THE

REIGN

OF

THE 1

BYZANTINE (802-811)

EMPEROR

NICEPHORUS

PAVLOS NIAVIS

Ph. D.

UNIVERSITY 1984

OF EDINBURGH

ED

ii

DEDICATION

To my wife

Evi

iii

DECLARATION

t-he undersigned, by myself composed

declare and that

that

this

that no material or results before been published elsewhere, thesis.

the work included the

has been thesis is my own. Also in the thesis have submission of the

00,

P.

NIA VIS

iv

ABSTRACT The aim of and the the to is historical attention at the time

of reign

this of turns

thesis the its his

to

Byzantine

provide a thorough Emperor Nicephorus significance. first to the of major is this upon his

examination 1 (802-811) To this end which to the

evaluate

author

situation

Nicephorus throne. Emperor's policies. because was one

inherited He then

accession

reign: The main emphasis it is the argument of of the few of to Byzantine the

the examines his domestic,

aspects his

religious thesis

of this and foreign domestic policies, that Nicephorus a this the time

emperors

concerted reform it is necessary results towards, are not because itself and the of the and

administration.

who attempted To support value Nicephorus' the and

the causes, assess Emperor's measures.

attitude

relations

neglected.

with other major powers of the They form an important chapter, I the Byzantine of the views Empire found the him Franks Charlemagne, showed

under Nicephorus hemmed in by the Bulgars.

Caliphate to far be from

Nicephorus'

reactions

a competent satisfactory. inevitably importance monastic

though statesman, The Emperor's attracts in lies the his author's

end results on religious too. attention

were

affairs Their

party

Theodore

confrontation of Stoudios. which

the leader with of the Nicephorus pursued at the time. religious intensified

a policy of It provided difficulties, division. Nicephorus order, they but served.

moderation, a long term but The I's in the events reign, to

was misunderstood to the Empire's solution short not term, probably any imperial which in examined of

and measures are the field

characterized chronological interest

according

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It has been

an established authors and it is of

academics backward to

and glance

practice kind every

among theses writers, book to take a of

whomsoever duty, pleasant the Without the institutions First Scholarships of Greece, of

when financial,

indebtedness their gratefully acknowledge due. How could I abstain from this I would never have done this work moral and academic assistance below? State of part Education of

all, Foundation first financial

and t-he persons mentioned I would like to thank the (IKY) because backing and with of the the a three

Ministry year

the the

scholarship of my

provided studies,

greater

and without whose assistance my studies abroad would have been totally out of the question, and the second because I was granted from long leave an equally of absence my job as a secondary Among individuals to the Professor in Greece. teacher school I would like to express my gratitude both of A. Kambylis and to Dr. S. G. Henrich, for their suggestions of Hamburg, valuable facilities With Germany. which they provided me while

university and the library

I was working in West However, the scholar to is than to anyone else, whom I am indebted more Dr. M. Angold, the patient supervisor of this and tolerant hard as he could to save me from the tried work, as who blunders But any of weak ignorance points and the occasional in this to be found to be laid at the misunderstanding. thesis door are of my own to those

responsibility

and not

whom I owe so much. Finally should many thanks because endured she patiently

be said to my wife Evi, my long periods of absence.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract Acknowledgements Table of Contents viii

iv v vi

Abbreviations

THE

STATE

OF

THE

QUESTION

CHAPTER I: A:

THE

SOURCES SOURCES

11 12 12 33 35 40 42 46 53

NARRATIVE Greek 1. 2. Latin Arabic 3. 4. Syriac SAINTS'

B: C: D:

LIVES

LETTERS OF THEODORE OF STOUDIOS OTHER SOURCES

CHAPTER II:

BYZANTIUM

IN

802

58

CHAPTER III: A:

DOMESTIC

POLICIES

94 95 95 102 104 104 of 112 118 123

ADMINISTRATION Changes in the Government 1. 2. Innovations Towards THE ARMY 1. Military 2. Reform Military PROVINCES RECONQUEST OF GREECE Unrest the System of Recruitment

B:

C: D:

vii

E:

ECONOMY-FINANCE 1. The Preliminaries Order 2. Fiscal Restoration of Control 3. State of Shipping Assessment 4. General

137 137 139 153 158

CHAPTER IV: A: B:

RELIGIOUS

POLICIES

163 164 168 168 173 195 215

ICONOCLASM - HERESY NICEPHORUS AND THE PATRIARCH 1. Nicephorus and Tarasius 2. The Two Nicephori THE EMPEROR AND THE STUDITES GENERAL ASSESSMENT

C: D:

CHAPTER V: A:

FOREIGN POLICIES

218 219 219 223 228 237 of 245 247 247 248 254 261 282 287 321

NICEPHORUS AND THE WEST 1. The Preliminaries 2. Nicephorus and the Papacy Reality Above Tradition 3. his 4. Strengthens Charlemagne Position Bargaining S. Peace and Recognition Towards Imperial Charlemagne's Title 6. General Assessment BYZANTIUM AND THE ARABS The Sources 1. Background 2. The Historical of the Conflicts Eastern Borders 3. Byzantium's in 802 4. The Conflicts Assessment General 5. BYZANTIUM AND THE BULGARS Assessment General

B:

C:

THE

PORTRAITS

OF

NICEPHORUS

323

BIBLIOGRAPHY

336

viii

LIST 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

OF ABBREVIATIONS A. A. S. S. A. B. A. D. A. H. A. M. B. C. H. B, N. G. J. B. S. Byz. B. Z. C. F. H. B. C. M. H. C. P. C. S. H. B. D. O. P. DTh-CE. E. B. S. E. H. R. E. O. G. R. B. S. J* -B. Bury E. R. E. J. H. S. M. G. H. M. R. I. S. ms O. Ch. P. P. G. Acta Annus Annus Annus Bulletin Byzantine Byzantion Byzantinische Corpus Fontium Cambridge Corpus Zeitschrift Historiae History Historiae Papers Catholique Spoud6n Byzantinon Review Byzantinae Byzantinae Medieaval Sanctorum Bollandiana Donini Hagra Mundi de Correspondance Studies Hell6nique Jahrbucher

Analecta

Byzantinisch-neuegriechische

Constantinople Scriptorum Oaks Etairias Historical d'Orient Dumbarton Dictionnaire Epeteris English Echos Greek

de Theologie

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Roman and Byzantine Studies A History J. B. Bury, Roman of the Eastern from tHe Fall Empire to the of Irene Accession 1 (802-867), London 1912. of Basil Studies Journal of Hellenic Monumenta Muratori, manuscript Orientalia Germaniae L. A., Rerum Historica italicarum Periodica Cursus Completus, Scriptores

Christiana

J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Patres Graeci

ix

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

R. E. R. E. B. R. H. S. R. St. Runciman The First T. M. V-V-

Real Enzyklopddie Altertums-wissenschaft Revue Revue Sbornik des Etudes Historique Radova

der

Classischen

Byzantines

St. Runciman, A History of the Empire, Bulgarian London 1930 Travaux Vizantijskij et M6mories Vremennik

First

THE

STATE

OF

THE

QUESTION

THE

STATE

OF

THE

QUESTION

The reign 1 (802-811) of Nicephorus ended in disaster humiliation. He was killed in battle the and against Not since Bulgars. in 378 had a the death of Valens fallen in battle. Byzantine Yet Nicephorus emperor deserves not only attention because his the of fiscal modern and historians. economic policies Byzantine This is were

the one of the foundations upon which recovery from the middle but also of the ninth century was built, he confronted because two of the most urgent problems how to come to terms ever facing a Byzantine emperor: with the the newly-created of western Empire challenge the of the monastic party Theodore of Stoudios. and how to deal with the formidable under They provided Empire. treatment have Irene Valuable of the the forty are, a test

leadership of

very character of the Byzantine Surprisingly, is no concerted there Nicephorus' even if some aspects reign, attention Eastern Accession pages this P. to of modern historians. from the Roman Empire of the Basil reign 1 (802-67) of Nicephorus stands In Fall J. B. I. in of Bury his

attracted A History of to the only as they

devotes

paucity of Speck's more reign no of less

on the devotes

to marked contrast book in his recent than generous approach 1 In it he VI (780-797). Constantine treatment than that 419 pages of is by any which ol: Nicephorus Konstantin VI, text and 411 pages of much less approach is

to notes important P.

a reign, than

standards Speck's I. (Mnchen

1.

Speck,

Kaiser

1978).

chronological. relevant pages Perhaps Constantine approach, his reign has to Nicephorus' reign its interest lies We have survey of the therefore of the Question' to this the

His

book

of the VIIS reign

an elaborate Chronographia is

is

commentary on of Theophanes. susceptible we can know about for power. because

peculiarly

since do with in

so much of what his pathetic struggle demands a different approach, problems faced a more literature analytical bearing be divided

and policies

adopted historical will

elaborated. Our approach. on the 'State to

therefore

up according and fiscal policies

topics, various To begin with, have been the field focused. French Already

Nicephorus' on which

economic

scholar Nicephorus in the Ivexations' according More than considerable examination tackled 1. one to forty

at the R. Monnier but Monnier less

a series of works are mainly (1895) the end of last century discussed by the measures taken from the examined the point of Nicephorus' or in small view of so-called groups, article. dedicated the

detail,

only

`F_Ti%Vjo%A'

01 more or their

separately, importance for later his (1938) 2 book to

years space in

purpose of G. I. Bratianu

of these by one.

measures, Not long

an exhaustive the Ivexations' with afterwards appeared

again an

2.

byzantin (B: de droit 'Etudes R. Monnier 11 IFEr\\6ok%\1 depuis Genicus jusqu'a le Macedonien: Nicephore Basile de Nicephore Genicus)l in Nouvelle Les Vexations revue historique de droit franais 19 (1895), et etranger, pp. 59-103. 6conomique d1histoire G. I. Bratianu, Etudes Byzantines (Paris 1938), the sections sociale, et especially under 'Empire the titles et "de-mocratie" a Byzance', pp-93-126 de Nicep ore ler, and ILa politiq e fiscale ou ubu roi pp-183-216. a Byzancel,

1)

article turn,

by Professor also

A.

Chrystophilopoulou,

made some comments on Nicephorus' and 2 Finally, economic reforms. a new book by W. Treadgold both the revenues provides us with rough figures on and Empire during the expenditures Nicephorus of the Byzantine I's reign. Among other the aspects concerted of the Emperor Nicephorus' domestic

who, fiscal

in

her

he made to assimilate the effort Greece must be emphasized. continental Nicephorus' have been the object to achieve this efforts 3 by P. Charanis. The importance of a series of articles policies, Slavs of of such a policy forms from of the point and of of view two 4 of the of the one by christianization Peloponnese, the the area subject Herrin. shed especially articles,

M. Dunn and another Among the books connected the

1.

by J. which internal

some light

on problems and organization

with of

the Bury,

works A.

administration 6 5 Karayannopoulos., '%.

Christiphilopoulou,
6TIOWfOlrOf"S

2. 3.

4.

S.
6.

de th6mes 'Contribution J. Karayannopoulos, au probleme Byzantins'. in L'Hellenisme-CQntemorain, 10 (IS6) 'id., 'Die 45S-502, Entstehung der Byzantinischen pp. Byzantinisches 10, MUnchen 19S9. Ajchi-V Themenoydnurig', ,

(Athens 1960), pp-413-31. W. Treadgold, State Finances in the Eighth Byzantine and Ninth Centuries, New York 1982. P. Charanis, 'Nicephorus I, the Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A. D. )', Byzantina-Metabyzantina, 1 (1946), id., 'On the Question pp. 75-92; of the Slavonic Settlement in Greece during Byzantinoslavic the Middle Ages', id., 10 (1949), 254-58; 'Observations pp. on the History Balkan Studies, the Early Middle Ages', of Greece during 1970, pp-1-34. vol. 11, no. 1, Thessalonica The reM. Dunn. 'Evangelisation or Repentance? in the Ninth and Tenth the Peloponnese christianization of in Church History, Studies Centuries', 14, (1977), pp. -the Process of re71-87; J. Herrin, 'Aspects of inthe Hellenisation Annual of the Early Middle Ages', School at Athens, 68 (London 1973), pp-113-26. British Systemin J-B. Bury, MT-Imperial Administrative the Ninth Century.,, New York, 1911.

A -ToO

011 KOVO41&4VN Koc"% A%&t4CP610V0j41Kn"' %% N%%&vN(04r*V A. eviv

ljoirlK--,

EIs

Vvi'

K- "A*'k v-rov OL

Lemerle,

Guilland,

2 they I.

D61ger, have

Kaegi

and Haldon specifically

need

to

be mentioned, but reign of Nicephorus Relations ninth century have

nothing and

on the the early of the

between also

church

state

during

number of Nicephorus so-called because

scholars. coincides

the attention attracted of a This is partly because the reign an obvious strengthening but at Constantinople, eastern church Among the of also

with party

monastic during the unusual

same time

experiences. knowledge to a better contributed of the religious during tendencies the period and policies under consideration, 6 7 P. Henry the works of A. Gardner, and, of course, 8 be singled P. Alexander out for special must mention. Yet the aim again Emperor Nicephorus' 1. of these religious works is not to reveal the but tendencies and policies,

some quite

went through books which

P. Lemerle, 'Esquisse de pour un histoire agraire Byzance', Part I, RH, 219 (19S8), pp-32-74,254-284. Part II, RH 220 (1958), pp. 42-94. 2. R. Guilland, Recherches Byzantines, sur les institutions 2 vols., Berlin 1967. 3. F. D81ger, der Byzantinischen Beitrdge zur. Geschichte Finanzverwaltung des 10 and 11 Jahrhunderts, besonders des Byzantinischen Hildesheim id., lZur Ableitung 1960; his Paraspora, Verwaltungsterminus 1961, Ettal pp-231-40Military 4. W. E. Kaegi, Jr., Unrest, 471-843, Byzantine Amsterdam 1981. in the Conscription S. J-F. Recruitment Haldon, and id., Byzantine Army Wien 1979; Byzantine 550-950, . Praetorians, Bonn 1984. 6. A. Gardner, Theodore London 1905. of Studium, Ph. D. 7. P. Henry III, Theodore the Churchman, of Stoudios, id., 'The Moechian (1967); Controversy Yale University Synod of January A. D. 809', and the Constantinopolitan Studies,, in Journal Theological N. S. vol. XX, pt. 2, of Octo E-er 1969, pp-495-522. er The Patriarch 8. P. Alexander, Nicephorus of Constantinople, Oxford 1958.

to

illuminate

played either the Emperor's Scholars Byzantium West and have his and various

ecclesiastical by Theodore, the the namesake, who have dealt the newly directed

the

and political of Stoudios, Nicephorus.

role or by

abbot Patriarch the

with

created their

between relations Frankish Empire in the research on Charlemagne

mainly

understandable, political scene

This is, achievements. of course, he was a dominant figure since on the at the end of the Among the eighth

and the beginning literature of the ninth century. abundant on Charlemagne, the works which seem to have covered new in regard between to the rivalry the two Empires, ground 1 2 3 P. Classen are those of F. D61ger, and W. Ohnsorge. in Asia Minor Disturbances between the and conflicts Byzantine several Empire scholars, to the majority and the of Caliphate whom, of them the have been sketched by none reign of nevertheless, refers Emperor Nicephorus I.

are Arabists and not have certainly Byzantinists, their to works contributed in its the history too, the of Byzantium with relations Muslim knowledge For a better world. subject on this works 4 dating from the last such as the book by W. Muir century must 1. be examined together with the results of recent research

exclusively Though the

2. 3.

4.

im Spiegel 'Europas Gestaltung der frankischF. Dlger, byzantinischen des 9. Jahrhunderts', Auseinandersetzung in his collected Byzance und studies under the title: Ettal Staatenwelt, 195 3. europische das Pa pstt-um und Byzanz., P. Classen, der Groe, Carl Dsseldorf 1968. im frheren W. Ohnsorge, Mittelalter, Das Zweikalserproblem id., AU-endland Darmstadt Hildesheim 1947; und Byzanz, id. Darmstadt 1958; Konstantinopel und der Okzident, , 1983. Ost-Rom und der Westen, Darmstadt 1966;, -id., The Caliphate; W. Muir, its Ri_e, Decline and Fall, Oxford 1892, Reprint, New Yoi: -k197S.

M. A. Shaban by J. J. Saunders, made mainly and H. Kennedy. data, In regard to the geographic the outstanding we possess book of W. Ramsay'4 though still of great value, outdated, S by J. G. C. Anderson, basically and the article referring Problems of Asia Minor. connected frontier line the eastern Empire with of the Byzantine 6 during have been tackled by E. Honigmann, our period 7 the work of J. F. Haldon while and H. Kennedy is of slightly different Finally, in the Arab invasions character. 8 Byzantine have been discussed by H. Ahrweiler territory 9 and by M. Canard. to the road system Students knowing the who wish Bulgarian to study language, the Bulgarian history limit without inevitably small the themselves

and their in western

to access European

a rather languages. are the

for our purpose valuable 11 For and R. Browning. 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7.

number of works written Among them the most 10 books by S. Runciman background, the

geographical

8. 9. 10. 11.

J. J. Saunders, A History Islam, London 1972. of Mediaeval M. A. Shaban, Islamic History 2, A. D. 750-1065, Cambridge 1976. H. Kennedy, Abbasid The Early Caliphate, Totowa, N. Jersey 1981. W. M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, Royal Geographical Society's Supplementary Papers, IV (London 1890). J. G. C. Anderson, 'The Road System of Eastern Asia Minor (with Campaigns' the Evidence with of Byzantine map) in J. H. S., XVII (1897), pp-22-44. des Byzantinischen E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenzen Reiches 363 bis 1071, in A. Va'sTir-liev'S third von as volume (Brussels Byzance 1935). les Arabes et 'The Arab-Byzantine J. F. Haldon Frontier anJ H. Kennedy, in the Eighth Century: Military Organization and Ninth in Zbornik in the Border-lands', Radova, 19 and Society (1979), pp. 79-116. 'LlAsie Mineure Arabes' H. Ahrweiler, les invasions et in R. H., 227 (1962), pp. 1-32. du proche Orient M. Canard, Byzance et les musulmans (Variorum Reprints) London 1973. A History S. Runciman, Bulgarian Empire, of the First London 1930. Byzantium R. Browning., London 1975. and Bulgaria, 0 7

works also

of J. Cvijic, indispensable. The books or

S. Michailov

and N. been

Banescu3 listed

are so far

articles of

which the

have

cover several Nicephorus I

reign of the Emperor They do draw our attention separately. to in one way some of the problems connected with our period The general histories or another. of the Byzantine 4 Empire, such as the works of A. A. Vasiliev and the better 5 However, one of G. Ostrogorsky, also have their value. aspects because a vast chronological the rise till the fall of the Byzantine the luxury could not afford of devoting and the said, enough space to rather short reigns, Emperor Nicephorus I (A. D. 802-811). however, that Ostrogorsky goes they cover from era, namely Empire, they much attention such It as the one must be of

out of his way to because the importance stress of the reign, of the reforms 6 Nicephorus initiated R. Jenkins to while prefers his role R. Jenkins' emphasize as the 'Saviour of Greece'. is fluent but somehow superficial. One gets the account impression either written not 1. that the various sources of have What the extensively on the so far been or profoundly. history Byzantine surpassed by any not been exploited 7 J. B. Bury has years work 802-867 covering has the

other

balkanique: J. Cvijic, La p6ninsule humaine, g6ographie Paris 1918. 2. S. Michailov, Pliska, die Hauptstadt des ersten bulgarisc hen Reiches, Berlin 1960. * 3. N. Banescu, de l1ancien 'Les frontieres Bulgare', etat in M6morial Louis Petit, Bucarest 1948, pp-4-14. 4. A. A. Vasiliev, History Empire, Second of the Byzantine English Oxford, Edition, 1952. S. G. Ostrogorsky, History State, trans. of the Byzantine by Joan Hussey, 1968. second edn. Oxford, 6. R. Jenkins, Byzantium, The Imperial Centuries A. D.. 610-1071, London 1966. E. R. E. 7. J. B. Bury,

same period. book still with reign the if not this of

Though remains

years more than seventy for students the best guide Bury's I was major to see contribution through the

old, Bury's dealing to bias the of

period. Nicephorus and to

sources

present

Nicephorus

His outstanding, ruler. to write a history of the period devoted Thus he does to the reign of Nicephorus. but as part the reign treat on its own of a general history. his treatment As a result is somewhat impact fragmented, blunted. and its slightly It is quite

as a competent, intention was, of course, 802-867, not a monograph not

brief from this clear survey of modern historical devoted to the reign writing of the Emperor it Nicephorus from that treatment still awaits a proper The comparative lack the historian. of attention paid to this Emperor see in is the all the more surprising the will of will I, because, sources be the the. we shall reign this are opening out will in chapter, It abundant. its special be a survey 802. This Nicephorus as for his of By way of condition on the moment How he
4

relatively to bring thesis there

task

character.

an introduction of the Byzantine the particular these he came to dealt with of chapters policies. successful. the Bulgarian of decade Byzantine was very power

Empire problems as the

concentrate at d16tat.

facing result

will problems his domestic, religious, on be claimed It cannot that His Khan death in battle in Krum was the turmoil, to its knees.

of a coup be the subject and

of a serLes foreign

he was uniformly 811 at the hands for more than a brought the Empire

of

signal

political Empire much the

which

nearly That the

reorganization further than

result of the he was able that he provided this:

far-reaching to

survived internal went the

But it effect. for the foundations

sustained middle of

advance the ninth

of

the

Byzantine In key to Macedon. threatened Irene:

Empire

from

the his

century. the of

so many ways, the

reign seems to provide Empire the house under a series government the West, Christmas the renewed of

success of the He was faced with to the overwhelm from challenge on

that problems, of the Empress the shape the of of

the

in

Charlemagne's

Day 800; aggression

revival the party the the

of Caliphate;

coronation Bulgarian power; and Theodore politics the of of

of emergence as a decisive Empire; of control Nicephorus solutions providing not

a monastic factor in to mention

around internal impE. -ial

Stoudios the loss

so many aspects of lines of approaches pioneered to all these prescriptions problems. for the

over

government's life. everyday

and even In doing so, he was future Empire's achievements.

10

CHAPTER I THE SOURCES

Chapter THE

SOURCES

The sources be divided A: B: C: D:

the which cover into the following sources Lives of Theodore

reign main

of

Nicephorus

I can

categories: ).

Narrative Saints' Letters Other

(Greek-Latin-Arabic-Syriac.

of

Stoudios,

and

sources.

A:
1-

NARRATIVE Greek

SOURCES

Theophanes the Confessor a. doubt Without Theophanes any

be seen as the crucial for the period We learn source on which we focus. about iconodule from his Vitae. Four of this author mainly them are appended to De Boor's edition of Theophanes' 1 Chronographia (vol. 2). fifth An anonymous one was copied from a codex of the monastery of Koutloumousion on Mount should and edited by M. I. Gedeon in 1896.2 However, it

Athos 1.

2.

by an anonymous The first one was written author and the second by Nicephorus, the skevophylax of Vlachernae. Of the remaining two, and much shorter also anonymous has beeii copied from the than the previous ones, one is transcripta Paris of Theophanes and the other bibliothecae Z3. ex menologio codicis messinensis. The text in an appendix to the 26th vol. was published Association of the periodical of the Greek Philological 'xoxos)C)'Ev Kwvi% WAookijc'()s T%'# Constantinople of dates he copied The editor the ms. from which the Vita, to the twelfth century.

12

would and the the

seem that only Patriarch Dating

all

these Life 1

Vitae of the

are

based

complete Methodius,

Theophanes,

on a sixth by written 2 Life is a in also, is

of

vital

probably importance,

from not source, the first

820-29 the period because its only author

near contemporary during Byzantium

for its and mainly, Some information from has the so-called been written VV4 and I Sevcenko on the (dating

who played a prominent half of ninth century, 3 impartiality.

role but

on Theophanes can also Panegyric of Theophanes, of Stoudios, assume, would 5 and from a letter the year 1078) which coast Agros. of 6

be derived which, as C. Mango earliest by Michael the Marmara if it

by Theodore seem to Confessor, from

be the

source Psellos,

describes sea of

the of Theophanes along voyage and his landing somewhere near

1.

the

2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

Spyridonos in It was edited 1913), 12 (Constantinople pp. 95-96 and 113-65. 'Methodii by V-V. Latysev, Unfortunately, edition another ' S. Theophanis Confessoris... Vita Patr. Const. Akad. Nauk. po istor-filol. Zapiski Russijskoj l3,4 (1918) 8e seriC, was not available otdeljeniju, 'Zum Leben des h. Vita On this to me. see, E. Kurtz, Methodius', B. N. G. J. 5, (1926-27), Theophanes von pp. 390-96. inedite du 'Une oeuvre J. Gouillard, On the date see: de Sardes', B. Z. Patriarche Methode: La vie d'Euthyme eveenko, I. 53, (1960), 36-46; see also cf. p-4S; pp. in Iconoclasm, Period', 'Hagiography the Iconoclastic of (Birmingham 1977), p-118. 24. belo L On this cf. 1j. . 'Some Churches C. Mango and I. and Monasteries enko, D. O. P. 27 (1973), Shore of Marmara', Southern on the p. 260. de. 'Un Panegyrique C. Van de Vorst, On this see, Studitel, S. Theodore S. Th6ophane le Chronographe par 31 (1912), A. B., pp. 11-23 . Minora Scripta Michaelis Pselli F. Drexl, E. Kurtz and (Milan 1941), III, pp. 167-68.

by D.

'EcKXv%fi-10WIK

0 s

C <x %* os

13

Theophanes of the most

born was

in

759-60.1 in

His

family

Byzantium. and His father, mother's name was Theodote. whose name was Isaac friend was a close and collaborator of the Emperor . Constantine V. When Theophanes his was three years old, 3 father died. At that time the Emperor gave the child 4 5 in memory of his father. the second name of Isaac, 6 Being the son of a high officer to a and the heir large Theophanes to follow estate, was destined an army noble career. corps 1. of At the stratores age 7 of eighteen in the reign he became of Leo a member IV (775-80). of the

distinguished

was one 2 His

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

(op-cit. The patriarch Methodius that p-128) asserts at Leo IV died, i. e. in 780, Theophanes the time the Emperor (p. 147) it is was twenty-one, and in the same Vita Theophanes that stated was fifty-three at the time of Leo V's accession (813). Therefore to the throne the dating birth 'somewhere much earlier of the Confessor's by A. R. Santoro: 7521 provided the year around Byzantium the Isaurian and the Arabs during period __1f_978,, Rutgers 717-802, Ph. D7. University, New Brunswick, is unacceptable. p-2, 7 .0 Anonymous Vita, De. Boor I I, p. 4 Vveajv 1ACE1 -ruiv -t%JAC-VWV "pvj. n6-V%WnrWV 6& cq%4<X61 r1YCV0V0 -, 'ev (2p. cit. ), p. 115. Methodius (2.p. cit., Methodius that, p-115) asserts when the child than his father's was baptised, prbably much earlier death, he was given only one name, that of Theophanes. in Greece today, According to a custom when somebody's death leaves then the an unbaptised son or daughter, his mother is given the name of his father or who child had died recently. from the Patriarch Methodius' One can assume that (a-cit., p. 116) phrase: "T; a%krOA&o Methodius, On the corps see of stratores p. 119. (op. cit. ), pp. 117-18. One J. B. Bury, The Imperial ... his in mounting tasks to assist the emperor their of was horse; in general the duties they performed of imperial de titulature See also 'Etudes R. Guilland, et grooms. in R. E. B., byzantines, de prosopographie le protostrator' 7 (1949), pp. 156-79.

7.

14

operation a successful around after Cyzicus, Theophanes received the dignity of spatharius. In the meantime he had been engaged at the age of ten and Leo was a high to MegalO, whose father married at eighteen dignitary However, of his namesake the Emperor Leo IV. does not seem to have been a worldly He man. his marriage never consummated and after some time, retiring from public life, The first two monasteries. established 2 one was built on the island of Kalonymos, where the the first six years of his retirement. Nevertheless is best known our Saint as the abbot of the Megas Agros on Mount Sigriana, monastery called where he 3 spent the rest of his life. Theophanes was one of the participants of the second spent council images. of Nicaea, which the veneration restored of sacred d qp 4 -- ---that lie was the time of the revival of
-7--------YW

Later,

he had led

Theophanes

Confessor

an iconodule.
1. Anonymous
r*nOL3CLp%WV -IQ

Thus at

KMTOAJkLy

Eq&cp v 4*cx-*Nro

(op

-c

it.

p, 8:
T%t4vop

2.

3.

Such miles. E. R. E., Bury, -T %7% T-, )gp 189S., and the

The highest by the was obtained rank of spatharii 'Etudes protospatharius, on whom see R. Guilland, sur de 1'Empire 1'histoire Byzantin. Les administrative des eunuclo.4eS. in Le Protospathaire' titres auliques (1955-57), 649-711. Byz. 25-27 pp. (21-cit. ), Vita Theophanis Parisina Methodius, 131; p. island From the sources this one may argue that p-29; Islands in the Propontis; see was one of the Prince's C. de Boor's of Theophanes, vol. II, p. 635 where edition it in qua Theophanis is stated: "insula idis Propon Chronographi See also J. B. Bury, deget" vitam uxor E. R. E. p. 74, note Kalonymos 1, who identifies as the Adasi. Besbikos, the modern Emir Ali ancient by Nicephorus Methodius, Skevophylax Life p-132; (p. 26) the (loc. cit. ), p. 19; Vita According to this from Hieria; twelve cx ro", y%f-, monastery was located (loc. ), p-29For location Vita Parisina, cf. also -cit. Geography W. Ramsay, The Historical the monastery of see ... (2p. cit. ), p-162, between 'The hilly country where he says: Cyzicus Sigrianal. and the north of the Rhy'dakos was called below Ramsay translates Further the word rou%vAt7oL as
a location 74, n. 1; has also see also -.;,s. article Tv; by by been identified '1A -, ides, T. E. Evangel ekovi Athens Akf, * I. Se4enko, -

C. -Mango

'Some

Churches-',

(loc-cit..
is

),

pp. 259-67.

Iconoclasm Emperor attempt thus

in Leo V's to win

815,1 policy over

I---

Theophanes against Theophanes

I----

bravely icons.

the opposed This Emperor's means failed, in prison for

I

the abbot of Megas and 2A two years. Ar-cer -cna-c we rina nlM Danisnea 3 island he spent the last of Samothrace, where 4 before he died on 12 March 818.5 life.
(--I I.I-. -II..

by peaceful Agros was put

ro rne days of

his

1.

On the second Iconoclasm K. Schwarzlose, see the following: Der Bilderstreit. Ein Kampf der griechischen Kirche um ihre (Gotha, Freiheit 'Saint M6thode 1890); J. Pargoire, E. O., 6 (1903))pp-183-91; D. Serruys, et la pers6cution', 'Les actes du concile iconoclaste de l1an 8151,

d1histoire, Melanges d1archeologie et L. Br6hier, La Querelle pp. 345-51; 1904), pp. 30-38; J. si6cles)(Paris de 527-847, (Paris Byzantine 1905),

J. B. Bury, (2p. cit. ), pp. 56-76 and 135-143; E. R. E., A. J. Visser, Eine Nikephorus und der Bilderstreit. Untersuchung des Konstantinopler Uber die Stellung Patriarchen Nikephoros der iko oklastiSChen innerhalb (Haag, Wirren The Patriarch 1952); P. Alexander, (2p. cit. ), pp-111-47; id., 'Church Counci. ls Nicephorus Councils Authority. The Iconoclastic of and Patristic (754) (815)', in Studies Hiereia St. Sophia Harvard and 63, (Cambridge Mass., 1958), Classical Philosophy, in the Epoch 'The Greek Church H. G. Beck, pp. 493-505; III Iconoclasm', Handbook of Church History, vol. of Iconoclasm (New York, A. Bryer 1969); and I. Herrin, in (2p. cit. ), Birmingham 1977; H. G. Beck, Die Kircha '_9_0(G5ttingen ihrer 1980), Geschichte, pp-81_-: Skevophylax, Nicephorus 2. Methodius, p. 25; p. 150; by Gedeon p. 85. Anonymous edit. Skevophylax, Nicephorus 151; 3. Methodius, p. 25; p. Gedeon p-85. Anonymous, de Boor p. 12; Anonymous, do not commit themselves hagiographers 4. Most of Theophanes' how long the abbot of Megas Agros to the problem of Skevophyla his banishment. Nicephorus survived , (loc. cit. however, of only p. 25) gives us a duration died. days, Theophanes twenty-three which after S. Theophane? ', S. C. Van de Vorst 'En quelle annee mourut dates A. B., 31 (1912), the death of the pp-148-56, See, however, J. Pargoire, 817. Confessor to the year 'Saint Th6ophane le chronographe avec et ses rapports Studite', 9 (1902), Saint Theodore V. V., p-73 fn. De Administrando Constantine Porphyrogenitus as as well (ed. Moravcsik), (London 1962-Y, Commentary Imperio, died is clearly Theophanes 80, where it that stated p. in 818. 16

23 (1903), ee des images (VIII IX Pargoire, LlEglise pp. 265-272;

Scholars Theophanes important

all

around

the

as a prominent historian. This which A. D. 284 to of the the work is

world literary is

have figure

always of and his

seen as a very

because

Chronographia, period from

a world chronicle A. D. 813.1 This of

continuation from starts

creation

year A. D. 284. George Syncellus asked the abbot 4

of Theophanes

the covering work is a 2 George Syncellus., which the world and ends in the a close before to friend his of death, the had

was 3

and the of Megas

latter, Agros

complete

unfinished

chronicle. 1.

2.

Two modern editions Chronographia. of Theophanes' exist: The first Script. (Bonn Hist. Byzantinae one in Corpus 1839-41,2 vol. ) and the second and better one by C. de Boor, Theohanis Chronographia, with a Latin (Leipzig 1883-85). translation, The work was by Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, in 2 vol., republished Hildesheim 1963. The Greek text is contained in vol. l. Unless to Theophanes otherwise stated, my references are For literature made from De Boor's edition. on Theophanes, K. Krumbacher, IZur see the following: des Theophanes', Chronik 23 (1888), Hermes, pp-626-28; C. de Boor., 'Zur des Theophanes', Chronographia Hermes, 25 (1890), id., IZu Theophanes'. B. Z.., 1 pp-301-307; (1892)1, pp-591-93; K. Xrumbacher, Geschichte der Ryzantinischen Literatur, (MUnchen 1897), second edit., der Chronik J. B. Bury, Stelle des 'Zu einer pp-342-47; Theophanes', 6 (1897), id., 'An unnoticed B. Z., p. S08; Ms. of Theophanes', B-Z ., 14 (1905), pp. 612-13; N. Jorga, d1histoire 'Medaillons litteraire 2 Byzantine', Byz., (1925), V. Beevliev, 'Zur Chronographia des pp-248-50; Theophanes', 27 (1927), G. Ostrogorsky, B. Z., p-35; 'Theophanes', der Classischen in Paulys_Real E, ncyclopddie Altertumswissenschaft 10, Reihe 2, (Stuttgart 1934) pp-2127-32.
Tarasius He had served the Patriarch as Syncellus under (Theoph. de Boor 1, p-3"c g6XC4W'S 7CWat6l'00: 4 On the office Imperial... Bury, see J. of Syncellus (o ), between intermediary He was the pp-116-17. -cit. tFe emperor and the patriarch.

3. 4.

We cannot be sure about death, the exact year of George's but we do know that he was still in 810 (on this writing his chronicle, Bonn ed. vol. l., p. 389). cf. 1, p-4. Theophanes

17

In strong written scholar year

a recent

article

C. Mango

has

Theophanes' that possibility but by George by Theophanes, seems 813 and to that argue that Theophanes

put forward Chronographia 1

the was not The

compilation Furthermore task verify the

of the work that Professor Mango more than

%Syncellus. George kept writing till the 'had little in the part has made his name immortal'. that in Theophanes' gaps arguments, the or certain 3

was nothing

suggests 'to fill

certain chronological Though Mango's article of the is not identity going either

calculations'. is based on good of to to the author till to be solved George or here the

problem Chronographia evidence But will

of

point

some concrete Theophanes.

important really I, which, on Nicephorus has a slightly different one might rightly observe, 4 from the rest One might, character of the Chronographia ,. being have some reservations of course, about Theophanes because the slant the author of the section on Nicephorus, "' L: 9' rar4r 1 ill favourable the Emperor withVithodius' against accords treatment rather Nicephorus to been. member 1. of this different. fell But of favourable Emperor. Both foul of to the the the But, Studites, monastic then, his Emperor and because party perspective the Patriarch they than have the is

so far as we are concerned is who wrote thing the section

be less

seemed had Irene been a must

can Theophanes 5 the Studites?

be considered to defined, Broadly

answer

'Who Wrote the Chronicle C. Mango, of Theophanes? ', S. R., 18 (1978), pp. 9-17. (2p. cit. ), p-16. ', 2. C. Mango, 'Who Wrote, 3. ibid. 24-25. below, 4. On this see pp. Th6ophane le 'Saint J. Pargoire: S. On this see 1 Studite. Th6odore Chronographe avec et ses rapports V. V., 9 (1902), pp-31-102.

18

be yes! which the of precisely,,

For Theodore it

he was a member of the monastic and his monks were the core. issue the only that seems which Megas Agros from his disciple,

party, More divided the abbot 1

of

Moechian was the so-called controversy. Now, it must be remembered that the death after of the in 811 that Emperor Nicephorus obstacle was removed with Joseph, the deposition of the Skandalon, abbot of Kathara. Therefore section indicate from problem of the authorship of Chronographia's if we first on Nicephorus would be better solved, the time during this which part of the the must have been written. outbreak of the it, Nicephorus' Even to the the cannot second Iconoclasm, measures the I and of Leo V year his the would It be dated

abbot of Stoudios,

Chronographia

the a period after because, in the light-of oppressive. seem less devoted Chronographia must 814, have been because, 23 Leo V is observed,

sections of Emperors Michael the has later already part

before completed as G. Ostrogorsky called as the the 'most section year throne hand before

to the elevation On the other have been written death of Nicephorus,

legitimate'.

rightly (pious), 4

and

which concerns us cannot because 811 either, the

the Chronographia which in detail, on 26 July Of that records occurred very year. devoted We can therefore to that the section conclude between is likely 811 and Nicephorus to have been written an event 813 and, if work this of was the 1. 2. 3. 4. it is more the case, was Theophanes than of George likely Syncellus. that it

64-65 and 177-81. On this see below, pp. G. Ostrogorsky, 'Theophanes', R. E., Reihe (Stuttgart 2129. 1934), col. 1, p-S02. Theophanes, ibid.

2,

vol.

10

19

The Chronographia Each next year to the is headed of in

is the one

written

in

the

form table,

by a chronological

of annals. in which, that the

as well as those of the power, emperor dates Arab and Persian The current rulers, contemporary in office of the Pope and the patriarchs at Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch are also given, Moreover., Theophanes the number of the indiction provides cycle. year with not For the provided the indict-ion occur for 6102 I the number reign of Nicephorus by Theophanes' does not calculation number, an earlier (A. D. 609-10) the a coincidence which i. e. from the period, to 6265 from (A. D. 6207 does to 772-3) 6218 of each coincide does also of the with (A. D.

of the Byzantine

year incarnation,

of the world creation and finds date of the current

year

creation exception 714-15 to Byzantine the era,

of eleven 1 725-26). enough,

years

Surprisingly era,

Theophanes

creation. according the

the incarnation which puts he uses Instead this, of to which 2 to the This incarnation is one of the 'serious his the

not employ the 5508 years after the Alexandrian occurred grounds doubts 5492 years that 3

after C. Mango concerning 1.

creation. employed the real

support author of

Chronographia.

2.

3.

'Die Chronologie Thanks to G. Ostrogorsky's article: 7 B. N. G. J., des Theophanes im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert, (1930), chronology with associated problems pp-1-56, have been eliminated. by Theophanes, On the question see used of chronology 'The Chronology E. W. Brooks, furthermore: of Theophanes, F. Martroye, 8 (1899), 605-7751, B. Z., pp. 82-97; de la Societe de Theophane', Bulletin 'Chronologie de France' (19107-, pp. 292-9S; des Antiquaries nationale de Chronographie V. Grumel, IL'ann6e du monde J-ansla F. D61ger, E. O., 33 (1934), Theophanel, pp. 396-408; der Bayer. Jahrbuch der Byzantiner', 'Das KaiseriaLTrder Wissenschaft, 1, pp. 21-38; 1949, Heft Akad. byzantines, I, La Chronologi Trait6 d16tudes V. Grumel, 19S8), Paris pp. 95-96. 'Who 17rote... ' (loc. cit. ), p. 17C. Mango,

20

George V.

Syncellus has

had

lived 1

in

Palestine,

where,

as

Grumel

at some further and more in years

current,

the Alexandrian out, pointed era was least But among ecclesiastical circles. be made about the chronology must remarks the way Theophanes counts the

about especially his Chronographia. already each been year

As has Chronographia table,

mentioned is headed

indicating

chronological

dates. various Theophanes table,

in the Confessor's above, by a chronological According to this dates Nicephorus' the Alexandrian The table Harun office era assures

6295, which in to the year elevation is the year 803 from the incarnation. us that rule, this the was the seventh

eighteenth year of III's year of PopeLeo

al-Rashid's and the

year nineteenth Constantinople. However, of these fact that, changes, take in

became patriarch Tarasius since at The rest of the dates are not recorded. in accepting the accuracy one must be very careful for lists. The reason this seems to be the when one of the dates in the chronological too. remained Let table us 22 years rest of them change together The Patriarch Tarasius His the ninth and last Leo year of III's

the

an example: (784-806). office reign,

Nicephorus'

twentieth of the

caliphate and the 806 Tarasius died elevated From that patriarchate 806 counts to the

of was the third Hdran al-Rash'id's On 18 February papacy. namesake Nicephorus of Constantinople. year obvious and It one at is of Nicephorus' that the clear, the year was

Emperor's throne

patriarchal

time,

the first of course, begins, but it becomes

twenty second as Tarasius' first in office. year as Nicephorus' in reality, it is that, nevertheless, years, 1. V. as they Grumel, are Trait6 reckoned in

same time

Theophanes. ), p. 95,

and not two solar Furthermore, 4.

...

(op-cit.

note

21

here also strikes us Theophanes new Patriarch, what other we get years three the begin columns impression of the that

is

that

with

the to

election each of

of the Thus,

the

adds

one year

table. chronological in the Chronographia

date, at a certain or the 25 March, as V. Grumel begin years at any indefinite occurred. Theophanes In other

some let us say the 1 September 1 seems to suggest, and other date in which a major change

it would in words, seem that become shorter, because just they some years happened i. e. a change on to be marked by a major change, the thrones of Constantinople, of Rakka, of Rome, etc. In of of brief, years, of which in the the Chronographia ones, and the one finds two which 'categories' 'solar' i. e. those 'occasional' complete a full the length ones, Although this it is of

round

365 days, varies

classification some importance explanation do not fall indiction world, of in rather provided One last

to the case. according. does not apply to our period, only and it provides us with sufficient why, when the Annus Mundi and the line, than by the it the is safer for us to the trust from year Confessor. creation

indiction the of the

hint in Theophanes V. Grumells that point: 2 does not seem to apply the year begins to on 25 March, Theophanes dates the period the reign. of Nicephorus' to 31 October of A. M. 6295, elevation of that very Emperor is which Bardanes' of 1. 2. 3. 4. Irene the year 802. broke occurred According out to the rebellion at Lesbos on 19 July the same year same author 3 803 and the on 9 August. death 4

'Llannee V. Grumel, ... ibid.; id., Traite.... Theophanes 1, ibid., p. 480. p-479-

1, (loc. cit. (22. Lit. ),

), p. 408. p. 95, note

4.

22

These than

three

events

dominate

nine months which 803. Now it would be quite he considers 25 March as the includes if these three took not the events the have Theophanes

a period from extends first in the

of

slightly that, year, day It only

more August although Theophanes In of brief, the

October

802 to

inconceivable ,of the

25 March included

same year, as the first all these

he would year, in as he does, if far first the Confessor as it day

three

events, looks in as so

same year, the

employed

of 629S. Alexandrian era that

the concerned Ve year. of

year of the creation and not the day of the indiction The first

day of the year too in Theophanes, could mark the first for least tLe period at under consideration. it seems very possible As for his sources., that our drew his information from a number of materials, chronicler which had been The Hungarian chronicle of In the addition of eighth to available Byzantinist to him through 2 George argues till Syncellus. that the the G. Moravcsik Patrikios, must the Great have

Traianos century this

extending been used

end by Theophanes. (Mc-3(xS

X? ayopa40s and century a work which emerges at the end of the eighth by Theophanes in fragments, consulted was probably exists by the Patriarch Nicephorus. as well as for the period It would be a commonjlace to say that of Nicephorus' information. Theophanes is reign Being very the Confessor relies a contemporary likely to have of had strong on oral the Emperor Nicephorus, in

Chronicler

connections and

and

acquaintances

ecclesiastical 1.

people at court among prominent 4 his military Furthermore circles.

2. 3. 4.

by H. Turtledove, On this, translation the English cf. 1982, where Philadelphia Theophanes, The Chronicle of and ends on on 1 September each Annus Mundi. begins 31 August. (Berlin Byzantinoturcica, G. Moravcsik, second edit., 1958), p-532(21. cit. ), p. 8. Byzantium A. R. Santoro, and... is apparent Leo V's attempt in the Emperor A hint of this by peaceful to win over Theophanes at the very persuasion beginning Iconoclasm (A. D. 815). of the second 23

background high thing thematic For officers that

and,

more

important,

his

made the chronicler happened among the tagmata emperor's the reign Chronographia

acquaintances informed well as well

among on everyas the dedicate

army. does Theophanes as he does for the during Nicephorus which description narrative

no other so much space in relatively I was in short power.

(802-811), period The Confessor's

reign of this covers eighteen pages in De Boor's edition. The passion is also and liveliness of the narration an fact. The chronicler astonishing provides a detailed description followed by that Emperor. the policies of all His for It intention bias No historian the is show how entirely mistaken has so far provided a sufficient has treated Theophanes with which to that is they were. explanation Nicephorus.

another reliable contemporary Methodius, did not try the Patriarch to author., not only denigrate but, he left Nicephorus, on the contrary, us a favourable fulsome in its very account, praise of the Emperor. Methodius Theophanes the latter's This is of was also and might view considerable the biographer therefore that, interest, the have been Taking if 1 main because one to of follow this

noteworthy

on Nicephorus. argue the Emperor,

expected into account would

contrast,

motives have chosen eulogy in not 1.

one might for hating the

Theophanes then Methodius

had private not was

hagiography Confessor's to insert an 2 Methodius that we admit of Nicephorus; unless to know of any such private motives. a position

2.

C. Mango, 'Who F. H. Tinnefeld byzantinischen also attributes Erfahrungen des op. Methodius,

1, (loc. cit. ), P. 15; Wrote ... in der (Kategorien der Kaiserkritik Mnchen 1971, p. 78) Historiographie, bias mainly Theophanes' to 'pers6nlichen Chronisten mit dem Kaiser'. cit. ), p. 26.

24

Such

ignorance

he does since Constantinople

impossible, all, not totally after to have spent much of his life not seem 821.1 before But, the year no matter is, the bias opinion against of modern Nicephorus historians, was support to to say that have for this. that

at how i. e.

plausible appears Theophanes' that reasons, Instead, Methodius' The author only of rather different crude there it is

personal

no real

perhaps is perspective of the schematic value

would

to evidence be sufficient different seems to

from

Chronographia approach judgements

of Theophanes. been capable dominated by

a very

history

on the personality of the is the type of Theophanes emperors. 2 historian 'essentially mediaeval'. whom R. Jenkins calls Methodius, Patriarch His haglographer, the later can be better classified influenced by the such to as Plutarch. Nevertheless, the as a broad minded author humanistic approach more there is perhaps of a historian,

explain

section chronicler of to the free the have fact to says

unjustified on Nicephorus. Nicephorus accuses the that preach

help us one point which might informs bias, Theophanes' which It must be remembered that the of having been a close as Theophanes But, what seemed else, heretics result to the of friend

Paulicians irritated

rituals whose heretic 3 found delectable. Emperor Theophanes during their Nicephorus' own ideas Christians more than reign openly, were

anything these with converted these

was felt that

the

a number of orthodox 4 heresy. No matter 1.

how exaggerated

reports

2. 3. 4.

See also his Life, in P. G. 100, col. 1245; On this see de Constantinople M6thode 'Saint J. Pargoire's article (1903), 8211, E. O. and V. Laurent, pp. 126-31 avant )6 D. Th. C., 10 (1929), de Zonstantinoplel, 'M6thode cl. 1597. 'The Classical Background R. Jenkins, the Scriptores of D. O. P., 8 (1954), Theophanem', p. 14post 1, p-488Theophanes ibid. 25

Theophanes opposition Paulicians.

are, to

they the Moreover,

do reveal

the

chronicler's policy of wrote these this

strong towards heretics, section the on Emperor the

Emperor's

tolerant

an advocate probably Nicephorus' inflicted heretics, imperial

annihilation, the Paulicians, Michael a certain his after is definitely I. had

Theophanes after already of to

successor, capital

number accession of

these the

punishment against immediately almost in 811.1 it throne

to know that time some interest at that (late in 811) the Patriarch Nicephorus Michael persuaded to go ahead with the annihilation of the Paulicians and But, the Athinganoi. the Patriarch was not the only person by whom the s,eem that Emperor Studites Michael had I was already influenced. It won the upper to the Emperor to spare certain matters, and their advice 2 heretics, This the lives of these proved stronger. in the mind of Michael in the survival which resulted change of the heretics the disappointed fact that 'the Theophanes celebrates decapitated it, pious 3 anyway'. From the way Theophanes chronicler in Nicephorus the who, nevertheless, Emperor Michael the would hand on

many of them is more. But there it becomes obvious that

records

favoured

Bardanes' sympathy, he hated chronicler However, held eastern 1. 2. 3. the

Such a 803. against rebellion Since does not need much explanation. of course, it is quite Emperor, that this our understandable Nicephorus. favoured any movement against one needs powerful themes, 1, also to remember the that at the of time the he five at of post had Bardanes monostrategos. built already

a monastery

Theophanes ibid. T-bid.

p-495.

26

the and power much

island becoming in

of 803

Proti

with

the

intention 1

of

age. at a later a monk him to fulfil forced this than did originally not main half escape source of in his does but they

retiring His failure long term even attack.

there seize intention as a As to

earlier monk Bardanes we hear from during him Proti. of 2 the his

But planned, his opponents'

our first

the about 804 a band of own monastery not this were to

event, some time deprived Lycaonians on the isle of

eyesight Theophanes heretics, that 3 the In

were people by asserting the that in to Emperor. both Phrygia the

that these say, of course, is probably what he implies of that the same opinion c"

relation Paulicians

and following

one needs to remember and the Athinganoi were settled 4 data lead us LycaoniaIn brief, these hatred the clear of consideration: given the Paulicians, together towards suggest Emperor with the that might the same the bias have been with tolerance clear be tempted to treated this

Theophanes Emperor heretics, which caused the

against Nicephorus' one would Confessor

of opinion of the two men on this contrast issue. Furthermore, as we have already particular 5 this section must have been written calculated above, between 811 and 813, at a time when Nicephorus' successor Michael the be totally Nicephorus Methodius' I was Radicals power and, more in the ascendancy. were in important, at a time when it Therefore, would

by this

the criticisms to suggest that of groundless be intended to the new regime? as a guide would is similarly favourable to be explained opinion of the Emperor Nicephorus' true worth,

by a realization

1. Theophanes 1,, p. 479. 2. ibid., p. 480. 3. ibid. 4. ibid., p. 495. S. On p. 19.

27

back in power. that the iconoclasts now were To end the section on Theophanes, one must admit that, in spite treated the of the bias with which its author Emperor Nicephorus, the Chronographia's to contribution is invaluable, the history of the early ninth century because his
b. Born

it

is in

reign

the only detail.

the

contemporary

source

describing

Nicephorus in

Patriarch of

(758-828)

family, a distinguished and noble Nicephorus, his contemporary like Theophanes, was a figure His father!, Theodore, of our period. prominent V, who at first was imperial secretary under Constantine his post later because lost and was sent into exile of his iconodule ideas. Nicephorus education, the writings but of mainly secular the Bible and 1. seems to have received he did not neglect to fathers. the church a study Like

Constantinople

is his Vita by Our main source on Nicephorus written by C. De Boor, It was edited Ignatius the Deacon. Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula Nicephori P. Alexander, Historica (Leipzig 1880), pp. 139-217. Speculum, 15 (Cambridge, 'Secular Biography at Byzantium', because Mass. 1940) p. 204, argues that, Of the lack o, by the saint, Nicephorus' Life can miracles performed hagiographyl. be classified For 'semi-secular as a Gass bibliography Nicephorus see among others: on fUr Realenzyklopddie 'Nicephorus' in Herzog and Plitt, 2na ed., X. Theologie protestantische und Kirche VNicephorus', (Leipzig A. 1882), pp. 537 sq.; rd, 2n in Wetzer Welte, Kirchenlexikon, ed. IX, and (op-cit. ), Geschichte..., 249-59; Krumbacher, Karl pp. in Hauck E. von DobschUf_z'rNiceph5_rai_1, 349-52; and pp-71-73 (a. cit. ), XIV, pp. 22-25; fUr Realenzyklopddie ... byzantine, 8. d1histoire litt6raire IM6daillons N. Jorga, in Byz., 2 (192S), Nic6phore', Le patriarche pp-252-53; XI, de Constantinople', D. Th-C. R. Janin, 'Nic6phore (Paris 4S2-5. -); G. Moravcsik 1931), pp. pt-I, A. J. Visser, (2]2. cit. ), 1, pp. 456-59; 'Byzantinoturcical, (op-cit. ); 'The Patriarch P. Alexander, Nikephoros ... (op-cit. ); 'Note R. P. Blake, Nicephorus sur ... de de Nicephore litt6raire ler Patriarche l1activite yz-, 14 (1939), Constantinople', pp. 1-15. 28

his

father,

Nicephorus from which

too, he later

held

the

post

of with

imperial the intention

(806) Before patriarch a monk-' Nicephorus for served a time as head of a poorhouse at 2 Constantinople. During the second outbreak of he became an outspoken defender Iconoclasm of the icons. But in our Nicephorus is not only a person deeply involved figure, He is also literary period. a prominent both, historical who wrote as well as theological works. his historical Unfortunately cover a period much writings 3 than the, reign while of his namesake Nicephorus, earlier the theological Nevertheless, ad Leonem The letter III, ones refer is mostly to there one work, importance vital second his namely the Iconoclasm. Epistola 4

secretary, of becoming

resigned becoming

is of for our period. which must have been sent to the Pope some time between does not October This December of 811. letter, and which illuminates to have been exploited properly appear so far, from inside the following problems: The relations Byzantium and The rivalry Empire. between church in the West. the eastern and state in

between

and western

in the political The involvement the papacy of last the very the West during years scene of the eighth years of the ninth and the first centuries. 1. 2. 3.

of

4.

A: P. G. vol. 100,176 his: Leonem, Migne: Epistola ad cf. 6%OV 3llV0L(tAV%%f 'r. 00 ttbCLr, To t-4 EV 0 S. 0U5 )If e- tEF(X Sj jA0V4? %% WS More (ed. De Boor, loc. cit. ), p. lS2. Vita Nicephori, his patriarchate during before his activities and aT3out can be found below., pp. 181-95. Nicephori for His chronicle, ed. C. de Boor, example, from the death ), pp. 3-77, (2p-cit. Archiespicopi extends ... (602) to to the time when Leo IV was married of Mauricius Irene (769). Sacrorum be found in J. D. Mansi: The letter can (-Florence 17S7Collectio Nova et Amplissima Conciliorum (Paris XIV, pp. Leipzig 1901-27), 98), Reprint, and vol. On this Iigne's P. G. 100,, col, 169-200. 29-S6 and in ,, V. Grumel,, byzantin, Les Le patriarchat letter see also du patriarchat des actes de Constantinople, reRestes II, I, fasc. pp-25-26. vol. 29

c. It is

George is difficult

the

Monk to or Only say a derivative for sure whether source George the Monk

for of information few things He about him are known. our period. a himself (= the sinful), Hamartolos was a monk and called during dying He lived the ninth century probably at the 1 111 (842-867). His of Michael end of the reign is a world literature to the Byzantine contribution an original chronicle with of the under the of title the Chronikon world and in 842-43. interest However Syntomon2 ends with creation Michael III's It is true which the first begins year

reign George's that matters. the

on ecclesiastical Nicephorus' reign importance. Theophanes, measure of bias against his

concentrates for the period of

mainly of

Though independence. Nicephorus,

is certainly chronicle he used the Chronographia judgements In George contrast the display to the

considerable

historical

of , a large Confessor's

Monk considers this 3 Emperor as and friend of the Christians' as a 'very pious 4 Therefore well and sensible' ruler. as 'a prudent George based his work on St. Runciman's that argument 5 for he brings is only Theophanes, to his partly correct, treatment 1. 2. of the reign of Nicephorus
It TA

I an independence
"(X S t

of

3. 4. 5.

GT J. Karayannopoulos fj! Aq 2 1971, p-203Thessaldinica second edit., is the one made by The best the chronicle of edition (Lipsiae 1904). Chronicon, C. de Boor, Georgii Monachi F. Hirsch, For literature on George see among others: (Leipzig Fr- Lauchert, Studien 1876), Byzantinische p-88; Monachos', B. Z., 4 'Zur TextUberlieferung des Georgios (1895), Geschichte..., K. Krumbacher, pp-493-513; ), pp. 352-58; (22-cit. J. B. Bury,. E. R. E., pp-453-54; ' (loc. cit. ), pp. 258-60; 'Medaillons... N. Jorga, (op. cit. ), I, pp. 277-80. G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturclc-a (op. cit. ), vol. 2, p-772. Georgii..., C. de Boor, (op-cit. ), vol. 2, p-774Georgil..., C. de Boor, 0- Yp-pendix 1, p-266The First..., St. Runciman,

19vI CCV'T%*%;fI

50 .

outlook. chronicle, of Irene

This

is

in

contrast

to

the

first

the period up to covers which is not of much significance. (802) and which heavily For this George relies on Sozomenus, section Anagnostes, J. Malalas, Theodore Nicephorus the Patriarch 1 is the second part it Theophanes. However, of his and for which 802-842, George the period covering chronicle deserves 842 the Nicephorus' To take just attention. only reign, one too, example: Not only is he for the contemporary source, narrative he is an independent in period but for witness. 813-

part of his the deposition

to Theophanes, contrast George believes Nicephorus the Emperor that was sincere he disclaimed for Bardanes Turcus' responsibility when blinding remarkable, opinion therefore Theophanes' d. phraseology by the Lycaonians in 803.2 This because on this to he was well aware of Both historians matter. the Lycaoniansdisassociating of view. year 811 is: 01) the all Theophanes' is more

describe

deliberately point

use the same George was himself from

The Chronicle of this

The title

of the little

chronicle

7RO'J "Y Kow % ' 4ot 6% CC, T65 5 14 le nZ a-O 61 -TCX < %"kn (X"% %51 4W cx L defeat to the disastrous army of the Byzantine and refers it was thought At times by Krum in July 811. to have been a fragment Scriptor Incertus of a longer de Leone chronicle 3 Armenio. is the under The best the title and most by one made importance great

edition recent 4 Ivan Dujev-

a commentary with The text seems to

el14

be of

(22. cit. ), p. 203. Karayannopoulos, 1.1. ), vol. 2, p-772. (op-cit. Georgii... 2. C. de Boor, du "scriptor 'Un nouVeau fragment 3. H. Gregoire, 417-27. 11 (1936), Byz., de Leone Armenio"', incertus pp. in byzantine 811', de Van 'La chronique 4.1. Dujev, (Paris 1965), T. M., vol. I, pp. 20S-S4. 31

our period. from Theophanes' more portrait objective of

for

and at the same time differs Its is anonymous author narration. than Theophanes, providing a balanced It matches I. Monemvasia source of information for

Nicephorus

e. The chronicle our the in period.

The Chronicle is

of

invaluable an Without it the

of settlement the Peloponnese with

problem of the invasion and in Greece and particularly the Slavs have been illuminated. would scarcely the the the Chronicle activities area and of of Monemvasia the Emperor its is for

Together also our

Theophanes, source christian

main in Nicephorus Byzantine Though attracted is This question and

repopulating

strengthening has Greeks. to the It

the short, the interest

character. Chronicle of of many

Monemvasia mainly refers Greece. his

quite of

understandable, the Slavonic settlement by FAmerayer of the modern roots 1 to Greece of the

scholars, it since in support are

was that

much exploited the inhabitants origin and that

mostly Greeks ancient

argument of Slavic have

disappeared. completely has survived in three The Chronicle of Monemvasia the Koutloumousion the Iberikon, and the Turin versions: 2 be Scholion The so-called cannot of Arethas version. 1.
2.

der Geschichte J. Ph. Fallmerayer, Stuttgart Hildesheim: 1830, Reprint, vol-1, pp. 171 sq.
The first "I c'D, rt c-pI edition complete (a -r %; i( -r %' &vi % -rq &

Halbinsel Olms,
by

Morea, 1965,

1909), in hisc., k KA c-, *-T%4 pp. -r %4acTcKJAthens -c a'L Chronicle See also: P. CharaiTT's, 'The 37-105. of in Settlement Monemvasia the Slavonic the Question of and E. Chrysanthopoulos, in D. O. P., 5 (1950), Greece', pp-141-166; ' in E. E. B. S., 21 (1951), "I C- T05 )4pov\KoG "o\tfcx6oL&(as', ?%% "T%Tir. however, to be the one the best edition, seems pp-238-53; dite de by P. Lemerle, 'La chronique improprement made historique le contexte Monemvasie: et legendairi,

was made m o-1 \^ ga6 ( lxs e

S. P. Lampros, Xe ov% i-C V, C7,

R. E. B.,

21 (1963),

pp-5-49.
32

The text fourth of the Scholion considered version. as a 1 is smaller S. Kougeas has commented, than the on which last three the with and it shows many similarities Iberikon For our period the most important version. texts are the Iberikon text refer and to the later Scholion periods. of Arethas. The other two versions

2.

Latin

Sources consider the East was in ourselves coincides in lucky, With the West, for because era and the Nicephorus' which are of that fairly during there

We should in reign Charlemagne abundant Frankish

sources Emperor.

the power of information the

reign

Among these series covering Annales or Moselle of for the

sources

chronicles period the period for Annals

called from 741 to 741-801 the

most valuable Annales Regni 829,3 and

ones are three 2 Francorum, of these Mosellani,

a revision the Annales

703-797. The rest of period Lorsch, Saint Amand, the Annales, of Fulda, such as those importance for our Altahenses, to be of lesser etc., seem period. The author of the Annales are unknown., or the authors but it must be assumed that to Charlemagne's they belonged The Annales to the often refer very circle or court.
1.
S.
i ti

Kougeas,
m0os

7 "En*t

TC)G
IA v"

VOCOQkAfr%"'00 )(- ?oqIV,

o; j-

TAS

MO V(-

2.

3.

9 (1912) pp. 473-80. tAwv, , They are published in M. G. H., Scriptorum, vol. I, Hannoverae by 1826. The Tv-6--rks are described W. Wattenbach, im Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen W-e--17-mar Mittelalter, New edit., 1953, Heft 2; see also 4 F. Kurtz's Annales Regni the introduction edition: Ln inde ab a. 741usque Francorum, ad a. 829, qui dicuntur Annales Laurissenses Majores di, Ein et post editionem G. H. Pertzii, Hannoverae 1895, as well as R. Rau, Quellen Reichsgeschichte, Darmstadt 195S. zur Karolinischen Later down to the year 1073, a continuation extendin-g was added.
c-f_. Ak v, vq

( (X I lAgCr6/ SI

33

rivalry of the centuries contents the there

between turn by of

East the

and West eighth us the of of of and

during the

the

crucial of

years the ninth

beginning

of Byzantine is from

giving letters

names of ambassadors and between the Frankish exchanged and the the time. that it is noteworthy events., the dates one year between

As for

emperor the dating agap

usually

eastern sources get and those of the Annales for example, Francorum. The latter date the death ones, . I to the year 812 instead 811. of Nicephorus of the correct The two Lives of Charlemagne, one by Einhard and the 1 by Notker Gall, the Stammerer, though second monk of Saint biased pieces us with of useful The first two Vitae, on the period. of these by Suetonius in his Lives the pattern modeled on used of the Caesars that and especially of Augustus, provides us information with valuable on the period under consideration. has been pointed Its significance out by A. J. Grant who by other 'in that the chronicles argues of the same period hands we can feel in such parts confidence only as are 2 by Eginhard'. dating This Vita, corroborated or supported 1. both Lives be found in M. G. H.,, The Latin texts of can N. S. vols. 25 and 12 respectively. Script. Rerum German. introductions The e exist two English translations with is the one by A. J. Grant The first the authors. on Early Lives New York 1966, and the of Charlemagne,, Einhard is the Penguin Classics and Notker second one: (translation Two Lives Charlemagne the Stammerer., and of introduction by Lewis Thorpe), For Middlesex 1969. R. Folz, Le souvenir literature, et see among others: de Charlemagne dans 1'Empire la legende germanique ii"eT177val (Paris 1950), D. A. Bullough, pp-4-15; in the 'Europae his Achievements Pater: Charlemagne and in E. H. R. 85 (1970) Light Scholarship', of Recent F. L. Ganshof, The Carolingian-s pp. 67-69; and the (London Frankish Monarchy, 1971), pp. 1-16. (op. cit. ), Introduction, A. J. Grant, Early Lives ... P. vii. of information against Charlemagne, the also eastern provide Empire and consequently in favour

we Regni

2.

34

from 'the

some time memoirs 1 of

between

the

years

829-36 servant is more is

retirement'. of fiction than the

public a former The second one and

be seen as who is now in can or of less lesser information from the a mixture value that Epistolae

history, and one by Einhard.

as such

Much more valuable we get from the Liber 3 Carolinae.

are the pieces of 2 Pontificalis, and

3.

Arabic

Sources between under without Byzantium and cannot the Arabic world out during be sketched

The relations the years properly Arabic

by account reports provided historians These sources, namely and geographers. information by Greek sources, authors not only confirm given but they add their The annual own contribution. raids launched reported historians, to them. by the Arabs against the Byzantine territory by Arab hardly refer invaluable are systematically while the Among these and almost exclusively Byzantine chroniclers Arabic sources the

consideration into taking

most

ones are:
1. 2. Einhard Two Lives the Stammerer, and Notker of Charlemagne, (op-cit. ), P-15. Ed. by L'abbe Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae L. Duchesne, (Paris Romanae, 2 vols, 1886-92). Reprinted in 3 vols (Pari's 1955). For the events see under pope Leo III vol. 2, pp. 1-48. Ed. by Ph. Jaffe, Carolina, Monumenta Epistolae Carolinae, is of Berolini 1864-73. The letter number twenty-nine interest. It was sent by Charlemagne to the particular Emperor Nicephorus the views of the and reflects Frankish between East and West. Emperor on the relations More about the contents of this and the importance letter below, see p-243.

3.

35

a Ya

who (A. D. the is

Ya 'ubi I IKu-bI! is rought 872).

-I

a ninth century history his world He was born in of his life. part two parts, the

historian down to

and the

geographer, year A. H.

2S9

greater divided into the

author

eastern (A. D. 897). b.

it second one, since includes a summary of the Arabic raids 3 in He died of Byzantium. provinces

Egypt, for where he lived 2 Of his work, is which for our period most important is in this that the part the against A. H. 284

Al-Tabarli

(839-923)

Arab historians, One of the most outstanding Abu Dialfar is commonly known. as al-Tabari., Muhammad b. Djarir, ;" Tabaristan. because he was born first He was educated he visited Later, travelling at Baghdad. extensively, Syria teaching and Egypt. Finally and writing. (History Muluk of the It is as the Annals. 1. again at Baghdad His main work Talr1kh al-Rusul wall is usual known and kings) prophets a world history from the creation he settled

2.

3.

b. Al-Yalubi Amad b. Abi-Ya'Kub His full name was: b. Wahb b. Wadih Al-Katib Al-'Abbasi, Dia'far (Encyclopaedia ed. M. Th. Houtsma, of Islam), A. J. Wensinck, Le"Jden 1934, vol. IV, p. 1152. der Geschichte C. Brockelmann, For literature see: (Weimar 1898-1902), Arabischen Literatur, p-226; vol-I History R. A. Nicholson, A literary of the Arabs, (Cambridge A History F. Rosenthal, 1930), of p. 349; Muslim 1952, pp. lfT4--16. Leiden Historiography, 'Byzantines On these and Arabs see E. W. Brooks, raids E. H. R., vol-lS in the Time of the Early Abbasid$', (p. 740) (1900), It is in this 728-47. article pp. his has derived Tabarl Brooks that that presumes information from Al-*Wakidir. partly

36

year De Goeje, what is: stupendous throughout information of Islam'.

to

the

915

(A. H. makes of of

302). Tabarills detail, its

According work of

to great

its

editor importance

'completeness learning

accuracy

that author makes the Annals a vast storehouse and that of for the historian as well as for the student 2 however, is the remark Less enthusiastic, Straley, the is who argues that 'we must as other considering treat sources' him an 3 with 'there same circumspection for no foundation 4

and the truly is revealed

by D. S. made al-Tabarl and "objective" that

historian'.

c.

Al Mas'udi
'Ali b. Al-Husain is another important Arab

Abull-Hasan 00 historian,

He is called cover our period. whose works 'Abdullah MasludT 'after one of the Prophet's companions, 5 his descent'. from whom he traced b. Maslud He was a into French was made The best edition with a translation by De Goeje, Kitab Akbar al-Rusul wa4al Mulu-k, Annales, (Leiden For literature 15 vols, 1897-1901). see: (op-cit. ), I, pp-142 Geschichte..., K. Brockelmann, sq.; (22-cit. ), pp. 350-52; A literary... R. A. Nicholson, (9p. cit. ). vol. IV, Islam, Encyclopaedia of old edition, 'Arabic 578-79; Ilse Lichtenstadter, and Islamic pp. 35 (1945), The Moslem World, Historiography', pp-130-31; ), pp-116-17; (op-cit. A history.... Fr. Rosenthal,, (London Arab Civilization D. M. Dunlop, to A. D. 1500, Lectures 88-92; D. S. Margoliouth, 1971), on Arabic pp. York 1930, pp-101-102. Historians ,2N. (ed. by J. J. de Geoje, Tabari from the Annals 2. Selection of Leyden 1902, XI). Islamic in Early Method Perspective 3. D. S. Straley, and Tl-Tabar-71's Ta'rikh... A study Historiography-: of Ph. D. Th. 1977, -171Edin. Univers. 4. ibid. (op. cit. ), p. 352A Literary..., S. R. A. Nicholson., 1.

37

native and calls the of

of 895.1 Greek

some time probably Ibn Khaldun's Following opinion, Mas'udi 'the Herodotus of the Arabs', Baghdad, historian, the Masludi shows the 'the and same open-mindness all same ripe

born

between because

890 like spirit to that he

Nicholson

enquiry,

same eager disposition things and

record without prejudice had heard the or seen, outlook his all on the present life travelling.

marvellous experience 2 past'.

large

He spent as on the almost As a stimulus for his constant be seen not his thirst for but travels should adventure 3 his 'desire for knowledge', Maslu-d7i showed According to have particular to A. M. H. shown interest but interest Shboul, in in the Byzantine the first 'not own right his of 5 as well 6 Arab he was the

world. historian only too,. works,

Byzantines of their in both of Gold),

as an enemy 4 We find the Murudj

of Islam, information al-Dhahab

as people on Byzantium Meadows

(the

(the Book of the Warning). as in the Kitab al-TanElh it is in this In fact though second work, much shorter dedicates Mas'Udi than the first, that much more space Byzantine main 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. affairs historical than work. 7 he does Masludi's in the Muru-j, which is account on Byzantine

on his

6. 7.

), p. 89. (op-cit. Arab Civilization..., D. M. Dunlop, (op. Lit. ), p. 353. A Literary R. A. Nicholson,, ... 3, p. 403. (R-cit-), Encyclopaedia Islam vol. of (London 1979), A. M. H. Shboul, Al-Masfidi and his World 227p. (Les prairies into French It was edited translated and (Paris d'or) by G. Barbier de Meynard 1861-77). four Pavet de Courteille the first of was co-editor out of a total nine volumes. de (Le livre into French It has been translated de Vaux, by-B. Charra de la revision) l'avertissement et Paris 1897. F. Rosenthal For literature on Mas'udi also: cf. (22. cit. ), pp-99-114. (2p. cit. ), pp-117-18; D. M. Dunlop,

38

two already other mentioned Mas'udl7 in listing is not interested forces launched by the Arabic against Military

affairs by the

is

slightly

different

from

accounts provided Arab historians. the yearly Byzantine raids territory.

the

seem not to have played events an important role history. He appears to have seen the in Mas'udi's Byzantines as a neighbouring nation and not as a rival to their the Caliphate. Masludi In tries his to references to the Byzantine emperors, their assess competence or in governing. His reports weakness are in some by the Syriac to those similar provided sources, Michael to the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus. They have all

ways namely tried

sketch of the Byzantine emperors of the portraits day. in ancient Furthermore., Masludi was well versed history Greek and Byzantine Such a and philosophy. knowledge had been built the help of various up with both written Here his frequent sources, visits and oral. to is the frontier area acquire in the year Byzantine and of patrician, the There significance. a certain 946 Mas'udi met at Damascus ambassador, 1 who had The details Emperor his but the mystikos a considerable in contained I may have come

that evidence with an important John, proconsul account reputation Masludi's from

as a scholar. source,

Nicephorus

to present anxiety some such have another Nicephorus explanation. may ruler as a great 2 Mas'udi be shown elsewhere It will that considered Nicephorus to have been of Arabic origin.

1. 2.

al-Masludi, p-261. Below p. 80.

Le livre

de llavdrtissement.,

(op-cit.

'j.,

39

4. Being can early been later,

Syriac of

Sources some importance themselves, the Syriac It sources for the has

be considered ninth argued Byzantine the reign period. Michael the in

significant as exceptionally history of Byzantium. century during the seventh that century, historians chroniclers Nicephorus These Syrian 1126 at Antioch or its Jcxcobite are: relied whose I, belong two of

However, to later the

and probab ly 1 on Syriac sources. directly reports refer to a considerably

a.

He was born where later until what his

he served as the death in 1199.3 Among his here us is"his world 4

neighbourhood, from patriarch literary history works,

2 1166

up to the end (1196). In the dating of the twelfth century of the he used the SecOeor-i'aq i. e. he started events era, counting from 311 B. C. We would not, Michael of course, expect independent He must to have been a completely source. have relied both on some Greek as well as or, some Arabic he seems to Nevertheless is in have as far used a source, as Nicephorus' disagreement also with

interests

Furthermore, sources. S by Theophanes. used reign 1. is concerned,

Michael

complete

for Seventh-Century S. P. Brock, 'Syriac History', Sources 2 (1976), Byzantine Modern Greek Studies, pp-17-36. and (Venice 1868), 2. V. Langlois,. de Micfi-ael le Grant., Chronique p-2. History A Short 3. For literature W. Wright, of see: (London 1894), Syriac Literature., pp. 250-53; der syrischen Bonn Literatur, Geschichte A. Baumstark, La litterature 1922, pp. 298-300; R. Duval, syriaque, (second in the Series: Paris 1907, pp-401-02 vol, J. B. Chabot Anciennes littdratures chr6tiennes); 1934; LittJ-rature Syriaque, Boucard the see also into French. introduction in Langlois' translation by J. B. Chabot, into French 4. It was edited and translated (4 vol. ), Paris de Michael 1899-1910. le Syrien Chronique 'The Sources S. E. W. Brooks, the Syriac of Theophanes and B. Z., 15 (1906), Chronicles', pp. 578-87.

40

the

Confessor.

Michael

speaks

very

highly

of

this

Emperor,

that some exaggeration nobody with suggesting in war then had been 'so courageous and sobrilliant until 1 him'. Moreover, the Syrian traces chronicler as 2 in government Nicephorus' and administration. abilities contrast by Theophanes. It seems to have This is in to is the of account of Nicephorus some importance, since provided Michael

accusations particular of considered character b. Bar

to have heard of the read or at least made by the abbot of Megas Agros against 3 Emperor. Therefore, though a derivative as period, indispensable for achievements. later Michael the Syrian of an asse, sment

this source must be

a considerably and

Nicephorus'

Hebraeus Barso-called 4 Gregory. He was born father. His first name he adopted the name Gregory, the of Goubos, what histor-Nr, the world 1286.7 Bar near is of Melitene interest in to us, is

Another

Syrian outstanding writer known as Abull-Faraj Hebraeus, also in 1225-26 in Melitene of a Jewish seems that became bishop prolific of his 6 it

but was John, when he later 1246.5 is less the first his the

Among his part a political times. Syrian

works

than

universal history of He died in main

down to Michael 1. 2. 3.

is nothing which from the creation Though he used Hebraeus -

his as

source..,

(22. cit. ), III, Chronique... J. B. Chabot, p. 16. de gouverner'. ibid., 'homme vigoureux 15: et capable p. 'Un des ecrivains ibid., ce accuse chalc6doniens p. 16: de choses'. de beaucoup Nicephorus (2p. cit. ), p-265. 4. W. Wright, A Short History... (2p. cit. ). p-131. Syriaque., S. J. B. Chabot Litt6rature ' 6. For a translation into English see E. A. W. Budge, (London 1932). Bar-Hebraeus, The Chronography of For (1976). in Amsterdam TH-ework was reprinted (op-cit. Geschichte A. Baumstark, literature see also ... pp. 312-20. (op. cit. ), p. 410. La litt6rature..., 7. R. Duval,

),

41

Michael's alters His reference, the throne and details Michael. Empress a nun. Michael, 1

narration for to

example, banishment Irene's

on Nicephorus to Nicephorus'

in

many points. to elevation some peculiar by recorded that she the became

includes

not true which mostly are not for instance, Bar - Hebraeus says, to Athens, was sent into exile where Therefore, it

in addition to would seem that Bar - Hebraeus had access to a different chronicle At any rate, it is quite tradition. that obvious with in question, to the period regard our two Syriac sources Finally Bar complement one another well. rather 2 is one of the four Hebraeus from whom we hear sources background Arabic about a possible of the Emperor Nicephorus.

B: The

SAINTS' iconoclastic

LIVES controversy, if nothing else, 'produced' a part touches

a great

number

of the short both periods connected another, to In the

As our period of saints. covers interval between its it two phases, and consequently reign high. the the the

the with is rather short

Lives number of saints' I, in one way or of Nicephorus No fewer than forty-two relate Emperor real under or one number two of consideration. of the Vitae three saint and exist. is more

practice, much higher, Lives, 1. 2. 3. or

reign of however, because

versions

sometimes of the Life

even 3

jop. cit. ), p. 120. E. A. W. Budge, The Chronograpy.. The other Masludi the three are Tabarl, and Michael Syrian. for example, disposal We have, of at our six Vitae Theophanes Ioa-nn-i-R-ios, the Confessor, three of St. St. Peter, three the Patrician of of and Domestic two of St. Theodore the Schools, etc. of Stoudios,

42

These the

forty-two

hagiographies

concern

a vast

range or killed We one one rich which

of

from the top of the secular running hierarchy to the anonymous ecclesiastical soldiers by the Bulgars battle in the fatal 811. of July 1 four the Vitae possess of one empress, patriarchs, became a monk, two patricians, ek prosopou who later populace., three archbishops ten Philaretos to or abbots, metropolitans, eleven the the monks Merciful, martyrs seven or of and 811. bishops, one one Life syncellus, landowner, refers nuns,

also cover a vast array of backgrounds. Some of the saints were descendants of distinguished and families, had already high noble others while reached in the civil A few of them had built posts service. considerable to resigned insignificant became to their In known the careers become monks. ones, either in nevertheless who came from poor backgrounds because life of their pious or Iconoclasm. army, There from are which they later some and thanks

collectively Our hagiographies

actions

against

kept their the authors a certain number of Vitae by clergymen The rest anonymity. of them were written by monks, in one way or and mostly connected usually belonging the saint, to the same monastery another with group of monasteries, or even for example: St. Philaretos' Nicetas. of the ninth The majority century they and what ones of the being kinsmen biographer authors of the saints; his grandson was in they the the

or

lived

course

witnessed prominent 1. 2.

one may argue that Among these, narrate. have been the Patriarch

themselves most Methodius,

seem to

The unedited Life Nicephorus' of Irene, predecessor of Constantinople. on the throne Maria His granddaughter to the of Amnia was married Constantine VI. Emperor

43

who wrote Confessor, activity Nicephorus Among the Nicetas-David

the

complete and Ignatius the

Vita the Vitae that

of of of

St.

Theophanes

the

Deacon, the

produced

whose hagiographical Patriarchs Tarasius the the of Decapolite ninth tenth (d. century), of

and too.

and perhaps hagiographers the

Gregory

who wrote after (1st half Paphlagonian of Ignatius (2nd half of of Vitae Life the

century, century), 877) and 1 and

the Life who wrote Symeon Metaphrastes author of of one of of

Patriarch

the the

of the tenth St. Theoctiste St. Ioannikios,

Lesbos be

one version

must

mentioned. The majority of the hagiographers of course, are, bishop iconodules. George, The Life of of Amastris, might form an exception to the rule, an observation which has gevenko., 2 been made by I. the that thinks already who also is non-iconodule Life of St. Philaretos and has iconoclast traits 03 Saints' Vitae The as texts intention are of different the They from the is in

chronicles. fact entirely They

hagiographers of the chroniclers. like their

different

from

that

target. aim at another the holiness to know how great had been. Only occasionally events their in their they and mainly saint. Hagiographers narrations., times of the but to those

would

readers

saint or saints of their do they refer to political the life of with connected follow a certain pattern Some-

period they

quotations 1. 2.

their stories extend In from the Bible.

do not copy each other. by using too many other cases they

exaggeraje

3.

(op. cit. ), p. 200. Geschichte K. Krmbacher, ... in Period', 'Hagiograpj'-). y of the Iconoclast Ihor Seveenko, The hagiographer 1977, p. 121. Iconoclasm, Birmingham, of gevenko but I. kept his anonymity, Vita on argues this it is a work of Ignatius the Deacon that good grounds (ibid. p. 123). .Life 126; iFil-d., text and French of St. Philaretos, p. in M. H. Fourmy and the original translation of version 'La vie de S. Philartel, Byz., 7 (1934), M. Leroy, pp. 85-1"/70. 44

of miracles performance in comparison to saints' again, earlier times, the

the

by

their Lives

'heroes'. written

But during

Vitae century are not overloaded ninth 1 2 The Vita in of St. Peter miracles. of Atroa, with is reported to have performed the Saint twenty which forms probably This to that an exception miracles, rule. lack not the that to of many miracles Iconoclasm holiness is the in the It Vitae of our period should to miracles claim come as a surprise. second their was by their opposition by the performance and not of along reason by saints' that of that with the their

be called I Nicephorus for example One further opposition Constantinople Olympus since in

was established, For this confessors. less reign well of It is covered Leo V or well

of reign Lives than

Theophilus.

point: to Iconoclasm and, Bithynia. have to

monastic in and around mainly was centred the Mount a lesser around extent, is, importance, This of course, of our hagiographies to cover a

known

we would

preferred of

much wider being that Constantinople, is not well only

variety because

the point settings; geographical the Vitae around are centred mostly , in the provinces life economic social and by them. illustrated But again and social do not years, change decisively of as that short a reign Nicephorus. like the this, short help, to the in The

economic lasting

conditions nine

such deals task of a student with who is mainly to reveal and interpret Lives term, saints' and in this, but religious matters, only over political and even economic

periods in policies

provide also of

valuable as a guide the time.

not

concerns

1.

2.

for Byz. Sources Hagiographic See D. Z. F. Abrahamse, Univ., Ph. D. f967, Michigan 500-900., Cities pp. 324-26; in E. O., 'Saints Iconophiles', J. Pargoire, see also 'The 347-56, D. Z. F. Abrahamse, 4 (1900-901), pp. and in the Early Medieval Transformation of the Saint B. S., vol-2, Byzantium', pt. 2 (197S), pp-122-31. de Saint PierreJ'Atroa La vie merveilleuse V. Laurent " 1956; id., La vita (d. 837)., Brussels, et retractata de Saint Pierre d'Atroa, Brussels, posthumes miracles 45

les 1958.

C:

LETTERS OF THEODORE OF STOUDIOS was born 'intimately at Constantinople in A. D. 759, from a

Theodore family

the administration with connected of the imperial to the susceptible and intensely government 1 influences We learn the life religious around'. about of this the most outstanding monk from various sources, important his two Vitae, by the monk of which are written 2 Michael, death. Theodore's probably a Studite, after Photinus, held His father, in the imperial treasury, a post while birth. of the his 3 mother, Theodore a lady of good was the first among the four children From his hagiographer he we hear that 4 Greek education. Later, when he became dedicated Theodore himself of twenty-two, to the study of to the those Bible of At especially Photinus, into and of the 5 St. Basil. her the same Theoctiste, had been

family. a good the age

received monk at almost of After

completely fathers, church the death retreated of

works

Theoctiste,

deserting about

children, 1.

a monastery.

A. Gardner, Theodore His Life of Studium. and Times (London 1905 3. be found-in Migne, P. G. 99, columns 2. Both Lives 113-328. can different Vita A slightly was version of the first 'Vita Studitael, by B. Latyschev, S. Theodori edited V. V. 21 (ser. 1,1914), pp. 2S8-304. y background C. Diehl, 3. On Theoctiste's and life, cf. in Figures de Byzance 'Une bourgeoise au VII sieclel, byzantines, 1 (Paris 1948), the pp. 111-132; see also in P. G. 99, cols by her son, Theodore, funeral speech 883-909, 'Vita (loc. cit. ), p-260. 4. B. Latyschev, ... for (a. cit. ), p. 264; literature S. B. Latyschev, 'Vita ... De Studio E. Marinon Theodore, see among others: (Paris A. Gardner, 1897); Constantinopolitano, coenobio C. Van de Vorst, ), London 1905; Theodore., (op-cit. dE S. Theodore Studite ILa translation et de S. Joseph H. Delehaye, de Thessalonique', A. B., 32 (1913), pp. 27-62; A. B. 52 (1934), 'Stoudion-Stoudios', pp. 64-5; ILa vie quotidienne du moine studite', J. Leroy, Ir6nikon., 17 (1954), ler trimestre, pp. 21-50;
N. X. Eleopoulos S41ro0,7
19 67; J. Maws TtZv 1rovA0% Athens ,' Graz, Wien, K61n 1969. M6nchtum,

Kat &<&j

ro
Leroy, "5tuditisches

46

time

her

brother, in the

Plato,

founded

the

Sakkoudion,

position of abbot, later him. succeeded to be very turbulent. first time in the outspoken marriage. ruler were or and of shortly took

of neighbourhood his in which a post The new abbot's He was sent 795, because the later, Theodore to Emperor when and their they

monastery Prousa. nephew, monastic into

of He held Theodore, life

the

was

year

of opponent Two years the Empire, to after and

for the exile he had been an Constantine VI's second became the sole Irene those exiled monastery. him with Immediately

allowed

come back their

up residence

return, in the

reactivated This transfer Theodore in general.

reorganized to wy- fo prove and for the influence, Their

Sakkoudion abandoned itself, capital where they the monastery of Stoudios. so-called very Studite decisive for movement

himself

not only on purely religious, issues, dates from this but also time. mainly on political in 806, Tarasius After the death the Patriarch of for the see of Theodore a candidate was probably by the Constantinople was filled which, nevertheless, Emperor's Theodore namesake Nicephorus. In the following years important opposing role, strongly a very played had Joseph, the restoration who as abbot of Kathara of But since VI's Constantine second marriage, consecrated himself Nicephorus it was the Emperor and who desired initiated were the that sent into The reign Studite to rehabilitation., for the exile Michael Theodore second 1 (811-13) and his (809). time followers

of influence

witnessed close 1

the

peak

reported even 1.

have

on problems 1,

power. and political been among the Emperor's to foreign affairs. related p-498.

Theodore advisers

of is

Theophanes

47

Theodore of third under terms the icons exile the

died (843), during

in

826,, for

long

before of

the which of

the

sake the

second restoration he suffered his Iconoclasm

Emperor the

second In Leo V. of the is

the

outbreak

with Nicephorus. Theodore leader

leader Stoudios

he had come to meantime Moderates, the Patriarch known as the

of

well

the of the monastic party, and power of he strongly but also which promoted, as a reformer of the 1 in Byzantium, life literary monastic and as a prominent includes figure, Of his prolific too. output which speeches particular In Migne, and catechisms, for interest P. G. 99, it this is his letters, which are of a thesis.

not influence

only

of we find a selection col. 903-1670, 278 letters to various male or sent by Theodore persons., Migne has divided female, laymen or clergymen. these from into However, letters two books. as we learn 2 five formed his letters Lives, Theodore's originally had Sirmond Jacques books. Migne simply reprinted what edited books in into 1696,3 i. e. the the first two out was divided. whole body of the which from if the designation It looks of the books was derived as 4 by Sirmond. the manuscripts used 5 fifty-seven letters,, book includes The first are which during Theodore's to have been written mainly supposed 1. by Theodore, life introduced to monastic On the reforms Il Monachesimo 'La reforme J. Leroy, studitel, cf. du congr6s (actes tenu a 11 Institut orientale, P-o-ntif-ical 19S8), du 9 au 1Z avril Oriental pp. 201-206. 264D. lS3B, 2. Migne P. G., vol-99, cols. by J. Sirmond, Epistolae, Studitae, 3. Theodori ed. 5 (1696). Opera Varia, ]. 'The Letters O'ConnellS. 4. Patrick of and Catecheses O-Ch. P., 38 (Rome 1972), Studites', Theodore p. 2S6. 4S. 46 and 47 we possess the names S. Of the letters only to whom they were sent, anything without of the persons else. of the letters five

48

first hundred

and

second

exile.

The letters,

second mostly

book

and

twenty-one thirdexile.

two contains during written

Some of the letters of the second book are incomplete. It is worth that these two noting hundred letters in are followed and seventy-eight by a list Migne's two hundred of another edition and the names of the seventy-seven, of which we are given only incipits. Migne took these titles andthe addressees and incipits was the letters who was letters, reached in the twelve from full that Coislianus 94,1 manuscript, text translation and the Latin of these Cozza Luzi printed in 1871.2 Cardinal the in this edition, added another by C. seven Luzi Paris it 277 Mai,

Theodore's

involved

the total so that number edited At the same time and two hundred and eighty-four. Mai also provided text same edition a complete of letters.,

in Migne's which were incomplete edition. hundred Now, to the five letters, and fifty-nine which 3 by Migne (275) by Cozza Luzi either or were published The first Mai (284), two letters are added. was another 4 in 1950 by R. Devreesse, the second in 1968 published and 5 by J. Gill. They both belong to a rather early period of Theodore's correspondence Schism. Therefore a total letters It letters, the 1. 2. 3. two of Theodore should it is recently and are related hundred five of have that in that been from to and edited this to the Moechian sixty-one so far. bulk edition our of and period.

of Stoudios here be indicated only the first letters,.

book

Migne's refer

edited

J. P. Migne, P. G., vol. 99, cols. 1669-80. VIII, 1. (Romae. 1871. ) Patrum Nova fflFb-liotheca, 46th and 47th letters 45th, The already of mentioned in this first book are not included number. Studite de. S. Th6odore 4. R. Devreesse, 'Une lettre (809)1, A. B.168 (1950), Synode Moechien relative au pp. 44-S7. 'An Unpublished Gill, Letter S. Joseph the of Theodore O. Ch-P. 34, (1968), 62-69. Studitel, pp.

the

49

More first

number were composed The rest the years 802 to the of them relate VI (792-97) Constantine sole reign as well of as that (797-802). They are still of Irene of importance, a certain and 811. because relied Nicephori of Joseph they in reveal the oppose social the framework alliance over forty-one of the on which the two to order (emperor

precisely, book only

even

from

the

fifty-four

letters

of the between

Theodore

and patriarch) letters, monks

restoration addressed to laymen letters sent seem the to

of Kathara. Of the fifty-six (including to mixed three

were

clergymen and to

twelve and nuns), Among the communities.

the most valuable clergymen ones for our purposes Plato, to be the four to Theodore's addressed uncle two sent to Pope Leo III, two to Theodore's another Joseph, the archbishop of Thessalonica, two of which

brother

addressee was the Patriarch the six sent to Naukratios, who at the time of Theodore's 1 On exiles was the acting at Stoudios' abbot monastery. hand among the letters the other to laymen we addressed should the mention Emperor one letter Nicephorus, sent one to to the Empress Irene, one Magister Theoctistus

again, Nicephorus and

to

John, and a fourth one to Spatharius who had named an icon of St. Demetrius his son. as the God-father of book. from the first dated Baronius letters twenty-seven It that looks the the as if dates the dated ones are the are most more important or less and accurate. he provided which dating is based on the

Baronius' of the

letters. observe of the

one can peak

content or on the contents is important, Through the dating, -which Theodore that active at was exceptionally The letters Moechian which controversy.

1. He was also elected as abbot of Theodore's death. Stoudios after

so

the

monastery

of

Theodore number Theodore's In in

wrote and

during in variety

his

second

exile

(809-811)

correspondence his

those of addressees his first during exile this, one needs only first deposition to at Sakkoudion, and its fifty-six

exceed form which (7/95-97). remember a time from he

to understand order Theodore that suffered was still where his had been, As for the dominant at the remote

contact with limited. no doubt, the issues is, one its

monastery of Constantinople in

surroundings letters,

discussed

these

VI's Constantine the Emperor of course, implications (restoration and or consequences adultery Schism., how effective Moechian No matter of Joseph, etc. ). to have been, what this correspondence of Theodore proved cannot contact prominent hierarchy. during the do not we must have cases letter that to be denied with is that he had already established whom had and secular later There be traced than one reply in a wide a variety both posts, On these second some of of persons, in the ecclesiastical

he could also rely acquaintances Iconoclasm. Unfortunately outbreak of to reply Elements of Stoudios In Theodore's of replies letters. can more

possess been some. the the abbot

any

addressed

same person.

Theodore to or the the

either complains he had letter which the abbot reply of Stoudios the his

cases some of these he did not get any because sent to the

because the

already had not been moral

cases

same person, In other satisfactory. for his gratitude expresses help which he had or already persons. Stoudios the he gives

and understanding from some of received

correspondents, to special put to him by various answers questions Generally the letters of of Theodore speaking are very important and the very for the they history of the turn Being period eighth early century. ninth illuminate the

of

contemporary

source,

a from

si

views and the connections of a in the political person and ecclesiastical Furthermore, has scene of the era. as K. M. Ringrose ' these letters already rightly out, pointed were not for publication. Therefore, it is reasonable written to believe that they often in a way reflect real conditions that the chronicles and hagiographical sources do not. Moreover, of Theodore of Stoudios the monastic party. issues. and his own policies over certain information, provide us with the necessary what exactly these on the convictions secondly, In other to consistency some of his was at the time the leader As such he had his own convictions His first, letters as to

inside,

i. e. from the deeply involved

the leader of the party of the Rigorists Finally, the letters was. enable us to trace Theodore's between church and state views on the relations as well between eastern as on the relations and western Christianity. But, above all, the letters reveal Theodore's the i. e. towards dispensation from rules of in exceptional circumstances. Although Theodore does not seem to have influenced the Emperor Nicephorus' are policies very much, his letters primary history perhaps importance of the both for the political period to sufficient under consideration. remember the vital during in Byzantium death the in that suffered prestige, attitude 'Economists', towards the ecclesiastical party of those who favoured the use

words how Irigorist'

and policies were and, with which they were followed. letters make us sceptical as

of

and ecclesiastical It would be which the years In other

monastic played party immediately Nicephorus' after words, which it the might be argued monastic party its strength,

role the 811.

and exile, persecution under Nicephorus, and determination, so

stimulated
1.

Saints, K. M. Ringrose, Holy Men and 72 University, to 843,, Ph. D.,, Rutgers F61976", p. 59S2

Society, Byzantine New Brunswick

I came to when Michael paved their way to power.

that

office,

the

monks had already

D:

OTHER SOURCES under this rather odd difficult by the the title to are other sources, These are: Imperio

Arrayed

which are The three

otherwise treatises

categorize. Constantine de Administrando of the

Emperor

Porphyrogenitus and De Thematibus)

(De Cerimoniis., and records

oecumenical

councils

1.

De Cerimoniis the Emperor on the Constantine ceremonies VII's of the literary Byzantine activity court, the etc.

In

treatise occupies

There is only position. one 1 manuscript the work is at our disposal and on this Emperor. Given its to that ascribed general character, ge . is used very De Cerimoniis the treatise The cautiously. a prominent few references of made to the early it are ninth intended century, to on problems 1. shed some light in comparison only

In Leipzig University library. The manuscript has been dated The treatise to the XI or the XII century. was first by Leich in 1751-4 edited and Reiske, an edition in C. S. H. B. (Bonn 1829-30). later which was reprinted About a century later a new edition with a French by A. Vogt appeared in four translation volumes, of (Paris 1935-40). For two are commentaries which the original problems connected and with composition the periods to which each one of the incorporated documents belongs, J. B. Bury, 'The Ceremonial Book see Porphyrogennetos', E. H. R., 22 (1907), of Constantine 209-227 For literature H. Wdschke, pp. and 417-39. see: Studien den Ceremonien des K. Porphyrogenitos, zu Zerbst 1884, A. Rambaud, Llempire grec au diRTF-Fe Paris 1870, New York reprint, 1964, pp-128-136; siecle, Geschichte..., K. Krumbacher, (,22-cit. ), pp. 254-57. Etudes (Paris -190S), C. Diehl, Byzantines 293-306; pp. introduction Vogt's in the Paris see also edition. 53

mid-tenth century. example, the section of the De Cerimoniis which during to the process to be followed the election new patriarch we have from provides other a useful comparison with

to

what

was happening

in

the

For refers of the a

sources on the election of in 806. Furthermore, namesake as patriarch a passage helps treatise, to corroborate of this the details provided by Theophanes Nicephorus' on the Emperor of the reform system of military recruitment.

reports Nicephorus'

2, This It

De Administrando treatise

Imperio between a title. editor the John the 948 and 952. years The Latin title was Meursius in 1611.2 to to his son become Romanus,

was compiled without its first

was originally to it by given By addressing Constantine

and dedicating Porphyrogenitus

work him wanted

for which But the purpose the sovereign. Imperio is better illustrated in was written Constantine to the Emperor passage attributed

a wise De Administrando. the VII following himself:

'But what of events have taken which place between times the Romans and at various different For it is worthwhile, nations? dearest things son, that my record of these in order that, also should not escape you, the same things should come about on similar may by foreknowledge occasions, you find a ready remedy. '3 1. 'The Treatise J. B. Bury, De Administrando Imperio'. B. Z. 1S (1906) G. Manojlovic, 'La 539; for literature see: p. de I'De administrundo imperio"', Congrbs Deuxitme composition des Etudes International 1927; Belgrade Byzantines, d' IR cx e 9X' osij To j t G. Moravcsik, ',, '( Xe%p C& \* m-o ms De Administrando Imperiol, E. E. B. S., 7 (1930), pp-138-152, id., IL16dition inistrando imperio"', du "De critique Byz., 14 (1939), pp. 353-60. followed, Among the five the best and recent editions which R. J. H. Jenkins, the one by G. Moravcsik one is itus Constantine Porphyroge De Administrando Imperio, with Budapest (in two volumes, 1949, translation, thean En lish the commentary). My references one being are made second to this edition. Porphyrogenitus, Constantine De Administrando Imperio) (22. cit. ), p. 223. 54

2.

3.

The

important

thing

for

us

is

the

abundant and

information Byzantium The reconquest also

provided and also information of the invaluable.

by the on its

treatise internal this during

on the history treatise

nations

around organization.

which Peloponnese

provides on the Nicephorus' is reign,

3. is

De Thematibus and equally valuable book: De Thematibus. the work deals treatise 1 As the by Constantine title itself and the units that units and if not VII

A third the indicates,

organization and the took local

the structure with i. e. the provincial of the themes, It is generally administrations. at some European the very beginning of during is least one the reign provinces into of the ninth Nicephorus of which particular

army believed theme century I. The us,

promotion place

most probably De Thematibus to solve, at

of the sources to discuss this

enable

problem.

4.

Records

of

Oecumenical

Councils

follows hard on the last oecumenical reign C i. e. the second Nicaean (787), synod of the eastern church, Some of the participants images. which of that restored in the history figures council of the also were prominent It would be perhaps to sufficient early ninth century, Nicephorus' say such 1. that known ecclesiastical some otherwise well Euthymius Michael as the bishops, of Sardis, figures, of Synada,

del Vaticano by A. Pertusi, Edit. De thematibus Citta 'La formation 1952. A. Pertusi, For literature see: des Thbmes Byzantines', Berichte zum XI intern. Byzant. MUnchen 1958,1, Kongress, pp-1-40.

55

Manuel the

of

Adrianople

abbots, Symboli, were the

Gregory of Amastris along and with Theophanes and Sabbas of of Megas Agros among the are participants of the seventh From this point of view the for our purpose-' precious records

oecumenical of

council.

councils

E:

GENERAL ASSESSMENT majority though of or the sources for our period Most of we know the the

Of the authors, are though

some are near

anonymous.

sources

contemporary

only a minority, Nicephorus Others I. of them, mainly rely on texts unknown illuminate our period views Emperor of persons supporters

Some of them, contemporary. the Emperor are biased against impartial. Some are more or less copy each Some of other, while others the as the They and in us to of In the This that we must the sources i. e. they reflect involved either policies by the of

chroniclers, to

us. from inside,

who were

themselves of certain

or as opponents Nicephorus I. is our period

How well provide

covered

us with a relative. abundance of some fields, such as religious affairs, Nicephorus' the Emperor unravel policies our other understandable have been sources areas, however, is enough, written as for

sources? information, do help convictions.

they and

This

the vast majority since by monks or clergymen.

evidence provided have a bearing will on the Nicephorus was a reformer. embark adopted 1. on a detailed by Nicephorus

by the

administration, example is less sources generous. generally In order accepted to test view this,

examination policies of the various in both domestic affairs. and foreign by Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum... XII 1901-27, and Leipzig vols

They were edited ), Paris (op. cit.

and

XIII.

56

I came to office By the time Nicephorus at the beginning lines certain the ninth of policy century., of had been elaborated by his predecessors. It is also well the known Empire that were throne, during at Irene's a peak. Nicephorus facing some problems reign With his elevation to the inherited both, policies and What did he keep and what of his predecessors? power and prestige, Pliska and Baghdad? groups, in different manage to

Byzantine

How did he react? problems. did he jettison from the policies did he maintain How well Byzantine balanced Futhermore, who existed directions. them as it the was, between various

Aachen,

religious and political in Byzantium, time at that pulled did Nicephorus How successfully keep

between balance their control and a aspirations These are'some of the Empire? and the interests of the direct the sources to which our attention. main problems Finally, a careful us to establish in a short reign easy to confuse of sifting dates, a very like that of different the sources will task, it necessary Nicephorus, enable because is all too

events

different and

policies.

57

Chapter BYZANTIUM

II IN 802

Chapter

II IN 802 held in the 787 at Nicaea

BYZANTIUM At the of to

the

seventh

oecumenical

council

Empress images. the internal

Irene

was able to She hoped in this in

engineer way to Empire. Its

restoration

no means young Emperor Irene

the peace beaten. completely Constantine VI,

make a contribution Iconoclasm was by surrounded to the throne the

adherents rights

whose

Constantine to recognize. was not very prompt himself does not appear to have bothered much about religious him most were the reins What probably concerned affairs. he from the year 790 onwards, of power, which, at least for himself. Constantine wanted of his entirely was tired She continued tutelage. to act as the sole mother's of the ruler Furthermore, must eunuch power have Empire, even Constantine's manhood. when her son had reached dissatisfaction the situation with because that the of the fact in been his hands of every prime for powerful power. stage, his with Stauracius a sort

grown Stauracius

he could.

greater, had concentrated 1 had Stauracius

It is worth Irene. minister under it was not his mother Constantine, Stauracius to be blocking who seemed Theophanes Constantine 2 mother. 1. 2. lets us know that, to at was content He thought, 1,

that noting but the Irene his way to at of this together arresting

least,

go on ruling

nevertheless,

Theophanes, ibid.

p-464-

59

The plan, him into to Sicily-' and sending exile Constantine's however, did not work and as a consequence to have carried out the deposition agents,, of who ought 2 Stauracius, by exile punished either now themselves were Even Constantine from their posts. or by dismissal (790). as a result of the conspiracy it became clear After these all events, which way the wind in putting Irene's down the was blowing. success her in her intention strengthened conspiracy of remaining was sole ruler of the Empire. her as first forces recognize her son the consolatory title at Constantinople army of Empress. thematic of the do not been. Irene's She demanded ruler, of while that she the military for left himself flogged 3

co-emperor.

obeyed without any objection, the Armeniacs rebelled against Unfortunately, the sources at the of interest mere throne, policy? the soldiers But so far had motives of the Armeniac for that the theme rights

The tagmata 4 but the the our oppose of opposing suggests 5 plans disposal had

say for sure what Did the soldiers out to of the

rebellion

plans Constantine VI the that It Empress' the could

or

iconodule

were they also G. Ostrogorsky were

motives of have been. that

reports 1. 2.

Constantine

mainly know, as we shown, at least

religious. no source up to that

Theophanes, 1, p-464Peter, 464-65. They were the Magister ibid., the pp. F-atrician Damianus Theodore Camulianus, the Patrician John Picridius. and the Protospatharius 3. Theophanes, 1, p-465. into 4. One must remember these that were brought soldiers ' four from Thrace to the capital yearsvce, 1%"41'in order disturbed the the iconoclastic which army replace first which oecumenical council, session of the seventh took place of at the church of Holy Apostles 786, Irene, In the course Constantinople. of the year threat soldiers sent these as a pretext, an Arabic using from`uropean them with"'army to Asia Minor and replaced On this iconodule convictions. provinces with 1, p. 462. see Theophanes replacement (9p. cit. ), pp-179-80. History... S. G. Ostrogorsky,

60

time, it is

any

affiliation that

to three his

Iconoclasm. years earlier

On the (i. e.

reported Constantine with along the seventh oecumenical

contrary, in 787),

the decisions mother signed of 1 by which the icons council were from a letter It is true that restored. of Theodore hear that in the year Stoudios 795, at a time that of we divorced his legitimate Constantine Maria wife ol Amnia 2 4% K0 vAtxp6'(x Theodote, for the sake of the K0V the young the Emperor to placed the the Patriarch Constantine Tarasius demanded in dilemma: that either according official source,

the wedding would perform church ceremony his second marriage and recognize as valid, or he "Toj icwAtfw AAo GAov-Tof, threatened to renew Iconoclasm: 1pNjV b1V tAO1Xt'%; %n' 809 and, since source, year 797 it in the The the information have letter dates from from an some time the comes been fabricated the

year iconodule after

might

against populace of on 15 August threat took place that to to it 790, the It us believe affiliation been strong character Therefore, the year

to lessen order following Irene, the year. the year the In in any 795,4

that by

of the enmity blinding of her son case, even if such a is nothing to make there shown any had emperors VI was too weak a controversy. believe in that theme rebelled about had

year S Iconoclasm. while to

790 Constantine Iconoclastic iconoclastic

rulers, attempt might the

Constantine renew the

be more

against motives. 1. 2.

soldiers Irene Empress would

to reasonable of the Armeniac. only they out

not

seem that

of mere were deeply

religious concerned

Theophanes 1, p-463. More about Constantine's and the Moechian second marriage below, from that Schism which see marriage, originated pp. 64-6S and 177-80. 3. J. P. Migne, P. G., 99, col. 1032 D. hypothetical discussion threat, 4. For further this see on below, 2. p-179, note again VI, Konstantin S. P. Speck (Kaiser p. 299) also op. cit., Ikonoklast believes the young Emperor was "Kein that daS 7entrum ikonoklastischen einer nicht und auch Partei". 61

the time

rights

yet become had to

when been tested,

young of Constantine's the

the

Emperor

to

the

throne.

At

a sound ruler been. Furthermore,

had not as a ruler capabilities have expected him to might soldiers his grandfather Constantine V as it would not appear

suggest a landowner the it action is also of

unthinkable Constantine's that to a daughter marriage of behind of the region must have been a factor But theme. of the soldiers of the Armeniac likely the soldiers, that the or at least them, did not like Irene simply because she

majority

Finally, the arrogance was a woman. of the eunuch have been a sufficient Stauracius, in itself might reason for the rebellion In theme. of the army of the Armeniac to that, to remember that one needs only reference already in the year 782 Tatzatius the strategos. of the Boukellarion flight theme deserted to the Arabs and this was caused 1 by his dislike At any rate., of Stauracius. what seems is that to be of more significance, the opposition against Irene aside to the to the whole spread declared her claims, At lost the that stage for throne It of the Asiatic Constantine (October ever army which, putting of as sole ruler 790), Irene seemed left she therefore that to two keep years his

Byzantium. have imperial

palace.

and however, appears, enough long.

Constantine mother later,, young andSu& in the

was not""Strong away from power for of allow to the his

character Less than managed to

supporters Emperor to sequently

Empress mother too. that the

power,,

the persuade to come back to the palace followed The events which and especially VI Constantine of his what did not mother

five course of the next happened in August 797 showed understand 1. the character 1, p-456. and

years

aspirations

Theophanes

62

by permitting fatal made a mistake with Constantine been a strong at all and, mother and next to him, have

her

to

return

to

for consequences he could, ruler, managed to control

palace, himself. even the with

he Had his

But the young check Irene's activities. by not have the abilities and the courage required by putting Nevertheless, circumstances. the aside ' favoured by Irene, Constantine VI does seem to eunuchs have strengthened his hold over the key posts of the Judging from the case of and of the army. government Michael of their reigns. In the Lachanodrakon, Emperor's that career 3 regard very Constantine during his who is close relied well known collaborators.. on persons or

situation Emperor did

assume

to have been one 2 one might who had started his father's

grandfather's between

to

the

relations

Byzantium

the prestige neighbours, of Constantinople damaged, by a campaign Constantine which 793 against the Bulgars. summer of the year defeat the Byzantine near the border of army Marcellae, Emperor became himself even more sensational, deserted the battlefield

and its decisively was in the undertook The total of the 4

outpost because the and many of

leaders prominent of the imperial army were captured. behaviour, his close After such shameful supporters even the young Emperor. must have become disenchanted with in favour the outbreak of his uncle of a conspiracy Nicephorus, Constantine the 1. 2. 3. 4. Emperor, Theophanes ibid. P. Speck, Theophanes the V, as 1, eldest did not if of the five surviving to a movement, sons of come as a surprise such anyone. reacted

Thus

But

expecting p. 466.

Konstantin Kaiser 1, pp. 467-68.

VI

(2p. cit.

),

p. 237.

63

immediately the were It tongues slit. 1

and of

decisively: the rest four

Nicephorus of the time,

was blinded Emperor's uncles Irene for the had already

and

would at that seem that in their Constantine overcome can be no other Alexius Mousele, the There

struggle for explanation

supreme power. fact that

strategos theme, of the Armeniac had 5t Constantine than two years? te'..... who more supported his mother., against was now deprived of his eyesight. According to Theophanes, the blinding of Alexius was if not demanded, by Irene suggested, and Stauracius. They argued Alexius that to be proclaimed was about if Constantine VI wanted to and, therefore, emperor safely eyesight. the the his on the 2 throne, The army he ought of the and of to deprive Alexius rebelled found himself a campaign Armeniac theme an

sit of his against in

central government humiliating position previous supporters.

Constantine undertaking The cruelty

that proves rebellion mere pawn in the hands of his mother. deprive her son of any support either (793). from populace However,

down the

with which had become Constantine

against he put a to

She had managed from the army or

blow to the final what seems to have given his second marriage. In Constantine VI's was popularity, his wife divorced Maria, January 795, the Emperor whom of he forced (August A few months later to become a nun. of the the of fiancde his a lady-in-waiting same year), Theodote, Irene, Empress called and augusta and in September, If lasted second marriage. (Theophanes says it 1, p. 468. EI reads"... %V cb, (Wo%j6jKovAcxpe,, became Constantine the duration fifty cx) Constantine's celebrated

notorious

celebration 1. 2. 3. Theophanes It ibid. ibid.

of the 3 days! ) was

To

i 5TOV

w%

E-34 IM6%At-CX

.0o vrcx

"',

(X&Izv

470. p. ,

64

probably marriage Emperor

and lawful wife of the to was definitely considered alive, was still have been a real With such an abuse of authority, scandal. 'Rigorists', i. e. those who the the Emperor alienated demanded the application of the canon law to everybody and to every either case. headed, At or of the VI did a time simply Sakkoudion damage to wken this influenced, or later the of in part of population by dynamic monks his second the the nephew marriage Byzantine near future. factions in by Theodore of society Thus was

a provocation itself, while

to

public the first

feelings,

the

second

such as Plato of Stoudios, Constantine in

which

795 was too big to between the unity the Byzantine council the in society, 787,

unity be healed different

the

religious by the seventh

achieved was partly

destroyed

second Constantine

Emperor of the young and marriage in VI. More important, the irregularity 1 for Constantine, the 'adulterous' marriage of gave ground +oLke. pd'*c(, a, for irregularity to the Empress Irene another to to her use blind the Constantine's her period second son two years Irene 797-802, It marriage as a good (August 797). later ruled the with alone in Byzantine time

eight inexperienced

oecumenical later years

was able pretext help During

was the first of eunuchs. became the sole history that ruler of the Empire, a woman but as the only for a young emperor, not as a guardian by assuming Irene the supreme power that realized ruler. had broken in Byzantium, which a long Roman tradition, she required time
1.

that head

a man be the of the army.

head That

of

the is

the

state why in

and the

at acts

the of

same

VAO%x-O s The words etc., &Olx%lxt the Emperor's second characterized however, to have been used before in 797. deposition and

by which marriage, later's the

the monks do not seem, blinding

65

her of

government, the

she

is

more appropriate Irene had been in

called "1% 4(: t&% 66 for

got

6%A rr*v' s two

instead

in of the again (October 797). The movement V, took place in time and put down by the eunuch Aetius was revealed 2 About one and a to Athens. who sent them into exile half (March 799), later Greece the Slavs years of mainland conspiracy, Constantine under tried of the to them leadership free the of sons Acamer, the of Constantine Irene reacted Patrician Constantine of the archon of Belzetia, V and proclaim one immediately and sent Sarantapechus the Spatharius

power favour

only

months, when imprisoned sons of

against and his ringleaders

as emperor. Acamer the son, the

nephew The two

Empress,

Theophylactus. 3 of

the

the men managed to catch them of conspiracy and deprive lets

their

eyesight. Furthermore., between into came the of the throne his themes Irene's open for

Theophanes

eunuchs, chief time. from that one Leo, of their

know that the rivalry us i. e. Aetius and Stauracius, 4 They both wanted to secure Aetius was thinking

relatives.

brother

and 801. The sources he might whom On the have favour 1. J.

-IE4

to monostrategos, whom he promoted of Thrace 797 Macedonia time between of and some intentions Stauracius' of a mystery. are a bit by name any of his relatives, do not mention have in wished the to year but Irene, overthrow Theophanes narrates Jus to the elevate 800, Stauracius it is that imperial is throne. to reported known in

contrary, to whom. P. of and

plotted

not Stauracius'

Zepos,,
To;

Graecoromanum.
KcL' -roj a I% U-64,

(Athens
4x" 0V

1931,1,

OVcpVA0LT%

InCKTip*6$

wc)L* T, 2;

INVf- '#.AOLT -CPS E? f) "VA

p. 45: Later

'k k6v's: See also AliVrOS -&4X6-, (Cambridge Roman Empire

2. 3. 4.

T-heophanes 1, p-473ibid., pp. 473-74. ibid., p. 473.

Gebrauch 2, v0 t^ cx. IN Ot6%Ae-% S% Studien C) zum offiziellen Ix Zeit, der Kaisertitel in spdtantiker and friihbyzant-ir-n-i-s-cNer Maslev, 'Die (Wien 1978), and St. staatsrechtliche pp-110-116 der byzantinischen Kaiserinnen', Byzantinoslavica, Stellung 27 (1966)., pp-322-23.

J. B. Bury, Constitution of the G. R'6s-ch, 1910). p. 23 sq.;

66

he was very was revealed and as a result he would Many people that severely were hoping wounded. 14 but live he dLed shortly and become emperor, afterwards. This have thought Stauracius that suggests might of assuming plan in time the supreme power only and becoming a woman with ambition it, why should become emperor? plans remains were not himself. an emperor had as her qualification a capable Though to succeed eunuch, Stauracius either. like died One Since

already achieved Stauracius, not in 800, Aetius' thing, however,

these clear: all plots and intrigues in the eyes of the Byzantines, to mean that can be taken the had not been solved by of the imperial roblem office Irene in 797. assuming sole rule The way problems successful regain taxes her to of which-Irene ruled does not the Empire, either. lost certain In popularity, her she in the various and handled seem to have been policy, trying to from granted remissions Judging

domestic

from the of people. categories Theodore enthusiastic way in which of Stoudios welcomed 2 the measures, the monks must have been one group of benefited from these A certain tax people who measures. 3 paid by the inhabitants of'Constantinople was abolished, the import taxes while and export paid at the two main toll stations reduced. the result to these economy sees
1.

of

i. e. at Abydos and Hieron, capital, were Modern scholars see these economic measures as the Byzantine which weakened of a lax policy, 5 degree. P. Speck, nevertheless, an unacceptable Irene, as a demagogic not only measures of policy the

2. 3. 4.
S.

Theophanes 1, p. 475. Epist., 1,6, 929 sq. P. G. vol-99, Theodore cols of Stoudios, CbOp*Vru To, Theophanes 1, p. 47S: " 13VjO(VT%'O%."vS noAt'rivCOUS (, YOEfI6OCTv $ '6-tt A*ec'2tA6v-x rk wvjt%fP'<%* 064160-v% wta", -ro; j 'i"a; ibid. '444cTov r& J. B. Bury, G. Ostrogorsky, E. R. E., p. 212: See for example, ), p-182(op-cit. History ...

67

also as an effort made of the ' by the Empress to meet the demands of the domestic trade. Speck's on the already argument is based mainly mentioned letter where a remission of Theodore of Stoudios, or, perhaps, of taxes paid not only at ports an abolition but also at road toll is reported to have taken stations 2 In other words, as the measures are described place. +0 by the abbot of Stoudios, they seem to have applied and to have affected This, too. sea and land trade, of however, The question, is not of course, might be true. how far or categories of people, stood to gain from but how far these remissions the measures, and abolitions finance in the served or damaged the interests of the state long term. It is mainly from this point of view that Irene's be reckoned weak and demagogic in measures might people, intent. The situation neighbours had not century its two decades of been particularly favourable either. launched Even if the number of the Arabic raids against be estimated Byzantine they territory cannot precisely, in number and intensity. The Greek sources, were growing the last than our record many fewer raids as might be expected, do. However, even the latter Arabic ones do not ones For instance, between each other. the number of agree recorded hear about from ones which we latter an Arabic speaks about 3 780-802). during the period
1. 2. 3.

in

favour

iconodules,

but

of during

the

Byzantine

Empire

with

regard to the eighth

the

incidents

by Tabarli

much smaller In fact, Ya'Kubi.

is

than the

the

raid almost every year The Empress Irene tried

Konstantin VI (op. cit. ), p-383; Kaiser P. Speck, see also, in 'The Empress Irene the Athenian' S. Runciman, 1978, pp. 114-15. Women, Oxford Mediaeval ), 99, col. 932C. (loc-cit. Epistola 1,6 Theodore udios, of better the sources Problems with all-d-tHe-ir connected discussed in. the chapter lengthily on are exploitation in the section foreign and more precisely policies, 247-48. Byzantium title: the Arabs, the and pp. under 68

to

avoid in

an open the

treaty

war against Here 782. year a peace suggest

the

Arabs

by

signing the

again, the

speaks only about the Arabic sources undertook the 1

treaty that

while by signed Byzantine

a peace Theophanes sides, Empress two

tribute to of paying an annual obligation It is worth that the Arabs. the young Emperor noting VI is reported Constantine to have undertaken three 2 the Arabs, against of which seems to have one campaigns 3 been successful. After the blinding the deposition and of Constantine in less 797, the situation It their deeply Since unchanged. fronts on eastern remained more or is very further likely that the Arabs position, into Asia from do not that their with in Minor; year assume to until any that the campaigns 798 as far the hostilities the Empress Empire, V' s reign defeated, Caliphate. the but fall as Irene

strengthened penetrating Malagina. (802) the once our two

sources 4 sides, one might to pay

record

of between

agreed

again Along the

some tribute borders northern During had been

situation (741-775), they

no better. was the Bulgars

of Byzantine Constantine repeatedly

to have been totally weakened. seem began causing Cardam, they the leadership again of borders in the northern disturbances considerable do not Byzantium. 1. In the year 788, the strategos of

Under

of Thrace,

2. 3. 4.

in the Arabs ' Byzantines E. W. Brooks: Al Tabari and in E. H. R., 15 (1900), Abbasids' p. 739. time of the early , I refer to the Arabic Unless sources stated, otherwise by using Brooks' article. 793,795 in the years dates Theophanes these camp aigns his deposition. before 797, shortly and 1, p-469). The one of the ye ar 795 (Th eophanes (E. W. Brooks, by Ya'Ubl formed On the exceptions (loc. cit. ', 742) and Michael the Syrian 'Byzantines... p. III,, de. Chronique (J. B. Chabot, p. 12), vol. op. cit., .. policies p-253, the chapter o n foreign note 3. see

69

Philetus, in the Emperor reached Bulgarian lets each

was defeated Strymon region. Constantine the fort forces. that After the place of

killed by the Bulgars somewhere and 1 Four years later the young VI leading Cardam, a campaign against Probaton, the where he met with Theophanes the two who reports did not armies which were took the and trap, the (793), Bulgars. fortress of 4 the total first event fight really in the place to have shamefully' 2 this

us assume

other. hours, evening deserted because this pursue their took rebuilt with the the of the

a skirmish Byzantines during the

could

cowardice. have been

night The Bulgars planned preferring year the

'returned

thinking

a well army against The next

that probably did not dare to to again and borders of

Byzantine 3 territory. the initiative Marcellae, Bulgaria. Byzantine not

return Constantine He reached at the defeat

safe

important a very The consequences followed army which because the on their to northern

enormous, strong mainly incapacity It tried would to

only

outpost because,

seem to have been Byzantines lost a very borders, but also and

it proved Byzantium's some extent, border its line to defend northern properly. this the Bulgars weakness realized and seem that by becoming the situation more and more exploit position (796) to message or It is

Cardam's Byzantium. towards strong aggressive later by the message he sent three years proved Constantine VI. According the to Theophanes, presumptuous, reach 1. 2. 3. 4. the saying: Golden Gate 'Either and

was I will is

you pay me tribute, 5 Thrace'. I will ruin

1, pp. 463-64. Theophanes ibid, p-467ibid. VI defeat Constantine For the consequences that of of his own popularity for among the army and the populace cf. above P-63. 1, p-470S. Theophanes 70

true

that

Constantine's Furthermore, Khan led to attack

proud. Bulgarian himself

such reply did the Emperor Byzantine

to

a demand not wait

was equally for the but he

the near an army against Constantine Versinicia. For a period of seventeen days, kept challenging but Cardam carefully the Bulgarian army, 1 Finally the two armies to avoided a battle. returned having territories their without clashed and thus the situation remained source further first during for four this at the borders in between Byzantium almost not and Bulgaria only unclear. events incidents years Theophanes the during of who is does region, the sole reign reign. our

provinces, Bulgars somewhere

Nicephorus'

record any of Irene and the It would seem that

the Bulgars the period, were occupied with the war against to Cardam, as with as well succession 2 in central Europe. the Avars Finally the Franks the relations with of Byzantium during 780-802 the period a more dramikic went through fluctuation Already Irene, time than one the year ones with the Arabs of the death after on behalf of her tried eleven,. the Byzantine or even the Leo IV (780), Bulgars. is at

widow the

acting

of a child between connections power in the West. of the child j? -j eunuch., Emperor

VI, son Constantine to build strong Empire and the rising

for a betrothal She made arrangements Rotrud to the daughter of Charlemagne and an educated was concluded of at the palace was left the Greek the young Princess teach to the habits and customs of the

The agreement

named Elissaios, in order Charlemagne to her introduce language and 1. 2. 1, p-470. Theophanes For the elevation of Bulgars to the West, C., Byzantium (section

Krum and the expansion of the foreign the chapter policies on see and the Bulgars) pp. 288-89. ,

71

Byzantine future.

court It was broken

life.

That off to six

betrothal, years later

however,

had no (autumn 787),

in her when Irene, influence in Italy, enemies that the of

effort

strengthen

Byzantine who were

sided Charlemagne.

the Beneventans, with W. Ohnsorge, however,

broke why Charlemagne up the by the Nicaean was the restoration of the icons 787,2 with king disagreed. the Frankish which reason (spring later months of 788), Byzantium and the Franks worsened Irene tried of full-scale war. six rights in Italy against the relations

suggests betrothal synod of Less than between point

to the still more; Byz, -ntium's to defend ambition, in

the ie *ui at -Ne 1or^A1-*-J ko'v% It seems that peninsula. %eve-'. had asked the Byzantine to help him S, government %At, Irene the Franks. against promptly sent him a detachment the leadership the Sacellarius of troops under of John, the save from Charlemagne. had also to co-operate strategos orders of Sicily, received 3 how much John and A jot However, with no matter #'S. importance had attached the Empress of Constantinople to it appears it resulted in a this that expedition, John himself was army. 4 killed by the Franks. the captives among and was i. e. until For a period the spring years, of thirteen by 801, we do not hear of any action taken the year of had been mostly During time Byzantium that either side. catastrophe for the Byzantine occupied as well son for 1. 2. 3. 4. borders, its wars on and northern with eastern between the internal and mother rivalry as with The intrigues the supreme power. among the various the and Logothete what he could of the Stratiotikon, with order Theodore, the to save

Charlemagne's

1, p-455. Theophanes W. Ohnsorge, Das Zweikaise (Hildesheim 19477, p-19. 1, p-464. Theophanes ibid.

roblem

im frheren

Mittelalter

72

ambitious another at this In church Hadrian though

dignitaries important time. the meantime.,

and element

eunuchs of

of

the

court

Byzantine

political top the of the

were also life

occurred. died and totally

a change at Some time late III

the in

Leo

normal,

him. succeeded must have been of

year This

western 795, the change, significance

Pope

for but the ecclesiastical, not only the political history The coronation of the period. of Charlemagne as Day of 800 seemed to emperor of the Romans at Christmas have been planned In and worked out by the new Pope. order the this, understand in Rome during events In April Hadrian, They out his to has one the 799, reacted attacked eyes. but relatives against Leo, they So far They it is to consider year of the more closely to the previous his predecessor, in and deprive ca

great for also

corona-1--ion. Pope the late strange tried motives Leo of to way. put

new Pope him arrested their to

remain obscure. his papal throne, At any

as we know., definitely tried not for

known infavour Charlemagne's him on the that,

of whom. help, who, throne.

the Pope rate, his enemies, punishing Theophanes who reports in more Relying Leo 800,

asked

reinstated the incident, Pope Leo III

suggests It>

by crowning Charlemagne favour he had received the the Frankish king. against VI., P. attack Constantine

Pope Speck

repaid a 1 from than one year ealier between on the similarity III the blinding and of these two

as being strongly factors for Irene's 2 But emperorship. much too far. 1. 2. Theophanes P. Speck,

considers interconnected sole this

events decisive and as forming and for Charlemagne's rule the evidence seem to be pressing

1, p. 473. Konstantin Kaiser

VI.

(.2, cit. E.

),

p. 372.

73

Unfortunately, Empress the Irene's in have by the his

do not hear we immediate reactions, the been a second As for West. very that

shocking to

news

the anything about if there were any, had been Roman emperor Charlemagne handling Day 800. year and 801), but decided himself, the he

to

proclaimed seems created after

events

coronation a naval he abandoned

in careful of Christmas (early in the of It these

situation A few months Charlemagne on second to adopt a

was planning thoughts, more

attack

Sicily,

then,

plans

effective policy. autumn of 802 when the Constantinople. Their the Frankish Emperor

was already summer or early delegation of Charlemagne reached between for a marriage proposal

Empress, so that and the Byzantine (, xc'3Lt`%j-p? ) could be joined the eastern to the provinces oL (-r4'L 'i"(pne"pi (m ). was really to tempting western ones very Irene. Had Aetius the marriage, the not prevented 1 Empress would have accepted the proposal. ambitious been said, has already But, the powerful eunuch wanted as 2A for his brother Leo. throne to secure the Byzantine Aetius' to Charlemagne of Irene would have ruined marriage plans. that However, Aetius was not to the at it would the only marriage. Byzantium it. be more to suggest appropriate court who person at Byzantine likely It is very that for various eyes been reasons of the were proud humiliating

was opposed other officials

against also strongly Byzantines such a union for Empire. the eastern a Byzantine but the case princess, A very the opposite. course., 1. if

To the would have They would

very have not

prince which

to was about was now before Frankish

of minded, a Frankish marry them was just wanted

ambitious

emperor

2.

delegation, For a discussion 1, p-475this Theophanes on 'Orthodoxus Vom religi6sen Imperator. W. Ohnsorge, cf. in his des Groen', Karls fUr das Kaisertum Motiv (Darmstadt P. Classen., 19S8). Byzanz Abendland p. 73; und das Papstum... (qE. cit. ), pp. 60-62; der Grosse, Karl ), (loc-cit. Irene 'The Empress S. Runciman, the A-THenian', J. B. Bury, E. R. E., p. 5. 1978), (Oxford p-115; 1, p. 475. Theophanes 74

to The was and

enlarge in

his

Empire,

this

time

by peaceful that their

Byzantines danger it

afraid were probably by being absorbed of appears that from the

means. Empire their rival. the arrival

western moment

Therefore., the

the of the Frankish purpose was known, for the dethronement machinery of Irene was put into In such circumstances the deposition operation. of the Empress must have surprised But who was to be nobody. Now that Stauracius successor? appointed as Irene's was dead, the powerful to one would have expected eunuch Aetius his brother Leo to the imperial However, throne. elevate Aetius such did not have an enterprise. enough They support from the had officials their own them and for seem to have his family. and of the late

very delegation

reservations have might therefore leader still and fresh

about Aetius been sympathizers opponents the in

Some of Stauracius

were certainly behaviour against Stauracius' insulting would and seem that not

The memory of their of Aetius. he was killed no doubt, were, way in which dignitaries Other their of the court mind. by Aetius' disappointed inappropriate them. Aetius According became other too to Theophanes, after kept and it part the of of

death,

arrogant

humiliating such

provocative

officials. court behaviour on the procedure the for

an eunuch, dethronement the electoral

whose candidature how Therefore, thus no matter was strengthened. greatly it had paved his way to power, himself Nicephorus well favoured that also and coincidences appears circumstances his elevation throne. to the imperial 1. Theophanes 1, p. 475.

speeded only but also Irene, turned of body towards Nicephorus,

up the

preference

7S

But elevation any firm

who was really of Nicephorus?

behind

the

fall

The Empress'

of Irene failure

and the to exercise does

domestic and foreign policy affairs over not seem to have caused very much anxiety among the In reference to that, populace. one needs to remember Irene's that the monks, were always supporters, at her side, in favour to influence the people ready of the Empress by them of her reminding Furthermore, a certain probably by Irene it in pleased in the clear Empress' about and with course that its role part the of the in of fiscal the the the restoration population year. remissions not Theophanes of the icons. were introduced Therefore

becomes the

previous did populace

dethronement. organilers. entirely army.

specific planned the out

court by the

executed and in the

play any role is, more or less, It was a, coup dletat by high in rank officials that the had it was carried chronicler

By saying

probably influence important figure Triphyllius partisan

""v -Te- I imp. )c o"i T er I. those means all who still over officers political and the two latter's certain decided influential conspiracy to and military dignitaries). Domestic before, rivalry that, to of

some power and some (i. e. the affairs Among them, the key Schools been Nicetas 2 had main it broken Aetius'

was probably who, in the however, and of for have the this

the had

years

with the

Stauracius. Nicetas

appears, Aetius with ambitions reasons seem to

-by destroy eunuch. against

now,

plans and the But what were It does

the VI the a

Irene? the

who seems to between rivalry 1. 2.

anything have been

do with forgotten

Stauracius

unlucky 797. after seem to and Aetius

not Constantine Nor have does been

1., p. 475. Theophanes ibid. p. 474. ,

76

an end with the death of the since former There is absolutely two years earlier. no to suggest that the conspirators who backed evidence Stauracius. Nicephorus In fact, I had been partisans of it had come to since two of the conspirators, reverse, as we According shall see, had been opponents of Stauracius. to Theophanes the real reason behind the conspiracy was Aetius' to make his brother abuse of power and his desire the very had already been hatched before The plot the emperor. famous marriage of the Frankish arrival envoys with their inclined to accept. which Irene was apparently proposal, This was not to the liking of Aetius, as it was a threat for his brother. behind The conspirators to his ambitions immediate to put their plan into operation., not so much because they opposed a possible more because they feared marriage with the Franks, alliance before Irene, that Aetius they could do so. would overthrow But such precipitate was may mean that Nicephorus action Nicephorus I were forced a last minute Emperor meant the new choice, and those who appointed him to be a mere figurehead, the real while by them. It seems that be exercised power would still for last this with some explanation would provide us point during the first the internal months of attested unrest Nicephorus' death of Bardanes In other words, reign. in April Triphyllius Nicetas Turcus in July events such as the and the rebellion of

factor,

803 should be seen as a result of failure Emperor's to meet the demands of the or refusal him to the imperial throne a few months those who elevated it can be argued itself, Returning to the plot earlier. it was not so much a conspiracy the Empress that against ' ill it was more an action Irene, anyway; who was very Aetius' specific plans and aspirations. against
1. Theophanes 1,474 and 478.

77

The and six it

dethronement was more or

of less

Irene well

occurred organized. in the Domestic

OCOber on 31 Theophanes move,

802

names

patricians Nicetas, the

who participated

of mentioned already 3 Two other Theoctistus. the Quaestor the participants, known to us Patricians Camulianus, Theodore Peter are and from the year At that 790. time., they supported the Emperor Constantine VI's efforts to

among them, 2 the Schools and

of the then get rid As we have already eunuch Stauraciu. s. powerful seen 4 in time to Stauracius, their above, plan was revealed himself the Emperor and as a result and these was flogged from their two Patricians were insulted posts. and dismissed by participating that seem would dethronement, two Patricians these It of Constantine for VI those to of them the to for events 797. August these by Palace the of six to in now took the the Empress' on behalf of revenge 790 and, year

course, According the had guards

of Theophanes Great elevate

Patricians that the

saying

cheated herself Irene just

demands no longer stand Aetius' could 6 Irene his brother Leo to the throne. for the elevation of in her involved Some of those by surprise. taken was deposition collaborators. close were among her previous Empress These 1. 2. dignitaries went over to Nicephorus, not 'because of

sent because the

Nicephorus

throne,

1, p-476Theophanes On the dignitary the Domestic cf. of the Schools of In the (ap. cit. ), pp-49-57. The Imperial... J. B. Bury, in the list he is fifth Philotheos, Kletorologion of of high officials of Byzantium. Bury, 3. On the Quaestor see also J-B. sacri palatil In the already (2 E-cit. ), -Fp-73-77. Imperial... The fourth. he runs thirty by Phflotheos list mentioned 4. Cf. above, p. 60. 1, p-465). (Theophanes time magister S. Peter that was at 1, p. 476. 6. Theophanes

78

avarice', but for

as our the

main

source

common good. between the of a dialogue The Emperor Nicephorus. day it, plans ears

events suggests, Furthermore, Theophanes speaks deposed Empress and the new conversation and rumours previously the took place the chronicler records about Nicephorus' reached the Empress'

for

the

Nicephorus' after elevation in order to indicate that to dethrone Irene had and, on many occasions, killed the easily

have she could although Logothete, ambitious she did not do had 2 in reference However, to such hypothetical So. plots they never on behalf of Nicephorus, one can argue that invention, They are probably Theophanes' occurred. really in to his that effort of to illustrate Irene's whom the this actions character in contrast Nicephorus, to wanted chronicler by taking into conclusion the unhappy against had no compunction in After in island is of being as Byzantine the of 803). her Prince's Lesbos, 3 about that of Arabic Emperor the four sons of dealing

denigrate. account Constantine

We reach brutal Irene's V. threat

with any into Irene exile, was sent Proti, to and later called she died shortly afterwards Unfortunately, of the very It Emperor. new Nicephorus present suggest of for land of that this a noble various

She clearly to her position.

dethronement, island where background of our

first the

(August interest

little is

known

sources They all and Arabic that

origin.

descendant

family, reasons to

even perhaps his ancestors Byzantine they became

was the the Ghassanids, deserted the 11 the Christians.

province 1. 2. 3.

and went over Cappadocia.

territory

There

1, Theophanes ibid. p. 478. "i"Fli-d 480. .p.

pp-476-77.

79

Judging

from

this

that these argue from the same source and if must have been a Greek one. Romans Gafna that record of Ghassan'. this

unanimity, four authors

one would derive their we believe Tabarl

be tempted Tabarl,

to

information that 'the source

says

that

these which Nicephorus' territory the Syrian

was a descendant of 1 however., There is, one point on do not agree. is the name of This reports hypothetical the Arabic ancestor who abandoned fled to the the Byzantine Empire. Thus Michael a

Nikephoros

and

certain Christian, finally Christianity similar

family to origins of Nicephorus' from Yemen, named Djabalah, prince who was first then in Mohammed's time became Muslim and traces crossing story and is Arab the Byzantine himself by Bar ancestor Mas'udi borders in settled returned Cappadocia. in to 2A

nevertheless, Finally the possibilities: Nicephorus

reported Nicephorus' historian

Hebraeus, is named

whose Cabbala. two

record 3

Emperor to the according the was a descendant of the family of Djafnah in the past had become Christians. Gassanid, sometime which The second suggests Nicephorus' that ancestors were from Mesopotamia Christians to the Byzantine who emigrated 5 in Empire. If one can trace of truth some elements be assumed that the new these then it might reports, Emperor's The Arabic is far ancestors descent of by any had the known of been perhaps under Christian Arabs. Emperor Greek the consideration but his source, Empire

expresses first, the

not reported from the eastern 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

provinces

Byzantine

origin is

), p-7. +.,. 'Byzantines I (loc-cit. Arabs E. W. Brooks, and ... (22-cit. ), de Michel Chronique J. B. Chabot, le Syrien, vol. 3, p-lS. ),, Amsterdam (op-cit. Bar Hebraeus, p. 121. reprint, de l'avertissement, (op. cit. ), p-228. Mas I ud 1 Le livre ibid.

80

does chronicler he asserts Cappadocian, Nicephorus not say that was a that the Emperor of the Athinganoi, neighbour was a close 1 Therefore, and Lycaonia. of Phrygia who were inhabitants it would be reasonable that to believe the person who in October 802 rose to the supreme power of the Empire, was suggested by Theophanes. Although the a Cappadocian, Michael Nicephorus. However, the 2 more before it Such Syrian's an assumption opinion important he became on the than his would be in line background of origin, is the with

holding was 3 Logothete and section on fiscal in that provide becoming long for by the of the

had made him an expert government issues. For how long he had served and economic factors, is not known. Certain nevertheless, post, before Nicephorus, that some clues us with for a had already the Empire served emperor, the that of of in first hint in this direction Logothete years is is provided fact no other more than information i. e. this General twenty is mentioned (780-802). The

appears Byzantine

an emperor. his service that

post He was General in this crucial

he

time:

a period piece sources, two

second Syrian The These

Michael case,

by our two again provided the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus. to have copied Michael. an Arab when Abd al-Malik, 4 the Byzantines', against

latter,

seems that, war

commander 1. 2. 3.

narrate sources 'entrusted with

4.

1 p-488. Theophanes (2R. cit. ), vol-3, Michel ... Chronique J. B. Chabot, p. 12: faire les Romains voulurent "... Alors sur eux re'gner Cappadocien". le Logothte, Nicephorus Logothete On the post see J. B. Bury, of General ), pp-86-90; Beitrdge (22-cit. F. D61ger, Imperial... He (pp-cit. ), pp-19-21 Geschichte and 47-91. zur ... the taxes see of the Empire; collected and supervised General, 'L'origine du. Logothbte G. Millet, also, L M. F. Lot du Moyen Age,. Offerts M61anges d1histoire 563-73. (Paris 1925) pp. , (op-cit. ), vol. 3, p-15. Michel. Chronique J. B. Chabot.,

81

about he asked Elpidius, fled to the Lhe new strong 'If Nicephorus clothes you are the

heard

Nicephorus' the

elevation

to

the

imperial

throne,

Arabs,

ex-strategos 1 he had whether Constantinople. then

man at rules, wearing

of Sicily who had known anything about Elpidius' reply: away The r-atd;-,es. war'. be taken to might the 2 silky

throw you should for and be prepared

of this certainty reply himself Elpidius had experience that suggest of Nicephorus, he had not simply and qualifications abilities and that heard about him from somebody else. Now, keeping in mind and mainly Elpidius had been named strategos in the of Sicily 3 4 781 to the Arabs year and fled about one year later, be entitled from that to argue that one might already had shown his potential Nicephorus time, and determination that to play an important role One further remark: and rebellions in in are public affairs history, Byzantine more the of plots,

Byzantium.

or less a common story. in favour them were organized either of high ranking family, military officers or of members of the imperial to the throne to have been whose rights were considered form an The events 802, however, neglected. of October uprisings Most of exception elevation background two possible to of is that rule: best the supported army officers i. e. of somebody whose military development To this questionable. can the be given: firstly that, though a new Emperor, as

at

explanations suggest, also the secondly

previous politician, disposition, 1. 2.

remarks had and

as a man of a warlike reputation had been successful Nicephorus that

3. 4.

Theophanes 1, p-455Michel... J. B. Chabot, Chronigue The Chronography E. A. W. Budge, Amsterdam p-121. reprint, 1, p-4S4Theophanes ibid., p. 455-

(op. cit. ), vol-3, p. 16; (op-Lit. ), Bar Hebraeus, of

82

in

the

post

of and

General for

Logothete

carefully preparation reputation establishment

must of

a long time have included

and perhaps his plans. laid the

he had Such a good and the a

as a competent strong and court

minister connections circles.

creation of of finance, with army,

to a wife, was married about whose name or background Perhaps we do not know anything. she was dead at the time of his elevation already to the throne. In any case, him two children, she had left a daughter, Procopia had been a son, Stauracius. her father's Her married to the throne. elevation husband Rangabe, Emperor Michael the future I. was Michael 1 Her father-in-law Theophylactus Rangabe, having served as Drungarius Leo IV, the Emperor of the Dodecanese under and before lost his post and was sent because of the reign of he had been involved in a movement, tried to elevate which 2 Irene's Nicephorus, brother-in-law. to the throne eldest Unfortunately the motives of that plot escape us, but several reasons could have that remember icons during her iconodule members of the lifetime it. caused Irene's staff of Leo IV, One needs to had been found which from this it suggests that time be also would with that beginning exile Constantine into at VI the very and Irene, Procopia,

administration Nicephorus

were already sympathies knowledge. In connection to common 1.

2.

(Le livre de l1avertissement, Masludi's op. cit., p. 229) to which the name of Procopials record, according father-in-law is not founded was George, on any other data. On the contrary, Michael Rangabe the fact that (Vita Ignatii, son, Theophylactus named his first C. P. Migne, P. G., vol. 105, col-492C) forms, archiep, indication, his I believe, if not a proof, that a clear father's name was also Theophylactus; of and this, is in line (1, p. 454). Theophanes with course, 1, p-454. Theophanes

83

reasonable Constantine collaborators brother-in-law action

to VI

believe in were had the 780,

that,

by plotting the imperial Emperor tender rights

Theophylactus

Irene against Rangabe and his which mother and the Irene's Their

and

upholding to the

throne. and his years

against by the motivated scheming century recalled named

child former's At

was perhaps 'Latter's

nature. Continuator from exile

to the tenthaccording any rate, 1 Theophylactus of Theophanes, was - we are not The important that, by giving the Rangabe, told and was when in this thing story his daughter Procopia Emperor Nicephorus

curopalates. to have been appears to Michael as a wife

future

definitely powerful connections with established magnates, him in his aspirations. Stauracius, of helping capable of 803,3 whom Nicephorus as co-emperor at Christmas crowned got married Irene on 20 December were the childless, fourth of but to Theophand, a kinswoman 808.4 Stauracius of the late Empress and Theophan6 had given birth to five children, Patriarch the future

Procopia

Ignatius, deposition 1. 2.

Nicetas, which, fourteen at the time of his father's was This in 813.5 to mean that can be taken

3. 4. S.

I. Bekker, C. S. H. B. (Bonn 1838), Continuatus, Theophanes ed.. (Migne, P. G. 105, col-489C). in Vita Ignatii, p-3: is called Theophylactus simply patrician. Imperial..., J. B. Bury, ibid., the curopalates cf. on a_. cit. ), pp. 33-35. (1, p. 492) According to Theophanes Michael (loc. cit., Ignatii, to Vita col. 489C), and held the befor7_-Secoming Rangabe himself, emperor, his father-in-law. in the reign dignity of of curopalates it became a practice that in the tenth Later, century, bestowed only on a relative the title was of curopalates Imperial... (J. B. Bury, p-34). the emperor o_E-cit., of 1, p. 480. Theophanes ibid., p-483. According (loc. cit. 105, col. 492B). S. Ignatii, Vita vol. had been put by his grandfather, Nicetas to his Vita, the age of ten at the head of the Hikanatoi at already ). (ibid. For 'a body which was created that time' at the Hikanatoi the tagma the origin of of more about The (22. Cit. ), pp-63-6T. Imperial J. B. Bury, cf. ... Georgo, Nicephorus' four were: of grandchildren other Ignatil, (Vita Stauracius Theophand Theophylactus) and 492A). loc. cit. col. 84

Nicephorus elevation conclusion description of 811.

was not to the can also

that imperial

young

at

the in

throne in

be derived

from

of his 802. Such a Nicephorus' physical time so-called Chronicle

is preserved which The anonymous author to

the

attributes an old who, working the 2

person,

of that short report Nicephorus the Emperor characteristics 1 beard, such as a very white etc. age of Nicetas, has on good grounds Nicephorus must made some he that, when been

of J. B. Bury

on the argues throne,

calculations, ascended at least.

have

forty-five

But more important older. domestic than his age, are the problem;, and foreign, facing immediately he seiZed the new Emperor the after supreme power.

He was probably

A: 1.

DOMESTIC PROBLEMS The situation connected those in the army the army should not be limited to, the strategoi or related or We have already in seen that Irene removed the tagmatic army them to eastern provinces, European themes, who remember the army rebelled Irene. Empress the

Problems only the the from to

with

officers year the

by, created in general. Empress and,

787 the capital them

sending

from the soldiers with One must also were of iconodule convictions. VI treated Constantine the brutal way in which replaced of in All 1.1.
2 of

the

Armeniac of him

theme,

simply

because

they

had

favour these

caused 'La

his mother, the and against division, bitterness, and disappointment chronique... p-14, ' fl-2. (loc. cit. ),

Dujev, Bury,

216: "Rpofiwinoy p.

exwv
2. J. B.

v%o%cL t4laLt y4vtiov

E. R. E.,

noAv Tl(-q A

85

among

the

soldiers. with the

Now., if demoralization

that

disappointment

is

combined

on the eastern and northern humiliating peace treaties, with that eighth hardly caused the of that the the the enemies condition of the

caused by the defeats borders, as well as by the Irene had concluded which can easily see the

Empire.,

of the army at the turn of from being it century was far satisfactory. that needs to be emphasized the reasons which during the last military two decades unrest of were not automatically Therefore would normally in which ninth century. removed at the one is entitled be prolonged, Nicephorus I to not

one Byzantine

eighth, the

beginning expect

same trends

into the short only period ruled, but certainly into let into much later years, the us say, first half whole of the ninth century. Furthermore, be sure about the extent one cannot of the new Emperor's This, military experience. of course, of some significance, the head of the imperial the domestics, were who were nevertheless, tagmata, is because the Byzantine the emperor strategoi and the was and Some of army. in charge of the

themes

to accept ready a politician however, Others, at the top of the army. would not it, inexperience tolerate and they would use the Emperor's for trying to fulfil their of military affairs as a pretext own aspirations. months good were to after The rebellion had been Nicephorus of in in It Bardanes office, which would Turcus provides new soldiers seem that up only a

example. Another problem up to

was the that

way,

the recruitment of the ninth of century, had been made only new soldiers provide among those who could their own military equipment and in some cases a at least

recruited the beginning

time.

86

discriminated law., or a custom, against a those the army, but whose poverty to join who wanted This them from being automatically prevented enrolled. from. which new soldiers limited the social were strata horse. Such for the a source of creating Furthermore, has poor of the Empire. as J. Haldon 2 have been a category there out, must of people pointed for army service, who, although registered were not called because Such of their up, or called up again, poverty. recruited, thus problems could shortage the very needed into take in to be faced and account of another the ninth solutions difficulty, clearly found, that existed which of the at injustice

military beginning

manpower

which

century.

2.

by the Slavs Problems of the Empire and caused those especially of the Peloponnese 3 below from the end of the be demonstrated It will that in various the Slavs were well established sixth century,

The Scla veniae. which were called of the Empire, parts ' by these Peloponnese to have been heavily affected appears The Slavs to have should not be considered settlements. + but they formed been real the Empire, close-k-,, of enemies keeping their own identity and from time to communities, the central of government up against Under the reign some efforts of Irene, Byzantine had been made to bring these control. under people 783 reached in the year Stauracius, The campaign who of time rising Constantinople. 1. 2. 3. in in Byzantium More about the army service below, domestic pp. 114-16. policies, on Recruitment J. F. Haldon, and Conscription ... pp. 50-51. domestic Chapter section under policies, on 123-24. Greece, Reconquest pp. of the chapter ),

(op-cit. the title:

87

the

Peloponnese, from Slavs the of

had plot

been, of

judging by the be inferred

mainland that the Slavs strength at the

However, victorious. of course, Acamer, organized and put forward Greece in March of 799.1 it might of a time at Greece had managed to of the of lax supervision Constantinople.

regain peninsula

their by

government

The creation Another problem 3. was the daily

of the monastic party facing the new Emperor increasing influence

in

the

year

802,

and strength of the The foundation monks at Byzantium. radical of the sodates from the year 787 and, as it called party monastic 2 be shown elsewhere, between 787 and 802 the the years will demonstrating monks were already signs of their uncompromising in opposition Tarasius' to the Patriarch attitude, moderate against having to policies. her son, overthrown the the with sided Constantine unlucky the Emperor They Empress VI. Irene Therefore, would need

Irene,

Nicephorus

be cautious, if he were not to provoke the monks. Normally to his policies on the part - of the some opposition But the strength monks would be expected. of their have been foreseen. However, given opposition not could the immense it influence was likely of would the society, caused society, that on Byzantine orthodox church the church, the division within be reflected in Byzantine

by the too.

monks,

situation Problems to the fiscal and economic related in 802 remain to be discussed the Empire at and economic 1. 2. On the In the below, of Acamer, see above, movement on Nicephorus' chapter religious pp. 197-99. 88

4.

Fiscal

conditions the end of

of the

p-66. policies,

of because

list

the the

domestic department

difficulties of finance

facing seems Irene's yet

Nicephorus, to have reign. studied suffered Although in any

more than any Irene's fiscal depth and

during sector other 1 have not measures

been

some good elements, such as the 2 be traced in them, one stimulation can probably of trade, is left the impression that the Empress' with underlying Moreover, it appears motives were at best questionable. although that these were random concerted favouritism towards economic towards the measures, and not and fiscal strategy. part of Finally, a the

monks, In the measures. Arabs, and perhaps abolition granted or to of Treadgold's 45,000 to and the

certain groups of population, notably can besingled out as a weak point of brief, the tribute to be paid to the to the of in Bulgars too, but mainly the Empress to gain, to the some taxes, which March of 801 in order the financial weakened point. paid the According Arabs

remission populace popularity, to

regain, the Empire

stability

an unacceptable Irene calculations

on average

for a period two years a year of twenty nomismata 3 (780-802). This would mean that the total amount of 0190,000nomismata to the Caliphate money she paid reached budget than half the yearly which was more of state at 4 it was in her time. One needs only to remember that that the plot of support of Irene's minister of finance, October 802 broke out, and this cannot have been a mere coincidence. 1. 2. 3. 4. discussion For a more lengthy of above, pp-67-68. 'The Empress S. Runciman, Irene... P. Speck, Kaiser also pp. 114-15; (op. cit. ), p-383The Byzantine W. Treadgold, State p. 84. ibid., p-119. these measures, ), VI ... (op-cit. ), cf.

' (loc-cit. Konstantin Finances

89

B: 1.

PROBLEMS WITH BYZANTIUM'S The situation "; -the Tf Empire political of the decades in the life eastern lacked

NEIGHBOURS and northern borders the last

Byzantine two

repercussions

eighth on Byzantium's

stability This century. relations the Arabs with

during had its its

namely states, and the Bulgars. neighbouring internal disturbances, Taking of the Empire's advantage both went on the offensive. They launched and raids both in Byzantine mounted campaigns against provinces, the these East and in is the to North. The aim to whole say and that raids it moment, be discussed be sufficient of the elsewhere. character For they of the resulted

there, situation so be sure about its could not government fortresses Though and outposts. eastern and northern VI also undertook Constantine the against some campaigns Arabs intended to stop and the not them Bulgars, to it had in and become their just obvious that he but attack from invading in most them own territories destroying Byzantine to push the the foreign suggest enemies peoples troops that them, were of

would in a destabilization that the imperial

provinces and, beyond the borders, Thrace there.

cases,

and relieving releasing from the presence Asia Minor of and it is tempting to More important,, VI's more to campaigns, or less, his in final or for at least internal

Constantine undertaken, he wanted All and the these the

some of

strengthen indicate that in took these the

cause the

consumption: his mother. against the Arabs century, it eighth

Bulgars be arped to

wars against decades of the and, any states,

Byzantines

cannot provinces 1.

a defensive role lost that the Empire two the neighbouring

although specific

some events the chapter on

For these, see foreign policies,

relative pp-277-78

in sections and 294-95.

90

took place army, which and some defeats of the Byzantine in Asia Minor a certain revealed weakness and in Thrace, Byzantium its inability to defend and a certain of eastern and northern prestige Byzantine the Bulgars fact of by the payment invading also at in territories the and Empire the which itself found the Arabs and vis-a-vis is, I think, illustrated at the time, well both these demanded the that two enemies position they that the were the Arabs to provinces. pay stop It is properly. disadvantageous The loss in of imperial

if ri c>-x -r tDt. - tribute the Byzantine and plundering at least itself in some cases, to offered

possible, Constantinople

government tribute,

to order Asia Minor. year 802, in a weak neighbours.

from forces them to withdraw their persuade indicate by the All these that concessions found itself Empire Byzantine the once powerful in relation to its two most powerful

position

2.

Byzantium's from the from

The threat that Christians, Muslims the or Franks, when

situation the Franks and the

in

relation

to the

the

Franks

Arabs

was not of the Bulgars. two

same order as The Franks were

while pagans.

other Furthermore, dominate least

weree of Byzantium enemies Charlemagne, the king of the for Italian the any most peninsula at was not part, Furthermore,

managed the

to

a time territorial been

considered

at area, territory as Byzantine between East disputes

and Charles'

had by a treaty solved which By this in 798. Irene treaty lordship over the Istria rights though and of not

more. West seem to have and by Charlemagne been signed Byzantium Beneventum, acknowledged he while over by any Greek

probably Croatia. 1. J. B.

recognized 1 This treaty, Bury, E. R. E.,

Constantinople reported

p-317. 91

source, two sides peaceful such of

shows were

that

up to than

the to

end of

the

prepared

means rather However, it would

their solve by military

year 800, differences confrontation. to suggest

the by

seem appropriate

that

a view Christmas

a dramatic occurred. simply West.

to the period only applies up to the events It would appear date, that, of 800. at that between the two states change in the relations From that time the Frankish Empire was not interests in the

in its a rival power to Byzantium Charlemagne was probably also seen as a usurper 'emperor that of the title of the Romans', which until time had been taken to apply to the Byzantine exclusively emperor. tried or Empires, proved to perhaps The peaceful means through have his new title recognized even failed, to than become because those a supreme the hardliners prepared

Charlemagne which by the eastern Empire, head of both the at to Constantinople or compromise, of Charlemagne. to salvage Frankish

stronger

perhaps even to It was the task as much prestige rival.

to the yield of Nicephorus, as possible

aspirations and his in the

government face of this

provides an outline domestic foreign affairs, and Nicephorus at the was faced imperial P. has the Speck during throne in 802. the five In that suggests twenty the last

This

of time

the

problems

in

both

with

the Emperor which his accession to of to of these

the

relation

situation

problems, The Empire century light under in in this 802.1 way,

been

in more presented influence of Nicephorus' to justify Kaiser his

of the eighth years or less as negative propaganda, to VI the who, throne ),

wanted 1. P.

elevation Konstantin

Speck,

(op. cit.

305. p.

92

an argument can There might, of course, by the new Emperor, propaganda spread have been it, to have believed would the period fanatically Theophanes, by

But,

such foundation.

be dismissed

as having have been but our the main

little some person of

last source

who was strongly If the anti-Nicephorus. the posited remained propaganda, biased such a chapters it

pro-Irene Confessor then critic should tackled the post

and had been

persuaded

he certainly of all aspects

would not of Nicephorus' In apparent the

have

reign. following

three

become successfully of

problems were fulfilled the new Emperor and whether him to the highest those who elevated Byzantine Empire.

whether

tlCese

expectations of the

93

Chapter DOMESTIC

III POLICIES

Chapter
DOMESTIC A:
1

III
POLICIES

ADMINISTRATION Changes in the Holy Government 799 the Empress Irene emerged consular from the

1On Easter

Monday the 1

church of lavishly'. by four Bardanes, strategos of the

Apostles,

'bestowing away

favours

white the of Schools,

She was borne horses, which

strategos of his brother Thrace, and Constantine Irene's favour, of

were Thrakesion,

drawn on a gold chariot led by four patricians: Sissinius, the They the is the Domestic were

Nicetas, Boilas. but with

high in clearly Constantine Boilas, continued brothers Triphyllius which six that the of brought months the later him post to

serve Sissinius family,

whom nothing under Nicephorus. and Nicetas,, were leading to the 803) of 2 the (30 April

more Two of who were from members throne.

exception of heard, they them, the the

Nicephorus as Domestic was of eastern the the left Thrakesion,

of the conspiracy died Nicetas not It known is who

succeeded

is and it Schools. unfilled,

temporarily

possible Bardanes, since

strategos. the five

entrusted Schools. held 1. 2.

with At

was appointed monostrategos he may have been As such, themes. of the of the Domestic responsibilities of Nicephorus' reign Stephen. He survived the post was the disaster,

end

by the

Patrician

I, Theophanes ibid., p-479-

p-474.

9s

which having

cost the

the

Emperor

his son

life., Stauracius

and was

instrumental emperor

in at

Adrianople. Another

Emperor's 1 of the

proclaimed

Nicephorus who brought Theoctistus. to the throne He was 2 By 808 the post of to the rank of magister. promoted He was probably quaestor was held by Arsaber. of Armenian The future Emperor Leo V the Armenian origin. was his 3A in 808 in his favour. was organised son-in-law. plot in time and the poor Arsaber, The conspiracy was revealed 4 'pious' intellectual'.,, whom Theophanes calls and 'most S in exile in Bithynia. to become a monk and live was forced conspirators the Quaestor was Since the him the the plot to Aetius had been been of have 902 had one of hatched, is the targets against we would elevation that whom expect to about a normally Nicephorus'

disappeared However, of Aetius this the

after there

throne. future it

patrician, whether possibility July 811.6 already seized who were, be argued

is

for eunuch., by name - we cannot but it same person, killed

some uncertainty Theophanes reports

say for certain is more than a in the disaster

was among those is If this report i. e. with that the broke those

implied, power that

of we 'nave with what combined he Emperor soon after new his coup then it and might Irene's a

consequently.,

who supported opponents of Aetius, took If place there

'prime-minister' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

a reconciliation and Nicephorus.

between

was such

1, p-492. Theophanes ibid. 492 and SOO. pp. (Berlin 1978), quattuor Genesius, Regnum Libri p-16; (Bonn 1838), Continuatus Theophanes p-35. 6ta; "CXvjpcL 0 Lj**T4Xr 1, p. 483: f, Theophanes Kcx% AO I ibid. I= cl. ,p-491-

%1

96

have been connected may well with the in 803 of Bardanes Turcus. Nicephorus had rebellion him monostrategos appointed themes at of the five eastern the beginning These must have included of his reign. reconciliation, it had and AnatOlikon, which Aetius Bardanes' controlled at the end of Irene's reign. home to Nicephorus would have brought rebellion the value of a reconciliation with Aetius. The career Bardanes is of great of the Patrician interest for our period. We hear about him for the first themes of the year 796, already the high post of occupying the Domestic At that time Bardanes, of the Schools. together theme, were sent with the count of the Opsikion by the Emperor Constantine VI to the monastery of Sakkoudion, in order to arrest its abbot Plato who had strongly opposed the 'adulterous' and protested against second marriage of Three years later the Emperor-' Bardanes holding the time theme was one of post of the strategos of the Thrakesion the four patricians who led the four horses of Irene's Bardanes can ceremonial chariot on Easter Monday 799.2 be identified almost certainly with Bardanes Turcus who, being spring tried the of to overthrow Bardanes becoming Though monostrategos 803, rebelled of the five eastern themes in the against Nicephorus. the central power and failed The rebellion and for the Emperor's forgiveness. to him, later granted by a band of Lycaput out lycanthropous, a pun calls in the Opsikion

an amnesty Bardanes Turcus had his

a monk asked was initially eyesight making

oniaas., whom Theophanes 3 'wolf-men'.

1. 2. 3. 1, Theophanes ibid., p. 474. ibiJ., p. 480p-470-71.

97

had started dignitaries whose career under C) Irene into the reign the of Nicephorus, and was prolonged Patrician has also According Peter to be mentioned. to Among the the Greek Menologia, under of battle Peter, Irene Domestic July having was later of of the 811, served of the Schools I to the office in the fatal becoming as Domestic by Nicephorus transferred participated it and later

Hianatoi, survived

a monk 1 Constantinople. certain supreme soldiers of patrician power at in

of founded

a monastery somewhere near In Theophanes also we come across a Peter Nicephorus called seize who helped 802 and later quelled a rebellion of the in 809,2 participated killed numerous however, Peter served Nicephorus' than too, which Peter change does the reign. the went fact in at the that tell campaign time by us in

5ardica

811 and was among the 3 Theophanes, the Bulgars. the post Irene's post high Patrician

which during his like

not Empire

exact

or during important is less

either Nevertheless, that., the on the

officials, other Empire, of the regardless in 802. Byzantine throne

on serving

occurred of

The case of the Patrician Aetiu. 5, is even more obscure. 802 Leo had the year until

Leo,, It been

brother should

the

eunuch that

be remembered

of monostrategos a sort those themes, the head of the two main European of at for intended Aetius Macedonia Thrace to secure that and and 4 death. Keeping Irene's Leo the imperial throne after in mind that the new Emperor a policy of conciliation adopted 1. (in Greek), Megas Synaxaristes Nikodemou tou Hagioritou, founded 1868), the monastery 2., (Athens on pp-240-41; vol. La Geographie Peter, R. Janin, by the Patrician cf. (Paris lere 1953), p-415partie, ecclesiorstique, Peter 1, p-48S; Theophanes together With the acted Nicephorus, Patrician of whom we do not hear again. ibid., p. 491. ibid., pp-473,475,476.

2. 3. 4.

98

against Aetius

predecessor and that those who served all himself the change, one might argue survived probably by that Leo too was not likely to have been dismissed In any case, he does not the Emperor Nicephorus either, the future seem to be identifiable with Leo the Armenian, Emperor Leo V. If he had been, one would have expected Theophanes

his

to have stated that Aetius clearly either was an Armenian or that the Emperor Leo V was Aetius' brother. To our knowledge is no such statement there is more: But there The Continuator or even a hint. Theophanes asserts that Leo theArmenian's career until the

of

803 had been a humble one and that his abilities year favoured his brilliant and circumstances way to power 1 afterwards. This quick review of some high dignitaries who were 802, suggests that the Emperor's after collaborators did not dismiss Nicephorus anybody from his post for the mere fact that he had served persons were moved, of but others kept their previous it has also to be stressed that a few persons were elevated life for the first time in their to vital under the posts Since these dignitaries Nicephorus. enjoyed the of reign Emperor Nicephorus' their seem careers special confidence, for the administrative to be essential structure of the Emperor. Empire under the reign this of Bardanes Anemas seems To begin with, the Spatharius Nicephorus loyalty have been an official could on whose In the year 807, the Emperor started a campaign rely. he When he reached Adrianople, the Bulgars. against him. He was being hatched learnt that a plot against was to
1. Theophanes
-rz; v

under from course,

Some predecessors. one post to another, Nevertheless, positions.

his

Continuatus,,
I CL 0

C. S. H. B.
Nrfi'gAiEnTol

(Bonn

1838),

p-10:
1<(XTCX

1) of

ev

CVCXQ&%*%S

T%AV

99

forced but order and to faithful not

to to

abandon before he had arrest

the

and campaign sent Bardanes

to the capital, return Anemas to Thrace in in the the plot,

collect

involved probably some people, 1 However, taxes. the annual close the In one collaborator Patrician. case

and was definitely Salibaras. names of the

of the Emperor Theodosius and Primiscrinius (809) Theodosius the revealed

most Nicephorus

ringleaders of the uprising of the soldiers because the Emperor, they did not want to work as against 2 before helping Sardica. When, shortly to rebuild masons., his departure for the fatal the Bulgars, war against (May 811) Nicetas to the Emperor Nicephorus the asked the General Logothete and of churches contribution finance to the public and to demand an eight monasteries 3 basic backdated tax from the archontes,,, it was again year 'on behalf Nicephorus Salibaras Theodosius of who informed 4 dissatisfaction. the populace', the general about all hear for the first Other time about whom we officials during Nicetas, future 1. 2. Arsaber, Nicephorus are the Patricians of reign 9 8 7 Finally Romanus the Nicephorus, and Stephen. II also Leo V and Michael Emperors seem to have the 6 increase

Theophanes 1., pp-482-83. More about ibid., this see below, event pp-485-86. 108-11. pp. More about 4893. ibid, that see below, p-143. measures p. 4. ibid. 1, p. 483; Theophanes his P10-L cf. S. On Arsaber and de llempire a la prosopographie 'Contribution R. Guilland l'Isaurien du regne de Leo III les patrices Byzantin: 40 Byz., 11 (820-29)', de Michael (717-741) au rbgne (1970), p. 337be 811. He should in the year 6. The General Logothete not died had already Triphyllius Nicetas who with confused in 803. 809 he acted in the year know about him that 7. We only in mitigating the Peter the Patrician together with 1, p-485). (Theophanes Sardica the soldiers at of rebellion theme in 811 the Anatolikon 8. Romanus was the strategos of 1. p-491). (Theophanes Stephen 9. On the Patrician cf. above, p. 95-96.

100

started to have Turcus summer was

on their been adjutants in of 803. that over year,,

by way up But

803.

of the during the

are Monostrategos latter's

They

both

reported in the

Bardanes

revolt

and went

the given (count that and Michael of the comes -T. s Kop-rvjs of the 1 between Sometime 803 and 811 Leo was tent). the years became strategos once again promoted and of the Armeniac But in February 811 he was guilty theme. of negligence and not only to banishment of Michael from exile. gave Michael Domestic of The the 'fresh dismissed for life. the elevation until Rangabe to the throne, Leo was recalled that became emperor When he himself in 813, Leo was not the the Amorian Excubitores. blood' in the the post 3 rank of of th, the Patrician -=, patricians and from 2 that It post, but also condemned

Leo and Michael his cause abandoned As a reward Leo to the Emperor Nicephorus. of the commander of the foederati post

appearance of Nicephorus' reign as a consequence: 1)

new persons should not

on the surprise

political anybody.

and scene during It came

own persuasions and policies, of the Emperor's. definitely the execution of which needed dedicated to them and, officials completely devoted totally to the the same time, at ruler and rebellions of the several during Nicephorus' place involved in them persons replaced. took which and plots which reign and after were necessarily

2)

1. 2. 3.

), p-9i (loc-cit. Genesius, Continuatus, Theophanes ), p. 8. (op-cit. (loc. cit. ), p. 11. Continuatus, Theophanes (&ji<oujjTopjq Excubitores (pp. cit. ), p. 10; Genesius on the The Imperia J. B. Bury, <c)uA%T co cf. or ... . They formed (op. cit. ), pp. 57-58. a body of palace guarTs-.

101

2.

Towards least,

Innovations in the than suggest Byzantine character. reform. that this It Empire had, outwardly have view preferred been not change in period, However,, by the does Byzantines would general

Administration at

an unchanging rather to

adaptation inconceivable apply the to

Nicephorus'

administrative sources

If a spectacular reign. had taken during system place to report would not have omitted fiscal reforms have necessarily As a basis too.

our it. involved for

that the argue one might Emperor Nicephorus should in adminstration changes argument Magnaura institution say, first it the is trying of the

introduced

establishment of be mentioned. should only to from blacken it.

a new court of We hear about

such justice this

an at

Theophanes 1

is who, there It was created

year was still

Nicephorus' functioning.

reign and at the Though Theophanes

no need to in the very end of his rejay, attributes

to the Emperor's and greediness creation of this court 3 drop the Emperor Nicephorus' lets the chronicler avarice, by According to Theophanes, the matter. on own views creating show to that the the court of to they Magnaura, Nicephorus pretended and to does to give not he wanted an end to injustice put 4 deserved. The chronicler intentions. court which had were results either But the

poor what the seem to doubt the operation

CC k tA (X T

Emperor's of
(X

that 'T OL 1. 2. 3. 4.

he argues ("W'S

disappointing

ol c-t<x*n-T, -%v
t jOV. .

1, pp. 478-79. Theophanes ibid., p-489ibid., p. 478. it reads-., ibid., pp-478-79; *

To
TVPOLVVvv 0% -rc, 15 6&<ono I % I >k 3,, Cx T Dej,rov I-jpiiAOCLTCXtvLjX&e TZ 3

Tlolfw? IV

'G

5f)(x M 019v OLA "

t%Tvj)L4Vj " VTUJ '% "t

" AV cL

"Xitcov %ccx't (X
TZL TOVS

rovvevr

"6ccTo

5%'Kc(lcx fvv TA41

Now cx , '1,61 S vcj % a)no*T' % % (XTlkA ct 6oA -TE wtoc,

oT%vcu6rt<

Ew-,PTOV

CL

lRcL v-l(%

tk &Ti- \0* Kk -1

S.

ibid.,

479. p.

102

by Nicephorus. those or exactly the opposite claimed of Biased Theophanes Emperor, this says as he is against 2 but in another that Magnaura the court was unfair, of the Confessor to the same institution reference admits that to this some of the cases brought were dealt court 3 justly. Furthermore, the chronicler with seems to indirectly the establishment of course, connect, of the court of Magnaura that the argues 'so that nobody liveliness
that it was a decisive Nicephorus' we are this it, not

Nicephorus' fiscal with brought Emperor into this could which escape his Theophanes
ins titUt4 application economic to if not is have know

reforms court doings'

and he cases, The shows

p-layed

impious tries to

with
an role fiscal in

all 4 . defame it,

-probably

important in the and but would there to

Lon which of the reforms. the

Emperor Unfortunately opinion outcry it in on against his I Michael

a position

people's a popular to include

institution, Theophanes But reported

there have more:

was omitted

record. is not

Nicephorus' the court

successor of

abolished

Magnaura.

He would certainly been considered

have to have is

done been

so,

if

the

institution one.

had

When evidence indications other case the indications Magnaura forced fulfil its

provided to be taken need are that not objectives, officials decrees and

an unpopular in insufficient into

quantities, In this account.

did the court of only but also Nicephorus that a more rigorous a more effective and into In other the fiscal words,

governmental of laws application exercise 1. 2. 3. 4. of their

into

own duties.

1, p-479Theophanes ibid., 478. p. ibid. p. 489. ) '15'id It reads: " Tipos .

I

To

k47(--VCX

6KOlaI0V

K OtT (' :9

cc(octkjLv

cxTo-v

103

reforms involve the early

undertaken changes ninth in

by this the

Emperor

do not

inevitably do, in system of however, the way out

century

administrative general Byzantium. They

degree presuppose of efficiency a greater imperial in various policies were fields I was in office. Nicephorus while

carried

B:

THE ARMY

1.

Military

Unrest

decade of the eighth the last already seen that had been marked by a degree century of military unrest into, but intensified, which was, not simply prolonged during I. intensification the reign This of Nicephorus be partly might attributed background, a disadvantage overcome. He took personal to the Emperor's Nicephorus i. e. one the ambiguous tried to campaigns the which

We have

command of

several

the Empire's two main enemies, against Arabs Nevertheless, and the Bulgars. that our Emperor never managed to gain soldiers, had little irrelevant hatched the themselves who regarded for time a civilian. is Nicephorus' to this, against that the him either it in the should questionable the threat year of plots to his However, Emperor's for

against

somehow feels hearts of the and totally of or for plots in

as professionals Certainly not constant capital not fear itself be taken military

provinces..

granted was the which already Bardanes, the 1.

background unrest 802-811.

only reason definitely can first in serious the first

be attested

and the military during the period Nicephorus' throne

The

the of

themes

monostrategos of 1 Asia Minor rebelled

reign. 'peratic' the against

appeared On 19 July 803 themes, the central (loc-cit. Circus ), i. e.

1, p. 479; Theophanes Continuatus, Theophanes A. Cameron, themes' the lperatic on p-8: cf. (Oxford 1976), Factions pp-87,90,94. 104

government four Asiatic the

and was proclaimed 1 The themes. remained the rest This loyal of join

emperor 'peratic' fifth to the Asiatic must Bardanes

by the

soldiers theme, 2 Its in a been

of however, army rebel's

Armeniacs, to

Nicephorus. have

refused domestic first

themes Turcus

conflict. disappointment.

refusal Whether

the

the Emperor against his own ambition or of the rebellion., Synopsis

because he intended simply he was forced to accept the

rose to fulfil leadership

as the anonymous of the thirteenth author 3 Chronica century seems to believe, remains Based on a story, had consulted Bardanes that unclear. 4 his prospects W. E. Kaegi a monk on of becoming emperor, 'may have aspired that the monostrategos to become suggests 5 for However, emperor a long time'. such a story, which invented in order to illustrate was probably afterwards II's and Michael way to power, for solid such a suggestion. ground Theophanes speaks of two main reasons Leo V's The first had to does The for not provide Continuator of the uprising. fiscal measures

do with the oppressive one by the new Emperor. The tenth-century taken authors Bardanes the indignation that of the suggest exploited 6 by these A second reason measures. given populace caused by the Continuator Theophanes the division of concerns of The had made among the soldiers. booty Bardanes that 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Theophanes 1, p-479. 8: ", TCo-i (loc. cit. Cont inuatus Theophanes p. tA(-Vtaw,; )v 1) a ZiL \'-') F% CE CL f wF15( O'VGTe fp TI 4 in Mesai6nike by K. Sathas, Synopsis Chronica, ed. 4*t6%Ae'*E 7, p. l29Nd-a'4ov'To Biblioth&kd, vol. ) (loc-cit. Continuatus, Theophanes On this see story (pE. cit. ), pp-6-7. Genesius, 7-8; pp. Military Byzantine W. E. Kaegi, p. 245. ... (loc. cit. ), p. 8. Continuatus Theophanes

105

division participants to two the the

seems in actual

to

have

been

made not the one

equally Arabs, '

a battle of one

against each seems

among the but according Of these plausible than But, the

reasons

efforts the first it since during been

of them. to be less

second, by Nicephorus as has rebellion Nicetas already

speaks of fiscal reforms undertaken his very first in office. months it is also possible observed, that

is connected the death of of Bardanes with 2 Triphyllius Both on 30 April of the same year. had been among those men, Nicetas and Bardanes, who brought Nicephorus Theophanes to the throne. says that Nicetas Triphyllius did not die of natural but causes, 3 by the Emperor. If this is true, was poisoned then it during his first in office, would be seen that year Nicephorus his deliberately broke with those who had tried in is to supported elevation a few months earlier and himself in power and put his own people for the evidence such an interpretation rather to curious circumstances under which establish Though office. limited, the came

Nicephorus

as well power, as the succession of plots and rebellions hatched him afterwards, it very likely that against make be seen as part Bardanes' should rebellion of a reaction by the by those that they had been deceived who felt Emperor, figurehead, hold for, instead Nicephorus. of being content had taken steps to to act as a his strengthen key positions.

in on power and put his supporters Bardanes During the course met with of the rebellion difficulties. But even so the rebel advanced as far as great days Malagina Here, then on to Chrysopolis. after eight and 4 by the city Bardanes was rejected and this of negotiations 1. 2. 3. 4. Theophanes cf. above, Theophanes ibid. Continuatus p-77. 1, p-479(loc-cit. ), pp-8-9.

106

rejection Malagina,

was his the

second

disappointment. became sceptical the blood

Returning

to

it to risk useful for his It was probably sake. at this blow was dealt to his ambitions. another Emperors Leo the the future associates,, deserted his cause and went the Amorian After had that any it became obvious of that the possibility of success and his efforts fifty days Emperor

monostrategos would have been

as to how of Christians

that stage Two of his Armenian over to and Michael Nicephorus.

rebellion no longer Bardanes thought seize power. (until 8 September) to Thus

seriously his revolt finally

abandoning lasted which

collapsed the rebel and his Nicephorus accused on the Emperor's deprived of his occurred himself at the

and the followers.

promised again

Here

an amnesty Theophanes

to

of inconsistency initiative that eyesight

monastery having become a monk. and to which he now retired 3 His property It is certainly was confiscated. worth during Bardanes' that the two sides noting rebellion carefully The avoided bloodshed. Bardanes was of rebellion Asia Minor.

it was that and argues Bardanes was later 2 by a band of Lycaonians. This had built Bardanes for which

Another army of 807 was staged by the tagmata The incident took place while Emperor Nicephorus head at its against remain in this 1. 2. 3. 4. the Bulgars obscure. way the of W. E. Krum. Kaegils showed they

by the thematic supported however, in the year plot, 4 and. the 'imperial men'. the the imperial army with was at Adrianople campaigning The motives of the plot by acting that suggestion their resentment for at action

tagmata

For the rewards which P-101. see above, 1, p. 480. Theophanes ibid., pp. 479-80. ibid., p. 482.

received

their

107

recent execution Nicetas" is without because the death of died four because Triphyllius asserts the plot without it wiser to the return 2

'the

of the of the Domestic in the first foundation, Nicetas

Schools place (he had secondly

years previously it is not clear at by Nicephorus, poisoned was or whether he d ied in time of was revealed any bloodshed. not to proceed to punished we find forces the safely

was not recent in April 803), and Nicetas all whether disease. a

as Theophanes At any rate,

and extinguished, again Nevertheless, found the Emperor further but the Bulgars, against The ringleaders of confiscations and flogging. to in say the for sure conspiracy 808, in

plot were Unfortunately whether which the the took

capital. by exile, were

ourselves

army place itself

unable involved

capital Arsaber and However,

in February later, one year in favour of the Quaestor and Patrician 4 which had the same outcome as the previous ones. the most open and massive

to opposition Nicephorus in the year 809. on the part of the army occurred In the spring the Emperor year of that needed to rebuild dismantled the fortress of Sardica, which had been totally by the to tried officers soldiers of the have to Bulgars the few a fortress to his weeks quickly earlier. and At cheaply first, rebuilt, desperate Nicephorus

on the was behind masons. realize 1. 2. 3. 4.

As the soldiers' patriotism. the them to induce were on his side he prompted for to address the Emperor, restoration asking the fortress. It appeared to be a spontaneous movement himself but in fact the Emperor the soldiers, of part appeal everything. However, the Nicephorus He wanted soldiers was the soldiers and in to work to as were 'staging' clever enough

what

consequence ), p-247-

Byzantine W. E. Kaegi, 1, p. 479. Theophanes ibid., p. 482. ibid., pp-483-84.

Military...,

(pp-cit.

108

rose himself. the officers,

they

up against They tore and in him of

their front and the

superiors tents of insulting

and

the

Emperor and

down the

of Nicephorus him to

the

generals they kept Sardica,

swearing three

against To the refusal possible a)

badly. rebuild

soldiers might

explanations

be given:

b)

C)

The soldiers did not want to restore the place, which was the most northerly outpost of the Empire and which, consequently, difficult would have been very to defend In other the Bulgars. against words, it was perhaps the thought of garrisoning the place which made the soldiecs irritated. The way in which 6)00 of fellow had recently their been soldiers there, massacred made it very much doubtful in their whether minds this was place worthy of restoration and defence. The soldiers Sardica to be rebuilt, wanted but they refused to work as masons because themselves, simply such a task was in their duties, not included and the soldiers would not have minded the fortress that restoring on condition to them for additional pay would be given but they refused job, this to extra work for nothing, three mainly records. standing that they any longer. few days a not given interpretations, because it seems to the not Their According outside would 1 the to the last one looks to most

Among these plausible, Theophanes soldiers, shouting avarice because but had

be closer chronicler,

what the

Emperor's

endure his indignation

pavilion, were immeasurable was all had plundered of the the greater Pliska,

earlier the

Nicephorus their

soldiers

share

booty.

1.

Theophanes 1, p. 485; the chronicler gives (tii: e-laae I r-J A" the event of at noon) , but the date, which would have provide us with for us to know. useful

us the time he does not been more

109

At

any

things a)

the claims of rate, whatever become clear in the aftermath what to were become the to reasons think and realized popular

the of for

soldiers, this it,

two

No matter

event: Nicephorus and

never managed b) The soldiers as professionals. were their at stake,

among his to act that

soldiers more from

tended they and

When they separated

and more interests their the body of

themselves

officers

to the very clear insulted openly. in the were involved why Nicephorus Nevertheless talked to the was

indignation generals and made their Emperor himself, whom they accused and Theophanes that the soldiers reports all uprising and that this was the reason scared of the event. day the Emperor himself and the taking meantime,

extremely on the following soldiers,

to oaths following Nicephorus of the In Sardica. granted

them reassure the Emperor's two of the request 1 had managed to calm and Peter, the Emperor case, Although Runciman the that outpost time, was does not

making many promises In of his goodwill.

patricians, the indignation

soldiers. any that seems to 'cheaply seem to have restored have taken it for 2 and quickly' does not appear army. to Constantinople of Sardica, to that army punish the was

restored at likely very Theophanes immediately and the left it

such a rebuilding to have been done by a demoralized the Emperor that returned asserts ("-n OLp cx VT "w &1) af ter the events that he did so, to task the 4 because did. capital, as he finally returned with such the

appears

ringleaders, Emperor himself at Sardica In

he wanted To suggest but "the to the place, believe

unlikely. 1. 2.

a case

rebuild: we are forced two ...

sounds that

For the identity of these 'Contribution R. Guilland, pp-331-33. The First S. Runciman, ...

see: patricians (loc-cit. les patrices', ), p. 54.

),

(op-cit.

110

the

punishment

was

inflicted uprising, Furthermore, fatal

on the and two

soldiers

several

months their after improbable too. during Nicephorus' after having

such

a punishment sounds (811) later years the Bulgars,

campaign

against

Pliska for a second and plundered conquered time, the Emperor Sardica to march towards was planning 1 >0 4&Tv C%cvAoVA(rva 'twc ) for a second 11 ome, cxpJi scqs It looks intended time. to deal once as if Nicephorus Sardicals more with restoration, which he had not managed his first in 809, because to do during there visit of the soldiers' As has wiser doing to refusal already to co-operate. been indicated, Constantinople. the 2 Patrician to discover Nicephorus and Primiscrinius ringleaders be punished for their case order because in the of to - we are the action. found it before

to return so, he asked Theodosius Salibaras

Nevertheless,

they could uprising, so that Theophanes, the of course, exploited being Nicephorus inconsistent, accuse of told

he had given although solemn oaths not to punish did not keep his word. When the returning them, the Emperor St. Mamas, a suburb army reached of Constantinople, Nicephorus their pay, These were the forces demonstrated the Emperor of was the the pretended but then he wa-s going to give them in different punished that cases their in the which dissatisfaction A more reveal the Emperor Byzantine the ways. soldiers 3

of

Nicephorus. events right would of

course crises

careful in none that to lead

military dislike and their look at the of these the imperial

'La chronique... ' (loc. cit. ), p. 2121.1. Dujev: (1,489), 2. For Theodosius Salibaras see Theophanes where the "kv6ios 9(-f c(nwv"., Patrician is called good servant. Salibaras to have been a close of the seems advisor information Emperor Nicephorus and a very of good source in regard during Irene's for Theophanes, life to the court (Theoph. On Salibaras, 1,490-91). Nicephorus' reigns and 'Contribution... les patrices', R. Guilland, see also ), pp-338-39; (loc-cit. cf. also above., p-100. 1, p. 4863. Theophanes
ill

forces The

disputed. for his incidents the

No hint part in

of

this

appears survive

in all

any

source.

Emperor

crucial significant, among

without Nicephorus army,

managed to or less a more any bloodshed. proved

three

easy way and, most Though not popular to have been able to internal conflicts

difficult cope with in which military

and circumstances forces were involved.

2. At

Reform

of

the

System_of

Military

Recruitment

to fight was compelled on all a time when Byzantium fronts, Nicephorus that the Empire was above all realized The way in which he from a shortage of soldiers. suffering is certainly this of significance. shortage, made good introduced According the the Emperor to Theophanes 1 In from among the poor. of new soldiers recruitment had proved for various reasons, who, people other words, unable to opportunity their pay for obligations more of obligation the contribute to join military to to pay pay, taxes to the public army. equipment to the the finance, They nor were were to to not It meet now given expected any was their the to

treasury. tax but

prosperous

neighbours, not only

had who

the undertake imposed the land on

and perhaps also, soldiers, recruited newly importantly, per new nomismata a half and eighteen more from the community. soldier recruited time that This such a measure to be the first seems Although the Empire. into introduced the Byzantine was reform questions
1.

seems to

straightforward be posed. 1, p-486: "-.

enough,

there

are

some vital

Theophanes
JEHOCILi novpm
At A I"6 4) V'r v0

IIIFOGeT4Xf-

6rtvCLTC--uEOPCXl

TZ V

e; *v-roLS ? ww, TWL? CP)C%4

it ca's. Cc L vc,;

nTWx0'ZvS 'Clz
TOE

KCL*'% tjonjo- .0

"T CL vj, / T; "0,47KO06ij NA

%, )A K01% OLAkv4ryVvJS

XVNV40filct

It appears the first

that time.

the

word

L\vNAqXUWS

is

used

here

for

112

The what or an

first

question did this measure? to the and do: treasury achieved thing to

might reform In to

be

formulated Was words, the loss? In fact measure for and, points long not the

as it

follows: a mil; A-tary was the of soldiers as if

exactly economic trying ensure at only

entail? other

what It

Emperor or he that of new To the to

enlarge against both.

number

looks

aimed the

Lemerle was coverage his the the

suggests payment of a too.

new

about the

this fisc

1812 nomismata military his of to the opinion a village 7th

soldier's support least

equipment Lemerle was century, of if

perhaps, out standing, before. that

pay fiscal back

solidarity at

going

seems Haldon be

As both. it this. that was more than 3 Nicephorus' have already measure observed, as to and an extension category properties. service with their 4 was This was families can taken, be of the of principle people, More owed by important., individuals of i. e. to

it However, 2 D61ger and should fiscal the as new Haldon on their to mean into that the a

regarded

solidarity soldiers has shown hereditary equipment before army had

another their

'military basis and been, it

providing taken recruiting

mounts'.

Nicephorus' more

measure or less, that. that

a private the for the importance the village solidarity first

arrangement. of time Nicephorus' it ties by the

Therefore, reform system extending into the lies of

appears in the way

recruiting the army system of the

into of

community, to

fiscal

recruitment

themes.

1. 2. 3. 4.

'Esquisse... P. Lemerle, p-73Beitrage... F. D61ger, B. Z., 36 (1936), p-158. Recruitment J. F. " Haldon, 87. 50, note p. ibid., p. 48.

' Part (a. cit. and

I, ).,

R. H.,

219

(1958), also (.2p. cit. in ),

pp. 129-30;

Conscription...

113

Moreover, it a privilege

what or

was army an obligation

service and, join It

in in

Byzantium? any case,

Was who was before

any peasant, himself to equip who could afford and to own a horse, was Since dismissal to become a soldier. entitled from the 1 being in the army army was considered as a punishment, have been considered should from as a privilege, at least Although a financial point the following of view. example refers it would have St. the Euth to been a period a few years not characteristic: does Younger Epiphanius, that died, Nicephorus, after the biographer of say what occupation but evidence When, in a

entitled or Nicephorus'

to who was compelled reform was issued.?

the seems

army that

ymius the Saint's father, suggest the latter to

appears in 834, desperate soldier

was purssAing, he had-been a soldier 0 his wife found herself very

as she herself, her seven-year-old soldier she enrolled 2 it becomes clear From that Life, the army! soldiers had tried mother have been a hereditary It is obvious above, came mentioned Nicephorus 1. 2. 3. certain to keep that privileges for her status. the restriction of which family. St. It

situation. in the family

She wanted and,

much to have a become a could not son that to in

Eutfrymius' also seems

self-equipment, excluded many poor people, at least until 3 from the army. into Therefore, the power,

by several is provided That kind articles of punishment Jus Graecoromanum, Law, (I. of Military and P. Zepos: Athens 1962., vol. 2, pp. 75-94). de Saint-Euthyme le Jeunel L. Petit, et office ed. 'Vie in Bibliothque_Hagiographique Orientale, vol. 5 (1904), P. 18. had to pay in The amount of money which a new soldier to buy his own equipment order seems to have been quite (De high; Porphyrogenitus, to Constantine according for a horse Bonn 1829,, 1., p. 459). the cost cerimoniis, during And this the tenth century was twelve nomismata. the only expense a soldier was not, of course, which had to pay. 114

provision of be considered army. Nicephorus were vital effort the

equipment

by their

as a sufficient social

can certainly neighbours for them to join incentive this reform, from which

Consequently, the enlarged and the directed to this this

by issuing strata,

recruited, imporance. towards

enlargement seems to 1 Bratianu the measure considered nationalization against the of the army and use of Haldon

soldiers have been of as an

consequently In reference interesting Nicephorus impoverished would surely the help

point: did not have and

J. F. reform, he argues against into actually enrol

mercenaries. has raised an 2 Ahrweiler that the army every 'an act which manageable untrained the Emperor

landholder

who volunteered, inflated the army beyond of totally measure,

proportions into men tried to

brought thousands 3 by this but, ranks', those who,

in the military although already had not normally because been called lists, for service, out into is brought This problem relief of their poverty. by an incident in the Life the recorded of St. Philaretos that troops of by well of one St. the known local philanthropist. theme (Armeniac) were mustered, by name, died Mousoulios was rescued from the of desperate soldier show that were who took pity 4 This would eighth their century duties the there Paphlagonian

Merciful, As the the horse

unexpectedly. situation

soldier, Mousoulios Philaretos,

and gave him his own horse. during the second half of the soldiers 1. 2. 3. 4. too poor to carry

seem to

out

effectively.

Etudes G. I. Bratianu, ... Ahrweiler, H. Glykatzi de llempire Byzantin aux (1960)p pp. 19-20. Recruitment... J. F. Haldon, M. H. Fourmy and M. Leroy, (loc. cit p- 12 7. -),

(op. cit. ), p-198'Recherches sur 1'administration in B. C. H., IX-Xje siclesl, (op. cit. ). p-51, note 'La vie de S. Philarte', 87.

84

115

But

how far

incident careful material exempla: general

can we draw general in a saint's contained to the this say They

conclusions One has Life? too far, but

from

a single to be the of their traits for

not press included in that interest. is to

evidence Vita shows that they reflected

much of

many of

the

were

selected to

foolish the Saint's which generosity That not all the military was well with Amatolian is apparent from the themes Irene to oppose Arab incursions under Impoverishment contributory Nicephorus armies means military practical nature: of poor of to of the factor. had the support to theme It soldiers could the first His troops this who had of

current helped

concerns, alleviate. of failure the

organization comparative into these would the of

provinces. seem to be a need that financing the

explain system

reorganize those

themes.

the concern was to find inscribed in the already impoverished, were the of but the a different armies

registers, implications it opened

become

measure into up recruitment

theme

the measure the character peasants giving generally, Theophanes to denounce. of an innovation, which was quick details We must now turn to the specific of Nicephorus' be tempted Again to ask: what was the reform. one might sum of eighteen and a half nomismata paid for? Bratianu one. such an amount of money was a considerable depends that sum was supposed on what expenses do Unfortunately, the sources at our disposal whether d by the was pai. about the money neighbours is to that whether established
e

that argues it However, to not of cover. say

anything

consideration

under (homochoroi) at the time of

only once, a new soldier the latter's or recruitment, to Bratianu, the treasury

say

it

contribution G. I.

was an annual by Nicephorus,

Etudes.

wo,

OP-cit-),

p-198.

116

because the the with

circumstances case does 'vexation' enrolment of thing course, that of

were not is

very

difficult. likely, in only into the once about for is

Nevertheless, mainly army, each that because

second second the

seem very mentioned

connection which soldier. this

enrolment, The only money

poor people happened only be sure

we can

be considered cannot as price of land possibly by the new soldier, because abandoned a) landed property in size b) there is not any varied and fertility and that the new soldiers evidence to sell their were forced before own property to be resettled. issued during the joining On the tenth the contrary, army; 1 unless from three that to they were novels

century,

we hear they

needed to own landed four pounds of gold, to

property which

estimated

soldiers cost at least not allowed

they were the army. sell while Furthermore, 'vexation' what did the second mean for As has already been indicated, the 'homochoroil? the did no longer rural community remain only a fiscal unity. Nicephorus recruitment whom probably population. who was about recruitment treasury,, state him among them obligations about fact, 1. to in stay the to made its and the inhabitants equipment of also responsible the of for the soldiers, number of the local a poor man, for his to the his have pay

property in serving

were

to the size varied according In other words, neighbours -the had to pay to join the army, than for which working the in the covering his debts would mean that in his fields. treasury they or had they

of

much more from taxation still to

would They had

state case

community

anyway, to join to pay

he was whether In the army. an extra amount

second

Porphyrogenitus, b) by Romanus II and by Constantine a) II. They all be found in I. and c) by Nicephorus can (Athens P. Zepos: Jus Graecoromanum, 1962), vol-1, and 256. pp-222-23.9,240

117

of

money going

which to

the community, manual workers had to do the same amount of work as who, nevertheless, for the Therefore, thing the easiest previously. were have him working to pay his debts and community was in his fields. However, they do not seem to have tried to keep him among them, because they did not have that to do, choice. In gave lives, attack justified to heal suffering. brief, poor but at it seems that by this the reform, of Nicephorus their an

was be fewer

fairly

high.

Apart in

from

thaL.,

there

the

people the

a unique

opportunity

same time

their against prosperous by the circumstance the of shortage It enlarged soldiers the

changing measu-re was definitely It was neighbours. it from enabled which strata remark: impoverished the the from

that

Emperor

Empire-was

soldiers were recruited. from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, sponsored in the mid-tenth by their rich

social One last

which as we hear soldiers 0rcxt Nicephorus' his are

century, found to be useful measure was it. successors abolished

fellow countrymen 1 suggests which and, therefore,

( ruv;; that

no one of

C:

PROVINCES for consolidation to of Byzantine to control in his over activities creation the ninth of certain

The need

seems a guide areas provide is most in the provinces. This in key areas. themes new Most century, 1. scholars the number agree of that the at areas

Nicephorus' obvious

the

beginning the

under

of direct

control ),

Porphyrogenitus, Constantine 1, pp. 69S-96.

De Cerimoniis,

(22. cit.

118

by the creation a strategos three of another was increased The first or four new themes. one must have been that of Cephalonia. In reference to the creation of the theme of Cephalonia., Porphyrogenitus Constantine contradicts himself in two of his works: in the treatise De Thematibus of he asserts had been united that Cephalonia with the l Peloponnese, in his De Administrando Imperio he while island that this states at the beginning, was a subdivision, a *To-v'qVtcx , of the theme of Lombardia and that it was not before the reign of Leo VI that Cephalonia with the 2 islands became an independent surrounding theme unit. It would seem, however, Porphyrogenitus that Constantine is In the first wrong in both statements. case, he seems to have been trapped into an error by the Synecdemus of to which the island according of Cephalonia 3 to the proconsul He also seems to of Achaia. have been confused by the Tactica, to which the according bishopric belonged to the metropolis of Cephalonia of 4 Corinth. Even if at an earlier time Cephalonia was has nothing to the Peloponnese, attached such an attachment to do with the creation theme, known as of the independent Constantine Porphyrogenitus' theme of Cephalonia. second statement is of Lombardia
1. 2.

Hierocles, belonged

that Cephalonia was a tourma of the theme because, definitely wrong, as A. Pertusi

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi (Le Vatican 1952), pp. 91-92. Imperio. Porphyrogenitus, Constantine De Administrando ed. (Budapest G. Morarcsik R. Jenkins 1949), vol-1, 6%, %jv -TL Vv%, (X 236: 'cfvrdcov lo-tv w-N ocLAA v, v% cx s err vp (wr tA)ft sA Ve p.
AV -To

,%2r% n*tAfX%4*v

rrAs

(1P%jf*)Cip%'6'TOv

f3frb(%v'TCP%)

kfg'gcVdp, --- 6'TqPCXTv%h(S'*

7(ir -to; 'NcqcP%p&, 4FrcLy-na Lf,

ST Aov'iCP

co

3. 4.

dlHirakls Le Synecdemos E. Honigmann, et 11opuscule de Georges de Chy-pre (Bruxelles 1939), p. 18. geographique Cyprius, (Lipsiae Georgius 1890), H. Gelzer., p-75, (no-1578).

119

has

already that

shown time,

the than

theme the with

of the

Cephalonia of Lombardia-' surrounding as the first of the two tasks:

was

created It would

at

an earlier appear islands the at

one

Cephalonia

Ionian decade area., first at of least to

formed

ninth that

a theme as early The commander century. seems to have had Peloponnese

time., western gulf the son

protect Corinthian Pepin, Adriatic in the Nicetas

and the entrance of the 2 from the Saracens, and second to confront in the of Charlemagne and king of Italy, was Nicephorus It for this sent to second the purpose area the that Patrician

waters. 807, year

head of a Byzantine in order fleet, to restore as 3 Dalmatia i. e. in 809, Two years later, to Byzantium. Paul is reported to have arrived the strategos. the with '1,4 Venice. fleet Byzantine first Dalmatia then and 11 The author arrival, but under of does the the not Annales say of Francorum, which theme the who reports 4 Paul was the head; that

810 the same source year clearly states Paul was Praefectus i. e. strategos Cefaloniae., of S it is very Cephalonia. likely Therefore, that the from the Arabs threat was the and from the Franks determining factor during behind the first the creation de.cade of the of the the theme

combined of and

Cephalonia most 1. 2. probably

some time

between

years

ninth century 807 and 810.6

(2E. cit. ). p-174. Constantine De Thematibus, Porphyrogenitus, in front is reported An Arabic fleet to have appeared of (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Patras in the year 807. 1, p-228. ) De Administrando Imperio, 9E. cit. , (op. cit. ), by R. Rau, Quellen 3. Annales Francorum, zur... ed. imperatore 'Classis a Niciforo cui Niceta p-84: Dalmatian mittitur'. ad reciperandam patriclus praeerat, 4* ibi P. 9o. .. 5. Tbid., p-94. (ILe th6me de 6. Other such as D. Zakythinos scholars de 110ccident', la defense L'Hellenisme Cdphalonie et 8,1954, Contemporain, p-312), and M-V. Anastos, Rule', C. M. H., 4A, p. 92) and ('Iconoclasm and Imperial ('Sur la date de la Creation du th6me de J. Ferluga du XIIe Congr. Internat. des Etudes Actes Dyrrachium', 1964, p. 84) also date the crea-E-16-on Beograd Byzantines., at the time of Nicephorus' the theme of Cephalonia of reign. 120

scholars to the of the Peloponnese also 1 J. B. Bury, for example, that argues by the Siavonic caused which revolt M. Dunn dates to the creation while to Nicephorus' preliminary action 807.2 Bury's the that statement is for mentioned 3 (A. D. 813) does is the not first time in seem to

Several

attribute

of the creation of Nicephorus reign the such took a creation place at

theme I. was Patras,

805 and sees it as a invasion in of Bulgaria of the Peloponnese 336, since Scriptor on solid Corinth Incertus, evidess(e, already

theme

be based

an event which have taken 806 and 807.4 time between some must place dates R. Jenkins to the the theme of the Peloponnese also 1,5 while A. Bon agrees, Nicephorus though not reign of 6 W. Treadgold directly, Finally, such a dating. with thinks also Peloponnese There that should little the creation of to the the the theme be ascribed doubt that of Emperor of the Nicephorus the theme 1.7

a strategos during the

mentioned stationed by the siege of Patras

at Slavs,

of Nicephorus line

seems the Peloponnese

creation

to the reign of must be dated Such a creation, I. would be in all, after interest his special area. showed to this with Unfortunately the date of the creation of the themes of 836 in and Dyrrachium Thessalonica the Life of cannot is be fixed for the mentioned St. Gregory precisely. the first Decapolites, time 8

of

Thessalonica The theme around 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6.

J. B. Bury, E R. E., p. 224. ), p-74. (loc-cit. M. Dunn, 'Evangelisation... 2. E. R. E., p-224, J. B. Bury, note (loc. cit. ), p. 10. improprement... ', 'La chronique P. Lemerle, (pp. cit. T, pp. 92-93. The imperial R. Jenkins, Byzantium: ... 1204, Paris jusquIen A. Bon., Le P61oponnse Byzantine

1951, P-89. (op. cit. ), p. 71. State Finances... Byzantine 7. W. Treadgold, le Decapolite La vie de Saint Gregoire 8. F. Dvornic, et 1926), les Slaves Maa-cedoniens au IXe siZcle (Paris pp. 36 and 62 sq.

121

in the Tacticon of Uspensky, of Dyrrachium ' 845 and 856.1 F. Dvornik composed between the years during suggests that the theme of Thessalonica was created 2 Nicephorus' of Dyrrachium reign, and that at the time of 3 Theophilus (829-842). Ostrogorsky, though not committing arid that himself themes, to an exact that date they for must the have says creation of been created the two 4 together

and he seems to propose the as the time of their creation 5 beginning M. V. Anastos of the ninth thinks century. is a strong there that the creation possibility of the two themes goes back to the reign 1.6 of Nicephorus Finally definite suggests Nicephorus the entrance Problems J. Ferluga, for the in of thoigh the not committing himself of date that I, creation of the theme of Dyrrachium theme a Thessalonica, by basis at to

to form a solid order 7 Sea. the Adriatic

was created Byzantine

the creation associated with of the theme of Strymon The history seem to be much more complicated. 8 has been studied by P. Lemerle of the region and by 9 M. Rajkovic. does not date the creation Lemerle of the before theme of Strymon the middle of the ninth century. 1-. N. Oikonomids, de Presdance Les Listes (Paris IXe et Xe Sibcles 1972T) p-492.

Byzantines

des

3. 4. S. 6.

7. 8. 9.

'reation du J. Ferluga, 'Sur la date de la c. thbme de du XIIe des Actes Dyrrachium', Con rYs-International Etudes II, Beograd Byzantii-n-es 1964, p-92Philippes Paris P. Lemerle, et la Mace'donie orientale, 127 1940.9 *'La du Strymon M. Rajvic-,, r6gion et le theme d% Strymon', Of the article, Radova, 5 (1958), Sbornik p. 7. written I have consulted its in Serbo-CTo-at, only summary in French.

' Les 16gendes de Constantin F. Dvornic, et de M6thode de Byzance, Byzantinoslavica, 1, Supplementa, vues Prague 1933, p. 99. ibid., p. 12.. (op-cit. ), p. 194, 4. G. Ostrogorsky, History... note ibid. (loc. ). p-92M. V. Anastos, 'Iconoclasm... cit.

122

Raj'ovi admits showed

' agrees but at the same time he Lemerle c with 809 and 812 Byzantium between that the years a particular interest such the in the region. was there shown However., in see least the region an interest 809. year

one might add that before of Strymon OL Byzantine as 808.1 for there

As we will at

elsewhere, as early

army There is year. fails

was stationed even 2 to

that

an unnamed strategos. But, the region since appear to of of the in the early that still suggest Strymon information re; i,. gn of our Emperor key

mentioned of Strymon Tactica, , at the time formed a of

as a theme unit it would be more Nicephorus Kleisoura. These of 3 I,

reasonable the district

scattered units

new theme

pieces during

on the Nicephorus took

creation I, provide

circumstantial evidence in strengthening pains them into independent provinces with But the European coincided issue. the Slavs

that several

particular

regions

of Emperor's

military units. the Empire, and sensitivity

by promoting These were in the interest on the the Slavic threat from

this

to rection more on Nicephorus' be included in the following will

section.

D:

RECONQUEST OF GREECE conditions the in Greece had It that From been was the the bad in Slavs so-called since the sixth flooded last of

The demographic the year into

years of the Emperor of

sixth century. Mauricius' reign peninsula.

many parts

the

1. 2. 3.

below, On this p-129. cf 1, p-485. Theophanes, (Constantine Porphyrogenitus A. Toynbee and his World, 1973, London the area actually out that p-268) points Strymon since already must have been a kleisoura of II and more preci5wly the reign of Justinian since 688-89.

123

chronicle

of Monemvasia,

seems to have been the Peloponnese, where the Slavs remained for some two hundred and eighteen 2 806. This!, however, years, i. e. from 588 until should not be taken to mean that other districts of the Greek Greece did not peninsula, and especially of northern from the Slavic As A. Toynbee suffer there. settlements has pointed 'geographically the Slavs' out, penetration of 3 Greece went far'. It is only that the situation in the Peloponnese is illuminated better than in other districts by the sources at our disposal. At any rate, the Peloponnese was one of the regions which concentrated much I. of the interest and energy of the Emperor Nicephorus His aim was to reconquer Greece. and rechristianize During the fourth the strategos year of Nicephorus' reign., Skleros of the region of Armenian origin - won an 4 important (806). victory over the Slavs of the Peloponnese This victory as well as the victory of the inhabitants of Patras over the same tribe some time in the course of the 5same or of the next year, prompted the Emperor Nicephorus
1. P. Lemerle, On the ILa chronique 1, (loc. cit. ), p. 10. ... Slavonic in Greece d'urlnF-the settlements ages see: middle M. Vasmer, in Griechenland, (Berlin Die Slaven 1941);
C. Amantos., 1, 0j . Ac%.6c% 415, Ti; v 'F_),,)%,c'LJTcx, B. N. G. J. p 7V Ocl' T_Jci_6oi 17 (1944) D. Zakythinos, pp. 210-221; EA I. L51 Cyriacides, Athens 1945; St. f3t)j.(xvTivaj me. Tj' C-A ri avvv, 0-F-SA A01v 7hessalonica 6 TO I: 9 LZ Si . ); (loc. cit. 'On tFFe Question. -.. ', 1947; P. Charanis, 7T (loc, id. 'Observations the History on cit ... id., .9 'The Chronicle of the of Monemvasia and th-eQuFs-tion in Greece'., 5, Oaks Papers, Slavonic Dumbarton Settlement A. Toynbee, 1950, Constantine-, (op. cit. ). pp. 141-66; pp. 619-51.

area were not subject 1 or to anybody else. by Slavonic settlement

we learn that the Slavs of the Emperor to the Byzantine either The region most seriously affected

2. P. Lemerle., ' (loc. cit. ), p. 10. ILa chronique..., (2.p. EIT. _, p. 619. 3. A. Toynbee, Constantine..., 4. P. Lemerle, ILa chronique 1, joc. cit. ), P. 10. ... 5. ibid.; CoE_s_taH_t_TnePorphyrogenitus: On this see also event (21. cit. ), pp. 228-232, Imperio, De administrando where is attributed the Slavs to the at Patras over victory intervention the holy of St. Andrew., patron miraculous the city. 124

the of

to

take

a series control

of

measures at the

aimed

at

strengthening

the

Byzantine areas, Slavs. properly

and

which up to then The significance in an important emphasized

christianization of the had mostly been populated by the has been of these measures by P. Charanis, article the Emperor Nicephorus of of the Greece from the and to Monemvasia measures

that who comes to the conclusion be considered should as the saviour 1 Slavs. According to the chronicle Scholion the so-called of Arethas,

aiming

at the hellenization and the christianization of the included Slavs of the Peloponnese rebuilding of towns and by the heathen had been destroyed Slavs, churches which as well as the a metropolis. those of Lacedaemon given main over parts parts were reports order this to the promotion Three other of Patras from cities of Methone and Corone, 2 But what seems to an archbishopric the Peloponnese, were be the to

(Sparta),

rank of bishopric. tried to means by which Nicephorus in Peloponnese the Slavs, not only of Greece, of the heavily the transfer or was a transfer into Empire those by the though of regions 3 Slavs.

regain control but also in other from other population of Greece, which also but in Theophanes praise

populated transfer,

defame

Nicephorus. of population Ivexations', If his

to not in order Thus Theophanes as the committed the first

accounts

'misdeeds' Nicephorus. surprising, of 1. 2. 3. population

among the ten by the Emperor Emperor is hardly the transfer However, was not

the

of criticism detail is impress-ive. one place to

from

another

anything

), (loc-cit. ', 'Nicephorus I, the saviour... P. Charanis, p. 86), p-10; ', (loc-cit. 'La chronique... P. Lemerle., MOVGkA6OLb%Ocf Y,? *\j\Ko5 S. Kougeas, "Sn', ToG VLcLXovtt4-jov -TG4S (loc. cit. ), p. 475. iSid.

"

125

new to the at

and, certainly Theophanes tells known 810.2 disposal of Arethas year

not

that

terrible. colonists and dates hand, chronicle the the were the transported transfer to

areas our

us that as Sclaveniae On the other i. e. the locate

two sources other of Monemvasia and the

Scholion population the It is

transfer is to difficult

to which the areas was transferred,. as the Peloponnese and date during the fourth year of Nicephorus' reign. to say for sur. ewhether of Monemvasia our sources, and Arethas, that

say, the chronicle on the one hand, and Theophanes, on the other, speak about The discrepancies the same event. make it seem more different likely these three that report events, sources from the however, in one way or another, which, resulted policies of Nicephorus of towards Greece. the reconquest and christianization 1.

2.

3.

during For the transfer the reigns of of population by V, see the study Justinian II and Constantine in Policy 'The Transfer Population P. Charanis: as a of in Society Studies Comparative Empire', the Byzantine and 2 (Mouton History, and Co. The Hague 1961). vol-3. part by Justinian II As far as. the transfers pp-140-154the following are also useful: articles are concerned, Century 'Ethnic Changes in Seventh P. Charanis: 1959), 13 (Washington Byzantium', D. O. P., pp. 25-44; 19 II, 'An Edict A. A. Vasiliev: the Emperor Justinian of September 6881, Speculum, 18 (1943), and pp. 1-13, Byz-, 17 Justinian, 'Un 6dit de llempereur H. Gregoire: (1944-45), pp. 119-124a. important, A slight, 1,486. though De Boor, Theophanes, in the two editions difference of Theophanes existing in the Bonn edition unnoticed: should not remain destined (op. cit., 755). the transfer that was we read p. in C. de Boor's we edition while I. k "IenI T CXs v &--,m .6Y% come across a plural: The second one, undoubtedly, the case better. suits
S. Kougeas, Ck 7En'l roG v, (xAou"&vov

P. chronique. p. 475; see also e-TI p. 10, where it reads: On this 806. died on 25 February Tarasius 'Ignatii Diaconi, by I. A. Heikel Life, ed. Scientiarum. Acta Societatis Archiep, C-P-', 17 (1891) p-421. 126

Lemerle,

'La

--'

(loc-c

it.

),

TEo:c-cit-),

his date cf. Tarasii, Vita Fennicae,

In the

the

first of the the

case, the cities

the

Emperor and Patras

tried sou

to thern

strengthen Peloponnese,

population

western of

by rebuilding by ordering and

refugees

also by transferring The south Peloponnese. and of the bishoprics Korone scheme should be considered the

(Sparta), and Lacedaemon to come back from southern Italy., from Asia Minor into the people creation of metropolis Lacedaemon, Methone to the same to from Irene Greece. of had In the have of the of and

Patras

of activity of Nicephorus However, interest in by the gain

belonging as Emperor. the His first

was not and Slavs. the

emperor rising

shown its dominance also the tried to

Greece

problems

control

783, she sent the year Drome Stauracius with a strong Stauracius Thessalonica reached important 2 them' to Peloponnese, victory over the Empire. from the

over Patrician

predecessor the Slavs of and against Greece, and and even

Logothete them.

army

Slavs,

won an 'all subjected invaded the

of

Stauracius

he returned with a great number of where After that triumphant captives of and booty. campaign her son Constantine VI travelled Stauracius, Irene with 3 in Thrace to Berrhoea she rebuilt which and to which she Irene Anchialus gave her name (Irenupolis). rebuilt also (783). About the 1. twenty of years the the victory of Skleros, after Peloponnese., the over the same people, later,

strategos

2. 3.

),, p-9' (loc-cit. In the 'La chronique... P. Lemerle, fled +0 Rhegium, 586, the inhabitants of Patras year Sparta the inhabitants are said to have been of while from them, divided into the first two groups; one the city travelled to Sicily of and the second founded Monemvasia. Theophanes, 1, p-456districts in the northern located This Berrhoea of was Bulgaria. to the borders the Empire, with close it must not be confused Therefore, the city of with but is to be identified Greece west of Salonica, Northern Zagora. the modern Stara with 127

Emperor

Nicephorus That key

did

the

same with us to

Patras that

and Nicephorus,

Lacedaemon. by rebuilding inaugurated

entitles

assume

extended and completed places, a policy What was new with by Irene. Nicephorus' by transferring Christians that, into the fact measure was by the Slavs, densely he adopted populated areas a policy of christianization Empire. That of pagan tribes in policy, which was about from the mid-ninth systematically century onwards, for Byzantium, but enormous consequences not only for the whole As it the and around to be exercised had also to of during

come.

to population the fourth year 1 definitely 806), is the transfer the Therefore does not Now,

during Europe the centuries of eastern has already been stated, the transfer have taken the Peloponnese must place of Nicephorus-1

(October 805 - October reign 2 than February earlier of 806 and this the Chronicle to. of Monemvasia refers limit apply to of six months, transfer. perspicacity facts, other of Nicephorus, made and if put by Theophanes, that

time the to

seem to given need

we still

political find certain

which

it would not to take even urged the Emperor such a measure, be groundless had played to presume that two events an important in Nicephorus' decision. The first one role located the leader was the effort of Acamer, of the Slavs in Belzetia, to V's depose sons Constantine Slavs of one of incited as emperor., an attempt 3 Greece in 799. The second and proclaim Slavs This and the siege, after 'miraculous' although the I victory undated, of p. 474 . pp. 121) Irene by the one was

continental by the the siege of Patras inhabitants. release of its seems 1. 2. 3. to have happened

immediately

S. Kougeas, See above, Theophanes 124.

",En'4t -ro; w, (:LC)u k&4-10 uI. ... p. 126. 1, p-473-474; on this plot

(loc-cit. see above

128

Skleros,

in

an effort

by the

Slavs

'to

recover of their

the defeat'.

district was not the only by the Slavs. From certain sources, partly populated we in northern hear that Slavs Greece there settled were also in the north-western or more accurately part of the Empire. As far as we can interpret in the a passage Life speaks near ninth of St. Gregory the Decapolite, the hagiographer located about an uprising of the Slavs, obviously Thessalonica, (early time where the Saint was at that 2 Slavs the were also around century). established 3 Strymon, later Christians. where Nicephorus settled stated by the 'after the transfer the was ordered 4 definite without giving us a pagans', by the Slavs, the Arabs such campaigns that had been very frequent during

they had lost position which However, the Peloponnese

as a result

river Theophanes

campaigns date. Although and the Bulgars

the nearly two expeditions whole of Nicephorus' of Krum, one in reign, 808 and another in 809, must have played a decisive role. During the Bulgars the first the region attacked of them, killed Strymon, including the strategos of and many people 1100 pounds of gold and the and got away with archontes for the belongings The money was destined the soldiers. of 5 The second expedition against army's pay. was directed disastrous for Byzantium Sardica it was definitely more and 6 than the first one. the 'Nicephorus I I., (loc. cit. ), p-84P. Charanis: ... (22. cit. ), p. 61. Gregoire...., F. Dvornik, La vie de Saint Fy the See also letter Theophanes 1, p. 496. the sent Emperor Michael II to Louis the Pious, where the founder dynasty Thomas the Slav that the Amorian asserted of 'Thraciae, Macedoniae, Thessalonicae, his forces enrolled FThe letter be found Sc-laviniis-F can et circumjacentibus III, Concilia in M. G. H., Legum sectio, vol. 2. pt. l. Leipzig 1900, p. 477). 4. Theophanes 1, p-486S. ibid., 484-85. pp. below, Sardica, 6. For the campaign against cf. p-1321. 2. 3.

129

In been cause

most and

cases,

although

a certain

policy

has

adopted,

campaigns, western from the which during for

without are not taken measures After Bulgarian the above mentioned reason. decided Nicephorus to strengthen the northof is years the Empire It by transferring is to, mainly this themes. referring of the the time in transfer,

already definite a

borders Asiatic last

population

Theophanes the

such

a transfer

took placeg and which Emperor's Furthermore, reign. by the of six months given aims of the first to the two transfers-

chronicler would have difference A slight should not the Slavs, remain

been

sufficient. the one was aimed against into Christians turn The second and it from apart border line the

unnoticed: whom the Emperor

tried

the subjects and assimilate with of the Empire. had more or less transfer a defensive character in the face of a serious threat was undertaken Bulgars. from the the Adrianople with The Emperor fortresses and Bulgars of Develtus and Nicephorus Sardica, which at realized Philippo that polis, of

formed barring

a sort

aimed

advance

Greece also needed of northern southwards, some regions by the Bulgars. to be strengthened attack a possible against been indicated It has already that these were regions heavily be demonstrated who, as it will populated 1 by the Bulgars elsewhere, and participated employed were In other in campaigns Byzantine territory. words against by Slavs Greece Slavs and was the I in the a way exposed Bulgars, and it transfer should of be viewed. to is the combined such to these threat against

northern of

that circumstances areas by Nicephorus

1.

the

population

Below,

p-136.

130

My second the people civilians. over people, were victories

point

on this transferred.

measure It

by Nicephorus

concerns the

who were

whom the

of chronicle It is very likely that the after Byzantium the Slavs of the Peloponnese,

would seem that Monemvasia speaks about,

tribes through sought assimilation of those peaceful means. back to Patras At least from South those people who came Italy, It appears, however, were definitely civilians. the same case does not necessarily that to the apply Strymon to Macedonia, who were transferred people and Thrace. Theophanes In his attempts to the discredit Emperor Nicephorus' the ordered to humiliate reign, transfer the army'. 1 that asserts 810 'because of the year Let us try to interpret did Nicephorus have any the form army? His

he intended things

by putting

reasons particular background does controversial

question: a simple to humiliate not seem to

have been against he should the a good reason why by introducing On the contrary, such as measures army. 2 Nicephorus 'vexation' his so-called second proved to have been he certainly tried the army, which to about much concerned strengthen however, uprisings which reign the had rather have to against than the to weaken. into Other facts particularly and events, the in be taken account,

army was become rather to these the that

central involved

uprisings government, during Nicephorus' and which What Could of soldiers against it was not from the

common..

Emperor's for

reaction instance, into the

rebellions? transfer could involved to

be argued, other of places punishment Emperor? disposal

Sclaveniae

of the soldiers The answer seems 1. 2.

be seen in plots the

a kind as at

the

be NO;

evidence

our

for

1, p. 486. Theophanes Nicephorus' It concerns reform on the way of recruitment On this, cf. above, pp. 112-18. of new soldiers.

131

such any

an argument strong

is

insufficient. against He only army deprived the

Nicephorus involved them of

did in their

not pay

take

rebellion (? 05CX conspiracy definitely which after the their

measures in 803.

Bardanes'

The participation of the (February 808), Arsaber of On the other unimportant. Emperor revolt Nicephorus at Sardica

army in the 2 if any, was hand the exile

by

some of the soldiers punished in 809 -l should not be

from Asia the transfer of army units confused with mainly into Minor densely European some of the Empire's provinces by Slavs from threat and being constant populated under Generally the Bulgars. speaking, what Theophanes counts as Nicephorus' compulsory which first transportation 'vexation', of was nothing more than a a good number of soldiers, importance for the interests

was after all of vital to the areas called Sclaveniae. What of the Empire helps happened in Sardica in the year 809 perhaps us to better: in that Krum the situation year, understand captured soldiers, the to city V% If 0 and 'massacred Cou. 4i%it the it six thousand -4 possible number especially Byzantine It for of hardly the soldiers in civilians'

needs Byzantine

be emphasized that Empire to replace local people for

was not such a large into the the army,

by enrolling

borders. north-western such urgent circumstances decided Therefore, to transfer Nicephorus a probably from the eastern families certain number of military themes European those 1. 2. and areas to resettle of were them Byzantium densely along and, the borders with the in it enemies which more particularly, by the Slavs.

populated

3. 4.

Theophanes 1, p-480do not let Though our sources us assume that G. I. Bratianu in that involved movement, were byzantines...., seems to have p-197) 2p-cit-, for granted. 1, p-486Theophanes ibid., p. 485.

soldiers (Etudes it taken

132

likely that appears such a transfer was associated, very in one way or another, the creation of new theme units with in Europe, In reference to this already examined. measure and that the creation to ten this of attributed about Nicephorus' that it tagma of the Hikanatoi, 1 W. Treadgold Emperor, has the were recruited be unreasonable were recruited difficult to measures, b) of the population, of i. e. all of also calculated during to suggest from the because the of new

thousand soldiers 2 Would it reign. these

some of appears of and

transferred

new soldiers It is population? three the that distinct units, is the new theme c)

say, a)

that

creation soldiers the lands

recruitment

transfer

same target,

and assuring control If we knew the chronological order it would have measures were taken, for to interpret them us in spite However, of seem that the of interest take more all these in

strengthening over the Slavs in

aimed at the border Sclaveniae. three easier it

the

these which been, perhaps, considerations, Theophanes' falls in

confidently. statement line with of the

would

on the purpose the Emperor's Empire, is to

only way which 'vexation' the first for it for the

north-western

parts

that those who people, granted Greece into the Sclaveniae were transferred of northern Since families. their were soldiers some people with had to be transferred it would have been more anyway, convenient military to, or settlement. accustomed 1. 2. to form for families, the the Empire so that the to order local the soliders thematic familes and could resettlement would army were of be added in their new their

core of Moreover, their

military abode Vita State

perhaps

more

moving

overcome P. G., 105, p. 71.

Nicetas the col. 492B. W. Treadgold,

Paphlagonian, Byzantine

Ignatii, Finances

133

difficulties since

in

their into

new settlement the army

more

easily.

Finally,

recruitment

of resettlement familes military of as part it becomes these considerations military nothing family to applies the only do with tagmata.,

possibility

the was a privilege, have been viewed by might From their obligations. obvious the the that the army of term and has were to thematic soldiers

which

in or around incamps the capital. and stayed professionals his mother St. Euthymius, for example, with and his sisters family formed a military and we have seen how he had to had died. take on military obligations once his father G. I. create forces Bratianu, for the by arguing war that the Emperor 'intended to the Bulgars, new military against 1 to the land', came to the same almost he is probably talking again about civilians

attached but conclusion, the

who joined transferred purpose it, ordered but because, north-western the

soldiers who were army, and not about from one place To come back to to another. Nicephorus transfer, say that of that one should because has of he intended already the. Empire been 'to humiliate the above, of army', the as it parts indicated short

not

were

soldiers,

the although Krum invading a humiliation meant the bitterness Does the at eastern the

there situation the Byzantine of the army

with critical, By talking about provinces. Theophanes taking probably place, was very of the transfer to and the who had be resettled. forces in the military Nicephorus Not at all. in the way the soldiers who Those ), p. 197.

character compulsory felt by the soldiers this transfer themes mean that

same time of Bratianu,

were weakened? his reform introduced was made. (op-cit.

recruitment 1. G. I.

new soldiers Etudes...,

134

were were people,

transferred replaced

into by the

the

European into

provinces the army

of of

the

Empire,

enrolment

to pay the taxes, who could not afford Moreover, land. the on their we must keep in mind that flooded by eastern provinces of Byzantium were usually foreigners, Persians, Armenians, in etc., seeking a career the that imperial during of the ninth century involved in wars against Byzantium the Arabs was deeply Nicephorus too, that we cannot presume would dare to from Asia Minor withdriw a number of soldiers and to transf. r them themes, into European period provinces. For such enterp-ise, eastern truce It a certain of peace, especially If not a peace, at least Harun al Rashid in March advantage 1 Camacha, but from for the the eastern war against the took of also the an in the a 809. army. the first On the decade other hand, given the fact

poor imposed

came with looks as if the not to only

was needed. the death of Byzantines by recovering some forces available telling

Caliph's in

death, able

by being

order Bulgars. Is

withdraw to have them there

themes the

of population Greece' proved? the two areas the good seem that had very the 1. 2. district.

how effective any way of into the Peloponnese and into Here in which again people of the one needs to

transfer

northern differentiate It the would Peloponnese Slavs of 2 one

resettlement for results Though

were resettled. into Christians

there

of the assimilation are a few exceptions,

(717-867)', 'The struggle E. W. Brooks: the Saracens with in C. M. H., vol. 4a, (Cambridge 1923), p-127. (De See,, -for Constantine Porphyrogenitus, example, it is stated Imperio, 232), Administrando that where p. during-the III the Protospatharius of Michael reign Theoa-iStus was named strategos of the theme of the With a"strong Peloponnese. themes, western army from all He Theo0istus to subject the area. the Slavs tried of the Slavic tribes all of the region succeeded against the Melingi and the Ezeritae. except

135

might

argue Byzantine control does

that

by these over the for

transfers area. the The Bulgarian Slavs

Nicephorus The

restored norththat region Byzantium. twice

same argument, the of

however,

not

western parts of kept their identity that was there in Slavs enrolled It

apply the Empire. and Krum, his the

of Slavs

independence

against K_'han,

The first army. case was just battle fatal in before Nicephorus' the Bulgars against 1 in the year 814.2 Leo V's reign 811 the second during and to Although the Slavs the were numerically superior Bulgars, Slavs any of the that if that latter area, to they the provided or were at participating well-paid. the least leaders. some of in a war them, against Thus, did the not have Byzantium, from

objection

especially Theophanes Nicepholass Because extended their of his

by who had people, did not stay long. Strymon, there around in 812, during Bulgarian expedition which a occupation of Thrace and Macedonia, they

We also hear been resettled

Krum left

settlement and went back to their previous new 3 homes. The passage speaks which of the Chronographia interest flight that to be of particular about appears because it demonstrates first for the following reasons: the Emperor Nicephorus'

the transfer of about own opinion To be Greece. to the Sclaveniae population of northern Theophanes the Emperor spoke very proudly says that precise, 4 because Secondly, among the places about that measure.
1Ivan 'La Duicev, "Agakpour 6cxjAe-vat Chronique wgzlo ri'ks (loc. p. 212: cit. ZbcAct4biv#'cxr, IA i (vi; w-

...

nertF

It in
2.

appears certain to help order

that him in
de

Krum that

Scriptor Incertus text the p. 347; 6OVcy. 9PO%'(bCX. Kol't S

3. 4.

Theophanes ibid.

1,

p-496-

(Bonn 1842), Leone Bardae, C. S. H. B. "j6Ted-r(-v6tv ", C) Vpov'vAcs Au 'j r1OX%jV reads: 6&pt(C TOU "A KC(% f%ctG4xS V%vt *Lf cc W-.

the paid particular

Avars war.

and

the

Slavs,

136

abandoned and 'some and this, settled Finally,

by their other of

new settlers strongholds' strengthens

the the

fortress

of are

Probaton included, that those

(oxvpdDiC(TM) possibility

course,

than civilians. soldiers were rather by Theophanes because the special mention of the from which its as a place region of Strymon, again new fled, demonstrates Nicephorus' interest in settlers special importance for the defence of strategic a valley of Greece against the Bulgars northern as the event of 808 there had already shown. But, equally significant that, of no matter resettlement among the is the flight itself. on paper, have been it the rather One

shows measure

how sound it looked itself to proved soldiers

unpopular

wonders whether dissatisfaction

who were for the a good reason Nicephorus with could population should the not

transferred. military be traced not he adopted. be taken to

to

the

measure of the transfer of however, These events, in Nicephorus' that policy the there, towards Empire the the failed. first Slavs steps and On the the

north-western it seems contrary, concerted already

mean borders of that even policy been taken.

towards

a more had Bulgars

E: 1. The

ECONOMY-FINANCE The Preliminaries fiscal and economic introduced in the them state These under 1, reforms, order to which against are the Emperor public loss, are finance

Nicephorus and secure importance. who lists 1.

strengthen any

treasury measures the

general

criticized name Ivexations'.

of vital by Theophanes,

Theophanes

p-496.

137

Regardless matter, of and the

of Theophanes the them and

the

authority's gave fiscal to draw modern policy

bias

with

his the

report

on the

scholars of

examining allowed economic

Nicephorus in

opportunity in depth concerning during the of

some useful

conclusions Byzantium study careful of sound

social

ninth early Nicephorus' have been

century. fiscal discovered.

conditions After a more elements is, This of

policy,

accepted general view on this Nevertheless, one or two problems by Nicephorus introduced or adopted answered. First, is, fiscal of there is always the question

course, Emperor's economic connected still of the

administration a broadly policy, the to measures be

with remain

course,

our of of

administration. same time the leader to hear the opinion contemporary biased than At the

main source However, as Theophanes critics

Theophanes sources. for Nicephorus' is at the

the the

sources mainly Theophanes, speak short the

him, we need against i. e. of those altera pars, hagiographers, being less who, in favour which author of Nicephorus. the events in covers asserts

of Nicephorus

end of the 811 in Bulgaria, was

chronicle anonymous

that

'very public

understanding and too

short avaricious'. because it is of some importance, the author and general, to have been an impartial of the appears observer is matched with Now,, if that assessment circumstances. the same Emperor, what the monk Theosterictus. about recorded then our the 1. we do not effort Life Ivan rely only need to find of apologists of Medikion, of St. Nicetas 'La chronique... ', to upon modern Nicephorus' scholars calls in In reign. Theosterictus ),

clever prudent and cunning and very details affairs,,, overparticular with 1 is very Although this reference

Dujc'ev:

(loc.

cit.

216. p.

138

'very of the poor and a friend a friend pious, 1 the Patriarch We have also seen that of the monks'. Methodius (843-847) near contemporary was another who has left Nicephorus of the Emperor account us a favourable Nicephorus Methodius, to refer especially but the whole account Nicephorus' measures, economic is enthusiastic. Emperor's on this policies us gives The second main problem to be answered concerns of course, not fiscal measures other took policy. measures, Byzantium extension time were reformer, were policy taken words, of or the Nicephorus cancelled connection with by his predecessors. Nicephorus in does he

1.2

the

economic In I was a real

needs nothing Others which or

point up to which to be made clear. more than the were either had been current cancelled of use. thing

Some of the measures he demagogic to Irene's a reaction restoration in Rome or of some in early

and were

some time measures, It would that this into

alteration in already

afterwards, or the which at Nicephorus' also in seem that did, Emperor was

some cases the only to force government application forgotten

very

of laws because they to say the degree is

officials and decrees, had that of been in its

a more effective which had been almost What the of law

I am trying itself, but significance.

unenforced. is not many cases it is which enforcement

so long

Order of Fiscal fiscal Dealing Nicephorus' policy, with 4 the order and G. I. Bratianu of adopted Restoration 1. 2. 3.

2.

both

R. Monnier3

Ivexations'

4.

Medikion, 1, p. 262AASS, April Vita St. Nicetas of etoo 'B(cs -ro-5 D. Spyridonos, % 0%A00g4-TO; krra,, m%"&. VO-j 09 (loc. cit. ), pp-144-45. ('Etudes byzantin... ', however de droit R. Monnier, because 59-103), loc. cit., the Ivexations' are not all pp. for the interest left the second and oT-tH-e-same to discuss at the end of his survey. ninth ones Etudes. -. (.2p. Lit. ). pp. 183-216. G. I. Bratianu: 139

introduced order in

by Theophanes. which the Emperor's

However, measures Nicephorus'

regardless will

of

the

be examined,

an overall of policies assessment must not be neglected: had he in mind, objectives what what did he follow? These vital principles questions must be answered 'vexations', through an examination of the one by one, either To begin with, every ceratia introduced Irene, subject (1/12 in of bloc en Nicephorus or the Empire as a whole financial strategy. increased the tax paid by LWO

tax Of and restored another 1 having been first of the nomisma), which, by Leo III, had probably been abolish(d by effort to gain popularity among th(

her

populace.

Among the chroniclers, this who recorded mea-, ure, 2 M. Glycas does not seem to have used Theophanes as his main source. other main tax That is perhaps use and the as their two ceratia do so. by the chroniclers, source, reinforced that the Theophanes although him or who used him who copied ' for the the word 'chartiaticon. why, by Nicephorus., the latter 'diceraton' wanted that time to Glycas does not was reimposed the repair had become old is the only and him. imposed as he He by

He only states because Emperor, Constantinople, unstable). from whom 3

walls of (meaning: authority probably Constantine during the to 1. 2. 3. 4. is is not

at which However,

a contemporary

we have such 4 one, we cannot measure under the

Glycas ast"'. information rely the

upon tax

this muddling V. The tax reign, on which were written,

with

Nicephorus'

at least consideration, have something to do with should names or the of the people, given subjected to them by receipts

new lists, taxation,

Theophanes 1, p. 486. Annales, C. S. H. B. (Bonn 1836), Glycae: Michaelis IV, p. 530. pars by later That task was undertaken some thirty years Theophilus. in the mid-twelfth He lived century.

140

government the revision same time,

officials. of uncials the lists

It

looks of tax

as

if

Nicephorus At about

ordered the the

payers.

cursive minuscule to believe that the was not increase an entirely of taxation, to

were progressively 1 introduced. was revision innocent at state In on the all of the act. least for finance It

abandoned and It is reasonable lists of aimed tax at an

payers whose

those was not the the one

people,

contribution have been meant

the

sufficient. a tax imposed

any case, Ichartes',

to considered word 'chartiaticon' it who could

was considered as a very intensified control over cheat authorities Was Ichartiaticon' It is the

important

paper, and by the Emperor,

citizens, so that nobody than he had to. and pay less the essence to of Nicephorus' third

give a positive answer. 3 4 5 J. B. Bury Monnier that these argues against and Finlay two ceratia were paid by each taxpayer and not in the 6He also that the nomisma. argues chartiaticon' was the increase in taxation by this only reimposed reform of Nicephorus. 1. In his first argument, Bury is probably right,

'calamity'?

difficult

On this 'La culture see G. Mango, grcque et Voccident in Centro di Studi Italiano Sull'Alto au VIII siclel, Medioevo, XX (1973), pp-716-17. Z. G. I. Bratianu, ('Etudes... ', ap. cit-, p. 202) expressed T-helchartiaticon' because the opinion that was imposed, time the official tax lists at that perhaps and documents, by others, made of papyrus, were replaced made of parchment. Although we do not know when the Byzantine government the fragile the much better abandoned papyrus and adopted leather the fact that material of parchment, costs a lot theory of money, makes Bratianu's possible. 3. J. B. Bury: E. R. E., p. 214. 4. R. Monnier: 'Etudes 1, (loc. cit. ), p. 67. ... S. G. Finlay: (London History Empire, 1853), of the Byzantine p-116. 6. G. Ostrogorsky (History., pp. 187-88), also op. cit., the charge thinks that of two ceratia was paid per nomisma, for being i. e. 1/12 or 8 1/3%, and it was imposed entered on the tax-roll.

141

but of

in the

the

second also

measure. were of

one he seems As the texts them

to of to

have the

missed chronicles

the

point stand,

one could ceratia increase

interpret

by each paid the basic tax,

those two mean that in addition taxpayer to a general about. the amount of which

In unfortunately anything. we are not told other words, it is not quite by what he clear what Theophanes understood Va If the second clause: nafxovTmj Ka1)(CLfT1Ct11KwV recorded. CWV(a &vcc4i6 VCe? -riwv the infinitive explains (Y. <X 1 'to increase', then of the first clause, as Bury argues, increase in taxation two ceratia these were the only meant by this vc %, land'. word following form a verb or a verbal as, in this case, has a clear ncc-94(-Aov-Tcx5 'in the participle meaning 'apart from', 'besides'. Bury's to', addition interpretation is backed by the fact that,, these apartfrom measure. the ceratia, no other by the did under amount, or percentage of increase is chroniclers, not use harsh consideration. of the Greek as well language that as by the fact when he described a better would word believe make us increase of However, Greek

two

mentioned Theophanes the that, reform by word

However, text,

translation

from these two ceratia, apart a general by the Emperor. introduced the basic tax was also increase Unfortunately, the amount or percentage of this remains With unknown to us. Nicephorus increased another reform, by those money paid people and particularly had previously been to whom a remission Theophanes Although to 1. 2. speaks the word about the increase of o -U 4,6 kk O.S, to churches, awarded E. R. E., 1, p-486: p. 214. % "... -TOvc, the

amount institutions, 2 awarded.

of

K O\j q*% 6\A 0 mainly applies remission', monasteries and other

remissions J. B. Bury: Theophanes

oE,

vho;J

nvrcxc

&x4,

3c-rapm%
142

institutions reform, also this necessarily

connected known as fourth to other

with 'vexation', categories churches illustrated according

the

church, of

Nicephorus' to have not Perhaps passage, the (May 811) been

seems people,

extended

to related is better measure at

and monasteries. by another to of the his chronicler, departure

again of Theophanes: Emperor Nicephorus, for the fatal

the

time

'ordered Nicetas, the Bulgars war against General Patrician Logothete, to increase the taxes and and monasteries paid by churches and ask for the payment years I back of eight '2 dignitaries'. As regards ecclesiastical have recorded the Emperor, that increased the the taxes by the 0K taxation 01 of the

higher

rate

of

and monastic whom other

property, twice. call

on Theophanes To believe

seems that the

to 3

same measure sources in twice thing

I friend short clear.

of

of question. 'the properties principle Irene.,

amount To me the of

a rather is quite

monks is out reign, Since in

normally

and monasteries churches 4 it liable to taxation', them of a partial

were

who awarded

in the amount a reduction in 802 Nicephorus came to during the so that almost change anything. fact during the the critical Bulgars, the 1. It last months

money they he accepted power, whole of of during his his

was probably i. e. exemption, S had to pay. When the situation, he did not in of the under

was only

reign, the last

produced circumstances decided Emperor to cancel

I

reign, by the the

year, because when, war against remission

'families' be translated The word cOA 0I here should (with meaning). a broad perhaps 2. Theophanes 1, p-489in his: St. Nicetas..., Vita 3. The monk Theosterictus (loc. cit p. 29. .), (OP. Cit. ), P-188. Histor 4. G-. Ostrogorsky:,, ... 9(%%, increase' 'to lights S. The infinitive (xv(x6%6ckT(, (, , the problem very well.

up

143

consideration. expressed the the if populace'. his 1 to wish churches chance the Emperor vital

That

should Although defame

the time, when Nicephorus also was holy 'the that valuable articles of be used for the benefit of the Theophanes, Nicephorus his of once campaign course, more, it grasped looks as Krum as had done,

one of

considered importance

and perhaps,

against as Heraclius

as a crusade. Now, we come to the second by this of Nicephorus. reform dignitaries from year 811 the backdated taxes. to whom, as it demanded Emperor The eight

category of people affected These were the has already been said, in the a payment years of eight years allows been us retrospection

had to these an exemption assume that people, by Nicephorus himself immediately his accession awarded after 2 has to be connected Furthermore, this to the throne. the events about of October with what Theophanes recorded 802: (of of 'Those, Irene), avarice'. who had went 3 of officials that or had those been been to in the (to over Now, always and him very confidence of her because Nicephorus), in to mind the that throne the were

keeping

supporters certain presume given, 1.

Nicephorus'

accession dignitaries,

people, promised,

to we are entitled before they did so, had been incentives. some financial

2.

j of the paid by the c)'11v, oi that here we are faced with me the basic tax. 3. Theophanes 1, pp-476-77.

in reference is worth It to this that measurep noting 6 JC- 0 x i any The ophane s do es no t us e the ve rb CM 4M 161 Ck for demanded but he asserts that the the Emperor more, I2 ov e:I f, OLI le 'back dated basic taxes' to be anjr.

Theophanes It is, 1, p-489worth remembering of course, institutions that were under the church's all charitable in the early They were also wealthy and patronage. Heraclius' to subsidize seventh campaign century able the Persians. against

, It seems to archontes. from exemption a total

144

Such only

incentives, a few high in

of

course, in year

had but

established by himself

officials, by Nicephorus the last

probably it looks first reign, his

been as year if

given the

to exemption,

the of

and

revoked and other

was a more exemption, and by the

officials governmental measure, covering general been said, dignitaries. As has already this together monasteries Emperor. with the were The abolition remission the last in favour of to privilege privileges of this

churches be revoked definitely interests Salibaras,

discontent among those whose caused some damaged. Even the Patrician Theodosius very this faithful abolition. But high ser-vant 2 officials not the =L order to the Emperor,

were 1a against

protested

and

ecclesiastical

properties effort measure, to or

were put

a similar

only ones affected in the state finance. directed one to that, was who, although to attached

and monastic by Nicephorus' The same

a group of peasants, been, in one way or

those another,

against had civilians,

monastic property, as well as those, for various institutions, charitable hostels, Theophanes tax the from almshouses. under 'the the they etc. general tax'. were hearth These term 3 G. I. poll to

or ecclesiastical who had been working such as orphanages, by are included and the is named divides and land as

people longer

n OLP01KoI. exempted Bratianu taxes the

which kapnikon, But

now no

what was the kapnikon? into taxes two main categories: The hearth belonged tax certainly Bratianu imposed also not noticed on persons

the taxes.

that correctly but on hearths,

second group. the kapnikon was i. e. on families.

1. On Salibaras., see above, 2. Theophanes 1, p-4893. ibid., 486-87. pp.

P. 100.

145

It

seems, only

however., by

that

by claiming went

that too far.

this

tax

was

He asserted paid serfs, than an indication the hearth that else tax was nothing it 'car for those les who paid of a servile condition I libres en avoir et6 exemptes'. paysans paraissent had been too it would However, that the kapnikon seem Bratianu important One is people by the Michael to the Armeniac, against a tax tempted to to be left that 2 for to Such payment that only tax by serfs. groups of argue liable. other

were also decision taken II; people whereby of two

is supported an argument few years by the Emperor later a half tax was remitted of the hearth those themes, of Opsikion and to It in the Emperor sound a case quite would of serfs. it would such

for loyalty their as a reward 3 Thomas the Slav. the rebel either a measure of people, two an emperor which benefitted during that or were explanations that

unbelievable, have taken proportion the

only the

a small first quarter only among unlikely,

ninth century Since both these

soldiers

recruited

seem rather

to suggest that the remission would appear more plausible has all the marks of a solemnion to a charitable of kapnikon institution. dues would Their and go to the institution not to the remission also needs Nicephorus 1. 2. state. by the Therefore Emperor the revocation could of this Nicephorus be seen probably it Furthermore,, end of his reign, had been awarded

as a way of

strengthening state that to be remembered revoked all remissions

control. by the which

to

3.

G. I. Bratianu, (op. cit. ), p. 203Etudes..., (Annales, Among the chroniclers it is only Bonn Zonaras 1897, vol-3, that the heirth who records pp-306-307) tax 'was imposed on the serfs of churches, almshouses and monasteries as well as on everybody who did not have either (meaning: did not have land or tax' who He. too, to be taxed). anything else uses the word Q. F0% %K 1. a C. S. H. B., (Bonn 1838). Theophanes Continuatus., p. 54-

146

several at Bulgars

categories time.

of

an earlier

either people The difficult such if policy

by

Irene

or

by himself the

situation the with to believe

with

would not permit So far we have been However, of that the fiscal he also not owned profited. fertile

exemptions. ending of tax Theophanes' then we must of the a

concerned we are of to

remissions. account assume

Nicephorus, the

resorted tolerate

ecclesiastical Emperor could difficult monasteries obviously the the blow most imperial

and monastic for vast the

property. the fact Empire, the

confiscation Probably that in such

period

areas of Therefore,

church and the from which land, they he chose the best and and was, attached them to

of these 1 lands. away of and of church, were

properties lands

The taking to the

these the the

unbearable ing to which dependent for the Emperor!

church because the

monasteries, final Emperor's monasteries to been course, that the it pay

of course, a real but it became decision, accordfoundations even

the forced had of

on them,

and the the land tax over

properties, which Such a measure, unless taxes to the

taken

by the seem a matter

would

unbelievable, of paying

we suppose state;

was only

monasteries continued The chroniclers lands. to enjoy the usufruct of these do not say for how long they had to continue taxes paying on these properties, would find somebody 'vexation' the ninth hand, were
1.

keeping a series

in of 1,
KOV?

the state was probably until for example, the sailors of else 2_ On the other to buy the lands. by the eleventh there that century mind charitable p. 487:
II
cXYfP664D(X%

but

it-

institutions
Sk

under
-T,;)V

imperial
"TWV

Theophanes
'Ti-kc,

CL'TO*P%CX-1

TTO V (X V. fo E-% I %. ITCL

A&VTOI

KTVI, A cm

et

"q S -T ttcL'%
Vwv., v'

T4v,

t%Jc)LjJOAa%"vcL(2%%)

fils,

rovs

cx Uv cus "IN,

V Mi TZV

715 ONIKOVS

cxV'TZV

KT%ft/Ac(61

Ijafc%'w,

oiS,

i; )S

cT%r%A*; 6? aA

2.

ibid.;

on this

see

x\akxw'-. - T' -v below, p-lS4.

'

03"K"6&%,*v 6TI-vOvHj. I &I

147

control, we can consider first the secularization step towards is said Nothing the 11cxFol Koi, about 1 but they lands, to these confiscated there, working whoever indirectly Theophanes, some of Perhaps, the the them taking abandoned advantage of the of nominal course, the land, from

this

reform

of of

Nicepliorus these

as a foundations.

possibly probably

attached stayed However, that attached.

owner was. lets us assume to they

which Nicephorus' they the

were

reform

recruitment army. Theophanes (808), whose

new soldiers, that after

preferred

on to join

records

Arsaber those bishops, syncellus, involvement issue

among those were clergymen and

who were confiscated, of and the the

by conspiracy beaten, banished there great church, were the 2

and

properties the sacellarius two in the

monks

of-clergymen

and monks

chartophylax. in a purely

The

can be given Emperor had already measures and 2) Studite against Those

possible explanations: 808 taken some of his

political 1) The fiscal

ecclesiastical

and monks had, of course, Nicephorus opposed which party, his namesake the election the year 806, because of since of to the patriarchal of the see of Constantinople and because 3 to the priesthood. restoration of Joseph, abbot of Kathara, clergymen After a more clear interests word or less careful study of the Emperor's property, all, entitled of it attitude becomes of use the the towards ecclesiastical Theophanes, that clergy, referring and monastic especially was after to the

and monastic property, belonged to the probably

as a representative to confiscation

of the 'vexation'

monastic 1. 2. 3.

properties.

(p. 215) prefers 'compulsory E. R. E., J. B. Bury, the term 'confiscation'. than sale' Theophanes 1, pp. 483-84. Schism, Moechian The so-called restoration, caused by this in the chapter is discussed on Nicephorus' religious 205-15. below, pp. policies.,

143

Nicephorus loss those, poverty became from

tried fortune 2

to trove had

treasure

the ensure finders2l in

state as well

against time the

any from Emperor

as against that

whose to

riches.

changed Theophanes

a short

asserts

finders trove as treasure 3 it was empty. From those who had found a vase., even if the authorities the existence of such a vase in a house, the owner of the container that must would have inferred suspicious and considered have found was not claim, so more

It some money in it some time ago. how much money the state of much a matter could a way of This tax preserving the

to treasure trove. state's rights finders trove was to apply on treasure over the It looks twenty years. as if the 'twenty' was previous but because for any particular it was a reason, chosen not conveniently Those line of round number. inherited from who tax were also backdated was it gives something asserts 5% tax the 5 for parents or grandparents 4 by Nicephorus. taxed twenty us which that the years. impression As the that taxed before. he (direct Here text of

kinship)

again the Theophanes Nicephorus Bratianu,

stands, taxed however.,

had not Justinian's

been

re-established had abolished. it is difficult

on a direct As Theophanes rarely

successors inheritance, which gives us percentages, Nicephorus whether

sure us to know for created a new tax or increased an existing one, which must have been tolerable. In the second case, like, of we would Possibly to know the percentage course, of the increase.
1.

Theophanes
6, vPcx-rv%ko%;,ITWV

1, p-48 7: " To''V`S CEDI?OWS 1,

. LW

(nFv6*-T CUIT6
n-TWXU%'Cxl

4) 6

Aotpcx KontT(oami 'TWV (%VCXWvN60EtA4VvVS

I K% Qt%
rot

2. 3. 4.

ibid. Theophanes
nIa ov

p-487:
C-V liOnnwv

To\)
%)L! #Tol)S
t llcXT(. ewV

v
6JOL(;

'AfOVWV
Vle%

KCLI

ibid,

6 (-; vl%11 %A j oS ofl 10VV Ka IJ,

., Q-TOW

k4(-jcei

4\1W'4

(IN WT v CLI f0( V) 4XIT(-

S. G. I.

Bratianu)

Etudes

...

(op-cit.

),

p-207-

149

the

word
the

cT %cx
of

some kind

an answer,

9 j,'%jT cxsl divided E. .0

especially

I,
if it

provides
is

us with

connected

n *' %j vi -r (x s, with word if somebody was the only heir grandfather, entire property, then,

To be more precise, poor' his father of or his to inherit was about if he was forced to the pay a however,

he probably as he did not mind

This, treasury. amount of it to the state small did not apply to the case, were a number of when there into had to divide heirs the inheritance small pieces. who had been a huge In such a case, the inheritance unless property, consideration, livelihood would have which from quite 1 the heirs is improbable would-have for had the to period under earn their Therefore, they

them would seem to have inheritance the

small property. a very become poor, imposed so that any taxation on do not have been unbearable. These people been so far, paying and, any tax for therefore, small how heavy no matter their

it as a vexation. one was, they considered new Nicephorus By another a custom tax measure, established 2 This tax consisting trade. of two connected witOOslave 3 nomismata on each slave, was now imposed who was sold 4 in the Dodecanese. Abydos and particularly outside 1. 2. 3. do not speak about many The sources at our disposal magnates of the period. or about very rich people Philaretos' an exception. case was probably j V V% Theophanes 1, p. 487: V Ov S6r S CL'1-T0, %j
461%')Jov
'rCLIN,

Saint

6W/VACXTCE 011AV%KC*L) LV&

%eaik6-r(x TO%US

41 VOkA(6k4Cx-TWV

7&Ai&CX-A

"foo6j-

V40L%

4.

by Theophanes Here one can spot clearly to the attempt by using the moderate the 'bad' words avoid word 'slaves', Instead 6wt&cx"TcL of protesting against o%vcrc"x%Ka/L. itself, the representatives slavery of the eastern church the use of the word, avoided was, of course, and this to be a contribution to the battle considered against social inequality! ('Etudes de droit..., Neither R. Monnier, loc-cit.., p-82), , les Douanes a (Recherches H. Antoniades-Bibicou, nor sur 1963, pp. 200-01, Byzance, Map), include Paris Rhodes in the Dodecanese.

KCXTC*')L 'r%"%V

iso

Although

records had by those, were paid who Lv I oQs a past participle: he does not say for Abydos, retrospectively, applied Furthermore, why were tax those only sold on the these

Theophanes

that bought

these (the

two

nomismata used outside measure had done. as a on to be slaves this ones imposed

chronicler

v) (. cx tA j-v(po I) certain two whether

as some previous nomismata Abydos outside It hardly

sold slaves Hieron too? outside

and not needs

that the aim of this measure was to tax something observed had not been taxed It is reasonable to so far. which being believe for that a tax was already slaves paid from Abydos or from imported to Constantinople either Hieron. We do not hear anything the amount about of it had been imposed tax because at a time much earlier did not alter Our Emperor Nicephorus'. than that of this tax. He only introduced a similar one, that of that

two

nomismata per did not apply. and especially to that

to areas where such a tax previously slave, These areas were the Aegean Sea islands From Theophanes' the Dodecanese. reference who were sold from that tax. that argues were the

it becomes clear that slaves measure., in the Euxine if any, were exempted regions, differenciation, Based probably Bury on this Aegean market waiters, work they Sea ports places of and especially destined slaves dancers, the for 1 Dodecanese light

chamberlains, etc. in the Black Sea ports and consequently were 'recruited' it would Therefore, Hieron. through were imported of one luxury of the tax. most Ages ,-2

work, such as Slaves for heavy

the two nomismata seem that was a sort 'slaves As has been observed, were important during the of trade articles 1. 2.

Middle

J. B. Bury, E. R. E., p-217. in the R. S. Lopez and I. N. Raymond, Medieval trade New York - London 1961, p-115. World, Mediterranean A. ChadjinicolaouOn the traTe- of slaves see also: Marava, Recherches dans le sur la vie des esclaves Athens 1950, especially byzantin, the sections monde La loi (pp-22-28) the titles: et Vesclavage, under (pp. 8'9-94). Le commerce des esclavages and
151

There

categories. were even prices Theodore In brief, had been so broadly that spread slavery it necessary to stress that thought monks of Stoudios 'like (the to own a slave: marriage, were not allowed 2 is allowed to laymen'. only of slaves) ownership life However, of antiquity and city slavery went since together, an urban and since but a rural Byzantium society, in the to have been proved it must be concluded Byzantine Empire was not that limited

fixed

for

different

of consumption to Constantinople cities, Most of to work provincial special slaves, in the serves and the Rhodian a slave destination, passenger guardianship manages 1. or is let the in us the cities,

slaves itself say

and, Thessalonica, imported last not activity ages is post Islam.

slaves

to only perhaps, a few Ephesus and Rhodes. into have Byzantium could among the three other be treated

gone

capital. the

But,

consideration, for its as early middle

one needs to for its so much in slave interestingthe There the

with

of consumption Rhodes trade. It

as a commercial

between

clearly Empire Byzantine in the if

countries of Sea Law which speaks about is about to be transferred then on the of his owner slave. to finds same ship, the

is. a passage the following by ship to

case: or a

another

a merchant either the to whom he entrusts Suppose that the latter escape, the person

somehow

permitted

who had

2.

During Justinian I's were slaves ordinary adult reign, bought 30, and 20 nomismata, the price artisans at of slaves such as with qualifications, professional VI 43,3). doctors, 50 or 60 (Cod. Just. notaries or in From the Life we hear that of St. John the Merciful, half the first slaves of the seventh educated century, 'Leontios' (H. Gelzer, in Jerusalem 30 nomismata cost up to des Barmherzigen, Leben des heiligen Johannes von Neapolis, Sammlung ausgewhlter Erzbischofs von Alexandrien' ' dogmengeschichtlicli-er 5, Quellenschriften Kirchenund 1893, p-44). Leipzig Freiburg und 1 Epistolae, T, 10, (loc. cit. ), 99, Stoudios, Theodore of col-940D.

1S2

undertook by payment This

the -

obligation is responsible

passage would slave trade passing Rhodes as a centre of the trade of slaves meant that the Empire was likely to be losing out as far as taxes were in the Emperor's It would seem that mind, concerned. to the economic independence such a growth contributed
of that issues, the island from was the to central check. government Furthermore, It was this the Nicephorus Nicephorus' given

contract sealed -a 1 slave's owner. the importance to confirm of the seem Rhodes. But, the growth of through guard to the

to

him

Emperor

of interested

as well life, economic in because

fiscal sensitivity over economic and to supervise as his tendency all aspects he was mainly it would appear that activity commercial down on provincial to on each supervise. slave sold in trade, Therefore, outside not the that so much growth of Rhodes.

concentrating and clamping it was difficult tax, put slaves trade be seen of slave

Constantinople simply the two Abydos against of the

nomismata can the probably trade

taken as a measure but against itself, and especially

provincial

3. After

State the

Control transfer the

of__Shipping of enrolling of the best confiscation population of

' from poor of all themes in the into army, the the

Sclaveniae,

people

secularization fields and the

ecclesiastical properties,

and monastic for even simple the state of land.

it is not offences, became the owner of

that surprising huge properties,

suddenly especially

Jus 1.1. and P. Zepos, 2. R. Lopez, ('Trade in 79) also 13,1959, p. Rhodes were, more or

Graecoromanum (op. cit. ), vol. II, p. 99. -Century Seventh Byzantium', D. O. P., that. the naukleroi suggests at less, independent traaers.

153

As he was very experienced immediately that, realized under state would workers would climate, the governmental treasury have in remain been

in if

these all for

ownership have been would of it land the

Nicephorus matters, lands these remained long, for the the loss Firstly., which land it was to

triple. tax

subjected.

a loss Secondly,

as there

Byzantium, uncultivated

was a shortage of manual lands that these was most likely in Mediterranean and especially loses to have sold its fertility. fiscal to lose found Finally, system, the tax Therefore, if Byzantine been on the

uncultivated tax' was basic as a 'sales state treasury these would products,

on agricultural the less time ownership, it meant sailors

market.

remained properties under state found buyers, Nicephorus the better. even It was the shipowners the use of force. and

who lived on the coasts of Asia Minor, general, from the government to buy land and who were forced at a 1 fixed by its In brief, these officials. price people into 'to which taking were coerced up a second profession 2 they were not accustomed', as the chroniclers complain. However, this was not the whole of the essence of that 3 H. Antoniades-Bibicou the that reform. argues measure from the so-called tenth should not be considered apart the government to to which according offered kind loan at a high shipowners at Constantinople a of interest it is closer It would that rate. seem, however, in principle people to into
1,
-It 1;

in

'vexation'.

the the

reform., army

poor
1.

by which (Theophanes'
TMS -*T()US
W. TQ v

Nicephorus second

recruited 'vexation').

Theophanes
, k k 4: % CL 6-T vt r, CLV T CX &TW'l K'T

p. 487:
K jpjL S 4L S CX.

N%

V CEU 14A

2. 3.

(3DCEA vC0 IV'I Cc 5Z %a V10% I Da V'J -% CL %1 ft %'f"T

J'&O'n f OV. y v% oT4& $4 C 'V-Twi-e

n V.CXeO)aAv
CK'6-T'; A

0 V% ; S K l OEOT

CT

Hist-Compendium ibid., (Bonn 1839) vol. 2, p. 38. G. Cedrenus: C. S. H. B., vol. (Bonn 1897), Zonarae: Annales, p-307/-')'.. Etudes d1histoire de H. Antoniades-BiSicou: maritime du th6me de Caravisiens, a propos Byzance 1966, p-110. Paris

154

By issuing state the the is the two against sailors Empire worth to

that

measure

the

Emperor

tried

to

of soldiers. any shortage he wanted to protect to buy land property, future lack from a possible of sailors. that to Constantine which of the to sailors, value their VII will like according soldiers, four of either 1 case. by Nicephorus finances. money

ensure By forcing

the

It

remembering

regularize or

custom,

needed

own a property reforms the

pounds of gold All the fiscal at all of the of them., Byzantine

according

undertaken

aimed almost pockets To this tenth it is

strengthening

of the public Emperor transferred into last the the

With from the

citizens can

rule, 'vexation' the

however, -

reform

treasury. state Theophanes' Now

be seen

as an exception.

government

14U

i. e. to category of people, interest loan at a high as a from the very Dealing this one notices with measure, beginning in the verb used by difference, which a exists Theophanes the first the one used. by Zonaras: one and 'he gave', Nicephorus that 4T recorded w c v3 vi while that twelve the two the is to second say of asserted 'he threw gold. has that the Emperor AP06c-e? at them forcefully', difference This of deal caused a great they tried J. B. Nov-VIII, to How far

who offers money to a certain Constantinople's ship owners, 2 (16.6% approximately). rate

pounds

nT Ethe amount of by expression discussion an answer give

chroniclers

of

among scholars. be formulated might compulsory 1.

2.

The question follows: as ship owners?

for

the

measure was this Bury put an end in I. and P. Zepos,

v(x, )votAlat4of

> WwvGToLV'T%lj(), ". Theophanes 1, p. 487: 'TO's " '0 .. jn6Att 2t-n*% cp6(,! T KXv<f'Ov% 6uVc)L&OEw%%f *ro' c3eJwv#.. j Cl;4 1- (AT%p To to % Jw,; ITVPZV 00 OLVOL 14?
\JGb%OU tvccg T&AQ\)VTOq

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Jus Graecoromanum, I, p. 223.,

3. 4.

ibid. Zonarae

KAI

T 09

KwAO-p%(10t4 b\W%012v%

Annales

(op. cit.

),

3,

p-307.

iss

to not

these forced but,

arguments

not, fixed

that by confirming to accept the loan,, whether if they wanted a loan, they state by the excluded Bury forced seems the the and from

the they had

ship 'to

owners it wanted borrow a

were or

sum from

lenders

usury'. Nicephorus

were 1 J. B. had

no one else; other forbidding law, private because, to have been right,

if

ship owners to accept an unwanted Theophanes, loan, would not have used the moderate verb but he would have found another 'he gave', word, stronger 2 Gr. Cassimatis than the one used by Zonaras. even also in that that took place no force argued reform and that considered as a vexation because inconsistency, Emperor the by himself the church's Nicephorus' abolished his decision other . a law was hand, the

Theophanes

created against

because and also doctrine. On the

by Zonaras., that the loan was possibility, expressed 3 imposed not on each ship owner but on each ship, has not been accepted by modern historians. One can object that by recording Theophanes that also us such a clue gave his last Nicephorus during 'extended... lending with year interest cannot (imposed) be taken on ships ... to 1.4 taxes However, imposed more or as this phrase as referring here Theophanes it on cargoes, he less what

in his record 'vexation'. said on the tenth Nevertheless, despite these all one vital considerations, Nicephorus take such question remains unanswered: why-did a measure? The interest the 1. 2. 3. 4. period. of The highest 16.6% was, rate of until course, that very time high seems for to have

that appears had already

repeated

J. B. Bury: E. R. E., p-217, 1. note 'La dixiMe Gr. Cassimatis: de 1'Empereur "vexation" in Byz-, Nicephore', 7 (1932), pp. 149-160. Zonarae Annales, op-cit-3. p-307. 1, p-488. Theophanes

156

been and at it

8% ('besses was only

usurae') merchants Therefore,

provided who were we cannot

by Justinianic allowed to lend see the loan Constantinople

Law,

money given as an This,

rate. Ic to the ni#r. incentive for of course,

that

v, t^ at ship owners of them to build and equip more ships. did not does not mean that Nicephorus fleet to be built;

want

strong was wise strong

merchant

enough to realize fleet for Byzantium. to remember at that the

on the contrary, the immense importance of a In relation to this point 'navicularii', in the earlier seventh i. e. periods, century. for the

a he

one needs

the

stateseem 2

shippers, controlled to have disappeared During imperial Nicephorus crucial. The late main by the stay Therefore, issuing ship the

so prominent end of

things century whole of the eighth Thus, navy became progressively worse. the situation seized power, He realized that something had made the Roman legislation of it his the merchant marine in would tenth

when was more or less had to be done. 'naviculariil Mediterranean. suggest tried to be in the to that, to make the

the

to not seem groundless 'vexation', Nicephorus as they trying foreign used to

times.

owners active again Nicephorus was thus of attracting

reverse

earlier Empire's

recent policy Constantinople navy. of all sought would

merchant and to strengthen he did, Considering, the state as the embodiment as 3 in terms he thought control and power, of state intervention. it his ends by state to achieve seem that Nicephorus gave to the ship

merchants the Byzantine

therefore

1. Codex Justinianus, IV, 32,26. 2. A. Lewis, Naval Power and Trade A. D. 500-1100 (Princeton 1951), 3. Theophanes 1, p. 489.

in the p. 83.

Mediterranean,

1S7

twelve a loan at a high interest, owners pounds of gold as in the 'shipbecause he wanted the state to be involved for Nicephorus. business'. It was a matter of prestige He seemed to believe that the state should exercise in every field of private But state activity. control may well have been undermined, shipping control by Irene's Its the meantime, measures. especially however, to have been an issue of seems restoration, in the mind of the Emperor. importance Thus, vital over he is probably trying to reverse this reform, the tre, d which had seen trade escaping state control. -., 'misdeed' In brief, the spirit. of the tenth was the Whether Nicephorus in of control and power. spirit issuing had this always ships power, is unimportant. keep in mind that in the military action. Apart event of from war, that, the in

by

fact

we should merchant

undertook

4. fiscal

General

Assessment is and a

Nicephorus

known from the series mostly of economic his short he took during After measures reign. of these the vital reforms, is: was there any these because measures, of the question grand or rather is which still economic did Nicephorus lax policy to of be

survey

needs an answer 'strategy', uniting out of necessity, to predecessor? The answer

act his

a question not going To begin let simple. under with, us see what the Emperor his predecessors. According thought consideration about such Theophanes, him of 1 must Nicephorus having been However, the 'accused bad last all three those who ruled without of the by any administrators words

to

before

exception'. quotation the 1.

be considered always 1, p. 489. 1S8 ready

chronicler, Theophanes

as an exaggeration added to defame Nicephorus.

Because, number

how could of brilliant

Nicephorus

have

condemned policy or followed?

a certain policies,

up to a certain detested Irene's reign, was also Byzantium external as a result two

whose rulers, he himself point, administration, were the real

because rulers to the

He probably during the latter's the Empire. He

eunuchs was

of

worried policy. of

the critical about in relation faced with, The prestige a series of of

situation, the Empire

which Empress' had been lost

and to the newly established it would seem that However, even in such a disorganized found Nicephorus reign, some elements of good policy, What Theophanes which he followed and extended. calls first 'vexation' continuation of Nevertheless, had also of Nicephorus, Irene's policy Nicephorus, against That was more or Greece. about had which standard his less a

concessions made to the Arabs in the West. Roman Empire

a standard reign. the late

own convictions. he tried to judge seems which to have

He his been the

predecessor's ideal one of trying several which, allowed issuing reactivate InaviculariiI to

re-establish. of his reforms they such lapse tenth the

Roman practice, In connection (3,7,8) had been

he now was in that, with Nicephorus applied measures, by good Leo III,

although to his

introduced

administrators,

had been Justinian I and as by others. By or had been abolished 'vexation', Nicephorus trying to was also Roman legislation owners. mean that economic Nicephorus and fiscal lacked about the

late = ship

Do all these adaptations initiative for a better real administration? fiscal legislation On the

he made the fact that contrary; in cases where previously it effective had fallen disuse, he restored into that and the fact and the financial extended concerning measures of the welfare

159

Empire, in

proved

him

to

have

been Apart

controlling an innovator. tvexations'. the Byzantine to

finance. Nicephorus economy. the Sparta. though

a pragmatist, from that, the 4th, Sth,

an expert he was himself 6th and 9th base for in

By introducing tried We see

to

create a stable him spending money

order Andrassos to the

rebuild

and Arabs,

Patras, Ancyra, of Thebasa, cities he too, Like Irene, paid a tribute of a smaller amount and for much pounds at of gold, Euchaita and

shorter captured Strymon

His loss a period. of 2400 by the Arabs and the Bulgars

was not such a small correspondingly, amount. More important, the creation of new themes definitely by issuing his But, expense. considerable entailed

fiscal

Nicephorus not only managed to meet these reforms, expenses, but, he certainly left the state treasury when killed, 1 full. It should that not go unnoticed no source presents his power by spending the Emperor abusing money on luxuries donatives. Pragmatist and as he was, Nicephorus realized army and economy were the Thus, it was towards these two directed his measures. It was the first two and the last two that and the navy, Who suffered, Nicephorus' tough army the third, That ten measures which either directly two pillars that a mere his or of the Empire. targets not of the Emperor that the

coincidence affected

reforms indirectly.

because or who suffered of most, fiscal It looks policy? as if, by Theophanes, it was only listed to vast a general Idiceraton'. categories increase The of in rest the taxation of the

among one, and the the

applied of the

populace. reforms

one concerned certain

restoration concerned according contribute

of people, or classes who, groups to the Emperor's opinion, and should could finance than they had previously to the state more 1, p. 494. 160

Theophanes

done. 'to

Therefore, describes to say

it

is the

very

doubtful

whether

the

verb

suffer' be better

that

that were some groups into forcibly the Sclaveniae as sufferers. also definitely from Monks,

It would adequately. situation interests it was the economic of Those who were resettled damaged. could officials be considered, and dignitaries perhaps, were now no longer

among those

certain exempted have to say that all indirectly abolished Nicephorus mean that christian ideal that

people who were To be more specific, taxes. we kinds were directly or of privileges be taken to and this, of course, can back to the late Roman

went

meant responsibility, and, privilege for paying taxes! above all, responsibility from these Who benefited The difficult reforms? danger, the Empire the external circumstances and which his time, facing-with do not seem to have been the was at only view forces that urged Nicephorus More his policies fiscal events remember careful and policy and to take these and leads only vital the economic of conclusion measures. Nicephorus' that study goals was not coincidence, Nicephorus an overall us to a result of but it also I was the

past and contemporary looked to the future. One would first emperor need to to have

that

'austerity' applied becomes of particular success and this by fully. justified such measures were order to reactivate In other Nicephorus

measures importance circumstances.

with since In

in some cases, Nicephorus this, achieve needed to issues. Roman and Byzantine. legislation on certain let cases, us say the transfer of population, applied methods which had already been used by

But even so, the transfer times. emperors of earlier under Nicephorus different to have been of a slightly seems from those Furthermore, character made by his predecessors. into the enrolment for the army, of poor a measure applied

161

the

first

time step of

by our against their

Emperor, social

decisive regardless measures application

should inequality. the

be seen fiscal

as a However, and economic to

undertaken of laws

originality2 by Nicephorus and an incentive

demonstrate to civil In

a proper servants other words., felt

duties more effectively. out their carry during Nicephorus' it would seem that the presence of the aspects of their To conclude, in the measures traced

central government its lives, with all consequences. if a grand economic strategy cannot taken help aimed and one by Nicephorus, us at to the form then an overall

reign people in almost all

be aim of the this

their view of that

target might and their his reforms: they all economy of the Empire

achieved. goal was finally (815-842). Iconoclasm although been fiscal reformers, stability, or, it more is not just OW economic policy, Perhaps, under

could The Emperors they

strengthening hardly deny of the do not to

second seem to have an fiscal of it.

managed

by adopting by reaping accurately, too (97,000 much to suggest of pounds

maintain Nicephorus' the that 1

benefits the

and gold) 2 (197,000 had their Theodora wife pounds of gold) roots in Nicephorus' handling of the imperial prudent economy. Generally his fiscal seem speaking, policies and economic to have been treasury, sound benefited and no one else, from them. except the state

Theophilus

surpluses under his

1. 2.

W. Treadgold, ibid.

Byzantine

State

Finances...,

(op-cit.

),

p-11-

162

Chapter
RELIGIOUS

IV
POLICIES

Chapter
RELIGIOUS

IV
POLICIES

A:

ICONOCLASM - HERESY question the whether or the the Emperor Nicephorus' attitude

To the towards

church or is a reaction cut policy does not seem to be the suitable direct one. a answer It would be, perhvps, to say that more appropriate Nicephorus' to very character and persuasions, have do with the issue. on this considered he adopted to or tried policies According Nicephorus to Theophanes,

rei; gious dictated

forms a clear parties by circumstances,

something follow

his predecessors to govern', as 'unable all in a way the gold rule he used for governing, and giving 'if to say that the ruler wants to be safe on his throne, he should the emperor's not let anybody excel else power'. His desire for supremacy is evident in his domestic and No nqOLfP4=r CIO VCy -*,,, Vis policies. during his reign, to Irene's mentioned sole in contrast desire for becomes of Nicephorus' supremacy rule, while particular ecclesiastical Before against referred Moderates this 1. 2. the to importance issues. saying two as the policy 1, p-489anything main religious 'Politicians' regarding groups and Nicephorus' of the the time, 'Zealots' first actions usually (or consider in his attempt to deal with foreign

and Emperor's

Radicals),

we should perhaps images. towards

Theophanes ibid.

164

As it the

has

sources),

already Theophanes the

been

stated accuses

above does

(the

chapter of

on

Nicephorus

many evil

not state chronicler openly The portrait the Emperor was an iconoclast. that of Nicephorus sketched out by the hagiographer of St. George, actions. Bishop for used of to Amastris that is the that of example, put Emperor, a believer. friend a It of the recorded Saint, is

However,

he on sacerdotal clothes, which occasionally to the imperial ones, and to spend whole nights preferred 1 in praying Though this piece of information etc. comes ev-Ienko has is an from a Vita which, shown, as I. 2 it it shows iconoclast is of some importance, one, since for other Nicephorus that was a pious contemporaries, orthodox. attitude speculation over It that appears the iconoclastic his the Emperor issue, Nicephorus' gave grounds neutral for

For the views and stand. religious it would be fair to say that the Vita moment, of St. George in the direction iconoclasts that of Amastris points were disposed does not mean that this to Nicephorus, though well about he was an iconoclast. convictions not one needs settlement in 787. at to the alter by Irene made In regard bear in of Other least Nicephorus have been the the to the Emperor's mind that iconoclastic religious did Nicephorus controversy sources Nicephorus also was not an iconodule any suggests except be pp. 15S-56.

the fact that, stress 3 But an iconoclast. either. religious that in 'he relation He seems movement was little to the to

contemporary formally,

was hardly tolerant in Such of Empire. religious an opinion

inside

of almost J. B. Bury matters might

interested 4 state'.

1. Ano Kvenko, ymous, 2.1.

3.

Vita St. George 'Hagiography

4.

Ignatii Archiep. C. P., P. G. 105Y 489 C where it reads: "---qrOW.n1/CL R9N finally Vita O-L%16,16o#s 4v((#1AePLm-r 044PT4 -ro; , (AASS, April by Theosterictus Nicetas, 1, p. 261 EF) is called "pietissimus, Nicephorus where pauperumque amantissimus". et monachorumque E. R. E., p-38. J. B. Bury, 165

Vita Michael A Theodore the Monk, of Stoudios, Vita Tarasii, Archiep, 153 D); C. P. see also ), p-420, (joc-cit. it the Deacon where reads: * 5%*I j-x-Jo I 0 -f (V% OW-, also Vita x(JOS m16-T%705 St. %

...

), (loc-cit. Amastris 1, (loc. cit), pp-121-25.

(P. G. 99, by Ignatius cxavf-

dismissed

as a mere generalization, in favour to take measures either to his refusal of or intervention However, the Emperor's the icons. against issues in some ecclesiastical or semi-ecclesiastical that Nicephorus felt it

but

it

does justice

to one of his duties suggests Where this the church. peace was peace within maintain broken, to act as the the Emperor did not hesitate if he had to Idiscipli the church, even of narian' His tolerant displease groups of the populace. certain definitely irritated behaviour the towards the iconoclasts Theophanes accuses Nicephorus of image-worship. advocates of lshelterin' him tc alloweql course,, monk, named Nicolas, an iconoclastic 1 For Theophanes, preach his ideas. by the and of But, we o

Emperor exceeded the such an attitude limits toward Iconoclasm. of toleration permissible if we believe Theophanes' then account of Nicephorus,

the heresy of must assume that the Emperor almost joined 2 Paulicians. Fol. lowers of this the eastern sect inhabited the provinces of the Empire and it seems that during of Bardanes in 803, they sided with the imperial uprising forces however, does not mean This, the usurper. against by the that Nicephorus to put down the uprising managed employment Theophanes tolerant
1. 2.

of'sorceries 3 implies. attitude

which were in use by them, as It appears that the Emperor's the Paulicians against and the Athinganci

Theophanes 1, pp. 488-89. On these heretics, 'Les sources Ch. Astruc, see: dlAsie des Pauliciens Mineure', gr6cques pour 11histoire T. M., 4, (1970), dans 'Llheresie J. Gouillard, pp. 1-226; 1'empire byzantin des origines T. M., l, si6clel, au XIIe (1965), 'Byzantine N. Garsoian, Heresy. pp. 299-324; A Reinterpretation', DOP, 25 (1971), pp-85-113; 'L'histoire P. Lemerle, dlAsie Mineure es Pauliciens d'aprbs de sources T. M. S, (1973), grecques', pp-1-144. 3. Theophanes 1, p-488-

166

irritated towards needs Emperor these sparing those adopt the itself. to

Theophanes the bear Michael heretics their iconoclasts. in mind

more that,

than In

Nicephorus'

similar with year that, 811 to

policy one the annihilate 1 to

connection when in the as to a chance calls

I was uncertain or to lives, them give Theophanes and line finally of

whether of 'bad

repentance advisers' the Emperor the the

who suggested hard the less Athinganai. of the toleration Why did

persuaded eyes

and the

policies in the Perhaps,

towards of

Paulicians

a heresy

was tantamount

chronicler t, o a heresy

such a tolerant policy heretics? Unfortunately the sources these towards at information do not provide in order our disposal sufficient However, to give a direct answer to this question. relying Theophanes speaks way in which of the again on the negative Emperor's towards the Paulicians, attitude as well as on broad views issues, Nicephorus' about one might religious did not think that the Emperor possibly suggest of the Paulicians case, cannot that the as heretics! Nicephorus' plan But, to even if that use them against What is, nevertheless, to fight side readiness was not the the Arabs. certain by side is with

Emperor

follow

be ruled out. the Paulicians' forces

in 803, played Turcus Bardanes against benevolent in Nicephorus' to a prominent attitude role Moreover, He had cause to be grateful them. to them. if we keep a close scene of events eye on the whole at the imperial very we would have to century, Nicephorus that was very about his priorities: clear he faced when he came to power, the complex situation of the ninth connected of primary 1, with the church not significance. p-495. or with Foreign religious affairs, beginning admit in

problems were 1.

sectors fiscal

Theophanes

167

reforms than in

and

army

command were

of

ecclesiastical an undoubtedly

problems. difficult period therefore at least,

much greater urgency The way Nicephorus acted not

and circumstances believer, a great

by was justified he was, if that suggests ruler.

a clear-minded

B:

NICEPHORUS AND THE PATRIARCH

Two persons the patriarchal throne occupied of Constantinople had been patriarch during Tarasius, Nicephorus' reign. who 784, held the highest ecclesiastical since post of the Eas-L. his death in 806. In that till was year the empty throne by another layman, the Emperor's namesake Nicephorus. his two patriarchs have to be The Emperor's relations with The mere fact Tarasius that separately. was considered in 802, Nicephorus the patriarch who crowned as emperor filled while the latter that have the selected Emperor's a different his suggests bound to latter. namesake as patriarch dealings the former with from those with in 806, were the

character

1. Irene

Nicephorus General 802, in

and Tarasius Logothete had Nicephorus already Tarasius throne overthrew been sitting the Empress on the

When the

patriarchal During that

for eighteen of Constantinople years. he had established himself firmly in very period the post and had gained His great reputation. a very high in the role, even if he did not take the initiative, the icons Tarasius in 787,, seems was of also vital to have importance been key a for

restoration of his popularity.

1. On his appointment PP-183-86.

to

the

patriarchal

throne

see below,

168

figure the first

in

the

political

life Nicephorus' to His echoed

of the

Byzantium, reign,, but

not much

only earlier,

during

years of his accession ever since in 784. Constantinople reform had established for the clergy are

patriarchal ideas regarding sources.

throne the 1

of need to Tarasius

by many

new priests

particularly period Patriarch to end the The lavish offices. also something In his effort body not those of only the to which to church priesthood their

as a nursery serve communityto, a monastic bishops. The hagiographers of the and made by this of the efforts speak practice lifestyle Tarasius these but 'healthy', also of purchasing of could Tarasius to the not secular tolerate and to ecclesiastical clergy any make was longer. the 2

abolish

practices

elevated bishoprics.

many monks Among

Patriarch, St. Macarius to this priesthood St. John the Psychai te and St. Nicetas of of ""' be mentioned. Medikion But Tarasius above all must needed his plans to adopt and extend on reform, good bishops ready four bishops, i. e. At least them permanence. giving owing Pelecete, St. Michael Emilian were four, of bishop Synada, of to two, St. Theophylact Cyzicus their Eudoxius and by Tarasius. bishoprics of Sardis of Nicomedia, bishop of Amorion, To those of they were Euthymius because and Joseph though group. known to

appointed

another Thessalonica,

Euthymius

not of they

ordained Sardis and Michael

These two, must be added. by Tarasius, belonged to his of Synada diplomatic Irene, are well

us,

served on important Emperors VI, Constantine 1. 2.

the missions under I and Michael Nicephorus Vita p. 74.

I.

See for instance., I. A. Heikel, lIgnatii Diaconi ), p-406; Tarasii 1, (loc-cit. 'St A. Vogt, ... Theophylacte de Nicomediel, in A. B. 50 (1932), (loc-cit. ), p. 406. Vita Tarasii,

169

Everybody Even silence the

respect seemed disagreeing Studites, though second marriage of

to

St.

Tarasius'

name.

on the

his pathetic with l Constantine VI, clash the with him.

avoided carefully coming to an open had 'survived' Tarasius Furthermore, emperors, that most Constantine the difficult VI. one Therefore

having

reigns of two been, of course, he

of was definitely

in or a tool how determined an unyielding especially to

to not prepared the hands of a third the attitude the reign latter

we might assume that become just a figure-head emperor., rule over no matter the

was to

on the part of of Nicephorus,

Such church. Patriarch this applies because Tarasius in 802. the accession After all, of he new

seems to have played Emperor this to the was the one who put

a prominent role in October throne the imperial

crown on the head of the Referring to this coronation strong man of the state. Theophanes that the people with some bitterness states of both, Constantinople the one who was crowning were cursing Patriarch) and the one who was being crowned (i.

(i. e. the Nicephorus)

e.

.2 Unfortunately relations to the Tarasius Patriarch issues.

and state Nicephorus Patriarch time to the

information little the church very covers during from the elevation the period of (October 802) until the death throne of the (February 806). In the course of this on seems to have concentrated He probably went on with primarily his efforts

religious

the clergy, they carried reform out their pastoral so that duties Neverthel. exists one more effectively. ess there demanded that Tarasius these event during which years, declare himself, in favour the Emperor. or against either This 1. 2. event was the attempted usurpation of the imperial throne

below, On this p. 179. see Theophanes 1, p-476.

170

by Bardanes importance supposed the to

Turcus for

in

803.

What

is that here, us be under Tarasius' These

of particular bishops who were some influence, somehow sided were Euthymius of Sardis, All efforts

is

usurper. with Theophylact Nicomedia of Amorion. and Eudoxius of Thanks to Tarasius' by exile. three were punished but two of them were soon released and reinstated, 1 in exile for a long time. St. Euthymius remained It Tarasius' he realized the only way ecclesiastical directions. all remained group the of eyes loyal bishops of would seem that taught that such the group, an attitude on the Emperor a valuable

bishops

of part lesson: that arl in have the in on

he could on them and also not rely for him to survive political usurpations his policies intrigues, was to toughen Though to the his Tarasius it himself is easy lost their these seems to see to Emperor, that

under Nicephorus issues that less 806,

patronage

ecclesiastical is unlikely died any in influence

and probably Under too. than the three

credibility influence

years

it circumstances later, when Tarasius

February

new patriarch but the final The Emperor iconoclasts relations

on the is concerned. They were probably consulted, 2, by Nicephorus himself. decision was made Nicephorus' also have tolerance shadowed According iconoclastic Nicephorus towards the some might the state's good to Theophanes, activities provoked the

same group of bishops exercised far as the election Emperor as of the

with church. by covering example, up the monk Nicolas and his group, 1.

for

of the Patriarch

du Patriarche M6thode: 'Une oeuvre inconnue J. Gouillard, de Sardes', in B. Z., 53 (1960), La vie d'Euthyme p-38Society, 2. K. Ringrose, 726 to Saints, Holy Men and Byzantine University, 843 (Ph. D. 1976, Rutgers New Brunswick p. 110), However, the opposite. seems evidence suggests no sufficient it. As the author honestly for to be given of the thesis is only 'based her conclusion inference on the an admits, between Saints Nicephorus and Tarasius, many similarities the continuity of their policies and the continuing by the followers importance of the role played of during the reign St. Tarasius of St. Nicephorus as ). (ibid. patriarch' 171

Tarasius' report that

iconodule by Theophanes incidents,

feelings. reflects if any, the true were

However, events, rather

even
4

if would

this appear they do

such

disturb not necessarily Nicephorus and Tarasius. might Emperor reflect towards to the his

good relations Such incidents, inability views.

.t rare and between

Patriarch's

to

nevertheless, influence the

iconodule own

between the relations and summarize outline during the last three and state and a half years church half Tarasius' three and the first patriarchate and a of it would be best Nicephorus' to say that reign, of years Trying their were seems and, reported wanted Skandalon, to, relations very that most careful were to marked by cautious provocation. avoid independence of no interference Patriarch Kathara, a third They respect. it Furthermore, each other by either though also existed is

of a sort important, by the did

sources. the of

The Emperor,

side he keenly the As

not ask i. e. Joseph

to restore to -e priesthood.

on the same issue out, shift points 2 The made by the same patriarch would have been too much. he would have to Emperor realized this that affair on very the death wait and so he did. until of the Patriarch P. Alexander Finally throne Referring hagiographer, especially event. surrendered 1. 2. 3. to for Tarasius, twenty to his two death after years, and the this to having died his Deacon, reaction on the patriarchal 806.3 on 25 February funeral, Tarasius' sat draws our attention behaviour to during Tarasius'

Ignatius the

Emperor's to to

According himself

author, a deep grief,

and the Emperor and

this

Nicephorus

Theophanes 1, pp. 488-89. The patriarch P. Alexander., T=loc-S. Lt. ), Vita Tarasii, tarasius died it that

(pE. cit. ), p-87. Nicephorus ... (1, p-481) Theophanes p-421; 806. on 18 February

172

funeral, it with calling

having the the

embraced imperial purple

his

dead Patriarch,

having and covered coffin he kept crying robe, and father, shepherd, assistant

in

to guide of the state sleepless source of light, ruling, invincible in the holy teacher, the better, supporter 1 This information etc. should be considered expeditions, first, for the following three reasons: as valuable, because it comes out of a very reliable source; secondly, words are among the very few, spoken by the Emperor Nicephorus which have survived, and thirdly because, far as we know, Nicephorus was very prompt so but slow to praise. Furthermore the mere fact to accuse, Emperor lavished that this such praise on the dead because these first that Nicephorus can also mean two things: owed Tarasius a great deal probably more than his to the throne the that during elevation and secondly 802-806 church and state short period co-operated more or less happily. Patriarch,

2. After

The Two Nicephori the successful that at patriarchate the court election of of Tarasius, his successor it is quite and church, knew

as well political as among all A capable ecclesiastical at Constantinople. groups for the benefit patriarch would act, only not of the but for the welfare The Emperor too. of the state, that all too well from his patriarchate. 1. 2.

understandable interest great

raised

of Tarasius' experience 2 broad-minded He was a person, to enough

Vita (loc-cit. ), p. 420. Tarasii The hagiographer of St. Nicephorus, Nicephorus the Emperor that asserts
(P. G. 100,61D).

Ignatius the Deacon, was-5' 13'- Y, I VON) OLTOS" bV

173

realize the strong

that, and

in

the

long

term, would

the throne.

interests

of served

both, with it a to

church

the

state,

be better Nicephorus

man on the patriarchal doubtful very whether remains appoint even a patriarch stronger with

However,

was prepared

an equally that have

an appointment Emperor's own convictions, imperial over authority 1 in the church. It is also possible of this having Joseph of

than personality.,, definitely would every that

strong, and perhaps Such of Tarasius. been the power against supremacy in the the of state or

regarding other

Nicephorus restored to

was

already

thinking if

Kathara

priesthood. would also to

then the new patriarch was the case, but only to be a rather weak character, the party of the Moderates. The division of into the

not need, belong to

Constantinople eighth Moderates (784). the

century. his since Leaders of of of

forces ecclesiastical at 2 Moderates and Radicals goes back had been head of the Tarasius to election the Radicals Symboli, Stoudi0s. had time Plato 3 been during the patriarchal in order, were of Sakkoudion by the throne Sabbas and, two

to

and Theoctistus Theodore course, Different parties council those controversy 12. for of who,

of

oecumenical (787) on the question i. e. Nicaea of the lapsi, during the first phase of the iconoclastic 4 had yielded The Radicals, to Iconoclasm.

opinions the first

expressed the

seventh

3. 4.

Theophanes 1, p-489(The Patriarch On this Nicephorus... P. Alexander see 'secular 80 sq. ), where the terms and monastic clergy' p. I prefer the names 'Moderates' are used. and 'Radicals', because, Leo IV allowed the monks to the Emperor after become bishops, several members of the i! onastic clergy -.. line leaders the harsh of their and yielded abandoned to Iconoclasm. Epist. (P. G. 99,1044A). 1,38 Theodore of Stoudios, (E. cit. ), vol. 12, Conciliorum... Sacrorum I. D. Mansi., 1115-18. 174

founding demanded ringleaders, would council

their that

St. Athanasius' on argument bishops., the backsliding at should to see lose the their decisions thus, they sees, of while the

works, least the fourth

1 the

Moderates oecumenical

prefer

repeated,

and,

the Radicals with which policy, issue The second the on which each other

adopted a conciliatory 2 finally agreed. parties Simoniacs. two opposed 3 Under

again, was that of the those this to be name both, who had paid money in order bishops those ordained priests or bishops, well as as as who had received money to ordain priests, were included. issue We are told left that this to be discussed was after During the discussion seventh oecumenical council. Simoniacs. be restored the Moderates that proposed could having after received one year of penance. at least implies Theodore the proposal that of Stoudios was accepted by the Patriarch backed by some monks, whose and enacted 5 be emphasized It should in that names are not mentioned. found himself to the issue the Patriarch regard of Simoniacs the a rather between the insisted of to 1. 2. 3. in dramatic Empress situation. Irene and of the the He was Radical standing monks. Simoniacs, after somewhere Irene one party first to the year
-4

on the restoration But to such penance. them, objected. by denying that

strongly

the radical a restoration in turn, The Patriarch yielded he had ever granted penance

his letter Mainly P. G. 26p 1180 sq. to Rufinianus, (op. cit. ), vol. 12,1118. I. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum... (loc. cit. ), On this Epist. 1,38 Stoudios, see Theodore of BC. col-1044 4. ibid, 1044 B. At* &UV IV TO( IL V4OV(% 6'f CX S%WV CfdkAtA 5. ibid. It reads: v)% 6V C'k^M -r CL, Here again among the monks a proportion did not side but preferred leaders, their to rigorous be entitled join One might the Moderates. to assume formed that the core of the monastic these monks group Tarasius the Patriarch around a number of them and that later to bishops. were promoted

175

Simoniacs, festival

and secondly (6 January) of Theophany the 1 Simoniacs., Two years

to

the

Empress, of the

when

communion with been completed. her son, earlier

whose time Irene later the he did chance

at the 788., he held year had of penance deposed denounce by his to

was have

and Tarasius grasped deeds by saying that

he knew to with a person whom had accused if the Radicals a great number of demanding Simony and the Patriarch was proof. was available had to limit bishops, only'for

not be a Simoniac.

communion It looks bishops But of

as

a few cases and thus the demands for deposition their to only those bought to having their who had publicly admitted

proof Rigorists

see. between the two parties In short in the difference issue might be formulated to the Simoniac regard as following: The radical they both denounced Simony. monks 2 They of the opposite. could not accuse the Patriarch both fought Simoniac the against ordination after any They both wanted the purification second council of Nicaea. But how the body of the church-from the Simoniacs. bishops many ought to lose their sees for the sake of this The Radicals purification? asked for a great number, the Patriarch perhaps the majority of them, while by limiting to only a few well known compromised, matters of In principle, the victory cases. went to the Rigorists, -Ae brought into open and managed to have certain the matter who bishops deposed. in reality However, the Moderates can hardly be called degree they To a certain losers. Simony with Iconoclasm managed to connect and presented
1. 2. Theodore 1044 C. Theodore 1105 D: of of Stoudios, Stoudios,
(x vnw )tErt(poxoy

Epist. Epist.
qw CL

1,38,, 1,53
OT%

(loc-ci-L. (loc. cit.

6%c)S

),, ),
c%)w

col. col.
jtA"qtj

-Tctlpcx.

x? v'i%&%)L6j

176

it

(Simony)

as a result unity

of

the

iconoclastic

policy

of that make the the for

previous the sake

emperors. of

The radical monks were told Iconoclasm they should against their did hard line against

a concession and moderate bishops. They Simoniac bitterness. Simoniac issue A few in

bishops

with some so probably lost their sees and thus solution. side, but either

ended did not satisfy an outcome such by either it rejected side. was for The two parties clashed second of implications. to the marriage of The so-called the

a compromise

Perhaps, neither

time on the issue a third Emperor Constantine VI and Moechian controversy was

its

be renewed during I, the reign and prolonged of Nicephorus I. But, the reign of Michael and it did not end before let take the events one by one. us 1 in the year 781 Constantine We have already that seen betrothed daughter VI, being to Rotrud, only eleven, was of 2 favoured by both Charlemare. That betrothal, though 3 (788), in 787 sides, was broken off and one year later by his mother Constantine VI was forced to marry Maria of Amnia, fr om landowner of a rich granddaughter Paphlagonia, the Merciful. who is known as St. Philaretos From this became marriage a daughter was born, who later the the of wife Rotrud, of the the Emperor marriage Michael II. But, to like Maria the betrothal of Seven Constantine was also been married

he had duration. of short after years (i. e. in 795) the Emperor his divorced in lawful wife and August Theodote, of the same year he married a lady-in-waiting 71. 1. See above, p. 2. Theophanes 1, pp. 455,463. 3. More about betrothal its breaking this and off, cf. 71-72. above, pp. 4. On the background M. Leroy, of Maria see M. H. Fourmy 'La vie de S. Philarete', (loc. cit. ), pp-85-170. "K0\)6%j<0UjCLp&'0Lq, Theophanes 1, p. 470: V. jj'S ctu aU (0TCc
S. V OF

%%

177

of

the

Empress.

'

This

young Empress was a the chamber as well as has led P. Speck to imply Stoudios Theodore of cousin of be seen as the instrument Theodote that should - unwitting in both Irene the Studites, and used which perhaps 2 VI. Joseph, Constantine the abbot to destroy of order Kathara, performed monastic himself involved in was not directly the new Empress Theodote this was a cousin and though matter Theodore, at the time abbot of Sakkoudion, a new conflict of burst known as between This the two parties out. clash, 3 Schism or Moechian Moechian controversy, was more severe into It divides The two stages. than the previous ones. first while phase the was rather second, short and is going which 795-797, the years covered in a later to be discussed from 806 to 811. tonsured catechist Though Tarasius wedding into Maria the ceremony the and an unnamed life.

employment fact the that

of

Theodote

in

Irene's

section, extended over the period his nephew Theodore During Plato the first period and 4 the Emperor, accused called new Herod, whom they of
1.

(1, p. 469)-implies Irene that the Empress decision Maria Constantine's to divorce lcx%rTo, her to become a nun "---s j-4VjTf0%,S T%; S. &fPX1; S AVOS TC%P K(XT0L VU069AVXl On' n 4X `V-rWV 0 is our only for Though this source such an information, the extraordinary mother ambition of the Emperor's allows she would have done us to assume that - as did in order to assert she actually everything herself her own son. Moreover, VI Constantine against was a rather weak character,, open to suggestions. Furthermore he does not seem to have been clever the consequences enough to foresee and the repercussions he does not seem to Finally of what he was up to. have ever loved his wife Maria. 2. I. P. Speck, (op. cit. ), pp. 255-56. VI, Kaiser Konstantin 3. On the Moechian issue 1, p. 470; see Theoplianes 1,21,22,23,24,25, Stoudios, Theodore Epist.: of , 26,28,30,31,32,33,35,36,38,39,43,48,53. Theophanes was behind and force

178

having

indignation their committed adultery.. the abbot of Kathara, and they also accused the against having permitted Tarasius Patriarch the unnamed of Maria and Joseph to perform the to tonsure catechist communion with him of holding wedding ceremony and 2 (i. e. with Joseph) after The Radicals that. separated from the secular from themselves clergy and they abstained Once again Tarasius found with the Patriarch. communion they himself Radicals
1.

'

directed

caught

between his

two powers. conciliatory

Once again policy.

the

condemned

2.

is the anonymous the second source Narratio iesanctis Tarasio et Nicephoro patriarchis (P. G. 99,19'-52D), the Life of and the third of Theodore Stoudios (P. G. 99,144 A). However, argue one might had really if such a threat been made by the that, Emperor, Theophanes to record would not have omitted Irene's it, in order her to support attitude against 797. own son in August
jA04XL--Sf&%V k;

in Tarasius, There that were circulating rumours Joseph the wedding to perform ceremony, permitting was duress, VI had Constantine that acting under given his demand for Iconoclasm., threatened to renew unless be met. These second marriage would are echoed rumours by three the seems to be sources, earliest of which Theodore-of (loc-cit., Stoudios, Epist., 1,36 vol. 99, -TOG col. 1032D) where /I it reads: . 'V'%
a" V%%

(loc. cit. ), vol. 99, Epist, In Theodore 1,25, of Stoudios, is argued B, it Constantine VI had already that col-989 his committed adultery with persons various even before In the same letter is Theodore second marriage. he knew about Joseph, that though those emphatic relations holy the Emperor of the Emperor, went on giving communion, behaving his dinners him toward and, in general, sharing immoral According to the as if nothing was happening, this was the reason same letter, why the abbot of did not hesitate Kathara, to perform the when asked, To my knowledge unlawful second marriage of the Emperor. is our only for these 'activities' this source of his marriage. Constantine VI outside Regardless of its information this two things: validity reveals first have life that the Emppror's even would not private the attention the Studites, escaped of and second that both had been equally Joseph of Kathara popular with Emperors, Constantine VI and Nicephorus I.

179

tried to of In the name of their by persuasion. the Radicals win over kinship, Theodote some valuable presents, sent Theodore himself the humiliating the Emperor step undertook while 1 But all the monastery of Sakkoudion. was in of visiting Theodote's The monks refused to accept presents and vain. 2 in their ignored Constantine's arrival neighbourhood. Such behaviour the on the part of the monks irritated the the Emperor the most enough to order the flogging of Theodore and of of the to VI 4 among them and the dispersion courageous Theodore ten was exiled with another monastery. 3 Thessalonica. Less than two year-s later (15 August deposed and as the sole October 802. measures 797) by his was deprived of his who from now onward i. e. years, of five forces 1. changed.

At

beginning

dispute

Constantine

monks

Constantine mother,

eyesight reigned

until Irene took

for a period ruler The balance of in favour of the

'Vita (P. G. vol. 99, Michael, Stoudios'A, of Theodore of hot water in There was a source col. 140 A). of curative Sakkoudion's to this neighbourhood and according author Constantine to the source to as a pretext used his visit the monks on-the speak with of conciliation. purpose 2. Such a refusal to welcome the Emperor would sound if one of our sources did not provide unbelievable, a sort it is Michael, hagiographer, Theodore's of explanation: for Theodore that who suggests and for his monks Constantine By committing was not an emperor any more! he automatically his imperial he lost throne; adultery ig wnTw became fallen ('Vita Theodore TOS., i-eof Stoudios', loc. cit. vol-99, col-137C). 'Vita 3. Michael (Joc. cit. ), 140 B; Theodore Stoudios'A, of of 1,3 ), (loc-cit. Epist. see also TH-e-odore of Stoudios, 916C-917C, to Thessalonica"is where their route described. 4. Theophanes We are not told 1, p-472. the much about VI's but he must have died life, rest of Constantine 80S. On this, the year some time before see E. W. Brooks, 'On the Date of the Death of Constantine B. Z., IX (1900), the Son of Irene'. p. 65S.

180

Rigorists returned to

and from

against their

Joseph

of

Kathara. immediately.

return The Patriarch

exile Constantinople, Tarasius and city

almost Theodore the to Since the

The Radicals ' On his

of the at the entrance deprivedothe priesthood. friendly Patriarch relations were

hero. was welcomed as a Empress herself were there 2 him. Joseph was welcome the radical Skandalon monks was and removed., the Sakkoudion Stoudios made at Tarasius. 4

between

Soon after

resumed. developments these himself 3 at It the old

Theodore monastery

left of

and established inside Constantinople. the

request of the For a period of about the body of the church. himself to have dedicated monastic reorganizing did not clash again, in Tarasius moderate should the two not be taken

was a move reportedly Empres. s Irene and the Patriarch nine years, During this there time the 5

was peace in Theodore seems task The of two parties of the however, separating

life

to completely in Byzantium.

the at least until after 806. This reconciliation, to the differences

death

parties remained to their and the two sides stuck more or less unchanged Given the occasion they were certainly convictions. ready to clash This once again. internal to the strife of the church whole ecclesiastical dilemma Nicephorus the Emperor appoint St. Tarasius' a 'climate' was is sketch of the introduction

mean that had been removed.

The differences

necessary at Constantinople faced in

1.

with., 806.

when

and the he came to

successor

Michael, Theodore 'Vita Stoudios' A, (10c. cit-), of of 141 nacj2,ctvT%'tcct A4iki Talis ncxTqpcx'6%v '3ne-po(2(%Xvr 2. ibid. 3. Michael,,, (loc-cit. ), Theodore Vita Stoudios'A of of -Un-the 144 CD. te transfer, reasons which caused below, see also pp-197-99. 4. ibid., col-144D. S. On this J. Leroy, 'La r6forme (loc. Studitel, see, cit. pp. 201-206.

).

181

A fair new patriarch. name and elevated, remain appointment the first

number 1

refer or sources However, though of the

to all

the

election

of

the

sources

the the

background

person,

agree on the who was finally or appointment 2 has it, the

vague. of

of the election proceedings As the Book of Ceremonies

in two stages, took place a new patriarch ( %V v* o 4, being itself the election one -'c)t ) %I OF, (ieE-, 1pco-T*v1"cx the second the liturgical ordination and 3 The enthronement the nominee. was the final step of day took place the same day as the ordination, which and to have been passage detailed one, bishops, of the their to or for of course, passage him, The already a Sunday or a holiday. from the Book of Ceremonies., is which speaks of an assembly of the held at the church of St. Sophia. meeting names the was to to the emperor all of In In the elect emperor. either them the the and second year three candidates As the final one of his a

ought rather

mentioned

metropolitan The purpose and to submit word belonged these three, preference choice, which Lecapenus to the

appointed expressed

he rejected somebody else. prevailed. refers,

case his A. D. 933,

Emperor Romanus powerful his own son, Theophylact, appointed as patriarch his name does not seem to have been among the three though 4 bishops. is said forwarded by the metropolitan Nothing 1.

by Ignatius Vita Theophanes Nicephori 1, p. 481; the Deacon (P. G. 100,61B-64B; Theodore of Stoudios, (P. G. 99,837 his Laudatio Platonis BC) and especially Epist. 1,16, (P. G. 99, col. 960-61). (op-cit. ), 2. Constantine De Cerimoniis. Porphyrogenitus, vol-I, pp. 564-66. 3. For bibliography 'Die Patriarchenwahl K. Lubeck, see mainly, in der griechisch-melkitischen Kirche', Theologie und Glaube, VI (1914), 111investitute L. Brehier, pp-730-40; de Constantinople dge', des patriarches Studi au moyen e (Miscellanea Testi, G. Mercati, 111,1946), CXXIII pp. (2nd vol. 368-72; id., Institutions of Le monde byzantin), 71'cephorus... P. Alexander, The Patriarch 477-82; pp. (2p. cit. ), pp. 65-66. 4. On t! T'ls see. G. Ostrogorsky 'Die and E. Stein, des Zeremoniebuches', (1932), Kr6nungsurkunden Byz., VII pp-185-233182

about any According

role, to I.

played Pargoire

by the la

lay part

in this element dans du peuple

election. cet acte

(i. e. elections bishops) tend a se restreindre"' and of bishops had no 'even ordinary P. Alexander that suggests 2 in this It seems that the participation of matter'. vote But to the acclamation the laity only. was restricted itself, stage clear acclamation was a In addition from the election. to this, at made by the senate, usually which was the not of said, seem to the have been of an essential that that, the part election it becomes took a new patriarch. either during totally the the for separated acclamation, does Magnaura, procedure has been the

the

obvious

From what intervention of the actual the

place emperor (%Vv%4ocbcP91'ot) or acclamation. uncanonical, canon law. Coming allow patriarch us to but back

election

after Undoubtedly strong to the in

between such

emperors 806,

and the election an intervention was did not worry much about the sources the at our of disposal the new to

assume was done

year in this that

say peculiar, is mentioned Emperor did From what Nicephorus Making priests, indicate

way. as having not took need sources the

a more or No assembly taken to

year less of

election

unprecedented, metropolitan consequently three

not bishops the

place and between choose it

the

report, initiative

a careful

inquiry,

seems very from the very first moment. he wrote distinguished to all each one asking We possess neither of them the to total 1905) ), p. 66. of id.,

candidates. likely that

monks and senators, 3 his preference.

1.

de 527 - 847 (Paris J. Pargoire., Eglise Byzantine p-57. 2. P. Alexander, (2p. cit. The Patriarch Nicephorus ... 3. Vita (loc. cit. ), cols, 61B-64A; Theodore Nicephori Platonis (loc-cit. ), col-837B; Stoudios, Laudatio ), cols. 960A-961A. (loc-cit. Epist. 1,16

183

number, however, Studite

nor

names of his nephew Plato and known to movement, are reply for the source Nicephorus that to

the

those

asked to Theodore, have been Emperor, of those

vote. the asked. a letter this

Two persons, leaders of the

From Theodore's invaluable an becomes clear indicate, himself referred candidate person Though the to

the

history asked

which it period,

is

but only one candiate. not three, did not propose anybody specifically. to the ought be elected it general qualifications, he went to have, and should alread7 it directly, say clear that

to consulted Theodore 1 He only an appropriate that orders. to the 2 of

which on to say be in holy fr(m the

he does

letter

not becomes

context

Theodore

refused

the candidature of a layman. consider Plato's to the Emperor reply on the it We learn from the about preserved. delivered funeral Plato in by Theodore, 814.3 From himself He nominated avoids that on the this occasion speech

is not same issue Laudatio Platonis, of his uncle's assume that forward put

one might person to

considered

a suitable

a candidate. carefully indication nominated At any is of not our

a person, whose name Theodore is not such coyness But, an mentioning. himself it was Theodore who had been as a candidate the of for the name of the person, importance., vital at significance those had Epist. Laudatio can that patriarchate? by Plato, proposed least at this be agree on a it that stage certainly did not has by

by Plato rate,,

something research. to the

More fact

attached unanimous not five, 1. 2. 3.

proposition. but many persons

consulted Theodore of Stoudios been 1,16 proposed (loc.

those

Theodore of Stoudios, 960B: glAvw -Ov ibid., 960C. Modore of Stoudios, col. 837B.

cit. ), col. C-0a kA (x 'r a (loc. cit. ),

Platonis,

184

consulted. to the behaviour

1 issue

What

has

also the

was always

be stressed himself, Emperor to

is

that about

the

key

questions arise. and mentality certain did he not know, for instance, that, the existing given he could divisions the church, within not expect an Second, was it not the Emperor's choice? unanimous intention to appoint even inquiry? accept if this his before namesake Nicephorus he undertook the And third, anunanimous went against character did from 2 it not would to task the of

whose First,

patriarchate, his thorough prepared consulted, Nicephorus' opposite any to

the

making be Emperor

choice, made by those his own preference? in the ignored

whole direction. which rate, Vita,

and outlook point He would have undoubtedly fall in line in with the first. the his

advice At any his

Nicephorus' indicate

what we read is clear that from the

own wishes. Patriarch did not

Emperor

It was only preference very he made his the disagreement that of those after asked, 3 decision We do not know how many, if any, of public. those asked for the Emperor's their opinion, nominated namesake unlikely candidate provided choices.
Theophanes' elected J&4DL %X ew V r.
1.

Nicephorus that even

as patriarch.

It.

in

in a simple majority 4 No doubt was achieved. such the Emperor with a good pretext,
account nmv-r'Os does that -ro; not Nicephorus moj shed L<at -[Z-j much light

any favour

case,

seems

of one a disagreement to ignore their

Patriarch) np'os N the was

(the fset-wv, on

Cmli TZV %, for problem

Theodore
837B:

2. 3.

( "t n't n oAA*vs ol n QA cp w-s le" cx6,ro r A 4x" %# 6 %-* (x -rcx v% 6 ?I w lk &A 4Se% Cx V- d) % V CX T or k aL 'L(-V (")L - ), Vita (loc-cit. Ignatius Deacon, Nicephori the col. 64A. ... SP(X6T%AelOV ibid. VV 64AB: -TO TOV 6 lX -T col. , "---T

of

Stoudios,

Laudatio

Platonis,

(loc.

cit.

col.

4* Theodore of 837 B. 5. Theophanes 1,

'Fp % t3%v'vACb Ov-. %)OlOV%"Y-Q'j 'p Laudatio Stoudios, Platonis p-48118S

(loc-cit.

),

col.

the

following and

general

reasons: does not go into to the the

first, any

because details second,

it

is

very the he is

work preliminary biased against T) q

(X 61A er'"i V,, .6 Emperor Nicephorus ones because, to have

election., by saying %I j, Emperor and qp *, 5 & v<cc"% 1 he gives that the us the impression were the last and his son Stauracius on the matter, and likely thirdly,

regarding because

an opinion

it it seems very that stands, as Theophanes I account W ui i*, * (* o ref ers not to the but to later itself, of the whole procedure stages i. e. to the acclamation election, and the ordination. is significant not the true that vote say verb that the of ell using It is (by that that the the but does author of new Patriarch the Chronographia elected" "was

(X of the it

he goes straight to the ordination "Q%n (he was ordained). ? o-rcv", 46L, Theophanes W uses the word too, but from 10 the the whole and to context
jQ1QG

the

vote)

it

becomes
116p"'

clear (by the

phrase all

TIO(VT'O%S T07J the the

J((X*l T; J,4

populace

clergy), actual person,

t ViV

he

to the acclamation refers and not Nevertheless the Chronographia the only-source, for Emperor'S the background the obtained His name too servant., retired time the of poorhouse capital,

election. though not who

i, s useful, of the

for the patriarchate. preference he was a high was Nicephorus; ranking civil 4a from which he had already asecretis, post becoming At the the intention with of a monk. his Nicephorus election in Constantinople. where the Emperor was at the head of a He resided somewhere outside sent messengers to persuade

1. Theophanes 1, p. 481. 2. ibid. 3.17-id.; Nicephori Vita 4. Tb--id., col-64BC.

(loc.

cit.

),

col-49A.

186

him them

to It

accept to Constantinople

the

honour for

offered the that

to

him

and the Vita

accompany proceedings. records is - also two

should (W vj cb ooo? I (x 1) : elections identical the Emperor's with known those while ever those It to the took us from did second preference place, to previous ready Theodore not took agree place of asked

be noted

of rest Nicephorus' the first

preliminary 1Stoudios

one, which inquiries

on the after This

and in which 2 to be appointed, person had already the Emperor

his made as the

clear. 3 does not It the

one. fulfil

inquiry, if it second seem to have been as thorough is very it was only likely that Emperor's wish that were asked.

that this time their now to be emphasized needs vote in accord known the Emperor's already with was totally 4 wishes. decide But., what made Nicephorus, the Emperor, upon namesake for the patriarchate? Though the latter's hagiographer, Ignatius fulfilled any role played His background the a number of qualifications, attributes 5 do not seem to have Saint, these importance for his appointment. civil servant., Tarasius, his patriarch, assume that at however, by his of

his

Deacon,

as a high

the just was Tarasius predecessor. in the Emperor's least similarity of

this

same as that of had been a successful 6 and one might eyes, backgrounds would have meant Nicephorus General and it is himself, i. e. Logothete, more than

Furthermore, much to the Emperor. before becoming had been emperor, in Irene's a minister government, 1.

(loc. cit. ), col-960B; Theodore Stoudios, EPist. 1,16 of id., (loc. cit. ), col. 837B. Platonis, LajAdatio 2. Vita (loc. cit. ) col. 64A: "c;Acs "04 Nicept-)hori E*AdPO 0 3. ibid., is possible 64AB. it Here again that col. Ignatius the acclamation the Deacon takes as a second election. ')f%tfrTjc). 4. ibid. 64B: "K(x*% %Os 'AG(V%jtv. nf, col "' j Oe&v ncfvTcLv euvv,, , S. ib -id . 172-73. 6. See above, pp. 187

likely

that

as such the

he was already though

acquainted no positive

with proof

his can be

namesake,

asecretis,

adduced. By appointing other the candidates, party Four of the days were to

Nicephorus, some of Studites. enough

the

Emperor

whom certainly for the appointee

rejected probably did not belong to to be ordained hierarchy

deacon, as and become

climb

archbishops, of Thessalonica, Heraclea Emperors participate

patriarch Nicolas

of ecclesiastical up the steps Sunday 806. Two on Easter of Caesarea in Cappadocia

bishop, one metropolitan and in Thrace, the consecration. performed The Studites were also present. not in the but

and Thomas Leo of 1 The only did not

they the strongly opposed ordination, They were probably preparing of a layman. appointment thought some sort of a demonstration and thus the Emperor Plato it necessary leaders, to imprison their and Theodore, days, had for twenty-four i. e. until the whole procedure 2 be been gone through. imprisonment This can definitely between the struggle the Moderates seen as the renewal of and the Radicals. In the years to come the two parties clash again, perhaps From what we have seen clear that the and as such the than earlier. more vigorously it becomes more or so far, was totally oppose the 'Emperor will of his

would less

made'

Patriarch new hardly he could in which factor

master.
However, not seem to way His the Nicephorus that be the only weak does was appointed determined his future as the played lack their of

as patriarch. from support 1. 2.

character appears

populace,

as well to have

P. Alexander, Theodore of col. 837D.

The patriarch Nicephorus... Laudatio Stoudios, Platonis,

69. p. (loc. cit.

),

188

role hand,

in

the

the latter's

patriarchate. course of Emperor Nicephorus revealed the new Patriarch took almost

his

On the his It intention immediately would

other of after seem

dominating the

place. consecration that some issues, which were normally of were in his eyes mainly religious, issues In two of these significance.

regarded political the

as purely

forced to act not as the head of was but as a minister and public of religion worship, definitely under the command of the Emperor. The first was the relations of these affairs Christianity. and western had been a custom for a newly elected Constantinople to send a letter to the Pope, eastern It own election also tical follow. to and a confession enthronement. and of belief That letter of it an outline had new patriarch Nicephorus, though to fulfil year sent not the Pope his 811. to the of only Leo The Pope how the in the desire

new Patriarch an independent church,

between

patriarch reporting contained the in

at his

ecclesias-

the policy, which The Patriarch his

report

allowed death of at that

enthronement by the Emperor to the time latter the in Patriarch the

mind to he badly wanted III, was not until letter is the which preserved ecclesiastical but East,

and serves power also

as an excellent secular,

example

to the yielded 2 in the West. letter's

From the Emperor head the 1. 2. at

context did Constantinople

one might not intend He simply events of

assume that to humiliate

the the

of the eastern church. Pope for his role in the

to punish wanted Christmas 800.

J. B. Bury, id., E. R. E., p-31; The Constitution Later (Cambridge Roman Empire, 1910), p. 32. St. Nicephori Epistola patriarchae, ad Leonem P. G.., 100, cols-169A-200C.

of III

the papam,

189

The letter

eyes of the Byzantine say 1 Charlemagne, by anointing Emperor, 2 from the whole body of the church, the papacy separated Thus, Nicephorus i. e. he created the Emperor schism. a between the two the issue the relations of considered he prevented and on this primarily political ground churches goes on to Pope Leo III, that in the his Patriarch the Pope. interests than from In entering other of respect the the into words, any official communication in the Emperor's mind were of more the customs. share

with

political

significance his Although views

Empire eastern for ecclesiastical Patriarch, did

namesake

he realised that to compromise of his master, behave according The to the will and of the Emperor. impression of enthronement which we get from the letter ( 'Ttx I the reign 6 1) v oclIK01L ), sent du-. of Michael ring the Patriarch some time at the end of 811, is that abstained 1. from an old ecclesiastical custom, not out of his

not he had

is also by The unction of Charlemagne reported however, Theophanes 1, p. 473. Western sources, state it was only Charlemagne's that eldest son, also called Charles, See, for example, Liber who was anointed. Pontificalis, Vita III, Leonis XXIV (vol-II, p. 7 "et pontifex where it reads: ed. L. Duchesne) oleo unxit filio Karolo, sancto excellentissimo eius rege, 1 ipso die Natalis domini 7. Jesu Christi. The explanation nostri by E. Amann (L'epoque in A. Fliche provided carolingienne, de 1'Eglise, (Paris Histoire VI, 1937), and V. Martin, that the two p-161, sources n-3, eastern confused Charles, is,. of course, likely, But it should not go Johannes Venetus that unnoticed source, even a western (Cronaca Veneziana, Fonti ed. Monticolo, per la storia d7Italia IX, 1890,100) speaks of an unction of Charlemagne: "ab apostolico coronatus et unctus est in Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus... impe atore". (p. 107, n. 3) attributes this to a probab'ility statement J. Venetus On the events that used a Byzantine source. 800, see among others, P. E. Schramm, 'Die of Christmas Anerkennung des Grossen Karls als Kaiser', Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXII (1951), pp. 449-515. St. Nicephori, Epistola (loc. cit. ), col. ad Leonem III ;S6, &s T%; S "P-KKAv%6t%S' " 1< 197AB. It reads: CX'j I 0('T %* C CLIR(-P? IA ECYLUITOUS 190

own was

freewill. already probably

1 dead,

At he

a time did not

when need his

the to

Emperor hide his at

Nicephorus feelings. the late

jVV%TjV%%

He is

expressing by

indignation
4V&S 4

Emperor's

dominance
C-1j? VT0*1VfV6f

saying:
i(VAVf1V Ids's

V6( OfS6 1q,, p Cit K CX

pt-Volf oeb; 6900

t2 OLfAIIAIK10% One might the

draw

attention relations

to

the

fact East

that

by the

year

811

been and West had also political be possible improved that the Patriarch sent and it might improvement the letter as a result of this and not simply he felt free from his namesake Emperor. because To such an argument the two Empires of Emperor, the Emperor the answer can had started Nicephorus. the the threat. West. be that improving In fact, the relations before even it between the death

between

who under with

negotiations

was this very from the Bulgars started ;L had If the M r. jv0 OT,K

it would have definitely helped the that time, in the relations, normalization not only between the two but also and mainly between the two Empires. churches, been sent at Therefore, under normal circumstances, we would have in the last years of his expected the Emperor Nicephorus his Patriarch from sending reign, not only not to hinder of enthronement implementation himself. stuck to his might be explained mind Pope Leo III for the events Soon after forced to yield
1. 2. St.
694XI

a the

letter

to

East

of his to

refusal by a suggestion that in Nicephorus' shared the greater part of responsibility Christmas of 800. election the secular
Epistola

the Pope, but to urge its The fact that the Emperor of his death (July 811) until

in

806,

the

authority
III
Of

new Patriarch for a second

(loc. cit.
3

was time.
197B: "jv'vctYw

Nicephori,
r*%)t%'j6tAoYe-f 'J(.

ad Leonem
6kAO%0%C

),

&6gXj

-ro-q

ibid.,

Tl&(P%ntnTOV61%f

OL60VJIA

197A.

191

be remembered Joseph, the abbot that of Kathara, will had been excluded from any religious the performance since 797. Now, nine this the year after years Emperor asked the newly Patriarch Nicephorus to elected It

exGe,oq, &,;
has it,

restore so the affirmation 1 laws'. of Skandalon case two The Theodore the

Joseph Emperor

priesthood. 'proceeded Nicephorus superiority however, desire sufficient, for of that the

to

As Bury to the such

by doing

of the It looks, Emperor's is not

procure a definite Emperor to canonical an explanation of the particular of

restoration because in this

sources speak of other first is Michael, source of Stoudios.

reasons. the hagiographer

He says that the Emperor ordered because 'is the restoration the latter of Joseph, said to have caused peace and to have made arrangements for the 2 but he does not say anyto the crisis', proper solution To this the actual about crisis. problem much more is shed by our second text, light Vetus, the Synodicon a 3 during the patriarchate compilation written of Photius. thing The passage Joseph that of which the of Presbyter is interest us here states clearly and Oeconomus of the great church between Nicephorus the Emperor for the latter's author without uprising adds that bloodshed, in the 5

Constantinople

and Bardanes 803.4 Furthermore assault of

mediated during Turcus, the was

anonymous scattered

Bardanes

1. 2. 3. 4.

J. B. Bury, E. R. E., p. 34. Michael, 'Vf-ta of Theodore 265CD 11w. rIcx(p-cx%-r%, J# ov col. Ls
<m`% 'ro-G Au6cri-AoGwros

eeov6-rm

of

Stoudios'

B., P. G. 99,
%%p1nvv%vd; w%6%v

P. Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus., p. 86. Vetus The Synodicon Ced. and transl. by J. Duffy and ) (Washington (CFHB J. Parker) D. C., 1979), pp. 128-29. S. The Synodico-n--Vetus (loc. cit. ), p. 129.

192

here his account with Theophanes who stresses and agrees ' the fact that the Empire had been spared a civil war. If the already then two sources are of value., mentioned is easy to see why the Emperor Nicephorus was so eager The abbot of Kathara Joseph to priesthood. to restore had served the interests of and, situation More precisely, (797) consequently, Joseph's exclusion in the state he deserved from in a very crucial his reward. religious

it

activities

him towards politics. turned between the Emperor and-the rebel of course, to mediate, more facts

He acted as mediator 803. One wonders,

we are not his own initiative, on Emperor Nicephorus. understandable death of the

why Joseph of Kathara should have been chosen but the sources do not provide at our disposal 'political' Unfortunately, about this abbot. in the conflict told whether Joseph intervened he was asked to do so by the or hand, it is quite On the other the why the Emperor waited until after instituting Patriarch before his Tarasius

had already been criticized for Tarasius restoration. his inconsistency in this matter and, therefore, nobody could expect him to change his mind yet again on the same issue. Perhaps the Emperor had already to asked Tarasius restore Joseph. If this
to

is

the
But

case,
such

then

Nicephorus

Tarasius' met with be proved. What the will did Patriarch than not his

refusal. seems

be certain

SUppoSit4 Lons cannot is that Nicephorus with the Emperor's probably This the of to

was much more predecessor.

compliant The new Patriarch

want the restoration either. of Joseph 811, after seems to be the reason why in the year death of the Emperor Nicephorus and the elevation Michael did not object Nicephorus I, the Patriarch deposing predecessor 1. Theophanes and Joseph excommunicating again, had done in the year Tarasius 1, p. 479. as his 797.

193

Returning whether will, abbot of because

to

the

Nicephorus

events the Patriarch

of

806,

have we

to to

assess the imperial the

%A

surrendered

or simply designs. the sent of would

the restoration he was convinced that of (01 .7/ K0V0 Kathara of dispensation was a matter because he could not oppose %a the Emperor's direct Although to a answer gives no source after careful a very Patriarch to Pope Leo examination in 811, III of the

00

dilemma, by the

letter

some crucial seem that

as well as 1 letters of Theodore of Stoudios, it being Nicephorus, the Patriarch a rather not oppose that reason the Emperor namesake he owed him his appointment. iconoclastic of policy in his

weak character, for the additional

could

He will the oppose, of course, Leo V in 815, but at that time another emperor was 2 was certainly and the issue of much greater office importance than the restoration of a priest. Now given the imperial pressure, to what situation own will? taken the to place, Emperor Patriarch's tendency to yield to another question remains did the Emperor Nicephorus extent exploit to make his namesake Patriarch a mere Though it such remains, it in that saw the humiliation an exploitation however, very way. the took real It seems doubtful would Patriarch,

before be answered: the tool have as to though whether not of of his

to

be more

correct

say that of intended on the Emperor's part, desire the latter's to exercise ecclesiastical 1. affairs.

as a result place influence on

1,25,26,31,32, See for instance the letters: 33,43,48. 2. This nevertheless should not be taken as an argument determined Leo V was less that to rule over the church I. But as far than Nicephorus as the Patriarch it seems that is concerned, Nicephorus by the year 815, he was tired 'moderate' A time comes of his policy. for everybody 'No' in his to say a great life. For Nicephorus late, this the Patriarch time came relatively for nine years. he had been in office after

194

bishops Thus, in the year 806 a synod of fifteen was 1 decided the restoration of the stormy which on called, As Theophanes Joseph of Kathara to priesthood. says from the hear of it mainly this we about synod, nothing letters Studites part of of to our Theodore such next of a 'notorious' Stoudios. The reaction will of the form rehabilitation this chapter.

section

of

C: In

THE EMPEROR AND THE STUDITES* a theocratic state like Byzantium, and religious groups to have played quite an both the ruling of reasons the monks line I this

especially important elite

were demands

monks would be expected in the everyday life role For various and the populace. influential in our particularly a detailed office both explanation. in 802, the monks and long

period and When Nicephorus had already

into came themselves in the leader had

Byzantine

as a religious Empire. Not his

established force as a political before that, their

abandoned and of settled at them,

Sakkoudi-on with 1. most

monastic establishment-at previous himself his monks, with or at least Stoudios, inside the old monastery of i:

On the date see V. fasc. 2., (Chalcedon bishops-participants

byzantin, Grumel, Le patriarchat serie 1936), The names of the no-377. in that synod escape us.

'Studites' The name is used here more or less as an 'the is because This to the term alternative monks'. by the Studites during the of the prominent role played last years of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth Other monastic century. communities outside Constantinople in BithNnia Olympus or those on Mountain for the political are definitely significance of minor during the years and religious scene of the Empire under consideration.

19S

Constantinople at Asia the time

itself.

The threat

from

the

Arabs.,

who

and plundering continuously were almost for by the sources Minor is given as the main reason 2 it would However, their seem that such a threat removal. have been used as a mere pretext. Other monastic only could in all institutions parts of the peninsula were scattered flourishing

invading

do not The Arabic at the same time. raids Furthermore, them very much. to have bothered as seem Sakkoudion J. Leroy has shown, was never completely A group of monks remained there and, after abandoned. Theodore's if went on at the monastery as 3 in fact, had changed. Leroy does not, accept nothing behind He the move. the Arab raids as the real reason that order monastic was in the course of argues a Studite life developing, leadership that with of a number took of a single raid disturb abbot. monasteries 4 Patrick but life it at the coming under Henry suggests was an ephemeral 5 Sakkoudion. of Sakkoudion The one, departure,

an Arabic which did not Therefore the to of that in the the capital,

place, for long

reason, why the monks real must be sought elsewh-ere. events and was determined itsel. of the circumstances to

moved framework

relevant Theodore

Constantinople scene

political

-F and to Empire.

to suggest appears play a more decisive role impose his party on the Furthermore, perhaps, he

his name with than that wanted to connect other a monastery, his uncle's, Platols, of Sakkoudion, name had with which been associated. Moreover, the Monk, the as Michael 1. Michael (loc-cit. the ), 'Vita. Monk, col. 144D. of Theodore of Stoudios, A%

2. 3. 4. S.

ibid. (loc. cit. ), pp-201-206. J. Leroy, ILa R6forme studite', ibid. P. Henry, 'The Moechian Controversy and the Synod A. D. 809', Constantinopolitan Journal of Studies, N. S. vol. XX pt. 2, October TheoloRical 1969, 1. footnote p-504,

196

hagiographer Irene at that and the

of

Theodore in

Patriarch abbot to

of Tarasius

Stoudios,

has

it,

the to his

Empress Theodore,

made a request to 1 It Irene transfer

time

Sakkoudion, 797) that

establishment months decisive earlier step VI,

Constantinople. (August blinding in order dared

of

and to

deposing the

was only had undertaken her own son Empire alone!

monastic a few the

Constantine

govern

in No woman had ever to execute such an atrocity history. The army was mostly devoted Byzantium's previous hostile Emperor to the deposed to his and consequently Therefore, Trene badly mother. needed any kind of support, be considered Theodore as one of the best and could His willingness to sources of moral supp-)rt. Irene by is proved the support she needed with 2 later. In which he sent to her four years have found more extravagant Theodore could not which to show his app. rova-1 of the to Empress, for concession which she granted Constantinople in A. D. 801. But Irene's need only for be the cannot Constantinople. Theodore Theodore of the the inhabitants provide the letter, this words the of how strong, of the monks-to letter, with tax

support, for the reason

no matter transfer

The mentality and the ambitions of be taken into 797 By the year account. must also had definitely himself established as the leader acquired among the monks. importance vital ninth century. had suffered their This at the particular turn of monastic the eighth 3 We have already seen first because exile of the hardly A, (Joc. Emperor be argued cit.
T%;S

Rigorists

grouping and for that

most of*the leaders their

of their strong Constantine Iftr

1.

to the opposition VI with Theodote.

marriage It can

Michael, 'Vita IIcyjLcol-144D (OU T-TOU;

To;

Stoudios', of Theodore of X%nccfoG6%-j CL6TO"J, t<cxA

yC-VOf69CC%

IEkKk7OM;

),

2. 3.

The letter can Above, p. 180.

be

found

in

Migne,

P. G.

99,929B-933B.

197

marriage this matter can be seen as an adoption The first by the Rigorists. followed the hard line of had become the sole ruler the Empress, after she step of the radical the Empire in 797, was to recall monks from of Joseph, the abbot of Kathara, and to excommunicate exile opposition in attitude

that Irene's

their

to

this

had been unsuccessful.

It should not the adulterous wedding. who had performed be allowed that, the to pass unnoticed at this stage, of Joseph, meant a humiliation of the excommunication in the year 797 Irene In other words, Tarasius. Patriarch her choice. She decided to back the Rigorists made the Moderates, not only because her deposed son had against but probably because these done the opposite, mainly and body on which bold monks were at that time the strongest she could rely. We do not know the exact number of the letters written his during by Theodore, that time abbot of Sakkoudion, at Such a knowledge would exile. Theodore's contact with people outside and, more particularly, with dignitaries first hierarchy. At any rate, it enable us to his monastic of the estimate order

seems that to this period of Theodore's correspondence early from dates only six letters Baronius that many. believe that. and this small number entitles us-to his influence time, Theodore had not yet built up monastic of order. doing so. Nevertheless,

the civil belonging letters are not that period, at that

his play

process political However,

a prominent scene it

On the other in both, the ecclesiastical and the role is beyond dispute. of Constantinople,

outside he was definitely in the hand, his eagerness to

be remembered that the distance between must Constantinople of Sakkoudion and the monastery was certainly if Theodore realized to such ambitions. that, an obstacle he really to exercise some influence wanted on more people than he had done so far and if he wanted to be in the centre

198

events of Constantinople. transfer capital year Empress Therefore, with both of his itself.

the

during

the

years

to

come,

he ought this, place

to to

be in

The only institution He did early her fall

way of achieving from its remote at the influence

was the the the

797 or until

I&&

so probably 798,1 and his in

end of for

on the granted. confronted on of the he was influence affairs

when Nicephorus a monk, who had been the political Moreover, and the

802 can be taken I came to power, used to exercise the ecclesiastical of

the

Empire.

number

years of Stoudios grew rapidly. monastery (i. e. in 806) it had almost later, the thousand reached 2 mark. it becomes quite Under these circumstances understandable why in the year 806, at the time when the Patriarch Tarasius be filled, died the and inquiry, the empty Emperor patriarchal in Nicephorus, post his was about to thorough

monks of the Less than four

Theodore to ignore could preliminary not afford his uncle inquiry In regard Plato. to this the and following did the Emperor for the question arises: ask the church about opinion of the Stuclites out of mere concern it as a pretext,, in order to show himself or did he only use in the movements, while he had already his own decision meantime on the made to the patriarchate? appointment of his namesake Nicephorus Although to be quite to such a question seems every answer towards all spiritual risky, and the it that the relations certain four during Emperor, the first at least the that is between the Studites latter's This, of the years not hostile. Emperor impartial

if not friendly, reign were, however, by no means suggests

Nicephorus

but, 1. The date of the transfer be fixed cannot precisely; it must be incursions, with Arabic since it is connected (vol. 1, p. 473) records that Theophanes an Arabic noticed of Sakkoudion raid in the vicinity under the year A. M. 6291 (A. D. 798). 2. Michael, ), col. Theodore al,' Stoudios' 'Vita B, (loc-cit. Theophanes A. M. 629T-71 See, however, 481), 260C. 2p to the number of the Studite monks is estimated where hundred. about seven
199

was prepared to to the the

to

appoint

Theodore,

empty patriarchal Emperor? s inquiry not for for the It

if source, good 3 state, at least the Studites. about church. could against source: was writing the

probably 1 The reply throne. of Theodore 2 is preserved and forms a very between the relations church and relations between the Emperor

named

by Plato,

and

Theodore's reflects certainly views in the governance of the Emperor rights of the It sheds light on the question of how far Theodore as an advocate Had it state. this is at to a time letter say full independence of church's been written under different have been an invaluable would

be seen the that

circumstances,

ascend the patriarchal his real views on church-state Theodore elevation of God's before situation to improve; In mend. better Irene's surprising Emperor, and ability than 1. temporary to begins the his imperial the

the abbot since of Stoudios hoped to when he himself probably he refrained from expressing throne, that, reply church. relations. by saying should The text that Nicephorus' as a proof say that

throne

be seen goes the

care for Nicephorus' of the

on to

the throne, accession-to bad, but now it Empire was affairs were correspondingly

political was beginning on the

church

other words, Nicephorus with While reign.

sentiments P. Henry attributes to appreciate 5 favours.

be too, ecclesiastical will matters than the y had been during as Emperor 4 J. B. Bury these somewhat considers by Theodore to flatter the as an effort it to Theodore's 'coolness' more have been efficiency and competence The opening would surely

)., col. Stoudios, (loc-cit. Theodore Laudatio Platonis of 837B: 'he gave a vote, but for whom, I will not say'. 2. It is his Epistola 1,16, P. G. 99,960A-961A. 3. P. Henry, (Theodore of Stoudios...., op. cit., p-55) is misleading it letter to see this that argues as the problem concerned with of church and state. 4. J. B. Bury, E. R. E., p-32Controversy', 5. P. Henry, (loc. cit. ), p-505. 'The Moechian

200

had been written on a different that Theodore when there was not the possibility occasion, become patriarch. In any case, what is certain, might is that Theodore does not deny to the Emperor the right different, if the letter to supervise defender of election, which a valiant patriarchal independence church's might well have done. Furthermore, the letter that, suggests since the political had already improved, partially affairs ecclesiastical the

the Emperor's were now in turn to attract The improvement of church affairs will start attention. 1 Such a the proper of the new patriarch. election with however, would mean that the Studites were. statement, matters satisfied with never had their own reservations the Moderates. Though the procedure fully Tarasius' about which patriarchate. him and the party They of

Theodore

is of election of the new patriarch has to be stressed that according to the abbot of the in the Studites, the Emperor should take the initiative body to be made up of prominent an electoral choice of

for the proposes interest here, little

it

members of each of the following ecclesiastical groups: bishops, reclujes, and clergy, abbots, stylites, Representatives form the electoral of these groups will. be the Emperor who, it will But, here again, college. in consultation body, will choose the best with this It would seem that Theodore was willing to candidate. What is give the Emperor the final word on the election. difficult by doing so, the abbot of to say is whether, Stoudios tradition was simply or only hoping to respecting benefit from flattering But references to the Emperor. in Theodore's do not exist the matter any tradition on letter. On the other hand, the fact that he does not
The Greek word, used the exact translation the context. in the letter, is 'legal' of which
"v%21 A % I^ os

does

not

fit

in

201

include

laymen

in

the

non-ecclesiastical surprise anybody. elements in episcopal to have been already elections appears 1 in Theodore's Thus, layman the only view, eliminated. 2 be the Emperor. in the election to be involved would Finally few words must be said about the qualifications a that to Theodore God's from demands of the proper candidate for the patriarchate. claim gradually have gone he himself him. In in people These would be able He says that the patriarch should 3 Furthermore he needs to have risen rights. (ecclesiastical) lower to higher to position,

electoral The role of

committee

should

not

through

from the sufferings that everything, so 4 he could help those, experienced, who need the

should new patriarch excel other the way that than other sun is brighter stars. Theodore's However, were, of course, views. in the Emperor's eyes, such independent easily and an overqualified a patriarch. to of

a word,

it

seem that

candidate would perhaps make too But an independent patriarch could the imperial power and a challenger the Emperor's tendency to ruled Thus, keep out their a consideration which becoming patriarch. of a layman, the

be a rival an opponent

an eye the

on church's

possibility

affairs: of a Studite appointment the to

Emperor's

to reaction namesake Nicephorus,

the

did not surprise throne patriarchal anybody. It was not only for church 'respect tradition with a S irritated. By touch of jealousy', that made the Studites hopes of strengthening layman their the election of a moderate byzantine (op. cit. ), p-57J. Pargoire, LIERlise P. Alexander's (The patriarch Nicephorus..., p. 67) in the 'distinguished laymen were consulted that argument does not appear to be based on solid election' evidence. 3. Theodore (loc. cit. ), col-960C. Epist. 1.16 of Stoudios, Though it is not indicated against assume wFo-m, one might for the distinction between here a hint that 06 is given. t and cxtx rv 4. Theodore Epist. (loc. cit. ), col. 960C. 1,16 of Stoudios, himself If Theodore considered as the ideal candidate, for he and his followers had then here is a clue, Constantine VI. under exile suffered 5. J-B. E. R. E., p-33. Bury, 202 1. 2.

their in

presence

and

gaining

influence dashed. It

among high

officials

that the was obvious church and state, were 'Emperor-made', Patriarch and as such new was very much The monks saw the he would bend to the Emperor's wishes. through they would have the key post, which as patriarchate been to able to influence impose society the the Patriarch their in policies on-various way. reason It not can issues It and be a more effective had good Studites 'moderate' had Tarasius. must to be

remembered satisfied that the

that with late

be argued

in turn to the will submitted but not once to the pressure emperors, consecutive of three In brief, the radical the election, or better monks. of to the patriarchal the appointment,, of a new 'moderate' the Studites. ambitions of it and opposed the appointment, against But the the nominee that was a layman. on the ground behalf First reaction on of the Emperor was equally strong.. he thought the Studite of dispersing community and sending the their leaders, Theodore the the second thoughts imprisonment of until the Thus, Nicephorus, ignored. power however, in whole with the enthronement into exile. and Plato, Emperor was content with two monks for twenty-four of 1 of of the the Nicephorus' But, the days, probably and layman was Emperor on blow was a real post, Therefore they reacted for

process the

ordination 'moderate'

was over. prestige The Radicals

election

Studite

brotherhood the

probably

abandon They went their they

to was not amenable does not mean that the Studites hard line their and to moderate preserve populace. of

that realized influence. their were their

This,, ready policies. to

to on trying influence on the a policy Stoudios,

to extend - and perhaps It would also seem that with Platonis the (loc. newly cit. ), elected

adopted

reconciliation Laudatio

Theodore of col. 837C.

203

Patriarch

Nicephorus. the Studites

From

four

of

Theodore's

letters

hear that we They prayed

Nicephorus as patriarch. accepted for the Emperor, for him as well as and they in every Such their service. religious names mentioned dictated so much by the need for not was an attitude that. a person to more from the belief ordained compromise, had already the grace of the highest post of priesthood 2 him. God bestowed upon brother, Joseph, At the same time Theodore's was the Empire's of Thessalonica, second appointed archbishop biggest This appointment city. as well as the affair of be seen as a the monastery of Dalmatou can certainly for conciliation of goodwill and as an effort gesture on 3 behalf We learn the affair of the new Patriarch. about de la Ile plus ancien of the monastery of Dalmatou, 4 from the Vita the capitalel, mainly of St. Hilarion Younger who, after the first ten years spending of his monastic This took the the life place in this monastery, at some point of Dalmatou was to the Patriarch should of Kathara. moved to that 806 while the abbot after of dying. The monks reported Nicephorus and demanded 5

monastery

situation Hilarion that

and become abbot. in this issue and 1.

to the monastery return of Dalma-Lou became involved The Emperor Nicephorus managed to persuade Hilarion to

finally

1,25,989 Theodore AB; 1,28, StoudioSp Epist. of 1001 C; 1,30,1008 C. ABC and 1,32,1016 2. This belief to the to the elevation of a person applies imperial In Byzantium throne too. nothing was done God's approval. without 3. P. Alexander, The patriarch Nicephorus..., p-71. 4. R. Janin, ' La G-e7"o-&raphie eccl7-siastique de 1'empire byzantin, 1969), see also., p. 82; vol. 3 (Paris du D. Stiernon, 'Notice Jean Higoumene surS. de Kathara', REB, 28 (1970), monastere pp. 111-27, espec. pp. 114-23. S. Vita Junioris, St. Hilarioni AASS, June 1, p. 747.

204

and 'become abbot and capital ' to a custom issued by a synod'. according archimandrite D. Stiernon, 1) the Vita of St. Hilarion, on: relying 2 2) the Vita of St. John, abbot of Kathara, who was initially of Dalmatou, as priest and ordained at the monastery 3) on an unpublished of Theodore of Stoudios, catechism relahas shown that strong to the monastery tive of Kathara, between these three monasteries existed at the connections 3 beginning These relations of the ninth century. will between them against in an alliance later the result to the it might be Therefore, policy of Leo V. the two Nicepl, ori, argued that in the case of St. Hilarion, Emperor and Patriarch, to the demand of the monastic yielded for the sake of unity and this of all party, religious forces in the Empire. iconoclastic i. e. the appointment These two issues, of Joseph, brother, Theodore's as archbishop of Thessalonica and the of Hilarion appointment as abbot at Dalmatou, seem to have been of a purely in However, ecclesiastical nature. Isemianother affair, which might did not show the same the Emperor Nic-ephorus political', for compromise with the Radicals. As has readiness 4 he initiated been stated, the restoration already of Joseph, abbot of Kathara, be It will to the priesthood. led to a further seen that this widening of rehabilitation regard to the took
1. 2. 3. 4.

back come

be called

gap, already The synod of place very

existing the fifteen soon after

between

the two sides. bishops Joseph, which restored the ordination and enthronement

Vita St. Hilarioni Junioris, AASS, June 1, p-747. On--tTiis Vita, (Brussels AASS, Tr7o7py-faeum Novembris see 1902), cols-631-34. 'Notice ' (loc. cit. ), pp. 118-23). D. Stiernon, sur... 192. See above, p.

205

of definitely have In

the

new Patriarch noteworthy to

Nicephorus that that the does

in

806.1 does not

It

is seem to

Theodore assembly Patriarch hesitate

ever recognised his letter sent of Stoudios

abbot

how to or I do not gathering, Theoctistus, letter to the Magister addressed another Theodore that argues such an assembly could not be because to have been a synod, without any considered 3 for canon law decided God's will. At against respect the reaction to the event the first stage of the Studites In fact, it took them two years was unexpectedly mild. before they came to and his main and Patriarch. Though comes two the an open clash i. e. the supporters, Radicals that for There called they which are the this felt it with two abbot Nicephori, the

not know

as a legitimate synod. in 808, the Nicephorus * 'small it to call 2 it,, in call while

of Kathara Emperor it

delay

'economy',

as a surprise on a matter, exile. and behaviour

years floggings

for to wait necessary they had already suffered for possible explanations Studites. The at first the There small are

such is that synod

of part Theodore was himself probably present Joseph to the priesthood. which restored from two different this: the letters first suggest the at

on the

two passages Stoudios that addressed written in to

of of Theodore is letter 1,25, The letter was the that place. two he

Patriarch

Nicephorus.

808,

men had already was just out of 1. 2. 3. 4.

between time when the conflict a Theodore the open. says come into 4 the synod took prison, at the time

Theodore of Stoudios, Theodore of Stoudios, Stoudios, Theodore of He refers, of course, which he and his uncle election, consecration 188 ). (see above, p.

(loc. cit. ), col. 985B. Epistola 1,24 jo-c. cit. ), col. 989C. .Epistola 1,25 Epistola (joc. cit. ), col. 985BC. 1,24 days imprisonment, to the twenty-four during Plato the went through and enthronement of Nicephorus

206

To suggest on the would stated

that

the that too

leader

of

the

Rigorists

was released a synod, clearly

condition be going that to

in such he participated It is, far. nevertheless, those,

Theodore the Joseph, goes

consented embracing The letter thought that this it

witnessed Constantine Emperor who had performed that

who had previously VI's adultery, the wedding moment because But ceremony. Theodore

on to not

say to

at

that

wiser

circumstances

rather To such an objection Theodore's presence at the synod. 1,43, letter in 809, comes Joseph to his brother addressed In this letter Theodore the impression as an answer. gives 3 he was present he now feels because that remorse, not only because, in a way, he gave in the synod of 806, but also to consent whom he cleared his the of the abbot of Kathara, restoration from the accusations he had officiated that 4 This wedding. consent and clearance come about as a result of Theodore's of a for

were is letter

say anything, 2 'unpropitious'. deliberately

one may argue to disguise obscure

at the adulterous had, of course, 5 silence, which, nevertheless, comes as something implies The text that the decision surprise. also the adopting Theodore's. policy Other of toleration

of 806 was not only community and members of the Studite his brother Joseph were also for to be blamed most probably 6 Furthermore, the inconsistency. the letter says that Theodore's bitterness because was even greater, of the fact 1. 2. 3.
4. S.

(loc. cit. ), col-989CD. Theodore Epist. 1,25 of Stoudios, C/ ibid., 989D 11 %. 'rEC5t%'V-" C)TI bCCxI(70%S novv%POS "rICXfIC*)*VTOS Theodore 1,43,106SA: Vo-V Epist. of Stoudios,.
ibid.: " TF-e-odore of Stoudios, Epist. I., 43 1065A: '16iwn "6(XVTe: -; -4

6.

ibid. The phrase be taken '(I to mean: easily decision, which we had taken'.

behaved)

Ot according

could to

the

207

opponents to restrain the year 806 and on this ground they tried his protest in 808.1 Therefore, the first reason why the during 806-808 was 'economy' Studites the period exercised by their leader, though present the lack of any reaction in the synod of 806, against the rehabilitation of the A possible Skandalon. second reason can be posited after a careful interpretation account the mentality the clear: one thing achieve the by taking of the events, of the protagonists. Let fact that the Studites did into us make not

that

later

his

reminded

him of

his

silence

in

does of one of themselves as patriarch election influence to bring mean that they abandoned every effort not They sought to work through the to bear on the Emperor. 2 kinsman, In other words, in latter's the monk Symeon. for the Studites 806 it was difficult the extent to estimate to which the new Patriarch. would become merely a figure-head: a pawn in the hands 806-808 the Radicals difficulties overcoming of the Emperor. During entertained some serious the period hopes of

and again playing an important Theodore's role in the church and in court. participation in the synod of 806 as well by his brother the acceptance as of the archbishopric of Th essalonica a few months later, It hardly to be mysterious. to be stressed ceases needs for the mild behaviour that these two reasons of the Studites during these two years are more or less interdependent. in the synod, Theodore participated because he and his followers believed that noteverything by the election yet been lost of Nicephorus, and that could
1.

had things

still

be handled
of
Oct C-1

to

their
Epist.

satisfaction.
1,43,106SA:

But then
-4s(6,
-tqs

Theodore
TCX'vAevol

t\lCL\n%,

Stoudios,
Ms, ws all,

'201(ripJvTo v'L%%40LS

wnqs)vx% c7(Dot61 6-v6-r Ct 6

2.

Theodore of Stoudios., cols. 969C-980C.

Epist.

1.21

and

22

(loc.

cit.

),

208

their by their took were their

policy the

until

attitude Studites

dictated course, year In short, the synod of 806. towards how things to realize two whole years the 808 was, of During Joseph's those two years they by avoiding

it

turning

out. disapproval

demonstrated

communication the liturgy nevertheless, and prayers. In the Joseph It of

rehabilitation of him and with those who concelebrated all with him, including the Patriarch, with whom, in their they went on mentioning masses 1 the above to two mentioned Constantinople bishops years several the the in other from 806-808, times.

course of Thessalonica according

visited

seems

that

custom, the of Joseph the

from

provinces, patriarch ceremonies these

who were visiting in a concelebration at St. Sophia. for

joined capital, the liturgy or carefully

abstained

that additional reason after his restoration his namesake Joseph to priesthood of 2 in this Kathara But such an was officiating church. very attitude of the archbishop on the part of Thessalonica It so the true revealed reaction of the Studites. concelebrations 808 the year authorities when for a campaign, Theodore the Emperor was leaving was not in the Emperor's departure to participate allowed ceremonial 3 from the capital. Only a few days previously the Emperor 4 had denied Thus to the abbot an audience of Stoudios. the state that, by now it had become felt it necessary to Studites. 1. 2. 3. Theodore of R. Devreese,
p. 55. It
K cx 901 %K v-

irritated

in

more

than his

obvious attitude

that

the against

Emperor the

toughen

(loc. Epist. 1,25 Stoudios, de S. Theodore 'Une lettre

reads:,
6

), cit. Studite.

989AB.
L-v

E1%'fiKf%"vSTqCX%ncK
(X%%

i&fPo\)F4vj-jV

-"loc-cit-)
a6r4

4.

(loc. cit. ), 980D. Theodore 1,23 Epist. of Stoudios, by On the date of this is not reported campaign which P. Alexander, The Patriarch see other sources, Nice. phorus..., p. 73, n. 7. Epist. I, 26 (loc-cit. ), col-993A. TTieodore of Stoudios, 209

During his efforts he wrote be those Emperor, for him,

the to

Emperor's

Among the avoid 0 to this ones seem to end, the most significant 1a to the monk Symeon, of the relative addressed 2 ironically Nicephoruse But, and to the Patriarch these persons did perhaps and already to have sided were satisfactory. says that two were not probably the only ones who want to, Studites. act as mediators is because This and therefore

absence break. final a

Theodore

did

not

give letters

up

or could not, between the Emperor they had both Theodore's

the

activities was not Theodore

the Emperor with for them something to. Theodore's Referring

Symeon appears the answer elsewhere, and of the bitterness

replied

of a nuisance. but letters, to him

of the behaviour of the did he not reply Patriarch to not only he also made it he did not Theodore's letter, that clear 4 his messages want to receive either. It was probably during Joseph time that this of Thessalonica had a decisive interview high a very with imperial asked the agent, the Archbishop: 'Why have Patriarch, passed? Joseph not logothete of the drome. The logothete

same will as the is even greater, for on the issue,

Symeon was of the same opinion 3 Theodore's Emperors. However,, because

you communicated with us and the days have although so many feast 'S freely! State the reason

replied: 'I do not. have anything Emperor against our devout but only the Patriarch, the or against against Steward, who wedded the adulterer and who for by the sacred this reason, was deposed canons. ' The logothete as follows: replied 1. Theodore of 2. Id... Epist.
3.

Stoudios, 1,25.

Epist.

I.,

21,,

22,23.

4. S.

Theodore of Stoudios, is tA 14T4 k 6( ov dTianc V4.w

"TOL tA %&V StAdvov

Id., 1,26, Epist. col-993A: 30 E(b bI CIL dt VIT sT OTs T 4PLC) vi

Epist.
a

1,26
e9(-',

(loc-jt.
kc, 4Ta &vtcs%fty

),

cx vi

kA%4re

col. 992D: 074fot&cIA,

nl6vTct

Id.,

Epist.

1,31

(loc-cit. 210

).

col-1009B.

'Our pious in either Theodore

have no need of Emperors Thessalonica or elsewhere. Stoudios,

you, 'l

in a the interview reports of who letter to the brotherhood of Sakkoudion only addressed his anxiety days after it took place, thirteen expresses brave the consequences of his brother's answer. about happened It would that the nothing seem, however, until Emperor's Emperor In return back, was what from the campaign. events took But as soon as the the in The tried decisive place. intimidation,

monastery Theodore's bishops of

to be an effort appears Stoudios was surrounded of 'the words, monks could Chrysopolis

of by troops, scarcely

so that 2 breathe'. and

and Nicaea came to Theodore to to convince and his followers 3 Joseph Kathara. The formula against of Bishops

Stoudios stop

protesting by the proposed

the wedding the Steward was that performed he had been VI and Theodote of Constantine after ceremony Such an Tarasius. to do so by the ex-Patriarch allowed have been very convincing, argument since could, of course, two by now Tarasius was Theodore the slightest his concession, given persuaded to give among the saints. doubt whether the abbot protest. of Therefore, had had the- ex-Patriarch Stoudios have been would But Theodore was more

his up

2. 3.

(Vita I, XXXB) by Theosterictus, AASS, Aprilis Nicetae :ihether this sort and wonders of phrase was not the formula Such a possibility cannot, of of deposition. be rejected However, course, regardless completely. it looks of the literary similarity of the two phrases, Joseph in the case under consideration, that remained the synod of January archbishop of Thessalonica until he was dismissed 809. It was at that time that as a (see below, bythat very synod result p-213 of his judgement Epist. (loc. cit. ), col. 1073B. Stoudios, 1,48 Theodore of ibid. 211

%4 Gc-f,, to the words 6atAov%xn,,91T*-. " very similar OUT# bylthe Nicephorus Emperor Leo V to the Patriarch W-e*%"4XV W% '6 V,%kxv-, %X'-" It a,U C'X(2 '4y. C-% b*IJ 6,

Theodore of Stoudios, (loc. cit. ), col 1009B; Epist 1,31 . finds P. Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus the p. 91., n. l., ... 4 UFN611 60V "0Z e6fof-W; 40MAOS v"%IA; 0VJK'&9Vd1'/ Is rply iogothete T/
spoken in 815:

than

sure and had never the

that

Tarasius really of that, and were

had approved the two

been the

faced

by

a fait in

accompli

adulterous were Joseph leading

wedding. As vain. Thessalonica, called and held our

Thus,

efforts of Plato

Bishops

a consequence their simply in custody prisoners

Theodore, an unnamed taken

uncle Kalogeros, at

of Studite,

the

monastery

away from Stoudios Here of St. Sergius. last the chance for monk Symeon But like also

when the in an attempt by the fruitless. two 1

their were given kinsman, Emperor's at reconciliation. Symeon's Bishops, It

compromise, came twice, the one made to be that the

efforts this

proved

synod of January from the letters We hear about this synod mainly of the man (i. e. Theodore of Stoudios) against whom it was 2 All the assembly convoked. scholars agree that was initiative. The presence on imperial called of the in the synod is, Emperor by nevertheless, not mentioned any source. unknown. gathered primarily governmental The number of Theophanes simply officials and in the participants that the is records 3 abbots. synod also Emperor of to its

at was probably 809 took place.

monastery

many bishops

the

The presence is testimony

political character. Theodore, Plato Joseph, were brought and the Kalogeros. before The main accusation the council. them was against that they did not accept the 'economy' of the saints. of Thessalonica was by celebrating 4 In the course accused also the liturgy at of the synod of the joining monastery the of

Joseph Radicals Stoudios. 1.

some participants in 1,48,

An account in detail is provided of these events Theodore's, L, 48, cols-1069C-1084B. Epist. 2. Mainly 1,34, (1021C) from his Epist. and Epist. , (1073C-1076A). 3. Theophanes 1, p-484. 4. Theodore Epist. 1,48, of Stoudios, col-1073D.

212

testified the saints,

that had

the

ex-Patriarch Joseph allowed

Tarasius, of Kathara

by now among to perform 1 four the

Constantine and Theodote. ceremony wedding of It would the the synod reached seem that decisions. 1) 2) 3) 4) It confirmed the Joseph of Kathara

following

restoration of earlier to priesthood. did not accept It anathematized anyone who the 'economies' of the saints. It reduced the Archbishop of Thessalonica to the rank of priest, and It sent the leaders of the Studite brotherhood into exile. how severe these Emperor Nicephorus, his namesake important. to punishments were, it appears

No matter for the that communion community

between

a re-establishment Patriarch and the That is why,

of Studite

was over, for compromise. into his presence members clemency privately. to the

was very he decided

First and whole

the give he called he tried

when the synod Studites a last chance the whole brotherhood to win over the leading failed, he promised that they As the all place to those themselves fulfill his would

then

When this group, with in the

attempt

re-establish Emperor was

communion standing

on condition the Patriarch.

the reunion who wanted with did not those at his right side, who and hand. Without to move to his left wish, all the monks went to the Emperor's left.

he called middle, the Patriarch to want 2 any

hesitation

boldness, As a result the Studites were of their dispersed by imperial to various order and exiled places, far distant Cherson the capital, either or or as as near 1. Theodore 2. Michael, col. 269 of Stoudios, 'Vita B of BCD. Epist. Theodore 1,48, col. of Stoudios', 1073D. (loc-cit.

213

the

Lipari

islands in

off

Sicily. the

Some of abbots hardness. of 1

them

were

treated which The persecution their prisoners with special to some people to have been extended who did not seenis but they certainly belong to the Studite community, by Theodore the strict with stance adopted sympathised monasteries, on the of the Moechian abbot controversy. Theosostos with punishment, The his abbot of Stoudios speaks monks at Thessalonica, because they refused

imprisoned

who suffered

the with communicate brother as archbishop also at Thessalonica,

to simply Theodore's man who had succeeded 2 big city. Another that of abbot, 3 for the same was flogged, probably

reason. The sufferings of the Studites sympathisers and their for a period of more than two and half years, went on until Rangabe, Nicephorus' Michael son-in-law, came into power the radical monks, not but they became very only came back from their exile, influential This influence the new Emperor. on both., with political and ecclesiastical affairs, was definitelywhat during the Studites would have dreamed of exercising year Nicephorus' partly Emperor reign because of Nicephorus too. their This, boldness, however, but not because mainly did happen, the (September 811). In that

suspicious about in the Empire. the existence of strong religious movements It might be that the rebellion in 808, an of Arsaber to have been event in which many clerics are reported 4 involved, it plain to the Emperor that these groups made be used against itself. the imperial could easily authority
1.

seems to

have been very

(loc. cit. ) Theodore Laudatio Platonis, Stoudios, of cols-840C-841A. 2. Theodore Epist. 1., 48, col-1072C and I, of Stoudios, 43, col. 1068BC. (loc. c-i-t. ), col. 1072C. 3. . Theodore Epist. 1,48, Stoudios) of 4. Theophanes 1, pp-483-84.

214

On the Emperor of in

other

hand

it

is

reasonable the

to

believe of

that

in issue,

the

Nicephorus' was, or

Kathara

rehabilitation eyes had become, a purely

Joseph

which involved.

ecclesiastical One more the restoration the against

political ought not to have been groups demonstration the Studite point:

against directed conciliatory Nicephorus Patriarch decided

attitude. it as a matter took of from the strong Studite to break. VI had In doing sent the Nicephorus the

of Kathara was indirectly of Joseph Nicephorus' Patriarch moderate and It would-seem that the Emperor prestige opposition, he was very into to protect which tactful. by he his

Constantine

so, Radicals

an order. giving brotherhood by convoking This more tactful policy want group. was the to show himself In that year, church exile.

dispersed synod that of

just exile, the Studite of Emperor 809. did

January the

proves although and not

not it his

as a tyrant

over any ecclesiastical his will was fulfilled, the Emperor, who sent

official into opponents

D: While fiscal

GENERAL ASSESSMENT Theophanes has blackened the Emperor Nicephorus'

Theodore has spoken and economic policies, of Stoudios his religious Because these two main against principles. it makes a fair this sources are biased against ruler, judgement difficult, of his actions To begin Nicephorus problems abroad, to time the with, it needs power with or and to I came into be remembered in 802, he did issues situation parts that, not at with groups of at when inherit home and respect the Empire. the

connected only but also a more Byzantine church and

political bad less the in

existing

operating

religious different

215

It

has

been

Emperor's Theodore,

seen inquiry

that in

in 806,

his

controversial the leader of

to reply the Studite

the movement,

the ecclesiastical situation was that admitted improvement far from being a certain and that satisfactory 1 it remains Although definitely questionable needed. was he was suggesting by the improvement Theodore meant what it could that to the Emperor, elements of not be denied truth the could Byzantine be traced church From what intervened issues in his since has been in statement. 787 had been seen times. to The more the so far, or It have issues, situation or less Emperor in

chaotic. Nicephorus

ecclesiastical appear

politico-

ecclesiastical if ecclesiastical importance

several

affairs

would seem that been of minor

then this was purely political in handling the church. to the Emperor's testimony skill in check. His very He was able to hold the Studites in the bias of the largely prosuccess would be reflected Studite having as church, evidence. Nicephorus clergymen with to which suggest property. affairs to bring Byzantine sources adopted though against him. They stance supported that to 2 refers officials taxed it a ruthless is not this military present in his by any the treat to Nicephorus relations concrete Emperor bishops the and to the

beside

Theophanes' urged in general the that

statement as servants

strictness reasonable the the Emperor

Emperor

Therefore, be seen

ecclesiastical would, be, perhaps, intervention on the years was not 1,16 ... the to of in part

and monastic more of in ecclesiastical

Nicephorus'

could

as a desire the the confusion last

to some order during church 3 mind and the

reigning the state's cause (loc. ), cit.

In Nicephorus' of religion',

church ought

eighth century. 'department any ), p. 32. internal col-960 AB.

as such

1. Theodore Epist. Stoudios, of ' 2. Theophanes 1, p. 489. 3. J. B. Bury, The Constitution

(22. cit.

216

disturbances.

have applied should i. e. the monks to para-ecclesiastical groups, equally the Emperor did not hesitate their whom party, against and imprisonment involving harsh stance, to adopt a rather it would also seem that Furthermore, and exile. in a theocratic like Nicephorus that was convinced state better Byzantium, religious, or ecclesiastical, even purely Such an obligation issues

from politics. Thus, separated would not be totally existing parties and movements, at none of the religious independence from the state the time, enjoyed a complete during Nicephorus' It looks as if the Emperor reign. kept an eye on ecclesiastical to keep a balance between His constant the Empire. he wanted forces the various religious of fear of internal disturbances issues, because

to do with the Emperor Nicephorus' something perhaps, towards both the Radicals and the Moderates. attitude He simply tried to avoid, or to eliminate, problems from ecclesiastical originating and monastic sources. 4(e iconoclastic Finally, emperors were against papacy, because the Popes of the time supported the iconodules. had, nevertheless, Nicephorus, though not an iconoclast, good reasons for adopting not only the same, but even harder a policy Here again it toward the Pope Leo III. between can be argued that Nicephorus considered relations Empire and the western the eastern church as a primarily issue. it really After political all, was an affair of political treated policies. significance. in the relative As such, section of these the relations chapter be will on foreign

had,

217

Chapter FOREIGN

POLICIES

Chapter
FOREIGN A: 1. In

V
POLICIES

NICEPHORUS AND THE WEST The Preliminaries comparison in with the the comes the interest shown relations with which by the with Byzantine Arabs and Empire's

chroniclers the Bulgars, are treated

the

negligence

almost as a surprise. Porphyrogenitus, Byzantine and Constantine of Theophanes do not seem to have bothered to know and to record authors information Frankish Empire the newly concerning created of the Charlemagne. the It is also who is contemporary unique 800, of Christmas in noteworthy Byzantine refers to that the even to source report

in the West events With the exception

Theophanes

events Charlemagne been after

impressed all of

odd way. a rather by the coronation not

coronation Theophanes seems itself,

of to have

at the same time as the coronation was taking 1 from head to foot, Charlemagne place something was anointed 2 Modern which by Byzantine standards was quite unusual. in the way have discerned traces scholars of mockery Theophanes reports Charlemagne's
>%C.

to according He says that

but by the importance, great his source it of information,

which was way in which, was performed.

coronation
1

as emperor

2.

6wi tg,, Aj, nojZv. " Theophanes 473: 1, p. K&, in the way in which For the difference and emperors in the West, installed in Byzantium. co-emperors and were in Context: 'Symbols Rulers' J. L. Nelson, cf. in Byzantium Inauguration Rituals and the West in the in Studies in Church History, 13 Early Ages', Middle (1976), pp-97-119-

219

in

800.1

It

Confessor's King

not, intention to

is

however, to the mock imperial

clear the

whether way in which dignity character words, it or

it

was the the Frankish he

was promoted ill informed was simply in the West. possessed likely because Charles, But that it Theophanes was not

whether that

about the In other

unction

was in Charlemagne,

who was anointed itself the unction

a way trapped but his son, during his father's does not seem to

seems very by his source also be of called great on of they coronation.

to three occasions and P. Classen points significance had been anointed before becoming Charlemagne which 2 Theophanes' However, records on the events emperor. because 800 are of interest Christmas of the way that the Byzantine reaction reflect It would seem that a certain on Charlemagne's coolness and mockery indignation,

coronation. mixed,

with some slight were perhaps, anxiety and the feelings the of the populace at Constantinople, after had reached Charlemagne's the capital. news of coronation The coolness from a definite and the mockery were derived self-confidence the banks on Roman Empire. become imperator Constantinople of to be the heir could claim of had Charlemagne Therefore, to aspired it would have been at Romanorum, Rome that But the illuminated he would Byzantine have views had of tenth say the king about to the and from Bosphorus an assurance that only the emperor the

be acclaimed Franks are perhaps better Constantine century source them. In his treatise displays imperial author Constantine VII 1. 2.

and not in basileus. as

by what the has to Porphyrogenitus Imperio, for of

De Administrando real the respect reign

Charlemagne. this Frankish

considered

See for F. D61ger, instance, Staatenwelt (Speyer am Rhein der Grosse P. Classen, Karl

ByzarA und die europdische 1953), p-297. (op. cit. ), p-48. ...

220

so crucial Frankia, simply Great

that,

while from Charlemagne's (M6y cLA"

before

him

his

country

is

reign (3>p oc

onwards

called is The

called De Administrando

(x Imperio that on the fact emphasis puts 1 'Charles the kingdoms' all was sole and that over ruler kings dared call himself 'in his days none of the other 2a king', in which the respect statement reflects which he was held by the Byzantines. Byzantine appreciated, into taken several of if views the of the Franks interests These can only be fully eastern

Frankia

consideration.

of Charlemagne are interests are echoed by

our main sources, one eastern and the rest The record Imperio is western. of the De Administrando 'sent Charles that short, saying much money and rather 3 Einhard treasure to Palestine', to abundant while refers Charlemagne's in the East, activities more in detail. Latin contemporary source we king Frankish Christians took care of all his Empire. time were living outside the biographer exaggeration names Syria, 4 Jerusalem,, Alexandria and Carthage. districts see, these were under Muslim From this Charlemagne's limited to involvement 1. 2. 3. Constantine . ), 2p-cit. ibid. ibid. activities in charity seems to in favour have these of been a sign hear that the who at that With a certain Egypt, Africa, As one can rule and, easily although mostly such an Frankish

were regions the Christians, of

increasing

Porphyrogenitus, P. 109.

De Administrando

Imperio,

4.2"

rd ofMI1

de ameleel^oLirwe V*e

Pck-f; 19 #7, p- 19S

vI

(e4 -9 ILpI YtvtOp4eo) -

221

prestige. between

with departure however, Isaac

that the correspondence suggests in 797-98 Charlemagne Hirrun al-Rashid started and 2 The the former an embassy to the East. sending of does this not embassy provide to is reported any either us with have been by Einhard 3A dating, the head who, Jew, of the

F. L.

Ganshof

In any case, the participation only survivor. 'with Jew in a delegation which was sent offerings of a to the most holy sepulchre of our J., ord and Saviour and to 4 his resurrection', its the place of underlines mainly Isaac than ecclesiastical rather character. political returned to the West in sent to elephant, all be ignored It can hardly that with and friendly relations close involved time when the latter was rivalry which the with Byzantium. greater These enjoyed Byzantine 801 with Charlemagne presents by the and with 5 Caliph. an

by name, embassy or its

seems

Charlemagne

enjoyed 6 Harun al-Rashid, at a in more or less constant pointed to a foreign policy

whether have jeopardized 1.

than the one of success, perhaps, There is no way of telling emperors. Charlemagne's to Irene would necessarily overtures his good relations with the Caliphate.

2.

3.1; tmtrd VLe (i e ki atree tv-. %-e (o e. ffj %% ), p-4 ,-. AM iL4. 4. ibid. I --(ed. R. Rau, op. cit. ), years S. Annales Frankorum, regni in M. G. H, Annales Mettenses Priores, see also -802; Scriptores in Usum Scholarum Rerum Germanicarum Separatim 801-02. Editi, (Hannover 1979), vol-10 years 6. -4"- (OL 4;1- JIVP- 444 44f; ed 3k&4 (X ,ie0 1 see also 6n this fiarun W. Buckler, Charles the Great al Rashid--an1931), (Cambridge, Massawk. pp. 17-42.
(_ Ift Qf f 4e

devotion In connection this with of Charlemagne, A. Gasquet (L'empire byzantin franqu et la monarchie , 1972, 1888, New York reprint originally published in such a way the the truth that pp-293-94), emphasizes became known in countries name of the Franks where nobody had known anything them previously. about F. L. Ganshof, Monarchy The Carolingians and the Frankish p. cit-), p. 1-86, note 40.

222

Finally, between to have

to the very contrast Charlemagne Pope Leo III, and lost all 1 given which the been the aspirations influence over the

in

close relations Byzantium seemed papacy from the mid-

century. eighth Therefore, all of the the the his evidence

position, beginning,

points Emperor

of Charlemagne and to a definite strengthening Nicephorus from would have, wary in his dealings with

extremely

West.

2. hear

NiCephorus

and the

the

Papacy biographer king 800, the did but of not 'he Charlemagne, actually made it that seek clear day at we his that all, he

From Einhard, that the in have it

main Frankish year

coronation would although not

the

entered

cathedral of

if church, This statement eighth

was the greatest he had known what reflects the

the festivals all of the 2 the Pope was planning to do'. fact from the midthat already had the exercised turn the of role obvious. become

the Popes in the West century onwards, in political than terms much more influential influence, This patriarchs at Constantinople. on behalf that in the of the century. papacy reached To say that the Leo its peak at Pope played 800 would be to III was playing

the

a decisive state off

events of Christmas W. Ohnsorge that suggests Charlemagne Irene against the peaceful established 1. relations during the

and this game marked the end of had been Byzantium which with 3 last of the eighth century. years

During D. H. Miller, 'Byzantine-papal Relations the Pontificate Confirmation of and Completion of Paul I: in B. Z. 68 Century'. the Roman Revolution the Eighth of ) (1975), p. 51. 2. IILj it aLdPrrAaret die,, c4-), Vo,,,

p.

se eo
),

p.

3. W. Oknsorge,

Das Zweikaiserproblem... 223

(22. cit.

p. 22.

It

looks, not such

however, allow

that

the

whole the

context

of

does with

us to

approach

an over-simplification. 1 F. L. such as P. Classen and behind figure Charlemagne's coronation famous abbot of Tours, of St. Martin's 798 onwards in correspondence Imperium Christianum is his

of events Other modern 2 Ganshof think that

circumstances Christmas 800 scholars, the key the the year

was Alcuin, who, from Charlemagne order to

the whole of western master of almost is subject Christendom to his protectorate'. and Rome itself has pointed But, even so, as F. L. Ganshof Alcuin out, was 4 deeply devoted it might to the Holy See, and, therefore, be observed he played that the role the events after of 25 April 799, i. e. the attack by Pope Leo III against his opponents, served At and of the Pope. the any interests rate, it both would, of Charlemagne be more 79S when perhaps,

expression 'Charles that

the

with in

used indicate 3

to say that the end of the year appropriate since Leo III Hadrian throne, the whole succeeded on the papal between Empire the eastern scheme of relations existing and the

the Pope now siding papacy changed completely, with is supported 'not only by Such an argument the Franks. in Christmas by the number of 800, but also what followed by this Pope to the letters addressed particular Charlemagne, or either before the his coronation (eleven). It is noteworthy that after we do not possess any letter., sent at the same time by the same Pope to the emperors of the East or even to the P. Classen, der Grosse_L Karl pp-35-41. 2. F. L. Ganshof., The Carolingians 3. ibid., p. 454. IF -i-d . 5. TF-evy can be found in M. G. H.,, pp-58-1031. das ... Papsttum... (op. cit. V, )., (2p. cit. pp-45-48. 1899), ), latter 5 became emperor (three)

w*4

Epistolae,

(Berlin

224

patriarch

of

Constantinople.

But,

by

up to? way,, what was Pope Leo III he was trying to strengthen instance, that by bringing the two the western church of conflict with each other? the It appears

acting Can it be, the

in for

such

position into Empires such an

that

by our sources. provided evidence exceeds assumption Leo knew about to say that It would seem more reasonable it him even before the opposition against the existence of broke In out Charlemagne in 799. He badly was considered to this we also and needed support by him as the best source from Notker the 2 before Manas-s-es- that, for help in VI his Constantine hear of it.

relation 1 Stammerer and Constantine Leo had asked to the Franks, from from the Byzantine however, Emperor

turning

difficulties

he received no reply. whom, be checked, J. B** Bury though two sources cannot of these is in itself by no means that the statement thinks 3 incredible. If that then Leo was, at was the case, for his turning least, to the equipped a good pretext with Franks. this that understood appears change was only properly by the Byzantine the elevation after at least government, We would, I in 802. of Nicephorus nevertheless, not expect Emperor the new Byzantine to have taken any very decisive measures could, to taken, for against the the leader have Pope example, of the aske d the Leo III. Christendom. western Tarasius then Patriarch Such a step was never common any He It

and his mother The credibility

excommunicate

for the following probably reasons: a) the Byzantine Emperor that must have realized of a sort front had been created in the West and, consequently,

1. A. J. Grant ), Early (op. cit. ), (edit. Lives and transl. p. 89. 2. Constantine Breviarium Manasses, Metricum Historiae (ed. Bekker), Bonn 1837, p. 193. 3. J. B. Bury, 'Charles in Hermathena, the Great and Irene', 8 (1893), p-30.

225

measure

western against being taken against as considered of course, western Empire too, and this, did not want to happen., Nicephorus that stage early that during kept himself situation Byzantine possible reaction still of his reign. his first year busy with

taken

the

church would be the newly created was something at least at an

One needs only to remember in power, the Emperor Nicephorus

events and with the borders b) The the eastern of the Empire. on could not have been sure about the government implications of such a measure and about the which of the-monastic party at Constantinople, the Pope as the head of the church in 1 Therefore, the Studites might its

internal

considered

universal conception. have tried to protest on the grounds that an excommunication Nobody could judge of the Pope was against canon law. the Pope. c) Such a measure would have been contrary to the Emperor Nicephorus' own character and persuasions. where he preferred at stake, relations. Nevertheless, was given Patriarch In cases the Byzantine to territorial compromise interests rather than to were not strain

namesake Nicephorus throne succeeded him in the ecclesiastical of Constantinople. By forbidding the new Patriarch to send (Tcx roQvoJ%t(-c'LK? (x'tLtAgxr(x the letter of his enthronement his disapproval to the Pope, the Emperor Nicephorus showed of, if not his indignation in the at, the role played by Leo III
1. Theodore (loc. cit-)., Epist. 1,33, 99... of Stoudios, for a discussion col. 1017B; of Theodore's views and 'Les C. Van de Vorst, the papacy, relations with cf. in A. B. de S. Theodore Studite relations avec Rome', ) 32 (1913), 'St. J. Gill, Theodore see also, pp. 439-47; Against the Papacy? ' in Byzantinische the Studite (1966), pp. 115-23. corschunge ,1 .

a proper answer to the less than four years later, at died and the Emperor's Tarasius

papal intrigues the time the

226

events

of

the

enthronement, Nicephorus Patriarch the Emperor did

year finally

800. sent makes

In to it

the

letter Leo that enter

Pope clear to the took If

of III his into

his in 811, the

namesake official church., with is by

not

with communication because of the anointing Charlemagne's coronation. with combined 2 Theophanes, then, importance by the status the

permit the head

him of

western

that 1 of

along place information this reported

unction it might been not to

Charlemagne

must himself Emperor but even more

have

be suggested that considerable by the Byzantines attached and merely rite to Charlemagne's imperial rite of anointing -a Byzantine coronation

the

from the which was then absent service. It seemed almost Charlemagne as though was claiming a divine for his office that sanction set him above the Byzantine Furthermore, it would also in the seem that, emperor. by having the Byzantine eyes of sided government, with in that his the Franks the Pope lost crucial period, position as primus inter to and was considered western church from the rest is supported Such a thesis of Christendom. by Patriarch Nicephorus' letter once again of enthronement, in which it upon is clearly the the stated Emperor with that this his was one of to the let the to his grounds patriarch participation Charlemagne that
1.

pares among the have separated the

five

patriarchs,

which of in

communicate the and

based 3 Rome.

refusal Furthermore, in

political

archbishop of Zara 4 same year strengthens issues eccle-siastical

a delegation the possibility considered

were

The Patriarch P. G. 100 Epistola Nicephorus, ad Leonem, it reads: ` I.CcrtcLn y&p 197A; e(pycvTo ica% ot&*p%Av%v col. -vjy k s?jnp46wncv nfPo6Akkt-r*fcDcx% 'jtv `*ATt tz v 1-n VT E-, &Go;) 41r VTV %Vt-kOC&V
706 *p((
7V. 4CXTOS .

For more about 'Letter this see above,, pp. 189-91. 2. Theophanes 1, p-473, 3. The Patriarch Epist Nicephorus, P. G. 100 ad Leonem, %. C. 6tAE-15 Icis col. 197A: " wcxl WS 20 A 4F CL 6. 'GT6- P V'. I SCx -r % 4. On this below, delegation cf. p. 238. 227

simultaneously. light on this Latin and

Though

episode, Catholic.

our it is

do not shed sources Dalmatia known that would it not with about the III be,

much remained perhaps,

Therefore,

to suggest the so called that reasonable be connected Illyrian provinces can also Nicephorus' stand papacy? against Unfortunately political It is, famous activities of course, for proposal however, 802. to very of likely little the that is Pope known during Leo

problem

of the the Emperor

possible 802-11. years

Pope

a marriage

between in

the was behind Charlemagne and Irene, of year the 1 of the 806 Empress Leo the

which, in October sent

speeded up the We also hear Charlemagne, the pat, 60MABut, of between Under

dethronement that in

a letter

of reinstatement Christopher against party of the the was also he acted Frankish appear against

og who was favoured to

support 6fcx6(0

Fortunatus,

by the

Galbaii. preference

our Charlemagne the doge

pro-Byzantine knowledge, Fortunatus himself Obelierius it and later the

as mediator 2 Emperor. that Pope the

and

these

circumstances

would Emperor

passive in Leo III

reaction of the Byzantine 806, was fully justified.

3.

Reality

Above

Tradition I deposed Irene and assumed supreme the lie power, to

When Nicephorus he was faced between East his with

fait a and West. not

accompli, regarding it If he did not like only that there

relations had to show

contemporaries,

was a new emperor

1. M. G. H., Epistolae, V, (Berlin 1899),, pp. 94-95. 2. J. J. Norwich, (London Venice, the Rise to Empire, The V,enFt---Lan Republic (London W. C. Hazl itt, p-44; Repring, New York 196Z-), 1, p-37.

1977), 1915,

228

on the throne sitting of Constantinople, new more determined was about policy the western against exercised the feelings of dissatisfaction usurper. and

but to

also

that and dispel

be adopted He had to

had anxiety, which in the capital. the courtiers especially among growing had been one of the decisive These feelings, all, after brought into factors Nicephorus which power. In created whether dealing western some importance Roman Empire, or not the ideology of a single in the mind of the Byzantine Emperor. of argues in the of to that 'the idea of year 800, when Charles the Great occurred interpretation, the iconoclastic developed a single the famous in H. era Empire imperial Rome'. Nicephorus' with is Empire, it policy toward the

been

newly to know was was In

a reality A. Vasiliev still

alive

coronation contrast Ahrweiler during

Vasiliev's

Glykatzias the period

considers which the

a-national first This seise to be consciousness. appeared ot 2 'the Byzantine it answer to the holy war of Islam'. degree that would seem, however, when a certain of 4C develops, it is directed "Jw-'re, not only against one Sot to every enemy, but spreads place, where rivals exist. This feeling sense of national the idea of a single universal Byzantines, did not of course, the heirs of the Roman world. themselves Romans and their not quite Roman Empire. dislike They the did accord The idea of to or with being call New Rome. The lost (op. cit. de llempire for ),

Byzantines

capital theory

continued the Second

What a gap, however, between former Roman provinces western 1.

and practice! to have been seemed

A. Vasiliev, History Empire, of the Byzantine 1, p-265. 2. H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, L'ide'ologie politique Byzantin (Paris 1975). p. 35.

229

Byzantium tremendous restore attributed However, realism, enough provinces to

once

and

for

efforts of districts these by modern if the the

since all Justinian to historians

the

year

476. generals have of was

The to been

and his to a lack

Constantinople, Justinian Nicephorus

sixth-century the old

pragmatism. lacking in

ninth-century the

estimate of

situation Roman Empire the were Arabs

was pragmatist The western properly. were now too from the East distant, and the Constantinople borders than lost the

at the while from Bulgars itself. of to the the the In Empire

same time the North other were

threatening eastern of

words, of and

the

much more to the

western

ones. Ostrogoths

The memories

crucial the Byzantine were lost

and northern importance Italy

Lombards

of the eastern provinces memories in a sense, fresh. Furthermore, the Arabs were, still during did not stop trying to most of the eighth century break the natural barrier of the Cilician mountains and occupy things eighth whole of Asia Minor. became even more difficult the century, the at Arabic a time when Unluckily towards Harun the for Byzantium end of and the Krum

vague, while to the Arabs,

al-Rashid

thrones respectively. and the Bulgarian between the relations we are dealing only with Nicephorus Do we really a come across and Charlemagne. dynamic policy Emperor on the part of the Byzantine against ascended But here his western rival? To begin one might with, Nicephorus tried any action, Charlemagne himself situation. invest not argue to that, before the undertaking in way, rather title

which

complicated itself did 1.

would It is true Frankish

understand handle this that king ),,

new and the imperial any

the History...

with

significant

G. Ostrogorsky,

(2E. cit.

p. 78.

2 30

political been only by the rival validity. immediately prestige century,

power. a dignity,

even it had of necessity to be recognized it was to have any if Empire the East, of Charlemagne this sought recognition probably his coronation. Because, the after whatever the long title at history the That beginning it of the the ninth which it was reason why We would rights and 800 invested solution to had behind was a truth

But,

if

we consider

it

to

have

of the

not easy to Charlemagne not, of

obliterate. found it

was perhaps

course,

with privileges him. However, to to but

wise to avoid provocation. him to abandon all the expect the events whicli of Christmas a mo-ement Charlemagne towards did a peaceful not hesitate

be made, and it. he did Thus, the one:

imperator

not use the Romanorum

Was it

a real modification of the 2 as Pfister and Gansh. of see it? does not use any definite language it looks

proceed imperator Romanorum title 1 gubernans. imperium. " imperator Romanorum, title Although or the Latin articles, between 3 which indefinite

is a substantial difference there as if imperator imperium Romanorum gubernans the phrase by Charlemagne, the hypothetical title was adopted and imperator imperium he could have Romanorum,. which gubernans if he really to be recognized adopted, wanted as the only emperor clever of the Romans. enough avoided. effort in In to any case, both and prudent and West was best need 1. to make much that realize Charlemagne, that direction. were a war betweenEast did not of course, His authority Emperors

M. G. H., Diplomata 1 (Hannover 1906), Karolinorum, No. 19'7. 2. F. Lot, du Moyen Age, Ch. Pfister, L. Ganshof, Histoire de 1'Empire (Les destinees Paris vol. l: en Occident), 1928, p. 458. 3. More about title this and its see in P. Classen, use, imperium', in Deutsches 'Romanum gubernans fur Archiv ErfoPschung Mittelalters, 9 (19Sl-52), es pp-. 103-21.

231

West had never been challenged and, this was of importance: during the two last years Byzantium much more did not openly dispute his proclamation as Roman emperor. Empire hand, although On the other the idea of a single over the from the modern point of view a historical anachronism 1 Nicephorus the Middle Ages', though not in the opinion of his western it worth fighting did not consider against had usurped the imperial because Charlemagne simply rival, This, title. should not be taken to mean nevertheless, to make any major concession that Nicephorus was prepared 'is has been shown elsewhere that Byzantine Emperor is concerned this policies imperial to restore authority, and this might imply that the question to him. of the title must have been important But, a war against the Franks, at least stage, at this was had to avoid. it was After precisely what Byzantium all, to the western in his domestic Empire. It a matter was well attention Are or less after affirmative interpret Empires i. e. Nicephorus he waited of priorities, until before domestically his turning established to questions of ideology. to assume that Nicephorus we entitled accepted more in the West the situation, which had been created events of Christmas 800? Instead let us try answer, or negative the relations the events, mainly during 802-811 and then the period of giving an to follow and between the two draw the

the

necessary conclusions. 2 Francorum From the Annales regni we hear that at the 3 deposition time of Irene's two envoys of Charlemagne, had already for peace negotiations been at Constantinople
1. A. Vasiliev, History... 2. Annales Francorum regni 3. They were Iesse, Bishop (a. cit. ), 1, p. 265. (ed. R. Rau, 9E. cit. ), year 802. and Count Helmgand. of Amiens,

232

with

the

Empress. aimed

According at a marriage

to

Theophanes, between have

these

negotiations and Irene,

Charlemagne

the union achieved could a marriage which have greatly 'might the the two Empires altered of and 2 Unfortunately our western sources of history'. course do not provide any information concerning such a us with by-Charlemagne. They only say that peace was proposal 3 delegation. Among these two different the aim of that the one embassy to. aims of the Frankish -Constantinople, by Theophanes, is definitely is This stronger. provided better because it lains immediate the almost not only exp fall would claim of Irene, but bit a they also odd, and, were sound that because mainly perhaps delegates Charlemagne's at it to a time of the

when the peaceful information

to establish were seeking peace between the two Empires relations were Nevertheless, than ever! a combination provided that, by both had the it sources might give planned marriage of would have been doubly two peace! of to

more for ground Charlemagne useful under arrival for

a speculation been to Irene to his the

achieved, Emperor, Frankish

of have

power and, of course, At any rate, whatever delegates the Frankish expected them to to try

by uniting the by preserving the to to after and recent as the

Empires

main purpose Constantinople, get permission the deposition discuss feelings events

the

we would stay of the intentions

some time probably Empress, in order the new Emperor, the concerning

months realize as well

the

of

relatively

at Constantinople, in the West. In

1. Theophanes 1, p-475. 2. M. V. Anastos, Rule 717-842' 'Iconoclasm Imperial and in C. M. H. vol. 4,, part 1966), p-90. a, (Cambridge 3. "ut pacem cum ea (Irene) (Annalfs statuerunt" regni (ed. R. Rau, a. cit-7-, 802. Francorum), year

233

reference

to

these to

significance Chcarlemagne's 1 the West. be taken can

circumstances, Nicephorus hear that by sending of a)

it

is

of

particular to

replied

mission Such an attitude to mean that:

his the

to own ambassadors Emperor, Byzantine

proposed crucial envoys, aim of the Frankish was not the only marriage delegation b) Nicephorus the western as having considered but to the supreme been sent not to Irene personally, in Constantinople. That is why he did not authority 'kick' accession anything Emperor them to out the of the capital immediately after his throne. c) Peace was prized above 2 Emperors, and d) the Byzantine informed 'existence the about

the

else by both the had been probably

of some alliance, or at least of a friendly understanding' between Charlemagne and Harun a,l-Rashid. delegation The Byzantine the Bishop consisted of: (probably Michael Peter the abbot of Synada)., and the Candidatus the they the Frankish Callistus. ones Italy, envoys on their way back home. had already Charlemagne the with Byzantine Salz. mission him' at These in fact accompanied By the time gone travelled Although it back to to is

reached Germany. Therefore North and met that these

obvious the

conciliation,

in the contemp(7., rary argument sources. Nicephorus if there would not have sent his envoys, was not by the sources The assertion to be negotiated. that anything 1. Annales (ed. Francorum, regni 2. F-. Classen, der Grosse Karl ... ffa-rUn al-Rashtd... 3. W. Buckler, 4. Annales regni S. R. enkins: p-113. Francorum, Byzantium, 803. R. Rau), year (op. cit. ), p. 66. (op. cit. ), pp. 26-27. --Ted. R. Rau), 803. year (ap. cit. Centuries, the Imperial

of claims seem to have founded

had been ordered to seek a ambassadors R. Jenkins that they rejected argues summarily S do, s not Charlemagne. Jenkins However, his

),

234

he sent Emperor of rival disposal between

such an embassy, of Constantinople the the West. about speaks two

proves wanted

by to the

itself live main

that in text

the

new with his

peace at

Moreover,

our

sides is also made by the second biographer The same statement 'the Notker that Charlemagne the Stammerer, who asserts had come and had delegates the King of Constantinople of told faithful that of Charles him (Charlemagne) 2 friend'. that Therefore, broke their master the wished of to be his argument Buckler

which a peace treaty, at Salz'4@=V some time

was signed in 803.1

of

'these

negotiations to be recognized

to unacceptable a condition be based on solid grounds. in 803 a peace treaty W. C. Hazlitt that was signed argues in which it was agreed between the two Empires that the be 'should Dalmatia towns of Istria and maritime 4 forming portion of Byzantium, an integral considered as but he does not provide either. any evidence, We would controversial negotiations, details about have title but liked, of of course, Charlemagne-was to whether di'scussed in not told of know, the

down ostensibly, on the demand of the West, as the Emperor 3 does not seem to the East'. In contrast to Buckler,

these

any One might the peace treaty. the contents of by Charlemagne the title the modification wonder whether of did not come as a result of mutual concessions made by both sides in their to avoid provocation and challenge effort unfortunately we are for the sake of peace. The lack of any conflicts between

(ed. R. Rau, a. cit. ), year 1. Annales 803: Francorum regni in scriDt-0 Dactum faciendae Dacis susceDerunt". 2. Einhard (-2. cit. ) Two Lives... Notker the Stammerer, and p. p. 124. (op. cit. ), p-27. W. Buckler, Harun al Rashid, 4. W. C. Hazlitt, (a. cit. ), 1, p. 42. The Venetian Republic

235

the

two In

Empires fact

during

the to

period such

803-806

can

also

be

interpreted East-West

as pointing an absolute relations

absence governs

concessions. of information this relatively about

regarding short those years, is Harun

the

know The only thing that we period. Nicephorus the that with was occupied frontiers, the eastern along al-Rashid spent banks the transferred of Wihmuodi them 804). with the with same time dealing Saxons, who were all Elbe, the river as well (a region In between their Elbe families with 805 Charlemagne whose During

conflicts against and Charlemagne tasks. the He eastern called

various inhabiting

the district as and and Weser) in his friendly

together

settled (September kingdom

Avars,

established (capcanus) leader the same year the Slavs

named Theodore. sent his son Charles

relations was a Christian, Emperor the Frankish

The of Bohemia. against for the Frankish Charles army. campaign was successful depopulated devastated their whole land and even killed and 1 Easter Lecho. After leader, their of 806 a certain had an equal the same son of Charlemagne success against Slavic that. of Sobari, tribe, another whose leader was also 2 killed in the clashes. be ignored here that it can hardly However, thes e all achievements interests in compromise they So far intention ought the of the the been Franks did This not touch the Byzantine a 3 West. permits us to assume that by both sides in 803 that territorial their of goodwill ill-will. rights. and

had to to

reached

respect each other's had shown two Emperors avoid any escalation

their

However, 805.

1. Annales ), year (ed. R. Rau, o-p-cit. Francorum regni 2. Tb--id. 806. year , 3. by Einhard Vita of Charlemagne (EI14JZ. -rd We 91, C6(r? e#-mjvvA op-cit. * p-150) also ,confirms such an assumption.

236

was still waiting a problem imperial title, was Charlemagne's had yet to by the eastern Empire

there

fot the

its

solution. of

That which

recognition

be achieved.

4.

Charlemagne during in

Strengthens the first which

his half were

Bargaining of, the year

Po ition 806 Charlemagne

Some time interfered been It under influence. would

areas, These

Byzantine that

control, were Venice by that had

always assu,,, ed to have Byzantine or at least under and the Dalmatian coasts. party, area of such

1 or the

appear

feeling a pro-Frankish Whether lagoons. the

year, a pro-Frankish been created in the themselves initiated

Franks

is not known, but their intervention a movement,, was partly doge the pro-Byzantine caused by the brutal way in which Galbaii killed Giovanni the patriarch a prominent opponent., it only Therefore, for the Franks to of Grado. remained in their favour. exploit a situation which was turning Thus Charlemagne in to organize was able a 'coup d'Etat' Venice, depose the doges loyal to Byzantium and replace 2 Obelierius them with two brothers, and Beatus. From now on, of course, becomes much the situation easier 1. for the Franks in Venice. R. Jenkins suggests that

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando__Imperio. (2p, cit. ), p-120; (Cha lemagne, J. Calmette Paris 19S1, 7-, however, ",cette that p-4 argues suzerannet6 n'etait W. C. Hazlitt, (The Venetian Republic, que nominale". that, op. cit., vol. 1, p-36), who suggests at least a section of the Venetians saw Byzantium as 'the more dangerous ancient ally and as the less neighbour', better. the situation seems to have appreciated 2. A. Dandolo, Venetum, in M. R. I. S., vol. 12 Chronicon -7-. Fior-ini (new edit. by G. Carducc'l, and P. Fedele (Bologna 1958), F. Lot, Ch. Pfister pt. 1, p. 128; and L. Ganshof, (21-cit. ), vol-1, Histoire p. 462. ...

237

the

fact

that

the

Byzantine

to provoked a war claims him, which Byzantium to not prepared was certainly with 1 interference face. By no means, however, can the Frankish be taken in Venice automatic reaction as Charlemagne's if the Because, to the Byzantine embassy of 803. assumed provoked negative attitude the interference have expected the of the Byzantine of Charlemagne his intervention envoys in Venice, to have had then place

Charlemagne's

embassy imperial status,

in

803 rejected

we would immediately

taken

after

and not thr. ee years 2 the negotiations that shown for both Empires. Moreover, 803-806 Venice, it decisive proved which Charlemagne had

fa ilure conjectural of the negotiations Furthermore, it has already been later. in it for only in 803 were appears the far that from the unsuccessful period movement at Therefore, Frankish

pro-Frankish in 806. exploited to assume that the to an effort the Byzantine of his imperial of

would seem more Emperor intervened his with bargaining

reasonable in Venice against miss the

strengthen government, title. playing Later the

position the will not

to regard on Charlemagne of role between suzerain his son forces,

recognition area, King of the year

the

opportunity

of Pepin,

Byzantine doges the

Sometime of duke

early Venice, i. e.

sent to in the

as that of mediator as well (since 806) and the Italy by Nicephorus. district 806 the two above-mentioned with the clearly together and Beatus, (Iadera), arrived at is not of that visit Calmette under

Obelierius

of Zara The aim court of indicated but J. by the sources, both Venice placed and Dalmatiaand archbishop Charlemagne. 1.

that they suggests 3 Frankish protection. Centuries (22-cit. )

R. Jenkins., Byzantium, the Imperial p-113. 2. Above, p-235. 3. J. Calmette, (op. cit. Charlemagne,

),

p. 43.

238

It

looks, in

however, the

that

support source, Venice really the

main sources. in is that the situation Charlemagne arranged 1 Emperor Dalmatia. Whatever the Frankish and did at that these two regions, time, regarding that donis envoys asked itself. from for both his His ,2 and for speaks places went intervention authority to or no him

such a suggestion What is recorded

has

inadequate

by our

information

"cum magnis

as supreme by the smaller countries, hardly after all, could count on Byzantine support which, because of the distance time the and also. because at that by circumstances Empire was forced Byzantine to fight on other fronts, the more case, Constantine Heraclius' western situation Porphyrogenitus time onwards, the crucial in the for area its is own existence. illuminated partly us that neglected from the In any by

supervision, doubt, recognized

was,

who asserts the Byzantines Empire, and,

provinces of 11 (820-29) the reign the of Michael independent 'subjected and autonomous emperor that does the not Nicephorus nor apply to anybody given to*the assertion certainly Dalmatian

during as a result, became Dalmatians neither 3 to the it However, century

Byzantine appears Emperor, because interests about affairs, of the a fleet, two these

else'. by the

tenth

period did not

on the Charlemagne's Nicephorus in

coasts. intervention in the Patrician the

consideration, abandon the Byzantine As soon as he heard Venetian and Dalmatian Nicetas at the head rights in

under

sent to

order

maintain

Byzantine

Nicetas areas. end of 806 and stayed

Venice some time before reached for there a period of one year.

(ed. R. Rau, 2E. cit. ), year Annales Francorum 806. regni ibi The text "Et facta est ordin'atio ab reads: imDeratore de ducibus tam Venetiae et DoT)ulis quam Dalmatiae". 2. ibide 3. Constantine De Administrando Imperio, Porphyrogenitus, (op. cit. ), p. 124.

239

It

seems that

his

psychological and of Dalmatia.

presence for both effects Before

in

the the

districts

leaving

peoples, for Constantinople,

had at least of Venice he

(we are not told for how long) treaty a peace concluded August 808.1 bound to last The until a truce, and of a peace treaty and a truce sounds a little confirmation is that, The usual situation when a peace is odd. not needed;. unless we admit that the signed, to Venice and the peace to Dalmatia, truce referred which impossible. by is not after The poor results achieved all by Hazlitt Nicetas' to at Venice, are attributed presence 'of the state his unawareness or poor knowledge of parties 2 It would of feeling' among its people. and the division had already that the Venetians seem, however, reached a independence their as more point where they regarded influence, from than any patronage precious and either In brief, the question or from the Franks. the value and effectiveness concerning of such a treaty Moreover, the shortness remains wide open. of the period, for which the agreement was signed, permits us to assume between the two Empires over Venice and that the rivalry Byzantium On the other hand, the was far from ended. haste of the Patrician Nicetas to leave the Adriatic waters and come back to Constantinople, might be given the explanation that he was sent there with only a few in order to evaluate the situation ships, and underline Dalmatia interests Thus, he could the Byzantine on the area. be involved in a long conflict with the Franks. Nicetas left the Adriatic waters some time at the (at the end of 808 or About one year later of 807.
1. Annales regni 2. Hazlitt, . p-43. (ed. R. Rau, 2p. cit. Francorum, (op-cit. The Venetian Republic, ), ), year 1,

a truce

is

not end

807.

240

the

beginning in the

of

809)

Paul,

arrived

and visited spent the of part but the

controversial both districts., of fleet in the winter.

rest

of Cephalonia, the head of a fleet area at Dalmatia and Venice, where he In the spring of 809 a the strategos the the that island island eastern of Commacchio, defended it sources have

that forces

attacked

successfully. almost completely

of charge It is a pity

the western these events while neglected In the the Frankish of view. point only ones present they have Paul seeking a peace case under consideration it Pepin. Whatever the details, with agreement looks as if to the intervention the "coup a real Venice, of blow Charlemagne in the Venice and his three years prev4*ot,. 11y, s interests masterminding proved in the of have been doges their the that, i. e. to dI Etat" to

Byzantine

area. of Obelierius as not safe, in the fleet starting position Byzantine before the and Beatus, because of the northern two Adriatic. with puppets Pepin, of

The two considered of presence It is likely Paul Charlemagne, two more However, planning. resorted Bitterly his to

negotiations of the Beatus,

had demanded likely Paul

replacement Obelierius and serve the going and to

Byzantine

with another in Venice. interests all his in what intentions, he was

was not Obelierius intrigue Pepin

succeed at Beatus realized the to

disappointed,

and undermined Paul returned turned his

peace treaty. Cephalonia. forces, originally

After

withdrawal,

naval

1. Annales (ed. R. Rau, op-cit. ), year Francorum 809. regni Sinc--th-ere is not any evidence of Byzantine militaristic in the area, the only and imperialistic aspirations for is the attack possible explanation of Commacchio, that tried to regain the Byzantines control of an island, Venice Dalmatian which in 806, like and other cities, had been placed Frankish under protection or domination. Commacchio But, is also since a rival of Venice, in this it may be that, the Byzantine case, navy the demand of the Venetians. was acting on

241

aimed such of doges

at

Dalmatia, against

against their

the

a threat the islands to resign their in

came together,

Facing o-fVenice. freedom, the inhabitants own forced the two pro-Frankish islands leadership of (809). Angelo Pepin Badoer, returned

organized to Italy

and under defence successfully The

the

state seeds of an independent shame. The rivalry had been sown by its Venice own people. at between the two Empires and the Dalmatian over Venice coasts seemed also to have come to an end.

S.

Towards Imperial

Peace Title we have could not

and Recognition seen so far, to the. were it

of

Charlemagne's clear that all The its interests

From what Byzantium forces of the in

becomes

afford

be involved

a war Byzantine

against state

Frankish threatened one. Arabs the

with Empire.

much more than on the western led the campaigns the against At the Bulgars of Krum. and Patrician to start Nicetas and later a war against and influence other

on other Nicephorus of Harun

fronts himself

same time more to

al-Rashid he sent the not so much Byzantine

the

strategos

Paul

the-Franks,

control On the

of the on the coasts hand, it seems very likely to

secure Adriatic. that Venice

and over exercise control wanted Dalmatia., for any particular than because other reason, not he needed to be in a strong during the negotiations position Empire. to come with the eastern Thus, ready for delegation order 1. to in the course of the year 810 a final under negotiate settlement. peaceful Arsaphius, the Spatharius 1 We hear the terms. everything In July was a Byzantine in Italy about

Charlemagne

arrived details more

in

Michael, The other the Metropolitan were, participants it is Callistus. Peter the Candidatus the abbot and definitely that these three remembering envoys worth had been the members of the delegation sent to in the year (On that 803. Charlemagne mission already p-234 see above, .) 242

Arsaphius' a letter

mission which letter

from

Charlemagne's early to in 811. 1

reply At

to

Nicephorus, three

was sent

least

be emphasized: a) Charles need of that points b) He refers his brother. to Great calls Nicephorus the 2a peace, peace which was the Byzantine as desiring embassy the to put an end to the cold war between going probably two c) but Empires Arsaphius' to his over the control was of Venice embassy son Pepin. sent not to But Pepin had and Dalmatia and himself, Charlemagne in the meantime the Byzantine

died envoys that after

and, third

of that as a consequence by his father. were received

the

considered Emperor of of the

to reference Charlemagne, wonder whether one might point, had not of his son as King of Italy, appointment between himself Pepin and the as the mediator the East, or Adriatic. mission perhaps arrived the suzerain Aachen of in the coasts

event, In

October 3 Such issue. 810, seeking the a peace over of 4 in to the western sources, was signed a peace, according it was the course of the same year and it seems that by Nicephorus As a condition 'bought' of at a high price demanded Dalmatia Charlemagne envoys and the Byzantine peace, at Venetian here had no choice but to comply. It is also worth noting does not appear Charlemagne the issue that to have raised At this imperial title. of the recognition stage of his it had become obvious to that hurry. time there was no need and on his side was interpretation Buckler's therefore that

northern The Byzantine

1. M. G. H., Epistolae, The letter IV, pp-546-47. was also in: fUr Vorlesungen Kleine Texte by H. Lietzmann edited (Berlin 1931), und Ubungen, pp-35-37. 2.77-G. H., Epistolae, IV, p. 547: "ad constituendam nobiscum pacem". 3. F. Lot, (a-cit. ) 1, L. Ganshof, Histoire.... Ch. Pfister, p. 463. 4. Annales (ed. R. Rau, 2p. cit. ), year 811. Francorum, regni
In to --

'Ue f IV tot&IO di

d;

f r 0640

dp'o jqOe1A&v Megl,'oevo e-&, o(v%e

243

Nicephorus status friendly not

was

forced after

to

as emperor,

recognize he had failed by oevly

Charles to and

in break

his

new

understanding to be supported appear

between

Aachen

up the 1 Baghdad, does

evidence.

January court stayed at Charlemagne's until he was On his way back to Constantinople, 811. of 2 by a Frankish delegation, sent to the East accompanied between in order the peace treaty to confirm the two Arsaphius Empires. Nicephorus Michael By the had I had to time both been already Constantinople embassies reached killed and thus his son-in-law

from a rather negotiations continue weak delegates, but, He welcomed the Frankish poEition. as the final they agreement was about to be signed at Aachen, Empire, the capital of the eastern again left accompanied by the Byzantine These were, the already negotiators. Arsaphius, who had in the the such to of the rank of protospatharius, Synada, in participating been promoted meantime Metropolitan Michael a third 3 named Theognostus, embassy at Aachen where, and signed, and in the they the (the Greek for

mentioned

a mission

time,

and another protospatharius, Charlemagne the Byzantine received after a final agreement was reached

him officially called envoys) 4 'g language According to r. I f- jjos, %. c3e Charlemagne Venice arrangements, allowed influence Byzantine to remain coasts under reward 1. for the recognition Harun of his imperial

Byzantine

final

and the Dalmatian S as a and this (812). title

(2p. cit. ), p. 27. al-Rashid... 2. The Frankish The Bishop Haido, the were: negotiators Count Hug and a Lombard named Aio (Annales regni Francorum, (ed. R. Rau, op. cit. ), year 811. 3. ibid. 4. Annales (ed. R. Rau, 2E. cit. ), year Francorum 812: regni "scriptum ab eo in ecclesia pacti suscipientes more suo, id est-Graeca lingua, laudes imperatorem ei dixerunt, et basileum appelantes". 4? i ctaevll Zv-'SA'e'l WIJ -GLIVOZ

W. Buckler,

(,

1401414WO o4f o 011%

244

4bo hed; oevo ole)

6.

General the Empires finally

Assessment main events have been recorded, reaction of come about. but Byzantium, Thus, under in the relations it might I between the be argued that a Charlemagne against tried the to save the strongly of the opposed of a

Now that two

really did not

dynamic

Nicephorus He surely circumstances the pressure

of prestige his efforts. affairs

he inherited

Roman Empire single If the importance. imperial certainly to this title not in the

and current became more

events,,

state idea of

recognition 812 became inevitable, to be blamed

and more of a secondary of Charlemagne's Nicephorus it. But in I is for regard

one

be added. some further remarks must recognition for It appears Charlemagne that wanted recognition only he himself Otherwise, for his successors too. and not would as he actually one of them not have divided did, in the 806. Frankish That Empire division among his that In imperial any in his sons, no meant Romanorum. of his

imperato-r would be called Charlemagne other words, sought recognition title as a mark of his personal achievements, Roman Empire. to divide the single attempt mind there could Roman Empire, at Nicephorus Frankish Byzantine some time negotiations to grant die the in probably, would easily least be two for

without Perhaps,

in a single Roman emperors But, time. a short even so, to recognize to, his to the the recognition the refusal he wanted

was not at first prepared imperial If King's title. Emperor between could 802-811. have

can only imperial that

proceeded give The prolongation of be explained by Nicephorus' title the to already and But, Charlemagne. old thus Frankish the

He was, monarch would problem for the three years earlier

hoping the

come to an end Byzantine Emperor,

near future by itself. his

ironically occurred

own death

245

than

his

Rangabe, the

western rivalls. had neither the strength for

Nicephorus' of

nor Charlemagne.

competence further tough after 812, Venice sphere than, of

Michael successor., his father-in-law, with

Nevertheless,

in the recognition and Byzantine kept withi4the of greater itself. In brief, significance moderation the

arrangement and Dalmatia were finally influence, and that was the imperial title

negotiations the final

perhaps,

extremism, towards interests

governed the West, where of Byzantium

than and understanding rather Nicephorus of the Emperor policy he seems more or to have defended the less successfully.

246

B: 1. In

BYZANTIUM AND THE ARABS The Sources to of with ones along outline the the of ninth provided the Arab-Byzantine we are sources. relations at dependent

our effort the beginning on the even ignore fails between accounts

century, by Arabic

mainly The, Greek Theophanes

chroniclers, slighter events to

slight George

the

exception of the Monk and frontiers. eastern

and

the

Cedreni. s, Even Theophanes

provide Byzantium

a systematic account of the conflicts during Nicephorus' and the Caliphate relevant sources, by the recorded the for the events, to the is that in some

reign. Another cases

problem

accounts of conflicts, do not tally chroniclers with Arabic The Greeks, sources. Arabic record theme invasion the (the defeat future the very in 803, of Leo, Emperor reports general. while the

Greek by the

narrated

example, mention Arab chroniclers

strategos of the in Leo V) at Euc kexita provided They the the by the Arabic say of do not destination

no do not Armeniac 811. sources

Moreover, are the as a rule duration

much about the three (30 Arabic December either or

campaigns. during raids 802 to about about reliable the their

or even about c--1 Ya Kubi., for the of but

example, year he does

course 19 December 803), places results. guide, at least against

mentions A. H. 187 not say were

anything launched,

the which Under these among the

raids

our most cirumstances Arabic authors, seems the Time of the Early

1. E. W. Brooks., 'Byzantines in and Arabs (1900), Abbasids', E. H. R. p. 742. )lS

247

to

be Tabarli, YacKu-b-i, Nevertheless,

than the the to

fewer numbering usually who, although in what he records. is more detailed general are as chroniclers for the Arab-Byzantine relations consideration, if treated corroborating with their caution. evidence. with where records in

raids

only

sources under only to find

almost during

period but us,

are valuable Great care must the the

be taken

Our Syriac events in the accounts each other. Finally

though not contemporary sources, definitely on events shed some light can frontier Arab-Byzantine zone, especially provided by Greek Latin and Arabic hardly chroniclers

occurring contradict

touch taking events, sources our between Byzantium However, this and the Caliphate. place be taken to mean that they can be overlooked. should not For it is mainly through them that the we hear about between friendly Charlemagne and of relations establishment the the whole to a certain extent framework, in which the clashes and diplomatic be put. NicephOros Harun al-Rashid must and caliphs, illuminate and it would seem that these relations political between

2. It

The Historical is not to certain the

Background

tribute peace

whether, Arabs in 782,1

of the by having Irene

Conflicts to agreed had bought pay a the

a permanent

in any case, It appears, truce. that or simply a for which peace lasted, period was rather short. Constantine he was the VI was very that to prove anxious real 1. emperor in Theophanes mentioning
41

and military Brooks (1, any

success

against ' about (loc.

-

the

Arabs ),

would

Tabarl,

'Byzantine$.... speaks

cit.

p. /38.

p-456) tribute.

a peace

without

248

have

been

the

best

proof

of

this.

Tabarl

gives

the

during duration two months, thirty which, as he a of 'on account there was no summer raid of the truce stresses, 1c-I for that period'. Ya Kubi, however, that reports made truce during the first time two Arab raids this occurred, even in the year A. H. led by al-Fadhi, the son of Salih, one 167 (5 August 783 to 23 July 784) and the second by in A. H. 168 (24 July 784 to Muhammad, the son of Ibrahim 2 785). 13*July had a personal It looks as if the peace treaty or truce achievement However, it of the Caliph al-Mahdi, the father was the son's very successful rail 3 the Bosphorus at the head of a raiding party), which forced Irene to seek for a peace agreement. Harun at that time was an ambitious prince and the second heir to it is possible in However, the throne. that his rivals Baghdad did not of Harun. (he reached

themselves to respect consider obliged This seems to have been the reason why such a treaty. if YacKu-b, is correct they kept launching raids 17 even during the period for which the two months, of the thirty 4 Thus, it appears that the Arabic truce lasted. raids the official were of two different ones, issued and sorts: directed from the court ones of Baghdad, and the unofficial by ambitious undertaken occasionally both categories were directed against princes. Byzantine However, territory.

In a way a sort of rivalry between their leaders. existed Theophanes' of course, silence on these raids cannot, be taken as proof is His account that they did not occur. by Arabic detailed the one provided not usually sources. so as
(loc. cit. ) Tabarl Brooks in ium 70,000dinars, was2 90,000or (in Brooks loc-cit., p. 739) dinars 10,000 to 100,000 plus 2. In Brooks ), p-739. (loc-cit. 'E'rooks (loC-cit. 3. Tabari, ). in 4.6n the character of the Arab 'L'Asie H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Arabes' in R. H... 227 (1962), 249 1. 738According to him the p. c Uyum but the Kitab al the yearly paid sum raises silk garments. 738. p. campaigns, Mineure p. 7.

cf. et les

invasions

Tabari's the It

silence, importance of

however, the raids

must led

make us suspicious about by al-Fadl and Muhammad.

two leaders that these acted on their own would seem from the central independently initiative government. and c--. does not Ya Kubi, the raids, Unfortunately, who mentions hand, does not On the other Tabarl into any detail;. go report they did anything about these two raids, probably because in any remarkable not result either achievements in any changes for the Arabic the borders army, or at Empire. the Byzantine with Tabari At any rate, the Byzantines accuses of breaking the peace treaty, they had signed which with --1c-I does not tally Ya Kubils Harun. that account with of 0 Under the year A. H. 167, he states Tabarl. that a.1-Fadl, 2 has pointed As Brooks the son of Salih, conducted a raid. 3c then the rupture out, was the fault if Ya Kubi is correct, does not mention Theophanes of the Arabs. any hostilities until September After supposed raids These the to of 788. 785, in which is the peace treaty year have been broken, the Arabs kept conducting the eastern launched the the that period Byzantine under year year provinces, leaders, various is each summer. but Harun to have 797 to

against

raids were himself (Caliph since led any of them before 21 February It Arabic Irene is 798).

786) A. H.

not reported 181 (5 March

worth noting during the raid was the

Tabari

does

797-802,

not mention in which the

any Empress

One campaign sole of ruler at Byzantium. c Kubi Harun, by both Ya recorded and Tabari, seems to have in the spring occurred or early summer of 797, i. e. before 1. Under 2. ibid. 3.15-17. the year A. H. 168; in Brooks (loc-cit. ), p-739-

250

the it

deposition would

blinding and more

of

Constantine than the

VI. raid of

However, the 1

seem that was the

crucial

Caliph, Arab

leader 2 granary. (5 March 797 to of Constantine,

by al-Malik. This undertaken expedition Ancyra, where he captured a subterranean reached by Tabaril is dated in A. H. 181 This raid 21 February which, 798) and before the deposition

to the same Arab according in the year after (22 February 798 to took place chronicler, (campaign Now, 'the same two events 799). 11 February of by VI) are reported of Constantine and deposition al-Malik in a different According Theophanes though too, order. to him, the deposition of the 797, and on 15 August place dating is Theophanes to this expedition Theophanes of al-Malik him reports unlucky is there Constantine VI took regard in that no doubt As far as the is concerned, Minor and Galatia Emperor Constantine

correct. Asia against

the the some time after It would seem that the only way to match the records by Tabarl' is to admit that al-Malik and Theophanes, his raid in the spring Asia Minor time against some early that summer of 797. year Constantine Theophanes started narrates that in against a campaign Byzantine territory. to

plundering deposition of

Cappadocia

3 VI.

provided launched or the March of Arabs, Arabic That

the the that in

who had already

penetrated

expedition, reach of course, was never going had forces, because the Emperor the plot against been put into it appears Therefore, operation. al-Malik Byzantium took advantage of the during the summer of (1, p. 473) calls (loc. cit. Brooks 1, p. 473: "At, -j1, internal 797. He stayed

already at Asia

disturbances

Minor

1. Theopanes 2- Tabari, in 3. Theophanes 4. Theophanes

him "A41 t-x Vtc- ), p-741.

fI

TOL V4e? Kanno(Joioa; v% OkAt-VoV

p. 471.

251

launched and mainly Byzantine reasonable September well that against

his

plundering Cappadocia could that

various against regions, 1 Since the and Galatia. not react at that time, there time it al-Malik (797). ruler was still By that of

but

government to believe of the

is

same year as the sole

until Irene was

established she had to

Byzantium

According clergymen, Constantine, for peace.

in Asia the situation cope with Irene to Theophanes, sent -the Empress from Chrysottpolis, Dorotheos, an abbot chartophylax failed The envoys the Arabs in the of to St. Sophia, achieve Asia Minor

and realized Minor. two

and as delegates 2

and thus we find (798) too. year In for under territory Theophanes that year, imperial various and that

a peace agreement, during the following became

however, It

the

situation that

prestige.

ambitious independently. acted

appears lieutenants

small invaded again We hear from

even worse Arab forces Byzantine

forces Malagina, al-Malik's reached a city horses of Bithynia, where Stauracius' were stabled. 3 baggage The horses the imperial train and were taken away. No opposition by the Byzantines. seems to have been provided Another Arabic Lydia army campaigned against and got away with many captives, only a detachment of Arabs managed while to defeat the combined armies of Opsikion and the Optimates, 4 In the same Paul, Count of Opsikion. under the Patrician Arabs Finally, February took train away the baggage hear from Tabaril that we 798 to 11 February 799) an

the way as at Malagina, of the imperial army. in the year A. H. 182 (22

1. Ancyra, by Tabarl, mentioned seems to have been especially It belonged the capital to or the main city of Galatia. the theme of Boukelarioi; on this see C. Foss, city 'Late Antique in D. O. P., 31 (1977), Ankara' and Byzantine pp. 27-88, p. 77. especially &# 2. Theophanes 1, p. 473: 100 XC-cp\fe, 41C. 3. ibid. 4. ibid.

252

Arab

detachment Ephesus. the with

under

c Abd al-Rahman, Under these to have

the

son

of

al-Malik,

reached expect peace

circums41-ances, made another treaty,

Empress the

Irene

we would for appeal however, Irene is had

sole of ruler (Rashid) desrapports lui pacifiques, 2 peaceful pr6sents". (she maintained he sent her presents). But, apart source payment inferred reports such a peace to that treaty the of any tribute from the fact from is either main, the

reported become the

only

Caliphate. c by Mas udli.,

A peace

that after who asserts "elle-entretint the Empire et il lui

avec envoya des

him, with relations and c- from Mas udi, no other or an agreement It can only nor years only Arabic the the for be

Arabs.

record raids This silence 1.

neither side during though not

Greek

sources 798-802.3 which

ground,

(loc-cit. Tabarl, in Brooks ) p-741. On this expedition f. (ibid. Brooks 126) where two possibilities note are it was the same campaign the first that put forward: ( Wcx-T", A 90, v guiS, to al-Malik which Theophanes ascribes A vjt"(xs ) and the second that Arab authors some times between Ephesus were confused and Arabissos. 2. Mascudi, (op. cit. ) p-228; Le livre... M. Canard Ma prise d'Heraclee Harun et les relations entre Nicephore ler', Byz.,,, 32,1962, al-Rashid et llempereur , this 346, note), to suggest that p. relies on passage Irene to pay a tribute to Hdru-n, but it hardly agreed provides conclusive evidence. 3. Yack5b-1, who reports one raid per year on the part of the Arabs during is an exception. It would that period, does so out of a Chronicler that this seem, however, habit in any case, Harun himself, and, neither nor any in these of his close relatives were involved expeditions. Referring to the character J. B. Bury, of these raids, (E. R. E., p-251, 2) calls them perfunctory. note Ml'c---Ta--elthe Syrian is another author, who a-lso records during Irene's two Arabic In the raids sole reign. first dates Aetius one (no exact are provided) won a but in the r-ew following the invaders, victory against vecxr he was defeated by the Arabic forces. Michael indirectly dates Aetius' defeat in the year 802-and some time it caused Irene's fall assumes that and the elevation of (J. B. Chabot, Nicephorus I to power Chronique..., op-cit., by Michael iii, This 12). is of particular report p. he himself because is a reliable significance, source and because, he used a common source extent, up to a certain Theophanes. with 253

has

led

most to pay famous

scholars a tribute letter,

to

assume to the

that Arabs.

in

the

year

798

Irene

is supposed which during Emperor Nicephorus Harun by the Byzantine some time 1 At any rate, first in office. I's the year whatever during is clear it that the last made, arrangements four Empire relations years of with Irene's sole reign (798-802) the Byzantine in enjoyed a period of comparative the Caliphate, tranquility

agreed is the

The other reason, to have been sent

to

its

3.

Byzantium's

Eastern

Borders

in

802

the details we enter which of the conflicts occurred it would be useful during Nicephorus' to try reign, and had separated line the frontier the two Empires plot which in which 798. That was the year the Arabs were since Before spread over all by circumstances yearly Arabs, Asia to Minor and Irene purchase Caliphate. that time, peace It would were not forced was probably them by paying a with the seem that interested really the Caliphate. and that area the Byzantium barrier, the in

sum to the at least at

annexing parts Thus, the main Arabs remained The borders Taurus-Antitaurus Cilicia to the

territory to of Byzantine between l. ine of frontiers more were or less shaped stable. by a natural these one the is

range, Euphrates. passes. southern

which runs Crossing The part first of

through

of from there

were two main GateS2 in the 1. 2.

mountains the famous and the

Cilician was

range

second

For a discussion the letter, see in this section on 261-63. below, pp. 'The description, For a detailed W. M. Ramsay, cf. ). pp. 349-56. (op-cit. Historical...

2S4

sited times,

near 1

Adata,

Arabissos.

on the The Cilician for

road connecting known Gates, the

Caesarea from ancient

and

by the raids undertaken either were Syria, Byzantines or by the Arabs, as they started against fortified from the well their cities of Tarsos, campaigns 2 The second pass was to be used by Adana and Anazarbos. the Byzantine forces, invade It frontier such easy Mesopotamia, has when setting 3 by Arabic or Melitene. that Harun took great of its care of the key places, 4 It would be out army from starting Caesarea out to from

decisive

Germanicia

or perhaps been said

and as Germanicia., to see that

line

fortified Anazarbos

several

and Tarsos.

two purposes: to served such measures invasion, the Caliphate against a Byzantine secure and at for a number of troops, the same time to serve as garrisons in the case of Tarsos 8000.5 It is very which reached forces in the raids likely that these participated against Byzantine 1. territory.

2. 3.

4. S.

(E. R. E., p-244) J. B. Bury locates Adata on the road between aTnid-Melitene, Germanicia but it seems more probable that dominated Caesarea this the road between city-fortress fairly to and Germanicia somewhere and it was sited close Arabissos. (p. 280) Adata was As we shall below see by the Byzantine in 807 and Harun himself forces attacked in order to take care of the fortress went there and to its defence. for at the pass of Adata post a lieutenant It appears Adata was one of the most remote that western frontier line. Bury himself outposts of the Arabic (E. R. E. p. 244) admits by it was frequently that attacked For the location tFe-Byzantines. see also of Adata, J. G. C. Anderson., 'The Campaign I Against the of Basil Paulicians in Classical in 8721, Review X (1896), ' Mineure... H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, *'L'Asie pp-138-9; and (loc. cit. ), p. 4, map. (9E-cit-) F-ortE-ese see W. Ramsay, The Historical, places pp-349-56 and 386-87. in the J. B. Bury, The possible E. R. E. p. 244. routes by J. G. C. Anderson, 'The Road have beeTi-discussed area Asia Minor System of Eastern the Evidence with of (with (1897) Byzantine Campaigns' map) in J. H. S., XVII p-28. J. B. Bury, 10 E. R. E., pp. 244-45. ibid., p. 245. 25S

Furthermore, at residence by, at least by the Baghdad, in was already

in Rakka,

the

year

796 Harun which, a certain borders. in if

an event

took up al-Rashid it was not caused activity that year

with coincided Byzantines the along the he had Caliph's in the

upsurge of 1 Although and, his

tenth

power

disliking residence Harun chose

that appears one or two other because 'probably Rakka as his chief residence, of its frontier, to the Byzantine where he was planning proximity 2 Such a view conflicts that things'. with of W. Muir, great believes that the Caliph set up his court at Rakka who 3*0 in check'. Syria 'ostensibly Although to hold disloyal is probably in Muir's there the fact some truth opinion, that of to Harun the had Barmakids were that suggests considerations in his mind. Moreover, uppermost that led likely even raids that before becoming Byzantine experience of caliph at against from his left 4 all the internal affairs in the of hands foreign

meantime it places,

established

policy

remember

one needs in 786, Harun It that time, ist

had already therefore, Harun

territory. the

With a view to was necessary. in the border this end he established area a new province, c Awasim, 'whose resources. the to were to be devoted frontier Harun warfare'. al-Rashid Finally, was the first it of must be added that to the'Abbasid caliphs

that was convinced frontier of the Caliphate

a strengthening

western

(Cambridge 1. M. A. Shaban, 2, A. D. 750-1055, Islamic History 1976), p. 31. 2. H. Kennedy, (Totowa, Caliphate The EarlyAbblisid N. Jersey 1981T-, p. 120. 3. W. Muir, its Decline Rise, The Caliphate, and Fall, (Oxford 1892, Reprint 1975), p-476by 4. For a discussion the role the abilities played and on family, The Early... H. Kennedy, the Barmakids cf. (op. cit. ), pp. 116-20. S. H. Kennedy, (op-cit. ), p-130. The Early...

256

--

1 45 -11,

and to organize naval warfare. of Rakka as his main residence, therefore, be seen as a measure, which corresponded not to Caliph's interest lively on Byzantine In any case, what affairs? to be of more importance is that with Haru-n moving to seems Rakkaj the line of Arabic fortresses for running, Taurus-Antitaurus between the Tarsos and along Lykandos, was stabilized, most part,

become interested Should his choice

in

the eastern side of the mountains. (See map on next page. ) On the other side of the range there was another line Byzantine which underpinned of fortresses, control of the This line from Sebasteia in the north-east, extended area. in the to the borders to Heracleia with Armenia, close Gates. The main close to the Cilician south-west, between these two ends of the line, located fortresses
seem to not to told have been Caesarea, Irene line and of Kyzistra Constantine fortresses. fortify year 2 whether this We are and Tyana. VI took any measures does Nicephorus the in eastern outposts, he was power,

strengthen

not seem to have had the time to because, his first during least at by internal absorbed affairs. Thus, mountains Byzantine one fort, as the it would appear as a sort and the was of that served Empire which of Caliphate. 'no

the

Taurus-Antitaurus man's' land between the There is very and Gates. however, as far That Pdj'andas as well

control was the fortress and dominating

crucial Gates the Cilician of 3 located of Loulon, the road of and between the fro Cilician from it needs

importance

was, at least close Heracleia

concerned. to

Tyana

as the narrow pass fort had passed to the turn of control. the Arabic

Byzantine

eighth-century It hardly

seems to be said

of this 4 but, to Arab, at to have been under that it was

Control

mostly ninth

around these two between Byzantium conflicts century took place.

lines

of

fortressess

and the

that in Caliphate

the the

main early

276 and 281. 1. On this, below, pp. section, see in this 2. Not to be confused Kybistra. Heracleia with 3. For its identification W. Ramsay, The Historical. cf. (OP-Lit. ), pp. 351-52. 4* J. B. Bury., E. R. E., p. 245. +M, 5. for (4. -tt%f-"'r -

CL

C13 .z0 .0 4)

crCc=
a

(n

0 -1

(n

z <1 o
N

8c
co C) J

ll

:r

uj 0

u D

ou 44
4

A'o
'a

-J

m
4)

00
m* 4ro ,

D<

CL 0

53 7: 0 00 jw

-9

m 5G

u)
C)

In Q Q (n m

0 m 0 co
(D

u
cu

__j

(n CL u

c 0 00
O)o 00<

oE

0 ; 0 -

Lai

C/)

V) p lid 76 :zt oc oc
02

0 c !2 0 u
c

'a

0 z

<u
m

LAJ

CL

uj

< 0 J -.j

49

Before events, borders worth means,

proceeding

to

the

took place at which between the two Empires., noting the that only war in interaction sorts them or

narration the borders it

on the or

main

military

would

near the be, perhaps, by no during 1

but, was the main, general between the two worlds of relations, such continue to

our period. diplomatic., but the

Other commercial either

as political, exist,

and cultural are Arabic

reports completely

sources, almost to

about Greek to

The usually very vague. dedicate their accounts events and, even when they

military

in which the two sides activities were refer involved, they do so as mere anecdotes. for Through that, we hear,. such clues although example, I and Harun al-Rashid found at war, Nicephorus constantly 2 As M. Canard has noticed time to exchange some presents. the objects exchanged as presents a very provide good indication, if not hard evidence, for the commodities 3 imported by and from either They and exported country. textile seem to have been mainly perfumes and jewellery. goods, other As we hear from Tabarl, Harun al-Rashid in 806 dates, figs, and treacle, raisins silk four 1. 200 embroidered garments, garments, 5 hunting horses. dogs and three sent to Nicephorus as 100 falcons., as well twelve

2. 3. 4. S.

'Les On these M. Canard, relations, see among others: Byzance relations et les entre politiques et sociales (1964) G. E. von Grunebaum, Arabes', D. O. P. pp-35-56; )18 'Parallelism, Convergence Inf. l. uence in the Relations and Literature Philosophy, and Piety'. of Arab and Byzantine 'The in D. O. P., 18 (1964), pp. 91-111; Th. Papadopoulos, A Comparative Byzantine Model in Frontier History: d'Etudes Approach', in VIXe Congres International II 41S-19; Byzantines, Actes (Bucharest 1975)., 'La frontiere les frontibres H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, et de Byzance ibid., 1,209-211. en Orient', (22. cit. ), III, de Michel J. B. Chabot, Chronique p-16; (op. cit. ), p-121. Bar Hebraeus, (.loc. cit.. ), p-54. 'Les relations M. Canard, ... ibid., 49p. Tabari, 'Byzantines (loc. cit. ), p. 746. in Brooks ... 0

259

have the information that we source at Nicephorus time, to send asked the Caliph an unspecified c Atdhija, him the Arab poet AbU^'lthe whose poetry fond of. Emperor The Caliph Byzantine was very was very favour, but the poet himself keen to do Nicephorus a From another refused refusal, verses main the gate Kitdb to to Constantinople. emigrate disappointed, Nicephorus partly poet the on the 2 doors of capital. is mere al-Aghani of some kind of cultural during the After that two

engraved

by that

of his palace and on the Even if the narration of legend, it does point to the relations question. during Mutassim. of the between These the relations, the

existence two Empires

were further of course, Emperor Theophilus and the individuals, there were always willing other Arabic to side. the border cross According to

in period developed Caliph

reigns of Moreover, high rank,

sometimes

origin played Mesembria by Krum in Among the Tatzatius, the Byzantine

fortune and seek their on the Greek reports, an engineer of in the capture a decisive role of 812.3 dissidents we should mention Boukellarion theme, who of his hatred in

strategos

782 went over to the 4 StauraciuS. Elpidius, who in the same year (although for different 1. 2.

of Arabs,

because

patrician and strategos of in the same way as Tatzatius acted Thomas the Slav who did reasons)-5

against Sicily,

3. 4. 5.

Kitab ('Les in M. Canard, al-Aghdni, relations ... loc-cit. ), p. 36, n. 5. On tM7 'Quelques "a c6tV de M. Canard: story cf. Vhistoire des relations Byzance entre et les Arabes', in Studi in onore d. Georgio Vida, Levi Della medievali Rome 1956, pp. 103-104. Theophanes Annales (2p. cit. /3, I. Zonaras, 1, p. 498; p-315). Theophanes 1, p. 456. Theophanes (2p. cit. /vol-3, Michael 1, p-455; the Syrian On the date and the circumstances in pp-9,15 and 16). flew Chapter 2, to the Arabs, which Elpidius see above, p-82.

260

date' thing unspecified same and Manuel, at an to the Arabs and then back twice, crossed the borders who 2 during Theophilus' reign. again, Furthermore, people settled ordinary near the frontiers, be expected to have communicated to with each other, would did the have exchanged commodities, ideas, views, etc.

4.

The Conflicts seems to have marked the turn the of relations the and Rakka at the some time during sources report of hostilities. of the

The quiet period which between Constantinople ended century, Greek and Arabic to

eighth 803 when both year friction led growing which between the Byzantine new to

a resumption For the worsening and the Emperor,

Empire Byzantine Harun at

Caliphate, who is 3 letting

relations the Arabic

al-Rashid, Constantinople the their

supposed him know

blame the sources to have sent a letter that the

against Although here both

was determined Caliphate, than the

new government to adopt stand a tougher 4 had done. Empress Irene it and citing worth Haru-n's reply. is

authenticity Nicephorus' initial Emperor wrote:

i-s dubious, letter

The Byzantine

1. Theophanes Continuatus, C. S. H. B. (Bonn 1838), p-51. 2. ibid., pp. 118-20. be 3. Nicephorus I* 's letter., as well as Harun's reply can found in: Gibbon's A History of of the Decline and Fall (FouHt-hedition, Ch-52; London 1906), the Roman Empire, G. Weil, der Kahlifen, Geschichte Mannheim 1846-62,11, History p-159, and Jaldl of the Caliphs al-Suy5ti, al-Din (transl. by H. S. Jarrett) Calcutta 1881., p-296. 4. Tabarli, (loc. cit. ) p. 743; in Brooks the poet A'bduIr Aahman-b-Yusug,, (2E. cit. ) in TaTldl al-Din al-Suyuti's (2p, cit. ), II, Le prair; es d1or p. 296 and Mas udi, p. 337, Masc5d! however that the correspondence asserts was initiated by Harun and not by Nicephorus.

261

'From Nicephorus, King of the Greeks, to Irene had Harun, King of the Arabs. the castle and contented parted with She had paid herself the pawn. with the double of which you you moneys, It was but a have paid to her. should Wherefore, return woman's weakness. you have taken, or the sword shall what decide-'I To this letter the Caliph replied immediately:

'From Harun, Commander of the Faithful, dog of the Greeks. I to Nicephorus, have read your letter, son of an is for The answer mother. unbelieving to see, not for your ear to hear-11 your eye As we can Byzantine to of is hypothetical letter, see in Nicephorus' easily Emperor, the payment stopped not only of a by Irene, but he demanded the the Arabs agreed the Caliph only The so far received. 3 by Arabic sources and presupposes the payment treaty would solution between of was seem of the a peace It 798. to the had

the

tribute refund letter the

what

reported

of existence in 802. tribute concluded that the crucial during like a letter

a state of peace and As we have implied, the second half of the the the of sent 798, to that the turn be the may of

key

problem, at recapitulating treaty been

concerning

relations

two countries it is worth possible supposed the 1. treaty

eighth evidence

century. for both,

Therefore, the is in 803. do )

peace to have

which and the letter, I Harun by Nicephorus almost 4 nothing The Arab either chroniclers

The Greek or

sources about

mention the letter.

about

(2p. cit. Jalal Suyuti, History the Caliphs, al-Din al of p-296. 2. ibid. (ed. J. B. Chabot, 3. Mi-cliael the Syrian vol. III, op. cit., letter Nicephorus that wrote an insulting p-161 also says to Harun. 4. The only by a Greek source is the one letter reported by the same chronicler by George the Monk and dated quoted in C. de Boor's in 806. It can be found edition, Although it is again Lipsiae 1904, p-773a letter Nicephorus I to the Caliph by the Emperor Harun, sent different is quite its to the content of the content by the Arab sources. letter quoted 262

not report Thus, the exclusively It is existence Arabs in

any peace information from true that

treaty about the letter

the year under is derived it, dubious speaks letter. clearly

798 either.
=F"

Nicephorus'

about

the

as 'spurious' and Harun's reply) 2 Most modern scholars have 0 themselves committing avoided carefully as to the Nevertheless, they all of the letters. authenticity it for granted had signed Irene to have taken that seem peace Arabs, the agreement and had agreed to pay tribute to the probably year 798.

relying (the one by Nicephorus as 'an Arab inventiont

to the and of a tribute of a peace treaty paid is the letter? 802. But how reliable E. W. Brooks, both letters silence, on Theophanes' mainly regards and

issues, and the therefore, them.

Arabic invasions in the successful after It would appear, however, that the two i. e. the first the peace treaty of 798 concerning second the letters of 803, are closely and, connected one has either to accept or to reject both of

We can easily see that of cause(effect a relation in the case under consideration. In other exists words, if such a humiliating in 798, then peace had been signed have expected Nicephorus to have reacted we would normally by adopting an intransigent immediately either after time in the course of the policy his towards in the 802, Arabs, or some elevation year 803.

is In a rather which statemenit, an exception-. general he says the following about year, not under a definite a elle fut maintentAe Irene: "clest que la paix grdce les Grecs et les kalifes et el-Hadi entre el-Mehdi, (thanks the Greeks to her peace between el-Rechid", was and the Caliphs al-Mahd7l, al-Hdd! and al-Rashild maintained). 2. E. W. Brooks, (loc. cit. ), p-743. 'Byzantines Arabs... and

1. Masc udi,

Le livre...

(2]2. cit.

),

p. 227,

forms

perhaps

26-3)

798, one must say that To go back to the year the in the whole Asia Minor time was more at that situation less As we have already seen above (p. 253) chaotic. or Arab invasions himself Theophanes several which reports the west coast and had reached country 1 The central the peninsula at Ephesus. government of of dynamically Constantinople not react could and effectively. It would seem that the only way in which. Byzantium could have driven the Arabs out of Asia Minor, would have been had penetrated the by signing probably The lack this these a peace treaty by Harun imposed of any report and by agreeing to for pay the a tribute, peace. concerning Since of the as a condition by Greek provided not surprise unanimously,

sources anybody. in favour

peace

agreement speak,

should almost

them to have reported we would not expect impugned Irene's which capacities and abilities events, Coming to the reign threats. to cope with of external have Nicephorus I, the same Greek authors would certainly been very reluctant to record the new Emperor's uncompromising attitude At accept the time towards the it Caliphate. that Nicephorus did not at for pay he was confronted ready to any rate, appears the fait with accompli, of his

sources Empress Irene,

accession. but not willing their own mistakes, for their failures. predecessors'

which People are to

the payment continuing of any tribute Such a humiliation went far beyond any forbearance. is Nicephorus' reaction two of character his most notable characteristics: for b) His great concern and 1, p-469; Tabarli, in

accept responsibilities There was no way of by the Empress. agreed possibility found to a) money. (loc. cit. ) His of tally proud with

Theophanes p-741.

Brooks

264

The new Emperor his intentions making

of

Constantinople clear to the

found Caliph.

a way of Whether

this

by refusing done by sending to or just an embassy, was for the yearly is not of vital Harun's tyibute, claim meet it would Nevertheless, importance. to seem reasonable have been some correspondence believe that there must between power. the two Empires the after Nicephorus circumstances, started that sometime the first had come into earl), Under current would have It I's his appears such a in the six

correspondence summer of 803. so of spent needed We are Nicephorus most to of told

reign quietly, passed internal time dealing with in office Empire that Nicephorus the

months or and the Emperor issues. He

secure

himself whether of

not and fiscal accession,

situation but the

against possible rivals. I handled the economic immediately his after some preliminary be ruled too, cannot date of work out. the

in was undertaken Such considerations controversial but there is, importance This out

possibility direction that do not

correspondence

provide any exact between Nicephorus one event which,

nevertheless, itself, can also is the rebellion It 803.1 the Arabic is

event on 19 July

shed some light Turcus, of Bardanes I

and Harun being of crucial into our problem.

uprising confronting provinces 22 August) accurate

prevented the of of -

certain almost Emperor Nicephorus forces which the 2 invaded month

which broke Bardanes' that from the eastern (25 July-

Byzantium the

during

Shacban

and

them as correct Tabari, Harun al-Rashid 1. Theoptanes 2. Tabari, in a

If these two datings are same year. is no reason there not accept why we should to that according and, if one remembers marched against Heracleia

1, p. 479. Brooks...

(loc.

cit.

),

p. 743.

265

immediately the

after

correspondence time in late some the year of 803.

Nicephorus' letter, he received between the two men must have or early summer (probably spring To suggest that the letters during negotiations,

then

started in May) exchanged

of

were which

as part Nicephorus the

post-campaign

Harunts to accept terms., refused by the sources. information provided

the order to accept of the reasonable Harun al-Rashid to believe that the Arab authors and Nicephorus' led to the stand as a provocation, which between hostilities the t,wo Empires. commencement of Among the which during against marked Nicephorus events the hostilities I's 2 first we are between the if to two believe countries

would be against It is more by events provided took

Tabarl

Heraclela.

have might course., It appears likely that they very internal trouble of the Byzantine July or the beginning was CAwasim, The expedition prefect of

was Harun al-Rashid's reign, Bardanes' rebellion, already for the made things much easier took advantage of Empire

raid in Arabs. the

they of August led by asim, son of the Caliph and 3 4 besieged Koron. and blockaded who

and at the end of invaded Cappadocia.

(loc. cit. ), p. 743. TabaripI Brooks ... in 2. ibid.; W. Ramsay, for the location of Heracleia cf. TTFe-Historical... (op-cit. ), p. 339, where it is stated Heracleia-Kybistra the time. that of Cappadocia all was part 3. M. Canard, 'Byzantium World to the Middle and the Muslim On C. M. H., vol. 4a, p. 707. of the Eleventh entury', in this Awasim, the province section, of cf. above, p-256. 4. For its identification W. Ramsay, The Historical... cf. (op-cit. ) p-355. ('The J. F. Haldon and H. Kennedy Arab-Byzantine in the eighth Centuries: Frontier and ninth Military in the Borderlands', Organization Society and in Sbornik Koron north Radova 19,1980, p. 86) locate , Tyana and point it was the military of out that headquarters of Cappadocia.

1.

266

This

last

sources with neither provided. the which son are

campaign is that the time,

is to

mentioned c Kubi by Ya say detail;

by both

slightly

different

nor the however, He does, Salih,

destination add of during

and In YacKu-b-11s of the the

main Arabic Tabari, though our report is raid

names

of

mentioned

and Ibrahim, beside that

the

son of 4asim, probably the expedition.

al-Malik, Uthman, as senior

of

of the young prince advisers Tabari that al-Kasim's asserts He sent one farther than Koron. al-Abbas, which the son of Galfar, after does two was also intention al-Kasim's taken a short to

ambitions extended of his lieutenants., the defence. fort 3

against seem to the character sur

of Sinan, Nevertheless, the Arabic de case the of too. Arab

of annexation H. Ahrweiler's IL'action 11guerilla" Now, incursions? 803 intermeshed

these

not forts

have

been

Caliphate. of the la to any, the raids: forme this to

remarks

on the

militaire arabe et de "razzia"', what

prend 4 seem to main

terre

was Nicephorus' Since the two in

apply if reaction, events it of

summer

seems that one way or another, the invader. there against was not much Byzantine opposition it was the armies Normally themes of the Asiatic % ri 1 %, 0'. C("TaL have <a cx Tcx" C ? OCT %%, should which A but the Emperor Nicephorus the Arabs, confronted seemed to have lost forces. They were commanded by of these control the powerful unanimously Arab invaders, 1. 2.
c--

Bardanes, monostrategos backed and who directed but against the capital

whose them,

rebellion

they

not itself.

the against Although

Ya Kubi, (loc-cit. ), p-744. in Brooks... For*a possible in 'The Arabs location E. W. Brooks, cf. Asia Minor, from Arabic Sources', in J. H. S., 18 (1898), p. 205. 3. Tabari (loc-cit. ), p-742Brooks in, 4. A. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, ), 'LIAsie ' (loc-cit. Mineure...

p-7-

267

the

Emperor in have

had been

situation would if he had the Arabs would

realized there time, considered the Minor In handed more Asia time. have

the

difficulty

of to fight the

the

was not very of rest in order such the

much he could risky, the to say thematic

whole do. the

it

least, and

transferred to that

army

tagmata at

a case

the against Emperor Nicephorus

perhaps ,

monostrategos itself capital of to the the

and,

whole importantly,

army Emperor, war, less

undefended. and at least there the than

army to the ambitious he would-have left the Furthermore, even if the rest had huge remained risk of have 'Loyal initiating the

the

tagmata.

was always

a civil

consequences a complete

nothing Nevertheless, the not

been which would of disaster for Byzantium. on the part That action., of although

some action against directl,.,,,,

Byzantines

was undertaken the invaders.

took place time at an unspecified reported for the Byzantine Such an army. and it ended in victory is based on Tabari, that, assumption when who asserts at the end of the campaign season of 803 the two sides came to are terms, not three told hundred and twenty Arab when and where they had In any case, the number is sincebe very important either. cannot prisoners been captured - we were big,. that

released. the incident arrangement

not After

in peace back to Arabic al-Kasim retired It was probably late territory. already autumn and, by either further therefore, no side. operations were expected himself did not It appears Emperor that the Byzantine any campaign against the Arabs until the end of 803.

undertake

(loc. cit. ), p. 742It is worth Tabari, Brooks... in Aoting YacKu-b'1 dates that the release prisoners of these in 804 (A. H. 188). ('Byzantines... However, Brooks as 150) has pointed loc. cit. 744, note out., Tabari's p. dating better into (803) fits the whole context of the internal of the Caliphate. events

'

268

Whether remains which

Harun

led

disputable. cover

an expedition is This it is him,

against because, only when the

imperial

territory,

an event. letter of ('the

our period, According to

among the sources Tabari who records such received immediately of Heracleia. rebellion and for the

Rashid

Nicephorus, 1 and same day') Emperor, by the

he himself reached being Caliph's

marched gates

The Byzantine and frightened

occupied

by Bardanes'

agreed to pay a tribute it. Thus Heracleia escaped Byzantine control. 2 Nicephorus Rakka, the tribute. broke

for peace raid, sought imposed by Harun as a condition capture and remained under Rashid had retreated when and winter refused the and to that refusal, Caliph

However, the of the again. of

to pay

agreement severe 3

As a result

notwithstanding came back, Byzantine territory once interpretation Bury's

invaded

this

Thus text. original on Tabarl's he was too busy trying Bardanes' to suppress the rebellion, Emperor Nicephorus a humiliating peace treaty concluded in 803 and undertook the Arabs to pay a the obligation with --4 tribute to Harun. However, us very the there are to certain of his his should points, which make Tabarils account as far as I in 803 is Harun al-Rashid account of these events of two of is 806. passages Heracleia's

story very heavily relies he argues because that,

reluctant

accept

personal

expedition first place, to

concerned. In the

suspiciously close The only difference is 1. 2. 4. that Tabarl, ibid. in

account of the events be spotted in the which can his march in front 803 Harun stopped in Brooks E. R. E., (loc. p. 250. cit. ), p. 743.

...

3. TF-j-U.
J. B. Bury,

269

while gates., fortress.

in

806 he besieged both

and

conquered

the

Otherwise,

against marched personally Nicephorus was frightened would withdraw, honour his agreement him very late punish weather conditions. Harun that

tell us that accounts the fortress of Heracleia, and proposed the Byzantine to

cityRashild that if to

pay a tribute, Emperor failed

the Caliph came back to and. that on in the winter and under severe detail This last should make us nobody in sources far so has challenged

suspicious. particularly below, As we shall see the

to the events of credibility of the regard by all Greek and The accounts 806. provided sources, for is no doubt Arabic there so that year coincide, that But to believe they tell the truth. that that us exactly took place same events If they did, then two other a) As a result unanswered: the to have been signed after al-Kasim, places, by the to the his well had Harun himself retreated in 803 too, the is out will which the of question. remain is supposed major of two questions treaty, in However, treaty

sides Rakka.

and definitely signed conquering

hypothetical

summer of 803, in the meantime had already been if

son, went on attacking and inside Byzantine territory.

been agreed, have expected such a peace treaty might one Rashid to order his son to withdraw from hostilities too. Because otherwise have been blamed al-Kasim. would also for violation b) An expedition of a peace agreement. of the these sources we follow favourable Caliph himself, a peace treaty too Byzantine territory, penetrated imposed by the Arabs, tribute and a all by the Greek important to have been ignored which Theophanes. To this last point, since events help it,

were

especially the to line the

nevertheless,

we must

add an alternative Theophanes does that Nicephorus I,

reservation: not record if he can

Emperor

270

failure the part of Harun to capture a on be omitted too much credit as reflecting might be suggested it might In other that the words, then have attacked Heracleia because in 803 too withdraw he compelled

Heracleia, on Nicephorus. Caliph may

not his terms to the Caliphate, to accept and to pay tribute he failed it. is, but because This to capture of course, but our sources do not provide possible, quite much help direction in that It would, be more therefore, either. for there to say that are no good grounds appropriate by of an expedition existence in 803. be To sum up, it might because of Nicephorus' to continue refusal hostilities resumed any tribute, - though accepting Heracleia the in 803, but scale Emperor participated year. In this are given the following hostilities. year It (804) is it was the Arabs neither in any the Caliph nor expedition Harun suggested the not the payment against that, of

to and was forced Emperor the Byzantine

on a large Byzantine in that

personally

began who year

the conflicts onwards, by the Greek sources recorded more by the important Arab than this, chroniclers, Greek authors, and the means

that worth noting between the two too. is on the on the that one other, However, the hand,

again from Empires what and is

perhaps provided

accounts those more with was upon time cover,

by the

or less, common ground less difficulty. During still weak. that year This

can, therefore, hold did

be matched on Asia not need Minor to rely this the the

Byzantine that Harun

undertake a personal expedition. his capable According lieutenants. it was Ibrahim, the summer raid

He could still to Tabari,

entering

son of Gabriel, who conducted Byzantine territory through

pass

of

271

Al Asia

Safsaf. Minor

Tabarl Ibrahim

does

not

tell but

how deeply us

into

penetrated,

valuable According by the Therefore, them. Byzantines escape Nicephorus considered received suspicious triple well the to

information to fact The in these that two August

is some there on this 2 3 by Theophanes given and Cedrenus. Nicephorus two chroniclers, was worried Arabs had reached led as far as Phrygia. against he himself an expedition 5 Krassos, where

the

the armies clashed at himself were defeated and the Emperor was lucky being Tabarl that captured. reports 6 I received but Theophanes three wounds, humiliating than a wound a narrow escape more the about battle. Tabari's In any case, not source, Byzantine emperor sources by him too, in one needs to be because only a have been very would also because the doubt forces. 4,000 beasts is have imperial that this However., of out been of

in

wound

reported huge numbers There

of the by other

but

losses.

given is, of

was a disaster conflict lost to believe that they burden, of

course, for the 40,700

to regard little very Byzantine

not appear That is probably these the very keen to accept numbers. 7 in the way he records them. reason why he is very careful W. Ramsay, (The Historical..., p. 354, note), 2p. cit., identifies but J. B. Bury (E. R. E., it as Sideropalos, it was tF-esame 3) seems to believe that p. 245, note as Loulon. 2. Theophanes 1, p-481.0 3. G. Cedrenus, (Bonn 1839) 11, Compendium Histor1rum, p-334. George the Monk also in Phrygia the Arabs reports (Amorium), but under 805 (De Boor, the year op-cit. pp. 772-73). S. Cedrenus, does not locate however, the battle For the location in Phrygia, specifically. of Krassos see map, p-258(loc. cit. ), p. 744. 6. Tabari, in Brooks ... 'as (11-t) is recorded'. 7. ibid. It reads: 1.

source as Tabarl's of Tabaril himself question.

men and information

suggests, to

does

272

In himself

April forced

of

the to

next year for Persia, leave According

(805)

the in

Caliph order to

found deal with

internal some

disturbances.

There to

summer and autumn. Emperor Byzantine restored Minor. singled

he spent the whole Theophanes, the absence and Eastern Asia are by

several Among them

of Harun's advantage in Central fortresses and took Ancyra, Thebasa

and Andrassos

I even took the offensive Nicephorus out. did to Syria, which we are told s_ending a detachment 2 however, This, the means that anything. not achieve Gates and the fortress Cilician of Loulon, places at which the turn were under Arabic of the eighth century control, the years a few months during Because 806 the at the beginning of the year determined forces Caliph to crush the imperial once and for Theophanes together all and gathered a huge army. speaks from Syria about 300,000 soldiers., collected and Palestine 3 is The source Tabarl's on which and Libya. narration based, the number of regularly to paid raises soldiers changed 805-806. only 135)000. followers must by both army full To these men, Tabarli comments, 'the campand volunteers and those who were not registered' how inaccurate be added. No matter the numbers given of are, chroniclers 806 was huge and confidence. one at It thing its sure: remains head was Rashid that this the himself, campaign Arabic 4 hands but for

of self was intended exercise meant it to

appears

as a triumphal designed to impress be a great

procession -a his subjects. He entered

propaganda The Caliph Byzantine

success.

1. M. Canard, 'La prise... ' (loc. cit. ), pp. 355-56. 2. Theophanes (1,481)., the expedition, who reporTs lost that the Byzantines a great number of men. 3. ibid., p. 482. (loc. cit. ), p-745. in Brooks 4. Tabarli,

asserts

273

territory his close way to to

on 11 June the the north

from

the of of

Cilician Tyana. the Cilician

Gates This

and made stood very Gates and, Caesarea to

city-fortress entrance

more Heracleia.

important.,

commanded the main Both our main sources seem to According agree to

road from for these that Tabarl,

Theophanes

some time 2 there, while 3 If mosque.

and Tabarli, at Tyana.

events, Rashid spent

on the action he intended to to the Caliphate after

to Theophanes, according is accurate, Theophanes' report of the Caliph can be taken part annexe a part of and consequently innocent. that all usually associated Harun dispatched fortresses 5 6 Sideropalos In the

he encamped he even built a then to such an mean that Cappadocia

were of

not

south-eastern Harunts there activities Because, the building with conquest. his lieutenants of

a mosque is From there

Byzantine strong other 4 Malacopea, Thebassa, under Arabic

eastern and Andrassos the

against Asia Minor. all came himself Caliph as which, We do not

concentrated Theophanes know for to Tabarl

control. his efforts

meantime siege

on the

reports., how long it

was very Heracleia

str-ongly was besieged,

of Heracleia 7 fortified. but

17 Sep#ember.
1.

sometime was captured 8 What appears to be of

between more

according 20 August and significance,

Tabarl, Brooks (loc. in 2. ibid. 3. TH-eophanes 1, p-482: lXCXQvc*vjt4%'cxr

OlKov Ti; &

cit.
%)

),
'

p. 74S.
N6

9w v lfcx I C-A
=ZTcki:

_T-6 Cz VCX

I,

K 00"'c'%4 A P-4

4. Tabarl's Dalsa or Dabsah cf. Ibn al-Athir's Dabsa. j. G. C. Anderson, ' (loc. cit. ), p. 32. 'The Road-System... S. Tabarils in Brooks (loc. cit. ), p. 74S. Malakubija, 6. theophanes 1, p. 482.
7. ibid..
T.

"r6

Vn

OC e. C 0 14'. 1

yc); l-Vk?,cxKAt"wS

wc*L*(. T(70v

*)E%; fpw-yOcTov

nctvv

8.

Tabari, 0

in

Brooks,

(loc-cit.

),

p-745.

274

is

that the

with line

the of the

fall

of Minor

of imperial

Heracleia, fortresses

the in

south-western

part

and the was completely detachment From Heracleia a strong the region. of 3 2 destroyed forces Arabic the as far as Ancyra, was sent "t `Festoration back. done by Nicephorus Thus the*'Of' and came city in the little the to have proved previous I campaigned Emperor Nicephorus year but accept a fait been Although vain. he could in person, do he sent an Therefore, peace. victorious, to Theophanes, thousand nomismata, ransom that, in

destroyed

Asia eastern Arabs now dominated

accompli. 4 to seek churchmen embassy of three It harrIly to be emphasized needs conditions. tribute of for a yearly

for

Harun*imposedhis he asked

According thirty

which were considered plus three nomismata a personal himself for his son for the Emperor three and another S Stauracius. That last amount of six nomismata, especially to mentioned by Tabarl' too, the subjection symbolize Emperor to the will of the have found this idea of subjection

was probably supposed and humiliation of the Byzantine Caliph, seemed to and the latter very attractive indeed.

has pointed 1. As M. Canard ('La prise*... I loc. cit. p-378) in 806--served th, fall out, very much as an of Heracleia inspiration for Arab poets the contemporary who, excited by Hdrfin's number of verses achievement, composed a great in order to commemorate, his victory. 2. Theophanes (1, p-482) their number to sixty raises thousand soldiers. 3. George the Monk (De Boor op. cit., says Amorium, p-773) it in 805. and dates 4. Theophanes Michael, 1, p. 482; these metropolitan were: (Sylaion? ), and Peter, of Synada, abbot of Goulaion Gregory, the Oikonomos of Amastris. S. Theophanes (Brooks, Tabarl loc. cit. 1, p-482; p-746) different He says that the provides numbers. us with dinars, for a yearly thousand peace was agreed sum of fifty for four the Emperor of which were and two for Stauracius.

275

Another

condition try to these just could Harun by the

imposed restore Arabic fortified be used

by Harun, the forces.

not should dismantled Rashid they were about were or

was fortresses, The

that

the

Byzantines had been of

which great

concern

fortresses

leads places, as garrison

not

us to but,

that suspect in a way, they In places, as the Arabic

they

quarters.

words, other if they were starting territory. At

that such was probably afraid be used fortified, later could well directed for expeditions against points Nicephorus

any rate, When the Caliph took advantage

retreated of his absence, the his 2 forces hear we

for inconsistency. can be blamed Emperor to Rakka, the Byzantine broke back the compact and As a result territory and forbidden to

and restored it, Harun of

fortified

retook From Theophanes broke fleet, the the peace with

sent Thebasa.

places. Byzantine

that

men of in them

to regard destroyed which mentions course the

in his turn Rashid also 3 he sent a Cyprus, where the two and churches Arabic attacks took

many captives. Cyprus against important chronicler captives, bishop, dinars 1. of

Tabarl

was the

806. of the year led by Humaid. one took near sixteen Rakka.

The most The Arab thousand 4 One thousand

the admiral that asserts he brought to Rafica, whom who was among the as a ransom, and captives, they thus

provided freed. were

two 5

On the garrison J. B. Bury, of fustat, cf. quarters (E. R. E. the institution that p. 244)., where he argues hi-dbeen by the Omayyads and was continued introduced under the early'Abbasids. 2. Theophanes 1, p-482. 'Cyprus 3. On the neutrality Cyprus R. Jenkins, see of in Studies between Islam, A. D. 688-9651, Byzantium and Presented 19S3, pp. 100611, St. Louis to D. M. Robinson. 1014. 4. E. W. Brooks, (loc. cit. ), p-74S, 163. 'Byzantines... note (loc-cit. S. Tabarl, ), p. 745. Brooks in

276

Before of took the

prolonging year 807, in offensive, Empire

our which, the

narration as we will

of ease

the see,

military Nicephorus

events I

the

apparent

Byzantine

was able to recover 806, needs some kind of explanation. been indicated As it has already mainly, one if is to not exclusively, left only with more

the with which from the disasters '

of

above, military or to hard into

our events,

sources and,

record therefore,

less this

a solution is so little Because there mystery. hints best we can do is to take these considerations combine them with events In the first place, sources biased which against and one

provide

general 'perennial' the and the all This

evidence, account mind that

circumstances. has to keep in to

the covered Nicephorus to mean that during that Heracleia

events of 806., favourable and they exaggerate year. should particular in 806

are the

almost Harun.

be taken can of the Caliph fall of Tyana mean that was totally possession

achievements Secondly, the be taken provinces to in act

and Byzantine

not

in the resistance The Byzantine paralyzed. inthe of other strongholds see, the in the course

eastern army area, of next

was still ready year. to

of the expeditions and the character by either during launched these campaigns organized side and is, in a way, peculiar. From our main Arabic years, chronicler of the peace treaty we hear that among the terms between the Arabs of Harun successor-designate - at the time in 782, there was one, according and Irene to which the Byzantines to provide the obligation undertook in Byzantine the Arabic with while army guides campaigning to the throne 1. In this section, 259. p.

again, as we will Furthermore,

277

along the main roads, provinces! buy their from where own provisions. could but This is, of course, agreement, an unusual quite to the Byzantine M. A. Shaban suggests that it also applied 2 into the enemy's land. Under such when marching army, the wars between the two countries took on circumstances and with the invaders markets a peculiar character. It became more of a formality; a one might almost say. procession, Moreover, themeselves the characters of the two leaders What were they? Were need to be examined thoroughly. respect each other, and built Apart from was a sort of mutual understanding up? 3 Tabari., on whose record we have already the spoken above, between the Emperor Nicephorus I and the exchange of gifts by another is reported Caliph Harun al-Rashid, three The first though not contemporary. of them is sources, only Leo Grammaticus Nicephorus was already The Caliph, sent that at an unspecified who reports his ambassadors with presents to and proposed favourably to time Harun who they warlike, or did they

peace negotiations. in his the proposals, responding in Byzantine Emperor and returned turn., sent presents-: -tothe 4 Nicephorus''prudence. A very similar peace admiring S is provided by George Cedrenus, does report who in this case Our third not copy Theophanes. source is Bar-liebraeus., who, referring to the first probably year of Nicephorus' reign, that the two leaders, they were encamped, records whilst 'by means of envoys and dispatches, were conversing and listening And ultimately to each other. they came toan

campaigning

1. Tabarl) I (loc-cit. ), p. 738. in Brooks 2. . A. Shaban, Islami-E--Hi-Ttory 2 (op. cit. ), 3. In this 259. section, p. 4. Leo&rammaticu; in C. S. H. B. s, Chronographia, pp-203-04. S. Georgius (.2p. cit. ) 2, p. 33. Cedrenus

p. 25. (Bonn 1842),

278

to each other, and each and they sent gifts agreement 1 Whatever the accuracy to his own country'. returned it would seem that their these reports, essence must be of In reference to the events of 806, taken seriously. that by the end of 806 'the relations W. Buckler suggests between Nicephorus to and Harun were already restored 2 'the coincidence friendliness' and that of the sending of in 806 and the to Nicephorus movements of Isaac gifts it was not the gifts first the question whether meant raise 3 Emperor that ultimately for the Byzantime reached Charles'

Such considerations prompt some further remarks on diplomacy Service'. It appears Nicephorus' and 'Diplomatic Emperor had created that this a good diplomatic network which with very difficult situations. managed to deal successfully in the Byzantine One of the three participants embassy to Metropolitan Harun in 806, was Michael, of Synada, who time in his bishopric seems to have spent very little he was travelling indeed. Most of his life to the either West - we have already seen him negotiating with the bound to solve Franks three times to the Caliphate, or complex problems caused by the frequent wars between the and east. his companions were probably in carrying out the successful Another in 806 too. Harun late peace negotiations with issue in which the Byzantine diplomats Nicephorus I under would seem to have been also successful, was the controversy where the Christian over the Holy Places, rival population had been under Arabic rule. As we hear from Byzantime Empire and its in the Michael

1. Bar Hebraeus., (op. cit. ), p-121. The Chlronography. 2. W. Buc*ler, (.ol). cit. ). p. 46Harfin. ** groug7t 3. ibid.; by Isaac ifts to Charlemagne cf. on in :Ehis chapter Byzantium the title: and section under however, Buckler's the West, p. 222- on the remarks, do not seem to reflect destination much of these gifts, have seen, Isaac because, the West truth, reached as we in 801, i. e. one Charlemagne's already with presents, before Nicepiltorus' throne. to the imperial accession year 279

a Latin

to be was more than happy source, however, Normally, 'protector' of that area. as recognized his own. this was a role that the Byzantine ruler considered had that Harun al-Rashid to believe one might be entitled beginning least been willing., of his Caliphate, at at the to grant the right of 'protection' of the Holy Land to Though our sources do not shed much light Charlemagne. Charlemagne it would appear that Nicephorus that particular problem on Service' 'Diplomatic I's managed to keep these lands under 'protection'. In brief Byzantine than Frankish rather the year the 806 saw an escalation provinces of the eastern of Arab Byzantine activities Empire, agFinst but w. thout

cut success. any clear In 807 the Byzantines

were

won back control of the vital defeated the Arab lieutenant from the action, but abstained at Adata. had fallen to the line, the son of al-Malik,

They somehow successful. Cilician Gates and they Rashid himself Yazid-

he stayed on the frontier When he heard that the Cilician Gates CAbd Allah, imperial forces, he posted the

Adata to block it at pass of 2 By-z. Indeed the Caliph against a possible antine raid. in his predictions. Tabari, to whose detailed was right that knowledge the events, account we owe our about says but they retreated the Byzantine army came, as they could not go through Taurus-Antitaurus the pass. range Thus, remained control. Another Arabic the Kitab of al-CUyum, speaks source, during the same year about two clashes which occurred (807). In the first the imperial one army was very The Arab leader Yazlid was among those killed. successful.
Altahenses in Brooks Majores, (loc. cit. M.. G. H., ). p. 747. Scri-ptorum, vol-20,

northern under Arabic

the

pass

of

the 3

1. Annales p-783. 2. Tabar-1, 3. ibid.

280

In

the

severe Marthama,

second, defeat. the

however,

Nicephorus forces

himself this time

suffered were

a under

The Arabic son of Acyan.

under this summer raid does not say anything it does not look very in involved himself was

that confirms a in 807, but he leader took place 2 its At any rate, about results. likely that the Emperor Nicephorus

Tabarli

in Asia Minor that a campaign year. him as being Theophanes occupied reports with an expedition him which the plot the Bulgars and with against against broke out while they were at Adrianople, to on their way Bulgaria. Rhodes under Humaid in 808 seems A naval against attack importance. The admiral to have been of considerable but he did not have any success the city, captured against Humaid, the fortress. nevertheless, much got away with booty, 3 but as he touched al-Rashid started the and died being Myra, in a storm following lost him several (809) and ships. Harun

the

year

Nicephorus the

wars against between Byzantium happened after

more Bulgars. the death,

and more pre-occupied with The only serious event Caliphate, we are told, which, is the defeat future time which of Leo, the Emperor Leo V, Arabs got of

Harun's

theme and strategos of the Armeniac in February 811. This at Euchaita the soldiers"pay away with 4 it Nevertheless, gold. (August later a half years meantime Anatolikon, had been (pdja),

the

that appears 812) the same Leo, transferred army under

was 1,300 pounds less than one and in who the the of to theme

promoted and defeated an Arabic

Thabit.

1. In Brooks ), p-747. (loc-cit. -9-rooR-s-(loc-cit. 2. Tabari, ), p. 747. in 3. Theophanes (l., 483) who is our only information of source the storm to a miracle attributes about the attack, by St. Niblas, performed whose tomb was at Myra. Surprisingly ignore the Arab chroniclers the naval expedition of Humaid in 808. 4. Theophanes 1, p-489. 281

According

to

Theophanes

Leo

killed

2,000

Arab

soldiers

and weapons. some horses and captured for the succession Harun's The struggle sons among four his death lasted the throne after years and was of by the long siege decided of Baghdad and the execution of 2 four During Byzantium Amin (813). these years could internal divisions from these benefit the within not Caliphate Emperor because Nicephorus it was under I had fallen threat in the itself. disastrous After battle the

devastated 811, Krum, the Khan of the Bulgars of 26 July The new Emperor Michael Mesembria I could and Develtus. do very little Bulgarian to stop further raids and threats Rather transfer and thus against frightened of Thrace, by the Macedonia situation, from Asia able itself. and the capital Michael I ordered the 3 Minor into Europe, to benefit from the at of and and it would

some forces

not only internal anomalous least temporarily, Byzantium for the his still two

was he not

but, the Caliphate, situation of he weakened frontiers the eastern further. for him However, luckily hostilities be resumed that such between until about of Byzantium 830. peace

successors, wete not to be said

Caliphate

hardly profit

needs both countries.

a period

S. Arabs in 1.

General

Assessment the was only neighbouring countries, the time of Nicephorus' to the throne elevation be seen as an immediate to Constantinople. threat
c--

Among Byzantium's who, at 802, could

it

2. 3.

Theophanes Ya Kubi (in Brooks 1, p. 497. loc. cit,. p-747) by Thabit i'n 812, but also records a raid conduted is said about Nothing Leo's only one. as a perfunctory victory. J. B. Bury, E. R. E.., p. 251. Theophanes 1, p-500.

282

The Bulgars internal the than

seemed

to

have

been

devoted

completely their of

to

to reorganize trying affairs, death the Franks of Cardam, while a political one. and diplomatic a military One could

state after Charlemagne rather

represented

threat

several reasons why the Empire's count importance in 802. the Arabs was of crucial with rivalry inherited Nicephorus To begin with, probably a situation be in Byzantium's to the Caliphate, relations which could Secondly, there as unacceptable. were characterized troubles Nicephorus the to throne that, along and the eastern frontier time to by 803, was not the given internal settle secure disturbances. that for by so that himself In on

al-Rash"Id

to one needs only had already been

remember in power

reference 802 Harun years, in else raids else, this appears friendly the in in way, that terms Frankish the Holy the the

sixteen

well and not established Caliphate. Furthermore, against loss of the the Asia Minor

by anyone challenged Arabic the constant

if nothing could result., blocking, imperial border in posts, it Finally, Byzantine to Syria. route Emperor

was aware of Harun's his readiness Charlemagne to recognize with and Emperor as 'protector' living of the Christians Byzantine Land. In fact Einhard a protectorate was delegation sent to Harun Charlemagne's biographer only sacred the granted place possessions Grant them of all that suggests involved: referring at asserts asked, to

something

more a Frankish

than

an unspecified

time,

they

'not the Caliph, us that but also that allowed as part would of seem, )

our of (edit

to be reckoned salvation 1 It King'. the Frankish transl. ) Early Lives

1. A. J. p-29.

and

...

(OP. Cit.

283

however, Rashild if that

that could

such hardly

on the part concession a major from Nicephorus be kept secret

of and,

against Under these represented most seen Nicephorus

Byzantine then an angry reaction was the case, have been fully justified. the Caliph would be argued that the Arabs can circumstances, but also the most immediate, the not only threat to Byzantium, and, from what we have it can hardly be denied that the Emperor it took the this threat from the Arabs equally

serious so far,

and the beginning end of the eighth of the the Arabs undertook ninth century, more attacks against Byzantine territory than the imperial army did against by the Arabic The victories forces them. achieved also outnumbered certain times, seemed to frontiers Nothing is those in question, period conditions have been ideal for the Arabs to push their further territory. at the expense west, of Byzantine the more surprising deeply into they which easelwith Asia Minor and reach places Malagina, However., and even Ephesus. these and raids fortresses to were fecxve directed mainly to and aimed that than the of during Byzantium. It can be argued that at

seriously. During

could penetrate like Ancyra, Krassos, as has towards been stated

above,

certain

cities

to plundering a show of power, and M. A. Shaban, believes nevertheless, strongholds was so difficult circumstances'. to appears in February on both that 1 sides it of the

trcxkfi'tA. 'because of the acquiring in exceptional partly at the 2, booty

frontiers,

was only attempted Shaban's though argument, the case. more or What less, to ),

overstate 811,2

happened

correct, Euchaita

points,

opposite p. 25.

1. M. A. Shaban, (2.p. cit. Islamic History, 2. On this 281. p. see above, event,

284

conclusion. stayed of in time. early at

At

any

rate,

side, places captured The raids mainly were launched had the invaders that summer, so before remarks, the winter. nevertheless,

no by either

invaders

are

reported for long in spring

to

have

periods or to time that

enough imply

withdraw These Harun

by no means

the situation the or neglected underestimated Byzantium. His particular with of the borders security Empire was underlined in the Byzantine interest partly but mainly by the establishment by his removal to Rakka, -C Awasim province, of which we have already of the spoken. he undertook because exactly If powerful several raids he respected against the Byzantium, Empire it was as a In the best Byzantine

other defence enemy, by the

neighbour and wanted security. greater in Harun's it would words, seem that, mind, against and this Caliph. in an enemy,

Asia places bad experiences,

to the was to take the attack to have been the policy appears adopted Thus during Nicephorus' reign several Minor had to go through some really very such as devastations, 'injuries' However, lootings., plunderings,

like these captivities, easily etc. healed, because long period of peace especially a rather followed. in for Byzantium What was more vital was that 811 the frontier between Empire line the Byzantine and the Caliphate In order to was the same as it had been in 802. busy Nicephorus to keep himself this, achieve was forced for long periods dealing the relations of time, mostly with between Byzantium in the the Caliphate and fighting and fields, both of war and of diplomacy. The hostilities 807, 809. his two stopped In almost between entirely them, with which the slowed death of the century down Harun in in between

to this and to event reference for the succession, a tenth sons

war

Arabic

285

source, 'a collection character',

the 1

Kitab of

al' historical the

Makafa'a

(the

Book

of

Recompense),

makes

of anecdotes following remarks:

an ethical

'When the news was brought to King Nicephorus he made that death Harun, day a the of of festival for the Greeks. Then he made festival on the day that a still greater he was informed of the outbreak of war 2 between Muhammad al-Amin and al-Malmiin.

No matter perhaps, attention secured

how reliable such that the the truth to the Bulgars his eastern frontiers.

an anecdote can be, it reflects, Emperor Nicephorus turned his only at a- time when he had already

1. 2.

B. Lewis, Revolution'. ibid.

Palace Account 'An Arabic of a Byzantine 1939), in Byz-, 14 (Brussels p. 383.

286

C:

BYZANTIUM AND THE BULGARS of relations between eighth and the Bulgars is best described century as there seems to have been no Bulgars when Nicephorus ascended between them and the during Irene's place Byzantium and the Byzantium

The state at the turn obscure. immediate the throne are Empire sole

of the At first threat in 802.

sight from the

reign The history

reported (797-802). of

No conflicts to have taken 1 relations the time

between in

Bulgarian

Kingdom

an absence of during Bulgaria it whether look easier than on its Although five is

at information this

time. lack

from suffers question history the internal about of Therefore, one might wonder of

not

this the

along eastern

evidence which made things borders north-western of the Empire between Nicephorus'

frontier.

Byzantium first

apparently peaceful relations during and the Bulgars continued in power (until 807), this years to mean that to the during rivalry our first, ceased

means be taken countries in point remember (681) in an area itself. tribes, 1.

by no should between the two Two factors only set to up

exist direction: the opposite Bulgarian that the first the north-eastern noting corner situated

period.

one needs Kingdom had been the far Balkan from the for

of

which was not It is worth the Ostrogoths

that that

peninsula, Constantinople Bulgars, other had

before

and Visigoths,

instance,

(E. R. E. J-B. Bury, On the basis lack this of of clashes, had submitted Irene to that the Empress p-339) suggests To my to the Bulgars. the payment tribute of an annual by any of our knowledge, is not attested a tribute such sources.

287

tried their losing

to

settle

in in

the

settlement an emperor

same areas. lands these with they effort these the finally this

The

Byzantines Though in

eyed pushing

alarm.

(Valens) All

succeeded

them westwards. Constantinople Now, if this

considered for was true it

shows quite that clearly lands territory. as imperial fourth century,, one can have to the applied The Byzantine the

late

should not why see no reason beginning too. century of the ninth forced to recognize the existence was state and trade relations between as early as the were established ' (715-17). Bulgaria's proximity nevertheless, relations Furthermore, and Bulgaria examined presence Nicephorus' hardly that for produced between the it at the

Empire

of Bulgaria

newly created and Byzantium III

reign to

of Theodolius Constantinople, of

state a constant Empire Byzantine that

appears time

unease in the and its neighbour. between Byzantium relations be cannot the Slavic

under

properly without in or around the

consideration, into taking account

need the

sensitivity to be emphasized.

The Emperor same area. in Slavic interest and great It of is in the light to of Krum have

affairs this

wars with Modern historians having 3 triggered They

the Bulgars 2 almost off are right,

unanimously between conflict but only

be considered. blame Nicephorus Byzantium a certain and point,

Bulgaria. 1. 2.

up to

Theophanes 1, p-497See for example, S. Runciman: J-B. Bury: E-R-E- p-340; its 'Byzantium The First..., 52; D. OboleiTs9k. and p. in C. M. H., 4, pt-1, Northern 565-10181, Neighbours, p. 490; ), p. 49. (op-cit. R. Browning: Bulgaria Byzantium and history 3. Unfortunately knowledge of of the internal our We are also Bulgaria from 797-807 is very limited. ignorant background Krum's the date of his and of of However., throne. to the Bulgarian accession as 'more S. Runciman it properly: (The First..., p-51) puts his important his ambitions than his birth and were forms of his name For the various see also ability'. S. Runciman (ibid., note).

288

the whole seem to have oversimplified borders along the north-western of the Byzantine situation facts. Empire and to have overlooked To begin certain to have scrutinized we would expect Nicephorus with., the because they events and developments which had been taking crucial place Europe. in central The main event was the complete destruction of the Avars and the way Krum had benefited from it. He had managed to extend his domination to the bank of the river West as far as the eastern Theiss, where he confronted the Franks of Charlemagne. Krum had also _ Mountains, joined together crossed the Carpathian the two Bulgarias, himself succeeded Cardam, and had established 1 at Pliska. All future this of the must have awoken in Nicephorus north-western provinces of Byzantium's to challenge was in a position control of the Thracian lands. But perhaps more important was the question This was one of the Slavs. of who was going to control the key problems As is well known, they had of the era. different widely and were occupying from Cape Matapan to the Danube. extending spread autonomy a distinct districts The semiof concern Byzantium. about the Krum

they enjoyed allowed them to preserve a sense identity, regardless of the race or place had settled. This became where their tribes various especially

obvious at the turn of the eighth century and appears to have inspired the Slavs to seek for complete Empire. They rose against autonomy from the Byzantine Byzantine in 799 with Acamer as their lordship leader.
1. On Pliska, in B. Z., 50 I. Dujdev's see: observations (1957), in B. Z., F. Dlger's 51 (1958) p. S46; observations 'Zur Geographie V. Besevliev: Nordost-Bulgariens p. 485; in der Sptantike in Linguistique und im Mittelalter', balkanique, 4, (1962), S. Michailov, pp. 57-80; Pliska, des ersten die Hauptadt Reiches, BulgariscAien Berlin 1960.

289

M. D.

'Acamer by suggesting that was not breaking Byzantium, but seeking a more influential with role 1 the Empire', a different within presents opinion. However, a closer of the sources examination as well as Graeber, attention the to the whole context of circumstances surrounding and the it, would They Patras. acted lead in

more careful framework of

that us to the conclusion be traced in Acamer's can the from same way the in 807 when

elements

Slavonic

independence Furthermore,

too. uprising they besieged

Slavs anonymous author of a chronicle we hear that by Krum and fought the imperial recruited were against in Nicephorus' forces last battle In and fatal of 811.2 'on whose fidelity the Slavs short, were a race no reliance 3 be placed'. It hardly to be emphasized could that needs Byzantium (the districts the Sclaveniae always considered it territory. as Byzantine both, Nicephorus would seem that and Krum, were competing for control The Byzantine Emperor would over the Slavs. have liked them and even to use them very much to assimilate Krum sought his army the Bulgars, against to enlarge while by enrolling Slavs. have envisaged He may also the where settled) annexation assessment aggressive day by day of of the Sclaveniae. plans, not then If this the was Nicephorus' Emperor's The to be checked. almost be countered. of Krum's Byzantine the Slavs had

policy

should

enlargement of Bulgarian influence had also to over the Slavs The Emperor Nicephorus to be accused preferred 1. M. D. Graeber., The Role of the Slavs Within Empire, 500-1018, Rutgers University Ph. D. 2.1. byzantine Dujev, 'La chronique de llan (1965)lp. 212. 3. J. B. Bury, E. R. E., p. 342.

come as a surprise. had the new Bulgaria

the Byzantine 1975, p. 92. 8111, in T. M.

J,

290

anything The war prestige. Byzantine

negligence Charlemagne against The Bulgars interests along Therefore or

but

of

the

threat

from less

the

Bulgars. of

was more or far more were a the less northern an expedition

a matter matter.

serious borders

be safeguarded. would In hostilities be tempted question: he had when against before the to the in the the prove to reference

needed to Bulgaria against time. opened one might the simple Bulgaria the war

be more to the

year

a matter of Nicephorus that northern Bulgars Emperor

the Empire's with Arabs and to link Did the Byzantine his eastern does not secured Caliphate death of borders

neighbours, by asking attack Though

only frontier?

eastern down from the know that Byzantines which 807.,

seem to have fully stopped (809), hostilities Harun al-Rashid along had apparently of Byzantium slowed 807. It does Arabs is certainly of any not record during that some interest between clashes year. place is

year Theophanes and Arabic the

Events

though

totally

of insignificant. pointing

sources report importance, minor Nevertheless, to the. opposite Byzantine the the

particular taken as having are not, although of 1

course, there

one source

rather unlikely involved in the that from fact is

that war

the against

it seems conclusion, Emperor was personally in 807. Now, if Arabs which we have

combined Theophanes, that against

with in this the

information,

an expedition 1. 2.

year Nicephorus 2 Bulgars, one might

embarked upon be entitled

(loc. cit. ), p-747. in Brooks Kitab al-'Ugum, Nicephorus' Theophanes Actually 1, p. 482. campaign is the only military the Bulgars event recorded against 807). 806-August by Theophanes 6299 (Sept. the year under during in mind that Keeping the previous year the Emperor had occupied himself the election with of a new __ Harun the campaigns against with patriarch and mainly front, date Nicephorus' the eastern we cannot al-Rashid on the Bulgars than the spring of earlier expedition against 807.

291

argue hostilities

to

that

the with

Byzantine Krum before

Emperor

did

not of

open

stability borders. Byzantium's had been achieved eastern along The Emperor Nicephorus that there soon discovered to his at was still campaign had only forces reached learnt that the to troops his expedition its very were against beginning. when the the Bulgars. The Byzantine him, down, he did he be Emperor The

some kind

was opposition

Adrianople, conspiring to

against plot

Although

Nicephorus

not proceed had used to

managed intended

put the destination.

The means severe

the conspirators cope with were he could therefore, the soldiers' not expect high enough to fight the Bulgars. against found it wiser to return to Constantinople. But, regardless real of the intention, end of the when

and,

to morale he Thus,

expedition,

what

was

he started that campaign? his rivals Was it to provoke in the two countries and force It sounds a bit a war with unknown consequences? odd. It would be more reasonable to suppose that the Byzantine Nicephorus' Emperor to only demonstrate to wanted imperial use the expedition visit of 807, in order about Such It to strength, frontiers northern times to intended the Byzantine them

the garrisons along his support in the difficult an expedition was more was not

and assure might the

which provoke

come. Bulgars.

Bulgarian against a matter of antic-ipating activity fortresses line the strong the key points of of which were Develtus, (the modern Adrianople, Philippopolis Sardica and 1 Bulgarian by it Sofia). Moreover, that capital appears in 807 the Emperor Nicephorus Bulgaria setting out to invade anticipate, over the or Slavs at o,f least the to area. eliminate, We are Bulgarian not told

wanted to influence

D. M. Lang, The Bulgarians S. Runciman, The First

...

(London (2E. cit.

1976), p-51; ), p. 53.

292

whether territories, thing, assault

or

not

Krum had even before

it

in

mind

to

Nicephorus' clear; to him, if

attack initiative. a pretext that

Byzantine One for

nevertheless, had now been for.

becomes

was waiting have reacted to to assess the the attack. have attack circular thus

given Surprisingly,

immediately.

situation his Pliska, Sea and Krum to the risk

was what he the Khan does not seem to He needed some time, in order the route and to choose of his was situated reason., a route the-e -. against perhaps, through But was quite close we would for his Thrace the semiand these

Black

capital, for this adopt fortresses

expected against line Krum did

Byzantine of not

territorie!

too any

strong of

an assault

them. a march past it has to be emphasized fortresses that these barrier had been built, in order to serve the as a against fulfilled Balkan Bulgars this and. they had probably purpose But by now, thanks to Krum, Bulgaria so far. was no longer or garrisons However, neighbouring country used It had grown in size into the western and it had stretched Balkans. it now possessed This meant that a much longer border for its Byzantium, Krum could weak probe with which I points. On his side Nicephorus that to the the He had realized Krum as a gate defend valley, the 1. other the seems Strymon and to have been might in valley therefore, equally be used order to careful. by the little Byzantium to know.

south

district

Nicephorus themes,

the through a possible attack against 1 had transferred from there some men in order to help the local army to keep
')f

OF T c. (1,485) Theophanes -T CL L#TC)I mr xo vr es% speaks about $be translated in this 'officers'. which case should however, Needless, it was military to say that units those the army of officers and not only who had joined Strymon.

293

this

approach closed 'the knowing support whether of 1 factor was another population' for his attack, this route choose In very and, the any at case, it looks war units for army, and the the as if time, effective Byzantine strategy.,

to

the

Bulgars. of

There much of led

is the

no way Slav to

which

the

Khan

believes. as R. Browning Krum had already adopted a that attack, against

an unexpected

of the sudden he led his 'guerrillas'

successful Byzantine

at Strymon. Khan. The its

The attack was very defeated Bulgars the and many of his 1100

killing taking army

strategos

subordinates for destined baggage connection it First, least

them with pay (autumn equipment

and perhaps

the

pounds of gold, 2 808), as the as well theme. of the local be made. need not intend, at After territory. the to

In

this some points with attack becomes obvious Krum did that

his time, to extend at that but very he withdrew. successful quick assault, Krum did not have at his seem that stage at this he needed for a real many soldiers as war against Therefore, he had probably already thought about

would disposal as Byzantium. recruiting

It

For this the Slavs.. soldiers among as we shall purpose, his attack the see, he needed money and, therefore, against Byzantine army at the moment the soldiers at Strymon were going to have their a mere pay given, was not perhaps coincidence. is demonstrated. who together of 811. The That such a point of view is of the the not the groundless by the with author anonymous Theophanes to refers asserts that chronicle, disaster Byzantine before

chronicler

Bulgars,

(2p. cit. ), p. 491. R. Browning, Bulgaria, Byzantium and 2. J. B. Bury, first (E. R. E. ), p. 340, was t one to have dated in 808, He seems to have given that a good reason assault for his dating. here that It has to be noticed the attack it took the because the Bulgars of was successful, Byzantine by surprise. However, that the facts army from the other the there themes were still and that people but they were had not been given their soldiers pay yet, dating do not allow Runciman's to adopt to get it, about us 'late in the winter, that so late seemed likely' no attack The First... (S. Runciman, a. cit., p. 53). 294

launching imperial

their

army, 9 1( vi (*CX1t&&Vc; word tA t (a i. e. wages, salaries, payment, of any sort needed to be made in of course, payment, would lead in economy in cases us to itself the had conclusion little that, place needed temporary might it for against cities for

sudden and had recruited

the attack successful against Avars The Greek and Slavs. implies occasion used in this etc., cash. and that That the there Apart Bulgarian were from the soldiers for he in

although money, cash.

which

Krum probably perhaps Slavs, too: the money taking something capturing he would ready order build cash. to the were pay not

or recruitment from among the another decided would order these purpose to have to to

employment of have been needed that granted Byzantium, and fortresses; then

Krum had

achieve start

do this

need

he needed needed money in to design or to that these Theophanes Eumathius,

siege engines and to acquire Furthermore Krum would have craftsmen engines. of Bulgarian a certain who were about One can assume origin. Euthymius or siege having

the

siege of

craftsmen

engines. become a Christian the Byzantine was recruited; army under oito 2 Theophanes, If we believe then the Emperor Nicephorus. it was the Emperor's forced Euthymius to go meanness which him playing important We find over to the Bulgars. role an in the capture by Krum in 812.3 of Mesembria The second point from a more careful examination arises by the the people of Theophanes' who were killed account of Bulgars states at that Strymon. The chronicler, many people "(loc. cit. Krum massacred "La 1, chronique... p-498who is our only (ino%)v XeLc/q ), source,

the case records of Arabic origin, According to the

in who was an expert Euthymius chronicler,

1.1. Dujcev, 2. Theophanes 3. ibid.

p-212.

29S

without civilians.

making any distinction The word

between w both of

soldiers course,

and does have

categories meaning and covers of people. a general to see that the same chronicler, It is, however, of interest by the Khan, which happened the capture of Sardica recording to the people, and referring only a few months later, who by the Bulgars, does not use the general again but the more specific Cx o5 ones 6rp(xTE*V"jAO(Tc[ word We cannot, a'( take this w 4 V Ot, (Roman army) of course, in the record difference of terminology slight of his assault Theophanes as an indication that Krum, during were killed killed Strymon, than solders, mainly at civilians rather but it appears very likely that a number of governmental Theophanes' were included among Krum's victims. officials He very precise at this point. between the soldiers differentiates and the lower civilian ( its higher dignitaries officials of the theme at fa s), (OL(>Y-OVTC-S) 1 (Tcxjc/xTO% 'o/CF>Y-OVTC-C) and the officers of the army, which had been sent from the rest of the themes, 2 in order to secure the Byzantine control of the area. But Theophanes' exact description goes into more rather details The and seems to be of further significance. himself that the strategos chronicler asserts - we are by the not told of which theme - was among those killed 3 Bulgars. All these can be taken to mean that the area of Strymon attention
1. 2.

description

is

had concentrated the and as we have already

Emperor

Nicephorus' valley of Strymon

seen the

3.

Bury: For the internal the themes see J-B. structure of (2E. cit. ), pp-36-119Imperial System... Administrative The presence of an army, which perhaps at Strymon belonged be confused themes, to other with should not from other this the transfer themes into area, people of which had not yet taken place. Theophanes 1,485.

296

formed

an independent

as the reign as early Nicephorus was clearly of the region. The success confidence. invincible.

probably unit, a Kleisoura military 11, (685-695). Justinian of aware of the strategic impoiIance

of the The Byzantine Nevertheless,

Khan ivi army at

Vatitej gave him was not, stage after this

self all,

other annexing provinces about concerned its Bulgaria time was large at that enough for since He tried Bulgaria to strengl4en and secure population. it hardly it. However, than extend needs to be rather said, that some more launch it to his Krum was very at the same time damage-to the Byzantine army. about second would this have help. a barrier another attack. on causing Therefore the keen

Krum was not to his-kingdom,

Khan thought Gonstantiniople since army which south all did

place been more Sardica

he could against which place, The further away from be, the better for Krum, would difficult was one of Bulgarian for the the four Byzantine fortresses, in they 2 Krum the had

send formed

and been refurbished not

south-west. a march

against 1 S. Runciman by Constantine

invasions

suggeststhat Copronymus.

but fortresses, these past southwards risk 3 he marched in the spring Easter, early against of 809, before Sardica 'which to have been the most time seems at this 4 towards the Danube'. northerly outpost of the Empire but it The details looks the attack mostly of are unknown, as if 1. 2. 3. 4. Krum surrounded the city with his army besieged and it.

For the other three, p-292. cf. above, S. Runciman, (op. cit. ), p-53The First ... Theophanes de Boor, Bonn 1,753. 1,485; (Byzantium,.. Bury, E. R. E., p. 341. See-also R-Browning infers that where the author among the io* cit., Eou-r--Tortresses p-49) Sardica above, of the line mentioned was the principal one.

297

We are but it realizing assault, conquer

not told does not

the period about of that siege, anything The Khan, to have been a long one. seem by that the fortress to be taken was too strong fraud and deceit' employed and thus managed to place. the one at The slaughter a few which months followed was even Strymon previously.

the than

worse Theophanes

that records a total number of six thousand a certain were killed, plus number of civilians, soldiers had been an 'irritant' Sardica in Krum's It seems that to get rid and thus he now wanted of it once and for eyes The fortifications burned. 2 in were destroyed and the was too the town itself

all.

was probably When the about Nevertheless, before determined had been before Judging, the the

government events at SaAca, Nicephorus (April punish 3) the

Constantinople it was already immediately. left Whether

informed late. 3 4 On Tuesday

Easter to

acted the Emperor Bulgars.

capital very Nicephorus already told. to be

preparing events however, such

the

a campaign at Sardica, from the

the against is something

Bulgars,,

Emperor's

bad news,

totally Byzantium the

unfounded.

interpretation an because After all, respond by the

f

we are not immediate reaction does not seem to of to the the

could not delivered Empire

any earlier Bulgars at

1.6 1 OP

Strymon.

winter, blow against Furthermore,

"... 3colly KCx 1- Theophanes 11485, : 2. Bury, E. R. E. p. 341. J. believe the siege that of the town was 3. This makes us help them, that so short reach very short, no could itself, from Constantiniple either or from a nearby fortress, let us say Phillippopolis. but 4. Runciman (The First..., 53) says Thursday, p*
by saying"-, r%,T9% Theophanes, ' A%Aept r*w'Tv-%v%cP, neigauslis 3 specific enough. it Nicephorus then would was Thursday, before Pliska time to reach or enough he finally (Theophanes did 1,485). (from Tuesday to Sunday) seem to be a between for the the distance covering %A if Furthermore, have had not day, Easter as at days Even five time short very two capitals. " OL610.1 GTO

298

the

prestige so that

of

the

Empire

and

of

the

Emperor

was at

could not have remained stake, It would indifferent to such a disaster. seem that, Nicephorus knew about leaving before the capital, already its but about its Sardica, siege, about not only Nicephorus destruction to march too. towards Therefore, the there was no need for him to north-west; nothing was left he made his way northwards, Thus, towards Nicephorus did not choose this capital. he was aiming at counter-attack. to Thrace operations for Byzantium, there Byzantine the Black not was a pure

be saved there. Krum's Pliska, route A transfer only

because of the

was considered because only

main scene of the to be of great advantage line the Byzantine of the the to

but also and mainly much stronger, fleet sail could northwards along its Sea and give support and help army. Krum's The Emperor return from it wanted Sardica. did and the not to take

outposts because the coasts of

arrive As he did him

the fighting supply 1 before at Pliska, not to to come across the reach have been Easter plundered

any resistance, Bulgarian capital almost at 1. the undefended, court of

long

as the city the Byzantine Bulgarian

seems

Emperor celebrated 2 Khan. Nicephorus

(Byzantium... Surprisingly Browning 2R-citp. 49) dates in the autumn of 809, probably by mistake. this expedition 2, Theophanes For this Les 1,485. see F. Dvornik, event Slaves (Paris 1926), Byzance et Rome au. IXe siecle p. 36, in a way Theophanes' interprets the author ere account have delighted himself. I am sure, Theophanes that, would F. Dvornik, following Theophanes, Nicephorus that argues letting was lying, when he sent a message to Constantinople, know about his success Moreover the senate at Pliska. by Dvornik defeat speaks of Nicephorus about a certain is however, Krum, somewhere near Pliska, which an account, definitely by any source. If such a defeat not reported had taken have hesitated Theophanes to would not place, it further decrying J. B. Bury for exploit of Nicephorus. (E. R. E., p. 341, note) is of exactly the opposite opinion

299

and was about the fortress. to rebuild from Sardicals garrison forces. The Emperor.,

the

city

determined to proceed to Sardica, At that time a few survivors to join the main imperial came however, did not welcome them;

he threatened to punish them and refused the contrary, on As a result, to accept the survivors' apologies. scared by the Emperor's threat they went over to ancLstubborness, 1 Theophanes, the Emperor the Bulgars. who criticizes time for his lack of consideration this and foresight, C> 2 Spatharius Eumathius, a certain especially mentions whose knowledge exploited on mechanics and warfare was to be properly by the Bulgars in the years to come. In any case

(The First..., to that of Dvornik, and S. Runciman p-54, has given a good explanation note) why Bury is right. in Both Bury and Runciman see a certain malevolence doubt Theophanes' on Nicephorus' arrival casting at Pliska. bias However, Nicephorus, regardless of Theophanes' against be entitled in this to argue that one might very case the He says (1, p-485) chronicler's report can be justified. left that the Emperor the capital of Holy Week on Tuesday in his calculation between the distance and perhaps in Constantinople and Pliska was too long to be covered five days by a campaigning We do not know where army. but located, the then Bulgarian exactly capital was (The First...., S. Runciman the p. 56-, note) estimates distance between Marcellae to some seventy miles. and Pliska To these, between Constantinople the distance of course, does not seem to have been shorter, Marcellae, and which be added. must by the grief indignation 1. Nicephorus' justified was partly he felt at Sardica, as a consequence of the disaster but what made him even more angry was the way in which the fortress The Emperor must fell into the hands of Krum. have felt that, of a garrison circumstances, under normal fortress 6,000 men could have defended a well constructed have arrived for a few days, the main forces would until from Constantinople. however, Whether, these men who for the fall the attack of survived were to be blamed doubtful. Sardica, of course, very remains, 2. Theophanes See, however, Bonn ed. 1, de Boor 1, p. 485. is given the name the Spatharius p-7S3, where Euthymius.

300

was not considered his original the alter significant plan and thus enough Surprisingly, he marched directly towards Sardica. the to meet each other two armies failed somewhere between A possible Pliska for this is and Sardica. explanation by that Krum's army was probably very much outnumbered forces the Byzantine and thus the Khan carefully avoided whole event meeting Nicephorus at task that Nicephorus' The soldiers' negative this of stage. rebuilding This the to his plans has already reaction been discussed They refused to co-operate., at length. have Sardica that the Emperor did not finally rebuilt. to Constantinople to punish the ringleaders returned of the protest. The two-year does not mean place became easier. so He

this

by Nicephorus

from May 809 to May 811 was a quiet period far as the Byzantine-Bulgar one, at least as relations are No conflicts between Byzantium concerned. and its northern during Whether the this time. neighbours are mentioned lack of events was the result of a mere coincidence or of some agreement between the two sides, we are not told., that a peace treaty a hint or a truce was 1 by. a Greek-Bulgarian inscription. it made is provided in 811, that by resuming the war against the Bulgars records Nicephorus failed to keep the oaths he had taken ("_TOVS C. PI ()fPKOV-S how However., no matter reliable
1.

Nevertheless,

the

inscription

itself

is,

the

lack

of

support

from

The inscription (Kazyl in Hambarly was found or KyzylAgatch) by the brothers Skorpil and was firstly published in the: Archdol. ogisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Osterreich Ungarn, 1892, pp. 98-99. On the importance to which the inscription and the period see: refers, H. Gr6goire, 'Llempereur Nicephore le Chauve et Kroum 11premier" des de la Classe de Bulgariel, in Bulletin Lettres de l'Academie de Be 20 (1935), pp. 261-72. ,
.L

301

another theory. between the have first

source, If a peace the two one

hardly

allows treaty

us to

put

forward had been

such

rivals, to know

or a truce then Theophanes it to

would

agreed have been

about

and he certainly criticize

missed

an opportunity

would not for his Nicephorus

untrustworthiness. Unfortunately Krum's given better part himself during the the activities the time to and to Nicephorus, almost this

we have little during these rebuild it provide d-iring Pliska, with the to

information two years. to

concerning He was probably his For country his It

organize legislation-' years Balkan that the rest 809-811,

two the

dedicated was

com)letely (vvinter time of

809-810)

affairs. the Emperor of the

transfer Sclaveniae. have

from population The many-sided stressed be made: need interests

ordered themes into that

transfer general to

been

considerations 2 Here elsewhere. that transfer against expedition equally the

behind

comment the imperial serve

only one designed was Slavic of his life. for all, the Empire

Bulgarian and against aspirations. Meanwhile Nicephorus prepared Determined the Bulgarian to crush he created 1. a huge army. The

power once borders eastern

and of

2.

(ed. Ada Adler) For Krum's 1, legislation see Suidas having the author that after pp-483-84; records destroyed Krum asked a few the nation of the Avars, had survived had been, the destruction, prisoners who what to their the cause of their according opinion, complete defeat. First Their several numbered reasons: reply between the the hatred of all secondly each other, between thirdly the thieves collusion and the judges, in the drunkenness, then bribery venality and lastly The them against turned commerce, each other. which Krum aimed at legislation that, that author after reports his people from all these malignities, which would protect had killed (See also G. Kazarow: 'Die the Avars. which Gesetzgebung in B. Z., des bulgarisc4en Frsten Krum', XVI (1907), pp. 254-57). On this see the chapter on domestic polcies, measure 129-37. Greece, Reconquest the title: pp. section of under

302

had been quiet death of Harun succession excellent The army of

since

807.

al-Rashid among his sons, gave the Asiatic of bringing chance the Anatolikon

In addition to this, (809) and the battle for Byzantine forces into

the an Europe.

the Emperor

theme with Romanus as their 2 in the expedition, participated certainly strategos and it is possible theme forces that the Armeniac were also 3 Theophanes gives us the impression that available.

Nicephorus

forced poor people to provide themselves even such as sticks with some very basic army equipment, and 4 to join the army, but there must be a lot of and slings in the chronicler's This is, perhaps, words. exaggeration another 'edition' recorded From a second source, which covers in the year 811, we hear of Nicephorus the archons,, those who had reached the participated a bodyguard Emperor's in for third the the campaign, Emperor's of the so-called by Theophanes elsewhere. 5 second only that 'vexation', the

expedition teenage sons of age of fifteen, in the ranks of the Hikanatoi., 6 The son Stauracius. future patriarch had been that time, by his appointed does not become clear

the grandson Nicetas, Ignatius, though only ten years old at in the same body and had been enrolled 7 but it domestic, their grandfather as
1. M. Canard, 'Byzantium and Century' of the Eleventh See, however, Theophanes between Leo, the strategos future Emperor Leo V and incident, that see above, 2. Theophanes 1,491 3. Bury, (op: cit. ), E. R. E.,
Theophanes 1,490: ibid., p. 486.

World to the Middle the Muslim in C-M H., 4, pt. 1, p-708. (1,489), where an episode theme and of the Armeniac On is recorded. the Arabs, 281. the Arabs, the section p. on p-343wn 6f A6"VoV I"@'

4. S.

I-rotbevcIoNcLis Kot'i p&OWS

6. T--Dujev,
T.

'La

by Nicetas His life, P. G..? 105, col. 489.

chronique

David -

...

(loc.

Paphlagon,

cit.

),

p-210.
in

Migne,

303

from

the

texts

expedition. son-in-law present. Unfortunately, 1

whether Nicetas'

or not father, Emperor

and future

he took part in the however, the Emperor's Michael I, was certainly forces are

as far

as Nicephorus'

The only thing we are not given any numbers. concerned, that we can be sure of, is that they certainly outnumbered Krum's army. Some time in May 811, but Nicephorus left the capital, full of self-confidence. Emperor followed, We do not he surely know the exact route the Thrace. through

marched While the Byzantine army was at Marcellae,, on the 2 frontiers, The first two events happened. was the appeal But it was revenge and victory that of Krum for peace., Thus he totally Nicephorus was seeking. rejected any proposal believing for that peace. He had, of no reliance could course, be placed his reasons on Krum's for words.

to Theophanes was event, which according bad omen for Nicephorus, considered as a was the desertion faithful Emperor's Byzantius, of the servant who went over him 100 pounds of gold and an imperial to Krum, taking with 3 At first this might be seen as a plot costume. sightP against as the Nicephorus desertion of from within Byzantius However, own household. seems to have been an isolated his

The second

occurrence, not matched by other such a conclusion events, would be going beyond the evidence. Theophanes gives us July 20th as the date when 4 Nicephorus Bulgaria. the borders and entered crossed
), p. 210. 1.1. 'La chronique... Duj8ev: I(loc. Sit. 2. An approximate by the is provided Marcellae location of Patriarch in his Opuscula Nicephorus Historica, ed. de Boor (Lipsiae 1880), where it reads"cj: oF*IU'q, Oq p-66, "TO; J, TC) INXVN6%C-'(WTC)LTCL '0, See also Theophanes 1, p. 470. 3. Theophanes 1,490. 4. ibid.

304

However,

keeping to the

in

mind

that

the

crucial

battle,

took place same chronicler, on the 26th according believe Theophanes that the same month, we must be of inaccurate: left in May the Emperor the capital somewhat by the and two If thirds Nicephorus, about that
days. 2 ) his

time of

he reached the distance though to

Marcellae between

covered Constantinople his

had

roughly and Pliska.

marching cover after

the time that

through that that

fact to

spend unlikely
(six! of ? if wrong

two

months

own territory, distance, it seems in

after 44MFOVS has Bulgaria. given

everything
Furthermore

happened
that, employ", into

few so
the capture Kcx-% 74ks Tl(-us As the

Krum found capital, 7v(A(Av%v%"cx!: 3 confirms date for the Emperor's

Theophanes entry

I.

Dujev

has

Nicephorus July,

out, pointed left Marcellae

most in sometime

it

is

probable 4 June or

that in early

he had enough time to choose his route through so that 5 hostile What was the route? Theophanes a country. (that is that the 'bragging records coward' of an emperor followed to say Nicephorus) way through a risky virtually impassable This may be taken to mean that at places. least 1. at this, still early stage of his expedition,

'p-212, See also 'La chronique... I. Dujev, where the is given 23rd of July the date of the disaster. as 2. S. Runciman (The First..., the assumes that p. 56, note) 20th of July is in fact the date when Nicephorus entered the the Bulgarian the date when he passed and not capital frontiers, Bury (E. R. E., p-343) Theophanes records. as 'on the is almost by suggesting that the same opinion, of 20th of July the capital the Romans approached of Krum'. 3.1. 'La chronique... ' p-212. Dujev, here with 4. It is very likely that a mistake we are faced in other one words, made in the copying of Theophanes; A instead have copied the copyists of an V an of might instead "I co \.) \, "c)u thus we are given of and though conjectural, possible. 1, p-221. S. I. Dujev, 'La chronique ...

305

Nicephorus

in order to avoid forced to make detours, was have attacked Krum would probably If he had not, traps. did. than he actually the imperial earlier army much Our sources do not make it clear, where the Bulgars

first We are to the invaders. their opposition provided 'the first told how close to the Bulgarian capital not 1 by Theophanes, In any took place. mentioned conflicts'. had been since his appeal for peace at Marcellae case, Krum probably We would expect made his plans. rejected, him to have compared the numbers of his troops with those in a very the imperial army and to have found himself of More importantly, defensive war did not weak position. From the Bulgars of Krum at all. far, (e. g. at Strymon and Sardica) Krum his soldiers for offensive trained mainly it is very likely that the Khan himself of his army did not oppose Nicephorus' 2 frightened deliberately, he or acting Before doing so, Krum left some of his the aim of hindering interior of Bulgaria Nicephorus' fit what we have seen so had organized and Therefore, war. with the invasion. fleJ forces to main part Whether

the mountains. behind with

towards the progress 3 Pliska. The two of defending and in the do not differ the troops sources which mention much the anonymous chronicler numbers they give us: estimates the soldiers to have been not more than twelve thousand 4 / 1, J7 Jt e-cw C, % while the anonymous vj )c k OIL cx %"' hagiographer the number up to of St. Nicolas raises
1.

2.

Theophanes 1,490: be taken This can followed. The anonymous chronicler loc-cit. says p. 210)

S6 " (Aerm %J A TCX.S IQI?%LTOL indication that other as an

conflicts '

(I. Dujvec, 'deliberately'

3.

I they VGVO% dLV'T%6-1j'%J(XI"as if could Theophanes (1,490) does speak not from but infer it we can garrison,

not provide directly his words,

'La chronique... "J-j-s (7%T9tv ,

any opposition') about such a concerning

/ 'J'I extbev%

4.1.

a victory of Nicephorus*OZj See also Krum's to Nicephorus, appeal have conquered. 'Look, Pliska: you at that and go in peace'. you, pleases

J T, 14Cff(-VO70; VVI GI-Z' Ta TAS v' C

hile

the Take

latter everything

was

Dujev,

ILa

chronique.,. 306

'(loc.

cit.

),

p-210.

, fifteen not 'selected' Pliska. allowed sacrificed against they thousand stated

thousand,

perhaps it

more,

perhaps

fewer'.

Though

that these would appear 2 by Krum in order left to garrison were soldiers happened, from what finally Judging be one might this to say that was deliberately garrison categorically, by Krum. As they much a man. soldiers 4 did Were the only obviously killed to larger not have any chance forces of Nicephorus, these ones twelve or whom Nicephorus fifteen

the

were

Bulgarian

The anonymous against? chronicler speaks of came up fifty forces thousand, whom the Byzantine also beat another 5 killed. it for granted 1. Dujev takes that the and is right Krum had and assumes that anonymous chronicler organized 15,000 men) and the the task Dujevls of two zones of defence: in the the first one (12,000was put somewhere (50,000 second men of saving the capital narrow passes fewer) had undertaken 6 However., be

slightly itself.

hypothetical. seem to be a bit reconstructions is too impressive The number of fifty to thousand men adopted that,, as precise. once installed It at may only Pliska, in be a way of the Byzantines neighbourhood, At any rate, suggesting carried the

out scope at

some mopping

up operations

the

of which was grossly exaggerated. iq its Pliska itself Krum appears surrounds, or This lost a considerable number of soldiers.

either to have explains

de S. Nicolas, L. Clugnet, 'Histoire et moine' soldat 7 (1902)p (three Chretien', in Revue d'Orient versions), 325. to The main aim of the Vita is not., oF course, p. but to details Bulgarconflicts, yzantine give us about he alone, that the Saint, the point was saved stress he resisted from the disaster 811, because times three of some womants advances. 2.1. I (loc. cit. ), p-210. ILa chronique Dujev, ... 3. ibid. " )o 4*VACr-%kAI-j-ru T6,10vl I 4.1 i-d-

S. ibid. 6. ibid.,

P? -225-26-

307

perhaps In his

the

desperate to

situation,

the

gather Krum is reported to have asked for help still 1 from women, whom he equipped as soldi. ers. even followed In regard to the plundering the capture which in the accounts difference Pliska, by our a provided of two main sources, should not be allowed Theophanes that the Emperor records treasure anonymous opposite. Emperor aiming at keeping chronicler, According found everything however, says this more go unnoticed. locked up Krum's 2 for himself. The exactly the the source, it out sharing kept of the articles Although famed 4 this stinginess, to

effort to follow

forces some

Khan was faced with. for his final assault

almost reliable

to

booty, much and started his soldiers. A list was even among 3 to each of them. and the money given is out of keeping detail Nicephorus' with by the

it would too later same source seem on, he liked it or not, had this Nicephorus that, time whether What had happened to give the booty to his soldiers. two 5 Sardica, taught the Emperor years previously at a lesson: he had to be more generous that to his soldiers than he used reported regard rights how many days Nicephorus We are not told stayed at Pliska. The anonymous implies it was his intention that chronicler to build there, to which he wanted to give his name. a city Theophanes Krum made another that to records appeal 6 Nicephorus, The this time for withdrawal. a peaceful 1.1. 'La chronique... ' (loc. cit. ), p. 212. Dujev, 2. Theophanes 1,490. 3.1. Another Dujev, ILa chronique... ' (loc. cit. ), p-212. difference, by the time between the account this given anonymous we. read in the and what author of -Ehe chronicle be Suidas dictionary Krum's legislation, might also about found Nicephorus According to the first spotted. source, Krum's full to the storehouses although according of wine,. latter, to have been the consumgion of wine is supposed by the han (even the plantation ofvines was prohibited (On this forbidden) he destroyed the Avars. cf. after 1). above, section in this P: 303 note On that cf. event For Krum's words,
(loc ILa chronique Dujev cit. .. 1, T(r VcX-t do%X4ftjeaS KcLoW %5ne-ef6oXAv.% 216: "A i (? oA*Avs p-

to

be,,

at

least

in

to

their

to

booty,

4.1.

5. 6.

above, pp. 108-10. see above, p. 306, 308

note

3.

appeal that

was, of Nicephorus

course,

rejected. by his among the

Both

sources In

state the he 1

was overtaken

pride.

meantime Nicephorus

loose. army was very the false that reached conclusion probably had destroyed the whole Bulgarian army and consequently that there lack would be no more resistance against Nicaphorus' whatever estimations his were,

discipline

lordship. a imperial

Nevertheless,

of basic precautions on the part certain of the has to be stressed. Therefore Krum started being army hopeful the Byzantine of having another chance to attack The vital thing was that a part army. of the Bulgarian forces to act under more auspicious was still safe and ready circumstances. Krum's palace by recruiting Finally, Emperor he burned Moreover, (x Avars

sometime decided to leave the whole city

and between

Nicephorus while was plundering his army the Khan was enlarging Slavs. the 23rd the and 26th July, Before however, leaving, 3

Pliska.

which was probably made of wood. We cannot be sure whether Nicephorus Pliska left the with intention Sardica towards to return of marching or simply One of the sources to Constantinople. at our disposal 4 he wanted Perhaps to speaks of the first possibi . lity. in order to rebuild the city-fortress, go there, a task which years imperial were
1.

had

remained unfinished in 809.5 But earlier forces, in shortly a narrow after pass

since then, their it

his is

visit

there known from can

two that Pliska, the

well departure

trapped Dujev,

and no defile ' (loc.. SiLt. ).,

be spotted

, 19-TI

1.

' La chronique...

2. ibid. 3. ibid.;
4. 5.

EV n ix-famV -r"' V
J. B. Bury, E. R. E., p. 343.
'

212'. av 0 1, ( p. & 6af

1. Dujev, ' La chronique... On this, in this see above,

(loc. cit. ), p. 212301. section p.

309

on the time Mountains Danube.

road

from along

Pliska the

to

Sardica, of

which the on the

went 1

Nicephorus of course, been away hardly

that one needs to remember 2 Constantinople left in May and this, some time by the end of July he had already that means for more than two months. from the capital it to

and Furthermore,

northerlside Nicopolisj, through

at least at Haemus-Balkan south bank of

that the

be emphasized that needs such a period of from Constantinople be considered might absence as too long from an emperor, to have been always who appears be hatched him at any of plots which might afraid against Finally Nicephorus time. that a possibility would have liked it to celebrate capital his itself, great Byzantine victory over the be overlooked. cannot Bulgars imperial But it is in the Therefore,

to suggest that the seems more reasonable forces back to Constantinople. made their way known well Nicephorus by the in that fell not long after a well the he had left to victim Whether the Bulgarian

Pliska,

Bulgars.

organised attack counter Byzantine soldiers set out

pursuit of Constantinople Nicephorus the did

mountains, The exact Bulgars tried

to return to or simply It is more likely that we are not told. had escaped follow in the Bulgars not who but was trapped by them on his return journey. army where the Byzantine army was encircled be precisely Among those located. cannot 4 S. Nedev seems to have given to, good

place

by the

who have 1-S.

i Genik_prez Nedev, 'Razgromut 811 g' -, in a Nikofor is in Voenno-Istoric6ski Sbornik.. 46 (1977), W"The article department from the Slavic Bulgarian, but Mirs B. Strewe Hamburg Vniversity it for me into German. translated of To her I am indebted. 2. Theophanes 1, p. 4893. R. Browning, (22. cit. ), p-49Byzantium, 4. The Pass of Verbitsa has been battlefield the actual as (The by J. B. Bury (E. R. E., p-344) S. Runciman adopted and der (Geschichte First..., 57 note); C. Jirecek p. Bulgaren,, Prague 1876, pp. 45-6 and Die Heerstrae von Beograd Prague 1877, pp-149-50) nach Konstantinopel ', place battle the took the Pass of Veregave, assumed that at (Les Slaves, F. Dvornik Byzance while et Rome au IX 1926, p-37) between Paris the plain sicle, suggested Karnobat and Sumen. 310

the must why the clash reasons i. e. in the narrow Pass, through Veselinovsky place, which 1 St. Nedev to VeselivIovo the road from Kulnovo passes. place has visited his maps and what our two the disaster. the area, description produced two of the have to relatively fits place say about convincing very the into well location

have

taken

in

main

sources

for The anonymous chronicer, example, of describes the pass as being so narrow at one of its ends blocked it simply by wooden palisades. the Bulgars that He also tells that the bottom ran. along us of the -a-river best corresponds defile. The place that to this is to be found just description to the east of Smiadovo, Brestova stream where 313. ) map on page By the time that the the the is Bulgars had already than much narrower the desperate realized imperial He is could Bulgars army, reported not have it to the joins Byzantine blocked northern in too 'Had its the river army south one. which late to CamLja. (See defile,

entered

the

exit, which When Nicephorus he had save put we But the day.

situation

was already have said: complete

the

escaped

had wings, we 2 destruction'. for

the

the Byzantine surprise another 3 Theophanes launched army: a night attack on the 26th July. 4 it it was Saturday this that that records night and means from Friday S. Runciman to Saturday. was the night assumes battle that the great took place which on the 26th/27thS St. Nedev, ' (loc. cit. ), p. 127. 'Razgromut... Theophanes 1,490. 'La chronique... ' (I. The anonymous Dujev, chronicler loc-cit. dates it on the 23rd and F. Dvornic p-212) Most of (Les Slaves... p-37) 2.p. cit. on the 25th July. . have adopted however, the modern historians, the date by Theophanes, i. e. the 26th. After the all, provided 26th was a Saturday. Therefore the anonymous chronicler by suggesting battle the great took place that on the 23rd 'which is mistaken. was Saturday', `T4, vvv<-w', ro5J 4. Theophanes 1,49l: S. S. Runciman, The First..., note. p-S6, 1. 2. 3.

had prepared

311

But if that night. was the case, have said `T; vvwy'.. tK up% cLvci; ss' then Theophanes would "70 -u "-T %";, VU KT "6 because simply not and in the evening (at six o'clock day started Byzantine the it was Saturday Furthermore, in the evening). that is the Saturday-Sunday morning is stated
VT4:

by our did details us. not

anonymous

chronicler an assault to the

too: before the dawn. 2

CX 4 0( V C, The Byzantines Unfortunately which followed,

S Ot 0 ro
of this the

0 tt
expect the attack According point thematic On the other, the army more and of detailed were not

the

massacre the with at The one

escape is at which narration, by Theophanes, not all the attack that had a certain of the distance another

anonymous than faced

armies

enemies. from each part of

contrary, they did

encamped even

the area the reconnoitred 3 it was the forces the Emperor, not surprisingly, around by the heathen. The men around which were attacked for a while, but Nicephorus themselves managed to defend Nicephorus were soon overcome and finally massacred. himself According was killed to the and Stauracius gravely prompted news of this On their the rest of the way to escape they The river soon encountered was at the a muddy river. beginning-not it was filled but after up a while passable, horses. These bodies Byzantine with drowned soldiers and Y%ow by the rest made mm the river of the easy to be crossed same source, army to flee. army! wounded. disaster

notice Bulgars

was under attack. day before. Thus,

' (loc. cit. ), 1.1. 'La chronique... Dujev, JE -T s % 2- Theophan es1, p-491: %A .; 0 3. Anonymou sc it 2 14: p. tA O%j >cc* 0 in -r 0v 0v

212. p. T-o %0 tc V

312

Kulnovo

r1l, Smjadovo P/

CIX,
Bjal Brjag

&oMarcAe .,

.-0 Veselinovo

Route of Byzantine army Villages Byzantine army AMN)OO-BuIg. attacks

-rmrrr

o Ask <>LeeC

The site of the Byzantine disaster ( 26 July 811 after St. Nedev

However, over the river

for did

the

majority

of

them,

the had

of exits by strong the other instantly, from

not mean anything. but these the defile, exits 1A fortifications. wooden to side while thirst climb broke the their fence limbs, being and

safe crossing They reached the been of blocked soldiers to died far away, time., escape way, in the

number throw

who managed

themselves them walk

some of unable At to

others, and were set difficult..

died

starvation.

a certain

wooden became which

palisades even more

fire on and thus the From the detailed

our becomes clear

anonymous

and the panic Theophanes prominent there were

has recorded it the event, source that were caused by the confusion most deaths followed the Bulgarian which attack. provides us with a list of names of those who did not escape death. Among them

people, the

Aetius, Peter, Sisinius patri clans Salibaras, Triphy1hus, Theodosius Romanus, the strateg'os 2 theme of Anatolikon and the eparch of the capital, a 3 is not named. patrician who Unfortunately the fatal which none of our sources cover battle, not provides numbers us with have been many. Among them Stauracius severely and Michael wounded. of survivors. There can two were the next Rangabe, the first one there

emperors, though 1.

had both the exists It is not clear whether of the defile been built, the second was kept by only one, while or Bulgarian soldiers. 2. For the careers held by these the posts patricians and a la prosopographie.. R. Guilland, 'Contribution see (loc. cit. ), pp. 317-360. les patrices', 3. It is surprising that of Constantinople even the eparch for according in this to the participated expedition; document Tt:Z; 6 --A% v- ; j- %J -ro- %X %' v'O w fp'% %4 .4 aL (De Cerimoniis, 1, p. 503) the city was one of the eparch dignitaries three of the emperor on behalf who acted during The other his absence from the capital. two were The eparch's the praepositus and the magister. in the campaign 811 can be considered as of participation Nicephorus indication that the Emperor was another in the him hatched terrified of plots against probably he was away. while capital 314

Apart army, the the year

from

the

complete

massacre

of

the

Byzantine Since Krum he

exploited decapitated on a stake. silver

was gravely shaken too. prestige had fallen in battle. 378, no Roman emperor in a rather death barbaric Nicephorus' way: the and exposed corpse few days the After a in for toasts army Stauracius of the the Byzantine Domestic army Emperor's health of the the skull with Emperor's head was covered his boyars. Adrianople,

imperial

Ae, and Khan used

with

The relic of where the heavily by the Patrician spoke the But Stauracius (enouncing rolicies. worsening capital, himself

reached

wounded and to

against strict the

late the

was proclaimed emperor 1 Stephen. Schools 2 his father, probably and fiscal economic

young Emperor was day by day and by the time he was brought to the his death had become much closer. As Stauracius

his brother-in-law Michael Rangabe, was childless, daughter Procopia, Nicephorus' the husband who had of if not the closest, escaped the disaster unharmed, remained heir The young Emperor to the Byzantine throne. the only, knew that eyesight. Empress with depriving about and was thinking 3 it would As for the throne, Theophano, would or a democracy leadership. But the Michael of his to 4 the either pass be established, idea

a collective

on the throne strengthened dispelling the hesitations Domestic on the Stephen, first of Stauracius' October 811,

Irene of another the candidature of Michael, of the Patrician and even Thus loyal last supporter. Michael that, Rangabe the was proclaimed Patriarch promise that as

by the senate. emperor Nicephorus demanded from emperor he would not

Before Michael

restore

a written Iconocla6-S

1. Theophanes 1, 2. ibid. 3. ibid., p. 493. 4. ibid., p. 492S. 71"Fi-d p. 493.,

p-492-

31S

Luckily of his

for

the

Byzantines the

Krum did immediately succession

not after

take his to the

advantage great throne In i. e.

victory could it fact 812,

military in July be solved was not the Burgas. undertook a Black

superiority Thus 811. without before Khan any the

external spring

disturbances.

that

Develtus, of gulf Emperor

the attacked of Sea coastal city at the head of the by the time the hesitating It seems that 1

of next year, imperial fortress

(7 June), the Bulgars a campaign against it was already inhabitants, Its too late to save Develtus. its bishop, by the conquerors including were transferred However, to somewhere in the interior of Bulgaria. no how bitter the fall a setback, of Develtus was not matter the it only misfortune a mutiny themes. to that befell the Emperor of Michael the I, for and produced Thracesion Michael who in situation various among the soldiers By spreading money put the uprising had heard about in their and it, turit, Thrace. Opsikion

managed the

and promises down, but the Bulgars, exploited campaigns Krum met a series the of the against scarcely

meantime by undertaking of

parts

Macedonia Theophanes

any opposition. and fortresses Nicaea, abandoned they were only to Emperor these Empire.

mentions Philippi

such as Anchialus, Philippopolis, Probaton, by their terrified that had inhabitants of it the

Berrhoea,

cities Thracian

and Bulgarian

and Strymon, because defenders, just 2 One needs threat. the some of of the

remember Nicephorus

was only transferred, from the

that recently to at least Asiatic themes

places, 3

population

1. 2. 3.

Theophanes 1,495. ibid., p. 496. On the transfer,

cf.

above,

129-37. pp.

316

But

in as

the

in September of all advantage 812, the Khan sent Dragomer, an ambassador with a Slavic 1 Emperor, for peace. to the Byzantine asking name, do not shed any light it As our sources on the matter, very when he certainly is difficult to had say the why Krum proposed peace at a time hand. G. Cankova-Petkova upper

Krum did not year, previous Surprisingly this. enough,

try

to

take

leader because the Bulgarian that suggests asked for peace, he had estimated that the circumstances were suitable by the for achieving a recognition of the Bulgarian state 2 believes S. Runciman 'to Krum wanted Byzantines. that 3 his every To this second step'. carefully consolidate interpretation than the first which seems more likely one, be added that the peace proposals of Krum were dictated can impression by the general Byzantium that was an empire, 4 disposed Furthermore, one needs to remember not easily of. (August juncture 812) that very difficult even at this theme and the future strateRos of the Anatolikon Emperor Leo V, had managed to defeat the Arabs somewhere 5 heard in Asia Minor. Krum probably about Leo's he was afraid be that it could the that achievement and Leo, the Byzantines were provinces of the Bulgars. simply because about the Empire to transfer into forces in from order the to Europe, eastern fight against

To suggest that the he was a peace-maker

Khan proposed peace, 6 be' by nature, would

an oversimplification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. S. Runciman, The First..., p-S9des a 11histoire G. Cankova-Petkova, IDeux contributions Byzantinoslavica, bulgaro-byzantins au IXe sicle', rapports 37 (1976) p. 37. , S. Runciman, The First..., p-59'Relations Byzantium Th. Korres, between and Bulgaria (in Greek), I Rangabe' during Michael the reign of 1982), 11, (Thessalonica Byzantina-Metabyzantina, p. 148. Theophanes 1, p. 497. ' (loc. cit. ), IDeux contributions... G. Cankova-Petkova, p-36 sq.

317

But are

Krum's

also of had been which Tervel Thrace

conditions interest.

for

the

proposed that

peace the

agreement

He suggested one almost III should to the

as well as red hides Trade relations thirty pounds of gold. and robes worth but merchants to be reopened, were to be officially were by the two governments. Finally Krum demanded authorized the return were he would The proposals. prisoners by the accompanied attack imperial Mesembria. of and threat 2 refugees that, to These unless discuss among his proposals were met, they

signed and Theodosius be given would

century ago be renewed.

peace treaty (716) between Meleona in

Bulgars

council gathered According to Theophanes

Krum's terms, it

was only one which was considered unacceptable, at least by some of the Emperor's They argued that advisers. deserters Bulgar to be returned, ought not and their the Emperor strong argument appeared enough, so that 3 Michael it was I rejected Although the peace treaty. the middle the Khan, true to his word, already of October, appeared Again the they did in front believe After skill all and of the did well fortified Byzantines not not react Mesembria that the Bulgars, city immediately. would up to of Mesembria. Perhaps lacked

be easily that for time, such cases. besieged city, to the

conquered. engineering Thus, instead

equipment

the troops of sending his advisers I Rangabe again the Emperor Michael asked for peace, Krum's time under this reconsider proposal of the recent development at Mesembria.

suitable to help

council met bishops metropolitan 1. Theophanes 2. ibid. 3. TEM. 1,

pressure imperial

The

The the first of November. on together with of Nicaea and Cyzicus

p-497-

318

Theodore, are known it

the to

abbot have participated

of

Stoudios,

and in it.

the 1

Patriarch 'bad

Nicephorus, 2

As Theophanes advisers'

asserts, again the

was Theodore a possible stronger. Mesembria that the deserter in

with peace But

some other

who opposed proved capital that his

appears help to

agreement, and their opinion on 4 November news reached had fallen it to the Bulgars. 3 Eumathius had provided invaluable the

new master produced

The bitterness greater because,

capture of this coastal city. by the fall the of Mesembria was all thirty-six of together into the the syphons Byzantines, through the

which the most fire', 'Greek was delivered, itself, fire' fell 'Greek In addition, of various 4 Krum.

as a result, invention secret

with quantities of hands of the Bulgars.

soldiers destroyed Bulgars. themes at In the to

the

by the articles of luxury were looted After this the Khan great achievement fortifications to Pliska. and returned

Michael

to undertake the some action was forced against in spring 813 he ordered Early the Asiatic of himself be transferred The Emperor to Thrace. of the tagmata joined the thematic took place which on 22 June Versinicia, the imperial and the the the Bulgars strategos realised army led by ten of one, Macedonia, to May. army somewhere between forces, 5 were though again defeated. in

head

a clash, Adrianople outnumbering John Aplaces battle, the the Thus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

suddenly

rest of battlefield Krum did

and fled not have any

who opened the ' he was fighting that while alone, deserted by the Anatolikon troops in panic. back towards Adrianople difficulty in annihilating the

Theophanes 1, p-498. ibid. On Eumathius above cf. Theophanes 1, p-499'De Scriptor Incertus, 1842), p-337-

in

this

section, Armenio',

295, p. C. S. H. B. (Bonn

Leone

319

troops whole

of

Aplaces

had matter by the Anatolikon probably strategos to the Leo the

and been a well Armenian,

in

pursuing staged

the

fleeing

army.

The

treachery, organized ' It was their regiments. benefited. On his return who disappointed, emperor his on this he

Michael, the Emperor capital, greatly in favour of Leo, who was crowned resigned 813. 12 July For time. his part, left Krum did his Having not brother withdraw to to besiege

capital Adrianople,

in front appeared of the walls of Constantiniple i. e. only Leo V's elevation 18 July, six days after on 2 by the strong Impressed fort-fications, the throne. himself seems, a demonstration plundering he did not risk an assault. He limited himself of power destroying

to it to

and

coast of the Bosphorus. his lance Emperor to allow him to fix to the Golden Gate of Leo's the capital, the Khan met, of course, with refusal. After his peace proposals, had been Krum renewed that which rejected roughly of the took to the by Michael the same, as the Rangabe. in for the The previous tried with 3 terms year. to must have But in been the course

the Byzantine outside capital, its suburbs on the European rich When he asked-the new Byzantine

negotiations Golden Horn, Having

a peace Byzantines the trap

agreement

on the shore of kill the Bulgarian injuries, Krum fell

leader.

escaped

slight victory Mesembria Finally,

by capturing revenge later the Bulgars that detachment for the

Adrianople, 4A winter. near Byzantines.

and Arcadiopolis of was some while

Leo V over

a Bulgarian small 1.

somewhere

compensation

by the contemporary Treachery is suggested sources either (loc-cit. ) directly (Ignatius Vita Nicephori the Deacon, (Scriptor indirectly Incertus, loc-cit., p-338; col-76CD) or J. B. Bury Theophanes Continuatus, C. S. H. B. p. 14). battle (E. R. E., pp. 351-52) has discussed the strange of 22 June in detail. His convincing with which conclusion, is that S. Runciman (The First..., 62, note) agrees, p. but played his himself Leo the Armenian 'was in the plot, that against anything nobody could prove cards so cleverly him, although there suspicions'. were the gravest E. R. E. Reophanes J-B. Bury, p-352, note). 2. l-, --p. -'F0L 3. ibid. 'De Leone... Incertus ' (loc. cit. ), p-346. 4.7c--rlptor

preparing capital,

assault greatest Krum died unexpectedly

his

against

the

Byzantine 814.1 As

on 13 April

himself he had secured (815), on the throne as soon Krum's into Omourtag, son and successor, rushed a peace The agreement the Byzantines. treaty with was concluded time in the winter of 815-16 and the peace agreed was some bound period came to to of last great thirty With this years. peace between Byzantine tension and treaty Bulgaria a

an end.

General Empire the

Assessment on the its northern relations between during further, of 815, the Byzantine Emperor

The discussion and Nicephorus' death

reign of Krum and

neighbours a little was taken the treaty

the

a certain revealed the way in which

of Bulgarian weakness defeat in of Nicephorus

i. e. until because those years in the same power

they were a people strengths: settled This land they had made their own. area north of the Haemus-Balkan formed line the frontier can be said, the countries. Keeping these realities

its 811 revealed in a land, which

to was restricted it Mountains, which, between in mind, the two one might the Bulgars

it was odd that Nicephorus argue that attacked in their More than two years after strongholds. Nicephorus' death, Leo the Armenian the Emperor also But the the Bulgars. undertook against an expedition followed different by the from Byzantine the army this Nicephorus. time was entirely Leo V did not

route

aim one of He and his soldiers at Pliska. along marched northwards Sea in the direction the western of Mesembria. of Black coast After detachment beating they returned there, a Bulgarian Scriptor Incertus, 'De Leone ... I (loc. cit. ). p. 348.

321

safely Nicephorus passing Possibly he took Slavs.

to

Constantinople. had underestimated the it narrow is more

Does the defiles

this risks

mean that involved in Haemus Mountains? of how seriously over the urged

through so, the It but

with struggle is probably this to

of the an indication for the Bulgars last point

control

that

and to carry undertake out expeditions as Moreover, Nicephorus far north and Sardica. as Pliska felt to have never throne. safe on the imperial seems his A spectacular victory over the Bulgars would secure hold. and perhaps on power, popularity he desperately needed. something with Bulgaria took strong. among the He was unlucky. at army, His

Nicephorus

confrontation latter was exceptionally of Nicephorus assessment emphasized the European Nicephorus cost him his that the provinces lost to the life. Greece Slav,,

place

and the 802-811 period of the Bulgars in

a time when the in a general However, be it should Bulgars, important for

was very The Emperor Empire. a crucial he had that It could battle,

which that

But, remained or even

before Greek. Bulgarian.

ensured so easily

continental have become

322

THE

PORTRAITS

OF

NICEPHORUS

THE

PORTRAITS

OF

NICEPHORUS last before departing

In May 811., fatal

as the

thing

for

the

the Bulgars, the Emperor Nicephorus against campaign Logothete Nicetas the General to increase public ordered taxes and monasteries on churches and to demand eight year As we have back taxes on the homes of the dignitaries. seen, against these measures met with Theodosius Salibaras' out the that who remarked everyon Nicephorus and his ministers, e was crying because of

objections

To these Nicephorus measures. complaints replied: recent do not expect from Nicephorus 'Theodosius, anything else 1 in the Salibaras what you see'. was high except Emperor's measures, produced. Nicephorus, suffered favour but In the and understood other words, of for the out necessity for these they he was pointing situation the unpopularity

other

was quite Nicephorus'

of contemporaries different. They reforms-and did not fiscal targets the even

as a result

their appreciate necessity'. incident, We began with this and economic reforms for a severe criticism pages of Theophanes, if the unfair. particular historian. was seen 1.

because

Nicephorus' of the

seem to have been one This of his rule.

who expressed Nicephorus' way he presents Almost reform measure, every was distorted Nicephorus' to effort his tolerance as avarice; Emperor 1, pp. 489-90.

out in comes feelings contemporary is deliberately reign of to this the affairs monastic

or act by the biased bring order

fisc was

on religious

Theophanes

324

his order for the transfer heresy; as criticized of some into the Sclaveniae was described population as oppression his reform into on the recruitment of poor people the and Furthermore he is said a mere vexation. to have army as confiscated soldiers blinded and Emperor's the properties of even their killed life either. immoral; to his of pay his opponents, to have deprived to The have on certain occasions, deliberately. people

private

could

criticism severe irreligious and Theophan6ls be the bride wife Stauracius' show, of two

not escape his opponent's Thus Nicephorus is presented said else, In to have in broken to order

as

he is someone Stauracius.

betrothal

up her let with the were Theophanes with

wedding

son Theophanes

implies

connection during that

than Theophand, candidates, prettier for Nicephorus' simply put aside own delectation. the Emperor together also says that used to 'sleep' his servants. In to order to evaluate accusations, Kolokotronis, that these it is

helpful

hero of the the words of consider Greek war of independence. When he was asked why he was brought imprisoned by the Greek to trial and was twice government, stones of at course, he replied an almond that only tree those that with with children do not no almonds throw usually it. He meant, on

credit were worth accusing. launched Nicephorus against but, of truth, even so, one of exaggeration. Though

to their achievements Some of the accusations have contained elements might can easily are detect an abundance sources generally of but at some contemporary

there

his competence who occasionally as a ruler, admit because Nicephorus' speaking, suffered reputation Theophanes, for his reign, who is the main source the same time of his the rule. main accuser of this Emperor, aspect

on every

32S

But, Confessor to do with

it

would treated the

seem that Nicephorus'

the

bias

reign,

with which the has also something all these

standard

according

to which

were made criticisms been almost devoid of Nicephorus, In his

standard which seems to have -a In his treatment objectivity. of Theophanes is a polemicist, not a historian. reign which priests of that of Nicephorus' his successor concentrates narration Emperor lavished Hagia Sophia

to praise the effort Michael Rangabe, Theophanes mostly to the around patriarch the donations and to the

on certain occasions, as well as around the measures by Michael I towards acomplete taken or attempted destruction Asia Minor! of the Paulicians and the Athinganoi of eastern Just as Constantine Porphyrogenitus deliberately blackened the name of the Emperor Michael 111 (842-67), in order to the achievements glorify Basil I of his grandfather 1 (867-86), the memory of so Theophanes denigrates Nicephorus I as a means of exalting Michael I. His intention is to provide damnat. io memoriae of Nicephorus. a There were, of course, others, as we have seen,, who approved of what Nicephorus was doing and a more favourable view in our sources; of the Emperor filters ironically through Life for example. enough in Methodius' But of Theophanes, it has come down in so fragmented a form that it is hardly balance to use it to test possible or We have therefore of Nicephorus. to criteria policies We should start to be the imperial
1.

Theophanes' establish

portrait our own and

against which Nicephorus' views, reforms be measured with greater can objectivity. with ideal. what

contemporaries considered A. Kazhdan has shown that

the
III',

R. Jenkins., 'Constantine VII)S Portrait of Michael in Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Mor'ales Academie de Belgique Royale et-765-litiques, Se se'r--T-e, XXXIV (1948), pp. 71-77.

326

imperial values, fortitude, Though qualities,

ideal often

included around in the shape of the

900

'piety quartet

and various spiritual intelligencele times

civil 12

The cardinal the

righteousness, chastity and imperial virtue was at all Emperor Nicephorus I fulfilled such

philanthropy. it

as piety, righteousness that the way he ruled better appears conforms with a more ideal, one better to a modern stateman. pragmatic suited instance, for Is it, for not considered as very essential a prime situation the first that faced minister of his of today to at country be well-informed home and abroad? it might which the throne the about If that was be argued the in Empire 802.

some of these and intelligence,

qualification Nicephorus did the to of of time the 811, of

then needed, know the difficulties his elevation to

at According disaster essence state

anonymous Nicephorus

chronicler was 'acute

the who covers in grasping the connected to realize for In the that a solution with a it is regard this 4

affairs'. does problem would to

problems, 3 not

especially of those But, one could object, to provide skill, of capacity the Emperor Syrian et

mean much;

demand much these abilities by Michael was of

and courage. Nicephorus,

answer

provided Emperor But, First

the

who asserts

'homme vigoureux

what

exactly his all

capable , were these capacities experience as General understanding a general of CP grasp of

de gouverner '* , of Nicephorus? Logothete financial

him with of the

a detailed Empire and

the

provided difficulties problems

administrative

1. A. Kazhdan,, 'The Aristocracy Ideal' and the Imperial (a still Spring the Byzantine unpublished paper at given Symposium of Edinburgh, April 1983, p-15). 2. D. J. Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare, N. Brunswick 1968, pp. 43-61. 3.1. Dujev, 'La chronique... ' (loc. cit. ), p-216: 4. Michael the III, P. 15. Syrian, Chronique ... (ed. J. A. Chabot, 9E. cit. )

327

including

those

understanding he sought and imperial though region.,

of military of domestic to restore

organisation. policies the effective

His practical of the by training, a border with

was eminently authority

administration. that the fact suggests that

He was not a soldier he came from Cappadocia, he must have had

He realised matters. military in campaigns at participation thus was there some hope only the Byzantine treatment Perhaps at least armies during the clearest Byzantium, of which reigns proof

some acquaintance the-importance of head of his armies;

the

the morale of restoring of had been much damaged by their of of Irene his VI. and Constantine for government, aptitude he had and, to in what his foreign suppressing is more,

the in

was the

success

a succession without policy, Nicephorus of resort in his

plots and rebellions; Turning to bloodshed. dealings to with preserve Rakka, a balance

Aachen

managed and the

realities of power, interests This was the vital maintaining of Byzantium. because the Bulgars, they were a threat even the case with to the security of the Greek provinces, which had only just been reincorporated into Empire. the Byzantine Nicephorus' disaster. involvement Nor were with there the Bulgars would prove in a

prestige

and Pliska, between the needs but all the time

other results gained positive If Dalmatia areas of foreign remained policy. and Venice the amount of the Byzantine within of influence, sphere in these Byzantium that control areas was able to exercise by the growth was increasingly autonomy. of local restricted The best death was in in be said is can battle at the hands that to exploit in part that of the after the Bulgars, Nicephorus' Emperor's the Caliphate but this

no position be attributed can only

Byzantine to

weakness,

policies.

328

More

important

was the

death

of

Harun

al-Rashid a period the

(809)

that problems ensued. and the succession death in 811 ushered in Nicephorus' instability lasted which until political

of 823, year

Thomas the Slav's rebellion was finally suppressed. when by the revival This was complicated in 815. of Iconoclasm in 843 at the Feast of Orthodoxy, This issue was only settled which christian pressure of Crete victory For half Empire proclaimed worship. from the to over Spanish the that an essential part of Abroad Byzantium was under considerable from 824 until Arabs 863, from the loss Muslims at to the Michael battle III's decisive 1 Meadow. of Bishop's death the Byzantine at He was to home and vacuum line of side to this. his sound It is to when Empire a icons were

Arabs after

a century experienced How far the

Nicephorus'

considerable

difficulties

abroad. blame in

to blame? was Nicephorus his death left sense that a political to that questions There is solve. his death, administrative all, that another basically a concern. we must strength

and opened policy

up religious

a tolerant

seemed set Byzantium remained social policies.,

after and above

economic, domestic trying to

look, the to

his achievement. assess believed Nicephorus that the upon army. It and of a sound fiscal The Empire's the so that is generally economic reforms over affairs which the

of

depended strong easily. fiscal series greater 1.

administration revenue necessary recognized helped the

support

was increased be met could expenses his experience in that him to introduce a government we are in III From what

considerably,

gave

imperial

control

economy.

'The Emperor Michael On this battle, G. Huxley, see, in Meadow (A. D. 863) I Bishop's the Battle and of G. R. B. S., 16 (197S) pp-443-SO.

329

a position take such measures, people are

to

know it

be said that can know well probably

rulers who dare in advance that this nature a loss of Therefore. their own

to and

about reforms very sensitive of in result a rule these measure-s usually as for those who introduced them. popularity have the bravery few statAnen to sacrifice popularity Nicephorus where rule for the welfare of future was certainly is hereditary, one of tough

generations. Because, these few. fiscal

even

measures and reforms People produce uprisings, rebellions will and depositions. in accepting very reluctant are usually economic and fiscal do not produce especially when these reforms reforms, immediate beneficial Nicephorus' results. measures, of few seem to benefit. lost were uprooted, monasteries some of their best estates to borrow money at were forced and shippers However, it a high interest rate from the government. fiscal to say that Nicephorus' would be fair and economic course, Peasants results, reforms strengthened term and formed the later in the course striking bronze thing is the Byzantine basis for the economy in prosperity the long witnessed The most particularly in the brought immediate but

the reigns of (829-42) have been 2 which was the main Byzantine for the reconquest base, a-long with Patras, of the Peloponnese. In other words, the growing amount of be connected in this coinage in circulation case should initiated the Peloponnese, with the recovery under of numbers Michael 11 (820-29) and Theophilus discovered, for example at Corinth,
1. 'How Extensive Was On this increase, D. M. Metcalf., cf. 77S-820? ' in Byz-, During Folles the Issue the Years of 37 (1967), pp. 270-310. 2. D. M. Metcalf, Century: in the Ninth 'Corinth the 42 (1973), Numismatic Evidence', Hesperia, pp. 180-2Sl.

and copper ' Considerable provinces.

of the ninth century. increase the rapid of coinage, issues, that were in circulation from

330

Nicephorus. revival amount to the was to could through Nicephorus the at gold themes: that point to together. in of the

There

seems

little Empire

doubt

that

economic

Byzantine

money

provinces.

the was connected with being pumped out by central government What Nicephorus' reforms achieved revenues to the in the capital, which provinces, most clearly We see this working under of

large concentrate then be distributed the theme with

went

money that went to 1100 pounds of gold went to Strymon, which was still a Kleisoura and 1300 pounds of Nicephorus' theme. the Armeniac reforms His but fiscal he did measures hoard not this a long increased this it the in a the wealth through

organization. the large amounts

worked imperial miserly

revenues, fashion. In the but

Instead short it

he distributed term would term

provinces. little effect,

have

provided

had relatively basis for the

economy. of the Byzantine revival The army, strength, a cornerstone of Byzantine always Nicephorus' the Emperor attention. attracted naturally With the soldiers would the equipped solidarity serving This not the is fully in in in the change he introduced, the necessary for principle of to the line the the system of Nicephorus number action of the recruitment ensured of troops, at any of that time. fiscal soldiers increased. 1 We may size of in given be treated new the With Empire

have

properly

and

available

extension

village

recruitment.. Byzantine armies with Treadgold's his

numbers of were decisively conclusions.

agree with Byzantine armies, sources are

calculations because almost

the about figures all hoLVeto and

medieval 1.

impressionistic State

W. Treadgold, pp. 107-08.

Byzantine

Finances...

331

with that

850, wished about to leave, of the Byzantine size of the vast armies was of his day. in gaining Nicephorus' consistent efforts control to be praised. it the Slavs of Greece need also over been indicated has already that the Slavs, elsewhere writing either had become transfer the by themselves a major population or threat into in alliance to the the the Bulgars, with Byzantine Empire. Sclaveniae together these The with

caution. Ibn Khurdadbeh,

It

is

obvious,

however,

that

the

impression

of

creation to have seem with Finally,

to of new themes in or close been the proper means towards regard there to to 'to to is the the problem question or that to of the

areas.,

policy stood

a successful Slavs. Nicephorus It would, believer,

closer be safe perhaps, did not wish who His tolerance be seen man, should religious pious

iconodules say

of whether iconoclasts.

he was a broad-minded into make windows men's souls'. all religious to parties achieve

towards

and movements

as an effort

tendencies who fasted thought Emperor

among the various unity He was withall a of the populace. 2 The monks, regularly. and prayed that they had good reimposed and took to reasons or increased towards Pragmatist not be at the complain, taxation the he as same

nevertheless, because the on churches secularization was, time

imposed,

and monasteries of tolerant monastic realised

steps

Nicephorus very

properties. he could that properties

advocate of the ideals do not tally chose 1. 2. to pursue

of monastic fiscal Empire's at all.

strength. Without any Furthermore

and a rigorous These two hesitation the Emperor he

the

second.

by M. J. de Goeje in Ibn Khurdadbeh, transl. edit. and 1889), VI (Leyden Arabicorum, Bibliotheca Geographorum pp. 84-85. (ed. E. A. W. Budge, 2p. cit. ) Bar Hebraeus, Chronograph2y p-121.

332

appears golden and also should It would

to and

have

come out offerings

against to

the

custom that of

of

dedicating

silver to have

churches

be used

the view expressed for the welfare only such practical not,, tied are

and monasteries items these the populace. on issues unique in the to was trying 'dead hand' increase from as he

seem that

views

religious, as purely considered Consciously Ages. Middle or limit of the the the amount of treasure This

almost Nicephorus the

monasteries.

up in if was vital the

he was to

amount of Nicephorus

a provincial a civil elevation established Though his Nicephorus work for to

money in circulation. I was not born in 4inor, town of Asia Perhaps imperial there, the

purple. he followed from

Coming

servant. himself reign found a solution In his economy,

circumstances but throne,

a career favoured his the moment

he exercised because turbulent was the time., the

his of

own policies. disturbances, internal to term

problems. imperial might It is

courage and the strength immediate and long of the Empire's to build effort and lasting a strong Emperor But took then, to not some measures tough know against that which

the

be seen definitely these class

as tough. of fiscal It

some interest

whom? Theophanes of of

denounces the lower dignitaries! Stoudios, imprisonment Emperor order. they

1.

reforms, but population, is also

as a representative of the as a champion Theodore that significant

a personality and office, Perhaps, at 1, of exile, the not in

suffered who under Nicephorus honestly this that with admitted had been put into of state affairs all his the policies following were targets: C- tkkl roIw \j V (loc. cit. t&fp(; 'L )., Volaltruistic, but

2 all

aimed

one of

Theophanes Theodore col-960AB.

2.

kj%oq VOGC*9cxt

489: "Wcw-t., ice. rw\) p. E-pist. 1,16,

Stoudios,

333

of the the strengthening and central administration over the economy, 2) 3) 4) the strengthening of the army and a lasting the Slavs

fiscal control

and effectiveness the navy, solution of the issue of and ecclesiastical forces. was that His liked easily His him and he was not as good a was

harmony among paraecclesiastical weakness

Nicephorus' soldier poor. controlling

as an administrator. His troops never them.

record as a general and he had difficulty misled failure by temporary in 811 to his take brought end to disaster

success on the basic precautions some to the Byzantine is and life. There have thing, year

He was battlefield. while and

campaigning

army

a premature in had

own reign what would One than his nine

not happened if

much point Nicephorus

speculating survived

as to in 811. The less for

nevertheless, period of his

certain. remains was not long reign

to take effect. success can policies and reforms be be measured in the long-term. But it can hardly only denied in the short term he had, the Emperor Nicephorus that the basic tackle to identify problems most of was able and facing No department of the Empire. or sector of state imperial to take interest measures too, It his was in fields rarely His left neglected. his which he proceeded and his predecessors, dared to let alone Indeed to rule effectively

enough Their

successors tackle. marked effective He placed the heart other civil

thought that

appears reign.

about, determination a

rule the

of what constituted understanding his time as a civil during forged servant. was at administration of the Byzantine concerns in

much the same way as that of government, (491-518). Anastasius became emperor, servant who

334

Apart to that of the the

from both

these their

two dignity reigns

almost at were The

no civil Byzantium. stamped

imperial bureaucrat. how biased ruler. impression

servants It is with the

were

raised interesting

matter a sound get the

or The more we read Nicephorus that He concentrated seems that in

sources at our impartial some of them our texts

pragmatism disposal, no are, the reveal more and sort we

emperor. capable but it power, of machine worked departments of His prudence After course. to in take that his Nicephorus Byzantine administration, result usual

was a dynamic in his hands

properly. the

the as a result He had the ability

every imperial to

state a more or less 1 became a by-word. There were his at death the there centre unique in was nobody of affairs.

control all harmonious way. dangers, the of ability

with

place

was perhaps

among Byzantine reform the of most imperial

emperors aspects of

he attempted government.

a concerted Change

was the as J. B. Bury long ago observed, 2 'gradual It was of modifications'. of a series the machinery to improvise of government and adapt to carry reforms period but sense they of any may have of greatness out thorough-going laid for him the the great have reform. for foundations middle of the ninth His

than rather Nicephorus' Byzantium's century, obvious only to invited It

also earned humour can hardly the

unpopularity. We have helped.

whom Nicephorus candlemaker remember unfortunate his wealth. him to declare He forced to the palace. These Nicephorus to 100 pounds of gold. amounted such confiscated a burden? satisfied' with Come dine -3 ' (loc. cit. Administrative ), 216: ", poviA p. System...
oS. 4

immediately with

the

words: with

'Why bother take

yourself

me and

100 nomismata

and go away
1.

2. 3.

'La chronique... Dujev,, J. B. Bury, The Imperial (a. cit. ), p. 20. Theophanes 1, pp-487-88.

335

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. PRIMARY SOURCES Altahenses pp. 772-824. Majores in M. G. H., Scriptorum vol-20,

Annales Annales

Priores in M. G. H. Mettenses Scriptores Rerum , in Usum SEholarum Separatim--E-diti, Germanicarum 1979). vol. 10, (Hannover Regni Francorum, Hannoverae 1826.
qj'crp'% Olvn(pofouIf

Annales

ed,
-to

in

M. G. H.,

Scriptorum,

vol.

I,

Anonymous, p EV

Ka% 111; c3x'4%'v%61 To'( K t; l cz. js

edit. 811',

by- I. Dujev, 'La in T. M., 1 (Paris

Byzantine chronique 1965), pp. 205-54. Oxford J. H. S., 1909. 30

de llan

Ashburner,

W., ,/

The Rhodian The Farmer's

Sea Law, Law, in

(1910), (edit. 1932,

pp-85-108. Bar

(Gregory Hebraeus Chronography abu^ll-Faris), by E. A. W. Budge) Oxford English translation Reprinted, Amsterdam 1976.
ntp% 11-T%
a

and

1%%. N. Be@s2 in Caroli

%C-T%'b#-WS j -Ft;
I

CXS Y-f 0VkKo M0Vf%A4cL&"

% C.OIX (X%

V% I 6T OV, K%^

(*%Mt^1XVI ' vIc0'r'Af

GLTOG"

Byzantis,

1 (1909),

57-105.

Magni, M. G. H.,

Epistola Epistolae, Historiarum

ad Nicephorum imperatorem-in vol-IV, pp-546-48. Compendium, in C. S. H. B. (Bonn)

Cedrenus, G., 1839. Concilia, ed.

Conciliorum Sacrorum Paris by J. B. Mansi,

Collectio, Nova et Amplissima 1901-27. and" Leipzig Porphyrogeniti I, ed. Byzantinae

Constantine Constantini Porphyrogenitus, imperatoris de Cerimoniis aulae (Bonn), J. J. Reiske 1829.

337

A.

Pertusi,

(Studi Engl. 1949,

De Thematibus, by ed. , 160), Vatican 1952. e Testi. De Administrando Imperio, Transl. R. J. H. Jenkins, 1967. second edit. in M. R. I. S., vol 12 (new Fio-rini and P. Fedele Diplomata Karolinorum, 1 ed

Gy. Moravcsik, Oaks Dumbarton

A., Chronicon Venetum Dandolo, by G. Carducci, V. edit. (Bologna 1958)), pt. l. Karolinorum Diplomata Hannover 1906. Einhard, Einhard Einardi Scriptores in M. G. H.,

Vita Karoli Imperatoris., Rerum Germanic., N. S., Stammerer, introduction

in M. G. H. vol. 25.

the and Notker (translation and Middlesex 1969. J.

Two Lives of Charlemagne by L. Thorpe) 1978; ed. C.

Regnum Libri Quattuor, Berlin , . )5o-, -) 13314 George, The Monk, Georgii Monachi Chronicon, Leipzig 1905. Gketakos, M. o Iv

Genesius

eY. q. 13. de Boor,

'' En%Jct%igw 7?os 11

0%

vaof

m%Xalk TC-z-Ak%OU

Athens Clugnet,,

1954. de S. Nicolas, soldat etmoinel in Revue d'Orient Chr6tien, 7 (1902). in C. S. H. B. (Bonn) 1836.

L.,, 'Histoire (three versions) pp-319-30. M., Annales

Glycas, Grant!,

A. J., (An English Early Lives of Charlemagne, by Ehinard Charlemagne translation the Lives of of New York 1966. the Stammerer) and Notker (editor), P., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab Ecclesia. condita ad annum post Christum natum 1198 Berolini 18S1. Monticolo in Fonti

Jaffe,

Johannes Veneziana, Venetus, Crozaca ed. d'Ital-ia, la storia IX (1890). per Jus Graecoromanum, Athens 1962. ed. by J. and P. Zepos,

second

edit.,

338

(Arab Geographer) IbnKhurdadbeh, Leyden 1889 in M. de Goeje, Arabicorum, vol. 6. Kurtz,

ed. and Bibliotheca

transl. Geographorum

RegIll Francorum, inde ab a. 741 usque F., Annales Annales Lauro :Iamefsec Majores ad a. 829, qui dicuntur G. H. Pertzii, post editionem et Einhardi, 1895. Hannoverae E. and (Milan F. Drexl, 1941). Michaelis
t(-T%"l*iws

Kurtz

Pselli
-vqs tAovtt.

Scripta
6at6, 'ccs Xlp

Minora
v, K"I, OV

II

Lampros,

S. P&(;

inhisw. pp-37-105.

-Tqs

-r

Cx T

(Athens

1909).,

Lemerle,

'La chronique P., improprement dite historique le contexte et legendairel, 21 (Paris 1963), pp. 5-49. Chronographia in C. S. H. B.

de Monemvasie: in R. E. B., (Bonn) 1842. in

Leo Grammaticus, Liber

Pontificalis Ecclesiae Romanae ed. (Paris 2 vols., 1886-92) Reprinted (Paris 1955). Metricum

by L. Duchesne, in 3 vols. ed. Becker in

Manasses, C. B. r-eviar'iumHistoriae , C. S. H. B. (Bonnj 1837. Mac udi,

c-

Murudj

translation G. Barbier

(The Meadows of Gold), al-Dhahab edit. (Les pronries by d1or) into French in 9 vols. (Paris de Meynard 1861-77) of the Warning). de l'avertissement de Vaux, Paris

and

(The Book Kitab al-Tanbih (Le livre French ranslation de la revision) by B. Charra Michael Michael

1897.

et

II, Letter Emperor., the to Louis Concilia, Legum sectio III, vol-2, the Syrian, de Michel le Chronicle, ed. Syrien, (4 vols.

Pious)in M. G. H., (Leipzig 1900). pt-l Chabot, Chronique 1899-910. by Ph. Jaffe,

by J. B. ), Paris

Monumenta Carolina, Epistolae Berolini 1864-73. Narratio in

Carolinae,

ed. et

Tarasio de sanctis patriarchis P. G. 99, cols 1849C-1854D.

Nicephoro.,

ed.

339

The Patriarch, Nicephorus,, P. G. vol. 100, cols Constantinopolitani Leipzig C. de Boor, Ho Hagiorites, Nikodemos Athens 1868. Notker, Rau, The Stammerer, M. G. H... Scriptores R., Quellen Darmstadt Incertus 1842.

Epistola 169-200. Nicephori , Opuscula 1880). Meg-as, Vita et Rerum

ad Leonem,

in

Migne,

Archiepiscopi Historica (ed. (in

by Greek) in 12.

Synaxaristes

Gesta Karoli Magni, Germanic.., N. S. vol'. Reichsgeschicte, in C. S. H. B.

zur Karolinischen 1955. De Leone Bardae.,

Scriptor

ed.

(Bonn),

(edit. Skorpil, ), 'The Inscription Brothers of Hambarly' in Archdologish-epigraphische or Kazyl-Agatch), -(Kazyl Mitteilungen 1892, pp. 98-99. aus Osterreich-Ungarn, The Synodicon Vetus, in C. F. H. B. )15 Synopsis Chronica, vol. 7. Tabari, by J. Duffy J. ed. and transl. and (Washington D. C. 1979), pp-128-29. by K. Sathas in Mesai6nike Parker

ed.

Biblioth8kO,

in E. W. Brooks, 'Byzantines I Abbasids' of the Early pt. pp-728-47, pt. II in E. H. R.,

in the Time and Arabs in E. H. R..,, 15 (1900)) 16 (1901), pp. 84-92.

Theodore Sancti Patris of Stoudios, nostri et confessoris Theodori Studitarum Oratio funebris in abbatis Platonem in P. G., 99, spiritualem ejus patrem
cois Z5U. JA-

Sancti Patris Theodorlr funebris Catechesis P. G., 99, cols 883A-902B. cols 903-1116B. , Epistolae (ed. (ed.

nostri et confessoris in matrem suam, in Primus in in P. G., Bonn 1885, 99,

Liber Bonn, by C.

Theophanes, Chronographia 1839-41, in 2 vols). in Chronographia , 2 vols. T.

C. S. H. B.

de Boor,

Lipsiae

340

Theophanes

Continuatus,

ed.

I.

Becker,

(Bonn)

1838.

H., Turteedove, translation Van de Vorst, par S. Vita

The Chronicle of of the original

heophanes, T, (An English Philadelphia 1982. source)

'Un panegyrique Studite' Th6odore

de S. Th6ophane le Chronographe in A. B., 31 (1912), pp-11-23.

The Young, (edit. L. Petit, ), of St. Euthymius, de Saint-Euthyme 'Vie le Jeunel in et office Bibliothbque Hagiographique Orientale., vol. S., (1904), pp. 14- 51. J. Gouillard, 'Une of St. Euthymius of Sardis, inconnue de Patriarch Me'thode: La vie oeuvre d'Euthyme de Sardes' in B. Z., S3 (1960), pp. 36-46. A. Papi-jdakis, 'The Unpublished Life Bodleianus of Euthymius of Sardis: Graecus Laudianus 691 in Traditio, 26 (1970), (text 68-89). pp-63-89

Vita

Vita

of St. George of Amastris, ed. by V. issledovanija, in Russkovizantijskija 1893), pp-1-73. St. Gregory the Saint Grdgoire au IXe sicle, St. Hilarioni Decapolite, le Decapolite 1926. Paris in F.

Vasilievskij, 2 (Petropoli

Vita

Dvornic, La vie de Macedoniens et les Slaves June 1, cols (by 105, 325-71. 7S8-60.

Vita Vita

Junioris

A. A. S. S.,

Ignatius, of St. David Nicetas 488-573. cols of St. Ioannicius,

of Constantinople patriarch in P. G., the Paphlagonian) in A. A. S. S., Nov. II, A. A. S. S., 772-74.

Vita Vita Vita

cols

Bishop of St. John, Novembris, Brussels

of Gotthia, 1902, cols

Propylaeum

'Leontios' St. John the Merciful, ed. H. Gelzer, des Johannes Neapolis, Leben d,s-heiligen von in Erzbischofs Barmherzigen, von Alexandrien', Kirchen Sammlung ausge whlter und dogmengeschichtlicher 1893. 5.. Freiburg Quellenschriften, und Leipzig John., Abbot of Saint Propylaeum Novembris, of Kathara, (Brussels in A. A. S. S., 631-34. 1902), cols

Vita

341

Vita Vita

of St. Methodius 961-68. cols of St. Nicephorus 'La vie de Saint (+813)1 Bithynie

the

Patriarch,

in

A. A. S. S.

June,

II,

of Medikion, ed. by F. Halkin Nice'phore foundateur de Medikion in A. B., 78 (1960), pp-396-429. Ignatii the Patriarch, C. de Boor, in: Nicephori historica. opuscula Vita Nicehori, Leipzig by the Monk Theosterictus, I, cols 253-66.

en

Vita

St. Nicephorus of Nicephori, ed. Constantinopolitani Tgnatii Tgnatli Diaconi pp-139-217. of St. Nicetas, A. A. S. S., April

Diaconi Vita archie-pl-sc archiepiscopi Accedit 1880, 1886, in

Vita Vita

the Patrician, of Nicetas ed. D. Papachrysanthou, du second iconoclasme. 'Un confesseur La vie du (+836)1 Nicetas in T. M., 3 (1968), patrice pp. 309-51 (text pp-325-51). of St. Peter merveilleuse retractata d'Atroa, of Atroa, de Saint La vie ed. by V. Laurent, d'Atroa., Pierre 19S6. Brussels by V. Laurent, La vita de Saint Pierre posthumes vie

Vita

et les Brussels

ed. , miracles 1958.

Vita Vita Vita

by M. H. Fourmy and M. Leroy, Philareti, 'La ed. in Byz-, de S. Philarete', 7 (1934), pp. 85-170. of St. Plato 111,39-46. of Sakkoudion in A. A. S. S., April

1,46-54,

Ignatii Vita Tarasij, Diaconi, ed. by I. A. Heikel, in Constantinopolitani, Tarasii, archiepiscopi Fennicae, Scientiarum 17 (1889), Acta Societatis pp-395-423. A (B, C) Theodore of Stoudios, P. G. 99, Studitarum, A, Vita... Theodori praepositi 113A-232B. cols Studii Theodori B, Vita ... a monasterii abbatis 233A-328B. P. G., 99, cols Michaele monacho conscripta, in codice Studitae 'Vita C, V. Latyev, S. Theodori in V-. V., 21 Mosquensi Musei Rumianzoviani no-520' 2S8-3041. C1914) 255-304 (text (ed. Theophanis Lipsiae vol. II,, by C. de Boor in 188S, pp. 3-12). Theophanis Chronogr

Vita

Vita

342

by Nicephorus skevophylax of Vlachernai , (ed. by C. de Boor in The nis Chronographia, 1885, pp-13-27). Lipsiae vol-II., Bibliothecae menoloQio codicis , Ce de Boor, Theophanis La)in Messinensistransscri Lipsiae 188S., p-30. Chronographia vol. . festi ex officio ejus _, ThEhanls (in Parisina editione Chronographia, Theophanis vol-II, pp. 28-30). diei desumpta in C. de Boor, Lipsiae 1885, (ex

from a codex of the monastery of copied , by Mount Athos Koutloumousion on and edit. M. I. Gedeon in the periodical of the Greek Philological (a Lw 14vivl4t,(pfjvAoex'6. Su"JADews) Co'tantinople, Association of s 26, (Constantinople 1896). vol. Vita of St. Theophanes by D. Spyridonos (Constantinople St. by the Patriarch (ed. Methodius, in"ExwX-Ar-%cx6-r%vc'6s Cbcleos 12 , 1913), and 113-65. pp-95-96 Vogt, A. B., 50 (1932))

Vita

Theophylactus of Nicomedia)A. of de Nicomedie, ' in St. Theophylacte (text 71-82). pp-67-82

im Mittelalter.. Geschichtsquellen Wattenbach, W., Deutschlands 2. Weimar 19S3, Heft New edit. , c Kubi, E. H. R. 15 (1900)., 'Byzantines. in E. W. Brooks, Ya sel 0 pp. 728-47. Zonaras, J., Annales, ed. in C. S. H. B. (Bonn) 1897.

343

B.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY hic Sources for ByzMichigan University. Cities in the vol. 2, in

D. F... Hagiog Abrahamse, Ph. D. 196 500-9009

'The Transformation of the Saint , Early Medieval Byzantium' Byzantine Studies, 2 (197S), pt. pp-122-31. P., Alexander, Speculum, Oxford 'Secular Biography at 15 (1940), pp-194-209. Nicephorus Byzantium'

The Patriarch , 19S8.

of

Constantinople,

'Church Councils Authority. and Patristic , The Iconoclastic (754) and Councils of Hiereia St. Sophia (815)1 in Harvard Studies in Classical 63 (Cambridge, Philosophy, Mass. 1958), pp-493-505a. Amann, E., L16poque The 6th volume in carolingienne )" de 1'Eglise Histoire (publiee so-us la direction Angustin Fliche Paris 1937. and Victor Martin) , Theodore , cols. 287-98. Amantos, K., B. N. G. J.,
10 f'
v\

de

le
o*

Studite,

D. Th-C..

15

(Paris

1946))

17

(1944pp.

210-21. C. M. H.

Anastos., 'Iconoclasm Rule', M. V., and Imperial 1966), pp-61-104. vol. 4, pt. a. (Cambridge Anderson, 'The Campaign J. G. C., in 872 A. D. ' in Paulicians (1896), pp-136-40of Basil Classical

I Against Review,

the 10

Asia Minor The Road-System of Eastern , in J. H. S., Campaigns Byzantine the Evidence of with (1897), (with a plate). pp. 22-44 Angelov, Beziehungen 'Die D., und gegenseitigen Byzanz und dem mittelalterlichen zwischen 40-49. in Byzantinoslavica, 20 (1959), pp. Einflsse Bulgarien'

17

344

Antoniadis-Bibicou.. Byzance, Byzance, Astruc, Audisio, Ch., Pauliciens G., 1931.

Paris

H., Recherches 1963.

sur

les

douanes

a propos 'Les

Etudes d1histoire maritime du "thme de Caravisiens",

de Paris

1966.

sources grecques pour 11histoire dlAsie Mineurel, T. M., 4 (1970), ar Rashid, Caliph of

des pp. 1-126.

Harun

Baghdad,, New York, Etat 1948), Bulgarel, pp. 4-14. cL o-, noslavica

Banescu, in

'Les N., Memorial

frontieres Petit Louis

de llancien (Bucarest

L. W.., 'Byzantium Barnard.. and Islam. T in the jconoclastic two worlds 36 (197S), pp. 25-37. Barraclough G., The Medieval der Papacy, Syrischen

The Era'., London

interaction in Byzanti 1968.

Geschichte A., Baumstark, Bonn 1922. Beck,

Literatur Epoch vol. 1969). of Iconoclasm', by III, ed.

in the 'The Greek Church H. G., in: Handbook of Church History, (N. York H. Jedin anJ J. Dolan Die .. orthodoxen 1980. Kirche Kirche

(Geschichte in ihrer der Geschichte Reich), Gttingen in Byzantinische des Theophanes', in

Begevliv.. B. Z.

'Zur V., 27 (1927),

Chronographia p. 35.

'Eine neue quelle .. des Byzantinischen Kaisers Sofia, Godignik Univ. 811'.. ,

ber die Niederlage I in Bulgarien Nikephoros 2, pp. 1-733 (1936), part in der

Spatntike balkanique, 1963.

'Zur Nordost-Bulgariens Geographie in Linguistique in Mittelalter' und 4 (1962), pp. 57-80. Die protobulgarischen Inschriften,

Berlin

'Les cites antiques en Mesie et en Thrace , du Haut Moyen Age' in Vepoque leur sort a et (1966) 5, pp. 207-20. Etudes Balkaniques, part

345

Blake,

litt6raire 'Note R. P., sur Vactivite de Constantinople'., ler Patriarche (1939), pp-1-15. A., Le Peloponnbse Byzantin jusqul des in B. Z.,

in

de Nicephore Byz., 14 Paris 1951.

Bon, Boor,

en 1204., in

C. de, 'Zur 25 (1890), , 'Zu

Chronographia pp-301-07. Theophanes'

Theophanes' 1 (1892),

Hermes,

pp. 591-93, in

Brand.,

C. M., Traditio,

'Two Byzantine 25 (1969), ttudes P4ris erelle

Treatises pp-35-60.

on Taxation',

BrXtianu, et Brehier,

G. I., sociale, La 19

byzantines 1938. des images

d'histoire Vjjj.

6conomique JXe siecles Byzantin Paris 1949.

L., (Pil. ris

Les Institutions (vol-2 ,, in his Le Monde

de llEmpire Byzantin),

a la ILa situation des chretiens de Palestine , T11-n-du VIII du protectorat sibcle et 1' eftablissement de Charlemagne', in Le Moyen Age, 21 (1919), pp-68-75. (1928), . 'Charlemagne pp-277-91. et la Palestine', in R. H., 157

des patriarches de Constantinople 'L'Investiture , (Miscellanea G. Mercati in Studi e Testi. au moyen age' III) 11.23 (1946) , pp. 368-72. ,
Brock, for Seventh-Century S. P., 'Syriac Sources 2, in Byzantine Modern Greek Studies, and pp. 17-36. C., Geschichte 1898-902. der Arabischen History' (1976)

Brockelmann, Weimar Brooks,

Literature

from (641-750) in Asia Minor E. W.,, 'The Arabs Sources', J. H. S., 18 (1898), Arabic pp. 182-208. B. Z., Son of 'The Chronology of Theophanes . 8 (1899), pp. 82-97. vol. 'On the Date of in B. Z., Irene', the Death IX (1900), 607-77SI in

of Constantine pp-654-57.

the

346

'Byzantines ,, in Early Abbasids', 84-92. 16 (1901), pp. 21 'Arabic Lists . (1901), pp. 67-82.

in the Time of the and Arabs E. H. R., 15 (1900) 728-747 and of the Byz. Themes' J. H. S..,

The .. Chroniclers)in in Brown,

Sources of Theophanes and the Syriac B. Z., XV (1906), pp. 578-587. Saracens (717-867)'

'The Struggle the with C. M. H. vol. IV, pp. 119-138.

'The Rise and Function P. of , Late Roman Society' in Journal , 71 (1971), pp-80-101. 'A Dark-Age Crisis: .? Controversy', E. H. R., 88

the of
4

Holy Man in Roman

_Studies,
Iconoclastic

Aspects (1973),

of the pp. 1-34. London

Browning, Bryer,

R.,

Byzantium

and

Bulgaria,

1975.

A. and J. Herrin (edit. ), Iconoclasm, (Papers given Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, at the Ninth University March 1975), Birmingham 1977. of Birmingham, W., Harun al Cambridge Mass D., The Rashid 1931. -, of and Charles the Great, 1965.

Buckler,

Bullough,

age

Charlemagne,

London

Bullough, D. A., 'Europae Achievement in the E. H. R., 85 (1970), Bury, 'Charles J. B., the (1893), pp-17-37. in

Pater: Charlemagne his and Scholarship', Light of Recent pp. 59-105. Great and Irene', Hermathena des Theophanes' in B. Z. in 8

der 'Zu. einer Stelle (18 97) 508. B. Z. ,6 ,p'An . (1905), Ms. Unnoticed pp. 612-13. of

Chronik

Theophanes'

14
B-Z

Treatise 'The De Administrando ,, 15 (1906) pp. ,

Imperio',

'The Ceremonial . in Porphyrogennetos' pp-209-227,417-439.

Book of Constantine E. H. R., 22 (April and July

1907)

347

Constitution . 1910. Cambridge

of

the

Later

Roman Empire,

'The Naval Policy of the Roman Empire', , della di Michele Nascita in Centenario Amari, 1-910), pp. 21-34. Volume Secundo (Palermo Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth ,Te F-e Kletorologion Revised Text of te Century with of a Philotheos, YOT7 - 1911. w ., Histo Roman Empire from the Fall of Eastern A Irene to the ccession of Basi

oncton igiz.
Cameron, A., Circus Factions, Oxford 1976.

Canard,

"a c6t6" de 11histoire M., 'Quelques des relations in Studi medievali in entre Byzance et les Arabes' Onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida. (Roma 1956), pp. 98-119.
'La prise . Hftrian al-Rashid (1962), Byz. )32 'Les ., Byzance et pp-35-56. d'Heracl6e et et Vempereur pp-34S-79. les relations entre in Jert, Nic6phore

politiques et sociales relations in D-O. P., 18 (1964), les Arabes', and the Century, Muslim World to in C. M. H., vol.

entre

Byzantium , of the Eleventh pp. 696-735.

the Middle 4, pt-1, Orient des

Byzance et les , (Variorum Reprints7,

du proche musulnans London 1973.

'Deux contributions G., Cankova-Petkova, a 11histoire bulgarobyzantins au IXe sibcle', rapports 37 (1976), Byzantinoslavica, pp. 36-45. Cassimatis, G., Justinien Les int6rets dans le et dans la legislation Tbyzantin, Paris droit "vexation" 7 (1932), Syriaque, de 1931.

'La dixieme ,q in Byz., Nicephorel, Chabot, J. B., Litterature

de llEmpereur pp. 149-60. Boucard 1934.

348

Chadjinicolaou-Marava, dans esclaves

le

A., Recherches__sur la vie des. Athens 1950. mon , Constitutional, Significance in Byz., XV (1940-41), from 1 the

'Coronation P., Charanis, and its in the Later Roman Empire', 49-66. pp. Nicephorus , (810 A. D. ), Sl'avs (1946), pp. 75-92.
'On

I, the Savior of Greece Byzantina-Metabyzantina,

the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece During the Middle Ages', in Byzantinoslavica 10 (1949), pp. 254-58.
The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question , Settlement in Greece, in D. O. P., 5 of the Slavonic (1950), pp. 141-66.
B. Z., 'On the ,, 46 (1953), Slavic Settlement pp-91-103. in the Peloponnes-us'

'Ethnic Sev-nth .. Century',

in the Changes in the Byz. Empire in D. O. P., 13 (1959), pp. 25-44.

'The Transfer in Population Policy of as a . in Comparative Studies in Society the Byz. Empire' 3 (1961T-, pp. 140-154. History, and Observations on the History of ,p Middle Ages", in Balkan Studies the Early (Thessalonica 1970),. pp-1-34.
Chrysanthopoulos., in E. E. B. S., I E..,, 21 (1951)2 xfpcbvw"Oj lv( pp. 238-53.

Greece During 11, pt. 1

movEeybix6k

Christophilopoulou, A*ITOKIF4TOf05", 22?

TOO 0j"roU<? 4dL`TO? 4os

A.,
%%A

TS 70L IA (X

4va44pervGis tca"t
<al

A-t%nevS

19 5 7.

'A9vNv;j\/ A t' toLf

AJ
pp, 413-31.

Athens Classen,

1960,

(Zur Vorgeschichte imperium'. 'Romanum gubernans P., in der Groen) Karls der Kaisertitulatur des Mittelalters, 9 fur Erforschung Archiv Deutsches (1951-52), pp. 103-21.

349

der Karl Dsseldorf, Constantelos, Welfare,

Karl

der

Groe, 1968.

das Papsttum Groe, Z-nlichkeit pers

and

Byzanz

und

Geschidite, Social

>

D. I., Byzantine New Brunswick

Philanthropy 1968.

and

'Reforme N. A., fiscale? Constantinescu, sociale au reforme Une hypoth6se la disparition du pour expliquer de la glbbe dans Vempire byzantin', in servage Section Acad. Roumaine, Hist. Bull. XI, 1924, pp-94-100. Cvijic, J., Paris La peninsule 1918. balkanique:
Mc4t. rai -.

geographie
0'%- 7-kc(go)
f 30 . fy

humaine
T(-Aonovv%4,6w

Cyriacides,
Dain.,

St

S-ilow-riva'i

Thessalonica

1947.

du butin A., 'Le partage de guerre d'apres les juristiques traites et militaires' VIe CongrS Actes, des Etudes International (Paris 1 Byzantines

J., Danstrup, Classica

'Indirect in taxation at Byzantium' Medievalia, 8 (1946), pp-139-67. et 8

'The State in Landed Property and ,, Byzantium to C 12501 in Classica et Mediaevalia, (Copenhague 1946), pp. 222-62. Dvornik., F., Les Slaves Paris 1 .. l'Illyricum (1930), 'La zance et Rome au IXe Si6cle,,

de Rome h propos Byzance lutte et entre in M61anges Ch. Diehl, 1 IXe siecle' au pp-61-80. et de Methode Supplementa, 1 52 (1934),

de Constantin Les 16gendes . Byzantinoslavica, vues de Byzance, Prague 1933. Delehaye, H., 'Stoudion-Stoudios', A. B.,

pp-64-5.

de S. Th6odore Devreesse, 'Une Lettre R., in A. B., (809), au synode moechien pp-44-57.
A

Studite relative 118 (19SO),

Diehl,

C.,

Etudes

Byzantines,

Paris

1905.

350

in

'Une Figures

Bourgeoise Byzantines

de Byzance au VIII sieclel 1, Paris 1948, pp-111-32. in und und Realenzyklopdie fur Kirche, 14 (1904), Studiten', B. Z., jahrbuch F, 1949,

E. Von, Dobschtz, protestantische pp. 22-25. 18 Dlger, (1908),

'Nicephorusl, Theologie 'Methodios , pp. 41-105.

die

'Das Kaiserjahr de Byzantiner' F., in der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaf: Heft 1, pp. 21-38.

'Europas Gestaltung im Spiegel der frnkish, byzantinischen Auseinandersetzung des 9 Jahrhunders' in his collected Byzanz und Europi3che studies: 282-369. Staatenwelt, Ettal 1953, pp. Beltrdge , E-esond-ers des byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung, zur 10 and 11 Jahr7u--nderts Hildesheim des Byzantinischen Verwaltunghis Paraspora, (Ettall961), to A. D. 1500, London 1971. 1960.

'Zur Ableitung , 9&'itcx. in sterminus pp. 2 31- 40. Dunlop, Dunn, D. M., Arab

Civilization

M., 'Evangelisation The re-christianor Repentance? in the Ninth isation and Tenth of the Peloponnese in Church History, 14 (1977), in Studies Centures'. pp-71-87. R.., La litteratture Anciennes litt6ratures in 2nd vol. syriaque Paris chretiennes, und Welte,
% %.

Duval,

th6 series: 1907.

Ehrha-rd,, 'Nicephorusl, 2nd edit... IX,

c Eleopoulos, N., "E FxcxbT4p ov 19( Athens 0

in Wetzer 249-S9. pp.

Ti; S

Kirchenlexikon,
%6

Koet A ov%; S -rw- V

lo Z-rovj

1jSi'gjjotecr-(blKoV to v'

Evangelides, Athens

T. E. 1895.

Mov, Ts 9%kvot(XKS der Halbinsel Hildesheim:

AXpo;.

Geschichte Fallmerayer, J. P., Stuttgart 1830, Reprint,

Morea Olms 1965.

351

Ferluga,

du theme 'Sur la date de la creation Z., in: du Xjje Actes Congr. Intern. Dyrrachiuml Beograd Byzantines, Etudes 1964, pp. 83-92. G., History of the_Byzantine la legbnde medieval, Empire, London

de des 1853. dans from D. O. P.

Finley, Folz.,

R., Le souvenir et 1'Empire germanique The Coronation , F-rench by J. E. the

de Charlemagne Paris 1950.

(translated of Charlemagne Anderson), London 1974. Byzantine Ankara' in

Foss,

C., 31

'Late Anti,. and _que (1977) pp. 27-88. ,

F. L., 'The Imperial Coronation Ganshof, of U-Facts' Theories Glasgow University ai! LXXIV 1949. The Carolignians

Charlemagne Publications Monarch

(London
Gardner, A., London

and his

the

Frankish

Theodore 1905.

of

Studium, Heresy. pp-85-113. et 1888,

Life

and Times,

Garsoian, N., D. O. P.

'Byzantine 25 (1971),

A Reinterpretation' franque. la monarchie New York reprinted.,

Gasquet, A., Llempirebyzantin Originally published Gass..

1972.

in Herzog Real-Enzyklopdie 'Nicephorus', and Plitt, Theologie fr protestantische second und Kirche, 1882), X (Leipzig sq. pp-537 edit., Z., Histoire de 1'Eglise Cyprii
A

Gaston, Gelzer, Gibbon, Gill,

Byzantine, orbis

Paris Romani,

1954.

H., Georgii 1890. Lipsiae

descriptio

E., The History of Fourth Roman Empire, J., in 'St. Theodore Byzantinische

the Decline and Fall London 1906. edit.,

of

the

the Studite Forschungen,

Against the Papacy? ' 1 (1966), pp. 115-23. Theodore the Studitel

'An Unpublished Letter of St. . in O-Ch. P., 34 (1968), pp. 62-69.

352

H., Recherches Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, byzantin llempire au IXe-Xje de Correspondance Bulletin pp. 1- 109. Arabes', R. H., ILIAsie 227 (1962),

sur l1administration in siecles, Hellenique, 84 (1960), les invasions

de

Mineure et pp. 1-32.

Universitaire V), Etudes, byzantin, Byzance dIftudes pp-209-11.

Byzance et la Mer,, Presses , France (BiblioE! N-bque byzantine. e Paris 1966. Paris L'ideologie , 197 politique de Vempire de

'La frontiere et les frontibres .. in XIVe Congrs International en Orient', Byzantines, Actp-S I (Bucharest 17/-5)-,in the Central 'Greeks Arabs and in D. O. P.. 18 (1964), Area', pp. 57-6S. dans siecle', llempire Byzantine in T. M., 1 (1965), des

Francesco, Gabrieli., Mediterranean Guillard,

J., 'Llherdsie au Xjje origines pp. 299-324.

M. D. The Role of the Slavs Within Graebner, , University, Empire, Ph. D. 1975, Rutgers (New Brunswick). N. Jersey University of Gregoire, H... Bulgarel, 'Les in

the Byz. the State

de 11histoire epigraphiques sources 9 (1934), Byz-, pp. 745-80.

le Chauve et Kroum 'Llempereur Nicephore des de la Classe in Bulletin de Bulgarie' pre. inier" 20 (193S), de L'Acacd-de Belgique, Lettres pp. 261-72 de Leone Armenio" incertus "scriptor ,, de l'Academie des Lettres de la Classe in Bulletin (1936), de Belgique, 11-12 pp-420--36. vol. royale 'Le 'Un nouveau , de Leone Armenio"' 17 'Un . (1944-45), incertus du "scriptor fragment in Byz, 11 (1936), pp-417-427. Justinien' in Byz-,

de Vempereur edit pp-119-24.

3S3

Grumel,

'L'ann6e V., in Theophanel

du monde dans la Chronographie E. O., 33 (1934), pp. 396-408.

de

Byzantin. Serie Le Patriarchat 1: Les des actes du patriarchat de Constantinople Regestes Les actesdes patriarches, fasc II--. vol. l: de 715 A 1043 (Chalcedon Les Regestes 1936-. Traite , Paris 1958. G. E. Grunebaum, Influence Philosophy, 18 (1964), Guilland, d'etudes Byzantines I La chronologie

'Para llelism, Convergence von, and in the Rel5`iions of Arab and Byzantine Literature in D. O. P., and Piety', pp. 91-111. administrative des auliques in Byz., 25-27 de

R.., 'Etudes sur 11histoire byzantin. llempire Les titres Le protospathairel eunuques: (1955-7) 11, pp. 649-711. Recherches sur , 2 vols, Berlin 1967. les

institutions

byzantines,

a la prospographie 'Contribution de llempire . du r6gne de Leon III Byzantin. -les l'Isaurien patrices (717-741) (820-829), in Byz., II au regne de Michael (Bruxelles 1970), pp. 317-60. 1970), Haldon, 'Curopalatel pp. 187-249. in Byzantina 2, (Thessalonica

40

in the J. F., Recruitment and Conscription A Study on the Or 1 gins Byzantine Army C 550-950: in Sitzun-gsU-erichte, der Ktemata, of the Stratiotika Klasse, Akad. derWiss., Nr. 357, terr., phil-Hist. Wien 1979. and in the Eighth Organization Zborhik-Radova, H. The Arab-Byzantine Kennedy, Century: Military and Ninth in the Border-lands, Society and 19 (1979), pp-79-116. Critiques sur 11histoire London Frontier in

Halphen, Etudes L., Paris 1921. Hazlitt, W. C., New York

de Charlemagne, 1915, Reprint

Republic, The Venetian 19676, (two vols. ).

354

Head,

Descriptions 'Physical C., of Writing' Historical Byzantine pp. 226-40. K., Das Kaisertum B., 37 Karls

in the Emperor in Byz-, 50 (1980), Grossen, Weimar 1928.

Heldmann,

der

Hemmerdinger, in Byz., Herrin,

vpecx %0xp (x d?a7v" (1967, paru 1968), pp. 75-81.

'Aspects J., of the Process of re-Hellenisation in the Early Middle Ages', Annual of the British School 68 (London 1973), at Athens, pp-113-26. F., Byzantinische Studien, Leipzig 1876.

Hirsch,

E., Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Honigmann, Reiches 363 bf-s1071, (CorpusBruxellense Historiae von Byzantinae Byzance as3rd volume of Vasiliev's et Arabes, Bruxelles 1935. Le Synecdemos , George geographi Huxley, dlHiroklbs de Chypre et 11opuscule (Bruxelles 1939).

les

G., 'The Emperor Michael III of and the Battle in G. R. B. S., 16 (1975).,, Meadow (A. D. 863)', Bishop's pp-443-50. in der Briefsammlung W., 'Eine Dublete (Anhang) in Sitzungsberichte Studites' Der Wissenschaften, Preussischen Akademie Klasse, der philosophisch-historisclien pp. 586-94. Al-Suyuti., Al-Din by H. S. Jarrett) 'Nicephore R., (Paris 1931), History Calcutta of the 1881. Caliphs des Theodoros der (Sitzung YXVI (1930), (translated 11 -, de llempire byzantin,

Jaeger,

Jalal Janin,

de Constantinople', cols, 452-55.

D. Th. C.

La Geographie ecclesiastique ., 'vols. 1969. 3 Paris , Jenkins,

IIV Portrait VII's 'Constantine R., of Michael des Sciences des Lettres de la Classe in Bulletin et de E-ETI-gique, Royale Acaddmie morales et politiques XXXIV (1948), Se serie pp-71-77. 'Cyprus Between . Studies in: presented (Washington University Islam A. D. 688-965' Byzantium and II to D. M. Robinson 1953). St. Louis pp. 1006-1014.

355

post the

Backbround 'The Classical of in D. O. P., 8 (19S4), Theophanem' 'A Note p Ignatii', Vita

the Scriptores pp. 11-30. and pp-241-247 A. D.

David Paphlagg on Nicetas in D. O. P., 19 (1965), Imperial Centuries Prague nach

The By_z_antium: . London 1966. 610-1071 Jirecek, C., Gesc'nichte, der

Bulgaren.,

1876.

Die Heerstrasse , Konstantinoj221, Prague Jorga, N., Paris in Kaegi, Kaegi, Formes 1922. Byzantines

von Belgrad 1877. et Realites

Balkaniques.., byzantinel,

'Medallons d1histoire litteraire . 2 (1925), Byz., pp-237-298.

W., 'The Byzantine Armies Byzantinoslavica 27 (1966),

and Iconoclasm' pp. 48-70. on the Themes (seventhder 6sterreichischen 16 (1967), pp-39-53. 471-843,

'Some Reconsiderations W. E., in Jahrbuch ninth centuries)' Byzantinischen Gesellschaft.. Byzantine , 1981. sterdam Military

Unrest

'Contribution Karayannopoulos, de themes J., au probleme byzantins', LlHellenism Contemporain, 10 (19S6), pp. 4SS-SO2. Themenordnung', Munchen 19S9. , 'Die Entstehung Byzantinisches
lotvr%vl;

der byzantinischen Archiv 10

16 .r

second Kazarow, G., Krum', Kazhdan, A., (A still Spring Kennedy, H., 1981.

edit.

T ljvNACx% Tl; & BJ Thes-Salonica 1971.

'Die Gesetzgebung B. Z., 16 (1907),

des Bulgarischen pp. 254-57.

Frsten

'The Aristocracy Ideal' and the Imperial paper given at the Byzantine unpublished April 1983). Symposium of Edinburgh, CP The Early Abbasid Caliphate, Totowa, N. Jersey,

3S6

Khalidi,

T., Mas*udi.,

Islamic

Historiography: 1975.

The Histories

of

New York

Korres,

'Relations Between Byzantium T., and Bulgaria I Rangabe (in Greek) During the Reign of Michael II, (Thessalonica Byzantina-Metabyzantina., 1982), pp. 143-56. St.,
7ani TOU KvLAOQVAVOV 34? 'OVtKO 11'5 "oVfk46CL-

Kougeas,

Gicl's-- 'IV'

010-s 19

(1912), in Hermes, 23

473-80. pp. K., 'Zur Chronik Krumbacher, (1888), pp. 626-28. des

Theophanes'

der Byzantinischen Geschichte Literatur , bis zum ende des Ostrmischen Reiclies, Justinlan von Mnchen 1897. second edit.. Kurtz, Lang, I Zum Leben des hl. Theophanes E., von in B. N. G. J. S. (1926-27), pp-390-96. D. M., The Bulgarians, London 1976. des Georgios D. Th-C., Monachos' 10 Methodios',

Lauchert, in Laurent,

F., B. Z.,

IZur TextUberlieferung 4 (1895), pp-493-513.

V., (1929)

de Constantinople', 'Methode col. lS97-1606. ,

'La date da V6rection , in de Lac6d6mone', Patras et pp. 129-41. Lemerle, P., Philippes Paris 1940. et la

de der metropoles 21 (1963) R. E. B.,

Macedonie

orientale,

J* dans les Balkans Invasions et migrations 2 VjjIe jusq'an depuis de Vepoque la fin romaine R. H., 211 (1954), pp-265-308. si6cld', de Byzance: histoire Esquisse agraire pour une .9 (1958), in R. H.., pt. 1, vol-219 les sources et problbmes,, 220 (19S8), 32-74 and 254-284 vol. and pt-2, pp. pp. 43-94. 'Llhistoire Tapr6s .. de sources pp. 1-144. de Pauliciens in grecques', d'Asie T. M., Mineure S (1973)3
#4

3S7

Leroy., Leroy,

du Moine studite' 'La vie quotidienne D. J.., 17 (1954), lst trimestre., Irenikon, pp. 21-50. Il monachesimo J., 'La reforme studitel, orientale du congres Pontifical (actes tenu a l'Institut du 9 au 12 Avril 1958), Orientalia Oriental AnalectalS3,201-206. Christiana . Studitisches tum, Mftc. Graz-Wien-K6ln 1969.

Lewis, Lewis.,

in the Power and Trade A., Naval A. D. 500-1000, Princeton 1951. 'An B., Revolution' Arabic in Account Byz, 14 'Arabic World,

Mediterranean,

Palace of a Byzantine (1939), pp. 383-86.

I., Lichtenstadter, in The Muslem

Historiography' and Islamic 35 (1945), pp-130-31.

Lilie,

01 R. J.. Die Ausbreitung Monacensia

byzantinsche Reaktion auf die der Arabe7v, 7 scellanea__Byzantina 22 Mnchen 197 0 the Economic in Centuryl Readjustment D. O. P., 13

S., I The Role of Trade in Lopez, R. in the Seventh of Byzantium (1959), pp. 67-85. and , Mediterranean University Lot,,

I. W. Raymond, Medieval Trade in the World, (Columbia New YorkLondon Press), 1961. du Moyen_Age Histoire en Occident)

F.., Ch. Pfister and L. - Ganshof, de llEmpire vol. 1 (Les destineo'es Paris 1928. K., 'Die Patriarchenwahl Kirche', in Theologie pp -7 30- 40. C., a. d. Oaks in und

Lbeck.

der griechisch-melkitischen Glaube, VI (1914),

Mango,

'The availability of Books in the Byz. Empire, 750-850', Books and Bookmen (Dumbarton in Byzantine Colloquium 1971), pp-29-46. culture et grecque in Centro Italiano XX (Spoleto 1973), lloccident au VIII di Studi Sull'alto pp-683-721.

'La , cle', Medioevo,

gevenko, /Some Churches and Monasteries on .11. Shore of the Sea of Marmara in D. O. P... the Southern 27 (1973), pp. 235-77.

358

in

'Who Wrote the .. R., 18 (Beograd S.

Chronicle 1978),

of Theophanes? pp. 9-17.

'

'La composition de "De G., Manojlovic, International'des Congr6s Deuxibme Millgrade 1927. Margoliouth, 1972. Marin, Marin, E., (Paris Vabb6, D. S., Lectures on Arabic

Imperio", administrando Etudes Byzantines, Historians, New York,

De Studio 1897). Saint

coenobio Th6odore

constantinoplitano, (7S9-826), Paris in 1906. de

Martroye, la

'Chronologie F., Societ6 nationale

de Theophane' des Antiquaries du curopalate' Schlumberger,

Bulletin de France,

pp. zv/. -V)9

IL'origine M. F., Martroye, a M. Gustave offerts pp-79-84. Maslev, in Melanges (Paris 1924),

'Die St-, staatsrechtliche byzantinishen Kaiserinnen', (1966), pp. 308-43.

der Stellung Byzantinoslavica, of Folles (1967)2

27

Metcalf,

'How Extensive Was the Issue D. M., 37 During the Years 775-820? ', Byz-, pp. 270-310. Numismatic in. the Ninth 'Corinth Hesperia, Evidence',

Century: the. 42 (197.35), pp. 180-251. ersten 1966.

die Michailov, S., Pliska, bulgarischen Reiches.. Miller, Miller, D. A., The Byzantine

des Hauptstadt Berlin 19607 Tradition,

New York

During Relations the 'Byzantine-Papal D. H., Confirmation Paul I: Pontificate and Completion of Century', the Eighth the Roman Revolution of of 68 (197S), B. Z. pp. 47-62. 1

Millet,

du logothete G., 'Llorigine general', du Moyen Age offerts Mdlanges d1histoire. M. F. Lot, 1925, pp. 563-73.
p ilg (sU1 e) 'Etudes
IV

in a

Monnier

Justinien (suite) apres , Genicus depuis Nicephore B Del' a Basile 1) Les vexations de jusqul le Mac6donien in Nouvelle Revue Historiq Genicusl., de Nicephore ue Francais Etranger, 19 (1895), Droit pp. 59-1 et De

de roit

Byzantin:

4 L'-'E-n1/OOA,

111

t r,

359

G., Moravcsik, Administrando imperio"',

ICH

" c7c,6 %s --t o 75 be n cx (>ot LCc 0 & fj cx t) ai %F, Imperiol, E. E. B. S., 7 (1930), pp-138-54. du "De critique (1939), pp-353-60. (second edit. administrando ), Berlin 1958.

'Lledition .. Byz. 14,

Byzantinoturcica, Morrisson, C., byzantine', Muir, Nelson, 'La decouverte des T. M. 8, (1981),

a llepoque tr6sors pp-321-43.

W., The Caliphate, its Oxford 1892. New York

Rise, Decline and Fall, Reprint 197-S-.

J. L., 'Symbols in Context: Rulers' Inauguration in Byzantium Rituals and the West in the Early Middle Ages', in Church History, Studies 13 (Oxford 1976), pp-97-119. I., 'La penetration des Slaves dans la p6ninsule Balkanique in Revue des et la Grece continentale', tudes Sud-Est Europeennes, 1 (Buccarest 1963), pp. 41-67. St. T., 'Razgromut Voenno-istori&eski; a Nikifor Sbornik, I Genik prez 811g' 46 (1977), pp-115-27. of the Arabs, London 1977, St. Theodore

Nestor,

Nedev,

Nicholson., R. A., A literary History Cambridge 1930, Reprint 1969. Norwich, J. J., Venice, The Rise to

Empire,

O'Connell, P. S. J., 'The Letters and Catecheses of Studites', in O. Ch. P., 38 (1972), pp. 256-59. Ohnsorge, W., Das Zweikaiserproblem Hildeshel-m -1947. Abendland Darmstadt 1958. Studies), Konstantinopel Darmstadt und und Byzanz die im friiheren (Collected Okzident (Collected

Miltelalter, Studies), (Collected Studies), des de la

und 1966. der

Ost-Rom Darmstadt 1983.

Westen

OikonomidZs, de Pr6seance N;. Byzantines Listes vsLes 2ditions JXe et X icles, du Centre National Recherche Paris Scientifique, 1972.

360

in Paulys 'Theophanes', G., Ostrogorsky, Altertumswissenschaft, der Classichen 2132. des 'Die Chronologie > in B. N. G. J. 8 Jahrhundert',

Real Encyclop6cdie 10, pp. 2127-

und

Theophomes in 7 7 (1930), pp. 1-56.

and E. Zeremonienbuches', by Joan 1974.

'Die Stein, Kr6nungsurkunden des in Byz-, 7 (1932), pp-185-233. State, 1968. Slaven, Transl. Darmstadt

History of the Byzantine . Oxford Hussey, second edit'., , Byzanz und die Welt der

'The Byzantine Th., Model Papadopoulus, Approach' History: a Comparative d'8tudes_Byzantines, International (R-ucharest 197 -19. Pargoire, J., 347-S6. 'Saints iconophiles' in

in Frontier in XIVe Congres Actes II E. O., IV (1900-901),

Theophane 'Saint le chronographe . Studitel Theodore rapports a-vec Saint 9, (1902), pp-31-102. Methode 'Saint .. 6 (1903), pp. 183-91. in et la persecution',

et ses in V. V. in E. O. 8211 1905.

de Constantinople 'Saint M6thode . E. O., 6 (1903), pp. 126-31. LlEglise Byzantine de S27 a 847,

avant Paris in

de Thessalonique', 'Saint Joseph .., 278-88 9 (1906) and 351-56. pp. , Henry, III., Theodore P., Ph. D., Yale University of Studios 1967. Byzantine

E. O.,

Churchman,

Controversy 'The Moechian and the .. A. D. 8091 Synod of January Constantinopolitan N. S. vol. XX, pt-2, St udies, Journal Theological of October 1969, pp. 495-S22. , Pertusi, des 'La formation A., in Bericlite XI intern zum MUncFen 1958,1, pp. 1-40. Th6mes Byzantines', Kongress, Byzantinischen

361

Chronographia 'Theophanes' N., Pigulevskaia, and the der Osterreichischen Jahrbuch Chronicles', Syrian Geseffs-chaft, 16 (1967)., Byzantinischen pp-55-60. Rajovic, du Strymon 'La region M., et le theme de Strymon' in S. R., (in Serbo-Croat with a summary in French), S (1958)3, p-7. Llempire au dixi6me arec New York 1964. Geography Society: 1890.
Men and

Rambaud, A., Reprint, Ramsay,

si6cle,

Paris

1870., in

W. M., The Historical the Royal Geographical Papers, London vol-IV,

K. M., Saints. Holy

of Asia Minor Supplementary

Byzantine Society.

Ringrose.

726 to 1976.

843,

Ph. D.,

utgers

University,

ew Brunw'ick

'Monks Byza-Ft-1-u-m, B. S., Rosch., G. '*0volcz .

in Iconoclastic and Society vol-6, pt. 1-2 (1979), pp-130-51. 1978. Bistoriography, Bulgarian Empire, in du Pape in E. O.,

Soc(*')E-t"c%S, Wien of of Muslim the First

F., A History Rosenthal, Leiden 1952. S. History Runciman, ,A London 1930.

'The Empress Irene the Athenian' .. Women, Oxford 1978, pp-101-18. Medieval 'La primaute Salaville, S., d'aprbs_sant Theodore 17 (1914), pp. 23-42. de Saint Studite Pierre et (759-826),

Santoro., A. R.., Byzantium the Is a-urian the Arabs During and University) , (Ph. D. 1978, Rutgers 717-802. Period ) New Brunswick. N. Jersey, State Univ'ersity the of Saunders, J. J., A History of Medieval Islam, London 1972.

des Karls Schramm, P. E., 'Die Anerkennung Zeitschrift, in Historische Kaiser', pp. 449-515. Schwarzlose, Kirche K., Der um ihre Bilderstreit. Freiheit, Ein Got
J,

Grossen als 172 (1951),

KamDf der

zriechischan

-L %J / %.,, -

362

Serruys,

du concile iconoclaste D.., 'Les actes in M61anges d'Archeologie llan 8151, et 23 (1903), pp. 345-51.

de d'Historie,

gevenko,

'Hagiography I-, Period', of the Iconoclastic (Papers in Iconoclasm Spring given at the Ninth Symposium of Byzantine Studies. University of March 1975, ed. by A. Bryer Birmingham, and J Herrin), Birmingham 1977, pp-113-31.

Shaban,

M. A., Islamic History: a New Interpretation, A. D. 750-10SS, Cambridge 1976. vol-2,, c Abbasid The Revolution, and his Cambridge World, London 1979. 1979.

Shboul,

A. M. H.,

Al-Mas

cudi

/ The Development de Somogyj, J., Historiouraphylin of Arabic Journal Studies., 3 (1958), of Semitic pp. 373-87. Speck, P., Kaiser Konstantin VI, MUnchen 1978.

Stiernon, 'Notice D., de Katharal, in Straley,

du monastbre sur S. Jean Higourmbne R. E. B... 28 (1970), pp-111-27-

D. S., Ll Perspective Islamic and Method in Earl), PY aD Historiogra A study Talrikh of Al-Tabari's ,: Edinburgh University, al Rusul wall-Mulrik. Ph. D. TS6"si-s 1977. ' in R. E., The Coronation European Civilization of Charlemagne, Series) Boston (Problems 1959.

Sullivan,

Tinnefeld, F. H., Categorien der KaiserkritiK in der ByzantinisChen Historiographie, Munchen 1971. Toynbee, A., London Constantine 1973. Porphyrogenitus and his World,

Treadgold, W. T., the Revival Review, 84

'The Revival Learning of Byzantine in Amer. State' of the Byzantine (N-5 December) 1979, pp-1245-1266-

and Hist.

'Notes on the Numbers and Organization , Army', G. R. B. S. Century Byzantine of the Ninth 21,3 (1980), 269-99. pp. and Nin Byzantine ,,Centuries, Finances State New York 1982. in the

363

W., Ullmann, Middle

A Short .

History of London 1972.

the

Papacy

in

the Theophane? ',

'En C., Van de Vorst, 31 (1912), A. B.,

annee quelle pp. 148-56.

mourut

S.

de S. ILa translation de Thessaloniquel, et de S. Joseph (1913), pp. 2/1-62. avec Vasmer, Vasiliev, M.,

Theodore Studite in A. B., 3 N 12 Studite 1941.

ItLes relations de S. Th6odore , 32 (1913), Rome', A. B., pp. 439-447. Die Slaven in Griechenland, Berlin

A. A., September English

'An Edict in 6881, History , Edition,

Justinian II, of the Fmperor Speculum 18 (1943), pp. 1-13. Empire, Second

of the By.-antine Oxford 1952.

Visser,

Eine A. J., Nikephoros und der Bilderstreit. UE-e-rdie Stellung des Konstantinopeler Untersuchung Nicephoros innerhalb der ikon. oklastischen Patriarch wirren, (tiaag, igbz). Studien 1884. zu den der Ceremonien de K. Porphyrogenitos 1846-62. Disaster of London 811' 1894.

Wschke, H., Zerbst Weil, Wortley, Wright, G.,

Geschichte 'Legends 50 (1980), A Short

Kahlifen,

Mannheim Byzantine Syriac

J., Byz., W.,

of -the pp-533-62. of
CL

History

Literature,

Zakythinos, D., Athens 1945. 'Le

theme de Cephctlonie et la defense 8 Contemporain, de l'occident', in L'Hellenisme (1954), pp. 303-312.

364