c. 12. Black Bulgaria (i.e. Bulgaria on the Volga) can also attack the Chazars. [Thus there are three checks on the Chazars: the Uzes, the Alans, and the Eastern Bulgarians.] c. 13a. The nations which march on the Hungarians. II. (c. 13) 2 c. 136. Showing how unreasonable requests on the part of barbarian nations are to be met. Three such requests, which an Emperor must never grant, are dealt with: (1) for Imperial robes and crowns (of the kind called kaueλaukia); (2) for Greek fire; (3) for a bride of the Imperial family. The authority of Constantine the Great is in all cases to be quoted as a reason for refusal. For the exceptions to (3) see above, p. 91. c. 14. c. 15. c. 16. c. 17. c. 18. c. 19. c. 20. III. (c. 14-46) The genealogy of Mohammad. The race of the Fatimids. The date of the Hijra (odos of the Saracens). An extract from the Chronicle of Theophanes on the death of Mohammad and his doctrine. Abu Bekr. Omar (at Jerusalem). Othman. c. 21, c. 22. Extracts from the Chronicle of Theophanes on the caliphates of Muawia and some of his successors. c. 23, c. 24. Iberia and Spain. (Quotations from old geographers.) c. 25a. Extract from Theophanes on Aetius and Boniface (in the reign of Valentinian III.). c. 256. On the divisions of the Caliphate.3 c. 26. c. 27. c. 28. c. 30. The genealogy of King Hugo of Burgundy (whose daughter married The theme of Lombardy, its principates, and governments. (An The founding of Venice. Dalmatia and the adjacent peoples. Gives an account of the Croats and Serbs; enumerates the coast cities of Dalmatia, names the islands off the coast, &c., &c. Account of the themes of Dalmatia. Historical and geographical information about the Croatian and Servian settlements. [A.D. 951-2.] More about the Croatians (XpwBάToi). More about the Serbs (Zépßλoi). The Terbuniates and Kanalites. c. 31. c. 32. c. 33. The Zachlums. c. 34. c. 35. The people of Diocles. [A.D. 948-9.] The Patzinaks, their country, history, and social organization. [A.D. 952 or 951.] The Hungarians, their migrations. The Kabars (a tribe of the Khazars). The tribes of the Kabars and Hungarians. More about the Hungarians and their later history. c. 41. Moravia and its prince Sphendoplok. 2 The first two paragraphs of c. 13, with the title of the chapter (p. 81, ed. B.), really belong to part i., and should be separated from the rest of c. 13 (which ought to be entitled περὶ τῶν ἀκαίρων αἰτήσεων τῶν ἐθνῶν). P. 113, 1. 6 to end; this piece ought to be a separate chapter. c. 42. Geography of the regions from Thessalonica to the Danube and Belgrade; of Hungary and the Patzinak land, as far as Sarkel (fort on the Don) and Russia; of Cherson and Bosporus. Also of Zichia, Papagia, Kazachia, Alania, Abasgia up to Soteriupolis (the lands between Chazaria and the Caucasus]. c. 43. c. 44. c. 45. c. 46. c. 47. c. 48a. The land of Taron, and its relations with Leo VI. and Romanus I. About the Iberians, and the history of their recent relations with the About the genealogy of the Iberians and the fort of Adrunutzion. Canon of the sixth General Council about Cyprus. IV. (c. 48-53) c. 486. Transition to part iv. c. 48c. A note about the invention of Greek Fire. c. 49. c. 506. How the Slavs of the Peloponnese were made subject to the church of c. 50a. The Slavs of the Peloponnese; the Melingi and the Ezerites, and their c. 52. c. 53. The tribute of horses imposed on the Peloponnesus in the reign of A history of Cherson, beginning with the time of Diocletian. Containe 5. THE BYZANTINE NAVY-(P. 95 sqq.) The history of the Byzantine sea-power has still to be written. The chief sources (up to the tenth century) are Leo's Tactics, c. 19 (Tep) vavμaxlas); the official returns of two expeditions to Crete in the tenth century, included in "Constantine's" de Cerimoniis, ii. c. 44 and 45; and (on naval commands under Basil I. and Leo VI.) Constantine, De Adm. Imp. c. 51. The chief moder studies that treat the subject are: Gfrörer, Das byzantinische Seewesen (e. #t in his Byzantinische Geschichten, Bd. ii. p. 401 sqq.); C. de la Roncière, Chark magne et la civilisation maritime au ixe siècle (in Moyen Age, 2o sér. t. i. p. 201 agg. 1897); C. Neumann, Die byzantinisch Marine; Ihre Verfassung und ihr Verta Studien zur Geschichte des 10 bis 12 Jahrhunderts (in Hist. Zeitschrift, B. 45, p sqq., 1898); Bury, The Naval Policy of the Roman Empire, in the Centenario dela nascita di Michele Amari, vol. ii., 21 sqq. (Palermo), 1910. Add G. Schlumberge. Nicéphore Phocas, p. 52-66. In the 6th century, after the fall of the Vandal kingdom, the Empire had s sea-foes to fear, and there was therefore no reason to maintain a powerful ner The Mediterranean, though all its coasts were not part of the Empire, was pract ally once more an Imperial lake. This circumstance is a sufficient defence agaidi the indictment which Gfrörer brought against Justinian for neglecting the n 1 4 See Finlay, ii. 354 sqq., and R. Garnett, the Story of Gycia in the Eng. Hist. E view, vol. xii. p. 100 sqq. (1897), where it is made probable that this episode belongs t to the Byzantine, but to an earlier period of the history of Cherson, probably to 36-16 } Op. cit. p. 402-4. 1 The scene changed in the second half of the seventh century, when the Saracens took to the sea. The Emperors had to defend their coasts and islands against a hostile maritime power. Consequently a new naval organization was planned and carried out; and we must impute the merit of this achievement to the successors of Heraclius. We have indeed no notices, in any of our authorities, of the creation of the Imperial navies, but it is clear that the new system had been established before the days of Anastasius III. and Leo III. Under Theophilus and Michael III. the naval organization was remodelled and improved; the settlement of the Saracens in Crete, and their incursions in the Aegean, were facts which urgently forced the Emperors to look to their ships. From this time till the latter part of the eleventh century, the fleets of the Empire were the strongest in the Mediterranean. There were two fleets, the Imperial and the Provincial (Thematic). The several contingents of the provincial fleet supplied by the themes of the Cibyrrhaeots, the Aegean, and Samos, were always ready for action, like the thematic armies. A standing Imperial fleet existed in the 9th century under the Amorian Emperors and was commanded by the Imperial Admiral (δρουγγάριος τῶν πλοΐμων).4 This admiral, the great Drungarios, was strictly commander of the Imperial fleet, but on occasions when the Imperial and Provincial fleets acted together he would naturally be the commander in chief. The admirals of the divisions of the Provincial fleet had the title of drungarios, when they were first instituted." But they were afterwards promoted to the title of strategos. The Imperial fleet in the tenth century was larger than the Provincial. Thus in the Cretan expedition of A.D. 902-for which Gibbon gives the total figures (p. 98)-the contingents of the fleets were as follows:- But, though the provincial squadrons formed a smaller armament, they had the advantage of being always prepared for war. The causes of the decay of the Byzantine navy in the eleventh century have been studied by C. Neumann, in the essay cited above. He shows that the anti-military policy of the emperors in the third quarter of that century affected the navy as well as the army (cp. above, vol. 5, p. 222, n. 67). But the main cause was the Seljuk conquest. It completely disorganized the themes which furnished the contingents of the Provincial fleet. In the 12th century the Emperors depended on the navy of Venice, which they paid by commercial privileges. The dromonds or biremes were of different sizes and builds. Thus the largest size might be manned by a crew of 300 to 290. Those of a medium size might hold, like the old Greek triremes, about 200 men. There were still smaller ones, which, besides a hundred oarsmen who propelled them, contained only a few ? A system seems to have been established whereby, in case Constantinople itself were threatened, a squadron of vessels could be got together for its defence without much delay. This was managed by an arrangement with the shipowners of the capital; but as to the nature of this arrangement (it seems to have been a sort of "indenture" system) we have only some obscure hints. Theophanes, sub. A. M. 6302, p. 487, ed. de Boor. Hellas also supplied naval contingents sometimes (as in the Cretan expedition, a.D. 902), but was not one of the fleet themes proper. Cp. Cedrenus, ii. p. 219, p. 227; Gfrörer, op. cit. p. 433. officers, steersmen, &c. (perhaps twenty in all). Then there was a special kind of biremes, distinguished by build, not by size, called Pamphylians, and probably remarkable for their swiftness. The Emperor Leo in his Tactics directs that the admiral's ship should be very large and swift and of Pamphylian build. The pamphylians in the Cretan expedition of A.D. 902 were of two sizes: the larger manned by 160 men, the smaller by 130. The importance of these Pamphylian vessels ought, I think, to be taken in connexion with the importance of the Cibyrrhaeot theme (see above, App. 3), which received its name from Pamphylian Cibyra. We may suspect that Cibyra was a centre of shipbuilding. 8 Besides the biremes, ships with single banks of oars were used, especially for scouting purposes. They were called galleys. The name dromond or "runner" was a general name for a warship and could be applied to the galleys as well as to the biremes; but in common use it was probably restricted to biremes, and even to those biremes which were not of Pamphylian build. Gibbon describes the guλókaσrpov, an erection which was built above the middle deck of the largest warships, to protect the soldiers who cast stones and darts against the enemy. There was another wooden erection at the prow, which was also manned by soldiers, but it served the special purpose of protecting the fire tube which was placed at the prow. The combustible substances on which the Byzantines relied so much, and sp parently with good reason, in their naval warfare, were of various kinds and were used in various ways; and the confusion of them under the common name of Greek or marine fire (of which the chief ingredient was naphtha) has led to some mis apprehensions. The simplest fire weapon was probably the "hand-tube” (x ripwv), a tube full of combustibles, which was flung by the hand like a “squib* and exploded on board the enemy's vessel. The marines who cast these weapons were the " grenadiers of the Middle Ages.10 "Artificial fire "-probably in a liquid state-was also kept in pots (xúτpai), which may have been cast upon the hostile ships by engines. Such pots are represented in pictures of warships in an old Arabic Ms. preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale, and reproduced by M. Schlumberger in his work on Nicephorus Phocas." But there was another method of hurling "artificial fire". Combustibles which exploded when they reached the enemy's ships were propelled through tubes, which were managed by a gunner (siphonator). 6. THE PAULICIAN HERESY—(C. LIV.) In Gibbon's day the material for the origin, early history, and tenets of the Paulicians consisted of Bk. i. of the work of Photius on the Manichaeans, and the History of the Manichaeans by Petros Sikeliotes. The work of Photius was edited by J. C. Wolf in his Anecdota Graeca, i., ii. (1722);1 but Gibbon did not consult it (above, chap. liv. note 1). There was further the account of the Bogomils in the Panoplia of Euthymius Zigabenus, a monk who lived under Alexius Compas and is celebrated in the Alexiad of Anna. A Latin translation was published by P. F. Zinos in 1555; the Greek text edited by a Greek monk (Metrophanes) in 1710. It may be read in Migne, P. G., vol. 130. The section on the Bogomils was edited separately by Gieseler in 1841-2. 619, § 37, τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον πάμφυλον. Gfrorer attempted to prove that the pamphylis were manned by chosen crews, and derived their name from raupuλos (" belonging to nations"), not from the country. But the passage in the Tactics does not support view. The admiral's ship is to be manned by ἐξ ἅπαντος τοῦ στρατοῦ ἐπιλέκτους, και proves nothing for other pamphylians. But the large number of pamphylians in both Imperial and Provincial fleet (cp. the numbers in the Cretan expedition, given above disproves Gfrörer's hypothesis. 9 Tactics, 19, § 57. 10 Some Arab grenades (first explained by de Sauley) still exist. Cp. illustration to Schlumberger, Nicéphore Phocas, p. 59. 11 P. 55, 57. 1 Reprinted in Migne, P. G., vol. 102. The documents which have come to light since are closely connected with the accounts of Photius and Peter; they bring few new facts or fictions, but they bring material for criticizing the facts and fictions already known. (1) In 1849 Gieseler published a tract of a certain Abbot Peter, containing an account of the Paulicians similar to that of Photius and Peter Sikeliotes (with whom Gieseler identified the author). (2) The publication of the chronicle of George Monachus by Muralt in 1859 showed that this chronicle had incorporated a similar account in his work. We have then four documents, which presume one original account whereon all depend, directly or indirectly, if indeed one of them is not itself the original source. The problem of determining their relations to one another and the common original is complicated by (1) the nature of Photius, Bk. i., and (2) the variations in the Mss. of George Monachus. The "First Book" of Photius falls into two parts: I. chaps. 1-15, which contains (a) a history of the Paulicians, chaps. 1-10; and (b) an account of earlier Manichaean movements, chaps. 11-14; II. chaps. 15-27, a history of the Paulicians, going over the same ground, but differently, and adding a brief notice of the revolt of Chrysocheir. Part I. (a) corresponds closely to the accounts of Abbot Peter, Peter Sik., and George Mon.; and its Photian authorship seems assured by the testimony of Euthymius Zigabenus. Part II. was a distinct composition originally, and was tacked on to the Photian work. Thus " Photius" resolves itself into two documents, one Photian, the other Pseudo-Photian. The credit of having made this clear belongs to Karapet Ter-Mkrttschian, who published in 1893 a treatise entitled "Die Paulikianer im byzantinischen Kaiserreiche und verwandte ketzerische Erscheinungen in Armenien ". This investigation, although it is ill arranged and leads to no satisfactory conclusion, has yet been of great use in opening up the whole question, as well as by publishing outof-the-way evidence on various obscure Armenian sects. While Gieseler held that the treatise of the "Abbot Peter" was simply an extract from the work of Peter Sikeliotes, Ter-Mkrttschian tries to prove that the Abbot Peter is the oldest of our existing sources-the source of George Monachus, and Photius (Bk. 1 (a)). [The Armenian scholar further propounded (p. 122 sqq.) the impossible theory that Peter Sikeliotes wrote in the time of Alexius Comnenus-when the Paulician and Bogomil question was engaging the attention of the court and the public. It is impossible, because the date of the Vatican Ms. of the treatise of Peter is earlier. As to the Pseudo-Photian account, Ter-Mkrttschian holds that its author utilised the work of Euthymius Zigabenus (p. 8-9).] After Ter-Mkrttschian came J. Friedrich (Der ursprüngliche bei Georgios Monachos nur theilweise erhaltene Bericht über die Paulikianer, published in the Sitzungsberichte of the Bavarian Academy, 1896, p. 67 sqq.). Friedrich denied that the Abbot Peter's tract was the source used by George Monachus; and he published (p. 70-81), as the original source of all the extant accounts, the passage of George Monachus as it appears in the Madrid Ms. of the chronicle. In this Ms. the passage is more than twice as long than in other Mss., the additional matter consisting chiefly of directions to Christians how they were to refute a Paulician heretic when they met one. According to Friedrich, the work of the Abbot Peter is an extract from this treatise, preserved in the Madrid Ms.; and the accounts in the other Mss. of George Monachus are likewise extracts. But the view of Friedrich has been upset conclusively by C. de Boor, the only scholar who is thoroughly master of the facts about the Mss. of George Monachus. In a short paper in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vii. p. 40 sqq. (1898), de Boor has shown that the additional matter in the Madrid Ms. comes from an interpolator. George seems to have made a second version of his chronicle, and in revising it he consulted his sources, or some of them, again. This seems to be the only hypothesis on which the peculiarities of one Ms., Coislin. 305, can be explained. In the case of the Paulician passage, de Boor points out that in the first form of his work (represented by Coislin. 305) he used an original source; 2 Title: Πέτρου ἐλαχίστου μοναχοῦ Ἡγουμένου περὶ Παυλικιανῶν τῶν καὶ Μανιχαίων. * Peter Sik. reverses the order of (a) and (b). |