine history for the second edition of Krumbacher’s Hist. of Byz. Literature. A bright brief sketch of the Byzantine Empire by C. W. C. Oman appeared in the series of the Story of the Nations.) For Chronology: Clinton, Fasti Romani, vol. ii. p. 149 sqq. (579 to AD 641); Muralt, Essai de Chronographie byzantine, two vols. (1855-1871). For Mohammad, see above, p. 416; for the Saracen conquests: Weil’s Geschichte der Chalifen, vol. i., Muir’s Annals of the Early Caliphate, and other works referred to in vol. ix. chapters l. and li. (especially p. 192 and 210). For Italy, besides Hodgkin’s work (see above): Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter (translated into English by Mrs. Hamilton), Diehl, Etudes sur l’administration byzantine dans l’exarchat de Ravenna (1888); M. Hartmann, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der byzant. Verwaltung in Italien (1889); J. Weise, Italien und die Langobarden-herrscher von 568 bis 628 (1887); C. Hegel, Geschichte der Städteverfassung von Italien (1847).

Special monographs have been mentioned in appropriate places in the notes and in the foregoing appendix.

2.: THE AVAR CONQUEST — ( P. 9 )

The Avars having subdued the Uturgurs, Sabiri, and other Hunnic peoples between the Dnieper and Volga (Menander, fr. 5, p. 203, ed. Müller), and having either received the submission of 1 or entered into friendly alliance with, 2 the Kotrigurs, moved westward, and we find them attacking Austrasia, and fighting on the Elbe, in AD 562 (see above, p. 5). The subjugation of the Antae 3 ( AD 560?) was evidently a stage on this march westward. It is clear that their incursions into Frank territory were not made from such a distant basis as south-eastern Russia, the banks of the Dnieper or Don; and it is also certain that they had not reached their ultimate home in Hungary before AD 562 or even before AD 566, for Hungary was at this time occupied by Lombards and Gepids. The question arises: Where were the Avars settled in the intermediate years between their triumphs on the Don and the Dnieper ( AD 559-60), and their occupation of Hungary ( AD 567)? Whence did they go forth twice against the Austrasian kingdom ( AD 562, and 566)? whence did they send the embassy which was rudely received by Justin ( AD 565)? whence did they go forth to destroy the Gepids? The statement of the Avar ambassador in Corippus (3,300): —

 

nunc ripas Scythici victor rex contigit Istri densaque per latos figens tentoria campos, c.,

might seem to prove that the Avars had advanced along the shores of the Pontus and stationed themselves in Wallachia. In that case they would have entered Dacia by the passes of Rothenthurm and Buza, and attacked the Gepids on that side. But Schafarik 4 has made it highly probable that they entered Upper Hungary from Galicia, through the passes of Dukla. His arguments are: (1) the Slavs of Dacia and the Lower Danube were independent until AD 581-4, when they were reduced to submission by the Avars; (2) the assumption of an advance through Galicia will explain the reduction of the Dudleby, in Volhynia. The record of this event is preserved only in the Russian Chronicle of Nestor (so called) but there seems no reason not to accept it as a genuine tradition. The passage is as follows (c. 8, ed. Miklosich, p. 6): —

“These Obrs made war on the Slavs, and conquered the Duljebs, who are Slavs, and did violence to the Duljeb women. When an Obr wished to go anywhere, he did not harness a horse or an ox, but ordered three or four women to be harnessed to his carriage, to draw the Obr; and so they vexed the Duljebs.”

The chronicler places this episode in the reign of Heraclius. But Schafarik plausibly argues that it belongs to a much earlier period, before the invasion of Hungary.

To these arguments I may add another. (3) The invasions of Austrasia almost demand more northerly headquarters for the Avars, than Wallachia. Nor does the passage of Corippus contradict the assumption that the Avar nation was settled in Galicia, or thereabouts, in AD 565. For the passage need imply only that an armed contingent had accompanied the embassy, through Moldavia, to the banks of the Danube, and pitched their tents there to await the return of the envoys.

On the whole therefore it seems probable that the Avars in their westward advance followed an inland route from the Dnieper to the Upper Bug (through the Government of Kiev, and Podolia), not coming into hostile contact with the Bulgarians who were between the Dnieper and the Danube (in the Government of Cherson, in Bessarabia and Wallachia).

In regard to the extent of the Avar Empire, after the conquest of Hungary, we must of course distinguish between the settlements of the Avars themselves, and the territories which acknowledged the lordship of the Chagan. The Avar settlements were entirely in the old Jazygia, between the Theiss and the Danube, where they dispossessed the Gepids, and in Pannonia, where they succeeded to the inheritance of the Lombards. 5 These regions, which correspond to Hungary, were Avaria in the strict sense. But the Chagan extended his power over the Slavonic tribes to the north and east. It is generally agreed that his sway reached into Central Europe and was acknowledged in Bohemia, Moravia, Galicia; but it seems an improbable exaggeration to say that it was bounded on the north by the Baltic. 6 Baian also subjugated, at least temporarily, the Slavs of Wallachia and Moldavia, but I doubt much whether his dominion extended in any sense over the Bulgarians of Southern Russia. We find Bulgarians apparently in his service; but, as Bulgarian settlements were probably scattered from the Danube to the Dnieper, we can draw from this fact no conclusion as to the extent of the Avar empire.

3.: GEOGRAPHY OF ITALY IN THE LOMBARD PERIOD, AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE LOMBARD CONQUEST — ( P. 14 )

The following table will explain the divisions of Italy between the Empire and the Lombards about AD 600.

Italy in ad 600

I MPERIAL. —

(1)

North: — Maritime Liguria; Cremona, Placentia, Vulturina, Mantua, Mons Silicis, Patavium, Brixellum; Venetian Coast; Concordia, Opitergium, Altinum (Mutina, Parma, Rhegium?); Ravenna and the Aemilia; Pentapolis ( = Ariminum, Pisaurum, Fanum, Senegallia, Ancona); the inland Pentapolis (Aesis, Forum Semproni, Urbinum, Callis, Eugubium); Auximum.

(2)

Central: — Picenum (coastland south of Ancona, including Firmum, Castrum Truentinum, Castrum Novum); Ortona (farther south on Adriatic coast), Perusia; Rome and the ducatus Romae, from Urbs Vetus (Orvieto) in north to Gaieta and Formiae in south.

(3)

South: — Part of Campania (including Naples, Salernum, Amalphi, Surrentum, Castrum Cumanum, Puteoli), farther south, Acropolis and Paestum; Bruttii, Calabria; Barium; Sipontum.

(4)

Islands: — Sicily with neighbouring islets; Elba. Corsica and Sardinia belonged to the Exarchate of Africa.

F RANK. —

Augusta Praetoria (Aosta) and its valley: Segusia or Seusia (Susa) and its valley. These small regions belonged to Burgundia (kingdom of Guntram) c. ad 588 (cp. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, v. 223) and probably remained Frankish for some time.

L OMBARD . —

The rest.

The following table exhibits chronologically the progress of Lombard Conquest (so far as it can be discovered from our meagre data) from the first invasion to the reign of Rothari.

Lombard Conquests

ad 568	Forum Julii, Vincentia, Verona; all Venetia (except the coast, Patavium, Mons Silicis, Mantua).
ad 569	Liguria, including Mediolanum (except the Maritime Coast, and Ticinum = Pavia). Also Cisalpine Gaul, except Cremona and some smaller places.
ad 570-572	Central and Southern Italy partially conquered, including Tuscany and the duchies of Spoletium and Beneventum.
ad 572	Ticinum (after a three years’ siege); possibly Mantua and Placentia.
ad 579	Classis (but lost ad 588; recovered and surrendered, c. 720; taken by Liutprand, c. 725).
ad 588	Insula Comacina (in L. Como).
ad 590	(Lost Mantua, Placentia, Mutina, Parma, Rhegium, Altinum).
ad 592	Suana (in Tuscany).
ad 601	Patavium.
ad 602	Mons Silicis.
ad 603	Cremona, Mantua (and perhaps about this time most of the other places which the Empire recovered, c. 590), Vulturina (near Brixellum).
ad 605	Urbs Vetus, Balneus Regis (= Bagnorea).
Before ad 640	Concordia.
Before ad 642 (?)	Sipontum.
ad 640	Maritime Liguria, Altinum, Opitergium.

These tables depend mainly on the notices in Paul’s History of the Lombards and on the notitia of George the Cypriote (ed. Gelzer).

4.: THE ARMENIAC PROVINCES OF JUSTINIAN AND MAURICE — ( P. 66 )

Up to the time of Justinian there were two provinces entitled Armenia, forming part of the Pontic Diocese.

Justinian in AD 536 redistributed these districts, creating four provinces of Armenia, which were formed partly out of the two old provinces, partly out of Pontus Polemoniacus, and partly of new territory which had hitherto lain outside the provincial system. 1

(1) First Armenia = part of old First Armenia (Theodosiopolis, Colonea, Satala, Nicopolis) + part of Pontus Polemoniacus (Trapezus and Cerasus).

(2) Second Armenia = rest of old First Armenia + part of Pontus Polemoniacus (Comana, Zela and Brisa).

(3) Third Armenia = old Second Armenia.

(4) Fourth Armenia = Sophanene, district beyond Euphrates, east of Third Armenia (capital, Martyropolis). 2

The rest of Pontus Polemoniacus was united with the old Helenopontus to form a new Helenopontus under a governor with the title of moderator. Similarly Honorias and the old Paphlagonia were united into a new Paphlagonia under a praetor.

The Armenian provinces were reorganised and the nomenclature changed by Maurice, in consequence of the cessions made by Chosroes II. on his accession.

(1) Maurice’s First Armenia = Justinian’s Third Armenia.

(2) Maurice’s Second Armenia = Justinian’s Second Armenia.

(3) Maurice’s Great Armenia = Justinian’s First Armenia. 3

(4) Maurice’s Fourth includes the districts of Sophene, Digisene, Anzitene, Orzianine, Muzuron.

(5) Maurice’s Mesopotamia includes Justinian’s Fourth Armenia + Arzanene.

See the Descriptio of George the Cypriote (c. 600 AD ), ed. Gelzer, p. 46-49, and Gelzer’s preface, p. l. and p. lix.-lxi., where the notices of Armenian writers are reviewed. The territories handed over to Maurice by Chosroes were (1) Arzanene and the northern part of Mesopotamia (including Daras) as far as Nisibis, and (2) part of Armenia, as far as Dovin. The former districts were added to Justinian’s Fourth Armenia, and the whole province named Mesopotamia; the latter were formed into a new Fourth Armenia. Thus the cities of Nisibis in the south, and Dovin in the north, were just outside the Roman frontiers.

5.: THE RACE OF HERACLIUS AND NICETAS — ( P. 85 , 86 )

The story of the friendly race for empire between Heraclius and Nicetas did not awaken the scepticism of Gibbon. It rests on the authority of Nicephorus (p. 3, ed. de Boor) and Theophanes ( sub ann. 6101, p. 297, ed. de Boor), who doubtless derived it from the same source. On political grounds, the story seems improbable, but the geographical implications compel us to reject it as a legend. The story requires us to believe that Nicetas, starting from Carthage at the same time as Heraclius and marching overland, had the smallest chance of reaching Constantinople before his competitor’s fleet.

There can be no doubt, I think, that the elevation of Nicetas was not contemplated by the two fathers — if it were not as an “understudy” to Heraclius in case anything befell him. The part assigned to Nicetas in the enterprise was not to race Heraclius, but to occupy Egypt, and then to support Heraclius so far as was necessary; and doubtless Nicetas started to perform his work before Heraclius put forth to sea. The possession of Egypt, the granary of the Empire, was of the utmost importance for a pretender to the throne; and its occupation was probably the first care of the African generals.

In this connection it seems to me that a notice of Sebaeos deserves attention. This historian states that “the general Heraclius revolted against Phocas, with his army, in the regions of Alexandria, and wresting Egypt from him reigned therein” (c. 21, p. 79-80 in Patkanian’s Russ. tr.); and the order of his narrative seems to place this event considerably before the overthrow of Phocas. The statement of course is not strictly correct; Sebaeos himself probably did not distinguish the elder from the younger Heraclius; but the fact that Egypt was occupied (by Nicetas) at the instance of the elder Heraclius, seems to be preserved in this notice, uncontaminated by the legend of the race for the diadem.

6.: PERSIAN KINGS FROM CHOSROES I. TO YEZDEGERD III. — ( P. 11 )

(See Nöldeke, Tabari, p. 433-5)

Chosroes I. Anōsharvān	succeeds	ad 531, Sept. 13.
Hormizd IV.	succeeds	ad 579, Febr.
Chosroes II. Parvēz	succeeds	ad 590, summer.
Chosroes II. Parvēz	dies	ad 628, Febr.
[Bahrām VI.	succeeds	ad 590, autumn.]
Kobad (Kavādh) II. (Shērōe)	succeeds	ad 628, Febr. 25.
Ardashīr III.	succeeds	ad 628, Sept.
Shahrbarāz	succeeds	ad 630, April 27.
Bōrān (queen)	succeeds	ad 630, summer.
Pērōz II.	succeeds	ad 631.
Azarmidocht	succeeds	ad 631 (?).
Hormizd V.	succeeds	ad 631.
Yezdegerd III.	succeeds	ad 632-3.
Yezdegerd III.	dies	ad 651-2.

7.: THE INSCRIPTION OF SI-NGAN-FU — ( P. 190 )

Gibbon showed his critical perspicacity when he accepted as genuine the famous Nestorian inscription of Si-ngan-fu, which was rejected by the scepticism of Voltaire and has been more recently denounced as a forgery by Stanislas Julien, Renan, and others. All competent specialists, both European and Chinese, now recognise it as a genuine document of the eighth century; and indeed it is impossible to believe that Alvarez Semedo, the Jesuit missionary who first announced the discovery of the stone, or any one else in the seventeenth century, could have composed this remarkable text. The stone was found at Si-ngan-fu, the old capital of the Tang dynasty, in AD 1623 or 1625. The Chinese inscription is surmounted by a cross (of the Maltese shape). Besides the Chinese text, there are some lines of Syriac at the side and at the foot; and the seventy signatures are given in both idioms. The first attempts at translation were those of Athanasius Kircher in his works entitled: “Prodromus Coptus” (1636) and “China illustrata” (1667); and of Father Semedo. 1 There have been several improved translations in the present century. For the following summary, the versions of Huc (Le Christianisme en Chine, en Tartarie et au Thibet, two vols., 1857; in vol. i. chap. 2, p. 52 sqq. ); A. Wylie (in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. v. p. 277 sqq., 1856); J. Legge (in Christianity in China, 1888); and, above all, of MM. Lamy and Gueluy (Le monument chrétien de Si-ngan-fou, 1897) have been used. See also Pauthier, L’inscription Syro-Chinoise, and the summaries in Colonel Yule’s Cathay, vol. i. p. xcii. sqq. and in Mr. Raymond Beazley’s Dawn of Modern Geography, p. 169 sqq.

The title at the head of the inscription is: —

“Stone-tablet touching the propagation of the luminous religion of Ta-tsin in the Middle Empire, with a preface; composed by King-tsing, a monk of the temple of Ta-tsin.”

The Chinese text may be divided into two parts: an exposition of the doctrines of Christianity, and an historical account of the introduction of the religion into China and its propagation there.

1. The nature of the divine Being — the admirable person of the Trinity, the absolute lord, Oloho [ i.e. Eloha, Syriac for God] — is set forth; then the work of Sa-tan in propagating heresies, whereof the tale is three hundred and sixty-five; and then the coming of the Mi-chi-lo [Messiah], who is the “other himself of the Trinity,” 2 born of a virgin in Ta-tsin [Syria] through the influence of the Holy Spirit.

2. In the days of the Emperor Tai-tsung, there came from Ta-tsin the Most virtuous Alopen (or Olopan), 3 who was clothed with the qualities of the blue clouds, 4 and possessed the true sacred books. In AD 635 he arrived at Chang-ngan [ i.e. Si-ngan-fu]. The Emperor sent his chief minister, Fang-Huen-Ling, who conducted the western guest into the palace. The sacred books which the missionary brought were translated in the Imperial library; and the sovereign gave orders for the diffusion of the doctrine, by which he was deeply impressed. In AD 638 he issued a proclamation to the following effect: —

“Religion has no invariable name, religious observances have no invariable rites; doctrines are established in accordance with the country. Alopen, of the kingdom of Ta-tsin, has brought his sacred books and images from that distant part, and has presented them at our court. Having examined the principles of this religion, we find its object to be the admirable Empyrean and its mysterious action; investigating its original source, we find it expresses the sum of the perfect life.” The Emperor then applies to the new doctrine a quotation from a Chinese classic; and concludes with the command that a Syrian Church should be built in the capital, at E-Ning-fang, and be governed by twenty-one priests.

Then follows a description of Ta-tsin or the Roman Empire, thus given by Hirth: 5 —

“According to the Hsi-yü-t‘u-chi and the historical records of the Hun and Wei dynasties, the country of Ta-ts‘in begins in the south at the Coral Sea [Red Sea], and extends in the north to the Chung-pan-shan [hills of precious stones]; it looks in the west to the ‘region of the immortals’ and ‘the flowery groves’; 6 in the east it bounds on ‘the long winds’ and ‘the weak water.’ 7 This country produces fire-proof cloth, the life-restoring incense; the ming-yüeh-chu [moonshine pearl]; and the yeh-kuang-pi [jewel that shines at night]. 8 Robberies are unknown there, and the people enjoy peace and happiness. Only the king [‘luminous’ = Christian] religion is practised; only virtuous rulers occupy the throne. This country is vast in extent; its literature is flourishing.” 9

There is a panegyric of the Roman Empire!

The Emperor Kao-tsung (650-683) succeeded and was still more beneficent towards Christianity. Every city was full of churches. Then “in AD 699 the Buddhists [the children of Che] gaining power raised their voices in the eastern metropolis”; and in AD 713 there was an agitation of Confucianists against Christianity in the western capital. The religion revived under Hiwan-tsung (714-755); the “image of perfection of the five” (which M. Gueluy explains as the quintessence of absolute power) was placed in the church ( AD 742). This Emperor established a convent called the Palace of Progress, in which the monks of Ta-tsin were confounded with other ascetics. The patronage of Christianity by the succeeding emperors, Su-tsung (756-762), Tai-tsung (763-777), and Kien-chung (780-783) is then described, and the minister Izdbuzid, governor of a district in Kan-su, who was gracious to the Church although a Buddhist.

After this, follows a metrical summary of the purport of the inscription, and then the date of the inscription: “This stone was erected in the second year of Kien-chung of the great Tang dynasty, in the Tso-yo of the cycle of years, in the month Tai-tsu, on the seventh day [ i.e. Sunday], the day of the great Hosannas.” The Sunday of the Great Hosannas meant, in the language of eastern Christians, Palm Sunday; and thus the date is precisely fixed to AD 781, April 8. 10 The name of Ning-chu, i.e. Hanan Jesus the Catholic patriarch of the Nestorians, is added, and the name of the scribe who drew up the document.

On the left of the monument are two lines of Syriac, which run: —

“In the days of the father of fathers, Mar Hanan Jesus [John Joshua], Catholic patriarch;

Adam, priest and chorepiscopos and papashi of Tzinistan [China].”

There is another Syriac inscription at the foot: —

“In the year 1092 of the Greeks, Mar Izdbuzid, 11 Priest and chorepiscopos of Kumdan [that is, Si-ngan-fu], the royal city, son of Milis [Meletius] of blessed memory, priest of Balkh, city of Tokharistan, erected this tablet of stone, where is inscribed the life of our Saviour and the preaching of our fathers to the king of the Chinese.”

There follow the names of signatories in Syriac and Chinese.

Hanan Jesus was the Catholic Patriarch of the Nestorian Church from 775 to 780, as Lamy has proved from the Syrian historian, Elias of Nisibis. His successor Timotheus was appointed on April 11, 780, so that he was dead a year before the erection of the Chinese inscription. Thus a year had elapsed, and the news of his death had not yet reached Si-ngan-fu from Seleucia: a fact which shows at what rate news travelled then in central Asia. Catholic Patriarch was the title of the chief of the Nestorians since the end of the 6th century; in the 5th century the title had been simply Catholic. 12

The stone of Si-ngan-fu is supposed to have been buried about AD 845, when Wu-tsung issued an edict, aimed at Buddhist and other monks, enjoining the destruction of monasteries, and commanding foreigners who had come from Muhupa 13 or from Ta-tsin to cease corrupting China and return to secular life. In the following century Christianity was almost extinct in China.

8.: THE LETTER OF NICETIUS TO JUSTINIAN — (P. 177)

The extant letter of Nicetius, Bishop of Trèves, to Justinian, of which Gibbon translates a passage, has been generally explained as referring to the Aphthartodocetic heresy which the emperor adopted shortly before the close of his reign. The meaning of the letter I must leave to theologians; but, without venturing to intrude on subtleties which, to adopt Gibbon’s phrase, must be retained in the memory rather than in the understanding, I may express my opinion that there is much force in the view of Rev. W. H. Hutton, who argues in his Lectures on the Church in the Sixth Century (1897), that the letter does not seem to touch upon the incorruptibility of Christ’s body, but to be concerned with some other heresy.

Mr. Hutton maintains a theory (which had been promulgated by Crackanthorpe at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and controverted by Hody towards the end of the same century), that Justinian never fell into the Aphthartodocetic heresy. He is compelled to reject the distinct evidence of contemporary writers (cp. above, p. 177, n. 101); and he rests his case, which he has defended with great ability, on the high character for orthodoxy borne by Justinian and his theological learning, and on the fact that his memory was not condemned by the Church. But the direct evidence is too strong, whatever opinion be held either of the sincerity of Justinian in theological matters, or as to the psychological probability of a theologian of seventy or eighty years of age lapsing into a christological heresy. As the edict was never issued, the Church was not called on to condemn him.

9.: PERIODS OF THE LATER EMPIRE, ad 610 TO ad 1204 — ( CH. XLVIII .)

Many readers of the xlviiith chapter, having travelled over the long series of the later Emperors through a period of six hundred years, may come away with a bewildered feeling of having seen much and distinguished little, and with a conviction that it would require an arduous effort of the memory to retain the succession of the princes and the association of each with his own acts. The memory, however, will find the task considerably alleviated, when the whole period is divided into certain lesser periods into which it naturally falls; and it might have been well if Gibbon had added to his lucid exposition of the plan of his own work (in the introduction to this chapter) a brief survey of the six hundred years, according to its divisions. These divisions roughly correspond to dynasties.

(1) Heraclian Dynasty. Seventh century. AD 610-717.

In this period the Empire declines in power, and the boundaries retreat, through the encroachments of the Saracen and Slavonic invaders. It ends with twenty years of anarchy ( AD 695-717): Justinian II. being overthrown; followed by two tyrants; restored again to power; killed; and followed by three tyrants.

(2) Iconoclastic Period. Eighth and ninth centuries. AD 717-867.

This is the period of revival The territorial extent of the Empire is still further reduced, but, within its diminished borders, between the Haemus and the Taurus, it is consolidated and renovated. This is mainly the work of the two great Emperors Leo III. and his son Constantine V. (717-775). On the principle of dynastic division, this period falls into three parts: —

( a ) Syrian (commonly called Isaurian) Dynasty. AD 717-802.

( b ) Three Emperors who did not found dynasties. AD 802-820.

( c ) Amorian Dynasty. AD 820-867.

But it may be more usefully divided into two parts, representing the two triumphs and defeats of iconoclasm.

( a ) AD 717-813. Doctrine of iconoclasm established under the first three Emperors (717-780); reaction against it, and restoration of images, under Irene and Constantine (780-802).

The following Emperor (Nicephorus) is indifferent, and his successor (Michael I.) is an image-worshipper.

( b ) AD 813-867. Iconoclasm re-established by three Emperors (813-842); reaction against it, and restoration of images, under Theodora and Michael III. (842-867). Thus the history of iconoclasm in the ninth century is a replica of its history in the eighth; and observe that in both cases the reaction was carried out under a female sovereign.

(3) Basilian, or Armenian (“Macedonian”), Dynasty. AD 867-1057.

This period is marked by a reaction against the policy of the Iconoclasts (cp. Appendix 10), and by a remarkable territorial expansion, rendered possible by the consolidation which had been the work of the great Iconoclasts. We may conveniently distinguish three sub-periods: ( a ) AD 867-959, marked by great legislative activity, and some attempts to recover lost provinces — successful only in Italy; ( b ) AD 959-1025, marked by large acquisitions of long-lost territory, both in Asia and Europe; ( c ) AD 1025-1057, stationary.

The succession of these three periods of decline, renovation, and expansion, is illustrated by an exact parallel in the succession of three corresponding but shorter periods, in the fifth and sixth centuries. There we see the decline and territorial diminution of the Empire, in the reigns of Arcadius and Theodosius II., under the stress of the Gothic and Hunnic invasions; the renovation, with financial retrenchment, under Zeno and Anastasius; the brilliant territorial expansion, under Justinian, rendered possible by the careful policy of his predecessors. It is also remarkable that the third period in both cycles is marked by great legislative activity. Further, the last part of the Basilian period ( AD 1025-1057) corresponds to the reigns of Justin II., Tiberius II., and Maurice.

(4) Comnenian Dynasty. AD 1057-1204.

At the very beginning of this period, the Empire, undermined by centuries of a pernicious economic system and strained to the utmost by the ambitious policy of the Basilian period, yields to the invasion of the Seljuk Turks and loses territory which it had never lost before. A series of able, nay, brilliant, princes preserve the fabric for another century and a quarter; but, when it passes into the hands of the incapable Angeli, it collapses at the first touch ( AD 1204).

This period of decline, following on the period of expansion, corresponds to the earlier period of decline in the 7th century, following on the expansion of the 6th. The Persian invasion under Phocas and Heraclius corresponds to the Seljuk invasion under Romanus Diogenes; while Heraclius, Constans II., and Constantine IV. correspond to Alexius, John, and Manuel: we have even a parallel to the wayward Justinian II. in the wayward Andronicus.

The two cycles might be presented thus: —

Revival:	Second half of 5th century.	8th century.
Expansion:	6th century.	9th-11th century.
Decline:	7th century.	11th-12th century.
Result:	Anarchy, c. ad 700.	Fall, c. ad 1200.

10.: A CHRONOLOGICAL QUESTION OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY — ( P. 234 , 236 )

From the year AD 726 to the year AD 774 there is a consistent inconsistency in the dates of the chronicle of Theophanes. The Anni Mundi and the Indictions do not correspond. Thus A.M. 6220 is equated with Ind. 12; but while A.M. 6220 answers to AD 727-8, Ind. 12 should answer to AD 728-9. It has been generally assumed that the Indications are right and the Anni Mundi wrong; and the received chronology (of Baronius, Pagi, Gibbon, Lebeau, Muralt, Finlay, Hopf, c. c.) is based on this assumption. But it was pointed out (Bury, Later Roman Empire, ii. 425-7) that the anomaly was not due to an error of Theophanes (of the same kind as that which he perpetrated in his annals of the preceding century, see above, Appendix 1), since a contemporary document (the Ecloga of Leo and Constantine) presents the same inconsistency; and that we must infer that the Anni Mundi are right and the Indictions wrong. For, while the Anni Mundi represented a chronological system based on historical data, with which the government could not conceivably have tampered, the Indictions were part of a financial system which might be manipulated by the Emperor. The conclusion was drawn (Bury, ib. ) that Leo III. had packed two indictions into one year of twelve months, for the purpose of raising a double capitation tax; and that, nearly fifty years later, Constantine V. spread one indiction over two years of twelve months ( AD 772-4), so restoring the correspondence between Anni Mundi and Indictions according to the previous method of computation. This reasoning was confirmed especially by one fact (Bury, op. cit. p. 426) — the eclipse of the sun noticed by Theophanes under A.M. 6252, on Friday, Aug. 15, clearly the annular eclipse of AD 760 on that day of the month and week. The received chronology would imply that the eclipse took place in AD 761, Aug. 15; but astronomy assures us that there was no eclipse on that day, nor was that day Friday.

It follows that the dates of forty-seven years in the 8th century (from 726-7 to 773-4) are a year wrong. Thus Leo III. died, not in 741, but in 740; the Iconoclastic Synod was held, not in 754, but in 753.

These conclusions have been recently confirmed and developed by M. H. Hubert (Chronologie de Théophane, in Byz. Zeitschrift, vi. p. 491 sqq., 1897), who has gone through the Papal acts and letters of the period. He points out two important consequences of the revised dating. While the Iconoclastic Council of Constantinople was sitting, there were deputies of the Pope in that city, — though not necessarily as his representatives at the Council. More important still is the circumstance that the Council preceded the journey of Pope Stephen II. (in 754) to the court of Pippin and the famous compact which he concluded with the Frank king at Quiersy. The Council would thus appear to be the event which definitely decided the secession of Rome from the Empire.

(The chronological question dealt with in this Appendix has been since discussed by Mr. E. W. Brooks [in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, viii. p. 82 sqq., 1899; The Chronology of Theophanes, 607-775], who arrives at the conclusion that Theophanes has used two different schemes of chronology, and in the period under discussion dates sometimes by the one, sometimes by the other.)

11.: GRÆCO-ROMAN LAW — ( P. 261 )

The general history of Byzantine law, from Justinian to the fall of the Empire, may be grouped under two epochs easily remembered: the attempt of the first Iconoclastic Emperors to legislate on new Christian principles, and the return to the Roman principles of the Justinianean law by the first “Macedonian” sovereigns.

A word must first be said of the substitution of the Greek for the Latin language in the domain of law. The great legal works of the Illyrian Justinian were composed in Latin, his native tongue. But the fact that to the greater part of the Empire ruled by him, and a still greater part of the Empire ruled by his successors, Latin was unintelligible, rendered a change of vehicle simply inevitable. The work of transformation began in his own reign. He issued most of his later laws (the Novels) in Greek, and in Novel 7 (15, ed. Zach.) expressly recognises the necessity of using “the common Greek tongue”; Theophilus prepared a Greek paraphrase of the Institutes; and Dorotheus translated the Digest. The Code was also, immediately after its publication in Latin, issued (perhaps incompletely) in a Greek form. 1 After Justinian’s time the study of legal texts in Latin seems, at Constantinople and in the Greek part of the Empire, to have soon ceased altogether.

In the troubles of the 7th century the study of law, like many other things, declined; and in the practical administration of justice the prescriptions of the Code and Digest were often ignored, or modified by the alien precepts of Christianity. The religion of the Empire had exerted but very slight influence — no fundamental influence, we may say — on the Justinianean law. Leo III., the founder of the Syrian (vulgarly called Isaurian) dynasty, when he restored the Empire after a generation of anarchy, saw the necessity of legislation to meet the changed circumstances of the time. The settlements of foreigners — Slavs and Mardaites — in the provinces of the Empire created an agrarian question, which he dealt with in his Agrarian Code. The increase of Slavonic and Saracenic piracy demanded increased securities for maritime trade, and this was dealt with in a Navigation Code. But it was not only for special relations that Leo made laws; he legislated also, and in an entirely new way, for the general relations of life. He issued a law book (in AD 740 in the name of himself and his son Constantine), which changed and modified the Roman law, as it had been fixed by Justinian. This Ecloga, as it is called, may be described as a Christian law book. It is a deliberate attempt to change the legal system of the Empire by an application of Christian principles. Examples, to illustrate its tendency, will be given below.

The horror, in which the Iconoclasts were held on account of their heresy by the image-worshippers, cast discredit upon all their works. This feeling had something to do with the great reaction, which was inaugurated by Basil I., against their legal reforms. The Christian Code of Leo prevailed in the empire for less than a century and a half; and then, under the auspices of Basil, the Roman law of Justininan was (partially) restored. In legal activity the Basilian epoch faintly reflected the epoch of Justinian itself. A handbook of extracts from the Institutes, Digest, Code, and Novels was published in AD 879, entitled the Prochiron (or ὀ πρόχειρος νόμος), to diffuse a knowledge of the forgotten system. But the great achievement of the Basilian epoch is the Basilica — begun under Basil, completed under Leo VI. — a huge collection of all the laws of the Empire, not only those still valid, but those which had become obsolete. It seems that two commissions of experts were appointed to prepare the material for this work. One of these commissions compiled the Prochiron by the way, and planned out the Basilica in sixty Books. The other commission also prepared a handbook, called the Epanagoge, which was never actually published (though a sketch of the work is extant), and planned out the Basilica in forty Books. The Basilica, as actually published, are arranged in sixty Books, compiled from the materials prepared by both commissions.

The Basilian revival of Justinianean law was permanent; and it is oustide our purpose to follow the history further, except to note the importance of the foundation of a school of law at Constantinople in the 11th century by the Emperor Constantine IX. The law enacting the institution of this school, under the direction of a salaried Nomophylax, is extant. 2 John Xiphilin (see above) was the first director. This foundation may have possibly had some influence on the institution of the school at Bologna half a century later.

To illustrate the spirit of the legislation of Leo III., an attempt to reconcile the discrepancies between civil and canonical law, we may glance at his enactments as to marriage, the patria potestas, and the guardianship of minors.

In the law of Justinian marriage had by no means the sacrosanct character which the Church assigned to it. Like all contracts, it could easily be dissolved at the pleasure of the contractors, and concubinage was legally recognised. The Ecloga enacted that a concubinate should be regarded as a marriage, thus legally abolishing the relation; and in this matter the Macedonian Emperors maintained the principle of the Iconoclasts; Leo VI. expressly asserting (Nov. 89) that there is no half-way state between the married and the unmarried.

Roman law had defined a number of hindrances to the contraction of marriage. The tendency of the Church, which regarded marriage as not an admirable thing in itself but only a concession to weakness, was to multiply hindrances. Justinian had forbidden marriages between Christians and Jews; the Ecloga recognises only marriages of Christians (and orthodox Christians are meant). 3 But the chief obstacles lay in degrees of relationship. Justinian’s Code forbade marriage between blood relatives in the direct line of ascent and descent, between brothers and sisters, and between uncle and niece, nephew and aunt. The Trullan synod of 692 extended the prohibition to first cousins; the Ecloga went further and forbade the marriage of second cousins (δισεξάδελϕοι). These prohibitions were preserved by the Macedonian Emperors, and it was generally recognised that marriages within the 6th degree were illegal. It was even regarded as a question whether marriages in the 7th degree were permissible. They were forbidden by the Church in the 11th century, and this decision was confirmed by the Emperor Manuel. A similar progress in strictness can be traced in the case of relationships by adoption, by marriage, and by baptismal sponsorship.

In Justinian’s law “consent” was enough for the legal contraction of a marriage, and further forms were necessary only so far as the dowry was concerned. But under the ecclesiastical influence need was felt of giving greater solemnity and publicity to the marriage contract, and the Iconoclasts prescribed a written form of contract to be filled up and signed by three witnesses, but permitted this to be dispensed with by very poor people, for whom it would be enough to obtain the blessing of the Church (εὐλογία) or join hands in the presence of friends. The legislation of the Macedonian Emperors maintained the spirit (though not the words) of the Ecloga, in so far as it prescribed public marriages with penalties.

And, if the Church made the contraction of marriage more solemn, it made divorce more difficult. It was here that there was the most striking opposition between the law of the Church and of the State, and here the tendency of the Iconoclastic legislation is most strikingly shown. The Church regards marriage as an indissoluble bond, and for a divorced person to marry again is adultery. On the other hand, Roman law, as accepted and interpreted by Justinian, laid down that no bond between human beings was indissoluble, and that separation of husband and wife was a private act, requiring no judicial permission. And persons who had thus separated could marry again. The only concession that Justinian made in the direction of the ecclesiastical view was his ordinance that persons who separated without a valid reason should be shut up in monasterics, — a measure which effectually hindered them from contracting a new marriage. The spirit of the Ecloga is apparent in its full acceptance of the ecclesiastical doctrine in this point — the indissolubility of marriage. Divorce is permitted only in four cases, and this as a concession to the weakness and wickedness of human nature. The Basilian legislation returned to the Justinianean doctrine, and the antinomy between the canon and the civil law survives to the present day in Greece.

Another question arises when the dissolution of marriage is due to the hand of death; is it lawful for the survivor to enter again into the state of matrimony? More than once this question assumed political significance in the course of Imperial history. The Church always looked upon the marriage of widowers or widows as reprehensible, founding her doctrine on the well-known prescriptions of St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians, chap. vii. A second marriage might be tolerated, but a third was distinctly unlawful, and a fourth — swinishness (so Gregory Nazianzen; see Zachariä, Gr.-rom. Recht, p. 82, note 200). The civil law recognised no such restrictions, and only interfered so far as to protect the interests of the children of the first marriage. But here the ecclesiastical view gained ground. The Ecloga affects not to consider a third marriage conceivable; the Empress Irene distinctly forbade a third marriage. Basil contented himself with recognising the ecclesiastical penalties imposed on persons guilty of a third marriage, but declared a fourth illegal. His son Leo committed this illegality (see above, p. 263); but after Leo’s death the “act of unity” (τόμος τη̂ς ἐνώσεως) of the synod of AD 920 confirmed the ordinance of Basil, with the additional restriction that a third marriage of a person who had children and was over forty years of age was illegal.

The influence of the ecclesiastical view of marriage as a consortium vitae can be seen too in the treatment of the property of the married partners. In the Justinianean law, the principle of the elaborate prescriptions for the property of the wife and the husband, for the dos and the propter nuptias donatio, is the independence and distinction of the property of each. The leading idea of the system developed in the Ecloga is the community of property in marriage, — the equal right of each partner to the common stock, however great the disproportion may have been before the contributions of each. Basil returned to the Justinianean system, but the doctrine of the Ecloga seems to have so firmly established itself in custom that Leo VI. found it necessary to make a compromise, and introduced a new system, which was a mixture of the Iconoclastic and the Justinianean doctrines.

The patria potestas still holds an important place in the Justinianean law, although the rights which it gave the father over the children were small indeed compared with the absolute control which he had enjoyed in ancient times. The tendency was to diminish these rights and to modify the stern conception of patria potestas by substituting the conception of a natural guardianship; a change corresponding to the change (promoted by Christianity) in the conception of the family, as held together by the duties of affection rather than by legal obligations. The two most important points in the later transformation of the patria potestas were (1) its conversion into a parental potestas, the mother being recognised as having the same rights and duties as the father (thus her consent as well as the father’s is necessary for the contraction of a marriage); and (2) the increased facilities for emancipation when the child came to years of discretion; emancipation seems to have been effected by the act of setting up a separate establishment. These principles were established by the Iconoclasts; but Basil revived the Justinianean legislation. Here, however, as in many other cases, the letter of Basil’s law books was not fully adopted in practice, and was modified by a Novel of Leo VI. which restored partly the law of the Ecloga.

In respect to the guardianship of minors the tendency in the later civil law had been to supersede the tutela by the cura — the tutor who was appointed in the interests of the family by the curator appointed in the interests of the public. The office of guardian came to be regarded as a public office for the good of the ward. Yet the old distinction of cura and tutela still subsisted in the Justinianean law books, though in use it was practically obsolete. The Ecloga logically developed this tendency; here tutela does not appear at all, only cura (κουρατωρεία). And, as on the death of one parent the children were under the care of the surviving parent, there was no question of guardianship except in the case of orphans. The Ecloga provides — and here we see the ecclesiastical influence — that, when the parents have not designated a guardian, the guardianship of orphans is to devolve on ecclesiastical institutions ( e.g. the ὀρϕανοτροϕεɩ̂ον at Constantinople), and to last until the wards marry or reach the age of twenty. Here again the Basilica returned to the Justinianean law.

These examples will give some idea of the general character of the development of Byzantine civil law. Two interesting points may be added in connection with the law of inheritance. Constantine VII. enacted 4 that if any one died intestate and childless, only two thirds of his property went to relatives (or the fisc), the remaining third going to the Church for his soul’s benefit. The other point is the institution of testamentary executors, for so we may best translate the word ἐπίτροποι in its Byzantine use. 5 The institution was but incompletely developed, and ultimately fell into disuse, but Zachariä remarks that Byzantine law was “on the highway to an institution similar to the English trustees, executors, and administrators. ” 6

In criminal, as in civil law, the Iconoclastic legislators made striking innovations in the Justinianean system — sometimes entirely departing from it, sometimes developing tendencies which were already distinctly perceptible in the civil code of the 6th century. But, whereas in the case of the civil law the Basilian legislation was characterised as a return to the Justinianean system — a return sometimes complete, sometimes partial, but always tending to subvert, so far as possible, the Iconoclastic legislation, — it is quite otherwise in the case of the criminal law. Here, the system established by the Ecloga is retained in most cases, and sometimes developed further.

The criminal law of the Ecloga is very remarkable. It was intended to be, and professed to be, more humane than the old Roman law; but a modern reader is at first disposed to denounce it as horribly barbaric. Its distinguishing feature is the use of mutilation as a mode of punishment — a penalty unknown in Roman law. The principle of mutilation was founded on Holy Scripture (see St. Matthew, v. 29, 30: If thine eye offend thee, c.). Since mutilation was generally ordained in cases where the penalty had formerly been death, the law-givers could certainly claim that their code was more lenient. The penalty of confiscation of property almost entirely disappears. The following table of penalties will exhibit the spirit of the Christian legislation: —

Perjury: amputation of the tongue (γλωσσοκοπεɩ̂σθαι).

High treason: death.

Theft: for the first offence: if solvent, payment of double the value of the thing stolen; if insolvent, flogging and banishment.

Theft: for the second offence: amputation of the hand.

Paederasty: death.

Bestiality: amputation of the offending member (καυλοκοπεɩ̂σθαι).

Fornication: —

 

(1) with persons within the forbidden degrees: amputation of the hand (for both); (2) when the act involves a further wrong, e.g.: — ( a ) with a nun (a wrong being done thereby to the Church): amputation of the nose (for both); ( b ) with a maiden: the man, if he refuses to marry her, pays a fine if he has property, but if he is penniless, is whipped, tonsured, and banished; ( c ) if the maiden was betrothed to another: amputation of the nose; ( d ) rape: amputation of the nose (and, if the victim was under thirteen years of age, the ravisher had to pay her half his property, besides losing his nose); ( e ) of a man with a married woman: amputation of the nose (for both); (3) ( a ) of a married man with an unmarried woman: whipping; ( b ) of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman: lighter whipping; but in these cases the women were not punished, according to the law of the Ecloga.

For murder the penalty was death. But, while the Justinianean law excluded murderers, ravishers, and adulterers from the asylum privileges secured to those who took refuge in churches, the Ecloga does not make this exception; and, though the enactments of the Basilica follow Justinian, practice seems in the meantime to have secured for murderers the right of asylum, which was definitely recognised by Constantine VII. A novel of this Emperor enacts that a murderer who takes refuge in a church shall do penance according to the canon law, shall then be banished for life from the place where the crime was perpetrated, shall become incapable of holding office; and, if the murder was committed with full premeditation, shall be tonsured and thrust into a monastery. His property shall be divided; one part going to the heirs of the murdered man, another to his own relatives, and in case he becomes a monk of his own free will, a portion shall be reserved for the monastic community which receives him.

This enactment must have enabled most murderers to escape the capital penalty.

In general we can see that the tendency of the Ecloga was to avoid capital punishment so far as possible, and this tendency increased as time went on. Gibbon mentions the fact that under John Comnenus capital punishment was never inflicted (the authority is Nicetas); but this must not be interpreted in the sense that the death penalty was formally abolished, but rather taken as a striking illustration of the tendency of the Byzantine spirit in that direction. We may question whether this tendency was due so much to the growth of feelings of humanity as to ecclesiastical motives, namely the active maintenance of the asylum privileges of Christian sanctuaries, and the doctrine of repentance. The mutilation punishments at least are discordant with our notions of humane legislation. Zachariä von Lingenthal expresses his opinion that the cruelties practised in modern times in the Balkan peninsula are traceable to the effect produced by the practice of the criminal code of the Ecloga throughout the Middle Ages.

Finally it is worth while to observe in the Ecloga a democratic feature, which marks a real advance, in the interests of justice, on the Justinianean code. The Ecloga metes out the same penalties to poor and rich; whereas the older law had constantly ordained different punishments for the same offence, according to the rank and fortune of the offender.

[Zachariä von Lingenthal, op. cit., on which (ed. 3, 1892) the foregoing account has been mainly based. The same jurist’s Jus Græco-Romanum, pars 3, contains the extant laws of the Emperors after Justinian (1857). Mortreuil, Hist. du droit byzantin, 3 vols. 1843-7. W. E. Heimbach, Griechisch-römisches Recht, in Ersch and Gruber’s Enzyklopädie, part 86. The Ecloga was edited by Zachariä von Lingenthal in 1852; there is a more recent edition by Monferratus (1889). — His edition of the Basilica in 6 vols. (1833-70) is the opus magnum of W. E. Heimbach.]

12.: THE LAND QUESTION — ( P. 265 )

In order to comprehend the land question, which comes prominently before us in the 10th century, it is necessary to understand the various ways in which land was held and the legal status of those who cultivated it. The subject has been elucidated by Zachariä von Lingenthal; but the scantiness of our sources leaves much still to be explained.

We have, in the first place, the simple distinction of the peasant proprietors who cultivated their own land, and the peasants who worked on lands which did not belong to them.

(1) The peasant proprietors (χωρɩ̂ται) lived in village communities. The community, as a whole, was taxed, each member paying his proportion, but the community, and not the individual, being responsible to the state. To use technical expressions, the lands of such communities are ὀμόκηνσα, and the proprietors are consortes. If one peasant failed to pay his quota, the deficiency was made up by an ἐπιβολή or additional imposition upon each of the other proprietors. This system, invented for the convenience of the fisc, was never done away with; but its injurious effects in overburdening the land were observed, and it probably was not always strictly enforced. When a piece of land went out of cultivation owing to the incompetence or ill-luck of its proprietor, it bore very hard on his neighbours that their more successful economy should be burdened with an extra charge. We consequently find the Emperor Nicephorus censured for insisting upon this principle of “solidarity” — the ἀλληλέγγυον as it was called. It seems, although we have not very clear evidence on this point, that the principle was now extended so as to impose the additional tax on neighbouring farms, which did not belong to the ὁμόκηνσα. Basil II. certainly imposed the extra charge on the domains of large neighbouring proprietors, whose lands were quite independent of the village community; but this unpopular measure — part of that Emperor’s warfare against large estates — was repealed by Romanus III.

Under this system of solidarity, each member of the community was directly interested in the honesty and capacity of his neighbours, and could fairly claim some right to interfere for the purpose of hindering any farm from passing into the hands of a person incapable of making it yield enough to pay his quota of taxation. This claim was recognised by Constantine the Great, and afterwards distinctly affirmed in laws of the 5th century which forbade the sale or alienation of a farm to any one except a farmer of the same village ( vicanus ). When in later times the fiscal responsibility was laid not upon the vicus, but upon the neighbours of the defaulting farm, the neighbours obtained a right of pre-emption; and in the 10th century the rights of pre-emption were strictly defined by a Novel 1 of Romanus I.

(2) Opposed to these groups of small farms and the peasant proprietors who cultivated them, were the large estates (ἰδιόστατα) of rich owners and the dependent coloni who tilled them. Many of these estates belonged to churches and abbeys; others were crown estates (part of the res privata, or the patrimonium, or the divina domus ); others were owned by private persons. The peasants who worked on these estates were of two kinds: —

( a ) Free tenants (μισθωτοί, liberi coloni ), who cultivated their holdings at their own expense, paying a rent (whether in gold or kind) to the proprietor. At the end of thirty years of such tenure, the tenant (and his posterity) became bound to the land in perpetuity; he could not give up his farm, and on the other hand the proprietor could not eject him. But except for this restriction he had no disabilities, and could enter into ordinary legal relations with the proprietor, who had no claims upon his private property.

( b ) The labourers (ἐναπόγραϕοι, adscriptitii ) were freemen like the tenants, and (like the tenants of over thirty years) were “fixed to the clod.” But their indigence distinguished them from the tenants; they were taken in by a proprietor to labour on his estate, and became his serfs, receiving from him a dwelling and board for their services. Their freedom gave these labourers one or two not very valuable privileges which seemed to raise them above the rural slaves; but we sympathise with Justinian when he found it hard to see the difference between servi and adscriptitii. 2 For good or bad, they were in their master’s power, and the only hold they had on him was the right of not being turned off from his estate. The difference between the rural slave and the serf, which secmed to Justinian microscopic, was gradually obliterated by the elevation of the former class to the dignity of the latter.

As to the origin of the adscriptitii, it seems to have been due to the financial policy of the Constantinian period, which aimed at allowing no man to abandon the state of life to which he or his father before him had been called.

Such were the agricultural classes in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries — peasant proprietors on one hand, and on the other the cultivators of great estates, whether tenants bound to the soil or serf-labourers. And these classes continued to exist till the latest age of the Empire. If the Iconoclastic reformers had had their way, perhaps the history of the agricultural classes would have been widely different. The abolition of the principle which the first Christian Emperor had adopted, of nailing men to the clod, was part of the programme which was carried out by the Iconoclast Emperors and reversed by their successors.

The storms of the 7th century, the invasions of Slavs and Saracens, had made considerable changes in the condition of the provincial lands. The Illyric peninsula had been in many parts occupied by Slavonic settlers; in many cases the dispossessed provincials had fled to other parts of the Empire; and Emperors had transferred whole populations from one place to another, to replenish deserted districts. These changes rendered a revision of the land laws imperative; and, when an able sovereign at length came to the throne, he set himself the task of regulating the conditions of agriculture. The Agricultural Code (νόμος γεωργικός) was issued either by Leo III. or by his son, who worked in the same spirit as the father; it consists chiefly of police provisions in regard to rural crimes and misdemeanours, but it presumes a state of things completely different from that which existed in the 6th century and existed again in the 10th. In this Code no man is nailed to the clod, and we hear nothing of serf-labourers ( adscriptitii ) or of services owed by freemen to landlords. We cannot ascribe this radical change, the abolition of what we may call serfdom, to any other sovereign than the reformer Leo III.

The Agricultural Code shows us peasant proprietors in their village communities as before; but it shows us, too, — and here we get a glimpse of the new settlements of the barbarians — communities which own the land in common, no member possessing a particular portion as his own.

As for tenants — now fully free, no longer bound to the soil, — of these there are two classes, according to the agreement made with the landlord. There are the tithe-rent tenants, μορτɩ̂ται, and the métayer tenants, ἡμισειασταί. The μορτίτης paid a tenth of the produce to the landlord, as rent for the land. The ἡμισειαστής worked his farm at the landlord’s expense, and the produce was divided equally between landlord and tenant. (Thus the ground rent = 1/10 of the yearly yield; the interest on capital = 4/10; and the labour = 5/10.) The μορτίτης, then, corresponds to the μισθωτός or “free colon” of the Justinianean code, and the ἡμισειαστής corresponds to the ἐναπόγραϕος, in respect of the condition of tenancy; with the important difference that neither μορτίτης nor ἡμισειαστής is bound to the soil.

The abolition of serfdom and service of the Iconoclastic reformers was by no means agreeable to the great landlords, secular or ecclesiastical. Rich lords and abbots made common cause against the new system; and when the reaction came in the second half of the 9th century Basil’s legislation restored the old order of things. The tenants 3 were once more nailed to the soil. Among other things the landlords were not satisfied with the ground rent of 1/10, fixed in the Agricultural Code; it was insufficient, they said, to make the estate pay, when the taxation was allowed for.

The failure of the land reforms of Leo and Constantine, and the reversion to the old system, close the history of the tenants; but there still remains an important chapter in the history of the peasant proprietors. In the 10th century we find the large estates growing still larger at the expense of the small proprietors whose lands they absorb, and these small proprietors passing by degrees into the condition of tenants. This evil has been briefly touched upon in connection with Romanus I. and Tzimisces; see above, p. 265, n. 46, and p. 273, n. 57. The decline of the class of small farmers was due to two causes: the influence of the ascetic ideal and the defective economical conditions of the time.

The attraction of monastic life induced many proprietors to enter cloisters, and bestow their property on the communities which admitted them, or, if they were rich enough, to found new monastical or ecclesiastical institutions. The cultivation of the lands which thus passed to the church was thereby transferred from peasant proprietors to tenants.

The want of a sound credit system, due to the ignorance of political economy, and the consequent depression of trade, rendered land the only safe investment for capital; and the consequence of this was that landowners who possessed capital were always seeking to get more land into their hands. Hence they took every occasion that presented itself to induce their poor neighbours, who lived from hand to mouth and had no savings, to pledge or sell their land in a moment of need. The farmer who thus sold out would often become the tenant of the holding which had been his own property.

The increase of large estates was regarded by the government with suspicion and disapprobation. 4 The campaign against the great landlords was begun by Romanus I. in AD 922, when, in the law (already mentioned) which fixed the order of pre-emption, he forbade the magnates (οὶ δυνατοί) to buy or receive any land from smaller folk, except in the case of relationship. It was also enacted that only after a possession of ten years could a property acquired in this way become permanently the property of the magnate. But a few years later the magnates had an unusually favourable opportunity and could not resist the temptation of using it. There was a long succession of bad harvests and cold winters ( AD 927-932), which produced great distress throughout the country. The small farmers, brought to penury, standing on the brink of starvation, had no resource but to purchase bread for themselves and their families by making over their little farms to rich neighbours. For this was the only condition on which the magnates would give them credit. The distress of these years in the reign of Romanus formed an epoch in the history of peasant proprietorship. It was clear that the farmers who had pledged their land would have no chance of recovering themselves before the ten years, after which their land would be irreclaimable, had expired. The prospect was that the small farmer would wholly disappear, and Romanus attempted to forestall the catastrophe by direct legislation. His Novel of AD 934 (see above, p. 265) ordained that the unfair dealings with the peasants in the past years should be righted, and that for the future no such dealings should take place.

The succeeding Emperors followed up the policy of Romanus. They endeavoured to prevent the extinction of small farmers by prohibiting the rich from acquiring villages and farms from the poor, and even by prohibiting ecclesiastical institutions from receiving gifts of landed property. A series of seven laws 5 on this subject shows what stubborn resistance was offered to the Imperial policy by the rich landlords whose interests were endangered. Though this legislation was never repealed, except so far as the Church was interested, 6 and though it continued to be the law of the Empire, that the rich landlords should not acquire the lands of peasants, there is little doubt that the law was evaded, and that in the last ages of the Empire peasant farms were rare indeed. In the 11th century Asia Minor consisted chiefly of large domains.

It must be remembered that, though the formation of these large estates gave their proprietors wealth and power which rendered them dangerous subjects, they were formed not with the motive of acquiring political influence, but from the natural tendency of capital to seek the best mode of investment.

In studying the Imperial land legislation and the relations of landlord and tenant in South-eastern Europe and Asia Minor, it is of essential importance for a modern student to bear in mind two facts which powerfully affected that development in a manner which is almost inconceivable to those who are familiar with the land questions in modern states. These facts — both of which were due to the economical inexperience of ancient and mediaeval Europe — are: (1) the legislation was entirely based on fiscal considerations; the laws were directly aimed at filling the treasury with as little inconvenience and trouble as possible on the part of the state: the short-sighted policy of making the treasury full instead of making the Empire rich; (2) the lamentably defective credit-system of the Roman law, discouraging the investment of capital and rendering land almost the only safe speculation, reacted, as we have seen, in a peculiar way on the land question. Something more is said of this economical weakness in the later Empire in the following note.

13.: INTEREST, CREDIT, AND COMMERCE — (THE RHODIAN CODE)

1. The interest on a loan of money was fixed by the two parties to the transaction, but could not, according to a law of Justinian, exceed ( a ) in ordinary cases, 6 per cent. per annum, ( b ) when the lender was a person of illustrious rank, 4 per cent., ( c ) when the lender was a professional money-changer or merchant, 8 per cent., ( d ) when the money was to be employed in a transmarine speculation, 12 per cent. ( nauticum fænus ).

This system of interest was calculated on the basis of a division of the capital into 100 parts, and each part into 12 unciæ. The new coinage, introduced by Constantine, led to a change in the rate of interest, to the disadvantage of the borrower. Seventy-two nomismata were coined to a pound of gold, and 24 keratia went to each nomisma. The practice was introduced of calculating the annual interest by so many keratia to a nomisma, instead of the monthly interest by the fraction of the capital. Thus the old trientes (= ⅓ of 1/100 of the capital per month) = 4 per cent. per annum was replaced by 1 keration per 1 nomisma per annum = 4⅙ per cent. per annum. Similarly 6 per cent. became 6¼, 8 per cent. 8⅓.

In the 10th century the adjustment of the old unit of 100 to the new unit of 72 went farther, to the disadvantage of the borrower. Six per cent. was converted into 6 nomismata per pound, i.e. per 72 nomismata; or in other words, where 6 per cent. had been paid before, 8.33 was paid now. (So 11.11 replaced 8, and 5.55 replaced 4 per cent.) There was thus a considerable elevation of the legal maxima of interest.

2. The free circulation of capital was seriously impeded by the difficulty in obtaining good securities. The laws respecting mortgage were not calculated to secure the interests of the creditor; and it is significant that in the Ecloga no notice is taken of either mortgage or personal security. Another hindrance to credit was the defectiveness of the mode of proceedings 1 open to a creditor for recovering his money from a defaulting debtor.

The defects of the credit-system of the Empire could not fail to react unfavourably on commerce; and the consequence ultimately was that the trade, which ought to have been carried on by the Greeks of Constantinople and the towns of the Aegean, fell into the hands of Italians. The settlements of Venetian and Genoese merchants in the East were due largely to the defects of the Imperial legislation.

On the condition of Greek commerce in the 8th century we have some slight information from the “Rhodian Nautical Code,” published by the Iconoclast Emperors. 2 From this we learn that at this period it was not usual for a merchant to hire a ship and load it with his own freight, but a merchant and a shipowner used to form a joint-stock company and divide the profit and loss. All accidental injuries befalling ship or cargo were to be borne in common by skipper, merchant, and passengers. It has been remarked that these regulations point to the depression of maritime commerce, easily explained by the fact that from the 7th century forward the Aegean and Mediterranean were infested by Slavonic and Saracen pirates. In such risky conditions men did not care to embark on sea ventures, except in partnership. Although the nautical legislation of the Iconoclasts was not accepted in the Basilica, it seems that it continued to prevail in practice.

It is interesting to observe that a man with a small capital (c. £300 to £1000) could purchase, if he chose, a life-annuity, with a title into the bargain. Certainly titular dignities (even the high title of protospathar) were for sale, and an extra payment entitled the dignitary to a yearly salary (called ῤόγα), which brought him in 10 per cent. on his outlay.

There were also a number of minor posts at the Imperial court, with salaries attached, and these could be purchased outright, the purchasers being able to sell them again or leave them to their heirs. These investments produced about 2½ per cent. It is presumable, however, that there was some limit to the number of these posts, and that, although practically sinecures, they could be assigned only to residents at Constantinople.

These two institutions present the only analogy to a national debt in the Eastern Empire.

Cp. Zachariä von Lingenthal, op. cit. p. 300.

14.: THE LETTERS OF GREGORY II. TO THE EMPEROR LEO — ( P. 326 )

It is incorrect to say that “the two epistles of Gregory II. have been preserved in the Acts of the Nicene Council.” In modern collections of the Acts of Ecclesiastical Councils, they have been printed at the end of the Acts of the Second Nicene Council. But they first came to light at the end of the 16th century and were printed for the first time in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, who had obtained them from Fronton le Duc. This scholar had copied the text from a Greek MS. at Rheims. Since then other MSS. have been found, the earliest belonging to the 11th, if not the 10th, century.

In another case we should say that the external evidence for the genuineness of the epistles was good. We know on the authority of Theophanes that Gregory wrote one or more letters to Leo (ἐπιστολὴν δογματικήν, sub A.M. 6172, δἰ ἐπιστολω̂ν, sub A.M. 6221); and we should have no external reasons to suspect copies dating from about 300 years later. But the omission of these letters in the Acts of the Nicene Council, though they are stated to have been read at the Council, introduces a shadow of suspicion. If they were preserved, how comes it that they were not preserved in the Acts of the Council, like the letter of Gregory to the Patriarch Germanus? There is no trace anywhere of the Latin originals.

Turning to the contents, we find enough to convert suspicion into a practical certainty that the documents are forgeries. This is the opinion of M. l’Abbé Duchesne (the editor of the Liber Pontificalis), M. L. Guérard (Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, p. 44 sqq., 1890), Mr. Hodgkin (Italy and her Invaders, vol. vi. p. 501 sqq. ). A false date (the beginning of Leo’s reign is placed in the 14th instead of the 15th indiction), and the false implication that the Imperial territory of the Ducatus Romæ terminated at twenty-four stadia, or three miles, from Rome, point to an author who was neither a contemporary of Leo nor a resident in Rome. But the insolent tone of the letters is enough to condemn them. Gregory II. would never have addressed to his sovereign the crude abuse with which these documents teem. Another objection (which I have never seen noticed) is that in the 1st Letter the famous image of Christ which was pulled down by Leo is stated to have been in the Chalkoprateia (bronzesmiths’ quarter), whereas, according to the trustworthy sources, it was above the Chalkê gate of the Palace.

Rejecting the letters on these grounds — which are supported by a number of smaller points — we get rid of the difficulty about a Lombard siege of Ravenna before AD 727: a siege which is not mentioned elsewhere and was doubtless created by the confused knowledge of the fabricator.

15.: THE ICONOCLASTIC EDICTS OF LEO III. — ( P. 319 , 320 )

Leo issued his first edict against the worship of images in AD 725, 1 and began actively to carry it into effect in the following year ( AD 726). 2

Gibbon (who is followed by Finlay) states that the first edict did not enjoin the removal of images, but only the elevation of them to such a height that they could not be kissed or touched by the faithful. He does not give the authority for this statement, but he derived it from Cardinal Baronius (Ann. Eccl. ix., ad. ann., 726, 5), who founded his assertion on a Latin translation of a Vita Stephani Junioris. This document is published in the edition of the Works of John of Damascus, by J. Billius (1603), and differs considerably from the Greek text (and Lat. transl.) published by Montfaucon in his Analecta Graeca towards the end of the same century. 3 The passage in question (p. 483 B) states that Leo, when he saw the strong opposition against his policy, withdrew from his position, changing about like a chameleon, and said that he only wished to have the pictures placed higher, so that no one should touch them with his mouth. It has been recognised that this notice cannot be accepted (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, iii. 347; Bury, Later Roman Empire, ii. 432; Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vi. 432; Schwarzlose, der Bilderstreit, p. 52 4 ). It is obviously inconsistent with the incident of the destruction of the image over the palace-gate, which happened immediately after the first edict (Theophanes, A.M. 6218). 5

In AD 727 there was a revolt in Greece, but this revolt was probably caused not entirely by the iconoclastic edict, but also by heavy taxation (see Bury, op. cit. ii. p. 437). In the same or the following year we must place the First Oration of John of Damascus on behalf of image-worship. 6 In the first month of AD 730 a silentium was held, the Patriarch Germanus who resisted Leo’s policy was deposed, and a new patriarch, Anastasius, elected in his stead. 7 In the same year the Second Oration of John of Damascus was published. The second edict was issued after the election of Anastasius, and probably differed from the first chiefly in the fact that the Imperial policy was now promulgated under the sanction of the head of the church in Constantinople. 8

Gibbon does not mention the fact that the chief ecclesiastical counsellor of Leo in the inauguration of the iconoclastic policy was Constantine, Bishop of Nacolia in Phrygia. For this prelate see the two letters of the Patriarch Germanus, preserved in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (Mansi, Conc. 13, 99 sqq. ).

16.: SOME QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE RISE OF THE PAPAL POWER IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY — ( P. 337 , 338 , 342 , 343, c .)

An enormous literature has grown up in connection with the policy of the bishops of Rome and the rise of the papal power in the 8th century, especially concerning (1) the secession of Italy from the Empire, (2) the relations of the Popes to the Frank monarchy, (3) the donations of Pippin and Charles, and the growth of the papal territory. It can hardly be said that any final or generally accepted conclusions have been attained; and here it must be enough to call attention to one or two points which may be regarded as certain.

The attitude of Gregory II. is misrepresented by Gibbon. Gregory, though he stoutly opposed Leo’s iconoclastic policy, did not arm against the Empire; and the disaffection in Italy, which led to the elevation of tyrants under his pontificate, was not due to the iconoclastic decrees, but to the heavy taxation which the Emperor imposed. 1 Gregory, so far from approving of the disaffection, saw that division in Imperial Italy would result in the extension of Lombard dominion, and discouraged the rebellion. 2 This is quite clear from the Liber Pontificalis, V. Greg. II. It was because there was no prospect of help from Constantinople that Gregory III. appealed to Charles Martel in AD 739 to protect the Duchy of Rome against Lombard attacks. But the final breach (not indeed intended at the time to be a final breach) with the Empire did not come till fifteen years later. The exarchate had fallen, and Rome was girt about by the Lombard power; but Pope Stephen would hardly have decided to throw himself entirely into the hands of the Frank king if the Council of Constantinople in AD 753 had not set a seal on the iconoclastic heresy. It was when the news of this Council reached Rome that the Pope went forth on his memorable visit to King Pippin. The revision of the chronology of the 8th century (see above, p. 429) places this visit in a new light. But even now the Pope did not intend to sever Italy from the Empire; the formal authority of the Emperor was still recognised. Pippin made over to the Church the lands which the Lombard king, Aistulf, was forced to surrender, but this bestowal was designated as a restitution — not to the Church, for the Church never possessed them, but to the Empire. This of course was only the formal aspect. Practically the Pope was independent of the Emperor; his position was guaranteed by the Franks. 3

The attempts to derive the territorial dominion of the Church from the patrimonies of St. Peter have been unsuccessful. 4 The Church as a territorial proprietor is an entirely different thing from the Church as a territorial sovereign. The possession of large estates, in Corsica for instance, might be urged as a reason for the acquisition of the rights of sovereignty; but there was a distinct and a long step from one position to the other. In the ducatus Romae the Pope possessed the powers of political sovereignty in the 8th century; we have no clear record how this position was won; but it was certainly not the result of the patrimony of St. Peter.

In regard to the donation of Pippin it may be regarded as certain that (1) a document was drawn up at Ponthion or Quiersy in AD 754, in which Pippin undertook to restore certain territories to Peter, 5 and (2) that Pippin did not promise the whole Exarchate and Pentapolis, but only a number of cities and districts, enumerated in the deed.

The fictitious constitution of Constantine the Great, making the Bishop of Rome secular lord of Rome and the west, was drawn up under Pope Paul I. not long after the donation of Pippin. But it is not certain that it was drawn up with the deep design of serving those ends which it was afterwards used to serve; it may have been intended merely to formulate a pious legend. 6

In regard to the sending of the keys of St. Peter to Charles Martel in AD 739 and to Charles the Great in AD 796 there can be no question that Sickel is right in denying that this was a “pledge or symbol of sovereignty,” as Gibbon says, or of a protectorate. If it were a symbol transferring to the Frank king any rights of sovereignty it would have involved the transference of that which the keys opened. Thus the presentation of the keys of Rome would have made the king lord of the city. And if the presentation of the keys of the tomb of St. Peter had any secular meaning, it could only be that the Pope alienated the tomb from his own possession and made the king its proprietor. The act must have had a purely religious import — the mere bestowal of a relic, intended to augment the interests of the kings in the Holy See. Gregory I. had long ago given a key of the famous sepulchre as a sort of relic (Mansi, Conc. 13, p. 804). See Sickel, op. cit. p. 851-3.

[Some recent literature: Friedrich, die Constantinische Schenkung, 1889; Kehr, op. cit., and art. in Sybel’s Hist., Zeitsch., 1893, 70, p. 388 sqq.; Schaube, ib., 1894, 72, p. 193 sqq.; Schnürer, Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates, 1894; Sickel, op. cit., and article in Deutsche Zeitsch. für Geschichtswissenschaft, 11, 12, 1894; Sackur, in the Mitteilungen des Inst. für oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung, 16, 1896; T. Lindner, Die sog. Schenkungen Pippins, Karls des grossen und Ottos I. an die Päpste, 1896. See also Oelsner’s Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reiches unter K. Pippin, and Simson’s Jahrb. d. fr. R. unter Karl dem grossen; Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, Eng. tr., vol. ii.; the notes in Duchesne’s Liber Pontificalis; Duchesne, Les premiers temps de l’Etat pontifical in the Rev. d’hist. et de litt. religieuses, i. (in three parts), 1896; Döllinger, Die Pabstfabeln des Mittelalters (Gregory II. und Leo III., p. 151 sqq.; Die Schenkung Constantius, p. 61 sqq. ).]

Since this was written I have received from M. H. Hubert an important study: Etude sur la formation des états de l’église; les papes Grégoire II., Grégoire III., Zacharie et Etienne II., et leurs relations avec les empereurs iconoclastes (726-757). Published in the Revue historique, lxix., 1899.

1

See the family of Justin and Justinian in the Familiæ Byzantinæ of Ducange, p. 89-101. The devout civilians, Ludewig (in Vit. Justinian. p. 131) and Heineccius (Hist. Juris Roman. p. 374), have since illustrated the genealogy of their favourite prince.

2

In the story of Justin’s elevation I have translated into simple and concise prose the eight hundred verses of the two first books of Corippus, de Laudibus Justini, Appendix Hist. Byzant. p. 401-416, Rome, 1777. [See Appendix 1. For day of Justinian’s death, Nov. 14, see Theophanes, ad ann. 6057 (a false reading — ια′ for ιδ′ — appears in Clinton’s citation of the passage, Fast. Rom., ad ann.).]

3

It is surprising how Pagi (Critica in Annal. Baron. tom. ii. p. 639) could be tempted by any chronicles to contradict the plain and decisive text of Corippus (vicina dona, l. ii. 354, vicina dies, l. iv. i.), and to postpone, till AD 567, the consulship of Justin.

4

Theophan. Chronograph. p. 205 [ad ann. 6059; the date is a year wrong; see last note]. Whenever Cedrenus or Zonaras are mere transcribers, it is superfluous to allege their testimony.

5

[Ταργίτως and Ταργίτης in Menander, fr. 28; but Tergazis in Corippus, iii. 258.]

6

[Cp. Appendix 2.]

7

Corippus, l. iii. 390. The unquestionable sense relates to the Turks, the conquerors of the Avars; but the word scultor has no apparent meaning, and the sole MS. of Corippus, from whence the first edition (1581, apud Plantin) was printed, is no longer visible. The last editor, Foggini of Rome, has inserted the conjectural emendation of soldan; but the proofs of Ducange (Joinville, Dissert. xvi. p. 238-240) for the early use of this title among the Turks and Persians are weak or ambiguous. And I must incline to the authority of d’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orient. p. 825), who ascribes the word to the Arabic and Chaldean tongues, and the date to the beginning of the xith century, when it was bestowed by the caliph of Bagdad on Mahmud, prince of Gazna and conqueror of India. [This judgment on Foggini’s conjecture is sound, though sultan is read by Partsch, the latest editor. It is doubtful whether the lines do refer to the Turks.]

8

For these characteristic speeches, compare the verse of Corippus (l. iii. 251-401) with the prose of Menander (Excerpt. Legation. p. 102, 103 [fr. 28, in F.H.G. iv.]). Their diversity proves that they did not copy each other; their resemblance that they drew from a common original. [John of Ephesus says that Justin called the Avar envoys dogs, and threatened to cut off their hair and then their heads; vi. 24.]

9

For the Austrasian war, see Menander (Excerpt. Legat. p. 110 [fr. 14, F.H.G. iv. p. 219]), Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. l. iv. c. 29), and Paul the Deacon (de Gest. Langobard. l. ii. c. 10). [This passage in Paul refers to the first invasion of the Merovingian dominions of the Avars, which took place in AD 562, and is recorded by Gregory in iv. 23. The date of the second invasion, recorded by Gregory in iv. 29 and by Menander, is probably AD 566.]

10

Paul Warnefrid, the deacon of Friuli, de Gest. Langobard. l. i. c. 23, 24. His pictures of national manners, though rudely sketched, are more lively and faithful than those of Bede or Gregory of Tours.

11

The story is told by an impostor (Theophylact. Simocat. l. vi. c. 10); but he had art enough to build his fictions on public and notorious facts.

12

[The negotiations between Avars and Lombards, described by Menander, fr. 24 and 25 (F.H.G. iv. p. 230), belong to AD 566 at earliest, and most probably; the destruction of the Gepidæ is most naturally placed in 567.]

13

It appears from Strabo, Pliny, and Ammianus Marcellinus that the same practice was common among the Scythian tribes (Muratori, Scriptores Rer. Italic. tom. i. p. 424). The scalps of North America are likewise trophies of valour. The skull of Cunimund was preserved above two hundred years among the Lombards; and Paul himself was one of the guests to whom Duke Ratchis exhibited this cup on a high festival (l. ii. c. 28). [The same barbarity was practised by the Bulgarians. The skull of the Emperor Nicephorus I. was made into a cup by the Bulgarian sovran Crum. See below, c. lv.]

14

Paul, l. i. c. 27. Menander, in Excerpt. Legat. p. 110, 111 [ loc. cit. ].

15

[See Appendix 2.]

16

Ut hactenus etiam tam apud Bajoariorum gentem, quam et Saxonum sed et alios ejusdem linguæ homines . . . in eorum carminibus celebretur. Paul. l. i. c. 27. He died AD 799 (Muratori, in Præfat. tom. i. p. 397). These German songs, some of which might be as old as Tacitus (de Moribus Germ. c. 2), were compiled and transcribed by Charlemagne. Barbara et antiquissima carmina, quibus veterum regum actus et bella canebantur scripsit memoriæque mandavit (Eginhard, in Vit. Carol. Magn. c. 29, p. 130, 131). The poems, which Goldast commends (Animadvers. ad Eginhard, p. 207), appear to be recent and contemptible romances.

17

The other nations are rehearsed by Paul (l. ii. c. 6, 26). Muratori (Antichità Italiane, tom. i. dissert. i. p. 4) has discovered the village of the Bavarians, three miles from Modena.

18

Gregory the Roman (Dialog. l. iii. c. 27, 28, apud Baron. Annal. Eccles. AD 579, No. 10) supposes that they likewise adored this she-goat. I know but of one religion in which the god and the victim are the same.

19

[There is some doubt whether Longinus bore this title. The first governor who certainly was “exarch” is Smaragdus, the successor of Longinus, AD 585.]

20

The charge of the deacon against Narses (l. ii. c. 5) may be groundless; but the weak apology of the cardinal (Baron. Annal. Eccles. AD 567, No. 8-12) is rejected by the best critics — Pagi (tom. ii. p. 639, 640), Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. v. p. 160-163), and the last editors, Horatius Blancus (Script. Rerum Italic. tom. i. p. 427, 428) and Philip Argelatus (Sigon. Opera, tom. ii. p. 11, 12). The Narses who assisted at the coronation of Justin (Corippus, l. iii. 221) is clearly understood to be a different person. [The only evidence, deserving consideration, for the charge against Narses consists in: (α) the statement of the biographer of Pope John III. (Lib. Pontif. lxiii.), who wrote, as the Abbé Duchesne has established, c. 580-590 AD ; the statement of Paul the Deacon, cited above, is copied from this biography; (β) the statement of Isidore of Seville (Chron. 402, ed. Mommsen in Chron. Min. ii. p. 476). This evidence does not establish a presumption of his guilt, but shows that very soon after the event it was generally believed that he was in collusion with the invaders. The story of the distaff appears in an earlier writer than Paul, namely “Fredegarius” (3, 65), who makes Sophia send Narses a golden distaff. So Euelthon, king of Cyprian Salamis, gave a distaff and wool to Pheretime of Cyrene, when she asked him for an army (Herodotus, 4, 162). And we shall presently see the same symbol used for insult by a Persian prince (below, p. 59).]

21

The death of Narses is mentioned by Paul, l. ii. c. 11; Anastas. in Vit. Johan, iii. p. 43; Agnellus, Liber Pontifical. Raven. in Script. Rer. Italicarum, tom. ii. part 1, p. 114, 124. Yet I cannot believe with Agnellus that Narses was ninety-five years of age. Is it probable that all his exploits were performed at four-score?

22

The designs of Narses and of the Lombards for the invasion of Italy are exposed in the last chapter of the first book, and the seven first chapters of the second book, of Paul the Deacon.

23

Which from this translation was called the New Aquileia (Chron. Venet. p. 3). The patriarch of Grado soon became the first citizen of the republic (p. 9, c.), but his seat was not removed to Venice till the year 1450. He is now decorated with titles and honours; but the genius of the church has bowed to that of the state, and the government of a Catholic city is strictly Presbyterian. Thomassin, Discipline de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 156, 157, 161-165. Amelot de la Houssaye, Gouvernement de Vénise, tom. i. p. 256-261.

24

Paul has given a description of Italy, as it was then divided into eighteen regions (l. ii. c. 14-24). The Dissertatio Chorographica de Italiâ Medii Ævi, by Father Beretti, a Benedictine monk, and regius professor at Pavia, has been usefully consulted. [For the more important description of George the Cypriote, see Appendix 3.]

25

For the conquest of Italy, see the original materials of Paul (l. ii. c. 7-10, 12, 14, 25, 26, 27), the eloquent narrative of Sigonius (tom. ii. de Regno Italiæ, l. i. p. 13-19), and the correct and critical review of Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. v. p. 164-180). [A chronological summary of the Lombard conquest is added in Appendix 3.]

26

The classical reader will recollect the wife and murder of Candaules, so agreeably told in the first book of Herodotus. The choice of Gyges, αὶρέεται αὐτὸς περιεɩ̂ναι, may serve as the excuse of Peredeus; and this soft insinuation of an odious idea has been imitated by the best writers of antiquity (Grævius, ad Ciceron. Orat. pro Milone, c. 10).

27

See the history of Paul, l. ii. c. 28-32. I have borrowed some interesting circumstances from the Liber Pontificalis of Agnellus, in Script. Rer. Ital. tom. ii. p. 124. Of all chronological guides Muratori is the safest.

28

The original authors for the reign of Justin the younger are Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. l. v. c. 1-12; Theophanes, in Chronograph. p. 204-210; Zonaras, tom. ii. l. xiv. p. 70-72; Cedrenus, in Compend. p. 388-392. [A highly important source, now accessible, is the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus, a contemporary. See Appendix 1.]

29

 

Dispositorque novus sacræ Baduarius aulæ. Successor soceri mox factus Cura palati. — Corippus [in L.J. 2, 284-5].

Baduarius is enumerated among the descendants and allies of the house of Justinian. [Cp. John Biclar., ad ann. 576, ed. Mommsen (Chron. Min. vol. 2), p. 214.] A family of noble Venetians (Casa Badoero ) built churches and gave dukes to the republic as early as the ninth century; and, if their descent be admitted, no kings in Europe can produce a pedigree so ancient and illustrious. Ducange, Fam. Byzantin. p. 99. Amelot de la Houssaye, Gouvernement de Vénise, tom. ii. p. 555.

30

The praise bestowed on princes before their elevation is the purest and most weighty. Corippus has celebrated Tiberius at the time of the accession of Justin (l. i. 212-222). Yet even a captain of the guards might attract the flattery of an African exile.

31

Evagrius (l. v. c. 13) has added the reproach to his ministers. He applies this speech to the ceremony when Tiberius was invested with the rank of Cæsar. The loose expression, rather than the positive error, of Theophanes, c. has delayed it to his Augustan investiture immediately before the death of Justin.

32

Theophylact Simocatta (l. iii. c. 11) declares that he shall give to posterity the speech of Justin as it was pronounced, without attempting to correct the imperfections of language or rhetoric. Perhaps the vain sophist would have been incapable of producing such sentiments. [John of Ephesus notes that scribes took down Justin’s speech in shorthand (iii. 4). Cp. Michael the Syrian, Journ. Asiat. 1848, Oct. p. 296-7.]

33

For the character and reign of Tiberius, see Evagrius, l. v. c. 13; Theophylact, l. iii. c. 12, c.; Theophanes, in Chron. p. 210-213; Zonaras, tom. ii. l. xiv. p. 72 [c. 11]; Cedrenus, p. 392 [i. 688, ed. Bonn]; Paul Warnefrid, de Gestis Langobard. l. iii. c. 11, 12. The deacon of Forum Julii appears to have possessed some curious and authentic facts.

34

[The original name of Anastasia was Ino. (According to Michael the Syrian, the name of Helena was given to her by Sophia; loc. cit. p. 297.) The statement in the text which rests on the authority of Theophanes, implying that Sophia did not know of Ino’s existence till after Justin’s death, is inconsistent with statements of the contemporary, John of Ephesus, iii. 7.]

35

[This praise is not deserved. On the contrary, the capital fault of Tiberius as an administrator was his reckless expenditure; for which his successor, Maurice, suffered.]

36

It is therefore singular enough that Paul (l. iii. c. 15) should distinguish him as the first Greek emperor — primus ex Græcorum genere in Imperio constitutus [ leg. confirmatus est]. His immediate predecessors had indeed been born in the Latin provinces of Europe; and a various reading, in Græcorum Imperio, would apply the expression to the empire rather than the prince.

37

[ Fifteen thousand, Theophanes, A.M. 6074 (Zonaras says 12,000). It was a corps of foreign slaves (ἀγοράσας σώματα ἐθνικω̂ν). Finlay compares it to the Janissaries. Maurice held the post of Count of the Fœderati, when Tiberius committed to him the command of the new corps.]

38

Consult, for the character and reign of Maurice, the fifth and sixth books of Evagrius, particularly l. vi. c. 1; the eight books of his prolix and florid history by Theophylact Simocatta; Theophanes, p. 213, c.; Zonaras, tom. ii. l. xiv. p. 73 [c. 12]; Cedrenus, p. 394 [i. p. 691]. [Add John of Ephesus.]

39

Αὐτοκράτωρ ὄντως γενόμενος τὴν μὲν ὀχλοκράτειαν τω̂ν παθω̂ν ἐκ τη̂ς οἰκείας ἐξενηλάτησε ψυχη̂ς, ἀριστοκράτειαν δὲ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἐαυτον̂ λογισμοɩ̂ς καταστησάμενος. Evagrius composed his history in the twelfth year of Maurice; and he had been so wisely indiscreet that the emperor knew and rewarded his favourable opinion (l. vi. c. 24). [Finlay suggested that the expression of Evagrius conceals an allusion to the administrative policy of Maurice, which he explains as follows (Hist. of Greece, i. p. 308): Maurice aimed at reform and decided that his first step should be “to render the army, long a licentious and turbulent check on the imperial power, a well-disciplined and efficient instrument of his will; and he hoped in this manner to repress the tyranny of the official aristocracy” and strengthen the authority of the central government. “In his struggle to obtain this result he was compelled to make use of the existing administration; and, consequently, he appears in the history of the empire as the supporter and protector of a detested aristocracy, equally unpopular with the army and the people; while his ulterior plans for the improvement of the civil condition of his subjects were never fully made known, and perhaps never framed even by himself.”]

40

The Columna Regina, in the narrowest part of the Faro of Messina, one hundred stadia from Rhegium itself, is frequently mentioned in ancient geography. Cluver. Ital. Antiq. tom. ii. p. 1295. Lucas Holsten. Annotat. ad Cluver. p. 301. Wesseling, Itinerar. p. 106.

41

The Greek historians afford some faint hints of the wars of Italy (Menander, in Excerpt. Legat. p. 124, 126 [F.H.G. iv. p. 253, 263]. Theophylact, l. iii. c. 4). The Latins are more satisfactory; and especially Paul Warnefrid (l. iii. 13-34), who had read the more ancient histories of Secundus and Gregory of Tours. Baronius produces some letters of the popes, c.; and the times are measured by the accurate scale of Pagi and Muratori. [The march of Autharis to Reggio is probably only a legend. Paul introduces it with fama est (3, 32).]

42

The papal advocates, Zacagni and Fontanini, might justly claim the valley or morass of Commachio as a part of the exarchate. But the ambition of including Modena, Reggio, Parma, and Placentia has darkened a geographical question somewhat doubtful and obscure. Even Muratori, as the servant of the house of Este, is not free from partiality and prejudice.

43

[Aesis, Forum Sempronii, Urbinum, Callis, Eugubium.]

44

See Brenckman, Dissert. Ima de Republicâ Amalphitanâ, p. 1-42, ad calcem Hist. Pandect. Florent. [1722].

45

Gregor. Magn. l. iii. epist. 23, 25, 26, 27.

46

I have described the state of Italy from the excellent Dissertation of Beretti. Giannone (Istoria Civile, tom. i. p. 374-387) has followed the learned Camillo Pellegrini in the geography of the kingdom of Naples. After the loss of the true Calabria, the vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to have taken place before the time of Charlemagne (Eginhard, p. 75 [V. Car. 15]). [The change was probably the result of an administrative innovation in the second half of the seventh century (due presumably to the Emperor Constans II.). Calabria, Apulia, and Bruttii seem to have been united as a single province, entitled Calabria. Thus Bruttii came to be part of (official) Calabria. When the duke of Beneventum, Romuald, conquered most of the heel (soon after AD 671) Bruttii came to be almost the whole of “Calabria.” Thus an administrative change, prior to the conquest of Romuald, initiated the attachment of the name Calabria to the toe; the conquest of Romuald brought about the detachment of the name from the heel. These are the conclusions arrived at in the investigation of M. Schipa on La migrazione del nome Calabria, in the Archivio storico per le province napoletane, 1895, p. 23 sqq. ]

47

Maffei (Verona Illustrata, part i. p. 310-321) and Muratori (Antichità Italiane, tom. ii. Dissertazione xxxii. xxxiii. p. 71-365) have asserted the native claims of the Italian idiom: the former with enthusiasm, the latter with discretion: both with learning, ingenuity, and truth.

48

Paul, de Gest. Langobard. l. iii. c. 5, 6, 7.

49

Paul, l. ii. c. 9. He calls these families or generations by the Teutonic name of Faras, which is likewise used in the Lombard laws. The humble deacon was not insensible of the nobility of his own race. See l. iv. c. 39.

50

Compare No. 3 and 177 of the laws of Rotharis.

51

Paul, l. ii. c. 31, 32, l. iii. c. 16. The laws of Rotharis, promulgated AD 643, do not contain the smallest vestige of this payment of thirds; but they preserve many curious circumstances of the state of Italy and the manners of the Lombards.

52

The studs of Dionysius of Syracuse, and his frequent victories in the Olympic games, had diffused among the Greeks the fame of the Venetian horses; but the breed was extinct in the time of Strabo (l. v. p. 325 [1, § 4]). Gisulf obtained from his uncle generosarum equarum greges. Paul, l. ii. c. 9. The Lombards afterwards introduced caballi silvatici — wild horses. Paul, l. iv. c. 11.

53

Tunc ( AD 596) primum bubali in Italiam delati Italiæ populis miracula fuere (Paul Warnefrid, l. iv. c. 11). The buffaloes, whose native climate appears to be Africa and India, are unknown to Europe except in Italy, where they are numerous and useful. The ancients were ignorant of these animals, unless Aristotle (Hist. Animal. l. ii. c. 1, p. 58, Paris, 1783) has described them as the wild oxen of Arachosia. See Buffon, Hist. Naturelle, tom. xi. and Supplement, tom. vi.; Hist. Générale des Voyages, tom. i. p. 7, 481, ii. 105, iii. 291, iv. 234, 461, v. 193, vi. 491, viii. 400, x. 666; Pennant’s Quadrupedes, p. 24; Dictionnaire d’Hist. Naturelle, par Valmont de Bomare, tom. ii. p. 74. Yet I must not conceal the suspicion that Paul, by a vulgar error, may have applied the name of bubalus to the aurochs, or wild bull, of ancient Germany.

54

Consult the xxist Dissertation of Muratori.

55

Their ignorance is proved by the silence even of those who professedly treat of the arts of hunting and the history of animals. Aristotle (Hist. Animal. l. ix. c. 36, tom. i. p. 586, and the Notes of his last editor, M. Camus, tom. ii. p. 314), Pliny (Hist. Natur. l. x. c. 10), Ælian (de Natur. Animal. l. ii. c. 42), and perhaps Homer (Odyss. xxii. 302-306) describe with astonishment a tacit league and common chase between the hawks and the Thracian fowlers.

56

Particularly the gerfaut, or gyrfalcon, of the size of a small eagle. See the animated description of M. de Buffon, Hist. Naturelle, tom. xvi. p. 239, c.

57

Script. Rerum Italicarum, tom. i. part ii. p. 129. This is the xvith law of the emperor Lewis the Pious. His father Charlemagne had falconers in his household as well as huntsmen (Mémoires sur l’ancienne Chevalerie, par M. de St. Palaye, tom. iii. p. 175). I observe in the laws of Rotharis a more early mention of the art of hawking (No. 322); and in Gaul, in the vth century, it is celebrated by Sidonius Apollinaris among the talents of Avitus ([Carm. vii.] 202-207).

58

The epitaph of Droctulf (Paul, l. iii. c. 19) may be applied to many of his countrymen: —

 

Terribilis visu facies, sed corda benignus, Longaque robusto pectore barba fuit.

The portraits of the old Lombards might still be seen in the palace of Monza, twelve miles from Milan, which had been founded or restored by Queen Theudelinda (l. iv. 22, 23). See Muratori, tom. i. dissertaz. xxiii. p. 300. [Theudelinda’s comb, with a gold handle, and a counterfeit hen with chickens, which belonged to her, are shown in the sacristy of the church at Monza, which she founded. Little of the old building remains.]

59

The story of Autharis and Theudelinda is related by Paul, i. iii. c. 29, 34; and any fragment of Bavarian antiquity excites the indefatigable diligence of the Count de Buat, Hist. des Peuples de l’Europe, tom. xi. p. 595-635, tom. xii. p. 1-53.

60

Giannone (Istoria Civile di Napoli, tom. i. p. 263) has justly censured the impertinence of Boccaccio (Gio. iii. Novel. 2), who, without right, or truth, or pretence, has given the pious Queen Theudelinda to the arms of a muleteer.

61

Paul, l. iii. c. 16. The first dissertation of Muratori and the first volume of Giannone’s history may be consulted for the state of the kingdom of Italy.

62

The most accurate edition of the laws of the Lombards is to be found in the Scriptores Rerum Italicarum, tom. i. part ii. p. 1-181, collated from the most ancient MSS. and illustrated by the critical notes of Muratori. [Ed. F. Bluhme, in Pertz, Mon. Legg. iv. 607 sqq. (1868); also small separate oct. ed. (1869).]

63

Montesquieu, Esprit des Loix, l. xxviii. c. 1. Les loix des Bourguignons sont assez judicieuses: celles de Rotharis et des autres princes Lombards le sont encore plus.

64

See Leges Rotharis, No. 379, p. 47. Striga is used as the name of a witch. It is of the purest classic origin (Horat. epod. v. 20. Petron. c. 134); and from the words of Petronius (quæ striges comederunt nervos tuos?) it may be inferred that the prejudice was of Italian rather than barbaric extraction.

65

Quia incerti sumus de judicio Dei, et multos audivimus per pugnam sine justâ causâ suam causam perdere. Sed propter consuetudinem gentem nostram Langobardorum legem impiam vetare non possumus. See p. 74, No. 65, of the laws of Luitprand, promulgated AD 724.

66

Read the history of Paul Warnefrid; particularly l. iii. c. 16. Baronius rejects the praise, which appears to contradict the invectives of Pope Gregory the Great; but Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. v. p. 217) presumes to insinuate that the saint may have magnified the faults of Arians and enemies.

67

The passages of the homilies of Gregory which represent the miserable state of the city and country are transcribed in the Annals of Baronius, AD 590, No. 16, AD 595, No. 2, c. c.

68

The inundation and plague were reported by a deacon, whom his bishop, Gregory of Tours, had despatched to Rome for some relics. The ingenious messenger embellished his tale and the river with a great dragon and a train of little serpents (Greg. Turon. l. x. c. 1).

69

Gregory of Rome (Dialog. l. ii. c. 15) relates a memorable prediction of St. Benedict: Roma a Gentilibus [ leg. gentibus] non exterminabitur sed tempestatibus, coruscis turbinibus ac terræ motu [ ins. fatigata] in semetipsâ marcescet. Such a prophecy melts into true history, and becomes the evidence of the fact after which it was invented.

70

Quia in uno se ore cum Jovis laudibus Christi laudes non capiunt, et quam grave nefandumque sit episcopis canere quod nec laico religioso conveniat, ipse considera (l. ix. ep. 4). The writings of Gregory himself attest his innocence of any classic taste or literature.

71

Bayle (Dictionnaire Critique, tom. ii. p. 598, 599), in a very good article of Grégoire I., has quoted, for the buildings and statues, Platina in Gregorio I.; for the Palatine library, John of Salisbury (de Nugis Curialium, l. ii. c. 26); and for Livy, Antoninus of Florence: the oldest of the three lived in the xiith century.

72

Gregor. l. iii. epist. 24, indict. 12, c. From the epistles of Gregory, and the viiith volume of the Annals of Baronius, the pious reader may collect the particles of holy iron which were inserted in keys or crosses of gold and distributed in Britain, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Constantinople, and Egypt. The pontifical smith who handled the file must have understood the miracles which it was in his own power to operate or withhold: a circumstance which abates the superstition of Gregory at the expense of his veracity.

73

Besides the epistles of Gregory himself which are methodised by Dupin (Bibliothèque Ecclés. tom. v. p. 103-126), we have three Lives of the pope: the two first written in the viiith and ixth centuries (de Triplici Vitâ St. Greg. Preface to the ivth volume of the Benedictine edition) by the deacons Paul (p. 1-18) and John (p. 19-188), and containing much original, though doubtful, evidence; the third, a long and laboured compilation by the Benedictine editors (p. 199-305). The Annals of Baronius are a copious but partial history. His papal prejudices are tempered by the good sense of Fleury (Hist. Ecclés. tom. viii.), and his chronology has been rectified by the criticism of Pagi and Muratori. [Paul’s life of Gregory is a compilation from the Hist. Eccles. of Bede and Gregory’s own works. For the methodisation of Gregory’s Epistles see Appendix 1.]

74

John the deacon has described them like an eye-witness (l. iv. c. 83, 84); and his description is illustrated by Angelo Rocca, a Roman antiquary (St. Greg. Opera, tom. iv. p. 312-326), who observes that some mosaics of the popes of the viith century are still preserved in the old churches of Rome (p. 321-323). The same walls which represented Gregory’s family are now decorated with the martyrdom of St. Andrew, the noble contest of Dominichino and Guido. [The life of Gregory by John, compiled towards the end of the ninth century for Pope John VIII., consists largely of extracts from Gregory’s letters.]

75

Disciplinis vero liberalibus, hoc est grammaticâ, rhetoricâ, dialecticâ, ita a puero est institutus, ut, quamvis eo tempore florerent adhuc Romæ studia literarum, tamen nulli in urbe ipsâ secundus putaretur. Paul. Diacon. in Vit. S. Gregor. c. 2.

76

The Benedictines (Vit. Greg. l. i. p. 205-208) labour to reduce the monasteries of Gregory within the rule of their own order; but, as the question is confessed to be doubtful, it is clear that these powerful monks are in the wrong. See Butler’s Lives of the Saints, vol. iii. p. 145, a work of merit: the sense and learning belong to the author — his prejudices are those of his profession.

77

Monasterium Gregorianum in ejusdem Beati Gregorii ædibus ad clivum Scauri prope ecclesiam SS. Johannis et Pauli in honorem St. Andreæ (John in Vit. Greg. l. i. c. 6, Greg. l. vii. epist. 13). This house and monastery were situate on the side of the Cælian hill which fronts the Palatine; they are now occupied by the Camaldoli; San Gregorio triumphs, and St. Andrew has retired to a small chapel. Nardini, Roma Antica, l. iii. c. 6, p. 100. Descrizzione di Roma, tom. i. p. 442-446.

78

The Lord’s prayer consists of half a dozen lines: the Sacramentarius [sacramentarium] and Antiphonarius of Gregory fill 880 folio pages (tom. iii. P. i. p. 1-880); yet these only constitute a part of the Ordo Romanus, which Mabillon has illustrated and Fleury has abridged (Hist. Ecclés. tom. viii. p. 139-152). [See H. Grisar in Theolog. Zeitsch. 1885; W. Hohaus, Die Bedeutung Gregors des Grossen als liturgischer Schriftsteller, 1889.]

79

I learn from the Abbé Dubos (Réflexions sur la Poésie et la Peinture, tom. iii. p. 174, 175) that the simplicity of the Ambrosian chant was confined to four modes, while the more perfect harmony of the Gregorian comprised the eight modes or fifteen chords of the ancient music. He observes (p. 332) that the connoisseurs admire the preface and many passages of the Gregorian office.

80

John the deacon (in Vit. Greg. l. ii. c. 7) expresses the early contempt of the Italians for tramontane singing. Alpina scilicet corpora vocum suarum tonitruis altisone perstrepentia, susceptæ modulationis dulcedinem proprie non resultant: quia bibuli gutturis barbara feritas dum inflexionibus et repercussionibus mitem nititur edere cantilenam, naturali quodam fragore quasi plaustra per gradus confuse sonantia rigidas voces jactat, c. In the time of Charlemagne, the Franks, though with some reluctance, admitted the justice of the reproach. Muratori, Dissert. xxv.

81

A French critic (Petrus Gussanvillus, Opera, tom. ii. p. 105-112) has vindicated the right of Gregory to the entire nonsense of the Dialogues. Dupin (tom. v. p. 138) does not think that any one will vouch for the truth of all these miracles; I should like to know how many of them he believed himself.

82

Baronius is unwilling to expatiate on the care of the patrimonies, lest he should betray that they consisted not of kingdoms but farms. The French writers, the Benedictine editors (tom. iv. l. iii. p. 272, c.), and Fleury (tom. viii. p. 29, c.) are not afraid of entering into these humble though useful details; and the humanity of Fleury dwells on the social virtues of Gregory. [On the patrimonies see H. Grisar, Zeitsch. für kathol. Theologie, i. 321 sqq. 1877.]

83

I much suspect that this pecuniary fine on the marriages of villains produced the famous, and often fabulous, right de cuissage, de marquette, c. With the consent of her husband, an handsome bride might commute the payment in the arms of a young landlord, and the mutual favour might afford a precedent of local rather than legal tyranny.

84

[The four occasions were: Easterday, the birthday of the Apostles, the birthday of St. Andrew, Gregory’s own birthday.]

85

The temporal reign of Gregory I. is ably exposed by Sigonius in the first book de Regno Italiæ. See his works, tom. ii. p. 44-75.

1

Missis qui . . . reposcerent . . . veteres Persarum ac Macedonum terminos, seque invasurum possessa Cyro et post Alexandro, per vaniloquentiam ac minas jaciebat. Tacit. Annal. vi. 31. Such was the language of the Arsacides: I have repeatedly marked the lofty claims of the Sassanians.

2

See the embassies of Menander, extracted and preserved in the xth century by the order of Constantine Porphyrogenitus [cp. Appendix 1].

3

The general independence of the Arabs, which cannot be admitted without many limitations, is blindly asserted in a separate dissertation of the authors of the Universal History, vol. xx. p. 196-250. A perpetual miracle is supposed to have guarded the prophecy in favour of the posterity of Ishmael; and these learned bigots are not afraid to risk the truth of Christianity on this frail and slippery foundation.

4

[See below, vol. ix. p. 30 and 31, note 68.]

5

D’Herbelot, Biblioth. Orient. p. 477. Pocock, Specimen Hist. Arabum, p. 64, 65. Father Pagi (Critica, tom. ii. p. 646) has proved that, after ten years’ peace, the Persian war, which continued twenty years, was renewed AD 571 [572]. Mahomet was born AD 569 [cp. vol. ix. p. 31], in the year of the elephant, or the defeat of Abrahah (Gagnier, Vie de Mahomet, tom. i. p. 89, 90, 98); and this account allows two years for the conquest of Yemen.

6

[The truce of three years was preceded by an armistice of a year (spring 574 to spring 575). The Romans had to pay a sum of money annually for the truce, which did not apply to Persarmenia; cp. John of Ephesus, vi. 8.]

7

[Cp. John Eph. vi. 8. The Romans might have followed up their victory, or at least hindered the destruction of Melitene. Their inactivity is ascribed to the mutual jealousies of the commanders.]

8

He had vanquished the Albanians, who brought into the field 12,000 horse and 60,000 foot; but he dreaded the multitude of venomous reptiles, whose existence may admit of some doubt, as well as that of the neighbouring Amazons. Plutarch, in Pompeio, tom. ii. p. 1165, 1166 [c. 36].

9

In the history of the world I can only perceive two navies on the Caspian: 1. Of the Macedonians, when Patrocles, the admiral of the kings of Syria, Seleucus and Antiochus, descended most probably the river Oxus, from the confines of India (Plin. Hist. Natur. vi. 21). 2. Of the Russians, when Peter the First conducted a fleet and army from the neighbourhood of Moscow to the coast of Persia (Bell’s Travels, vol. ii. p. 325-352). He justly observes that such martial pomp had never been displayed on the Volga.

10

For these Persian wars and treaties, see Menander in Excerpt. Legat. p. 113 [ leg. 114], 125 [fr. 33, 36 et sqq., in F.H.G. iv.]. Theophanes Byzant. apud Photium, cod. lxiv. p. 77, 80, 81. Evagrius, l. v. c. 7-15. Theophylact, l. iii. c. 9-16. Agathias, l. iv. p. 140 [c. 29]. [John of Ephesus, vi. 3-13. The last edict of Chosroes seems to be a vain invention of the Greeks, credulously accepted by Evagrius and Theophylact.]

11

Buzurg Mihir may be considered, in his character and station, as the Seneca of the East; but his virtues, and perhaps his faults, are less known than those of the Roman, who appears to have been much more loquacious. The Persian sage was the person who imported from India the game of chess and the fables of Pilpay. Such has been the fame of his wisdom and virtues that the Christians claim him as a believer in the gospel; and the Mahometans revere Buzurg as a premature Musulman. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 218. [Buzurg Mihr is a favourite figure in rhetorical literature, but is unknown to strict history. Cp. Nöldeke, Tabari, p. 251.]

12

[This dark portrait of Hormizd is based on the accounts of the Greek historians, Theophylactus, Menander, Evagrius (to which add John of Ephesus, vi. 22). The Romans did not forgive him for renewing the war. Moreover Theophylactus doubtless derived his ideas of the character of Hormizd from Chosroes II. and the Persians who accompanied him to Constantinople; and they of course painted it in dark colours. See Nöldeke, Tabari, p. 265. Hormizd attempted to depress the power of the magnates and the priests, and strengthen the royal power by the support of the lower classes. It was a bold policy, too bold for his talents.]

13

See the imitation of Scipio in Theophylact, l. i. c. 14; the image of Christ, l. ii. c. 3. Hereafter I shall speak more amply of the Christian images — I had almost said idols. This, if I am not mistaken, is the oldest ἀχειροποίητος of divine manufacture; but in the next thousand years many others issued from the same work-shop.

14

[He is named Shāba by Hishām, apud Tabari (Nöldeke, p. 269); and Remusat identified him with Chao-wu, a khan who is mentioned at this time in the Chinese annals.]

15

Ragæ, or Rei, is mentioned in the apocryphal book of Tobit as already flourishing, 700 years before Christ, under the Assyrian empire. Under the foreign names of Europus and Arsatia, this city, 500 stadia to the south of the Caspian gates, was successively embellished by the Macedonians and Parthians (Strabo, l. xi. p. 796 [c. 13, 6]). Its grandeur and populousness in the ixth century is exaggerated beyond the bounds of credibility; but Rei has been since ruined by wars and the unwholesomeness of the air. Chardin, Voyage en Perse, tom. i. p. 279, 280. D’Herbelot, Bibliot. Oriental. p. 714. [Rei or Rayy was a little to the south of Teheran.]

16

Theophylact, l. iii. c. 18. The story of the seven Persians is told in the third book of Herodotus; and their noble descendants are often mentioned, especially in the fragments of Ctesias. Yet the independence of Otanes (Herodot. l. iii. c. 83, 84) is hostile to the spirit of despotism, and it may not seem probable that the seven families could survive the revolutions of eleven hundred years. They might however be represented by the seven ministers (Brisson, de Regno Persico, l. i. p. 190); and some Persian nobles, like the kings of Pontus (Polyb. l. v. p. 540 [c. 43, § 2]) and Cappadocia (Diodor. Sicul. l. xxxi. tom. ii. p. 517 [c. 19]), might claim their descent from the bold companions of Darius.

17

See an accurate description of this mountain by Olearius (Voyage en Perse, p. 997, 998), who ascended it with much difficulty and danger in his return from Ispahan to the Caspian sea.

18

The Orientals suppose that Bahram convened this assembly and proclaimed Chosroes, but Theophylact is, in this instance, more distinct and credible.

19

[According to Tabari (Nöldeke, p. 278), Chosroes and Bahram had an interview on the banks of the Naharvān.]

20

See the words of Theophylact, l. iv. c. 7. Βαρὰμ ϕίλος τοɩ̂ς θεοɩ̂ς, νικητὴς ἐπιϕανὴς, τυράννων ἐχθρὸς, σατράπης μεγιστάνων, τη̂ς Περσικη̂ς ἄρχων δυνάμεως, c. In this answer Chosroes styles himself τῃ̑ νυκτὶ χαριζόμενος ὄμματα . . . ὸ τοὺς Ἄσωνας (the genii) μισθούμενος [c. 8, 5. The meaning of Ἄσωνες is quite obscure]. This is genuine Oriental bombast.

21

Theophylact (l. iv. c. 7) imputes the death of Hormouz to his son, by whose command he was beaten to death with clubs. I have followed the milder account of Khondemir and Eutychius [and so Tabari, p. 280] and shall always be content with the slightest evidence to extenuate the crime of parricide. [The account of Sebaeos, p. 33-4, also exonerates Chosroes.]

22

After the battle of Pharsalia, the Pompey of Lucan (l. viii. 256-455) holds a similar debate. He was himself desirous of seeking the Parthians; but his companions abhorred the unnatural alliance; and the adverse prejudices might operate as forcibly on Chosroes and his companions, who could describe, with the same vehemence, the contrast of laws, religion, and manners, between the East and West.

23

[The letter was despatched from Circesium, the frontier town (Theophyl. 4, 10); Tabari falsely says, from Antioch (p. 282).]

24

In this age there were three warriors of the name of Narses, who have been often confounded (Pagi, Critica, tom. ii. p. 640): 1. A Persarmenian, the brother of Isaac and Armatius, who, after a successful action against Belisarius, deserted from his Persian sovereign and afterwards served in the Italian war. — 2. The eunuch who conquered Italy. — 3. The restorer of Chosroes, who is celebrated in the poem of Corippus (l. iii. 220-227) as excelsus super omnia vertice agmina . . . habitu modestus . . . morum probitate placens, virtute verendus; fulmineus, cautus, vigilans, c. [Compare above, vol. vii. p. 265, n. 55.]

24a

[Sebaeos (iii. 3, tr. Patkan. p. 43) says he fled to Balkh and was put to death there by the intrigues of Chosroes. For the romance of Bahrām — composed between the death of Chosroes II. and the fall of the Persian kingdom — see Nöldeke, op. cit. p. 474 sqq. ]

25

Experimentis cognitum est barbaros malle Româ petere reges quam habere. These experiments are admirably represented in the invitation and expulsion of Vonones (Annal. ii. 1-3), Tiridates (Annal. vi. 32-44), and Meherdates (Annal. xi. 10, xii. 10-14). The eye of Tacitus seems to have transpierced the camp of the Parthians and the walls of the harem.

26

Sergius and his companion Bacchus, who are said to have suffered in the persecution of Maximian, obtained divine honour in France, Italy, Constantinople, and the East. Their tomb at Rasaphe was famous for miracles, and that Syrian town acquired the more honourable name of Sergiopolis. Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. v. p. 491-496. Butler’s Saints, vol. x. p. 155. [One of the sources used by Tabari transforms Sergius into a general sent by Maurice to restore Chosroes to the throne. For Maurice’s Armenian acquisitions cp. Appendix 4.]

27

Evagrius (l. vi. c. 21) and Theophylact (l. v. c. 13, 14) have preserved the original letters of Chosroes written in Greek, signed with his own hand, and afterwards inscribed on crosses and tables of gold, which were deposited in the church of Sergiopolis. They had been sent to the bishop of Antioch, as primate of Syria.

28

The Greeks only describe her as a Roman by birth, a Christian by religion; but she is represented as the daughter of the emperor Maurice in the Persian and Turkish romances, which celebrate the love of Khosrou for Schirin, of Schirin for Ferhad, the most beautiful youth of the East. D’Herbelot, Biblioth. Orient. p. 789, 997, 998. [The name Shīrīn is Persian, and Sebaeos expressly states that she was a native of Khūzistān (c. 5, p. 50, Russ. Tr.), but agrees with the other sources that she was a Christian. Tabari (p. 283) states that Maurice gave Chosroes his daughter Maria, and it seems that Persian tradition is unanimous (Nöldeke, ib. ) in recording that Chosroes married a daughter of the emperor and that she was the mother of Shērōe (Siroes). If Maria had been given to Chosroes at the time of his restoration, the circumstance could hardly fail to have been noticed by Theophylactus; the silence of the Greek sources is, in any case, curious. The chronicle of Michael the Syrian, it is true, supports the statement of Tabari (Journ. Asiat., 1848, Oct., p. 302).]

29

[The name parwēz or aparwēz seems to mean “victorious”; cp. Nöldeke, Tabari, p. 275.]

30

The whole series of the tyranny of Hormouz, the revolt of Bahram, and the flight and restoration of Chosroes is related by two contemporary Greeks — more concisely by Evagrius (l. vi. c. 16, 17, 18, 19), and most diffusely by Theophylact Simocatta (l. iii. c. 6-18, l. iv. c. 1-16, l. v. c. 1-15); succeeding compilers, Zonaras and Cedrenus, can only transcribe and abridge. The Christian Arabs, Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 200-208) and Abulpharagius (Dynast. p. 96-98), appear to have consulted some particular memoirs. The great Persian historians of the xvth century, Mirkhond and Khondemir, are only known to me by the imperfect extracts of Schikard (Tarikh, p. 150-155), Texeira, or rather Stevens (Hist. of Persia, p. 182-186), a Turkish MS. translated by the Abbé Fourmont (Hist. de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. vii. p. 325-334), and D’Herbelot (aux mots Hormouz, p. 457-459; Bahram, p. 174; Khosrou Parviz, p. 996). Were I perfectly satisfied of their authority, I could wish these Oriental materials had been more copious. [We can add Tabari and Sebaeos.]

31

A general idea of the pride and power of the chagan may be taken from Menander (Excerpt. Legat. p. 117, c. [fr. 27, pp. 232-3, in F.H.G. iv.]) and Theophylact (l. i. c. 3; l. vii. c. 15), whose eight books are much more honourable to the Avar than to the Roman prince. The predecessors of Baian had tasted the liberality of Rome, and he survived the reign of Maurice (Buat, Hist. des Peuples Barbares, tom. xi. p. 545). The chagan who invaded Italy AD 611 (Muratori, Annali, tom. v. p. 305) was then juvenili ætate florentem (Paul Warnefrid, de Gest. Langobard. l. v. c. 38), the son, perhaps, or the grandson, of Baian. [Baian was succeeded by his eldest son; and he by a younger brother, who was chagan in AD 626. See the Relation of the siege of Constantinople in that year ap. Mai, x. p. 424-5. We know not which of the sons was chagan in AD 511.]

32

[The story of the Avar invasions has been told in great detail by Sir H. Howorth, The Avars, in Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1889, p. 721 sqq. See also Bury, Later Roman Empire, ii. 116 sqq. ]

33

Theophylact, l. i. c. 5, 6.

34

Even in the field, the chagan delighted in the use of these aromatics. He solicited as a gift Ἰνδικὰς καρυκίας [ leg. καρυκείας], and received πέπερι καὶ ϕύλλον Ἰνδω̂ν [ al. Ἰνδικὸν], κασίαν τε καὶ τὸν λεγόμενον κόστον. Theophylact, l. vii. c. 13. The Europeans of the ruder ages consumed more spices in their meat and drink than is compatible with the delicacy of a modern palate. Vie Privée de François, tom. ii. p. 162, 163.

35

Theophylact, l. vi. c. 6; l. vii. c. 15. The Greek historian confesses the truth and justice of his reproach.

36

Menander (in Excerpt. Legat. p. 126-132, 174-175 [fr. 63, 64, 65, 66, ap. Müller, F.H.G. iv.]) describes the perjury of Baian and the surrender of Sirmium. We have lost his account of the siege, which is commended by Theophylact, l. i. c. 3. Τὸ δ’ ὅπως Μενάνδρῳ [τῷ] περιϕανεɩ̂ σαϕω̂ς διηγόρευται. [Cp. John of Ephesus, vi. 24 sqq. ]

37

[We find the chagan again attacking it in AD 591.]

38

See d’Anville, in the Mémoires de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, tom. xxviii. p. 412-443. The Sclavonic name of Belgrade is mentioned in the xth century by Constantine Porphyrogenitus; the Latin appellation of Alba Græca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the ixth (p. 414).

39

Baron. Annal. Eccles. AD 600, No. 1. Paul Warnefrid (l. iv. c. 38) relates their irruption into Friuli, and (c. 39), the captivity of his ancestors, about AD 632. The Sclavi traversed the Adriatic cum multitudine navium, and made a descent in the territory of Sipontum (c. 47).

40

Even the helepolis, or moveable turret. Theophylact, l. ii. 16, 17.

41

The arms and alliances of the chagan reached to the neighbourhood of a western sea, fifteen months’ journey from Constantinople. The emperor Maurice conversed with some itinerant harpers from that remote country, and only seems to have mistaken a trade for a nation. Theophylact, l. vi. c. 2. [On extent of Avar empire, cp. Appendix 2.]

42

This is one of the most probable and luminous conjectures of the learned Count de Buat (Hist. des Peuples Barbares, tom. xi. p. 546-568). The Tzechi and Serbi are found together near Mount Caucasus, in Illyricum, and on the Lower Elbe. Even the wildest traditions of the Bohemians, c. afford some colour to his hypothesis.

43

See Fredegarius, in the Historians of France, tom. ii. p. 432. Baian did not conceal his proud insensibility. Ὅτιτοιούτους (not τοσούτους according to a foolish emendation) ἐπαϕήσω τῃ̑ Ρωμαϊκῃ̑, ὠς εἰ καὶ συμβαίη γέ σϕισι θανάτῳ ὰλω̂ναι, ἀλλ’ ἐμοί γε μὴ γενέσθαι συναίσθησιν.

44

See the march and return of Maurice, in Theophylact, l. v. c. 16, l. vi. c. 1, 2, 3. If he were a writer of taste or genius, we might suspect him of an elegant irony; but Theophylact is surely harmless.

45

Εɩ̂̓ς οίωνὸς ἄριστος ἀμύνεσθαι περὶ πάτρης. Iliad, xii. 243.

This noble verse, which unites the spirit of an hero with the reason of a sage, may prove that Homer was in every light superior to his age and country.

46

Theophylact, l. vii. c. 3. On the evidence of this fact, which had not occurred to my memory, the candid reader will correct and excuse a note in the vith volume of this history, p. 21, which hastens the decay of Asimus, or Azimuntium: another century of patriotism and valour is cheaply purchased by such a confession.

47

See the shameful conduct of Commentiolus, in Theophylact, l. ii. c. 10-15, l. vii. c. 13, 14, l. viii. c. 2, 4. [On the chronology of these Avar campaigns in Theophylactus see the editor’s article in Eng. Histor. Review, April, 1888.]

48

See the exploits of Priscus, l. viii. c. 2, 3.

49

The general detail of the war against the Avars may be traced in the first, second, sixth, seventh, and eighth books of the History of the emperor Maurice, by Theophylact Simocatta. As he wrote in the reign of Heraclius, he had no temptation to flatter; but his want of judgment renders him diffuse in trifles and concise in the most interesting facts.

50

Maurice himself composed xii. books on the military art, which are still extant, and have been published (Upsal, 1664) by John Scheffer at the end of the Tactics of Arrian (Fabricius Bibliot. Græca, l. iv. c. 8, tom. iii. p. 278). who promises to speak more fully of his work in its proper place. [This work is not by Maurice. See above, vol. vii. p. 182, n. 15.]

51

See the mutinies under the reign of Maurice, in Theophylact, l. iii. c. 1-4, l. vi. c. 7, 8, 10, l. vii. c. 1, l. viii c. 6, c.

52

Theophylact and Theophanes seem ignorant of the conspiracy and avarice of Maurice. [The refusal to ransom the captives is mentioned by Theophanes, p. 280, l. 5-11 (ed. de Boor); and also the conspiracy, p. 279, l. 32. See also John of Antioch, fr. 218 b, in F.H.G. v. p. 35.] These charges, so unfavourable to the memory of that emperor, are first mentioned by the author of the Paschal Chronicle (p. 379, 380 [p. 694, ed. Bonn]); from whence Zonaras (tom. ii. l. xiv. p. 77, 78 [c. 13]) has transcribed them. Cedrenus (p. 399 [i. p. 700, ed. Bonn]) has followed another computation of the ransom. [Finlay thinks that many of the prisoners were deserters.]

53

[It seems quite clear that originally there was no idea of elevating Phocas (except in his own mind); he was chosen simply as leader. The idea of the army was to supersede Maurice by Germanus or Theodosius. The conduct of Germanus is somewhat ambiguous throughout. The narrative is given in greater detail in Bury, Later Roman Empire, ii. 86-92.]

54

In their clamours against Maurice, the people of Constantinople branded him with the name of Marcionite or Marcionist: a heresy (says Theophylact, l. viii. c. 9) μετά τινος μωρα̂ς εὐλαβείας, εὐήθης τε καὶ καταγέλαστος. Did they only cast out a vague reproach — or had the emperor really listened to some obscure teacher of those ancient Gnostics?

55

The church of St. Autonomus (whom I have not the honour to know) was 150 stadia from Constantinople (Theophylact, l. viii. c. 9). [It was on the gulf of Nicomedia; Nic. Callist. 18, 40. The life of Autonomus (4th cent.) will be found in Acta Sanct., 12 Sept. iv. 16 sqq. ] The port of Eutropius, where Maurice and his children were murdered, is described by Gyllius (de Bosphoro Thracio, l. iii. c. xi.) as one of the two harbours of Chalcedon.

56

The inhabitants of Constantinople were generally subject to the νόσοι ἀρθρίτιδες; and Theophylact insinuates (l. viii. c. 9) that, if it were consistent with the rules of history, he could assign the medical cause. Yet such a digression would not have been more impertinent than his inquiry (l. vii. c. 16, 17) into the annual inundations of the Nile, and all the opinions of the Greek philosophers on that subject.

57

[See above, vol. iii. p. 422, and vol. iv. p. 184, n. 28.]

58

[On the next day, according to Theophylact, 8, 10.]

59

From this generous attempt, Corneille has deduced the intricate web of his tragedy of Heraclius, which requires more than one representation to be clearly understood (Corneille de Voltaire, tom. v. p. 300); and which, after an interval of some years, is said to have puzzled the author himself (Anecdotes Dramatiques, tom. i. p. 422).

60

The revolt of Phocas and death of Maurice are told by Theophylact Simocatta (l. viii. c. 7-12), the Paschal Chronicle (p. 379, 380), Theophanes (Chronograph. p. 238-244 [ad A.M. 6094]), Zonaras (tom. ii. l. xiv. p. 77-80 [c. 13, 14]), and Cedrenus (p. 399-404 [p. 700 sqq., ed. Bonn]).

61

Gregor. l. xi. epist. 38, indict. vi. Benignitatem vestræ pietatis ad Imperiale fastigium pervenisse gaudemus. Lætentur cæli et exultet terra, et de vestris benignis actibus universæ reipublicæ populus nunc usque vehementer afflictus hilarescat, c. This base flattery, the topic of Protestant invective, is justly censured by the philosopher Bayle (Dictionnaire Critique, Grégoire I. Not. H. tom. ii. p. 597, 598). Cardinal Baronius justifies the pope at the expense of the fallen emperor.

62

The images of Phocas were destroyed; but even the malice of his enemies would suffer one copy of such a portrait or caricature (Cedrenus, p. 404 [i. 708, ed. Bonn]) to escape the flames. [A statue to Phocas, erected by the exarch Smaragdus, adorned the Roman Forum. The column was dug up in AD 1813 and is one of the most conspicuous objects in the Forum. For the dedication on the base, see C.I.L. 6, 1200.]

63

The family of Maurice is represented by Ducange (Familiæ Byzantinæ, p. 106, 107, 108): his eldest son Theodosius had been crowned emperor when he was no more than four years and a half old, and he is always joined with his father in the salutations of Gregory. With the Christian daughters, Anastasia and Theoctiste, I am surprised to find the Pagan name of Cleopatra.

64

Some of the cruelties of Phocas are marked by Theophylact, l. viii. c. 13, 14, 15. George of Pisidia, the poet of Heraclius, styles him (Bell. Abaricum, p. 46 [l. 49]. Rome, 1777) τη̂ς τυραννίδος ὸ δυσκάθεκτος καὶ βιοϕθόρος δράκων. The latter epithet is just — but the corrupter of life was easily vanquished.

65

In the writers, and in the copies of those writers, there is such hesitation between the names of Priscus and Crispus (Ducange, Fam. Byzant. p. 111), that I have been tempted to identify the son-in-law of Phocas with the hero five times victorious over the Avars. [Κρίσπος is merely a mistake for Πρίσκος in MSS. of Nicephorus. The mistake does not occur in Theophanes.]

66

According to Theophanes, κιβώτια and εὶκόνα θεομήτορος. Cedrenus adds an ἀχειροποίητον εἰκόνα τον̂ κυρίου, which Heraclius bore as a banner in the first Persian expedition. See George Pisid. Acroas. i. 140. The manufacture seems to have flourished: but Foggini, the Roman editor (p. 26), is at a loss to determine whether this picture was an original or a copy.

67

See the tyranny of Phocas and the elevation of Heraclius, in Chron. Paschal. p. 380-383 [p. 694 sqq., ed. Bonn]; Theophanes, p. 242-250; Nicephorus, p. 3-7; Cedrenus, p. 404-407 [i. p. 708 sqq., ed. Bonn], Zonaras, tom. ii. l. xiv. p. 80-82 [c. 14, 15]. [For the race of Heraclius and Nicetas see Appendix 5.]

68

Theophylact, l. viii. c. 15. The life of Maurice was composed about the year 628 (l. viii. c. 13) by Theophylact Simocatta, ex-prefect, a native of Egypt. Photius, who gives an ample extract of the work (cod. lxv. p. 81-100), gently reproves the affectation and allegory of the style. His preface is a dialogue between Philosophy and History; they seat themselves under a plane-tree, and the latter touches her lyre.

69

Christianis nec pactum esse nec fidem nec fœdus . . . quod si ulla illis fides fuisset, regem suum non occidissent. Eutych. Annales. tom. ii. p. 211, vers. Pocock.

70

We must now, for some ages, take our leave of contemporary historians, and descend, if it be a descent, from the affectation of rhetoric to the rude simplicity of chronicles and abridgments. Those of Theophanes (Chronograph. p. 244-279) and Nicephorus (p. 3-16) supply a regular, but imperfect, series of the Persian war; and for any additional facts I quote my special authorities. Theophanes, a courtier who became a monk, was born AD 748; Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, who died AD 829, was somewhat younger: they both suffered in the cause of images. Hankius de Scriptoribus Byzantinis, p. 200-246. [See Appendix 1.]

71

The Persian historians have been themselves deceived; but Theophanes (p. 244 [ A.M. 6095]) accuses Chosroes of the fraud and falsehood; and Eutychius believes (Annal. tom. ii. p. 211) that the son of Maurice, who was saved from the assassins, lived and died a monk on Mount Sinai.

72

Eutychius dates all the losses of the empire under the reign of Phocas: an error which saves the honour of Heraclius, whom he brings not from Carthage, but Salonica, with a fleet laden with vegetables for the relief of Constantinople (Annal. tom. ii. p. 223, 224). The other Christians of the East, Barhebræus (apud Asseman. Bibliothec. Oriental. tom. iii. p. 412, 413), Elmacin (Hist. Saracen. p. 13-16), Abulpharagius (Dynast. p. 98, 99), are more sincere and accurate. The years of the Persian war are disposed in the chronology of Pagi.

73

On the conquest of Jerusalem, an event so interesting to the church, see the Annals of Eutychius (tom. ii. p. 212-223) and the lamentations of the monk Antiochus (apud Baronium, Annal. Eccles. AD 614, No. 16-26), whose one hundred and twenty-nine homilies are still extant, if what no one reads may be said to be extant.

74

The life of this worthy saint is composed by Leontius [of Neapolis], a contemporary bishop; and I find in Baronius (Annal. Eccles. AD 610, No. 10, c.) and Fleury (tom. viii. p. 235-242) sufficient extracts of this edifying work. [The Greek text of this Life was first published by H. Gelzer, 1893. The Latin translation will be found in Rosweyde’s Vitæ Patrum, and in Migne’s Patr. Lat., vol. 73, p. 337 sqq. ]

75

[The date of the conquest of Egypt is given by Theophanes as A.M. 6107, that is AD 615, in which year Chalcedon was also attacked. Nicephorus (p. 9, ed. de Boor) represents the attack on Chalcedon as subsequent to the conquest of Egypt and executed by the same general (Saitos). According to Tabari the keys of Alexandria were delivered to Chosroes in his 28th year, = AD 617-618 (p. 219). Nöldeke suggests that the statements may be reconciled by assuming that the keys were not sent till a long time after the conquest. Gelzer (see next note) places the conquest of Egypt in AD 619.]

76

The error of Baronius and many others who have carried the arms of Chosroes to Carthage instead of Chalcedon, is founded on the near resemblance of the Greek words Καλχηδόνα and Καρχηδόνα in the text of Theophanes, c. which have been sometimes confounded by transcribers and sometimes by critics. [There is no doubt that Χαλκηδόνος given by the MSS. of Theophanes is the true reading, though C. de Boor, in his edition, has introduced Καρχηδόνος from the Latin translation of Anastasius. See C. de Boor, in Hermes, 1890 (zur Chronographie des Theophanes); H. Gelzer, in Rheinisches Museum, 1893 (Chalkedon oder Karchedon? p. 161), a paper which discusses the chronology of these Persian conquests.]

77

The genuine acts of St. Anastasius are published in those of the viith general council, from whence Baronius (Annal. Eccles. AD 614, 626, 627) and Butler (Lives of the Saints, vol. i. p. 242-248) have taken their accounts. The holy martyr deserted from the Persian to the Roman army, became a monk at Jerusalem, and insulted the worship of the Magi, which was then established at Cæsarea in Palestine. [For the Acta of St. Anastasius see Appendix 1.]

78

Abulpharagius, Dynast. p. 99. Elmacin, Hist. Saracen. p. 14.

79

[In Chron. Pasch. Δασταγερ-χοσάρ = Dastagerd-i-Chosrau. In Mart. Anastasii (Act. Sctt. Jan. 22) the place is called Discarta, the Aramaic form (Arab Daskarat ). Cp. Nöldeke, op. cit. p. 295; and see below, p. 115, n. 126a.]

80

D’Anville, Mém. de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xxxii. p. 568-571.

81

The difference between the two races consists in one or two humps; the dromedary has only one; the size of the proper camel is larger; the country he comes from, Turkestan or Bactriana; the dromedary is confined to Arabia and Africa. Buffon, Hist. Naturelle, tom. xi. p. 211, c. Aristot. Hist. Animal. tom. i. l. ii. c. 1, tom. ii. p. 185.

82

Theophanes, Chronograph. p. 268 [p. 322, ed. de Boor]. D’Herbelot, Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 997. The Greeks describe the decay, the Persians the splendour, of Dastagerd; but the former speak from the modest witness of the eye, the latter from the vague report of the ear.

83

The historians of Mahomet, Abulfeda (in Vit. Mohammed. p. 92, 93) and Gagnier (Vie de Mahomet, tom. ii. p. 247), date this embassy in the viith year of the Hegira, which commences AD 628, May 11. Their chronology is erroneous, since Chosroes died in the month of February of the same year (Pagi, Critica, tom. ii. p. 779). [The embassy may have been despatched before the death of Chosroes was known; but it must have been received by Siroes.] The Count de Boulainvilliers (Vie de Mahomed, p. 327, 328) places this embassy about AD 615, soon after the conquest of Palestine. Yet Mahomet would scarcely have ventured so soon on so bold a step.

84

See the xxxth chapter of the Koran, entitled the Greeks. Our honest and learned translator Sale (p. 330, 331) fairly states this conjecture, guess, wager, of Mahomet; but Boulainvilliers (p. 329-344), with wicked intentions, labours to establish this evident prophecy of a future event, which must, in his opinion, embarrass the Christian polemics.

85

Paul Warnefrid, de Gestis Langobardorum, l. iv. c. 38, 42. Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. v. p. 305, c.

86

[This design seems to have followed the failure of the embassy to Chosroes.]

87

The Paschal Chronicle, which sometimes introduces fragments of history into a barren list of names and dates, gives the best account of the treason of the Avars, p. 389, 390 [p. 712 sqq., ed. Bonn]. The number of captives is added by Nicephorus. [Theophanes places this attack of the Avars in AD 619 ( A.M. 6110), the date adopted by Petavius, Gibbon, Muralt, Clinton. But Chron. Pasch. gives AD 623, and E. Gerland (Byz. Ztschr., 3, p. 334-7) has argued with much plausibility that this date is right and that the return of Heraclius in AD 623 (George Pis. Acroas. iii. 311) was due to this danger from the Avars. — It was on this occasion that the raiment of the Virgin was discovered in a coffin at Blachern; and the discovery is related by a contemporary, Theodore Syncellus. The relation has been edited by Combefis (Hist. Haer. Monothel., ii. 755 sqq. ) and in an improved form by Ch. Loparev (Vizant. Vrem., ii. 592 sqq. ), who however wrongly refers it to the Russian siege of the city in AD 860; see V. Vasilievski, ib. iii. 83 sqq. ]

88

Some original pieces, such as the speech or letter of the Roman ambassadors (p. 386-388 [p. 707 sqq., ed. Bonn]), likewise constitute the merit of the Paschal Chronicle, which was composed, perhaps at Alexandria, under the reign of Heraclius [cp. Appendix 1].

89

Nicephorus (p. 10, 11), who brands this marriage with the name of ἄθεσμον and ἀθέμιτον, is happy to observe that of two sons, its incestuous fruit, the elder was marked by Providence with a stiff neck, the younger with the loss of hearing.

90

George of Pisidia (Acroas. i. 112-125, p. 5), who states the opinions, acquits the pusillanimous counsellors of any sinister views. Would he have excused the proud and contemptuous admonition of Crispus? Ἐπιτωθάζων οὐκ ἐξὸν βασιλεɩ̂ ἔϕασκε καταλιμπάνειν βασίλεια, καὶ ταɩ̂ς πόρρω ἐπιχωριάζειν δυνάμεσιν [Nic. p. 5, ed. de Boor].

91

 

Εί τὰς ἐπ’ ἄκρον ἠρμένας εὐεξίας Ἐσϕαλμένας λέγουσιν οὐκ ἀπεικότως Κείσθω τὸ λοιπὸν ἐν κακοɩ̂ς τὰ Περσίδος. Ἀντιστρόϕως δὲ, c. — Gorge Pisid. Acroas. i. 51, c. p. 4.

The Orientals are not less fond of remarking this strange vicissitude; and I remember some story of Khosrou Parviz, not very unlike the ring of Polycrates of Samos.

92

Baronius gravely relates this discovery, or rather transmutation, of barrels, not of honey, but of gold (Annal. Eccles. AD 620, No. 3, c.). Yet the loan was arbitrary, since it was collected by soldiers, who were ordered to leave the patriarch of Alexandria no more than one hundred pounds of gold. Nicephorus (p. 11), two hundred years afterwards, speaks with ill-humour of this contribution, which the church of Constantinople might still feel. [The ecclesiastical loan illustrates the religious character of the wars of Heraclius: crusades against the Fire-worshippers who had taken captive the Holy City and the True Cross.]

93

Theophylact Simocatta, l. viii. c. 12. This circumstance need not excite our surprise. The muster-roll of a regiment, even in time of peace, is renewed in less than twenty or twenty-five years.

94

[On Easter Monday, April 5, AD 622.]

95

He changed his purple for black buskins, and dyed them red in the blood of the Persians (Georg. Pisid. Acroas. iii. 118, 121, 122. See the notes of Foggini, p. 35).

96

[But see next note.]

97

George of Pisidia (Acroas. ii. 10, p. 8) has fixed this important point of the Syrian and Cilician gates. They are elegantly described by Xenophon, who marched through them a thousand years before. A narrow pass of three stadia between steep high rocks (πέτραι ἠλίβατοι) and the Mediterranean was closed at each end by strong gates, impregnable to the land (παρελθεɩ̂ν οὐκ ἠ̂ν βίᾳ), accessible by sea (Anabasis, l. i. p. 35, 36, with Hutchison’s Geographical Dissertation, p. vi.). The gates were thirty-five parasangs, or leagues, from Tarsus (Anabasis, l. i. p. 33, 34 [c. 4]), and eight or ten from Antioch. (Compare Itinerar. Wesseling, p. 580, 581; Schultens, Index. Geograph. ad calcem Vit. Saladin. p. 9; Voyage en Turquie et en Perse, par M. Otter, tom. i. p. 78, 79.) [Historians have generally followed Quercius in interpreting the Πύλαι of George of Pisidia (= Theoph. p. 303, de Boor) as the Cilician Gates. Tafel has proved that this interpretation is utterly wrong and that the place meant is Pylæ on the southern side of the Nicomedian Bay, which Heraclius reached by sailing round the cape of Heræum (Acroas. i. 157). See Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akad. der Wiss. ix. p. 164, 1852. From Pylæ Heraclius proceeded by land (see E. Gerland, Die persischen Feldzüge des Kaisers Herakleios, Byz. Ztschrift. iii. p. 346, 1894) ἐπὶ τὰς τω̂ν θεμάτων χώρας “to the districts of the themes or regiments” (Eastern Phrygia and Cappadocia?) and thence to the Armenian frontier. The Persian general Shahrbarāz hindered him from invading Persia on the Armenian side, and at the beginning of the winter Heraclius found himself surrounded in the mountains of Pontus, but he extricated himself skilfully, and was on one occasion rescued from an attack by an eclipse of the moon. The battle mentioned in the text concluded the campaign; but its site cannot be fixed. There was no fighting in Cilicia; nor does Cilicia appear in the campaign, except where Shahrbarāz retires there for a brief space, but is forced to return northward, lest Heraclius should invade Persia.]

98

Heraclius might write to a friend in the modest words of Cicero: “Castra habuimus ea ipsa quæ contra Darium habuerat apud Issum Alexander, imperator haud paulo melior quam aut tu aut ego.” Ad Atticum, v. 20. Issus, a rich and flourishing city in the time of Xenophon, was ruined by the prosperity of Alexandria or Scanderoon, on the other side of the bay.

99

Foggini (Annotat. p. 31) suspects that the persons were deceived by the ϕάλαγξ πεπληγμένη of Ælian (Tactic. c. 48), an intricate spiral motion of the army. He observes (p. 28) that the military descriptions of George of Pisidia are transcribed in the Tactics of the emperor Leo.

100

George of Pisidia, an eye-witness (Acroas. ii. 122, c.), described in three acroaseis, or cantos, the first expedition of Heraclius. The poem has been lately (1777) published at Rome; but such vague and declamatory praise is far from corresponding with the sanguine hopes of Pagi, d’Anville, c.

101

Theophanes (p. 256 [p. 306, ed. de Boor]) carries Heraclius swiftly (κατὰ τάχος) into Armenia. Nicephorus (p. 11), though he confounds the two expeditions, defines the province of Lazica. Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 231) has given the 5000 men, with the more probable station of Trebizond. [Nicephorus and George Monachus throw the three expeditions of Heraclius into one.]

102

From Constantinople to Trebizond, with a fair wind, four or five days; from thence to Erzerom, five; to Erivan, twelve; to Tauris, ten: in all thirty-two. Such is the Itinerary of Tavernier (Voyages, tom. i. p. 12-56), who was perfectly conversant with the roads of Asia. Tournefort, who travelled with a pasha, spent ten or twelve days between Trebizond and Erzerom (Voyage du Levant, tom. iii. lettre xviii.); and Chardin (Voyages, tom. i. p. 249-254) gives the more correct distance of fifty-three parasangs, each of 5000 paces (what paces?) between Erivan and Tauris. [It has been shown by Gerland ( op. cit. p. 345) that in none of his three expeditions did Heraclius reach the scene of operations by sailing across the Euxine. In regard to this second expedition, the assumption (resting on the statements of Nicephorus and George Monachus) is disproved by the narrative of the Armenian historian Sebaeos. From him we learn that Heraclius proceeded from Chalcedon to Cæsarea in Cappadocia. This shows that a result of the first expedition was the setting free of Chalcedon from the Persian occupation. From Cæsarea, he marched northward, crossed the Euphrates, reached Karin or Erzerūm, and thence entered the valley of the Araxes, and destroyed the towns of Dovin and Nakitchevan (Sebaeos, c. 26, p. 102, Russ. transl. by Patkanian). A brilliant emendation of Professor H. Gelzer has restored to a passage of George of Pisidia a reference to the capture of Dovin. Heracliad, 2, 163 —

ὡς ἐν παρέργῳ συμϕορα̂ς τον̂δ’ ὁ βίος.

Read —

ὼς ἐν παρέργῳ συμϕορὰς τον̂ Δούβιος.

Then Heraclius entered Adherbijan, destroyed a fine temple at Ganzaca (Tavriz), and followed Chosroes in the direction of Dastagerd (Theophanes, p. 307). But a new army had been formed under Shāhīn, and Shahrbarāz was approaching with his forces from the west (Sebaeos, ib. ); they were to join at Nisibis. The news of their movements forced Heraclius to abandon his advance on Dastagerd and retreat to Albania. The campaign has been thoroughly discussed by E. Gerland, op. cit. ]

103

The expedition of Heraclius into Persia is finely illustrated by M. d’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xxviii. p. 559-573). He discovers the situation of Gandzaca, Thebarma, Dastagerd, c. with admirable skill and learning; but the obscure campaign of 624 [probably 625] he passes over in silence. [The date of the first campaign of the second expedition, namely the campaign in Adherbijan, is probably 624 (not 623). See Gerland, op. cit. ]

104

Et pontem indignatus Araxes. Virgil, Æneid, viii. 728. The river Araxes is noisy, rapid, vehement, and, with the melting of the snows, irresistible; the strongest and most massy bridges are swept away by the current; and its indignation is attested by the ruins of many arches near the old town of Zulfa. Voyages de Chardin, tom. i. p. 252. [For the cessions to Maurice cp. Appendix 4.]

105

Chardin, tom. i. p. 255-259. With the Orientals (D’Herbelot, Biblioth. Orient. p. 834), he ascribes the foundation of Tauris, or Tebris, to Zobeide, the wife of the famous Caliph Haroun Alrashid; but it appears to have been more ancient; and the names of Gandzaca, Gazaca, Gaza, are expressive of the royal treasure. The number of 550,000 inhabitants is reduced by Chardin from 1,100,000, the popular estimate.

106

He opened the gospel, and applied or interpreted the first casual passage to the name and situation of Albania. Theophanes, p. 258 [p. 308, de Boor].

107

The heath of Mogan, between the Cyrus and the Araxes, is sixty parasangs in length and twenty in breadth (Olearius, p. 1023, 1024), abounding in waters and fruitful pastures (Hist. de Nadir Shah, translated by Mr. Jones from a Persian MS. part ii. p. 2, 3). See the encampments of Timur (Hist. par Sherefeddin Ali, l. v. c. 37; l. vi. c. 13) and the coronation of Nadir Shah (Hist. Persanne, p. 3-13, and the English Life by Mr. Jones, p. 64, 65). [From the expression of Theophanes, τὰ ἄκρα τη̂ς Ἀλβανίας, “the heights of Albania,” Albania being level, Gerland concludes that Theophanes used the name for all the land north of the Araxes. According to Sebaeos Heraclius wintered in the mountain regions near Nakitchevan (Russ. transl., p. 103).]

108

Thebarma and Ormia, near the lake Spauto, are proved to be the same city by d’Anville (Mémoires de l’Académie, tom. xxviii. p. 564, 565). It is honoured as the birth-place of Zoroaster, according to the Persians (Schultens, Index Geograph. p. 48); and their tradition is fortified by M. Perron d’Anquetil (Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscript. tom. xxxi. p. 375), with some texts from his, or their, Zandavesta. [It is almost certain that Θηβαρμαΐς in Theophanes (p. 308) is a mistake for Βηθαρμαΐς, as Hoffmann has suggested (Syrische Akten persischer Martyrer, p. 252). Βηθαρμαΐς would mean the province Bēth Armāyē, in which Dastagerd was situate. The great firetemple which Heraclius destroyed was at Gazaka (Sebaeos, c. 26). Cp. Gerland, op. cit. p. 354.]

109

I cannot find, and (what is much more) M. d’Anville does not attempt to seek, the Salban, Tarantum, territory of the Huns, c. mentioned by Theophanes (p. 260-262). Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 231, 232), an insufficient author, names Asphahan; and Casbin is most probably the city of Sapor. Ispahan is twenty-four days’ journey from Tauris, and Casbin halfway between them (Voyages de Tavernier, tom. i. p. 63-82). [Salban has been identified with a village Αλι (Sebaeos, p. 103), in the district of Arjish, north of Lake Van (Gerland, op. cit. p. 360). Taranton is Derindeh on the Aksu, a western tributary of the Euphrates; it is west of Melitene. The very difficult and uncertain operations in the lands north of the Araxes, and between Lake Van and the upper Euphrates, from end of AD 624 to spring of AD 626, are discussed by Gerland (p. 355 sqq. ). An Armenian writer of the tenth century, Moses Kaλankata c i, throws some light, independent of Sebaeos, here.]

110

[Under Shahrbarāz, Shāhīn, and Shāhraplakan (= Sarablangas).]

111

At ten parasangs from Tarsus, the army of the younger Cyrus passed the Sarus, three plethra in breadth; the Pyramus, a stadium in breadth, ran five parasangs farther to the east (Xenophon, Anabas. l. i. p. 33, 34 [c. 4]).

112

George of Pisidia (Bell. Abaricum, 246-265, p. 49) celebrates with truth the persevering courage of the three campaigns (τρεɩ̂ς περιδρόμους) against the Persians.

113

Petavius (Annotationes ad Nicephorum, p. 62, 63, 64) discriminates the names and actions of five Persian generals, who were successively sent against Heraclius.

114

This number of eight myriads is specified by George of Pisidia (Bell. Abar. 219). The poet (50-88) clearly indicates that the old chagan lived till the reign of Heraclius, and that his son and successor was born of a foreign mother. Yet Foggini (Annotat. p. 57) has given another interpretation to this passage. [Cp. above, p. 68, n. 31.]

115

A bird, a frog, a mouse, and five arrows had been the present of the Scythian king to Darius (Herodot. l. iv. c. 131, 132). Substitutez une lettre à ces signes (says Rousseau, with much good taste), plus ella sera menaçante moins elle effrayera: ce ne cera qu’une fanfarronade dont Darius n’eut fait que rire (Emile, tom. iii. p. 146). Yet I much question whether the senate and people of Constantinople laughed at this message of the chagan.

116

The Paschal Chronicle (p. 392-397 [p. 716 sqq. ]) gives a minute and authentic narrative of the siege and deliverance of Constantinople. Theophanes (p. 264 [p. 316, ed. de Boor]) adds some circumstances; and a faint light may be obtained from the smoke of George of Pisidia, who has composed a poem (de Bello Abarico, p. 45-54) to commemorate this auspicious event. [There is another minute account of this siege preserved in many MSS. and printed by Mai in Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, vol. 6, 1853. V. Vasilievski has made it probable that its author is Theodore Syncellus, who was one of the deputies to the chagan. See Viz. Vremenn. iii. p. 91-2.]

117

[Over Shāhīn.]

118

The power of the Chozars prevailed in the viith, viiith, and ixth centuries. They were known to the Greeks, the Arabs, and, under the name of Kosa, to the Chinese themselves. De Guignes, Hist. des Huns, tom. ii. part ii p. 507-509.

119

[An Armenian source states that the Khazars, who had invaded Persian territory in a previous year, now joined Heraclius in a siege of Tiflis. But a Persian general entered the town and successfully defied the besiegers. Zhebu, the chagan of the Khazars, then withdrew to his own land, but in the following year sent auxiliaries to the Emperor. See Gerland, op. cit., p. 364. With the exception of these events in connection with the Khazars, the year from autumn AD 626 to autumn AD 627 is a blank.]

120

Epiphania, or Eudocia, the only daughter of Heraclius and his first wife Eudocia, was born at Constantinople on the 7th of July, AD 611, baptised the 15th of August, and crowned (in the oratory of St. Stephen in the palace) the 4th of October of the same year. At this time she was about fifteen. Eudocia was afterwards sent to her Turkish husband, but the news of his death stopped her journey and prevented the consummation (Ducange, Familiæ Byzantin. p. 118).

121

Elmacin (Hist. Saracen. p. 13-16) gives some curious and probable facts; but his numbers are rather too high — 300,000 Romans assembled at Edessa — 500,000 Persians killed at Nineveh. The abatement of a cipher is scarcely enough to restore his sanity.

122

Ctesias (apud Diodor. Sicul. tom. i. l. ii. p. 115, edit. Wesseling [c. 3]) assigns 480 stadia (perhaps only thirty-two miles) for the circumference of Nineveh. Jonas talks of three days’ journey: the 120,000 persons described by the prophet as incapable of discerning their right hand from their left may afford about 700,000 persons of all ages for the inhabitants of that ancient capital (Goguet, Origines des Loix, c. tom. iii. part i. p. 92, 93), which ceased to exist 600 years before Christ. The western suburb still subsisted, and is mentioned under the name of Mosul in the first age of the Arabian caliphs.

123

Niebuhr (Voyage en Arabie, c. tom. ii. p. 286) passed over Nineveh without perceiving it. He mistook for a ridge of hills the old rampart of brick or earth. It is said to have been 100 feet high, flanked with 1500 towers, each of the height of 200 feet.

124

[ϕάλβας, ὁ λεγόμενος Δόρκων (Theoph. p. 318). Dorcon seems to have been the name of the steed, ϕάλβας (cf. ϕαλιός) to describe its colour (white ?).]

125

Rex regia arma fero (says Romulus, in the first consecration) . . . bina postea (continues Livy, i. 10) inter tot bella opima parta sunt spolia, adeo rara ejus fortuna decoris. If Varro (apud Pomp. Festum, p. 306, edit. Dacier) could justify his liberality in granting the opime spoils even to a common soldier who had slain the king or general of the enemy, the honour would have been much more cheap and common.

126

[Dastagerd lay not far from Bagdad, near the present Shahrābān.]

126a

[Sebaeos (c. 27, p. 105-6) ascribes the Emperor’s retreat into Adharbijan to fear of being cut off by Shahrbarāz.]

127

In describing this last expedition of Heraclius, the facts, places, and the dates of Theophanes (p. 265-271 [ A.M. 6118]) are so accurate and authentic that he must have followed the original letters of the emperor, of which the Paschal Chronicle has preserved (p. 398-402 [727-734, ed. Bonn]) a very curious specimen. [Theophanes seems here to have put various sources together.]

128

The words of Theophanes are remarkable: εἰση̂λθε Χοσρόης εἰς οɩ̂̓κον γεωργον̂ μηδαμινον̂ μεɩ̂ναι, οὐ [μόλις] χωρηθεὶς ἑν τῃ̑ τούτου θύρᾳ, ἣν ίδὼν ἔσχατον Ἡράκλειος ὲθαύμασε (p. 269 [p. 323, ed. de Boor]). Young princes who discover a propensity to war should repeatedly transcribe and translate such salutary texts.

129

The authentic narrative of the fall of Chosroes is contained in the letter of Heraclius (Chron. Paschal. p. 398 [p. 727]), and the history of Theophanes (p. 271 [p. 326, ed. de Boor]).

130

On the first rumour of the death of Chosroes, an Heracliad in two cantos was instantly published at Constantinople by George of Pisidia (p. 97-105). A priest and a poet might very properly exult in the damnation of the public enemy (ἐμπεσ ὼν ἐν [ leg. τῷ] ταρτάρῳ [Acr. i.], v. 56): but such mean revenge is unworthy of a king and a conqueror; and I am sorry to find so much black superstition θεομάχος Χοσρόης ἐπεσε καὶ ἐπτωματίσθη εὶς τὰ καταχθόνια . . . εἰς τὸ πν̂ρ ἀκατάσβεστον, c.) in the letter of Heraclius: he almost applauds the parricide of Siroes as an act of piety and justice.

131

The best Oriental accounts of this last period of the Sassanian kings are found in Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 251-256), who dissembles the parricide of Siroes, D’Herbelot (Bibliothèque Orientale, p. 789), and Assemanni (Bibliothec. Oriental. tom. iii. p. 415-420). [For chronological list of the chief usurpers, see Appendix 6.]

132

The letter of Siroes in the Paschal Chronicle (p. 402 [p. 735, ed. Bonn]) unfortunately ends before he proceeds to business. The treaty appears in its execution in the histories of Theophanes and Nicephorus.

133

The burden of Corneille’s song,

“Montrez Héraclius au peuple qui l’attend,”

is much better suited to the present occasion. See his triumph in Theophanes (p. 272, 273 [ A.M. 6119]), and Nicephorus (p. 15, 16). The life of the mother and tenderness of the son are attested by George of Pisidia (Bell. Abar. 255, c. p. 49). The metaphor of the Sabbath is used, somewhat profanely, by these Byzantine Christians.

134

See Baronius (Annal. Eccles. AD 628, No. 1-4), Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 240-248), Nicephorus (Brev. p. 15). The seals of the case had never been broken; and this preservation of the cross is ascribed (under God) to the devotion of Queen Sira.

135

George of Pisidia, Acroas. iii. de Expedit. contra Persas, 415, c. and Heracliad. Acroas. i. 65-138. I neglect the meaner parallels of Daniel, Timotheus, c. Chosroes and the chagan were of course compared to Belshazzar, Pharaoh, the old serpent, c.

136

Suidas (in Excerpt. Hist. Byzant. p. 46) gives this number; but either the Persian must be read for the Isaurian war, or this passage does not belong to the emperor Heraclius.

1

By what means shall I authenticate this previous inquiry, which I have studied to circumscribe and compress? — If I persist in supporting each fact or reflection by its proper and special evidence, every line would demand a string of testimonies, and every note would swell to a critical dissertation. But the numberless passages of antiquity which I have seen with my own eyes are compiled, digested, and illustrated by Petavius and Le Clerc, by Beausobre and Mosheim. I shall be content to fortify my narrative by the names and characters of these respectable guides; and in the contemplation of a minute or remote object I am not ashamed to borrow the aid of the strongest glasses. 1. The Dogmata Theologica of Petavius are a work of incredible labour and compass; the volumes which relate solely to the incarnation (two folios, vth and vith, of 837 pages) are divided into xvi. books — the first of history, the remainder of controversy and doctrine. The Jesuit’s learning is copious and correct; his Latinity is pure, his method clear, his argument profound and well connected; but he is the slave of the fathers, the scourge of heretics, the enemy of truth and candour, as often as they are inimical to the Catholic cause. 2. The Arminian Le Clerc, who has composed in a quarto volume (Amsterdam, 1716) the ecclesiastical history of the two first centuries, was free both in his temper and situation; his sense is clear, but his thoughts are narrow; he reduces the reason or folly of ages to the standard of his private judgment, and his impartiality is sometimes quickened, and sometimes tainted, by his opposition to the fathers. See the heretics (Corinthians, lxxx.; Ebionites, ciii.; Carpocratians, cxx.; Valentinians, cxxi.; Basilidians, cxxiii.; Marcionites, cxli., c.) under their proper dates. 3. The Histoire Critique du Manichéisme (Amsterdam, 1734, 1739, in two vols. in 4to, with a posthumous dissertation sur les Nazarènes, Lausanne, 1745) of M. de Beausobre is a treasure of ancient philosophy and theology. The learned historian spins with incomparable art the systematic thread of opinion, and transforms himself by turns into the person of a saint, a sage, or an heretic. Yet his refinement is sometimes excessive; he betrays an amiable partiality in favour of the weaker side; and, while he guards against calumny, he does not allow sufficient scope for superstition and fanaticism. A copious table of contents will direct the reader to any point that he wishes to examine. 4. Less profound than Petavius, less independent than Le Clerc, less ingenious than Beausobre, the historian Mosheim is full, rational, correct, and moderate. In his learned work, De Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum (Helmstadt, 1753, in 4to), see the Nazarenes and Ebionites, p. 172-179, 328-332; the Gnostics in general, p. 179, c.; Cerinthus, p. 196-202; Basilides, p. 352-361; Carpocrates, p. 363-367; Valentinus, p. 371-389; Marcion, p. 404-410; the Manichæans, p. 829-837, c.

2

Καὶ γὰρ πάντες ἡμεɩ̂ς τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων προσδοκω̂μεν γενήσεσθαι, says the Jewish Tryphon (Justin. Dialog. p. 207) in the name of his countrymen; and the modern Jews, the few who divert their thoughts from money to religion, still hold the same language and allege the literal sense of the prophets.

3

Chrysostom (Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, tom. v. c. 9, p. 183) and Athanasius (Petav. Dogmat. Theolog. tom. v. l. i. c. 2, p. 3) are obliged to confess that the divinity of Christ is rarely mentioned by himself or his apostles.

4

The two first chapters of St. Matthew did not exist in the Ebionite copies (Epiphan. Hæres. xxx. 13); and the miraculous conception is one of the last articles which Dr. Priestley has curtailed from his scanty creed.

5

It is probable enough that the first of the gospels for the use of the Jewish converts was composed in the Hebrew or Syriac idiom: the fact is attested by a chain of fathers — Papias, Irenæus, Origen, Jerom, c. It is devoutly believed by the Catholics, and admitted by Casaubon, Grotius, and Isaac Vossius, among the Protestant critics. But this Hebrew gospel of St. Matthew is most unaccountably lost; and we may accuse the diligence or fidelity of the primitive churches, who have preferred the unauthorised version of some nameless Greek. Erasmus and his followers, who respect our Greek text as the original gospel, deprive themselves of the evidence which declares it to be the work of an apostle. See Simon, Hist. Critique, c. tom. iii. c. 5-9, p. 47-101 and the Prolegomena of Mill and Wetstein to the New Testament.

6

The metaphysics of the soul are disengaged by Cicero (Tusculan. l. i.) and Maximus of Tyre (Dissertat. xvi.) from the intricacies of dialogue, which sometimes amuse, and often perplex, the readers of the Phaedrus, the Phaedon, and the Laws of Plato.

7

The disciples of Jesus were persuaded that a man might have sinned before he was born (John ix. 2), and the Pharisees held the transmigration of virtuous souls (Joseph. de Bell. Judaico, l. ii. c. 7 [ leg. c. 8, § 11]) and a modern Rabbi is modestly assured that Hermes, Pythagoras, Plato, c. derived their metaphysics from his illustrious countrymen.

8

Four different opinions have been entertained concerning the origin of human souls. 1. That they are eternal and divine. 2. That they were created in a separate state of existence, before their union with the body. 3. That they have been propagated from the original stock of Adam, who contained in himself the mental as well as the corporeal seed of his posterity. 4. That each soul is occasionally created and embodied in the moment of conception. — The last of these sentiments appears to have prevailed among the moderns; and our spiritual history is grown less sublime, without becoming more intelligible.

9

Ὅτι ἡ τον̂ Σωτη̂ρος ψυχὴ, ἡ τον̂ Ἀδὰμ ἠ̂ν — was one of the fifteen heresies imputed to Origen, and denied by his apologist (Photius, Bibliothec. cod. cxvii. p. 296). Some of the Rabbis attribute one and the same soul to the persons of Adam, David, and the Messiah.

10

Apostolis adhuc in sæculo superstitibus, apud Judæam Christi sanguine recente, PHANTASMA domini corpus asserebatur. Hieronym. advers. Lucifer. c. 8. The epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans, and even the gospel according to St. John, are levelled against the growing error of the Docetes, who had obtained too much credit in the world (1 John iv. 1, 5).

11

About the year 200 of the Christian era, Irenæus and Hippolytus refuted the thirty-two sects, τη̂ς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, which had multiplied to fourscore in the time of Epiphanius (Phot. Biblioth. cod. cxx. cxxi. cxxii.). The five books of Irenæus exist only in barbarous Latin; but the original might perhaps be found in some monastery of Greece. [Fragments of the original are preserved in Hippolytus, Eusebius, c.; and possibly the whole text existed in the sixteenth century (Zahn, Zeitsch. f. Kirchengeschichte, ii. 288, 1878). The short work of Hippolytus (σύνταγμα πρὸς ἁπάσας τὰς αὶρέσεις) referred to by Photius (cod. cxxi.) is lost; but of a larger treatise entitled κατὰ πασω̂ν αὶρέσεων ἔλεγχος (also known as Λαβύρινθος) bks. iv.-x. were discovered on Mount Athos in 1842, and bk. i. is the well-known Philosophumena which used to be attributed to Origen.]

12

The pilgrim Cassian, who visited Egypt in the beginning of the vth century, observes and laments the reign of anthropomorphism among the monks, who were not conscious that they embraced the system of Epicurus (Cicero, de Nat. Deorum, i. 18, 34). Ab universo propemodum genere monachorum, qui per totam provinciam Ægyptum morabantur, pro simplicitatis errore susceptum est, ut e contrario memoratum pontificem ( Theophilus ) velut hæresi gravissimâ depravatum, pars maxima seniorum ab universo fraternitatis corpore decerneret detestandum (Cassian, Collation. x. 2). As long as St. Augustin remained a Manichæan, he was scandalised by the anthropomorphism of the vulgar Catholics.

13

Ita est in oratione senex mente confusus, eo quod illam ἀνθρωπόμορϕον imaginem Deitatis, quam proponere sibi in oratione consueverat, aboleri de suo corde sentiret, ut in amarissimos fletus crebrosque singultus repente prorumpens, in terram prostratus, cum ejulatu validissimo proclamaret; “Heu me miserum! tulerunt a me Deum meum, et quem nunc teneam non habeo, vel quem adorem aut interpellem jam nescio.” Cassian, Collat. x. 2 [ leg. 3].

14

St. John and Cerinthus ( AD 80, Cleric. Hist. Eccles. p. 493) accidentally met in the public bath of Ephesus; but the apostle fled from the heretic, lest the building should tumble on their heads. This foolish story, reprobated by Dr. Middleton (Miscellaneous Works, vol. ii.), is related however by Irenæus (iii. 3), on the evidence of Polycarp, and was probably suited to the time and residence of Cerinthus. The obsolete, yet probably the true, reading of 1 John iv. 3 — ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰησον̂ν — alludes to the double nature of that primitive heretic.

15

The Valentinians embraced a complex and almost incoherent system. 1. Both Christ and Jesus were æons, though of different degrees; the one acting as the rational soul, the other as the divine spirit, of the Saviour. 2. At the time of the passion, they both retired, and left only a sensitive soul and an human body. 3. Even that body was ethereal, and perhaps apparent. Such are the laborious conclusions of Mosheim. But I much doubt whether the Latin translator understood Irenæus, and whether Irenæus and the Valentinians understood themselves.

16

The heretics abused the passionate exclamation of “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Rousseau, who has drawn an eloquent but indecent parallel between Christ and Socrates, forgets that not a word of impatience or despair escaped from the mouth of the dying philosopher. In the Messiah such sentiments could be only apparent; and such ill-sounding words are properly explained as the application of a psalm and prophecy.

17

This strong expression might be justified by the language of St. Paul (1 Tim. iii. 16), but we are deceived by our modern Bibles. The word ὄ ( which ) was altered to θεός ( God ) at Constantinople in the beginning of the vith century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac versions, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek as well as of the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton. (See his two letters translated by M. de Missy, in the Journal Britannique, tom. xv. p. 148-190, 351-390.) I have weighed the arguments, and may yield to the authority, of the first of philosophers, who was deeply skilled in critical and theological studies.

18

For Apollinaris and his sect, see Socrates, l. ii. c. 46, l. iii. c. 16; Sozomen, l. v. c. 18, l. vi. c. 25, 27; Theodoret, l. v. 3, 10, 11; Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés., tom. vii. p. 602, 638, Not. p. 789-794, in 4to, Venise, 1732. The contemporary saints always mention the bishop of Laodicea as a friend and brother. The style of the more recent historians is harsh and hostile; yet Philostorgius compares him (l. viii. c. 11-15) to Basil and Gregory.

19

I appeal to the confession of two Oriental prelates, Gregory Abulpharagius the Jacobite primate of the East, and Elias the Nestorian metropolitan of Damascus (see Asseman. Bibliothec. Oriental. tom. ii. p. 291, tom. iii. p. 514, c.), that the Melchites, Jacobites, Nestorians, c. agree in the doctrine, and differ only in the expression. Our most learned and rational divines — Basnage, Le Clerc, Beausobre, La Croze, Mosheim, Jablonski — are inclined to favour this charitable judgment; but the zeal of Petavius is loud and angry, and the moderation of Dupin is conveyed in a whisper.

20

La Croze (Hist. du Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 24) avows his contempt for the genius and writings of Cyril. De tous les ouvrages des anciens, il y en a peu qu’on lise avec moins d’utilité; and Dupin (Bibliothèque Ecclésiastique, tom. iv. p. 42-52), in words of respect, teaches us to despise them.

21

Of Isidore of Pelusium (l. i. epist. 25, p. 8). As the letter is not of the most creditable sort, Tillemont, less sincere than the Bollandists, affects a doubt whether this Cyril is the nephew of Theophilus (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 268).

22

A grammarian is named by Socrates (l. vii. 13) διάπυρος δὲ ἀκροατὴς τον̂ ἐπισκόπου Κυρίλλου καθεστὼς καὶ περὶ τὸ κρότους ἐν ταɩ̂ς‘ διδασκαλίαις αὐτον̂ ἐγείρειν ἠ̂ν σπουδαιότατος.

23

See the youth and promotion of Cyril, in Socrates (l. vii. c. 7) and Renaudot (Hist. Patriarch. Alexandrin. p. 106, 108). The Abbé Renaudot drew his materials from the Arabic history of Severus, bishop of Hermopolis Magna, or Ashmunein, in the xth century, who can never be trusted, unless our assent is extorted by the internal evidence of facts.

24

The Parabolani of Alexandria were a charitable corporation, instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick, and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct under the reign of Cyril provoked the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination, and to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these restraints were transient and ineffectual. See the Theodosian Code, l. xvi. tit. ii., and Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 276-278. [Cp. above, vol. iii. p. 319-320.]

25

For Theon, and his daughter Hypatia, see Fabricius, Bibliothec. tom. viii. p. 210, 211. Her article in the Lexicon of Suidas is curious and original. Hesychius (Meursii Opera, tom. vii. p. 295, 296) observes that she was prosecuted διὰ τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν σοϕίαν; and an epigram in the Greek Anthology (l. i. c. 76, p. 159, edit. Brodæi) celebrates her knowledge and eloquence. She is honourably mentioned (Epist. 10, 15, 16, 33-80, 124, 135, 153) by her friend and disciple the philosophic bishop Synesius. [W. A. Meyer, Hypatia von Alexandria, 1886.]

26

Ὀστράκοις ἀνεɩ̂λον καὶ μεληδὸν δεασπάσαντες, c. Oyster shells were plentifully strewed on the sea-beach before the Cæsareum. I may therefore prefer the literal sense, without rejecting the metaphorical version of tegulæ, tiles, which is used by M. de Valois. I am ignorant, and the assassins were probably regardless, whether their victim was yet alive. [ἀνειλον means simply killed (by cutting her throat?), not scraped. ]

27

These exploits of St. Cyril are recorded by Socrates (l. vii. c. 13, 14, 15); and the most reluctant bigotry is compelled to copy an historian who coolly styles the murderers of Hypatia ἄνδρες τὸ ϕρόνημα ἔνθερμοι. At the mention of that injured name, I am pleased to observe a blush even on the cheek of Baronius ( AD 415, No. 48).

28

He was deaf to the entreaties of Atticus of Constantinople, and of Isidore of Pelusium, and yielded only (if we may believe Nicephorus, l. xiv. c. 18) to the personal intercession of the Virgin. Yet in his last years he still muttered that John Chrysostom had been justly condemned (Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 278-282; Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 412, No. 46-64).

29

See their characters in the history of Socrates (l. vii. c. 25-28); their power and pretensions, in the huge compilation of Thomassin (Discipline de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 80-91).

30

His elevation and conduct are described by Socrates (l. vii. c. 29, 31); and Marcellinus seems to have applied the loquentiæ satis, sapientiæ parum, of Sallust.

31

Cod. Theodos. l. xvi. tit. v. leg. 65, with the illustrations of Baronius ( AD 428, No. 25, c.), Godefroy (ad locum), and Pagi (Critica, tom. ii. p. 208).

32

Isidore of Pelusium (l. iv. epist. 57). His words are strong and scandalous — τί θαυμάζεις, εἰ καὶ νν̂ν περὶ πρα̂γμα θεɩ̂ον καὶ λόγου κρεɩ̂ττον διαϕωνεɩ̂ν προσποιον̂νται ὑπὸ ϕιλαρχίας ὲκβακχευόμενοι; Isidore is a saint, but he never became a bishop; and I half suspect that the pride of Diogenes trampled on the pride of Plato.

33

La Croze (Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 44-53; Thesaurus Epistolicus La Crozianus, tom. iii. p. 276-280) has detected the use of ὁ δεσπότης and ὁ κύριος Ἰησον̂ς. which in the ivth, vth, and vith centuries discriminates the school of Diodorus of Tarsus and his Nestorian disciples.

34

Θεοτόκος — Deipara: as in zoology we familiarly speak of oviparous and viviparous animals. It is not easy to fix the invention of this word, which La Croze (Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 16) ascribes to Eusebius of Cæsarea and the Arians. The orthodox testimonies are produced by Cyril and Petavius (Dogmat. Theolog. tom. v. l. v. c. 15, p. 254, c.); but the veracity of the saint is questionable, and the epithet of θεοτόκος so easily slides from the margin to the text of a Catholic MS.

35

Basnage, in his Histoire de l’Eglise, a work of controversy (tom. i. p. 505), justifies the mother, by the blood, of God (Acts xx. 28, with Mill’s various readings). But the Greek MSS. are far from unanimous; and the primitive style of the blood of Christ is preserved in the Syriac version, even in those copies which were used by the Christians of St. Thomas on the coast of Malabar (La Croze, Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 347). The jealousy of the Nestorians and Monophysites has guarded the purity of their text.

36

The Pagans of Egypt already laughed at the new Cybele of the Christians (Isidor. l. i. epist. 54): a letter was forged in the name of Hypatia, to ridicule the theology of her assassin (Synodicon, c. 216, in iv. tom. Concil. p. 484). In the article of NESTORIUS, Bayle has scattered some loose philosophy on the worship of the Virgin Mary.

37

The ἀντίδοσις of the Greeks, a mutual loan or transfer of the idioms or properties of each nature to the other — of infinity to man, passibility to God, c. Twelve rules on this nicest of subjects compose the Theological Grammar of Petavius (Dogmata Theolog. tom. v. l. iv. c. 14, 15, p. 209, c.).

38

See Ducange, C. P. Christiana, l. i. p. 30, c.

39

Concil. tom. iii. p. 943. They have never been directly approved by the church (Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 368-372). I almost pity the agony of rage and sophistry with which Petavius seems to be agitated in the vith book of his Dogmata Theologica.

40

Such as the rational Basnage (ad tom. i. Variar. Lection, Canisii in Præfat. c. ii. p. 11-23) and La Croze, the universal scholar (Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 16-20. De l’Ethiopie, p. 26, 27. Thesaur. Epist. p. 176, c. 283, 285). His free sentence is confirmed by that of his friends Jablonski (Thesaur. Epist. tom. i. p. 193-201) and Mosheim (idem, p. 304: Nestorium crimine caruisse est et mea sententia); and three more respectable judges will not easily be found. Asseman, a learned and modest slave, can hardly discern (Bibliothec. Orient. tom. iv. p. 190-224) the guilt and error of the Nestorians.

41

The origin and progress of the Nestorian controversy, till the synod of Ephesus, may be found in Socrates (l. vii. c. 32), Evagrius (l. i. c. 1, 2), Liberatus (Brev. c. 1-4), the original Acts (Concil. tom. iii. p. 551-991, edit. Venise, 1728), the Annals of Baronius and Pagi, and the faithful collections of Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 283-377).

42

The Christians of the four first centuries were ignorant of the death and burial of Mary. The tradition of Ephesus is affirmed by the synod (ἔνθα ὁ θεολόγος Ἰωάννης, καὶ ἡ θεοτόκος παρθένος ἡ ἁγία Μαρία. Concil. tom. iii. p. 1102); yet it has been superseded by the claim of Jerusalem; and her empty sepulchre, as it was shewn to the pilgrims, produced the fable of her resurrection and assumption, in which the Greek and Latin churches have piously acquiesced. See Baronius (Annal. Eccles. AD 48, No. 6, c.) and Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. i. p. 467-477).

43

The Acts of Chalcedon (Concil. tom. iv. p. 1405, 1408) exhibit a lively picture of the blind, obstinate servitude of the bishops of Egypt to their patriarch.

44

Civil or ecclesiastical business detained the bishops at Antioch till the 18th of May. Ephesus was at the distance of thirty days’ journey; and ten days more may be fairly allowed for accidents and repose. The march of Xenophon over the same ground enumerates above 260 parasangs or leagues; and this measure might be illustrated from ancient and modern itineraries, if I knew how to compare the speed of an army, a synod, and a caravan. John of Antioch is reluctantly acquitted by Tillemont himself (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 386-389).

45

Μεμϕόμενον μὴ κατὰ τὸ δέον τὰ ἐν Ἐϕέσῳ συντεθη̂ναι ὑπομνήματα, πανουργίᾳ δὲ καί τινι ἀθέσμῳ καινοτομίᾳ Κυρίλλου τεχνάζοντος. Evagrius, l. i. c. 7. The same imputation was urged by Count Irenæus (tom. iii. p. 1249); and the orthodox critics do not find it an easy task to defend the purity of the Greek or Latin copies of the Acts.

46

Ὁ δὲ ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ τω̂ν ἐκκλησιω̂ν τεχθεὶς καὶ τραϕείς. After the coalition of John and Cyril, these invectives were mutually forgotten. The style of declamation must never be confounded with the genuine sense which respectable enemies entertain of each other’s merit (Concil. tom. iii. p. 1244).

47

See the Acts of the Synod of Ephesus, in the original Greek, and a Latin version almost contemporary (Concil. tom. iii. p. 991-1339) with the Synodicon adversus Tragœdiam Irenæi (tom. iv. p. 235-497), the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates (l. vii. c. 34) and Evagrius (l. i. c. 3, 4, 5), and the Breviary of Liberatus (in Concil. tom. vi. p. 419-459, c. 5, 6), and the Mém. Ecclés. of Tillemont (tom. xiv. p. 377-487).

48

Ταραχὴν (says the emperor in pointed language) τό γε ἐπὶ σαυτῷ καὶ χωρισμὸν ταɩ̂ς ἐκκλησίαις ἐμβέβληκας . . . ὡς θρασυτέρας ὁρμη̂ς πρεπούσης μα̂λλον ἢ ἀκριβείας . . . καὶ ποικιλίας μα̂λλον τούτων ἡμɩ̂ν ἀρκούσης ἤπερ ἁπλότητος . . . παντὸς μα̂λλον ἢ ἱερέως . . . τά τε τω̂ν ἑκκλησιω̂ν, τά τε τω̂ν βασιλέων μέλλειν χωρίζειν βούλεσθαι, ὡς οὐκ οὐση̂ς ἀϕορμη̂ς ὲτέρας εὐδοκιμήσεως. I should be curious to know how much Nestorius paid for these expressions so mortifying to his rival.

49

Eutyches, the heresiarch Eutyches, is honourably named by Cyril as a friend, a saint, and the strenuous defender of the faith. His brother, the abbot Dalmatius, is likewise employed to bind the emperor and all his chamberlains terribili conjuratione. Synodicon, c. 203, in Concil. tom. iv. p. 467.

50

Clerici qui hic sunt contristantur, quod ecclesia Alexandrina nudata sit hujus causâ turbelæ: et debet præter illa quæ hinc transmissa sint auri libras mille quingentas. Et nunc et scriptum est ut præstet; sed de tuâ ecclesiâ præsta avaritiæ quorum nosti, c. This curious and original letter, from Cyril’s archdeacon to his creature the new bishop of Constantinople, has been unaccountably preserved in an old Latin version (Synodicon, c. 203; Concil. tom. iv. p. 465-468). The mask is almost dropped, and the saints speak the honest language of interest and confederacy.

51

The tedious negotiations that succeeded the synod of Ephesus are diffusely related in the original Acts (Concil. tom. iii. p. 1339-1771, ad fin. vol. and the Synodicon, in tom. iv.), Socrates (l. vii. c. 28, 35, 40, 41), Evagrius (l. i. c. 6, 7, 8, 12), Liberatus (c. 7-10), Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 487-676). The most patient reader will thank me for compressing so much nonsense and falsehood in a few lines.

52

Αὐτον̂ τε αὑ δεηθέντος, ἐπετράπη κατὰ τὸ οἰκεɩ̂ον ἐπαναζεν̂ξαι μοναστήριον. Evagrius, l. i. c. 7. The original letters in the Synodicon (c. 15, 24, 25, 26) justify the appearance of a voluntary resignation, which is asserted by Ebed-Jesu, a Nestorian writer, apud Asseman. Bibliot. Oriental. tom. iii. p. 299, 302. [For this writer see also Wright’s Syriac Literature, p. 285 sqq. ]

53

See the Imperial letters in the Acts of the Synod of Ephesus (Concil. tom. iii. p. 1730-1735). The odious name of Simonians, which was affixed to the disciples of this τερατώδους διδασκαλίας, was designed ὡς ἂν ὀνείδεσι προβληθέντες αἰώνιον ὑπομένοιεν τιμωρίαν τω̂ν ἁμαρτημάτων, καί μήτε ζω̂ντας τιμωρίας, μήτε θανόντας ἀτιμίας ἐκτὸς ὑπάρχειν. Yet these were Christians! who differed only in names and in shadows.

54

The metaphor of islands is applied by the grave civilians (Pandect. l. xlviii. tit. 22, leg. 7) to those happy spots which are discriminated by water and verdure from the Libyan sands. Three of these under the common name of Oasis, or Alvahat: 1. The temple of Jupiter Ammon [Oasis of Siwah]. 2. The middle Oasis [el Kasr], three days’ journey to the west of Lycopolis. 3. The southern, where Nestorius was banished, in the first climate and only three days’ journey from the confines of Nubia [Great Oasis, or Wah el Khargeh]. See a learned Note of Michaelis (ad Descript. Egypt. Abulfedæ, p. 21, 34).

55

The invitation of Nestorius to the Synod of Chalcedon is related by Zacharias, bishop of Melitene [Mytilene] (Evagrius, l. ii. c. 2; Asseman. Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 55), and the famous Xenaias or Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis (Asseman. Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 40, c.), denied by Evagrius and Asseman, and stoutly maintained by La Croze (Thesaur. Epistol. tom. iii. p. 181, c.). The fact is not improbable; yet it was the interest of the Monophysites to spread the invidious report; and Eutychius (tom. ii. p. 12) affirms that Nestorius died after an exile of seven years, and consequently ten years before the synod of Chalcedon.

56

Consult d’Anville (Mémoire sur l’Egypte, p. 191), Pocock (Description of the East, vol. i. p. 76), Abulfeda (Descript. Egypt. p. 14) and his commentator Michaelis (Not. p. 78-83), and the Nubian Geographer (p. 42), who mentions, in the xiith century, the ruins and the sugar-canes of Akmim.

57

Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 12) and Gregory Bar-Hebræus, or Abulpharagius (Asseman. tom. ii. p. 316), represent the credulity of the tenth and thirteenth centuries.

58

We are obliged to Evagrius (l. i. c. 7) for some extracts from the letters of Nestorius; but the lively picture of his sufferings is treated with insult by the hard and stupid fanatic.

59

Dixi Cyrillum, dum viveret, auctoritate suâ effecisse, ne Eutychianismus et Monophysitarum error in nervum erumperet: idque verum puto . . . aliquo . . . honesto modo παλινωδίαν cecinerat. The learned but cautious Jablonski did not always speak the whole truth. Cum Cyrillo lenius omnino egi, quam si tecum aut cum aliis rei hujus probe gnaris et æquis rerum æstimatoribus sermones privatos conferrem (Thesaur. Epistol. La Crozian. tom. i. p. 197, 198): an excellent key to his dissertations on the Nestorian controversy!

60

Ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος εɩ̂̓πεν, ἀρον, καν̂σον Εὐσέβιον, οὐτος ζω̂ν καῃ̑, οὑτος εἰς δύο γένηται, ὡς ἐμέρισε μερισθῃ̑ . . . εἴ τις λέγει δύο, ἀνάθεμα. At the request of Dioscorus, those who were not able to roar (βοη̂σαι) stretched out their hands. At Chalcedon, the Orientals disclaimed these exclamations; but the Egyptians more consistently declared ταν̂τα καὶ τότε εἴπομεν καὶ νν̂ν λέγομεν (Concil. tom. iv. p. 1012).

61

Ἔλεγε δὲ (Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum) τὸν Φλαβιανὸν καὶ δειλαίως ἀναιρεθη̂ναι πρὸς Διοσκόρου ὠθούμενόν τε καὶ λακτιζόμενον; and this testimony of Evagrius (l. ii. c. ii.) is amplified by the historian Zonaras (tom. ii. l. xiii. p. 44 [c. 23]), who affirms that Dioscorus kicked like a wild ass. But the language of Liberatus (Brev. c. 12, in Concil. tom. vi. p. 438) is more cautious; and the acts of Chalcedon, which lavish the names of homicide, Cain, c. do not justify so pointed a charge. The monk Barsumas is more particularly accused — ἔσϕαξε τὸν μακάριον Φλαυιανὸν, αὐτὸς ἕστηκε καὶ ἔλεγε, σϕάξον (Concil. tom. iv. p. 1413).

62

[Yet, as Gelzer has observed, the proceedings at the Robber-synod were not so much more violent than those at synods recognised by the Church.]

63

The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Concil. tom. iv. p. 761-2071) comprehend those of Ephesus (p. 890-1189), which again comprise the synod of Constantinople under Flavian (p. 930-1072); and it requires some attention to disengage this double involution. The whole business of Eutyches, Flavian, and Dioscorus is related by Evagrius (l. i. c. 9-12, and l. ii. c. 1, 2, 3, 4) and Liberatus (Brev. c. 11, 12, 13, 14). Once more, and almost for the last time, I appeal to the diligence of Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xv. p. 479-719). The annals of Baronius and Pagi will accompany me much farther on my long and laborious journey.

64

Μάλιστα ἡ περιβόητος Πανσοϕία ἡ καλουμένη Ὀρεινὴ (perhaps Εἰρήνη) περὶ η̑̓ς καὶ ὁ πολυάνθρωπος τη̂ς Ἀλεξανδρέων δη̂μος ἀϕη̂κε ϕωνὴν αὐτη̂ς τε καὶ τον̂ ἐραστον̂ μεμνημένος (Concil. tom. iv. p. 1276). A specimen of the wit and malice of the people is preserved in the Greek Anthology (l. ii. c. 5, p. 188, edit. Wechel.), although the application was unknown to the editor Brodæus. The nameless epigrammatist raises a tolerable pun, by confounding the episcopal salutation of “Peace be to all!” with the genuine or corrupted name of the bishop’s concubine: —

 

Εἰρήνη πάντεσσιν, ἐπίσκοπος εɩ̂̓πεν ἐπελθών, Πω̂ς δύναται πα̂σιν ἣν μόνος ἔνδον ἔχει;

I am ignorant whether the patriarch, who seems to have been a jealous lover, is the Cimon of a preceding epigram, whose πέος ἑστηκός was viewed with envy and wonder by Priapus himself.

65

Those who reverence the infallibility of synods may try to ascertain their sense. The leading bishops were attended by partial or careless scribes, who dispersed their copies round the world. Our Greek MSS. are sullied with the false and proscribed reading of ἐκ τω̂νϕύσεων (Concil. tom. iii. p. 1460); the authentic translation of Pope Leo I. does not seem to have been executed; and the old Latin versions materially differ from the present Vulgate, which was revised ( AD 550) by Rusticus, a Roman priest, from the best MSS. of the Ἀκοἰμητος at Constantinople (Ducange, C. P. Christiana, l. iv. p. 151), a famous monastery of Latins, Greeks, and Syrians. See Concil. tom. iv. p. 1959-2049, and Pagi, Critica, tom. ii. p. 326, c.

66

It is darkly represented in the microscope of Petavius (tom. v. l. iii. c. 5); yet the subtle theologian is himself afraid — nequis fortasse supervacaneam et nimis anxiam putet hujusmodi vocularum inquisitionem, et ab instituti theologici gravitate alienam (p. 124).

67

Ἐβόησαν ἢ ὸ ὅρος κρατείτω ἢ ἀπερχόμεθα . . . οὶ ἀντιλέγοντες ϕανεροὶ γένωνται οὶ ἀντιλέγοντες Νεστοριανοί εὶσιν, οὶ ἀντιλέγοντες εὶς Ῥώμην ἀπέλθωσιν (Concil. tom. iv. p. 1449). Evagrius and Liberatus present only the placid face of the synod, and discreetly slide over these embers suppositos cineri doloso.

68

See, in the Appendix to the Acts of Chalcedon, the confirmation of the synod by Marcian (Concil. tom. iv. p. 1781, 1783); his letters to the monks of Alexandria (p. 1791), of Mount Sinai (p. 1793), of Jerusalem and Palestine (p. 1798); his laws against the Eutychians (p. 1809, 1811, 1831); the correspondence of Leo with the provincial synods on the revolution of Alexandria (p. 1835-1930).

69

Photius (or rather Eulogius of Alexandria) confesses in a fine passage the specious colour of this double charge against Pope Leo and his synod of Chalcedon (Bibliot. cod. ccxxv. p. 768). He waged a double war against the enemies of the church, and wounded either foe with the darts of his adversary — καταλλἡλοις βέλεσι τοὺς ἀντιπάλους ἐτίτρωσκε. Against Nestorius he seemed to introduce the σὐγχυσις of the Monophysites: against Eutyches he appeared to countenance the ὑποστάσεων διαϕορά of the Nestorians. The apologist claims a charitable interpretation for the saints; if the same had been extended to the heretics, the sound of the controversy would have been lost in the air.

70

Αὶλουρός from his nocturnal expeditions. In darkness and disguise he crept round the cells of the monastery, and whispered the revelation to his slumbering brethren (Theodor. Lector. l. i. [c. 8]). [Timothy the Cat was exiled and another Timothy, supported by the Emperor Leo, succeeded. This Timothy was called Basilikos, his party was the “royal” party; and this is the origin of the name Melchites or royalists (see below, p. 182, n. 112). For these events see Zacharias of Mytilene, Bk. iv.]

71

Φόνους τε τολμηθη̂ναι μυρίους, αἱμάτων πλήθει μολυνθη̂ναι μὴ μόνον τὴν γη̂ν ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἀέρα. Such is the hyperbolic language of the Henoticon.

72

See the Chronicle of Victor Tunnunensis, in the Lectiones Antiquæ of Canisius, republished by Basnage, tom. i. p. 326.

73

The Henoticon is transcribed by Evagrius (l. iii. c. 13), and translated by Liberatus (Brev. c. 18). Pagi (Critica, tom. ii. p. 411) and Asseman (Bibliot. Orient. tom. i. p. 343) are satisfied that it is free from heresy; but Petavius (Dogmat. Theolog. tom. v. l. i. c. 13, p. 40) most unaccountably affirms: Chalcedonensem ascivit. An adversary would prove that he had never read the Henoticon.

74

[The Henotikon was of course drawn up by the able Patriarch Acacius. It is an admirable document, and it secured the unity and peace of the Church in the East throughout the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius. It was based on the doctrines of Nicæa and Ephesus, and practically removed the decisions of Chalcedon. From a secular point of view nothing is clearer than that the Council of Chalcedon was a grave misfortune for the Empire. The statesmanlike Henotikon retrieved the blunder, so far as it was possible; and the reopening of the question and reinstatement of the authority of Chalcedon was one of the most criminal acts of Justinian, — a consequence of his Western policy. Reconciliation with the see of Rome was bought by the disunion of the East.]

75

See Renaudot (Hist. Patriarch. Alex. p. 123, 131, 145, 195, 247). They were reconciled by the care of Mark I. ( AD 799-819); he promoted their chiefs to the bishoprics of Athribis and Talba (perhaps Tava; see d’Anville, p. 82), and supplied the sacraments, which had failed for want of an episcopal ordination.

76

De his quos baptizavit, quos ordinavit Acacius, majorum traditione confectam et veram, præcipue religiosæ solicitudini congruam præbemus sine difficultate medicinam (Gelasius, in epist. i. ad Euphemium, Concil. tom. v. p. 286). The offer of a medicine proves the disease, and numbers must have perished before the arrival of the Roman physician. Tillemont himself (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xvi. p. 372, 642, c.) is shocked at the proud uncharitable temper of the popes; they are now glad, says he, to invoke St. Flavian of Antioch, St. Elias of Jerusalem, c. to whom they refused communion whilst upon earth. But Cardinal Baronius is firm and hard as the rock of St. Peter.

77

Their names were erased from the diptych of the church: ex venerabili diptycho, in quo piæ memoriæ transitum ad cælum habentium episcoporum vocabula continentur (Concil. tom. iv. p. 1846). This ecclesiastical record was therefore equivalent to the book of life.

78

Petavius (Dogmat. Theolog. tom. v. l. v. c. 2, 3, 4, p. 217-225) and Tillemont (Mém. Ecclés. tom. xiv. p. 713, c. 799) represent the history and doctrine of the Trisagion. In the twelve centuries between Isaiah and St. Proclus’s boy, who was taken up into heaven before the bishop and people of Constantinople, the song was considerably improved. The boy heard the angels sing, “Holy God! Holy strong! Holy immortal!”

79

Peter Gnapheus, the fuller (a trade which he had exercised in his monastery), patriarch of Antioch. His tedious story is discussed in the Annals of Pagi ( AD 477-490) and a dissertation of M. de Valois at the end of his Evagrius.

80

The troubles under the reign of Anastasius must be gathered from the Chronicles of Victor, Marcellinus, and Theophanes. As the last was not published in the time of Baronius, his critic Pagi is more copious, as well as more correct. [On the church parties of the time see H. Gelzer, Josua Stylites und die damaligen kirchlichen Parteien des Ostens, in Byz. Zeitschrift, i. p. 34 sqq., 1892.]

81

The general history, from the council of Chalcedon to the death of Anastasius, may be found in the Breviary of Liberatus (c. 14-19), the iid and iiid books of Evagrius, the abstract of the two books of Theodore the Reader, the Acts of the Synods, and the Epistles of the Popes (Concil. tom. v.). [Also the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias of Mytilene.] The series is continued with some disorder in the xvth and xvith tomes of the Mémoires Ecclésiastiques of Tillemont. And here I must take leave for ever of that incomparable guide — whose bigotry is over-balanced by the merits of erudition, diligence, veracity, and scrupulous minuteness. He was prevented by death from completing, as he designed, the vith century of the church and empire.

82

The strain of the Anecdotes of Procopius (c. 11, 13, 18, 27, 28), with the learned remarks of Alemannus, is confirmed, rather than contradicted, by the Acts of the Councils, the fourth book of Evagrius, and the complaints of the African Facundus in his xiith book — de tribus capitulis, “cum videri doctus appetit importune . . . spontaneis quæstionibus ecclesiam turbat.” See Procop. de Bell. Goth. l. iii. c. 35.

83

Procop. de Ædificiis, l. i. c. 6, 7, c. passim.

84

Ος δὴ κάθηται ἀϕύλακτος ἐς ἀεὶ ἐπὶ λέσχης τιρὸς ἀωρὶ νυκτω̂ν [ leg. νύκτωρ] ὁμον̂ τοɩ̂ς τω̂ν ἱερέων γέρουσιν ἄσχετον [ leg. ἐσχατογέρουσιν] ἀνακυκλεɩ̂ν τὰ Χριστιανω̂ν λόγια σπουδὴν ἔχων. Procop. de Bell. Goth. l. iii. c. 32. In the Life of St. Eutychius (apud Aleman. ad Procop. Arcan. c. 18) the same character is given with a design to praise Justinian. [Vita Eutychii, by Eustratius, in Migne, Patr. Gr., vol. 86.]

85

For these wise and moderate sentiments, Procopius (de Bell. Goth. l. i. c. 3) is scourged in the preface of Alemannus, who ranks him among the political Christians — sed longe verius hæresium omnium sentinas, prorsusque Atheos — abominable Atheists, who preached the imitation of God’s mercy to man (ad Hist. Arcan. c. 13).

86

This alternative, a precious circumstance, is preserved by John Malala (tom. ii. p. 63, edit. Venet. 1733 [p. 449, ed. Bonn]), who deserves more credit as he draws towards his end. After numbering the heretics, Nestorians, Eutychians, c. ne expectent, says Justinian, ut digni veniâ judicentur: jubemus enim ut . . . convicti et aperti hæretici justæ et idoneæ animadversioni subjiciantur. Baronius copies and applauds this edict of the Code ( AD 527, No. 39, 40).

87

See the character and principles of the Montanists, in Mosheim, de Rebus Christ. ante Constantinum, p. 410-424. [There is an important investigation of Montanism in Ritschl’s Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 1857 (ed. 2); the history of the heresy has been treated in a special work by Bonnvetsch, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1878.]

88

Theophan. Chron. p. 153 [ A.M. 6022]. John the Monophysite, bishop of Asia, is a more authentic witness of this transaction, in which he was himself employed by the emperor (Asseman. Bib. Orient. tom. ii. p. 85). [See the history of John of Ephesus, 3, 36, 37.]

89

Compare Procopius (Hist. Arcan. c. 28, and Aleman’s Notes) with Theophanes (Chron. p. 190 [ A.M. 6038]). The council of Nice has entrusted the patriarch, or rather the astronomers, of Alexandria with the annual proclamation of Easter; and we still read, or rather we do not read, many of the Paschal epistles of St. Cyril. Since the reign of Monophytism [ leg. Monophysitism] in Egypt, the Catholics were perplexed by such a foolish prejudice as that which so long opposed, among the Protestants, the reception of the Gregorian style.

90

For the religion and history of the Samaritans, consult Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, a learned and impartial work.

91

Sichem, Neapolis, Naplous, the ancient and modern seat of the Samaritans, is situate in a valley between the barren Ebal, the mountain of cursing to the north, the fruitful Garizim, or mountain of cursing [ leg. blessing] to the south, ten or eleven hours’ travel from Jerusalem. See Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo, c. p. 59-63.

92

Procop. Anecdot. c. 11. Theophan. Chron. p. 122 [ leg. 152; p. 178, ed. de Boor]. John Malala, Chron. tom. ii. p. 62 [p. 447, ed. Bonn]. I remember an observation, half philosophical, half superstitious, that the province which had been ruined by the bigotry of Justinian was the same through which the Mahometans penetrated into the empire.

93

The expression of Procopius is remarkable; οὐ γάρ οἰ ἑδόκει ϕόνος ἀνθρώπων εɩ̂̓ναι, ἢν γε μὴ τη̂ς αὐτον̂ δόξης οἰ τελευτω̂ντες τύχοιεν ὄντες. Anecdot. c. 13.

94

See the Chronicle of Victor, p. 328, and the original evidence of the laws of Justinian. During the first years of his reign, Baronius himself is in extreme good humour with the emperor, who courted the popes till he got them into his power. [The ecclesiastical policy of Justinian’s reign consists of a series of endeavours to undo the consequences of the fatal recognition of the Chalcedonian dogma, which had signalised the accession of Justin. The Monophysites of the East had been alienated, and the attempts to win them back, without sacrificing the newly achieved reconciliation with Rome, proved a failure. The importance of Theodora consisted in her intelligent Monophysitic policy. The deposition of the Monophysite Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, Anthimus and Severus, in AD 536, would never have occurred but for a political reason — to assist the arms of Belisarius in Italy. The ingeniously imagined condemnation of the Three Chapters did not win over the Monophysites, and was regarded in Italy and Africa as an attack on Pope Leo I. and Chalcedon. Gelzer does not go too far when he describes the ecclesiastical measures of Justinian as “a series of mistakes.”]

95

Procopius, Anecdot. c. 13. Evagrius, l. iv. c. 10. If the ecclesiastical never read the secret historian, their common suspicion proves at least the general hatred.

96

On the subject of the three chapters, the original acts of the vth general council of Constantinople supply much useless, though authentic, knowledge (Concil. tom. vi. p. 1-419). The Greek Evagrius is less copious and correct (l. iv. c. 38) than the three zealous Africans, Facundus (in his twelve books, de tribus capitulis, which are most correctly published by Sirmond), Liberatus (in his Breviarium, c. 22, 23, 24), and Victor Tununensis in his Chronicle (in tom. i. Antiq. Lect. Canisii, p. 330-334). The Liber Pontificalis, or Anastasius (in Vigilio, Pelagio, c.), is original, Italian evidence. The modern reader will derive some information from Dupin (Bibliot. Eccles. tom. v. p. 189-207) and Basnage (Hist. de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 519-541), yet the latter is too firmly resolved to depreciate the authority and character of the popes.

97

Origen had indeed too great a propensity to imitate the πλάνη and δυσσέβεια of the old philosophers (Justinian, ad Menam in Concil. tom. vi. p. 356). His moderate opinions were too repugnant to the zeal of the church, and he was found guilty of the heresy of treason.

98

Basnage (Præfat. p. 11-14, ad. tom. i. Antiq. Lect. Canis.) has fairly weighed the guilt and innocence of Theodore of Mopsuestia. If he composed 10,000 volumes, as many errors would be a charitable allowance. In all the subsequent catalogues of heresiarchs, he alone, without his two brethren, is included; and it is the duty of Asseman (Bibliot. Orient. tom. iv. p. 203-207) to justify the sentence.

99

See the complaints of Liberatus and Victor, and the exhortations of Pope Pelagius to the conqueror and exarch of Italy. Schisma . . . per potestates publicas opprimatur, c. (Concil. tom. vi. p. 467, c.). An army was detained to suppress the sedition of an Illyrian city. See Procopius (de Bell. Goth. l. iv. c. 25): ὠνπερ ἕνεκα σϕίσιν αὐτοɩ̂ς οἱ Χριστιανοὶ διαμάχονται. He seems to promise an ecclesiastical history. It would have been curious and impartial.

100

The bishops of the patriarchate of Aquileia were reconciled by Pope Honorius, AD 638 (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. v. p. 376); but they again relapsed, and the schism was not finally extinguished till 698. Fourteen years before, the church of Spain had overlooked the vth general council with contemptuous silence (xiii. Concil. Toletan. in Concil. tom. vii. p. 487-494).

101

Nicetius, bishop of Treves (Concil. tom. vi. p. 511-513). He himself, like most of the Gallican prelates (Gregor. Epist. l. vii. ep. 5, in Concil. tom. vi. p. 1007), was separated from the communion of the four patriarchs, by his refusal to condemn the three chapters. Baronius almost pronounces the damnation of Justinian ( AD 565, No. 6). [The sources for the heresy of Justinian are: the Life of the Patriarch Eutychius (who was banished for his opposition to the aphthartodocetic doctrine) by his contemporary Eustratius (Acta Sctt. April 6, i. p. 550 sqq. ); Evagrius (iv. 39-41); a notice in a Constantinopolitan chronicle (the Μέγας χρονογράϕος?) preserved in the Ἐκλογαὶ ἀπὸ τη̂ς ἑκκλ. ἱστορίας published in Cramer’s Anecd. Paris, 2, p. 111, and copied by Theophanes, sub A.M. 6057; John of Nikiu, ed. Zotenberg, p. 518, Nicephorus, in his list of Patriarchs of Constantinople, in the Χρονογρ. σύντομον, p. 117, ed. de Boor. The great exponent of the doctrine of the incorruptibility of Christ’s body was Julian, Bishop of Halicarnassus. His doctrine is stated falsely in the passage of John of Nikiu — at least in the translation. As for Nicetius, cp. Appendix 8.]

102

After relating the last heresy of Justinian (l. iv. c. 39, 40, 41) and the edict of his successor (l. v. c. 3 [4]), the remainder of the history of Evagrius is filled with civil, instead of ecclesiastical, events.

103

This extraordinary and perhaps inconsistent doctrine of the Nestorians had been observed by La Croze (Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 19, 20), and is more fully exposed by Abulpharagius (Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 292; Hist. Dynast. p. 91, vers. Latin. Pocock) and Asseman himself (tom. iv. p. 218). They seem ignorant that they might allege the positive authority of the ecthesis. Ὁ μιαρὸς Νεστόριος καίπερ διαιρω̂ν τὴν θείαν τον̂ Κυρίου ἐνανθρώπησιν, καὶ δύο εἰσάγων υἱούς (the common reproach of the Monophysites), δύο θελήματα τούτων είπεɩ̂ν οὐκ ἐτόλμησε, τοὐναντίον δὲ ταὐτοβουλίαν τω̂ν . . . δύο προσώπων ἐδόξασε (Concil. tom. vii. p. 205 [=Mansi, x. 996]).

104

See the orthodox faith in Petavius (Dogmata Theolog. tom. v. l. ix, c. 6-10, p. 433-447): all the depths of this controversy are sounded in the Greek dialogue between Maximus and Pyrrhus (ad calcem tom. viii. Annal. Baron. p. 755-794 [Migne, Patr. Gr. xci. p. 288 sqq. ]), which relates a real conference, and produced a short-lived conversion. [See Appendix 1.]

105

Impiissiman ecthesim . . . scelerosum typum (Concil. tom. vii. p. 366), diabolicæ operations genimina (fors. germina, or else the Greek γενήματα, in the original; Concil. p. 363, 364) are the expressions of the xviiith anathema. The epistle of Pope Martin to Amandus, a Gallican bishop, stigmatises the Monothelites and their heresy with equal virulence (p. 392). [The ecthesis declared the singleness of the Will.]

106

The sufferings of Martin and Maximus are described with pathetic simplicity in their original letters and acts (Concil. tom. vii. p. 63-78; Baron. Annal. Eccles. AD 656, No. 2, et annos subsequent.). Yet the chastisement of their disobedience, ἐξορία and σώματος αἰκισμός, had been previously announced in the Type of Constans (Concil. tom. vii. p. 240).

107

Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 368 [ leg. 348]) most erroneously supposes that the 124 bishops of the Roman synod transported themselves to Constantinople; and, by adding them to the 168 Greeks, thus composes the sixth council of 292 fathers.

108

[Pope Honorius and the Patriarch Sergius were also condemned. The condemnation of such eminent and saintly men, as Gelzer observes, does not redound to the credit of the council. The position of Honorius is notoriously awkward for the modern doctrine of Papal infallibility.]

109

The Monothelite Constans was hated by all διά τοι ταν̂τα (says Theophanes, Chron. p. 292 [ A.M. 6160]) ἐμισήθη σϕόδρα [ leg. σϕοδρω̂ς] παρὰ πάντων. When the Monothelite monk failed in his miracle, the people shouted ὁ λαὸς ἀνεβόησε (Concil. tom. vii. p. 1032). But this was a natural and transient emotion; and I much fear that the latter is an anticipation of orthodoxy in the good people of Constantinople. [Gelzer has well pointed out two reasons for the policy of Constantine. (1) “The monophysite provinces were definitely lost; why then maintain the hated edict of unification, when there was nothing to unite?” (2) Pope Vitalian had loyally supported the Imperial throne against Italian usurpers; the influence of the Roman curia was paramount in the West; and, to keep Roman Italy, it was expedient for the theology of the Byzantine court to submit to that of Rome. (Krumbacher’s Gesch. der byz. Litt., p. 955-6.)]

110

The history of Monothelitism may be found in the Acts of the Synods of Rome (tom. vii. p. 77-395, 601-608) and Constantinople (p. 609-1429). Baronius extracted some original documents from the Vatican library; and his chronology is rectified by the diligence of Pagi. Even Dupin (Bibliothèque Ecclés. tom. vi. p. 57-71) and Basnage (Hist. de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 541-555) afford a tolerable abridgment. [Besides these documents we have the works of Maximus and Anastasius. See Appendix 1.]

111

In the Lateran synod of 679, Wilfrid, an Anglo-Saxon bishop, subscribed pro omni Aquilonari parte Britanniæ et Hiberniæ, quæ ab Anglorum et Brittonum, necnon Scotorum et Pictorum gentibus colebantur (Eddius, in Vit. St. Wilfrid. c. 31, apud Pagi, Critica, tom. iii. p. 88). Theodore (magnæ insulæ Britanniæ archiepiscopus et philosophus) was long expected at Rome (Concil. tom. vii. p. 714), but he contented himself with holding ( AD 680) his provincial synod of Hatfield, in which he received the decrees of Pope Martin and the first Lateran council against the Monothelites (Concil. tom. vii. p. 597, c.). Theodore, a monk of Tarsus in Cilicia, had been named to the primacy of Britain by Pope Vitalian ( AD 668; see Baronius and Pagi), whose esteem for his learning and piety was tainted by some distrust of his national character — ne quid contrarium veritati fidei, Græcorum more, in ecclesiam cui præesset introduceret. The Cilician was sent from Rome to Canterbury, under the tuition of an African guide (Dedæ Hist. Eccles. Anglorum, l. iv. c. 1). He adhered to the Roman doctrine; and the same creed of the incarnation has been uniformly transmitted from Theodore to the modern primates, whose sound understanding is perhaps seldom engaged with that abstruse mystery. [For Theodore see the article of Bishop Stubbs in the Dict. of Christian Biography; cp. Index to Plummer’s ed. of Bede, sub v. ]

112

This name, unknown till the xth century, appears to be of Syriac origin. It was invented by the Jacobites, and eagerly adopted by the Nestorians and Mahometans; but it was accepted without shame by the Catholics, and is frequently used in the Annals of Eutychius (Asseman. Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 507, c. tom. iii. p. 355. Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alexandrin. p. 119). Ἡμεɩ̂ς δον̂λοι τον̂ Βασιλέως, was the acclamation of the fathers of Constantinople (Concil. tom. vii. p. 765). [But cp. above, p. 162, n. 70.]

113

The Syriac, which the natives revere as the primitive language, was divided into three dialects: 1. The Aramæan, as it was refined at Edessa and the cities of Mesopotamia; 2. The Palestine, which was used in Jerusalem, Damascus, and the rest of Syria; 3. The Nabathæan, the rustic idiom of the mountains of Assyria and the villages of Irak (Gregor. Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. p. 11). On the Syriac, see Ebed-Jesu (Asseman. tom. iii. p. 326, c.), whose prejudice alone could prefer it to the Arabic.

114

I shall not enrich my ignorance with the spoils of Simon, Walton, Mill, Wetstein, Assemannus, Ludolphus, La Croze, whom I have consulted with some care. It appears, 1. That, of all the versions which are celebrated by the fathers, it is doubtful whether any are now extant in their pristine integrity. 2. That the Syriac has the best claim; and that the consent of the Oriental sects is a proof that it is more ancient than their schism.

115

In the account of the Monophysites and Nestorians, I am deeply indebted to the Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana of Joseph Simon Assemannus. That learned Maronite was despatched in the year 1715 by Pope Clement XI. to visit the monasteries of Egypt and Syria, in search of MSS. His four folio volumes, published at Rome 1719-1728, contain a part only, though perhaps the most valuable, of his extensive project. As a native and as a scholar, he possessed the Syriac literature; and, though a dependant of Rome, he wishes to be moderate and candid.

116

See the Arabic canons of Nice, in the translation of Abraham Ecchellensis, No. 37, 38, 39, 40. Concil. tom. ii. p. 335, 336, edit. Venet. These vulgar titles, Nicene and Arabic, are both apocryphal. The council of Nice enacted no more than twenty canons (Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. l. i. c. 8), and the remainder, seventy or eighty, were collected from the synods of the Greek church. The Syriac edition of Maruthas is no longer extant (Asseman. Bibliot. Oriental. tom. i. p. 195, tom. iii. p. 74), and the Arabic version is marked with many recent interpolations. Yet this code contains many curious relics of ecclesiastical discipline; and, since it is equally revered by all the Eastern communions, it was probably finished before the schism of the Nestorians and Jacobites (Fabric. Bibliot. Græc. tom. xi. p. 363-367). [A German translation (by E. Nestle) of the statutes of the Nestorian school of Nisibis will be found in Ztsch. f. Kirchengesch., 18, p. 211 sqq., 1897.]

117

Theodore the Reader (l. ii. c. 5, 49, ad calcem Hist. Eccles.) has noticed this Persian school of Edessa. Its ancient splendour and the two eras of its downfall ( AD 431 and 489) are clearly discussed by Assemanni (Biblioth. Orient. tom. ii. p. 402, iii. p. 376, 378, iv. p. 70, 924). [R. Duval, Hist. pol., relig., et litt. d’Edesse, 1892.]

118

A dissertation on the state of the Nestorians has swelled in the hands of Assemanni to a folio volume of 950 pages, and his learned researches are digested in the most lucid order. Besides this ivth volume of the Bibliotheca Orientalis, the extracts in the three preceding tomes (tom. i. p. 203, ii. p. 321-463, iii. 64-70, 378-395, c. 403-408, 580-589) may be usefully consulted.

119

See the Topographia Christiana of Cosmas, surnamed Indicopleustes, or the Indian navigator, l. iii. p. 178, 179, l. xi. p. 337. The entire work, of which some curious extracts may be found in Photius (cod. xxxvi. p. 9, 10, edit. Hoeschel), Thévenot (in the first Part of his Relation des Voyages, c.), and Fabricius (Bibliot. Græc. l. iii. c. 25, tom. ii. p. 603-617), has been published by Father Montfaucon at Paris 1707 in the Nova Collectio Patrum (tom. ii. p. 113-346). It was the design of the author to confute the impious heresy of those who maintain that the earth is a globe, and not a flat oblong table, as it is represented in the scriptures (l. ii. p. 138). But the nonsense of the monk is mingled with the practical knowledge of the traveller, who performed his voyage AD 522, and published his book at Alexandria, AD 547 (l. ii. p. 140, 141. Montfaucon, Præfat. c. 2). [Cosmas had sailed in the “Persian” and “Arabic” Gulfs, but this voyage to Taprobane was performed by his friend Sopater. It is not certain that Cosmas visited it himself.] The Nestorianism of Cosmas, unknown to his learned editor, was detected by La Croze (Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 40-55), and is confirmed by Assemanni (Bibliot. Orient. tom. iv. p. 605, 606). [On Cosmas, his theory and his voyages, cp. Mr. C. R. Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, p. 190 sqq. and 273 sqq. ]

120

In its long progress to Mosul, Jerusalem, Rome, c. the story of Prester John evaporated in a monstrous fable, of which some features have been borrowed from the Lama of Thibet (Hist. Généalogique des Tartares, p. ii. p. 42; Hist. de Gengiscan, p. 31, c.), and were ignorantly transferred by the Portuguese to the emperor of Abyssinia (Ludolph. Hist. Æthiop. Comment. l. ii. c. 1). Yet it is probable that in the xith and xiith centuries Nestorian Christianity was professed in the horde of the Keraites (d’Herbelot, p. 256, 915, 959. Assemanni, tom. iv. p. 468-504).

121

The Christianity of China, between the seventh and the thirteenth century, is invincibly proved by the consent of Chinese, Arabian, Syriac, and Latin evidence (Assemanni, Biblioth. Orient. tom. iv. p. 502-552. Mém. de l’Académie des Inscript. tom. xxx. p. 802-819). The inscription of Siganfu, which describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church, from the first mission, AD 636, to the current year 781, is accused of forgery by La Croze, Voltaire, c. who become the dupes of their own cunning, while they are afraid of a Jesuitical fraud. [See Appendix 7.]

122

Jacobitæ et Nestoriani plures quam Græci et Latini. Jacob a Vitriaco, Hist. Hierosol. l. ii. c. 76, p. 1093, in the Gesta Dei per Francos. The numbers are given by Thomassin, Discipline de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 172.

123

The division of the patriarchate may be traced in the Bibliotheca Orient. of Assemanni, tom. i. p. 523-549; tom. ii. p. 457, c.; tom. iii. p. 603, p. 621-623; tom. iv. p. 164-169, p. 423, p. 622-629, c.

124

The pompous language of Rome, on the submission of a Nestorian patriarch, is elegantly represented in the viith book of Fra-Paolo: Babylon, Nineveh, Arbela, and the trophies of Alexander, Tauris and Ecbatana, the Tigris and Indus.

125

The Indian missionary St. Thomas, an apostle, a Manichæan, or an Armenian merchant (La Croze, Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 57-70), was famous, however, as early as the time of Jerom (ad Marcellam, epist. 148 [59, ed. Migne, P.L. vol. 22]). Marco Polo was informed on the spot that he suffered martyrdom in the city of Maabar, or Meliapour, a league only from Madras (d’Anville, Ecclaircissemens sur l’Inde, p. 125), where the Portuguese founded an episcopal church under the name of St. Thomé, and where the saint performed an annual miracle, till he was silenced by the profane neighbourhood of the English (La Croze, tom. ii. p. 7-16). [For the account of Christianity in India, given by Cosmas, see R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, i. 283 sqq. Cp. above, vol. vii. p. 39, n. 78.]

126

Neither the author of the Saxon Chronicle ( AD 883) nor William of Malmesbury (de Gestis Regum Angliæ, l. ii. c. 4, p. 44) were capable, in the twelfth century, of inventing this extraordinary fact; they are incapable of explaining the motives and measures of Alfred; and their hasty notice serves only to provoke our curiosity. William of Malmesbury feels the difficulty of the enterprise, quod quivis in hoc sæculo miretur; and I almost suspect that the English ambassadors collected their cargo and legend in Egypt. The royal author has not enriched his Orosius (see Barrington’s Miscellanies) with an Indian, as well as a Scandinavian, voyage.

127

Concerning the Christians of St. Thomas, see Assemannus, Biblioth. Orient. tom. iv. p. 391-407, 435-451; Geddes’s Church History of Malabar; and, above all, La Croze, Histoire du Christianisme des Indes, in two vols. 12mo, La Haye, 1758, a learned and agreeable work. They have drawn from the same source, the Portuguese and Italian narratives; and the prejudices of the Jesuits are sufficiently corrected by those of the Protestants.

128

Οɩ̂̓ον εἰπεɩ̂ν ψευδαλήθης is the expression of Theodore in his treatise of the Incarnation, p. 245, 247, as he is quoted by La Croze (Hist. du Christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Arménie, p. 35), who exclaims, perhaps too hastily, “Quel pitoyable raisonnement!” Renaudot has touched (Hist. Patriarch. Alex. p. 127-138) the Oriental accounts of Severus; and his authentic creed may be found in the epistle of John the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, in the xth century, to his brother Mennas of Alexandria (Asseman. Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 132-141). [A Syriac translation of a Life of Severus by Zacharias of Mytilene is preserved, and was published by J. Spanuth, 1893. On the position of Severus in ecclesiastical history, cp. J. Eustratius, Σευη̂ρος ὁ Μονοϕυσίτης, 1894.]

129

Epist. Archimandritarum et Monachorum Syriæ Secundæ ad Papam Hormisdam, Concil. tom. v. p. 598-602. The courage of St. Sabas, ut leo animosus, will justify the suspicion that the arms of these monks were not always spiritual or defensive (Baronius, AD 513, No. 7, c.).

130

Assemanni (Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 10-46) and La Croze (Christianisme d’Ethiopie, p. 36-40) will supply the history of Xenaias, or Philoxenus, bishop of Mabug, or Hierapolis, in Syria. He was a perfect master of the Syriac language, and the author or editor of a version of the New Testament.

131

The names and titles of fifty-four bishops, who were exiled by Justin, are preserved in the Chronicle of Dionysius (apud Asseman. tom. ii. p. 54). Severus was personally summoned to Constantinople — for his trial, says Liberatus (Brev. c. 19) — that his tongue might be cut out, says Evagrius (l. iv. c. 4). The prudent patriarch did not stay to examine the difference. This ecclesiastical revolution is fixed by Pagi to the month of September of the year 518 (Critica, tom. ii. p. 506).

132

The obscure history of James, or Jacobus, Baradæus, or Zanzalus [ob. AD 578] may be gathered from Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 144, 147). Renaudot (Hist. Patriarch. Alex. p. 133), and Assemannus (Bibliot. Orient. tom. i. p. 424, tom. ii. p. 62-69, 324-332, p. 414, tom. ii. p. 385-388) [and Bar-Hebraeus, Chron. Eccl., ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, p. 215 sqq. ]. He seems to be unknown to the Greeks. The Jacobites themselves had rather deduce their name and pedigree from St. James the apostle.

133

The account of his person and writings is perhaps the most curious article in the Bibliotheca of Assemannus (tom. ii. p. 244-321, under the name of Gregorius Bar-Hebraeus ). [See Appendix 1.] La Croze (Christianisme d’Ethiopie, p. 53-63) ridicules the prejudice of the Spaniards against the Jewish blood, which secretly defiles their church and state.

134

This excessive abstinence is censured by La Croze (p. 352) and even by the Syrian Assemannus (tom. i. p. 226, tom. ii. p. 304, 305).

135

The state of the Monophysites is excellently illustrated in a dissertation at the beginning of the iid volume of Assemannus, which contains 142 pages. The Syriac Chronicle of Gregory Bar-Hebraeus, or Abulpharagius (Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 321-463), pursues the double series of the Nestorian catholics and the maphrians of the Jacobites.

136

The synonymous use of the two words may be proved from Eutychius (Annal. tom. ii. p. 191, 267-332) and many similar passages which may be found in the methodical table of Pocock. He was not actuated by any prejudice against the Maronites of the xth century; and we may believe a Melchite, whose testimony is confirmed by the Jacobites and Latins.

137

Concil. tom. vii. p. 780. The Monothelite cause was supported with firmness and subtlety by Constantine, a Syrian priest of Apamea (p. 1040, c.).

138

Theophanes (Chron. p. 295, 296, 300, 302, 306 [ sub A.M. 6169, 6176, 6178, 6183]) and Cedrenus (p. 437, 440 [p. 765, 771, ed. Bonn]) relate the exploits of the Mardaites. The name ( Mard, in Syriac rebellavit ) is explained by La Roque (Voyage de la Syrie, tom. ii. p. 53), the dates are fixed by Pagi ( AD 676, No. 4-14, AD 685, No. 3, 4), and even the obscure story of the patriarch, John Maron (Asseman. Bibliot. Orient. tom. i. p. 496-520), illustrates, from the year 686 to 707, the troubles of Mount Libanus.

139

In the last century, twenty large cedars still remained (Voyage de la Roque, tom. i. p. 68-76); at present they are reduced to four or five (Volney, tom. i. p. 264). These trees, so famous in scripture, were guarded by excommunication; the wood was sparingly borrowed for small crosses, c.; an annual mass was chanted under their shade; and they were endowed by the Syrians with a sensitive power of erecting their branches to repel the snow, to which Mount Libanus is less faithful than it is painted by Tacitus: Inter ardores opacum fidumque nivibus — a daring metaphor (Hist. v. 6).

140

The evidence of William of Tyre (Hist. in Gestis Dei per Francos, l. xxii. c. 8, p. 1022) is copied or confirmed by Jacques de Vitra (Hist. Hierosolym. l. ii. c. 77, p. 1093, 1094). But this unnatural league expired with the power of the Franks; and Abulpharagius (who died in 1286) considers the Maronites as a sect of Monothelites (Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 292).

141

I find a description and history of the Maronites in the Voyages de la Syrie et du Mont Liban, par la Roque (2 vols. in 12mo, Amsterdam, 1723; particularly tom. i. p. 42-47, p. 174-184, tom. ii. p. 10-120). In the ancient part, he copies the prejudices of Nairon, and the other Maronites of Rome, which Assemannus is afraid to renounce and ashamed to support. Jablonski (Institut. Hist. Christ. tom. iii. p. 186), Niebuhr (Voyage de l’Arabie, c. tom. ii. p. 346, 370-381), and, above all, the judicious Volney (Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie, tom. ii. p. 8-31, Paris, 1787) may be consulted.

142

The religion of the Armenians is briefly described by La Croze (Hist. du Christ. de l’Europe et de l’Arménie, p. 269-402). He refers to the great Armenian History of Galanus (3 vols. in fol. Rome, 1650-1661), and commends the state of Armenia in the iiid volume of the Nouveaux Mémoires des Missions du Levant. The work of a Jesuit must have sterling merit when it is praised by La Croze.

143

The schism of the Armenians is placed 84 years after the council of Chalcedon (Pagi, Critica, ad AD 535). It was consummated at the end of seventeen years; and it is from the year of Christ 552 that we date the era of the Armenians (l’Art de vérifier les Dates, p. xxxv.).

144

The sentiments and success of Julian of Halicarnassus may be seen in Liberatus (Brev. c. 19), Renaudot (Hist. Patriarch. Alex. p. 132, 303), and Assemannus (Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. Dissertat. de Monophysitis, p. viii. p. 286).

145

See a remarkable fact of the twelfth century in the History of Nicetas Choniates (p. 258). Yet, three hundred years before, Photius (Epistol. ii. p. 49, edit. Montacut [1651]) had gloried in the conversion of the Armenians λατρεὐει σήμερον ὀρθοδόξως.

146

The travelling Armenians are in the way of every traveller, and their mother church is on the high road between Constantinople and Ispahan. For their present state, see Fabricius (Lux Evangelii, c. c. xxxviii. p. 40-51), Olearius (l. iv. c. 40), Chardin (vol. ii. p. 232), Tournefort (lettre xx.) and, above all, Tavernier (tom. i. p. 28-37, 510-518), that rambling jeweller, who had read nothing, but had seen so much and so well.

147

The history of the Alexandrian patriarchs, from Dioscorus to Benjamin, is taken from Renaudot (p. 114-164) and the second tome of the Annals of Eutychius.

148

Liberat. Brev. c. 20, 23. Victor. Chron. p. 329, 330. Procop. Anecdot. c. 26, 27. [Vita S. Sabae, p. 398, 408, 482, ed. Pomyalovski.]

149

Eulogius, who had been a monk of Antioch, was more conspicuous for subtlety than eloquence. He proves that the enemies of the faith, the Gaianites and Theodosians, ought not to be reconciled; that the same proposition may be orthodox in the mouth of St. Cyril, heretical in that of Severus; that the opposite assertions of St. Leo are equally true, c. His writings are no longer extant, except in the extracts of Photius, who had perused them with care and satisfaction, cod. ccviii. ccxxv. ccxxvi. ccxxvii. ccxxx. cclxxx. [For his fragments see Migne, Patr. Gr. 86, 2937 sqq. ]

150

See the Life of John the Eleemosynary, by his contemporary Leontius bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, whose Greek text, either lost or hidden, is reflected in the Latin version of Baronius ( AD 610, No. 9, AD 620, No. 8). Pagi (Critica, tom. ii. p. 763) and Fabricius (l. v. c. 11, tom. vii. p. 454) have made some critical observations. [The Greek text was edited for the first time by H. Gelzer, 1893 (in Krüger’s Sammlung, part 5). It is an interesting biography written in popular style.]

151

This number is taken from the curious Recherches sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois (tom. ii. p. 192, 193), and appears more probable than the 600,000 ancient, or 15,000 modern, Copts of Gemelli Carreri. Cyril Lucar, the Protestant patriarch of Constantinople, laments that those heretics were ten times more numerous than his orthodox Greeks, ingeniously applying the πολλαί κεν δεκάδες δευοίατο οἰνοχόοιο of Homer (Iliad ii. 128), the most perfect expression of contempt (Fabric. Lux Evangelii, 740).

152

The history of the Copts, their religion, manners, c. may be found in the Abbé Renaudot’s motley work, neither a translation nor an original; the Chronicon Orientale of Peter, a Jacobite; in the two versions of Abraham Ecchellensis, Paris, 1651; and John Simon Asseman, Venet. 1729. These annals descend no lower than the xiiith century. The more recent accounts must be searched for in the travellers into Egypt, and the Nouveaux Mémoires des Missions du Levant. In the last century, Joseph Abudacnus, a native of Cairo, published at Oxford, in thirty pages, a slight Historia Jacobitarum, 147, post 150. [For the ecclesiastical history of Egypt cp. “The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt attributed to Abū Sālih the Armenian,” tr. by B. T. Evetts, ed. by A. J. Butler, 1895; E. Amélineau, Monuments pour servir à l’hist. de l’Egypte chrét. au iv , v , vi , et vii siècles, 1895.]

153

About the year 737. See Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alex. p. 221, 222; Elmacin, Hist. Saracen. p. 99.

154

Ludolph. Hist. Æthiopic. et Comment. l. i. c. 8; Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alex. p. 480, c. This opinion, introduced into Egypt and Europe by the artifice of the Copts, the pride of the Abyssinians, the fear and ignorance of the Turks and Arabs, has not even the semblance of truth. The rains of Æthiopia do not, in the increase of the Nile, consult the will of the monarch. If the river approaches at Napata within three days’ journey of the Red Sea (see d’Anville’s Maps), a canal that should divert its course would demand, and most probably surpass, the power of the Cæsars.

155

The Abyssinians, who still preserve the features and olive complexion of the Arabs, afford a proof that two thousand years are not sufficient to change the colour of the human race. The Nubians, an African race, are pure negroes, as black as those of Senegal or Congo, with flat noses, thick lips, and woolly hair (Buffon, Hist. Naturelle, tom. v. p. 117, 143, 144, 166, 219, edit. in 12mo, Paris, 1769). The ancients beheld, without much attention, the extraordinary phenomenon which has exercised the philosophers and theologians of modern times.

156

Asseman. Bibliot. Orient. tom. i. p. 329. [The source for the conversion of the Nobadæ, under their king Silko, is John of Ephesus, iv. c. 5 sqq., whose account is minute and interesting. The name of the king is known from the inscription of Talmis (C.I.G. 5072), where Silko, “king of the Nubades and all the Ethiopians,” celebrates his victories over the Blemmyes, who dwelled between the Nobadæ and the Empire. The Blemmyes by their treaties with the Empire had the right of worshipping in the temple of Isis at Philæ, and consequently this temple had to be kept open for them (cp. Priscus, fr. 21; C.I.G. 4945, 4946; Procop. B.P. i. 19). Their conversion to Christianity seems to have been accomplished under Justinian, and in AD 577 the temple of Isis was transformed into a church (C.I.G. 8647-8-9). For the conversion of the Alodes, a people south of the Nobadæ and bordering on the Abyssinians, see John of Ephesus, iv. c. 52, 53. See M. l’abbé Duchesne, Eglises Séparées, p. 287 sqq. ]

157

The Christianity of the Nubians, AD 1153, is attested by the sheriff al Edrisi, falsely described under the name of the Nubian geographer (p. 18), who represents them as a nation of Jacobites. The rays of historical light that twinkle in the history of Renaudot (p. 178, 220-224, 281-286, 405, 434, 451, 464) are all previous to this era. See the modern state in the Lettres Edifiantes (Recueil, iv.) and Busching (tom. ix. p. 152-159, par Berenger).

158

The abuna is improperly dignified by the Latins with the title of patriarch. The Abyssinians acknowledge only the four patriarchs, and their chief is no more than a metropolitan or national primate (Ludolph. Hist. Æthiopic. et Comment. l. iii. c. 7). The seven bishops of Renaudot (p. 511), who existed AD 1131, are unknown to the historian.

159

I know not why Assemannus (Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. [i.] p. 384) should call in question these probable missions of Theodora into Nubia and Æthiopia. The slight notices of Abyssinia till the year 1500 are supplied by Renaudot (p. 336-341, 381, 382, 405, 443, c. 452, 456, 463, 475, 480, 511, 525, 559-564) from the Coptic writers. The mind of Ludolphus was a perfect blank.

160

Ludolph. Hist. Æthiop. l. iv. c. 5. The most necessary arts are now exercised by the Jews, and the foreign trade is in the hands of the Armenians. What Gregory principally admired and envied was the industry of Europe — artes et opificia.

161

John Bermudez, whose relation, printed at Lisbon, 1569, was translated into English by Purchas (Pilgrims, l. vii. c. 7, p. 1149, c.), and from thence into French by La Croze (Christianisme d’Ethiopie, p. 92-265). The piece is curious; but the author may be suspected of deceiving Abyssinia, Rome, and Portugal. His title to the rank of patriarch is dark and doubtful (Ludolph. Comment. No. 101, p. 473.

162

Religio Romana . . . nec precibus patrum nec miraculis ab ipsis editis suffulciebatur, is the uncontradicted assurance of the devout emperor Susneus to his patriarch Mendez (Ludolph. Comment. No. 126, p. 529); and such assurances should be preciously kept, as an antidote against any marvellous legends.

163

I am aware how tender is the question of circumcision. Yet I will affirm, 1. That the Æthiopians have a physical reason for the circumcision of males, and even of females (Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains, tom. ii.). 2. That it was practised in Æthiopia long before the introduction of Judaism or Christianity (Herodot. l. ii. c. 104. Marsham, Canon. Chron. p. 72, 73). “Infantes circumcidunt ob consuetudinem non ob Judaismum,” says Gregory the Abyssinian priest (apud Fabric. Lux Christiana, p. 720). Yet, in the heat of dispute, the Portuguese were sometimes branded with the name of uncircumcised (La Croze, p. 80; Ludolph. Hist. and Comment. l. iii. c. 1).

164

The three Protestant historians, Ludolphus (Hist. Æthiopica, Francofurt, 1681; Commentarius, 1691; Relatio Nova, c. 1693, in folio), Geddes (Church History of Æthiopia, London, 1696, in 8vo), and La Croze (Hist. du Christianisme d’Ethiopie et d’Armenie, La Haye, 1739, in 12mo), have drawn their principal materials from the Jesuits, especially from the General History of Tellez, published in Portuguese at Coimbra, 1660. We might be surprised at their frankness; but their most flagitious vice, the spirit of persecution, was in their eyes the most meritorious virtue. Ludolphus possessed some, though a slight, advantage from the Æthiopic language, and the personal conversation of Gregory, a free-spirited Abyssinian priest, whom he invited from Rome to the court of Saxe-Gotha. See the Theologia Æthiopica of Gregory, in Fabricius, Lux Evangelii, p. 716-734.

1

[For a division of the Imperial history from the seventh to the twelfth century into periods, see Appendix 9.]

1

[The children of Heraclius were: (1) by Eudocia: Epiphania (called Eudocia by Nicephorus), born AD 611; Constantine (or Heraclius the Small, see Theoph. sub A.M. 6103), AD 612-641; (2) by Martina: Heraclonas (or Heraclius); Augustina, Anastasia, David, Marinus or Martinus. Some other children by Martina, including her first-born Constantine, died young.]

2

[See Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Cer. ii. 27, p. 627-628, ed. Bonn.]

3

[The baptismal name of this emperor was Heraclius; he was renamed Constantine at his coronation, — perhaps because his step-uncle Heraclius had brought discredit on the name. He is Constantine on his coins, and is so called by Nicephorus; but Theophanes calls him Constans, and he is always known as Constans II. We must infer that Constantine was his official name, but that he was popularly called Constans in a hypocoristic sense (cp. Heraclius: Heracloans). For the ecclesiastical policy of Constans see above, c. xlvii.]

4

[This description of the flight of Constans from Constantinople is certainly a misrepresentation. Of the causes of the execution of Theodosius we know nothing; and, though Constans was certainly unpopular in his capital and this unpopularity doubtless confirmed him in his resolve to proceed to the West, this resolve was in the first instance evidently dictated by statesmanlike motives. He had vigorously and effectively checked the advance of Saracen arms in the East; it seemed now all-important to protect Africa and Sicily, threatened and attacked by the same enemy, and at the same time recover the south of Italy (duchy of Beneventum) from the Lombards. In this last task Constans failed; and his idea of moving back the centre of the empire to Old Rome was an unpractical dream. He seems to have reorganised the administration of the Imperial territory in South Italy, by forming one province Calabria, including both the heel and toe. When the heel was wrested from the empire, the name became appropriated exclusively to the toe. The unpopularity of Constans had probably its gravest cause in the heavy burdens which he imposed for the military reorganisation of the empire.]

5

[See Cedrenus, i. p. 762, ed. Bonn.]

6

[For the Saracen siege of Constantinople in Constantine’s reign, see c. lii. ad init.; for the establishment of the Bulgarian kingdom, c. lv. ad init. ]

7

[For the Themes, which begin to appear in the second half of the seventh century, see vol. ix. Appendix 8.]

8

[The chief event of the reign of Leontius ( AD 695-698) was the final loss of Africa. See below, c. li.]

9

[It seems possible that Justinian chose the name of Theodora for her in recollection of his namesake’s illustrious consort.]

10

[For the foundation of the “first Bulgarian kingdom,” see below, chap. lv.]

11

[Psalm xci. 13; according to reading of the Septuagint, Lion (λέοντα) alludes to Leontius, ἀσπίδα to Apsimar; while βασιλίσκον suggests a petty βασιλεύς.]

12

[The reign of Apsimar had been on the whole successful, and, though it saw the loss of the Fourth Armenia to the Saracens, was marked by some important successes, especially a naval victory off the coast of Cilicia. In Justinian’s second reign, there was an unsuccessful expedition against Bulgaria, and Tyana was lost to the Saracens.]

13

[Justinian’s treatment of Ravenna at the western extremity of his empire, which is the parallel to his treatment of Cherson at the eastern extremity, is incidentally referred to below, p. 331. The sources are Liber Pontificalis, Life of Constantine I., and Agnellus, Life of Felix (Muratori, Scr. Rer. Ital. ii. 1, 160). The Ravennates had presumed to protect Pope Sergius whom Justinian had ordered to be arrested, and had shown pleasure at the Emperor’s deposition. Justinian, on his restoration, sent a fleet to Ravenna; the nobles, c. of the city were invited to a banquet at Classe, arrested, thrown into the vessels, and taken to New Rome, where they were put to death, except Archbishop Felix, whose eyes were put out. Ravenna was set on fire.]

14

[Of Armenian race. He was merely a man of pleasure. His reign was marked by a momentary restitution of Monotheletism in the East; and by an invasion of the Bulgarians up to the very gates of the capital.]

15

[Anastasius was making preparations for an attack on the Saracens by sea. His fall was due to the mutiny of the troops of the Opsikian Theme, whose officers he had punished for the part they had played in the deposition of Philippicus.]

16

[For the acts of Leo III., see also c. liii. (Saracen siege of Constantinople); and c. xlix. (iconoclasm); for his legal work, see Appendix 11. For chronology, cp. Appendix 10.]

17

[The authority is Theophanes, who calls him “the Isaurian,” but makes the strange statement that he came from Germanicia τῃ̑ ἀληθείᾳ δὲ ἐκ τη̂ς Ἰσαυρίας, “but really from Isauria,” which Anastasius, in his Latin translation, corrects into genere Syrus. It is clear that there is a mistake here, as K. Schenk has shown (Byz. Zeitsch. v. p. 296-8, 1896); as Leo’s family belonged to Germanicia he was a Syrian of Commagene, not an Isaurian; and in the Συναγωγὴ χρόνων (in de Boor’s ed. of Nicephorus, p. 225) he is called ὁ Σύρος. Schenk thinks that Theophanes confounded Germanicia with Germanicopolis in Isauria (West Cilicia); but the position of Germanicia in “Syria” was well known to Theophanes (cp. p. 422, 445, 451). Possibly Theophanes wrote ἐκ τη̂ς Συρίας, and Anastasius translated the genuine reading. There is nothing improbable in an accidental corruption of τη̂ς Συρίας to τη̂ς Ἰσαυρίας (and ὁ Ἴσαυρος two lines before would follow). This explanation is supported by the fact that in another passage (which Schenk omits to notice) Theophanes does call Leo “the Syrian” (p. 412, 2).]

18

[For an account of Leo’s adventures in Alania and Abasgia, see Bury, Later Roman Empire, ii. 374-7.]

19

[(For Constantine’s reign see also cap. xlix. liii. liv.) At the very outset of his reign Constantine’s throne was endangered by the rebellion of his brother-in-law, Artavasdus, Count of the Opsikian Theme, who possessed much influence in the Armeniac Theme. Constantine lost Constantinople for nearly two years, AD 741-3, but finally vanquished Artavasdus and his sons in a brilliant campaign. It is to be observed that the Patriarch Anastasius supported Artavasdus, who restored image worship. For the chronology of Constantine’s reign, see Appendix 9.]

19a

[More probably, like his other surname Kaballinos, from his devotion to the stables (Ranke).]

20

[Constantine was an uncommonly able and vigorous ruler, unceasingly active in endeavours to improve the internal administration, and successful in his military operations. He won back Melitene, Germanicia, and Theodosiopolis from the Saracens, and destroyed an armada which the caliph sent to besiege Cyprus ( AD 746). He weakened the Bulgarian kingdom by a series of campaigns of various fortune. His persecution of the monks was cruel and rigorous, though perhaps more excusable than most persecutions; it was a warfare against gross superstition. Gibbon has not mentioned the great pestilence which devastated the empire in this reign. Theophanes has given a vivid description of it. At Constantinople it raged for a year ( AD 749), and the depopulation which it caused led to an influx of new inhabitants, to which reference is made in the text. Cp. Finlay, Hist. of Greece, ii. 66-7.]

21

[See below, p. 350.]

22

[Constantine had been betrothed to Rotrud, daughter of Charles the Great, but Irene had broken off the match and compelled him to marry a lady who was distasteful to him. In 795 he fell in love with one of his mother’s maids of honour, Theodote; and, with the insidious purpose of making him odious to the clergy who regarded second marriages as impious, Irene encouraged him to divorce his wife Maria and marry Theodote. The patriarch Tarasius was a courtier and acquiesced in the emperor’s wishes, though he would not perform the marriage ceremony himself. The affair created grave scandal among the monks, the most prominent of whom were Plato and his nephew Theodore of the abbey of Studion. They broke off communion with the patriarch and the emperor. Schlosser (Gesch. der bilderstürmenden Kaiser, p. 311) makes merry over the embarrassment of historians in view of the fact that both Tarasius who approved of the marriage and Theodore who condemned it are canonised saints.]

23

[Theophanes says that the blinding was inflicted in such a way that death was meant to result. The survival of Constantine is attested by Zonaras, xv. c. 14; and is not disproved by Theophanes. But Schlosser ( op. cit. 329-30) is not justified in asserting that he was only recently dead when Michael II. came to the throne ( AD 820). On the contrary, the passage in Theoph. Contin., p. 51, ed. Bonn (=Cedrenus, ii. 75), taken along with Genesius, p. 35, points to a prevailing belief that he died soon after the operation on his eyes.]

24

[Nicephorus had to set the finances of the state in order after the extravagant administration of Irene, and thus he was placed in the same disadvantageous position as the emperor Maurice, who suffered for the lavish expenditure of Tiberius. “The financial administration of Nicephorus is justly accused of severity, and even of rapacity. . . . But though he is justly accused of oppression he does not merit the reproach of avarice often urged against him. When he considered expenditure necessary for the good of the empire, he was liberal of the public money. He spared no expense to keep up numerous armies, and it was not from ill-judged economy, but from want of military talents, that his campaigns were unsuccessful” (Finlay, ii. p. 97). Nicephorus “eagerly pursued the centralising policy of his iconoclast predecessors, and strove to render the civil power supreme over the clergy and the Church. He forbade the patriarch to hold any communications with the Pope, whom he considered as the patriarch of Charlemagne; and this prudent measure has caused much of the virulence with which his memory has been attacked by ecclesiastical and orthodox historians. The patriarch Tarasius had shown himself no enemy to the supremacy of the emperor, and he was highly esteemed by Nicephorus as one of the heads of the party, both in the church and state, which the emperor was anxious to conciliate.” On the death of Tarasius, the emperor found ( AD 806) in the historian Nicephorus “an able and popular prelate, disposed to support his secular views.” The emperor then proceeded to affirm the principle of his independence of ecclesiastical authority, and took as a test question the second marriage of Constantine VI. — a question in which he had no personal interest. A synod was assembled and pronounced the marriage valid. This inflamed the wrath of the monastic party, under the leadership of Theodore Studita; they refused to communicate with the patriarch Nicephorus; and the abbots Theodore and Plato were banished and deposed. The two principles of Nicephorus in his ecclesiastical policy were the supremacy of the civil authority and toleration. He declined for instance to persecute the Paulicians. (For the Bulgarian campaign in which Nicephorus lost his life see below, chap. lv.)]

25

[A native of Amorium; hence his dynasty is called the Amorian dynasty.]

26

[Of Slavonic descent, at least on one side; hence known as Thomas the Slavonian.]

27

[Leo’s reign was marked by a Bulgarian siege of the capital, and the temporary loss of Hadrianople. The death of the Bulgarian king Crumn ( AD 815) rescued the empire from a serious danger; and Leo, after winning a hard-fought battle, concluded a thirty years’ peace with his successor Omortag ( AD 817). Under this reign the empire had peace from the Saracens.]

28

[For the loss of Crete and the beginnings of the Saracen conquest of Sicily, see below, chap. lii. For Michael’s ecclesiastical policy see below, p. 352.]

29

[The foreign origin of Thomas, “by separating him in an unusual degree from the ruling classes in the empire — for he was, like Michael, of a very low rank in society — caused him to be regarded as a friend of the people; and all the subject races in the empire espoused his cause, which in many provinces took the form of an attack on the Roman administration, rather than of a revolution to place a new emperor on the throne. This rebellion is remarkable for assuming more of the character of a social revolution than of an ordinary insurrection” (Finlay, ii. p. 130). Thomas entered into connection with the Saracens, and the patriarch of Antioch was permitted to crown him in that city. He besieged Constantinople twice with his fleet. After his defeat by the Bulgarians he was besieged in Arcadiopolis for five months; his own followers surrendered him. We possess Michael’s account of the rebellion in a letter which he addressed to Lewis the Pious, AD 824.]

30

[The portrait of the Emperor Theophilus drawn by Schlosser and by Finlay is probably too favourable. The hard judgment of H. Gelzer, who regards him as a much overrated, really insignificant, ruler, may be nearer the truth (in Krumbacher’s Gesch. der byz. Litt., p. 968). Gelzer especially condemns him for incapacity to understand the sign of the times. His persecution of the iconodule priests had something fanatical about it which did not mark the policy of the earlier iconoclastic sovereigns. There is no authority for Gibbon’s statement (p. 197) of cruel punishments (cp. Schlosser, op. cit. p. 524), but he does not connect these punishments with image-worship. The finances were in a prosperous state in this reign, but the credit is not due to Theophilus, whose incontinent passion for building caused a serious drain on the treasury.]

31

[A similar brideshow was held to select a wife for Leo VI., son of Basil and Eudocia. See the Λόγος of Nicephorus Gregoras on Theophano, who was chosen on this occasion; in Hergenröther’s Monum. Graec. ad Photium eiusque historiam pertinentia, p. 74. In this connection compare also the life of St. Irene, who came from Cappadocia to Constantinople in consequence of letters sent through the Empire (κατὰ πα̂σαν γη̂ν) by Theodora, wife of Theophilus, seeking a wife for her son (Acta Sctt., July 28, vol. vi. c. 5 sqq. ). Cp. Th. Uspenski, Ocherki po istorii vizantiskoi obrazovannosti, p. 57.]

32

[This Icasia, or rather Casia, was the only poetess of any merit throughout the whole “Byzantine” period, since the famous Athenais. All that is known of her and her writings (chiefly epigrams) will be found in the recent monograph (Kasia, 1897) of Krumbacher, who suggests that Icasia is a corruption of ἡ Κασία. It was probably owing to her reputation for poetical talent that Theophilus addressed her; his remark was (we may conjecture) couched in a metrical form; and her reply was likewise a “political” verse. The metrical form has been disarranged in the chronicling, but a slight change (the addition of a syllable, and the transposition of one word) restores it. Theophilus said: —

[Editor: illegible character] [Editor: illegible character] [Editor: illegible character] διὰ γυναικὸς (είσ)ερρύη τὰ ϕαν̂λα,

and Casia’s improvised reply was: —

ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ γυναικὸς τὰ κρείττονα πηγάζει

(Symeon Mag., p. 625, ed. Bonn).]

33

[Fourteen years; Vita Theodorae, p. 14, in Regel’s Analecta Byzantino-Russica (also cp. Finlay, ii. p. 172, n. 3). For this Life of Theodora, a contemporary work, cp. Appendix 1.]

34

[The line of beacons is given in Theoph. Contin., p. 197, and Const. Porphyr. De Cer. i. App., p. 491. The first station of the line was (1) the Fortress of Lulon (which the Saracens called Sakaliba, because it had a Slavonic garrison). It commanded the pass between Tyana and the Cilician gates, and Professor Ramsay would identify it with Faustinopolis = Halala (Asia Minor, p. 353). The fire of Lulon flashed the message to (2) Mt. Argaeus, which Professor Ramsay discovers in a peak of the Hassan Dagh, south of Lake Tatta. The next station was (3) Isamus (“west of the north end of the lake”); then (4) Aegilus (between Troknades and Dorylaeum); (5) Mamas (N.W. of Dorylaeum); (6) Cyrizus (Katerli Dagh? Ramsay, ib. p. 187); (7) Mocilus (Samanli Dagh, N. of Lake Ascanius; Ramsay, ib. p. 187); (8) Mt. Auxentius; (9) the Pharos in the palace of Constantinople.]

35

[The Armenian descent of Basil (on the father’s side) is set beyond doubt by the notice in the Vita Euthymii (ed. de Boor, p. 2, cp. de Boor’s remarks, p. 130-1), combined with the circumstance that a brother of Basil was named Symbatios. The settlement of Armenian families in Thrace by Constantine V. is attested by Theophanes, A.M. 6247; Nicephorus, p. 66. Cp. Rambaud, L’empire grec au dixième siècle, p. 147. Hamza of Ispahan states that Basil was a Slav, but there is no evidence to bear this out.]

36

[The concubine’s name was Eudocia Ingerina, mother of Leo VI. The chronicles do not say that Basil’s sister became Michael’s concubine, but that Michael’s sister Thecla became Basil’s concubine. Cp. George Mon., p. 828, ed. Bonn.]

37

[For Bardas, a man of great talent and no principle, see below, chap. liii.]

38

[For the rebellion of the Paulicians under Carbeas and Chrysochir, see below, chap. liv.]

39

[See Appendix 11. For affairs in Italy, see chap. lvi.]

40

[He died on 29th August, not in March. See Muralt, Essai de Chron. byzant., p. 466. Nine days elapsed between the accident and his death; Vita Euthymii, c. 1, § 16.]

41

[Leo was a pedant. He reminds us of the Emperor Claudius and James I. of England. For the first ten years of his reign, his chief minister and adviser was Stylianus Zautzes — like Basil, a “Macedonian” of Armenian descent — to whom Basil on his deathbed committed the charge of the state (Vita Euthymii, c. 1, § 18). He received the title of Basileopator ( AD 894), died two years later. His daughter Zoe was the second wife of Leo ( AD 894-6). For the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, the most formidable neighbour of the empire at this time, see chap. lv. The most striking calamity of Leo’s reign was the descent of the renegade Leo of (the Syrian) Tripolis with a fleet of Mohammedan pirates on Thessalonica; 22,000 captives were carried off ( AD 904). The episode has been described in full detail by John Cameniates (ed. Bonn, Script. post Theoph., p. 487 sqq. ). See Finlay, ii. 267 sqq. The reign of Leo has been fully treated in a Russian monograph by N. Popov (Imperator Lev vi Mudri, 1892).]

42

[For the Patriarch Photius see below, chap. liii. He was deposed by Leo, and the Patriarchate given to the Emperor’s brother Stephen.]

43

[Leo married (1) Theophano, who died 892; (2) Zoe, who died 896; (3) Eudocia Baianê, who died 900; (4) Zoe Carbonupsina. The Patriarch, Nicolaus Mysticus, who opposed the fourth marriage, was banished in February 907, and succeeded by Euthymius, who complied with the Emperor’s wishes. This Euthymius (whose biography, edited by de Boor, is an important source for the reign of Leo) was a man of independent character, and had been previously banished for opposing the marriage with the second Zoe. On the marriage laws cp. Appendix 11.]

44

[The most important and capable of the regents was John Eladas.]

45

[Romanus was made great Hetaeriarch (captain of the foreign guards) on March 25; Basileopator, April 27; Caesar, Sept. 24; Augustus, Dec. 17 (Theoph. Contin., p. 393-7, ed. Bonn).]

46

[Both Gibbon and Finlay seem to have done some injustice to Romanus in representing him as weak. He showed strength in remorselessly carrying out his policy of founding a Lecapenian dynasty; it was frustrated through an unexpected blow. In foreign politics and war, he was on the whole successful; and he kept down the dangerous elements, within the empire, which threatened his throne. Of great interest and significance is his law of AD 935, by which he attempted to put a stop to the growth of the enormous estates, which, especially in Asia Minor, were gradually absorbing the small proprietors and ruining agriculture. These latifundia, which increased in spite of all legislation, were an economical evil, a political danger, and even injured the army, as the provision for soldiers largely consisted in inalienable lands, and these were swallowed up by the rich landed lords. See the novel of Romanus in Zachariä von Lingenthal, Jus Græco-Romanum, iii. p. 242 sqq.; and cp. the further legislation of Constantine vii. ( ib. p. 252 sqq. ), AD 947, who found that notwithstanding the prohibition of Romanus “the greater part of the magnates did not abstain from bargains most ruinous to the poor with whom they dealt.” Cp. Appendix 12.]

47

[On Constantine and his literary works, see further chap. liii.]

48

[The military support of Constantine was Bardas Phocas and his three sons, Nicephorus, Leo, and Constantine.]

49

[There can be little doubt that Theophano the wife of Otto II. was really the daughter of Romanus and sister of Basil II. (not another lady palmed off upon the Emperor of the West), notwithstanding Thietmar (the historian of the Emperor Henry II.), Chron. ii. 15, and the silence of the Greek authorities. (Cp. J. Moltmann, Theophano Die Gemahlin Ottos ii., 1878; Giesebrecht, Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit, i. 844; Schlumberger, L’épopée byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle, p. 193-4.) Moltmann, followed by Giesebrecht, argued against the genuineness of Theophano. She was refused to Otto by Nicephorus, but granted by John Tzimisces, who became her step-uncle by marriage with the sister of Romanus.]

50

[The chief work on Nicephorus is M. G. Schlumberger’s Un empereur byzantine au dixième siècle; Nicéphore Phocas, 1890; a fine work, which he has continued in his L’épopée byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle, 1897, which covers the reign of Tzimisces and the first thirteen years of Basil II.]

51

[For the Saracen wars of Nicephorus, see chap. lii. ad fin. He had also won triumphs in Cilicia and Syria ( AD 962) before his accession.]

52

[Though Nicephorus, as has been said, lived only for his army, yet throughout all his life he had a hankering after the cloister. His intimacy with Athanasius, the founder of the Great Laura on Mount Athos, is an interesting episode in his life; it is attractively told by M. Schlumberger, op. cit. chap. vi. But for Nicephorus, the Laura would never have been founded. It is at this period that the monastic settlements of Mount Athos come into prominence. The earliest mention of monks (anchorites; not in monasteries) on the Holy Mount is found in Genesius, referring to the time of Basil I. (p. 82, ed. Bonn). The first clear picture of the monastic constitution of Athos is found in the Typikon of John Tzimisces, AD 972 (P. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster, p. 141 sqq. ).]

53

[The dismissal of Theophano was demanded by morality and religion, but it was the least important part of the bargain between the Emperor and the Patriarch Polyeuctus. The price that Tzimisces really paid for his coronation was the abrogation of the Novel of Nicephorus Phocas, which ordained that no ecclesiastical decision, no promotion or nomination, could be made by the bishops without the Imperial consent. In his description of the last interview, Gibbon wrongly makes Theophano assault her son; it was the chamberlain Basil (cp. below, n. 56) whom she assaulted.]

54

[The position of Nicephorus and Tzimisces reminds us of the Merovingian majordomate. Finlay observes that they were both “men of nobler minds than the nobles around them, for both respected the rights and persons of their wards and legitimate princes, Basil and Constantine, and contented themselves with the post of prime minister and the rank of emperor.” Romanus I., who held a similar position, had attempted to play the part of Pippin and failed.]

55

[For the great Russian triumph of Tzimisces, which gave Bulgaria into his hands, see chap. lv.; for his Saracen campaigns, chap. lii.]

56

[The chamberlain Basil, to whom Tzimisces had entrusted the conduct of the military administration, and who practically ruled the empire after the death of Tzimisces, before Basil II. reached maturity. This eunuch was a bastard son of Romanus Lecapenus, and was a man of majestic and imposing presence, and great ability. His father had made him commander of the foreign guard, and grand chamberlain (Parakœmomenos); and he had won a victory over the Saracens in AD 958. He played a leading part in the revolution which placed Nicephorus on the throne, and had been appointed by him “President of the Senate,” an office established for the first time. But he did not like Nicephorus, who gave him perhaps too little voice in the administration. An opportune indisposition confined him to his bed at the time of that Emperor’s assassination, but when he heard the news he lost no time in joining Tzimisces, who seems to have placed himself in the hands of the experienced statesman.]

57

[This incident illustrates an evil already mentioned above, n. 46, and more fully discussed in Appendix 12, the growth in the Asiatic provinces of enormous estates devoted to pasturage, which were ruining the small farmers and the agriculture, and transforming the provinces into feudal domains of a few powerful magnates. Both Nicephorus and Tzimisces were fully alive to the evil.]

58

[Bardas Sclerus very nearly achieved his design of succeeding to the place of Tzimisces. His rebellion was not aimed at the young Emperors, but at the power of the eunuch Basil, who had consigned him to an honourable banishment as Duke of the frontier theme of Mesopotamia. Very popular with the army, Sclerus carried everything before him in Asia, where he had the support of many of the great landed proprietors, and was also succoured by neighbouring Saracen armies and the bandits of the frontier mountains. He defeated the Imperial general Peter Phocas at Bukulithos (somewhere between Lycandus and Arabissus), and then close to Lycandus ( AD 976). He also won command of the sea ( AD 977), but in the following year his fleet was annihilated. But he took Nicæa and threatened the capital. In this extremity his rival Bardas Phocas, who had rebelled against Tzimisces and having been subdued by this same Sclerus was banished to Chios, was recalled from exile and placed at the head of an army. But Sclerus defeated him in two great battles, in the plain of Pankalia, on the banks of the Sangarius, and at Basilike Therma, AD 978. Next year, however, help supplied by the Iberian prince David enabled Phocas to crush the rebellion in the second battle of Pankalia (March 24, AD 979). During the next eight years Phocas was commander-in-chief of the army, while Sclerus who had fled to the Moslems remained a captive at Bagdad. In AD 987, Phocas rebelled, and the Saracens sent against him, as a second pretender, Bardas Sclerus at the head of an army of deserters. Phocas took him prisoner, subjugated Asia Minor, but was defeated (April 989) by the marvellous energy of Basil II. with the help of the Roman auxiliaries furnished by Vladimir of Kiev, who was shortly to become his brother-in-law. The best account of these interesting episodes will be found in Schlumberger’s L’épopée byzantine, c. chaps. vi. vii. xi.]

59

[Basil completed the assertion of his own authority by banishing his namesake the eunuch in AD 989.]

60

[See chap. lv.]

61

[Gibbon, like most historians, is unjust to these Paphlagonians, who, if greedy adventurers, were all competent men. The reign of Michael IV. was distinguished by a temporary recovery of the western coast of Sicily ( AD 1039-42) through the ability of the great general George Maniaces (see below, chap. lvi.). The government had to meet the danger of a rebellion of the Bulgarian Slavs of Macedonia under Peter Deljan. This was put down; but Servia rose under Stephen Bogislav and successfully asserted its independence ( AD 1040).]

62

[Much new material for the scandals and intrigues of the court under the régimes of Zoe and Theodora, and the emperors who were elevated through them, has been revealed in the contemporary History of Psellus (Sathas, Bibl. Gr. Med. Aev., iv.; see Appendix 1). See Bury, Roman Emperors from Basil II. to Isaac Komnênos, in Eng. Hist. Rev. 4, p. 41 sqq., and 251 sqq. (1889). The chief events of the reign of Constantine IX. were the revolt of Leon Tornikios (which is the subject of a special monograph by R. Schutte, 1896), an invasion of the Patzinaks, the final schism of the Greek and Latin Churches (see below, chap. lx.), and the incorporation of Armenia in the Empire. For the foundation of a school of jurisprudence see Appendix 11.]

63

[Monomachus was a surname of the family; it had no personal application to Constantine. See Psellus, Hist., p. 110, ed. Sathas.]

64

[This powerful and ambitious prelate, Michael Cerularius, aimed at securing for the Patriarch the same headship of the Eastern Church and the same independent position in regard to the Emperor, which the Pope held in the West. Isaac deposed him. For this period see H. Mädler, Theodora, Michael Stratiotikos, Isaak Komnenos, 1894.]

65

[“Gibbon accepts the statement of Nicephorus Bryennius (i. 20) that John refused the imperial crown; but it appears to be merely a flourish of family pride, for Scylitzes expressly declares that Isaac set aside his brother” (Finlay, Hist. of Greece, ii. p. 12, n. 2). Isaac was married to a Bulgarian princess Aikaterina, the daughter probably of John Vladislav, as Scylitzes says (p. 628; cp. Mädler, op. cit. p. 13).]

66

[Especially financial policy.]

67

[For the anti-military policy adopted by Constantine Ducas, and in general for the condition of the empire at this period, see C. Neumann’s excellent work, Das Byzantinische Reich vor den Kreuzzügen.]

68

[For the literary work and influence of Eudocia, see below, chap. liii.]

69

[He was stratêgos of Triaditza (Sofia).]

70

[See above, n. 65.]

71

[For the Normans, cp. below, chap. lvi.; for the First Crusade, chap. lviii. For the reigns of Alexius, John, and Manuel: F. Wilken, Rerum ab Alex. i. Joh. et Man. Comnenis gest. libri iv. 1811.]

72

[To Fallmerayer belongs the credit of having given a just estimate of the administration of Andronicus (Geschichte des Kaisertums Trapezunts, p. 29). He showed that Andronicus made a serious and resolute attempt to rescue the empire from its decline, on the lines which had been followed by Basil II. and abandoned since his death. The objects of Andronicus were to purify the administration and to remedy the great economical evil which was ruining the empire — the growth of vast estates. He was consequently detested by the aristocratic and official classes, and it was men of these classes who wrote his history.]

1

The learned Selden has given the history of transubstantiation in a comprehensive and pithy sentence: “This opinion is only rhetoric turned into logic” (his Works, vol. iii. p. 2073, in his Table-talk).

2

Nec intelligunt homines ineptissimi, quod, si sentire simulacra et moveri possent [ultro], adoratura hominem fuissent a quo sunt expolita (Divin. Institut. l. ii. c. 2). Lactantius is the last, as well as the most eloquent, of the Latin apologists. Their raillery of idols attacks not only the object, but the form and matter.

3

See Irenæus, Epiphanius, and Augustin (Basnage, Hist. des Eglises Réformées, tom. ii. p. 1313). This Gnostic practice has a singular affinity with the private worship of Alexander Severus (Lampridius, c. 29; Lardner, Heathen Testimonies, vol. iii. p. 34).

3a

[Canon 36, Mansi, Conc. 12, 264.]

4

See this History, vol. iii. p. 293-294; vol. iv. p. 75-76; vol. v. p. 96-98.

5

Οὐ γὰρ τὸ Θεɩ̂ον ἁπλον̂ν ὑπάρχον καὶ ἄληπτον μορϕαɩ̂ς τισι καὶ σχήμασιν ἀπεικάζομεν. οὔτε κηρῷ καὶ ξύλοις τὴν ὑπερούσιον καὶ προάναρχον οὐσίαν τιμα̂ν ἡμεɩ̂ς διεγνώκαμεν (Concilium Nicenum, ii. in Collect. Labb. tom. viii. p. 1025, edit. Venet.). Il seroit peut-être à propos de ne point souffrir d’images de la Trinité ou de la Divinité; les défenseurs les plus zélés des images ayant condamné celles-ci, et le concile de Trente ne parlant que des images de Jésus Christ et des Saints (Dupin, Bibliot. Ecclés. tom. vi. p. 154).

6

This general history of images is drawn from the xxiid book of the Hist. des Eglises Réformées of Basnage, tom. ii. p. 1310-1337. He was a Protestant, but of a manly spirit; and on this head the Protestants are so notoriously in the right that they can venture to be impartial. See the perplexity of poor Friar Pagi, Critica, tom. i. p. 42. [Schwarzlose, der Bilderstreit, chap. 1 (1890).]

7

After removing some rubbish of miracle and inconsistency, it may be allowed that, as late as the year 300, Paneas in Palestine was decorated with a bronze statue, representing a grave personage wrapt in a cloak, with a grateful or suppliant female kneeling before him, and that an inscription — τῷ Σωτη̂ρι, τῷ εὐεργέτῃ — was perhaps inscribed on the pedestal. By the Christians, this group was foolishly explained of their founder, and the poor woman whom he had cured of the bloody flux (Euseb. vii. 18, Philostorg. vii. 3, c.). M. de Beausobre more reasonably conjectures the philosopher Apollonius, or the emperor Vespasian. In the latter supposition, the female is a city, a province, or perhaps the queen Berenice (Bibliothèque Germanique, tom. xiii. p. 1-92).

8

Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. i. c. 13 [cp. ii. 1]. The learned Assemannus has brought up the collateral aid of three Syrians, St. Ephrem, Josua Stylites, and James bishop of Sarug; but I do not find any notice of the Syriac original [cp. next note] or the archives of Edessa (Bibliot. Orient. tom. i. p. 318, 420, 554). Their vague belief is probably derived from the Greeks.

9

The evidence for these epistles is stated and rejected by the candid Lardner (Heathen Testimonies, vol. i. p. 297-309). Among the herd of bigots who are forcibly driven from this convenient but untenable post, I am ashamed, with the Grabes, Caves, Tillemonts, c. to discover Mr. Addison, an English gentleman (his Works, vol. i. p. 528, Baskerville’s edition); but his superficial tract on the Christian religion owes its credit to his name, his style, and the interested applause of our clergy. [The conversion of Edessa seems to have been achieved later than 200 AD by Bardesanes, under a later Abgar (202-217); and the legend probably arose soon after. About AD 400, the document quoted by Eusebius was edited in an improved form and increased by the addition of the miraculous picture. This is the socalled Doctrina Addæi or Acta Thaddæi, which has come down in Syriac (G. Phillips, The doctrine of Addai, 1876), Greek (Tischendorf, Act. Ap. Apoc. 261 sqq. ), and Armenian. See R. A. Lipsius, die edessenische Abgarsage, 1880; L. Tixeront, Les orig. de l’église d’Edesse et la légende d’Abgar, 1888.]

10

From the silence of James of Sarug (Asseman. Bibliot. Orient. p. 289, 318) and the testimony of Evagrius (Hist. Eccles. l. iv. c. 27), I conclude that this fable was invented between the years 521 and 594, most probably after the siege of Edessa in 540 (Asseman. tom. i. p. 416; Procopius, de Bell. Persic. l. ii. [c. 12]). It is the sword and buckler of Gregory II. (in Epist. i. ad Leon. Isaur. Concil. tom. viii. p. 656, 657), of John Damascenus (Opera, tom. i. p. 281, edit. Lequien), and of the second Nicene Council (Actio, v. p. 1030). The most perfect edition may be found in Cedrenus (Compend. p. 175-178 [i. p. 308 sqq., ed. Bonn]).

11

Ἀχειροποίητος. See Ducange, in Gloss. Græc. et Lat. The subject is treated with equal learning and bigotry by the Jesuit Gretser (Syntagma de Imaginibus non Manu factis, ad calcem Codini de Officiis, p. 280-330), the ass, or rather the fox, of Ingoldstadt (see the Scaligerana); with equal reason and wit by the Protestant Beausobre, in the ironical controversy which he has spread through many volumes of the Bibliothèque Germanique (tom. xviii. p. 1-50, xx. p. 27-68, xxv. p. 1-36, xxvii. p. 85-118, xxviii. p. 1-33, xxxi. p. 111-148, xxxii. p. 75-107, xxxiv. p. 67-96). [The Hellenic parallel to these εἰκόνες ἀχειροποίητοι are the ἀγάλματα διοπετη̂.]

12

Theophylact. Simocatta (l. ii. c. 3, p. 34, l. iii. c. 1, p. 63) celebrates the θεανδρικὸν εἴκασμα, which he styles ἀχειροποίητον; yet it was no more than a copy, since he adds, ἀρχέτυπον τὸ ἐκείνου οἱ Ῥωμαɩ̂οι (of Edessa) θρησκεύουσί τι ἄρρητον. See Pagi, tom. ii. AD 586, No. 11.

13

See, in the genuine or supposed works of John Damascenus, two passages on the Virgin and St. Luke, which have not been noticed by Gretser, nor consequently by Beausobre. Opera Joh. Damascen. tom. i. p. 618, 631. [There is an important passage, showing that image-worship was thoroughly established in the beginning of the 7th cent., in the story of Barlaam and Josaphat (see Appendix 1). See Migne, P.G. 96, p. 1032.]

14

“Your scandalous figures stand quite out from the canvas: they are as bad as a group of statues!” It was thus that the ignorance and bigotry of a Greek priest applauded the pictures of Titian, which he had ordered, and refused to accept.

15

By Cedrenus, Zonaras, Glycas, and Manasses, the origin of the Iconoclasts is imputed to the caliph Yezid and two Jews, who promised the empire to Leo; and the reproaches of these hostile sectaries are turned into an absurd conspiracy for restoring the purity of the Christian worship (see Spanheim, Hist. Imag. c. 2). [Yezid II. issued a decree banishing images from Christian churches in AD 723.]

16

See Elmacin (Hist. Saracen. p. 267), Abulpharagius (Dynast. p. 201), and Abulfeda (Annal. Moslem, p. 264); and the criticisms of Pagi (tom. iii. AD 944). The prudent Franciscan refuses to determine whether the image of Edessa now reposes at Rome or Genoa; but its repose is inglorious, and this ancient object of worship is no longer famous or fashionable.

17

Ἀρμενίοις καὶ Ἀλαμανοɩ̂ς ἐπίσης ἡ ἁγίων εἰκόνων προσκύνησις ἀπηγόρευται (Nicetas, l. ii. p. 258 [p. 527, ed. Bonn]). The Armenian churches are still content with the cross (Missions du Levant, tom. iii. p. 148); but surely the superstitious Greek is unjust to the superstition of the Germans of the xiith century.

18

Our original, but not impartial, monuments of the Iconoclasts must be drawn from the Acts of the Councils, tom. viii. and ix. Collect. Labbé, edit. Venet., and the historical writings of Theophanes, Nicephorus, Manasses, Cedrenus, Zonaras, c. Of the modern Catholics, Baronius, Pagi, Natalis Alexander (Hist. Eccles. Seculum viii. and ix.), and Maimbourg (Hist. des Iconoclastes) have treated the subject with learning, passion, and credulity. The Protestant labours of Frederic Spanheim (Historia Imaginum Restituta) and James Basnage (Hist. des Eglises Réformées, tom. ii. l. xxiii. p. 1339-1385) are cast into the Iconoclast scale. With this mutual aid, and opposite tendency, it is easy for us to poise the balance with philosophic indifference. [See further, Appendix 1.]

18a

[This is probably incorrect. See Appendix 15 on Leo’s edicts.]

19

Some flowers of rhetoric are Σύνοδον παράνομον καὶ ἄθεον, and the bishops τοɩ̂ς ματαιόϕροσιν. By [Pseudo-]Damascenus it is styled ἄκυρος καὶ ἄδεκτος (Opera, tom. i. p. 623). Spanheim’s Apology for the Synod of Constantinople (p. 171, c.) is worked up with truth and ingenuity, from such materials as he could find in the Nicene Acts (p. 1046, c.). The witty John of Damascus converts ὲπισκόπους into ὲπισκότους, makes them κοιλιοδούλους, slaves of their belly, c. (Opera, tom. i. p. 306).

20

He is accused of proscribing the title of saint; styling the Virgin, Mother of Christ; comparing her after her delivery to an empty purse; of Arianism, Nestorianism, c. In his defence, Spanheim (c. iv. p. 207) is somewhat embarrassed between the interest of a Protestant and the duty of an orthodox divine.

20a

[Cp. Vit. Steph. Jun., ap. Migne, P.G. 100, p. 1085.]

21

The holy confessor Theophanes approves the principle of their rebellion, θείῳ κινούμενοι ζήλῳ (p. 339 [ A.M. 6218]). Gregory II. (in Epist. i. ad Imp. Leon. Concil. tom. viii. p. 661, 664) applauds the zeal of the Byzantine women who killed the Imperial officers.

22

John, or Mansur, was a noble Christian of Damascus, who held a considerable office in the service of the caliph. His zeal in the cause of images exposed him to the resentment and treachery of the Greek emperor; and on the suspicion of a treasonable correspondence he was deprived of his right hand, which was miraculously restored by the Virgin. After this deliverance, he resigned his office, distributed his wealth, and buried himself in the monastery of St. Sabas, between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. The legend is famous; but his learned editor, Father Lequien, has unluckily proved that St. John Damascenus was already a monk before the Iconoclast dispute (Opera, tom. i. Vit. St. Joan. Damascen. p. 10-13, et Notas ad loc.). [Cp. Appendix 1.]

23

After sending Leo to the devil, he introduces his heir — τὸ μιαρὸν αὐτον̂ γέννημα, καὶ τη̂ς κακίας αὐτον̂ κληρονόμος ἐν διπλῷ γενόμενος (Opera Damascen. tom. i. p. 625 [c. Const. Cab., c. 20]). If the authenticity of this piece be suspicious [there is no doubt that it is spurious], we are sure that in other works, no longer extant, Damascenus bestowed on Constantine the title of νέον Μωαμὲθ Χριστόμαχον, μισάγιον (tom. i. p. 306). [The authority for these citations from John of Damascus is the Vita Stephani Junioris. Cp. Appendix 1.]

24

In the narrative of this persecution from Theophanes and Cedrenus, Spanheim (p. 235-238) is happy to compare the Draco of Leo with the dragoons ( Dracones ) of Louis XIV.; and highly solaces himself with this controversial pun.

25

Πρόγραμμα γὰρ ἐξέπεμψε κατὰ πα̂σαν ἐξαρχίαν τὴν ὑπό τη̂ς χειρὸς αὐτον̂, πάντας ὺπογράψαι καὶ ὀμνύναι τον̂ ἀθετη̂σαι τὴν προσκύνησιν τω̂ν σεπτω̂ν εἰκόνων ([Pseudo-]Damascen. Op. tom. i. p. 625 [c. Const. Caball. 21]). This oath and subscription I do not remember to have seen in any modern compilation.

26

Καὶ τὴν Ῥώμην σὺν πάσῃ [τῃ̑] Ἰταλιᾳ τη̂ς βασιλείας αὐτον̂ ἀπέστησε, says Theophanes (Chronograph. p. 343 [ A.M. 6221]). For this Gregory is styled by Cedrenus ἀνὴρ ἀποστολικός (p. 450). Zonaras specifies the thunder, ἀναθέματι συνοδικῷ (tom. ii. l. xv. p. 104, 105 [c. 4, ad init.]). It may be observed that the Greeks are apt to confound the times and actions of two Gregories.

27

See Baronius, Annal. Eccles. AD 730, No. 4, 5, dignum exemplum! Bellarmin. de Romano Pontifice, l. v. c. 8, mulctavit eum parte imperii. Sigonius, de Regno Italiæ, l. iii. Opera, tom. ii. p. 169. Yet such is the change of Italy that Sigonius is corrected by the editor of Milan, Philippus Argelatus, a Bolognese, and subject of the pope.

28

Quod si Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem aut Julianum, id fuit quia deerant vires temporales Christianis (honest Bellarmine, de Rom. Pont. l. v. c. 7). Cardinal Perron adds a distinction more honourable to the first Christians, but not more satisfactory to modern princes — the treason of heretics and apostates, who break their oath, belie their coin, and renounce their allegiance to Christ and his vicar (Perroniana, p. 89).

29

Take, as a specimen, the cautious Basnage (Hist. de l’Eglise, p. 1350, 1351), and the vehement Spanheim (Hist. Imaginum), who, with an hundred more, tread in the footsteps of the centuriators of Magdeburg.

30

See Launoy (Opera, tom. v. pars ii. epist. vii. 7, p. 456-474), Natalis Alexander (Hist. Nov. Testamenti, secul. viii. Dissert. i. p. 92-96), Pagi (Critica, tom. iii. p. 215-216), and Giannone (Istoria Civile di Napoli, tom. i. p. 317-320), a disciple of the Gallican school. In the field of controversy I always pity the moderate party, who stand on the open middle ground exposed to the fire of both sides.

31

They appeal to Paul Warnefrid, or Diaconus (de Gestis Langobard. l. vi. c. 49, p. 506, 507, in Script. Ital. Muratori, tom. i. pars i.), and the nominal Anastasius (de Vit. Pont. in Muratori, tom. iii. pars i. Gregorius II. p. 154. Gregorius III. p. 158. Zacharias, p. 161. Stephanus III. p. 165. Paulus, p. 172. Stephanus IV. p. 174. Hadrianus, p. 179. Leo III. p. 195). Yet I may remark that the true Anastasius (Hist. Eccles. p. 134, edit. Reg.), and the Historia Miscella (l. xxi. p. 151, in tom. i. Script. Ital.), both of the ixth century, translate and approve the Greek text of Theophanes.

32

With some minute difference, the most learned critics, Lucas Holstenius, Schelestrate, Ciampini, Bianchini, Muratori (Prolegomena ad tom. iii. pars i.), are agreed that the Liber Pontificalis was composed and continued by the apostolical librarians and notaries of the viiith and ixth centuries; and that the last and smallest part is the work of Anastasius, whose name it bears. The style is barbarous, the narrative partial, the details are trifling; yet it must be read as a curious and authentic record of the times. The epistles of the popes are dispersed in the volumes of Councils. [See Appendix 1.]

33

The two epistles of Gregory II. have been preserved in the Acts of the Nicene Council (tom. viii. p. 651-674). They are without a date, which is variously fixed, by Baronius in the year 726, by Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. vi. p. 120) in 729, and by Pagi in 730. Such is the force of prejudice, that some Papists have praised the good sense and moderation of these letters. [See Appendix 14. For the pontificate of Gregory: Dahmen, Das Pontifikat Gregors II., 1888.]

34

Εἴκοσι τέσσαρα στάδια ὑποχωρήσει ὸ Ἀρχιερεὺς Ῥώμης εἰς τὴν χώραν τη̂ς Καμπανίας, καὶ ὔπαγε δίωξον τοὺς ἀνέμους (Epist. i. p. 664). This proximity of the Lombards is hard of digestion. Camillo Pellegrini (Dissert. iv. de Ducatu Beneventi, in the Script. Ital. tom. v. p. 172, 173) forcibly reckons the twenty-four stadia, not from Rome, but from the limits of the Roman duchy, to the first fortress, perhaps Sora, of the Lombards. I rather believe that Gregory, with the pedantry of the age, employs stadia for miles without much inquiry into the genuine measure.

35

Ὃν αἱ πα̂σαι βασίλειαι τη̂ς δύσεως ὡς Θεὸν ἑπίγειον ἔχουσι.

36

Ἀπὸ τη̂ς ἐσωτέρου δύσεως τον̂ λεγομἑνου Σεπτέτου (p. 665). The pope appears to have imposed on the ignorance of the Greeks; he lived and died in the Lateran; and in his time all the kingdoms of the West had embraced Christianity. May not this unknown Septetus have some reference to the chief of the Saxon Heptarchy to Ina king of Wessex, who, in the pontificate of Gregory the Second, visited Rome, for the purpose, not of baptism, but of pilgrimage? (Pagi, AD 689, No. 2, AD 726, No. 15). [Schenk adopts this explanation, in his art. on Leo III., Byz. Ztsch. v. p. 289.]

37

I shall transcribe the important and decisive passage of the Liber Pontificalis. Respiciens ergo pius vir profanam principis jussionem, jam contra Imperatorem quasi contra hostem se armavit, renuens hæresim ejus, scribens ubique se cavere Christianos, eo quod orta fuisset impietas talis. Igitur permoti omnes Pentapolenses atque Venetiarum exercitus contra Imperatoris jussionem restiterunt; dicentes se nunquam in ejusdem pontificis condescendere necem, sed pro ejus magis defensione viriliter decertare (p. 156).

38

A census, or capitation, says Anastasius (p. 156); a most cruel tax, unknown to the Saracens themselves, exclaims the zealous Maimbourg (Hist. des Iconoclastes, l. i.), and Theophanes (p. 344), who talks of Pharaoh’s numbering the male children of Israel. This mode of taxation was familiar to the Saracens; and, most unluckily for the historian, it was imposed a few years afterwards in France by his patron Lewis XIV.

39

See the Liber Pontificalis of Agnellus (in the Scriptores Rerum Italicarum of Muratori, tom. ii. pars i.), whose deeper shade of barbarism marks the difference between Rome and Ravenna. Yet we are indebted to him for some curious and domestic facts — the quarters and factions of Ravenna (p. 154), the revenge of Justinian II. (p. 160, 161), the defeat of the Greeks (p. 170, 171), c. [The story in Agnellus is very doubtful. Cp. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vi. 453-4.]

40

Yet Leo was undoubtedly comprised in the si quis . . . imaginum sacrarum . . . destructor . . . extiterit sit extorris a corpore D. N. Jesu Christi vel totius ecclesiæ unitate. The canonists may decide whether the guilt or the name constitutes the excommunication; and the decision is of the last importance to their safety, since, according to the oracle (Gratian Caus. xxiii. q. 5, c. 47, apud Spanheim, Hist. Imag. p. 112), homicidas non esse qui excommunicatos trucidant.

41

Compescuit tale consilium Pontifex, sperans conversionem principis (Anastas. p. 156). Sed ne desisterent ab amore et fide R. J. admonebat (p. 157). The popes style Leo and Constantine Copronymus, Imperatores et Domini, with the strange epithet of Piissimi. A famous Mosaic of the Lateran ( AD 798) represents Christ, who delivers the keys to St. Peter and the banner to Constantine V. (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. vi. p. 337).

42

I have traced the Roman duchy according to the maps, and the maps according to the excellent dissertation of Father Beretti (de Chorographiâ Italiæ Medii Ævi, sect. xx. p. 216-232). Yet I must nicely observe that Viterbo is of Lombard foundation (p. 211), and that Terracina was usurped by the Greeks.

43

On the extent, population, c. of the Roman kingdom, the reader may peruse, with pleasure, the Discours Préliminaire to the République Romaine of M. de Beaufort (tom. i.), who will not be accused of too much credulity for the early ages of Rome.

44

Quos ( Romanos ) nos, Longobardi scilicet, Saxones, Franci, Lotharingi, Bagoarii, Suevi, Burgundiones, tanto dedignamur ut inimicos nostros commoti nil aliud contumeliarum nisi Romane dicamus; hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine, quicquid ignobilitatis, quicquid timiditatis, quicquid avaritiæ, quicquid luxuriæ, quicquid mendacii, immo quicquid vitiorum est comprehendentes (Liutprand, in Legat. [c. 12] Script. Ital. tom. ii. pars i. p. 481). For the sins of Cato or Tully, Minos might have imposed as a fit penance the daily perusal of this barbarous passage.

45

Pipino regi Francorum [et patricio Romanorum], omnis senatus, atque universa populi generalitas a Deo servatæ Romanæ urbis. Codex Carolin. epist. 36, in Script. Ital. tom. iii. pars ii. p. 160. The names of senatus and senator were never totally extinct (Dissert. Chorograph. p. 216, 217); but in the middle ages they signified little more than nobiles, optimates, c. (Ducange, Gloss. Latin.).

46

See Muratori, Antiquit. Italiæ Medii Ævi, tom. ii. Dissertat. xxvii. p. 548. On one of these coins we read Hadrianus Papa ( AD 772); on the reverse, Vict. DDNN. with the word CONOB, which the Père Joubert (Science des Médailles, tom. ii. p. 42) explains by CON stantinopoli O fficina B ( secunda ). [OB = 72. Cp. above, vol. iii. p. 160, n. 189.]

47

See West’s Dissertation on the Olympic Games (Pindar, vol. ii. p. 32-36, edition in 12mo), and the judicious reflections of Polybius (tom. i. l. iv. p. 466, edit. Gronov. [c. 73]).

48

The speech of Gregory to the Lombard is finely composed by Sigonius (de Regno Italiæ, l. iii. Opera, tom. ii. p. 173), who imitates the licence and the spirit of Sallust or Livy. [Liutprand had formed a league with the exarch Eutychius against the pope.]

49

The Venetian historians, John Sagorninus (Chron. Venet. p. 13) and the doge Andrew Dandolo (Scriptores Rer. Ital. tom. xii. p. 135), have preserved this epistle of Gregory. The loss and recovery of Ravenna are mentioned by Paulus Diaconus (de Gest. Langobard. l. vi. c. 49, 54, in Script. Ital. tom. i. pars i. p. 506, 508); but our chronologists, Pagi, Muratori, c. cannot ascertain the date or circumstances. [Monticolo, Le spedizioni di Liutprando, c., in the Arch. d. R. Soc. Rom. di storia patria (1892), p. 321 sqq.; Hodgkin, op. cit. vi. note F. p. 505-8. The date of the recovery of Ravenna was probably AD 740, that of the capture AD 738 or 739; but Monticolo places both in AD 735.]

50

The option will depend on the various readings of the MSS. of Anastasius — deceperat, or decerpserat (Script. Ital. tom. iii. pars i. p. 167). [ Decerpserat has no MS. authority. See Lib. Pont. i. p. 444, ed. Duchesne.]

51

The Codex Carolinus is a collection of the epistles of the popes to Charles Martel (whom they style Subregulus ), Pepin and Charlemagne, as far as the year 791, when it was formed by the last of these princes. His original and authentic MS. (Bibliothecæ Cubieularis) is now in the Imperial library of Vienna [No. 449], and has been published by Lambecius and Muratori (Script. Rerum Ital. tom. iii. pars ii. p. 75, c.). [Ed. Jaffé, 1867; and Gundlach, in M.G.H., Epp. iii., 1892.]

51a

[ Read third.]

52

See this most extraordinary letter in the Codex Carolinus, epist. iii. p. 92. The enemies of the popes have charged them with fraud and blasphemy; yet they surely meant to persuade rather than deceive. This introduction of the dead, or of immortals, was familiar to the ancient orators, though it is executed on this occasion in the rude fashion of the age.

53

Except in the divorce of the daughter of Desiderius, whom Charlemagne repudiated sine aliquo crimine. Pope Stephen IV. had most furiously opposed the alliance of a noble Frank — cum perfidâ, horridâ, nec dicendâ, fœtentissimâ natione Longobardorum — to whom he imputes the first stain of leprosy (Cod. Carolin. epist. 45, p. 178, 179). Another reason against the marriage was the existence of a first wife (Muratori, Annali d’Italia, tom. vi. p. 232, 233, 236, 237). But Charlemagne indulged himself in the freedom of polygamy or concubinage.

54

See the Annali d’Italia of Muratori, tom. vi. and the three first dissertations of his Antiquitates Italiæ Medii Ævi, tom. i.

55

Besides the common historians, three French critics, Launoy (Opera, tom. v. pars ii. l. vii. epist. 9, p. 477-487), Pagi (Critica, AD 751, No. 1-6, AD 752, No. 1-10), and Natalis Alexander (Hist. Novi Testamenti, Dissertat. ii. p. 96-107) have treated this subject of the deposition of Childeric with learning and attention but with a strong bias to save the independence of the crown. Yet they are hard pressed by the texts which they produce of Eginhard, Theophanes, and the old annals, Laureshamenses, Fuldenses, Loisielani [= Laurissenses maiores].

56

Not absolutely for the first time. On a less conspicuous theatre, it had been used, in the vith and viith centuries, by the provincial bishops of Britain and Spain. The royal unction of Constantinople was borrowed from the Latins in the last age of the empire. Constantine Manasses mentions that of Charlemagne as a foreign, Jewish, incomprehensible ceremony. See Selden’s Titles of Honour, in his Works, vol. iii. part i. p. 234-249. I should have noticed (as Professor Sickel has pointed out to me in his essay (p. 35) mentioned below, p. 359, n. 98) that there is no evidence that anointing was practised at Constantinople in the 8th century.

57

See Eginhard, in Vitâ Caroli Magni, c. i. p. 9, c. c. iii. p. 24. Childeric was deposed — jussu, the Carlovingians were established — auctoritate, Pontificis Romani. Launoy, c. pretend that these strong words are susceptible of a very soft interpretation. Be it so; yet Eginhard understood the world, the court, and the Latin language.

58

For the title and powers of patrician of Rome, see Ducange (Gloss. Latin. tom. v. p. 149-151), Pagi (Critica, AD 740, No. 6-11), Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. vi. p. 308-329), and St. Marc (Abrégé Chronologique d’Italie, tom. i. p. 379-482). Of these the Franciscan Pagi is the most disposed to make the patrician a lieutenant of the church rather than of the empire. [That the patriciate of Pippin and Charles was not an empty title but had rights and duties is shown by Sickel, Gött. gel. Anz. 1897, p. 847, 848. On the term patriciatus Petri for the territorial lordship of the popes, cp. Kehr, Gött. Nachrichten, 1896, p. 144.]

59

The papal advocates can soften the symbolic meaning of the banner and the keys; but the style of ad regnum dimisimus, or direximus (Codex Carolin. epist. i. tom. iii. pars ii. p. 76), seems to allow of no palliation or escape. In the MS. of the Vienna library, they read, instead of regnum, rogum, prayer or request (see Ducange), and the royalty of Charles Martel is subverted by this important correction (Catalini, in his Critical Prefaces, Annali d’Italia, tom. xvii. p. 95-99). [Sickel shows that the banner had no juridical significance, op. cit. p. 850-1. For the keys, cp. Appendix 16.]

60

In the authentic narrative of this reception, the Liber Pontificalis observes — obviam illi ejus sanctitas dirigens venerabiles cruces, id est signa; sicut mos est ad exarchum aut patricium suscipiendum, eum cum ingenti honore suscipi fecit (tom. iii. pars i. p. 185).

61

Paulus Diaconus, who wrote before the empire of Charlemagne, describes Rome as his subject city — vestræ [? vestras] civitates [Romanos ipsamque urbem Romuleam; ap. Freher, i. p. 574] (ad Pompeium Festum) suis addidit sceptris (de Metensis Ecclesiæ Episcopis). Some Carlovingian medals, struck at Rome, have engaged Le Blanc to write an elaborate, though partial, dissertation on their authority at Rome, both as patricians and emperors (Amsterdam, 1692, in 4to).

62

Mosheim (Institution. Hist. Eccles. p. 263) weighs this donation with fair and deliberate prudence. The original act has never been produced; but the Liber Pontificalis represents (p. 171), and the Codex Carolinus supposes, this ample gift. Both are contemporary records; and the latter is the more authentic, since it has been preserved, not in the papal, but the Imperial, library. [See Appendix 16.]

63

Between the exorbitant claims, and narrow concessions, of interest and prejudice, from which even Muratori (Antiquitat. tom. i. p. 63-68) is not exempt, I have been guided, in the limits of the Exarchate and Pentapolis, by the Dissertatio Chorographica Italiæ Medii Ævi, tom. x. p. 160-180

64

Spoletini deprecati sunt, ut eos in servitio B. Petri reciperet et more Romanorum tonsurari faceret (Anastasius, p. 185). Yet it may be a question whether they gave their own persons or their country.

65

The policy and donations of Charlemagne are carefully examined by St. Marc (Abrégé, tom. i. p. 390-408), who has well studied the Codex Carolinus. I believe, with him, that they were only verbal. The most ancient act of donation that pretends to be extant is that of the emperor Lewis the Pious (Sigonius, de Regno Italiæ, l. iv., Opera, tom. ii. p. 267-270). Its authenticity, or at least its integrity, are much questioned (Pagi, AD 817, No. 7, c.; Muratori, Annali, tom. vi. p. 432, c.; Dissertat. Chorographica, p. 33, 34), but I see no reasonable objection to these princes’ so freely disposing of what was not their own. [The genuineness of the Ludovicianum, AD 817, is now generally admitted. The mention of the islands Sardinia and Sicily may be an interpolation.]

66

Charlemagne solicited and obtained from the proprietor, Hadrian I., the mosaics of the palace of Ravenna, for the decoration of Aix-la-Chapelle (Cod. Carolin. epist. 67, p. 223). [He built his palace on the model of Theodoric’s, and his church (included in the present cathedral of Aachen) on the pattern of San Vitale, at Ravenna. His architect’s name was Odo.]

67

The popes often complain of the usurpations of Leo of Ravenna (Codex Carolin. epist. 51, 52, 53, p. 200-205). Si corpus St. Andreæ fratris germani St. Petri hic humasset, nequâquam nos Romani pontifices sic subjugassent (Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis, in Scriptores Rerum Ital. tom. ii. pars i. p. 107).

68

Piissimo Constantino magno per ejus largitatem S. R. Ecclesia elevata et exaltata est, et potestatem in his Hesperiæ partibus largiri dignatus est. . . . Quia ecce novus Constantinus his temporibus, c. (Codex Carolin. epist. 49, in tom. iii. pars ii. p. 195). Pagi (Critica, AD 324, No. 16) ascribes them to an impostor of the viiith century, who borrowed the name of St. Isidore: his humble title of Peccator was ignorantly, but aptly, turned into Mercator; his merchandise was indeed profitable, and a few sheets of paper were sold for much wealth and power.

69

Fabricius (Bibliot. Græc. tom. vi. p. 4-7) has enumerated the several editions of this Act, in Greek and Latin. The copy which Laurentius Valla recites and refutes appears to be taken either from the spurious Acts of St. Silvester or from Gratian’s Decree, to which, according to him and others, it has been surreptitiously tacked.

70

In the year 1059, it was believed (was it believed?) by Pope Leo IX., Cardinal Peter Damianus, c. Muratori places (Annali d’Italia, tom. ix. p. 23, 24) the fictitious donations of Lewis the Pious, the Othos, c. de Donatione Constantini. See a Dissertation of Natalis Alexander, seculum iv. diss. 25, p. 335-350.

71

See a large account of the controversy ( AD 1105), which arose from a private lawsuit, in the Chronicon Farfense [by Gregorius Catinensis] (Script. Rerum Italicarum, tom. ii. pars ii. p. 637, c.), a copious extract from the archives of that Benedictine abbey. They were formerly accessible to curious foreigners (Le Blanc and Mabillon), and would have enriched the first volume of the Historia Monastica Italia of Quirini. But they are now imprisoned (Muratori, Scriptores R. I. tom. ii. pars ii. p. 269) by the timid policy of the court of Rome; and the future cardinal yielded to the voice of authority and the whispers of ambition (Quirini, Comment. pars ii. p. 123-136). [The Registrum of Farfa is being published (not yet complete) by J. Georgi and U. Balzani. The Orth. defens. imperialis de investitura ( AD iiii.) is ed. by Heinemann in M.G.H., Libelli de lite, ii. 535 sqq. (1893).]

72

I have read in the collection of Schardius (de Potestate Imperiali Ecclesiasticâ, p. 734-780) this animated discourse, which was composed by the author AD 1440, six years after the flight of Pope Eugenius IV. It is a most vehement party pamphlet: Valla justifies and animates the revolt of the Romans, and would even approve the use of a dagger against their sacerdotal tyrant. Such a critic might expect the persecution of the clergy; yet he made his peace, and is buried in the Lateran (Bayle, Dictionnaire Critique, VALLA; Vossius, de Historicis Latinis, p. 580).

73

See Guicciardini, a servant of the popes, in that long and valuable digression, which has resumed its place in the last edition, correctly published from the author’s MS. and printed in four volumes in quarto, under the name of Friburgo, 1775 (Istoria d’Italia, tom. i. p. 385-395).

74

The Paladin Astolpho found it in the moon, among the things that were lost upon earth (Orlando Furioso, xxxiv. 80).

 

Di vari fiori ad un gran monte passa, Ch’ebbe già buono odore, or puzza forte Questo era il dono (se però dir lece) Che Constantino al buon Silvestro fece.

Yet this incomparable poem has been approved by a bull of Leo X.

75

See Baronius, AD 324, No. 117-123, AD 1191, No. 51, c. The cardinal wishes to suppose that Rome was offered Constantine, and refused by Silvester. The act of donation he considers, strangely enough, as a forgery of the Greeks.

76

Baronius n’en dit guères contre; encore en a-t-il trop dit, et l’on vouloit sans moi ( Cardinal du Perron ), qui l’empêchai, censurer cette partie de son histoire. J’en devisai un jour avec le Pape, et il ne me repondit autre chose “che volete? i Canonici la tengono,” il le disoit en riant (Perroniana, p. 77).

77

The remaining history of images, from Irene to Theodora, is collected, for the Catholics, by Baronius and Pagi ( AD 780-840), Natalis Alexander (Hist. N. T. seculum viii. Panoplia adversus Hæreticos, p. 118-178), and Dupin (Bibliot. Ecclés. tom. vi. p. 136-154); for the Protestants, by Spanheim (Hist. Imag. p. 305-639), Basnage (Hist. de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 556-572, tom. ii. p. 1362-1385), and Mosheim (Institut. Hist. Eccles. secul. viii. et ix.). The Protestants, except Mosheim, are soured with controversy; but the Catholics, except Dupin, are inflamed by the fury and superstition of the monks; and even le Beau (Hist. du Bas Empire), a gentleman and a scholar, is infected by the odious contagion.

78

See the Acts, in Greek and Latin, of the second Council of Nice, with a number of relative pieces, in the viiith volume of the Councils, p. 645-1600. A faithful version, with some critical notes, would provoke, in different readers, a sigh or a smile.

79

The pope’s legates were casual messengers, two priests without any special commission, and who were disavowed on their return. Some vagabond monks were persuaded by the Catholics to represent the Oriental patriarchs. This curious anecdote is revealed by Theodore Studites (epist. i. 38, in Sirmond. Opp. tom. v. p. 1319), one of the warmest Iconoclasts of the age.

80

Συμϕέρει δὲ σοὶ μὴ καταλιπεɩ̂ν ὲν τῃ̑ πόλει ταύτῃ πορνεɩ̂ον εὶς δ μὴ εἰσέλθης, ἥ ἵνα ἀρνἡσῃ τὸ προσκυνεɩ̂ν τὸν κύριον ὴμω̂ν καὶ θεὸν Ἱησον̂ν Χριστὸν μετὰ τη̂ς ἰδίας αὐτον̂ μητρὸς ἐν εἰκόνι. These visits could not be innocent, since the Δαίμων πορνείας (the demon of fornication) ἐπολέμει δὲ αὐτὸν . . . ἐν μίᾳ ον̂̔ν ὡς ἐπέκειτο αὐτῳ σϕόδρα, c. Actio iv. p. 901, Actio v. p. 1031.

81

[Michael was really indifferent in religious matters; his policy was toleration.]

82

[His edict against Image-worship was published in AD 832. The chief martyrs were Lazarus the painter, who was scourged and imprisoned, and the brothers Theodore and Theophanes, who were tortured. Verses were branded on the head of Theodore, here known as Graptos. None of the martyrs suffered death.]

83

[See the De Theophili imperatoris absolutione, in Regel’s Anal. Byz.-Russ. p. 19 sqq. (cp. p. x. sqq. ).]

84

[The Sunday of Orthodoxy. There is a full study on the council of 842 by Th. Uspenski in his Ocherki po ist. Viz. obrazannosti, p. 3-88.]

85

See an account of this controversy in the Alexias of Anna Comnena (l. v. p. 129 [c. 2]) and Mosheim (Institut. Hist. Eccles. p. 371, 372).

86

The Libri Carolini (Spanheim, p. 443-529), composed in the palace or winter quarters of Charlemagne, at Worms, AD 790; and sent by Engebert to Pope Hadrian I. who answered them by a grandis et verbosa epistola (Concil. tom. viii. p. 1553). The Carolines propose 120 objections against the Nicene synod, and such words as these are the flowers of their rhetoric — dementiam priscæ Gentilitatis obsoletum errorem . . . argumenta insanissima et absurdissima . . . derisione dignas nænias, c. c.

87

The assemblies of Charlemagne were political, as well as ecclesiastical; and the three hundred members (Nat. Alexander, sec. viii. p. 53), who sat and voted at Frankfort, must include not only the bishops, but the abbots, and even the principal laymen.

88

Qui supra sanctissima patres nostri (episcopi et sacerdotes) omnimodis servitium et adorationem imaginum renuentes contempserunt, atque consentientes condemnaverunt (Concil. tom. ix. p. 101; Canon ii. Frankfurd). A polemic must be hard-hearted indeed, who does not pity the efforts of Baronius, Pagi, Alexander, Maimbourg, c. to elude this unlucky sentence.

89

Theophanes (p. 343 [ sub A.M. 6224]) specifies those of Sicily and Calabria, which yielded an annual rent of three talents and a half of gold (perhaps 7000l. sterling). Liutprand more pompously enumerates the patrimonies of the Roman church in Greece, Judæa, Persia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Egypt, and Libya, which were detained by the injustice of the Greek emperor (Legat. ad Nicephorum, in Script. Rerum Italicarum, tom. ii. pars i. p. 481 [c. 17]).

90

The great diocese of the Eastern Illyricum, with Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily (Thomassin, Discipline de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 145). By the confession of the Greeks, the patriarch of Constantinople had detached from Rome the metropolitans of Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Nicopolis, and Patræ (Luc. Holsten. Geograph. Sacra, p. 22); and his spiritual conquests extended to Naples and Amalphi (Giannone Istoria Civile di Napoli, tom. i. p. 517-524. Pagi, AD 730, No. 11). [See Mansi, Conc. 13, 808; 15, 167.]

91

In hoc ostenditur, quia ex uno capitulo ab errore reversis, in aliis duobus, in eodem (was it the same?) permaneant errore . . . de diocesi S. R. E. seu de patrimoniis iterum increpantes commonemus, ut si ea restituere noluerit hereticum eum pro hujusmodi errore perseverantiâ decernemus (Epist. Hadrian. Papæ ad Carolum Magnum, in Concil. tom. viii. p. 1598); to which he adds a reason, most directly opposite to his conduct, that he preferred the salvation of souls and rule of faith to the goods of this transitory world.

92

Fontanini considers the emperors as no more than the advocates of the church (advocatus et defensor S. R. E. See Ducange, Gloss. Lat. tom. i. p. 97). His antagonist, Muratori, reduces the popes to be no more than the exarchs of the emperor. In the more equitable view of Mosheim (Institut. Hist. Eccles. p. 264, 265) they held Rome under the empire as the most honourable species of fief or benefice — premuntur nocte caliginosâ!

93

His merits and hopes are summed up in an epitaph of thirty-eight verses, of which Charlemagne declares himself the author (Concil. tom. viii. p. 520).

 

Post patrem lacrymans Carolus hæc carmina scripsi. Tu mihi dulcis amor, te modo plango pater — Nomina jungo simul titulis, clarissime, nostra Adrianus, Carolus, rex ego, tuque pater.

The poetry might be supplied by Alcuin; but the tears, the most glorious tribute, can only belong to Charlemagne.

94

Every new pope is admonished — “Sancte Pater, non videbis annos Petri,” twenty-five years. On the whole series the average is about eight years — a short hope for an ambitious cardinal.

95

The assurance of Anastasius (tom. iii. pars i. p. 197, 198) is supported by the credulity of some French annalists; but Eginhard and other writers of the same age are more natural and sincere. “Unus ei oculus paullulum est læsus,” says John the deacon of Naples (Vit. Episcop. Napol. in Scriptores Muratori, tom. i. pars ii. p. 312). Theodolphus, a contemporary bishop of Orleans, observes with prudence (l. iii. carm. 3): —

 

Reddita sunt? mirum est; mirum est auferre nequisse, Est tamen in dubio, hinc mirer an inde magis.

96

Twice, at the request of Hadrian and Leo, he appeared at Rome — longâ tunicâ et chlamyde amictus, et calceamentis quoque Romano more formatis. Eginhard (c. xxiii. p. 109-113) describes, like Suetonius, the simplicity of his dress, so popular in the nation that, when Charles the Bald returned to France in a foreign habit, the patriotic dogs barked at the apostate (Gaillard, Vie de Charlemagne, tom. iv. p. 109).

97

See Anastasius (p. 199) and Eginhard (c. xxviii. p. 124-128). The unction is mentioned by Theophanes (p. 399 [ A.M. 6289]), the oath by Sigonius (from the Ordo Romanus), and the pope’s adoration more antiquorum principum by the Annales Bertiniani (Script. Murator. tom. i. pars ii. p. 505) [cp. Chron. Moissac, ad ann. 801].

98

This great event of the translation or restoration of the empire is related and discussed by Natalis Alexander (secul. ix. dissert. i. p. 390-397), Pagi (tom. iii. p. 418), Muratori (Annali d’Italia, tom. vi. p. 339-352), Sigonius (de Regno Italiæ, l. iv. Opp. tom. ii. p. 247-251), Spanheim (de fictâ Translatione Imperii), Giannone (tom. i. p. 395-405), St. Marc (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. i. p. 438-450), Gaillard (Hist. de Charlemagne, tom. ii. p. 386-446). Almost all these moderns have some religious or national bias. [The Pope’s act was a surprise to Charles, who would have wished to become Emperor in some other way — how we know not. There is an interesting discussion of the question in Bryce’s Holy Roman Empire, c.5. (I have since received from Professor W. Sickel an important study: Die Kaiserwahl Karls des Grossen, Eine rechtsgeschichtliche Erörterung, which he contributed to the Mittheilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, vol. xx. He deals with all important previous works on the question, and makes it probable that a Wahlversammlung, an assembly of electors, clerical and lay, met at Rome before Dec. 25.)]

99

[The question has been raised whether Charlemagne is nothing more than a popular equivalent of Carolus Magnus. The fact that magnus was a purely literary word (even in the days of Cicero there can be little doubt that grandis was the ordinary colloquial word) seemed an objection; and it was held by Mr. Freeman that Charlemagne arose originally from a confusion with Carloman, and was then established in use by a false connection with Carolus Magnus.]

100

By Mably (Observations sur l’Histoire de France), Voltaire (Histoire Générale), Robertson (History of Charles V.), and Montesquieu (Esprit des Loix, l. xxxi. c. 18). In the year 1782, M. Gaillard published his Histoire de Charlemagne (in 4 vols. in 12mo), which I have freely and profitably used. The author is a man of sense and humanity; and his work is laboured with industry and elegance. But I have likewise examined the original monuments of the reigns of Pepin and Charlemagne, in the fifth volume of the Historians of France.

101

The vision of Weltin, composed by a monk eleven years after the death of Charlemagne, shews him in purgatory, with a vulture, who is perpetually gnawing the guilty member, while the rest of his body, the emblem of his virtues, is sound and perfect (see Gaillard, tom. ii. p. 317-360).

102

The marriage of Eginhard with Imma, daughter of Charlemagne, is, in my opinion, sufficiently refuted by the probrum and suspicio that sullied these fair damsels, without excepting his own wife (c. xix. p. 98-100, cum Notis Schmincke). The husband must have been too strong for the historian.

103

Besides the massacres and transmigrations, the pain of death was pronounced against the following crimes: 1. The refusal of baptism. 2. The false pretence of baptism. 3. A relapse to idolatry. 4. The murder of a priest or bishop. 5. Human sacrifices. 6. Eating meat in Lent. But every crime might be expiated by baptism or penance (Gaillard, tom. ii. p. 241-247); and the Christian Saxons became the friends and equals of the Franks (Struv. Corpus Hist. Germanicæ, p. 133).

104

In this action, the famous Rutland, Rolando, Orlando, was slain — cum pluribus aliis. See the truth in Eginhard (c. 9, p. 51-56), and the fable in an ingenious Supplement of M. Gaillard (tom. iii. p. 474). The Spaniards are too proud of a victory which history ascribes to the Gascons, and romance to the Saracens.

105

Yet Schmidt, from the best authorities, represents the interior disorders and oppression of his reign (Hist. des Allemands, tom. ii. p. 45-49).

106

Omnis homo ex suâ proprietate legitimam decimam ad ecclesiam conferat. Experimento enim didicimus, in anno, quo illa valida fames irrepsit, ebullire vacuas annonas a dæmonibus devoratas et voces exprobationis auditas. Such is the decree and assertion of the great Council of Frankfort (canon xxv. tom. ix. p. 105). Both Selden (Hist. of Tithes; Works, vol. iii. part ii. p. 1146) and Montesquieu (Esprit des Loix, l. xxxi. c. 12) represent Charlemagne as the first legal author of tithes. Such obligations have country gentlemen to his memory!

107

Eginhard (c. 25, p. 119) clearly affirms, tentabat et scribere . . . sed parum prospere successit labor præposterus et sero inchoatus. The moderns have perverted and corrected this obvious meaning, and the title of M. Gaillard’s Dissertation (tom. iii. p. 247-260) betrays his partiality.

108

See Gaillard, tom. iii. p. 138-176, and Schmidt, tom. ii. p. 121-129.

109

M. Gaillard (tom. iii. p. 372) fixes the true stature of Charlemagne (see a Dissertation of Marquard Freher ad calcem Eginhard. p. 220, c.) at five feet nine inches of French, about six feet one inch and a fourth English, measure. The romance writers have increased it to eight feet, and the giant was endowed with matchless strength and appetite: at a single stroke of his good sword Joyeuse he cut asunder an horseman and his horse; at a single repast he devoured a goose, two fowls, a quarter of mutton, c.

110

See the concise but correct and original work of d’Anville (Etats formés en Europe après la Chute de l’Empire Romain en Occident, Paris, 1771, in 4to), whose map includes the empire of Charlemagne; the different parts are illustrated by Valesius (Notitia Galliarum) for France, Beretti (Dissertatio Chorographica) for Italy, de Marca (Marca Hispanica) for Spain. For the middle geography of Germany, I confess myself poor and destitute.

111

After a brief relation of his wars and conquests (Vit. Carol. c. 5-14), Eginhard recapitulates, in a few words (c. 15), the countries subject to his empire. Struvius (Corpus Hist. German. p. 118-149) has inserted in his Notes the texts of the old Chronicles.

112

Of a charter granted to the monastery of Alaon ( AD 845) by Charles the Bald, which deduces this royal pedigree. I doubt whether some subsequent links of the ixth and xth centuries are equally firm; yet the whole is approved and defended by M. Gaillard (tom. ii. p. 60-81, 203-206), who affirms that the family of Montesquieu (not of the president de Montesquieu) is descended, in the female line, from Clotaire and Clovis — an innocent pretension!

113

The governors or counts of the Spanish march revolted from Charles the Simple about the year 900; and a poor pittance, the Rousillon, has been recovered in 1642 by the kings of France (Longuerue, Description de la France, tom. i. p. 220-222). Yet the Rousillon contains 188,900 subjects, and annually pays 2,600,000 livres (Necker, Administration des Finances, tom. i. p. 278, 279); more people perhaps, and doubtless more money, than the march of Charlemagne.

114

Schmidt, Hist. des Allemands, tom. ii. p. 200, c.

115

See Giannone, tom. i. p. 374, 375, and the Annals of Muratori.

116

[It is interesting to observe on the map of Europe in the 8th and 9th centuries that a strong serried array of Slavonic peoples reached from the Baltic to the Ionian and Aegean seas. At the end of the 9th century the Magyars made a permanent breach in the line.]

117

Quot prælia in eo gesta! quantum sanguinis effusum sit! Testatur vacua omni habitatione Pannonia, et locus in quo regia Cagani fuit ita desertus, ut ne vestigium quidem humanæ habitationis appareat. Tota in hoc bello Hunnorum nobilitas periit, tota gloria decidit, omnis pecunia et congesti ex longo tempore thesauri direpti sunt. Eginhard, c. 13. [The Avaric war strictly lasted six years, AD 791-6. Gibbon counts eight years (nine?) by dating the outbreak of the war with the invasion of Friuli and Beneventum by the Avars in AD 788.]

118

The junction of the Rhine and Danube was undertaken only for the service of the Pannonian war (Gaillard, Vie de Charlemagne, tom. ii. p. 312-315). The canal, which would have been only two leagues in length, and of which some traces are still extant in Swabia, was interrupted by excessive rains, military avocations, and superstitious fears (Schæpflin, Hist. de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xviii. p. 256. Molimina fluviorum, c. jungendorum, p. 59-62).

119

See Eginhard, c. 16, and Gaillard, tom. ii. p. 361-385, who mentions, with a loose reference, the intercourse of Charlemagne and Egbert, the emperor’s gift of his own sword, and the modest answer of his Saxon disciple. The anecdote, if genuine, would have adorned our English histories. [On the relations of Charles with England, see Palgrave, English Commonwealth, i. 484 sqq.; Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. Appendix D.]

120

The correspondence is mentioned only in the French annals, and the Orientals are ignorant of the caliph’s friendship for the Christian dog — a polite appellation, which Harun bestows on the emperor of the Greeks.

121

[It lay in the nature of things (as Mr. Freeman was fond of pointing out) that the Western Emperor should be hostile to his neighbour the Emir (afterwards Caliph) of Cordova and friendly to the Caliph of Bagdad, while his rival the Eastern Emperor was hostile to the Caliph of Bagdad and friendly to the distant ruler of Cordova.]

122

Gaillard, tom. ii. p. 361-365, 471-476, 492. I have borrowed his judicious remarks on Charlemagne’s plan of conquest, and the judicious distinction of his enemies of the first and the second enceinte (tom. ii. p. 184, 509, c.).

123

Thegan, the biographer of Lewis, relates this coronation; and Baronius has honestly transcribed it ( AD 813, No. 13, c.; see Gaillard, tom. ii. p. 506, 507, 508), howsoever adverse to the claims of the popes. For the series of the Carlovingians, see the historians of France, Italy, and Germany; Pfeffel, Schmidt, Velly, Muratori, and even Voltaire, whose pictures are sometimes just and always pleasing.

124

He was the son of Otho, the son of Ludolph, in whose favour the duchy of Saxony had been instituted, AD 858. Ruotgerus, the biographer of a St. Bruno [brother of Otto the Great] (Bibliot. Bunavianæ Catalog. tom. iii. vol. ii. p. 679), gives a splendid character of his family. Atavorum atavi usque ad hominum memoriam omnes nobilissimi; nullus in eorum stirpe ignotus, nullus degener facile reperitur (apud Struvium, Corp. Hist. German. p. 216). [The Vit. Brunonis is edited separately by Pertz in the Scr. rer. Germ., 1841.] Yet Gundling (in Henrico Aucupe) is not satisfied of his descent from Witikind.

125

See the treatise of Conringius (de Finibus Imperii Germanici Francofurt, 1680, in 4to): he rejects the extravagant and improper scale of the Roman and Carlovingian empires, and discusses, with moderation, the rights of Germany, her vassals, and her neighbours.

126

[The kingdom of Arles, or Lower Burgundy, was founded in 879 by Boso of Vienne; the kingdom of Upper Burgundy (between Jura and the Pennine Alps) in 888 by Count Rudolf, the Guelf. The two kingdoms were united in 933, and this kingdom of Arles was annexed to the Empire under Conrad II. a hundred years later (1033).]

127

The power of custom forces me to number Conrad I. and Henry I., the Fowler, in the list of emperors, a title which was never assumed by those kings of Germany. The Italians, Muratori for instance, are more scrupulous and correct, and only reckon the princes who have been crowned at Rome.

128

Invidiam tamen suscepti nominis (C. P. imperatoribus super hoc indignantibus) magnâ tulit patientiâ, vicitque eorum contumaciam . . . mittendo ad eos crebras legationes, et in epistolis fratres eos appellando. Eginhard, c. 28, p. 128. Perhaps it was on their account that, like Augustus, he affected some reluctance to receive the empire.

129

Theophanes speaks of the coronation and unction of Charles, Κάρουλλος (Chronograph. p. 399 [ A.M. 6289]), and of his treaty of marriage with Irene (p. 402 [ A.M. 6294]), which is unknown to the Latins. Gaillard relates his transactions with the Greek empire (tom. ii. p. 446-468).

130

Gaillard very properly observes that this pageant was a farce suitable to children only, but that it was indeed represented in the presence, and for the benefit, of children of a larger growth.

131

Compare, in the original texts collected by Pagi (tom. iii. AD 812, No. 7, AD 824, No. 10, c.), the contrast of Charlemagne and his son: To the former the ambassadors of Michael (who were indeed disavowed) more suo, id est, linguâ Græcâ laudes dixerunt, imperatorem eum et Βασιλέα appellantes; to the latter, Vocato imperatori Francorum, c. [Gasquet, L’empire byzantin et la monarchie franque, 1888.]

132

See the epistle, in Paralipomena, of the anonymous writer of Salerno (Script. Ital. tom. ii. pars ii. p. 243-254, c. 93-107), whom Baronius ( AD 871, No. 51-71) mistook for Erchempert, when he transcribed it in his Annals.

133

Ipse enim vos, non imperatorem, id est Βασιλέα suâ linguâ, sed ob indignationem Ῥη̂γα, id est regem nostrâ vocabat (Liutprand, in Legat. in Script. Ital. tom. ii. pars i. p. 479 [c. 2]). The pope had exhorted Nicephorus, emperor of the Greeks, to make peace with Otho, the august emperor of the Romans — quæ inscriptio secundum Græcos peccatrix et temeraria . . . imperatorem inquiunt, universalem, Romanorum, Augustum, magnum, solum, Nicephorum (p. 486 [c. 47]).

134

The origin and progress of the title of cardinal may be found in Thomassin (Discipline de l’Eglise, tom. i. p. 1261-1298), Muratori (Antiquitat. Italiæ Medii Ævi, tom. vi. dissert. lxi. p. 159-182), and Mosheim (Institut. Hist. Eccles. p. 345-347), who accurately remarks the forms and changes of the election. The cardinal-bishops, so highly exhalted by Peter Damianus, are sunk to a level with the rest of the sacred college.

135

Firmiter jurantes, nunquam se papam electuros aut ordinaturos, præter consensum et electionem Othonis et filii sui (Liutprand, l. vi. c. 6, p. 472 [Hist. Ottonis, c. 21]). This important concession may either supply or confirm the decree of the clergy and people of Rome, so fiercely rejected by Baronius, Pagi, and Muratori ( AD 964), and so well defended and explained by St. Marc (Abrégé, tom. ii. p. 808-816, tom. iv. p. 1167-1185). Consult that historical critic, and the Annals of Muratori, for the election and confirmation of each pope.

136

The oppression and vices of the Roman church in the xth century are strongly painted in the history and legation of Liutprand (see p. 440, 450, 471-476, 479, c.), and it is whimsical enough to observe Muratori tempering the invectives of Baronius against the popes. But these popes had been chosen, not by the cardinals, but by lay-patrons.

137

The time of Pope Joan ( papissa Joanna ) is placed somewhat earlier than Theodora or Marozia; and the two years of her imaginary reign are forcibly inserted between Leo IV. and Benedict III. But the contemporary Anastasius indissolubly links the death of Leo and the elevation of Benedict (illico, mox, p. 247), and the accurate chronology of Pagi, Muratori, and Leibnitz fixes both events to the year 857.

138

The advocates for Pope Joan produce one hundred and fifty witnesses, or rather echoes, of the xivth, xvth, and xvith centuries. They bear testimony against themselves and the legend, by multiplying the proof that so curious a story must have been repeated by writers of every description to whom it was known. On those of the ixth and xth centuries the recent event would have flashed with a double force. Would Photius have spared such a reproach? Could Liutprand have missed such scandal? It is scarcely worth while to discuss the various readings of Martinus Polonus, Sigebert of Gemblours, or even Marianus Scotus; but a most palpable forgery is the passage of Pope Joan, which has been foisted into some MSS. and editions of the Roman Anastasius. [The legend of Pope Joan has been finally dealt with by Döllinger in his Pabstfabeln des Mittelalters, p. 1 sqq. She has been made the heroine of a clever Greek novel by E. Rhoides, ἡ πάπισσα Ἰωάννα.]

139

As false, it deserves that name; but I would not pronounce it incredible. Suppose a famous French chevalier of our own times to have been born in Italy, and educated in the church, instead of the army; her merit or fortune might have raised her to St. Peter’s chair; her amours would have been natural; her delivery in the streets unlucky, but not improbable.

140

Till the Reformation, the tale was repeated and believed without offence; and Joan’s female statue long occupied her place among the popes in the cathedral of Sienna (Pagi, Critica, tom. iii. p. 624-626). She has been annihilated by two learned Protestants, Blondel and Bayle (Dictionnaire Critique, PAPESSE, POLONUS, BLONDEL ); but their brethren were scandalised by this equitable and generous criticism. Spanheim and Lenfant attempt to save this poor engine of controversy; and even Mosheim condescends to cherish some doubt and suspicion (p. 289).

140a

[John XI. was the legitimate, not the bastard, son of Marozia; and it is not true that her great-grandson was Pope.]

141

Lateranense palatium . . . prostibulum meretricum. . . . Testis omnium gentium, præterquam [ leg. praeter] Romanorum, absentia mulierum, quæ sanctorum apostolorum limina orandi gratiâ timent visere, cum nonnullas ante dies paucos hunc audierint conjugatas viduas, virgines vi oppressisse (Liutprand, Hist. l. vi. c. 6, p. 471 [Hist. Ott. c. 4]. See the whole affair of John XII. p. 471-476).

142

A new example of the mischief of equivocation is the beneficium (Ducange, tom. i. p. 617, c.), which the pope conferred on the emperor Frederic I., since the Latin word may signify either a legal fief, or a simple favour, an obligation (we want the word bienfait ). See Schmidt, Hist. des Allemands, tom. iii. p. 393-408. Pfeffel, Abrégé Chronologique, tom. i. p. 229, 296, 317, 324, 420, 430, 500, 505, 509, c.

143

For the history of the emperors in Rome and Italy, see Sigonius, de Regno Italiæ, Opp. tom. ii., with the Notes of Saxius, and the Annals of Muratori, who might refer more distinctly to the authors of his great collection.

144

See the Dissertation of Le Blanc at the end of his treatise des Monnoyes de France, in which he produces some Roman coins of the French emperors.

145

Romanorum aliquando servi, scilicet Burgundiones, Romanis imperent? . . . Romanæ urbis dignitas ad tantam est stultitiam ducta, ut meretricum etiam imperio pareat? (Liutprand [Antap.], l. iii. c. 12 [c. 45], p. 450). Sigonius (l. vi. p. 400) positively affirms the renovation of the consulship; but in the old writers Albericus is more frequently styled princeps Romanorum.

146

Ditmar, p. 354, apud Schmidt, tom. iii. p. 439.

147

This bloody feast is described in Leonine verse, in the Pantheon of Godfrey of Viterbo (Script. Ital. tom. vii. p. 436, 437 [ed. Waitz, in Pertz’s Mon. xxii. p. 107 sqq. ]), who flourished towards the end of the xiith century (Fabricius, Bibliot. Latin. med. et infimi Ævi, tom. iii. p. 69, edit. Mansi); but his evidence, which imposed on Sigonius, is reasonably suspected by Muratori (Annali, tom. viii. p. 177).

148

The coronation of the emperor, and some original ceremonies of the xth century, are preserved in the Panegyric on Berengarius [composed 915-922] (Script. Ital. tom. ii. pars i. 405-414), illustrated by the Notes of Hadrian Valesius, and Leibnitz. [Gesta Berengarii imp., ed. E. Dümmler, 1871. Also in Pertz’s Monum. vol. iv.] Sigonius has related the whole process of the Roman expedition, in good Latin, but with some errors of time and fact (l. vii. p. 441-446).

149

In a quarrel at the coronation of Conrad II. Muratori takes leave to observe — doveano ben essere allora, indisciplinati, Barbari, e bestiali i Tedeschi. Annal. tom. viii. p. 368.

150

After boiling away the flesh. The caldrons for that purpose were a necessary piece of travelling furniture; and a German, who was using it for his brother, promised it to a friend, after it should have been employed for himself (Schmidt, tom. iii. p. 423, 424). The same author observes that the whole Saxon line was extinguished in Italy (tom. ii. p. 440).

151

Otho bishop of Frisingen has left an important passage on the Italian cities (l. ii. c. 13, in Script. Ital. tom. vi. p. 707-710); and the rise, progress, and government of these republics are perfectly illustrated by Muratori (Antiquitat. Ital. Medii Ævi; tom. iv. dissert. xlv.-l. ii. p. 1-675. Annal. tom. viii. ix. x.).

152

For these titles, see Selden (Titles of Honour, vol. iii. part i. p. 488), Ducange (Gloss. Latin. tom. ii. p. 140, tom. vi. p. 776), and St. Marc (Abrégé Chronologique, tom. ii. p. 719).

153

The Lombards invented and used the carocium, a standard planted on a car or waggon, drawn by a team of oxen (Ducange, tom. ii. p. 194, 195; Muratori, Antiquitat. tom. ii. Diss. xxxvi. p. 489-493).

154

Gunther Ligurinus, l. viii. 584, et seq. apud Schmidt, tom. iii. p. 399.

155

Solus imperator faciem suam firmavit ut petram (Burcard. de Excidio Mediolani, Script. Ital. tom. vi. p. 917). This volume of Muratori contains the originals of the history of Frederic the First, which must be compared with due regard to the circumstances and prejudices of each German or Lombard writer.

156

For the history of Frederic II. and the house of Swabia at Naples, see Giannone, Istoria Civile, tom. ii. l. xiv.-xix.

157

[The electoral college “is mentioned AD 1152, and in somewhat clearer terms in 1198, as a distinct body; but without anything to show who composed it. First in AD 1263 does a letter of Pope Urban IV. say that by immemorial custom the right of choosing the Roman king belonged to seven persons, the seven who had just divided their votes on Richard of Cornwall and Alphonso of Castile.” The three archbishops represented the German church; the four lay electors should have been the four great dukes of Saxony, Franconia, Bavaria, and Swabia. But the duchies of Franconia (or East Francia) and Swabia were extinct, their place being taken by the Palatinate of the Rhine and the Margraviate of Brandenburg. A conflict for the seventh place between Bavaria and the king of Bohemia (who claimed it by virtue of his office of cup-bearer) was decided by the Emperor Rudolf in 1289 in favour of the king of Bohemia. (Bryce, Holy Roman Empire (ed. 7), p. 229-30.)]

158

In the immense labyrinth of the jus publicum of Germany, I must either quote one writer or a thousand; and I had rather trust to one faithful guide than transcribe, on credit, a multitude of names and passages. That guide is M. Pfeffel, the author of the best legal and constitutional history that I know of any country (Nouvel Abrégé Chronologique de l’Histoire et du Droit Public d’Allemagne, Paris, 1776, 2 vols. in 4to). His learning and judgment have discerned the most interesting facts; his simple brevity comprises them in a narrow space; his chronological order distributes them under the proper dates; and an elaborate index collects them under their respective heads. To this work, in a less perfect state, Dr. Robertson was gratefully indebted for that masterly sketch which traces even the modern changes of the Germanic body. The Corpus Historiæ Germanicæ of Struvius has been likewise consulted, the more usefully, as that huge compilation is fortified, in every page, with the original texts.

159

Yet, personally, Charles IV. must not be considered as a Barbarian. After his education at Paris, he recovered the use of the Bohemian, his native, idiom; and the emperor conversed and wrote with equal facility in French, Latin, Italian, and German (Struvius, p. 615, 616). Petrarch always represents him as a polite and learned prince. [He founded the University of Prague, which he modelled on the universities of Salerno and Naples (founded by Frederick II.). In encouraging the national language he went so far as to decree that all German parents should have their children taught Bohemian.]

160

Besides the German and Italian historians, the expedition of Charles IV. is painted in lively and original colours in the curious Mémoires sur la Vie de Petrarque, tom. iii. p. 376-430, by the Abbé de Sade, whose prolixity has never been blamed by any reader of taste and curiosity.

161

[Charles sacrificed the interests of Germany entirely to those of Bohemia, the interests of the Empire to those of his own house. The Golden Bull does not mention Germany or Italy. Mr. Bryce’s epigram on Charles IV. is famous: “he legalised anarchy, and called it a constitution.” Mr. Bryce observes: “He saw in his office a means of serving personal ends, and to them, while appearing to exalt by elaborate ceremonies its ideal dignity, he deliberately sacrificed what real strength was left”; and: “the sums expended in obtaining the ratification of the Golden Bull, in procuring the election of his son Wenzel, in aggrandising Bohemia at the expense of Germany, had been amassed by keeping a market in which honours and exemptions, with what lands the crown retained, were put up openly to be bid for.”]

162

See the whole ceremony, in Struvius, p. 629.

163

The republic of Europe, with the pope and emperor at its head, was never represented with more dignity than in the council of Constance. See Lenfant’s History of that assembly.

164

Gravina, Origines Juris Civilis, p. 108.

165

Six thousand urns have been discovered of the slaves and freedmen of Augustus and Livia. So minute was the division of office that one slave was appointed to weigh the wool which was spun by the empress’s maids, another for the care of her lap-dog, c. (Camere Sepolchrale, c. by Bianchini. Extract of his work, in the Bibliothèque Italique, tom. iv. p. 175. His Eloge, by Fontenelle, tom. vi. p. 356). But these servants were of the same rank, and possibly not more numerous than those of Pollio or Lentulus. They only prove the general riches of the city.

1

So Krumbacher, Gesch. der byz. Litt., ed. 2, p. 244; but I feel uncertain as to this conjecture. Theophanes and Menander must have been writing their books very much about the same time. It seems likely that Menander derived his account of the negotiations of the peace with Persia in AD 562 from a written relation by the ambassador Peter the Patrician (so too Krumbacher, p. 239).

2

John calls himself “idol breaker,” and “teacher of the heathen.” We learn of his mission from his own work, Eccles. Hist. B. ii. 44 and iii. 36, 37. He had the administration of all the revenues of the Monophysites in Constantinople and everywhere else (B.V. 1).

3

And in two MSS. in the British Museum.

4

But Evagrius did not make such large use of Johannes as Theophylactus did; it was not his main material. For Bk. 5 he did not use Johannes at all. Cp. Adamek, Beitr. zur Geschichte des byz. Kaisers Mauricius, ii. p. 10-19.

5

By L. Jeep (in 14 Supp.-Bd. der Jahrbb. f. Classische Philologie, p. 162 sqq. ). Adamek argues sensibly against this view, op. cit. p. 4 sqq.

6

The same Theodore is the author of a relation of the discovery of a coffer containing the Virgin’s miraculous robe in her Church at Blachernae, during the Avar siege of AD 619. The text is printed by Loparev (who wrongly refers it to the Russian siege of AD 860; he is corrected by Vasilievski, Viz. Vrem. iii. p. 83 sqq. ) in Viz. Vrem. ii. p. 592 sqq.

7

The metaphor of Scylla and Charybdis, in c. 9, recalls lines of the Bellum Avaricum of George of Pisidia (ll. 204 sqq. ), as Mai noticed; but it may be a pure coincidence.

8

John perhaps held his father’s post for a while. For the legend of his right hand see above, p. 322, note 22.

9

Its genuineness has been questioned on insufficient grounds by the Oxford scholar H. Hody.

10

Generally referred to as Breviarium Nicephori.

11

The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetos states that Theophanes was his μητρόθειος, an uncle of his mother. De Adm. Imp. iii. p. 106, ed. Bonn.

12

Ruins of the cloisters till exist. See T. E. Evangelides, ἡ μονὴ τη̂ς Σιγριανη̂ς, 1895.

13

Read ἰνδικτιω̂νος ή (for ά) in De Boor’s ed. p. 356.

14

Theodore was also celebrated as a composer of hymns; many of his hymns are extant. His brother Joseph must not be confounded with the Sicilian Joseph the hymnographer.

15

Theodore and Theophanes were called Graptoi, “marked,” because the Emperor Theophilus branded twelve iambic trimeters on their foreheads.

16

See Ehrhard, ap. Krumbacher, op. cit. p. 193 sqq.

17

The Diêgêsis printed by Combefis, Auct. Nov. gr.-lat. patrum bibl., vol. ii. 715 sqq., is a late redaction which completely disfigures the original form and contains little of the Vita Theodoræ.

18

The chief source of the compilation is the Continuation of Theophanes.

19

There is another redaction known as the Pseudo-Polydeukes (because it was passed off as a work of Julius Polydeukes by a Greek copyist named Darmarios), but it breaks off in the reign of Valens, and therefore does not concern us here. See further Krumbacher, op. cit. p. 363, as to another unedited Chronicle of the same kin.

20

The diataxis, or testamentary disposition, respecting these foundations, with inventories of the furniture, library, c. is extant (ed. Sathas, Bibl. Gr. med. aevi, vol. i.). It is a very interesting document. Cp. W. Nissen, Die Diataxis des Michael Attal. von 1077 (1894).

21

He was thinking doubtless of his own case when he wrote (p. 20, ed. Bonn) of the refusal of Isaac’s brother, John, to take the crown which Isaac pressed upon him. This is well remarked by Seger, Nikeph. Bryennios, p. 22.

22

The Introduction to the work is, at all events partly, spurious.

23

In chronology she is loose and inaccurate.

24

The MS. is mutilated at the end; the original work doubtless ended with the death of Manuel; it was written not long after his death.

25

Griechische Geschichtschreiber, c. p. 79 sqq.

26

He has, of course, been brought into connection with a certain John the Siceliot, who is named as the author of a chronicle in a Vienna and in a Vatican MS. The chronicle ascribed to him in the latter (Vat. Pal. 394) is merely a redaction of George Monachus. For the chronicle in Vindob. histor. Gr. 99, see Krumbacher, op. cit. p. 386-7.

27

The text will be found in Pertz, Mon. Germ. Hist. Legg. iv. p. 641-7; and in Waitz, Mon. Germ. Hist., Scr. rerum Lang., p. 2-6. Cp. L. Schmidt, in Neues Archiv, xiii. p. 391 sqq. (1888); also his Aelteste Gesch. der Langobarden, 1884; A. Vogeler, Paulus Diaconus u. die Origo g. Lang. (1887).

28

Cp. also Waitz, Neues Archiv, v. p. 416 sqq. (1880); Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, ed. 6, p. 169-71.

29

For translations see below, vol. ix. p. 41, n. 96.

30

A translation of the Koran has been published with the Sūras arranged in approximately chronological order (by Rodwell, 2nd ed., 1876).

31

The other works of Wākidī, which are numerous, are lost, including the Kitāb al-Ridda, which related the backslidings of the Arabs on Mohammad’s death, the war with Musailima, c.

32

Pocock’s translation of Eutychius is reprinted in Migne’s Patrol. Gr. (the Latin series), lvii. b.

33

Dionysius was patriarch of Antioch from 818-845. His chronicle is extant, but only the early part has been edited. The publication of the later part, with a translation, is much to be desired. See Assemani, ii. 98 sqq. Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 196 sqq.

1

So Schafarik, Slaw. Alterthümer, ed. Wuttke, ii. 57-8.

2

Cp. Menander, fr. 6, ὁ Κοτράγηγος ἐκεɩ̂νος ὁ τοɩ̂ς Ἁβάροις ἐπιτήδειος, where Niebuhr proposed Κοτρίγουρος. It seems to me more likely that Κοτράγηγος was the name of a Kotrigur chief.

3

Menander, fr. 6.

4

Ib. p. 61.

5

This is rightly emphasised by Howorth, The Avars, in Journal Asiat. Soc., 1889, p. 737.

6

Howorth, ib. p. 786. The story of the Slavs from the “Western Sea,” in Theophylactus, vi. 2, does not warrant the inference.

1

Novel xlv. (= xxxi.).

2

Procopius speaks of this as ἡ ἄλλη Ἀρμενία (Æd. 3, 1). It was previously administered partly by native satraps, partly by Roman officers called satraps. On the limits of the province, see H. Kiepert, Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1873, p. 192 sqq.

3

It is possible, but not certain, that (as the Armenian historian John Catholicus asserts) the parts of Pontus which Justinian included in his Armenia I. were separated and made a distinct province. See Gelzer, Georgius Cyprius, p. lvii., lix.

1

Gibbon could use Visdelou’s translation in D’Herbelot, Bib. Or. iv. 375 sqq.

2

Autre lui-même du Trine (Gueluy).

3

This must be a Chinese corruption of a Syrian name. Assemani thought it was for Jaballaha. Panthier explains Alo-pano, “return of God.” Yule (p. xciv.) suggests Rabban. r of course appears as l in Chinese.

4

That is, he was a sage. The metaphor is Buddhistic: Buddha is the sun, and the sage is the cloud which covers the earth, and makes the rain of the land fall. So Gueluy, p. 74. But Wylie, c. translate “observing the blue clouds.”

5

China and the Roman Orient, p. 61-2.

6

La cité fleurie du pays des solitaires (Gueluy).

7

A river in Kan-su (cp. Gueluy, op. cit. p. 5).

8

It is uncertain what gem is meant. Cp. Hirth, p. 242 sqq. He refers to the emeralds shining at night, which are mentioned by Herodotus, 2, 44, and Pliny, 37, 5, 66.

9

Tout y brille d’un ordre parfait (Gueluy).

10

See Gueluy, op. cit. p. 67, 68.

11

His name shows his Persian origin.

12

See Lamy’s important explanations, p. 90 sqq.

13

Gaubil supposes that the Ghebers of Persia are meant.

1

Cp. Zachariä, Gr.-Röm. recht, p. 6.

2

Ed. Lagarde in the Abhandlungen der Akad. zu Göttingen, xxviii. 195 sqq.

3

Theophilus however recognised marriages between Romans and Persians as valid.

4

This had been preceded by a similar law of Leo VI., applying to persons who died in captivity.

5

In the old law ἐπίτροπος was the translation of tutor.

6

Op. cit. p. 162-5.

1

Nov. 2, p. 234 sqq., in Zachariä, Jus Græco-Romanum. AD 922.

2

Cod. Just. 11, 48, 21.

3

In the 9th century πάροικοι comes into use as the general word for the tenants on a landlord’s estate.

4

It was a law of Justinian that high officials should not acquire landed property. Leo VI. however had repealed this law.

5

( a ) AD 947, Nov. 6 of Constantine VII.; ( b ) AD 959-63, Nov. 15 of Romanus II.; ( c, d, e ) AD 964, 967, Nov. 19, 20, 21 of Nicephorus Phocas, ( f ) AD 988, Nov. 26 of Basil II.; ( g ) AD 996, Nov. 29 of Basil II.; all ap. Zachariä, Jus Graeco-Romanum, iii.

6

Basil II. repealed the law of Nicephorus that Churches, c. should not acquire real property.

1

Zachariä, op. cit. p. 392 sqq.

2

Ed. in Pardessus, Coll. des lois maritimes, i. c. 6. It is also printed in Leunclavius, Jus Gr.-Rom. ii. 265 sqq.

1

Theoph., A.M. 6127. I do not see that we are justified in rejecting this date of Theophanes, as most critics are disposed to do. The First Epistle of Gregory to Leo says “in the tenth year” of Leo’s reign, but it is not genuine.

2

Theoph., A.M. 6128.

3

The relation of these documents deserves to be investigated.

4

But Schwarzlose does not distinguish the older Latin translation from Montfaucon’s text and translation of the Vita Stephani. In his valuable article, Kaiser Leons III. Walten im Innern (Byz. Ztsch., v. p. 291), K. Schenk defends the view that Leo’s first edict ordered the pictures to be hung higher. He cites the life of Stephanus without giving any reference except “Baronius ad annum, 726,” and does not distinguish between Montfaucon’s edition and the older Latin version. Until the source of that old Latin version has been cleared up and its authority examined, it seems dangerous to accept a statement which depends on it alone. Schenk meets the argument that the mild character of the edict is inconsistent with the destruction of the picture by rejecting the latter fact. But his objections concern the account of the destruction of the picture in the 1st Letter of Gregory to Leo and do not touch the account in Theophanes; so that their only effect is to reinforce the arguments against the genuineness of the Pope’s letter.

5

The Vita Stephani places it after the deposition of Germanus (in AD 730), and therefore Pagi placed it in 730 ( AD 726-9 and 730, 3, 5). Hefele refutes Pagi by the 1st Letter of Pope Gregory to Leo, which he (Hefele) regards as genuine. Cp. above, p. 441.

The chronology in the Vita Stephani is untrustworthy. There can be little doubt that the Ecclesia which is there stated (Migne, P.G. 100, p. 1083) to have been held when the new policy was inaugurated ( i.e. AD 725 or 726) is really the silentium of AD 730 (Theoph., A.M. 6221). See Hefele, op. cit. p. 346.

6

Bury, op. cit. p. 436.

7

Theoph., A.M. 6221 ( = AD 728-9). Theophanes gives the date of the silentium as “January 7th, Tuesday,” and the date of the appointment of Anastasius as “Jan. 22.” (1) According to the vulgar chronology, which refers these dates to AD 730, the day of the week is inconsistent with the day of the month. January 7 fell on Saturday. (2) According to the revised chronology there is equally an inconsistency, for January 7 fell on Friday. (3) Neither date could be reconciled with the length of the pontificate of Germanus as given by Theophanes (14 years 5 months 7 days, loc. cit.; Germanus was appointed on August 11, 715). Now if Germanus was deposed on January 17, 730, everything can be explained. That day was Tuesday; and January 22, on which Anastasius was installed, was the Sunday following. (Sunday was a favourite day for such installations.) The years, days, and months of the pontificate work out accurately. The emendation in the text of Theophanes is very slight — ιζ′ for ζ′. This highly plausible solution is due to Hefele. The difficulty lies in the year; for Theophanes assigns the events to the thirteenth indiction; whereas if AD 730 was the year he should have assigned it to the fourteenth indiction, according to his own reckoning (see above, p. 429). But notwithstanding this, I believe that Hefele’s correction is right, and that Germanus was deposed in AD 730.

8

So Schwarzlose, p. 54, rightly.

1

The discontent with the taxation and the dissatisfaction at the iconoclastic decrees must be kept quite distinct. Cp. Dahmen, das Pontifikat Gregors II., p. 69 sqq. (1888); Schenk, B.Z. 5, 260 sqq.; Duchesne, L.P. i. 412.

2

Kehr, Gött. Nachrichten, 1896, p. 109, has brought out the point that owing to the Lombard danger the Pope represented the interests of Byzantine Italy.

3

Cp. Sickel, Gött. Gel. Anz., 1897, 11, p. 842-3.

4

Sickel, ib. 839.

5

The Lib. Pont. makes no mention of a document, but the deed ( donatio ) is distinctly mentioned in a letter of Pope Stephen of AD 755 (Cod. Car. p. 493), civitates et loca vel omnia quae ipsa donatio continet.

6

Cp. Sickel, op. cit. p. 845.