APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE EDITOR

1. AUTHORITIES

GREEK SOURCES

PHOTIUS was born at Constantinople about the beginning of the ninth century. He was related by blood to the Patriarch Tarasius, and his uncle was a brother-in-law of the Empress Theodora (wife of Theophilus). He had enjoyed an excellent training in grammar and philology, and devoted his early years to teaching, a congenial employment which he did not abandon after he had been promoted to the Patriarchate (A.D. 858). "His house was still a salon of culture, the resort of the curious who desired instruction. Books were read aloud and the master of the house criticized their style and their matter." He was an indefatigable collector of books, and his learning probably surpassed that of any of the medieval Greeks (not excepting Psellus). For his historical importance and public career, see above, p. 384-5.

Of his profane works the most famous-which Gibbon singles out-was his Myriobiblon or Bibliotheca, written (before A.D. 858) for his brother Tarasius, who desired information about the books which during his absence had been read and discussed in the circle of Photius. It contains most valuable extracts from writers whose works are no longer extant, and the criticisms of Photius are marked by acuteness and independence. The Lexicon, compiled doubtless by a secretary or pupil, is a later work. There are about 300 extant letters (260 in Migne, P. G. vol. 102, and in the edition of Valettas, 1864; others edited by PapadopulosKerameus, Petersburg, 1896).

A recent critic has said that the importance of Photius as a theologian has been often exaggerated. Of his theological writings only those pertaining to the controversy of the day need be mentioned here. In the treatise On the Mystagogia of the Holy Ghost he has put together all the evidence from scripture and the Fathers in favour of the Greek doctrine, but assigns more weight to theological argument than to authority. This is characteristic of the man. It is also to be observed (as Ehrhard remarks) that he does not attack the Roman church directly; but he appeals to previous Popes as supporters of the true view, in opposition to Jerome, Augustine, &c.

Two of the homilies of Photius have historical importance as sources for the Russian invasion of A.D. 860. They were edited by P. Uspenski in 1864, and with improved text by A. Nauck in Lexicon Vindobonense, p. 201-232 (1867); reprinted in Müller's Frag. Hist. Gr. 5, p. 162 sqq., and included in the complete edition of Aristarchos, Adyoi xal duixíai, 2 vols., 1900.

Most of the works of Photius are collected in Migne's Patr. Gr. vols. 101-104. The chief work on Photius is that of J. Hergenrother, in 3 volumes: Photius,

1 Krumbacher, Gesch. der Byz. Litt. p. 516.

2 Ed. S. A. Naber, 1864-5.

Ehrhard, in Krumbacher's Byz. Litt. p. 74.

539

Patriarch von Konstantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften, und das griechische Schisma (1867-9), a learned, and valuable work.

The Tactica of the Emperor LEO VI. contains a great deal that is merely s re-edition of the Strategicon ascribed to the Emperor Maurice. The general organisation, the drill, the rules for marching and camping, the arms, are still the same as in the 6th century. But there is a great deal that is new. A good account and criticism of the work will be found in Oman's History of the Art of War, vol. 2, p. 184 sqq. The reader is distinctly prepossessed in favour of Leo by the frank and handsome acknowledgment which he makes of the merits and services of his general, Nicephorus Phocas, whose successful tactics and new military devices are cited again and again with admiration. The best parts of his book are the chapters on organisation, recruiting, the services of transport and supply, and the methods required for dealing with the various barbarian neighbours of the empire. . . The weakest point, on the other hand, as is perhaps natural, is that which deals with strategy. Characteristic, too, of the author's want of aggressive energy, and of the defensive system which he made his policy is the lack of directions for campaigns of invasion in an enemy's country. Leo contemplates raids on hostile soil, but not permanent conquests. . . . Another weak point is his neglect to support precept by example; his directions would be much the clearer if he would supplement them by definite historical cases in which they had led to success" (ib., p. 184-5).

Zachariä von Lingenthal propounded the theory that the Leo to whom the title of the Tactics ascribes the authorship was not Leo VI. but Leo III., and that consequently the work belongs to the first half of the eighth century. But internal evidence is inconsistent with this theory. Besides the references to Nicephorus Phocas mentioned above, the author speaks of "our father the Emperor Basil," and describes his dealings with the Slavs, 18, § 101; the Bulgarians who were still heathen in the reign of Leo the Iconoclast appear as Christians in this treatise, 18, § 42, 44, and 61; the capture of Theodosiopolis from the Saracens (under Leo VI., cp. Const. Porph., de Adm. Imp. c. 45, p. 199-200, ed. Bonn) is mentioned.

The most interesting chapters of the work are c. 18, which contains an account of the military customs of the nations with which the empire was brought into hostile contact (Saracens, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Slavs, Franks), and c. 19, on naval warfare (see below, Appendix 5). [The edition of Meursius used by Gibbon is reprinted in Migne's Patr. Gr. 107, p. 671 sqq.]

Only a part of the two Books De Cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae which pass under the name of CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENNETOS is really due to that Emperor.

The first 83 chapters of Bk. I. represent the treatise on the Court CeremonIES which he compiled by putting together existing documents which prescribed the order of the various ceremonies. The work is arranged as follows: Chaps. 1-37. religious ceremonies (thus chap. 1 gives the order of processions to the Great Church -St. Sophia; chap. 2, the ceremonies on Christmas Day; chap. 3, those on the Epiphany, &c., in the order of the calendar); chaps. 38-44, the ceremonies on great secular occasions, such as the coronation of the Emperor and the Empress; chaps. 45-59, ceremonies on the promotions of ministers and palace functionaries; chaps. 60-64, an Emperor's funeral, and other solemnities; chaps. 65-83, palace banquets, public games, and other ceremonies."

The remaining chapters of Bk. I. are an excrescence and were added at a later date. Chaps. 84-95 are an extract from the work of Peter the Patrician who wrote under Justinian I. (ep. headings to chaps. 84 and 95). Chap. 96 contains an account of the inauguration of Nicephorus Phocas, and chap. 97 perhaps dates from the reign of Tzimisces.

The matter printed in the Bonn ed. as an Appendix to Book I. is a totally

4 In Byz. Zeitschrift, ii. 606 sqq.; iii. 437 sqq.

C. 83 contains the famous rorokov or Gothic Weihnachtspiel which has given rise to much discussion, German antiquarians vainly trying to find in the acclamations old German words.

distinct work, dealing with military expeditions against the Saracens led by the Emperor in person, as I have shown in Eng. Hist. Review, July, 1907, where I propose to call it περὶ τῶν βασιλικῶν ταξειδίων.

The second Book, as it stands, contains many documents which did not originally form part of Constantine's treatise. Thus chaps. 44 and 45 contain the returns of the expenses, &c., of naval armaments against Crete in A.D. 902 and 949; chap. 50 contains a list of themes which belongs to the reign of Leo VI.; chap. 52-4, a separate treatise on the order of precedence at Imperial banquets composed by PHILOTHEUS protospatharius in A.D. 899-900.

The work of Philotheus (entitled Klêtorologion), which is a highly important source for the official organization of the Empire in the 9th and 10th centuries, has been edited separately by Bury, Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century (Supplemental Papers of British Academy, i., 1911).

The Ceremonies are included in the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine writers (1829), with Reiske's notes in a separate volume. The composition of the work has been analysed by Bury, the Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Eng. Hist. Review, April and July, 1907; for the elucidation of the ceremonies, &c., see D. Bieliaiev, Byzantina, vol. 2 (1893), vol. 3 (1907). See also Ebersolt, Le grand Palais de Constantinople et le livre des cérémonies, 1910.

The work on the Themes (in 2 Books, see above, p. 70 sqq.) was composed while Romanus I. was still alive, and after, probably not very long after, A.D. 934 (see Rambaud, L'empire grec au dixième siècle, p. 165). For an Armenian general Melias is mentioned, who was alive in 934, as recently dead; and the theme of Seleucia is noticed, which seems to have been formed after 934. For the contents of the book, cp. below, Appendix 3.

The treatise on the Administration of the Empire is dealt with in a separate note below, Appendix 4.

GEORGE CODINUS (probably 15th century) is merely a name, associated with three works: a short, worthless chronicle (ed. Bonn, 1843); an account of the offices of the Imperial Court and of St. Sophia, generally quoted as De Officiis (ed. Bonn, 1839); the Patria of Constantinople (ed. Bonn, 1843). But it is only with the third of these works that Codinus, whoever he was, can have any connexion. The Chronicle is anonymous in the Mss., and there is no reason for ascribing it to Codinus. The De Officiis is likewise anonymous, and the attribution of it to Codinus was due to the blunder of an editor; it is a composition of the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century. As for the Пárpia Kwvotavтivonóλews, see above, vol. ii., Appendix 8, p. 574.

EUSTATHIUS, educated at Constantinople, became Archbishop of Thessalonica in 1175; he died c. 1193. Besides his famous commentaries on Homer, his commentary on Pindar, and his paraphrase of the geographical poem of Dionysius, he composed an account of the Norman siege of Thessalonica in A.D. 1185. This original work was published by L. F. Tafel in A.D. 1832 (Eustathii Opuscula, i. p. 267-307) and reprinted by Bekker at the end of the Bonn ed. of Leo Grammaticus. There are also extant various speeches (e.g. a funeral oration by the Emperor Manuel) which have been published by Tafel in his edition of the lesser works of Eustathius and in his treatise De Thessalonica ejusque agro (1839). A collection of letters (some not by Eustathius but by Psellus) is also published by Tafel (Eustathii Op. p. 507 sqq.) and some others by Regel, Fontes rerum Byzantinarum, i. (1892).

GEORGE ACROPOLITES, born in 1217 at Constantinople, migrated to Nicea at the age of eighteen, and studied there under the learned Nicephorus Blemmydes. He was appointed (1244) to the office of Grand Logothete, and instructed the young prince Theodore Lascaris who afterwards became emperor. Unsuccessful as a general in the war with the Despot of Epirus (1257), he was made prisoner, and after his release he was employed by Michael Palæologus as a diplomatist. He represented the Greek Emperor at the Council of Lyons, for the purpose of bringing

about a reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches. He died in 1282. His history embraces the period from 1203 to the recovery of Constantinople in 1261, and is thus a continuation of Nicetas. For the second half of the period treated it is not only a contemporary work, but the work of one who was in a good position for observing political events. [The Xpovikh σvyypaph in its original form was published by Leo Allatius in 1651, and is reprinted in the Venice and Bonn collections. These editions have been superseded by that of A. Heisenberg, 2 vols., 1903. An abridg. ment was published by Dousa in 1614. There is also, in a Ms. at Milan, a copy of the work with interpolations (designated as such) by a contemporary of Acropolites (see Krumbacher, Gesch. der byz. Litt., p. 287; A. Heisenberg, Studien zur Textgeschichte des Georgios Akropolites, 1894).]

GEORGE PACHYMERES (A.D. 1242-1310) carries us on from the point where Acropolites deserts us. He is the chief literary figure of the first fifty years of the restored Empire. His work in 13 Books begins at A.D. 1255 and comes down to 1308. His chief interest was in the theological controversies of the day, and there is far too much theology and disputation about dogma in his history; but this was what absorbed the attention of the men of his time. "Pachymeres, by his culture and literary activity, overtops his contemporaries, and may be designated as the greatest Byzantine Polyhistor of the 13th century. We see in him the lights and shadows of the age of the Palæologi. He is not wanting in learning, originality, and wit. But he does not achieve the independence of view and expression, which distinguishes a Photius or a Psellus." Other works of Pachymeres are extant, bat only his autobiography in hexameter verses need be mentioned here (it was suggested by Gregory Nazianzen's repl éavтoû). It is worthy of note-as a symptom of the approaching renaissance-that Pachymeres adopted the Attic, instead of the Roman, names of the months. [The edition of Possinus, used by Gibbon, was reprinted in the Bonn collection, 1835.]

NICEPHORUS GREGORAS (1295-c. 1359) of Heraclea in Pontus was educated at Constantinople, and enjoyed the teaching of Theodore Metochites, who was distinguished not only as a trusted councillor of the Emperor Andronicus, but as a man of encyclo paedic learning. Nicephorus won the favour of Andronicus, but on that Emperor's deposition in 1328 his property was confiscated and he had to live in retirement. He came forth from his retreat to do theological battle with the pugnacious Barlaam of Calabria, who was forming a sort of school in Constantinople (see above, c. Ixiii. p. 530); and his victory in this controversy was rewarded by reinstatement in his property and offices. Subsequently he played a prominent part in the renewed attempts at reuniting the eastern and western churches. He fell into disfavour wish Cantacuzenus and was banished to a monastery. His Roman History in 37 Books begins with the Latin capture of Constantinople in 1204, and reaches to 1359. But the greater part of this period, 1204-1320, is treated briefly in the first 7 Books, which may be regarded as an introduction to the main subject of his work, namely his own times (1320-1359). This history, like that of Pachymeres, is disproportionately occupied with theological disputation, and is, as Krumbacher says, "eine memoirenhafte Parteischrift im vollsten Sinne des Wortes". In style, Gregoras essays to imitate Plato; for such base uses has Platonic prose been exploited. [Only Books 1-24 were accessible to Gibbon, as he complains (ed. Boivin, 1702). The remaining Books 25-37 (numbered 23-36)-were first edited by Bekker in the Bonn ed., vol. 3, 1855. Among other works of Gregoras may be mentioned his funeral oration on Theodore Metochites, ed. by Meursius, 1618 (Th. Metochitse hist. Rom., liber singularis).]

For the Emperor CANTACUZENUS and his history, see above, cap. lxiii. and ep. p. 518, n. 21. Cp. also J. Dräseke, Zu Johannes Kantakuzenos, in Byzantinische Zestschrift, 9, 72 sqq., 1900. [In the Bonn series, ed. by Schopen in 3 vols., 1828-32)

6 His chief literary remains are a collection of Miscellaneous Essays, which has be edited by C. G. Müller and T. Kiessling, 1821; and a large number of rhetorical exercises and astronomical and scientific treatises. His occasional poems have not yet been come pletely published.

NICEPHORUS BLEMMYDES was, beside George Acropolites, the most important literary figure at the court of the Emperor of Nicea. He was born at Constantinople (c. 1198), and soon after the Latin Conquest migrated to Asia; and in Prusa, Nicæa, Smyrna, and Scamander he received a liberal education under the best masters of the day. He became proficient in logic, rhetoric and mathematics, and studied medicine. He finally embraced a clerical career; he took an active part in the controversies with the Latins in the reign of John Vatatzes, and was a teacher of the young prince THEODORE LASCARIS. The extant correspondence of Theodore and Blemmydes testifies their friendly intimacy. But Blemmydes was an opinionated man; he was constantly offending and taking offence; and he finally became a monk and retired to a monastery at Ephesus which he built himself. He had the refusal of the Patriarchate in 1255, and he died c. 1272. His autobiography and his letters (monuments of pedantry and conceit) have importance for the history of his time. Besides theological, scientific, and other works, he composed an icon basilike (Bariλikós ávöpiás) for his royal pupil.' [The autobiography (in two parts) has been edited by A. Heisenberg, 1896. An edition of the Letters is a desideratum. The Letters of the Emperor Theodore Lascaris II. were published by N. Festa (Epistulæ ccxvii) in 1898.]

In the first quarter of the 14th century, a native of the Morea, certainly half a Frank, and possibly half a Greek, by birth, composed a versified chronicle of the Latin conquest of the Peloponnesus and its history during the 13th century. This work is generally known as the CHRONICLE OF MOREA.8 The author is thoroughly Grecized, so far as language is concerned; he writes the vulgar tongue as a native; but feels towards the Greeks the dislike and contempt of a ruling stranger for the conquered population. He may have been a Gasmul (гaouoûλos, supposed to be derived from gas (garçon) and mulus), as the offspring of a Frank father by a Greek mother was called. It is a thoroughly prosaic work, thrown into the form of wooden political verses; and what it loses in literary interest through its author's lack of talent, it gains in historical objectivity. A long prologue relates the events of the first and the fourth crusades; the main part of the work embraces the history of the Principality of Achaea from 1205 to 1292. The book appealed to the Franks, not to the Greeks, of the Peloponnesus; and shows how Greek had become the language of the conquerors. It was freely translated into French soon after its composition; and this version (with a continuation down to 1304), which was made before the year 1341, is preserved (under the title "The Book of the Conquest of Constantinople and the Empire of Roumania and the country of the Principality of Morea"). J. A. Buchon was the first to edit both the Greek and the French; but he sought to show that the French was the original and the Greek the version. The true relation of the two texts has been established by the researches of the late John Schmitt (Die Chronik von Morea, 1889).

[Of the Greek original there are two widely different redactions, of which one, preserved in a Paris Ms., was published by Buchon in his Chroniques étrangères relatives aux expeditions françaises pendant le xiii. siècle, in 1840; the other, preserved in a Copenhagen Ms., was published in the second volume of his Recherches historiques sur la principauté française de Morée et ses hautes baronies (1845), while in the first vol. of this latter work he edited the French text. A final edition, with the Paris and Copenhagen texts on opposite pages, and a collation of the Turin Ms., by John Schmitt, appeared in 1904 (London).]"

SLAVONIC SOURCES

The old Russian chronicle, which goes by the name of NESTOR and comprises the history of Russia and the neighbouring countries from the middle of the ninth

It will be found in Migne, P. G., vol. 142, p. 611 sqq.

8 It is sometimes referred to as Βιβλίον τῆς κουγκέστας, a title which the first editor

Buchon gave it without authority.

There are also versions in Aragonese and in Italian.