Download PDF | (Byzantina Australiensia 11) Athony Kaldellis (trans) - Genesios. On the Reigns of the Emperors -Australian Association for Byzantine Studies (1998).
187 Pages
Acknowledgments
This book was written while I held the Bliss Prize Fellowship for 1995-97, awarded by the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. The generous support of that institution and its members enabled me to pursue my general studies and granted me the leisure to complete the present work.
The staff of the Harlan Hatcher Library at the University of Michigan handled my many and persistent requests efficiently and without complaint. The Dean of the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies generously provided the funds for the maps which accompany the text. Those maps, specifically designed to elucidate the narrative of Genesios, were made by John Hamer.
Thanks are also due to Dimitris Krallis, Steve Rapp, and Matthew Herbst, who read the manuscript, helped me to locate some of the relevant scholarship, and indicated connections between Genesios and other contemporary sources and events. Kalliope Adamaki and Traianos Gagos assisted me with some of the more difficult passages of the Greek text. Ray Van Dam encouraged me in the initial stages of this project and continued to offer extremely valuable advice on all aspects of the work. I am especially grateful to John V.A. Fine, whose friendship and unfailing support nourished my early interest in Byzantium and has guided me though my studies at the University of Michigan. He read the entire manuscript and made valuable comments throughout. I am also grateful to J. D. Howard-Johnston, who gave my work a preliminary reading and made many valuable comments on it at an early stage of its existence. John Melville-Jones, the editor appointed by the Committee of Management of the Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, scrutinized the accuracy of the translation and the contents of the commentary, making a number of useful suggestions and corrections. His diligence and care have surely made this a better book that it would otherwise have been.
I dedicate this work to my parents, knowing that I can never fully thank them for all that they have done for me.
Introduction
The historical work bearing the title Or the Reigns (BaotAciat) survives in a single manuscript of the eleventh century. A fourteenth-century hand has added the presumed author's name ("Genesios") in the margin.! With the possible exception of John Skylitzes, whose testimony will be considered below, no Byzantine writer discusses this text or its author. Therefore, the date of its composition and the precise identity of its author must be determined largely through internal criteria. The first two sections of this introduction are devoted to these two closely related problems, and are followed by discussions of Genesios' use of sources and his value as a historian.
1. Date and Circumstances of Composition
The preface and dedicatory poem of the text clearly indicate that the work as we have it was dedicated to the autokrator Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos and therefore, according to scholarly consensus, it must have been written during the period of that Emperor's independent rule (945-959). This conclusion, however, is unwarranted, for the preface can be used to date only itself and there is evidence that most of the text was written considerably earlier.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, the son of Leo VI (The Wise, ruled 886-912), was born in 905 and crowned as early as 9082 When his uncle Alexander died in 913 after a year-long reign, the management of the Empire was entrusted to a series of unstable regencies, and then passed into the hands of a self-made admiral, Romanos Lekapenos, who raised himself to the throne and ruled as Constantine's co-Emperor for twenty-four years (920-944). During that time Romanos was in effective control of the State, depriving his younger colleague of all real power. Constantine VII finally came into his inheritance when Romanos was deposed by his own sons, who were in turn deposed and exiled by the supporters of the legitimate dynasty one month later?
Constantine supervised the composition of many treatises on ceremonial, diplomatic, and administrative matters, and commissioned a series of Imperial biographies known as Theophanes Continuatus.* The first part of this work covers the years 813-867, thus deliberately continuing the Chronographia of Theophanes the Confessor. Its author remains anonymous, though he probably worked under the direct supervision of Constantine himself. The second part, known as the Vita Basilii, is a biography of Basil I (ruled 867-886), who founded the so-called Macedonian dynasty. Constantine was personally involved in its composition. Both parts of the text denigrate Basil's predecessors and present him as the savior of the Empire. Theophanes Continuatus clearly constitutes historical propaganda in favor of the Macedonian dynasty.$
Genesios (we may use that name for the sake of convenience) has also been cast as a spokesman for the propaganda created at the court of Constantine VII. His hostile treatment of Basil’s predecessors reveals biases similar to those of Theophanes Continuatus, although the latter emphasizes the negative features of those Emperors more strongly.” There are also many verbal similarities between the two texts, yet the work of Genesios is much shorter and less well written than the official product of Constantine’s patronage. It is therefore important to understand the precise relationship between the two works. Did one borrow from the other, did they use the same sources, or both?
A crucial piece of evidence comes from Genesios himself, who claims, in his preface, that he was the first to write a narrative of events after 813. According to F. Hirsch, the first scholar to investigate this problem, Genesios was the earlier writer and was thus used as a source by Theophanes Continuatus.? John Bury later modified Hirsch's position, by arguing that Theophanes Continuatus used not only Genesios, but also Genesios' sources, since there is clearly relevant information in Theophanes Continuatus that is not contained in Genesios. He dated the latter to 944-948 and the former to 949-950.? It was left to the Belgian scholar Henri Grégoire to take the final logical step and suggest that either Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus made independent use of the same sources or Genesios used and summarized Theophanes Continuatus.10 Recent scholarship has preferred Grégoire's first alternative,!! which is consistent with the boastful but credible claim to priority made in Genesios’ preface.
Yet there are some indications that Genesios' work, which covers the years 813-886 in four books,? was composed in two separate stages. A cursory glance at its contents reveals a curious anomaly. Each of the first three books treats the reign of a single Emperor (Book 1: Leo V, 813-820; Book 2: Michael II, 820-829; Book 3: Theophilos, 829-842). Each begins by dating the Emperor's accession and ends by calculating the length of his reign and noting the manner of his death. Book 4, however, which is more than twice as long as any of the others, begins by dating the accession of Michael III (842), but after the murder of the Caesar Bardas (in 866) it slips into a summary and highly selective account of the rise and reign of Basil I. It then ends by noting the duration of Basil's rule and the manner of his death. It is curious that Basil, the only Emperor consistently praised in the work, is accorded less space than his disparaged predecessor Michael III.
To resolve this anomaly Karl Krumbacher proposed that the work originally ended in 867, and that the account of Basil's reign was a later addition which complemented the dedication to Constantine VIL? A. Kazhdan argued plausibly that Genesios' account of Basil was in fact culled from the Vita Basilii.14 If these conclusions are correct, then the first part of Genesios' work, covering the years 813-867, was written before the corresponding section of Theophanes Continuatus, while his account of the reign of Basil was written after the Vita Basilii.
Yet an important piece of evidence that can help us date Genesios' text has been overlooked in this debate. At the end of section 2.10 of On the Reigns, Genesios lists the Arab rulers of Crete from its capture during the reign of Michael II down to his own time. The son of the conqueror Apochaps, Genesios tells us, was Saipes, whose son in turn was Babdel, who was defeated in the Peloponnese in the time of the Emperor Leo VI (i.e., before 912). Babdel's brother (or cousin) was Zerkounes, who also "ruled Crete and was succeeded by the current ruler." The significance of this passage was noted by Hirsch, who, however, failed to grasp its implications for the chronology of the text since the study of the emirs of Crete had not yet begun in his time.
Today the student of Genesios can benefit from the work of George Miles, who has examined the surviving coins of the Arab rulers of Crete. Although his initial reconstruction of their chronology was overconfident and inconsistent (as he later admitted),!° one relatively safe conclusion emerges from his synthesis: the successor of "Zerkounes" could not have ruled as late as 945-959, the period implied by the dedication and presumed agenda of our text. A closer look at the available evidence may enable us to determine when section 2.10 of Or the Reigns was written.
Genesios Apochaps is clearly Abū Hafs, the Spanish-Arabic conqueror of the island. The Arabic historian al-Tabari (1417) claims that he still ruled Crete in 852/3. Apochaps’ son Saipes is clearly Abu Hafs’ son Shu‘ayb,!” whose latest extant coin is dated to 894/5. The names Babdel and Zerkounes have no Arabic equivalent attested either in the Arabic sources or on any of the coins (although Babdel could easily be Abü-Abdulläh). But this fact does not cast doubt on Genesios' account, for Byzantine versions of Arabic names are not always exact. For instance, the last emir of Crete was named ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. Shu‘ayb, yet Byzantine authors called him Kouroupes.? We can probably acquit Genesios of the charge of ignorance concerning the Arab rulers. He lists all the emirs of Crete known to the Byzantines (except for the last one, who ruled after Genesios’ time) and his is the only Greek source to list them all.19 He appears to have known how they were related to each other and recounts the fall of Babdel in some detail (he was shipwrecked on the Peloponnese, defeated by the local Strategos, whose name and surname Genesios records). Genesios is our only source of knowledge for this expedition? The genealogy of the emirs of Crete is presented in a digression from the main narrative and appears to be Genesios’ contemporary testimony. Unlike so much else in his text, there is nothing fanciful or prejudicial in the few lines he devotes to them.
By his own account, then, Genesios wrote at least part of his history while the successor of Zerkounes ruled in Crete. The date is unfortunately impossible to determine with any certainty. However, given the number of emirs that must be assigned to the period between Shu‘ayb, who died between 895 and 912, and ‘Ali b. Ahmad (attested in 948), the probable predecessor of Kouroupes, it is highly unlikely that the successor of Zerkounes could have ruled as late as 945.
In other words, Genesios may have written section 2.10 as early as c. 915 and as late as c. 930. Greater precision will be possible only when we know more about the chronology of the Arab emirs of Crete. But the assignment of at least part of the text of On the Reigns to an earlier date solves more problems than it creates. We may hypothesize that the first version of the work covered the years 813-867 in four books (one per Emperor), and that it was written slightly before or during the reign of Romanos Lekapenos. After the fall of Romanos, Genesios carried his work down to 886 by drawing upon the Vita Basilii, which was composed c. 950. Having thereby endorsed Constantine VII’s view of history, he dedicated the new version of his work to that Emperor?! Consequently, the author of the first section of Theophanes Continuatus could still have consulted the first (and shorter) version of Genesios' text. This solution explains the anomaly in the format of the work and the apparent reliance on the Vita Basilii, while preserving the chronological priority of the first version of On the Reigns to the first section of Theophanes Continuatus.22
A possible objection to the proposed chronology arises from the statement made in both the dedication and the preface that it was the autokrator Constantine VII who asked Genesios to compose a history of events beginning with the reign of Leo V. This claim contradicts the notion that the first part of the work was written during the reign of Romanos Lekapenos. Yet Genesios may have been trying to flatter Constantine by attributing to him the inspiration for a work that he had really written much earlier and on his own initiative. In fact, many texts were ascribed to the hand of Constantine VII, or at least to his inspiration and guidance And in his preface, Genesios implies that he is expecting some kind of reward for writing the history -- sufficient grounds for such flattery. Otherwise, in 950 Constantine may have encouraged Genesios to bring his earlier work down to 886, perhaps suggesting that he use the account given in the Vita Basilii. Genesios then seized the opportunity to claim that the whole history had been written at the Emperor's request. A third possibility is that Constantine may in fact have asked Genesios long before 945 to write a history beginning with the reign of Leo V. Constantine was twenty years old in 925, a date within the possible time-span for the composition of the first version of Genesios' work. This solution would require some modifications to our current understanding of the origins of Macedonian historical propaganda. An entirely different original dedication, including Constantine VII and the Lekapenoi, is conceivable.24
2. Author
We may now turn to the question of the authorship of these Imperial res gestae. As we have seen, a fourteenth-century hand has added the name #Genesios” in the margin of the eleventh-century manuscript. Though we do not know the grounds for this identification, it may not be as conjectural as most scholars believe.
First we must note the promising but ultimately inconclusive remarks of the eleventh-century historian John Skylitzes. In the preface to his Synopsis Historiarum, he compares the work of many of his predecessors to that of Theophanes the Confessor. Concluding that none of them matched his brilliance, he proceeds to list their faults and names.
They did not reflect properly on their subject matter and harmed rather than benefited their readers. Theodore Daphnopates, Niketas Paphlagon, Joseph Genesios and Manuel the Byzantines... each set forth his own agenda, the one eulogizing an Emperor, the other reviling a Patriarch, and another sounding the praises of a friend.
Skylitzes thus testifies to the existence of a Constantinopolitan historian named Joseph Genesios. Furthermore, many passages of Skylitzes' text were lifted almost verbatim from the text of On the Reigns?5 Yet it is not necessary to link that text with the historian Joseph Genesios mentioned in Skylitzes' preface.
The modern debate on the identity of "Genesios" began with Hirsch, who brought attention to a passage from various versions of the chronicle of Symeon the Logothetes, according to which Constantine the Armenian was the father of a Patrikios Thomas and of a Genesios. Since Constantine the Armenian receives an especially favorable treatment in the work of our author (see below), Hirsch concluded that the latter was Genesios the son of Constantine the Armenian.26
This conclusion was rightly questioned by C. de Boor, who argued that the implied chronology was impossible. Our author was alive c. 950, but Constantine the Armenian was active under Theophilos (829-842) and Michael III (843-867). De Boor drew attention to a different version of the text, which stated that Constantine the Armenian was the father of a Patrikios and Logothetes of the Dromos Thomas and the grandfather of a Patrikios and Kanikleios Genesios.27
Yet, with the exception of a possibly arbitrary notation in the margins of the manuscript, there is still no solid link between our text and any Genesios, whether the son or grandson of Constantine the Armenian. Therefore, many scholars prefer to regard its author as anonymous.” Though skepticism is warranted, there are nevertheless good reasons to believe that the author of On the Reigns was a descendant of Constantine the Armenian named Genesios.
P. Karlin-Hayter has examined the evidence for Constantine found in "Genesios" and Theophanes Continuatus. She concludes that the two authors independently utilized a now-lost common source, which, in turn, was based on a biography of Constantine2? Yet it is difficult to believe that there ever was a biography of Constantine. Let us take a close look at all the actions attributed to him in Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus (Th.C.), which together contain virtually all the information we possess about him.
(1) The Empress Theodora sent Constantine to the iconoclastic Patriarch John VII ('the Grammarian') to inform him that the Orthodox desired to restore the icons (Th.C. 150). (2) John later complained that Constantine had tortured him during that meeting, which, incidentally, had failed to persuade him to do anything. Constantine was later cleared of the accusation (Genesios 4.3). (3) The Logothetes Theoktistos begged Constantine to protect him from the men Michael III had sent to kill him. Constantine tried but failed (Genesios 4.10). (4) Constantine expressed his disapproval of the election of Photios to the Patriarchate. Photios was elected anyway (Genesios 4.18). (5) He provided nourishment and comfort to the deposed Patriarch Ignatios when the latter was being tortured. Again his actions did not in the least alter the course of events (Genesios 4.18; Th.C. 194). (6) Constantine participated in Michael III's private chariot races (Genesios 4.19; Th.C. 198; this incident is also recorded in nearly all the versions of the Logothetes chronicle). (7) He protected Michael III from the murderers of Bardas (Genesios 4.23). (8) He calmed the tempers of the various factions in the army camp after the murder of Bardas (Genesios 4.23; Th.C. 206).? (9) When the future Emperor Basil was in a wrestling match, Constantine came to his assistance by sprinkling straw on the ground. This incident is recorded in both sources, but whereas Genesios (4.26) claims that Constantine was a relative of Basil, the Vita Basilii (229-230) merely claims that he was a fellow Armenian.
Karlin-Hayter is probably right that (6) derived from a political pamphlet deriding Michael III. In any case, its attestation in the different historical tradition represented by the chronicle of the Logothetes suggests that our knowledge of it did not originate exclusively in the lost Vita of Constantine, if such a text ever existed.
Most of the other actions attributed to Constantine are so inconsequential that it is hard to believe one could construct a biography from them. The subjects of Byzantine biographies always performed actions in their lifetime (or afterwards) that merited praise and commanded the attention of posterity, e.g., victory in battles, miracles, prominent participation in a religious struggle, martyrdom, etc. There is none of this in what we know of Constantine's life. He appears to have been singularly unable to change the course of events?! Therefore, rather than assume that a full biography lay behind these unspectacular testimonia, we may consider the possibility that a historian of broader political events, namely “Genesios,” introduced him unnecessarily into the narrative, exaggerated his historical importance and presented him as a champion of the 'right' side in various conflicts, even if that occasionally meant inventing a role for him. A particularly striking example is (7), which describes the murder of Bardas:
The treacherous attack took place suddenly and the shocked Emperor accidentally collapsed upon the body. But the Droungarios of the Vigla, whose name was Constantine, intervened to save the Emperor and make sure that he was not murdered as well. For he was a loyal protector of the Emperor and showed that in his solicitude for him he was willing to accept even mortal dangers. And perhaps both men would have been killed, had Constantine himself not aided and strengthened the Emperor, pulling him away from the killers with auspicious words and his very own hands, as he was fortified by his nobility of mind and bravery.
But no one had planned to kill Michael in the first place! The claim that he accidentally fell upon Bardas' body is a pathetic attempt to make Constantine's alleged intervention somehow conducive to the Emperor's safety, and thus indicate his loyalty and bravery.
Genesios praises Constantine in a singular way, and also gives him an active role in the religious disputes of the ninth century, which he presents in a highly partisan manner. Genesios hated the iconoclasts, as was only proper for a man of his age, and also perpetuated the antiPhotian and pro-Ignatian propaganda of Niketas David Paphlagon. Not surprisingly, he contrived to confer the 'right' partisan credentials upon his hero. According to (2), Constantine was unjustly accused by John the Grammarian, who thus "unwillingly bestowed genuine praise upon the man he had accused." Genesios emphasizes the point lest we miss its significance. He desperately wants us to know that Constantine was an enemy of the iconoclasts. According to (4), Constantine opposed the election of Photios. But who save his anti-Photian descendants would have cared to preserve the memory of his utterly ineffectual opposition? Photios was duly enthroned as Patriarch, and Constantine contributed nothing to the ensuing struggles within the Church. The torture of Ignatios, which forms the backdrop to (5), was copied by Genesios from the Vita Ignatii of Niketas David Paphlagon (col. 520-1). But the solicitude of Constantine for Ignatios was a new element of the story, introduced by our author, in order to emphasize once again that his hero supported the right side in the conflict. Genesios even gives us a motive for his historical invention when he tells us that Constantine helped Ignatios in spite of the fact that he otherwise supported Bardas, the man directly responsible for Ignatios’ ordeals! Genesios is obviously trying to clear Constantine's name.
Constantine seems to have played a marginal role in the disputes of the ninth century, and yet the author of our text goes to great lengths to present him as a champion of the factions he himself later supported and portrayed favorably in his work. Constantine had to be presented as anti-Photian and pro-Ignatian and cleared of imputations of iconoclasm, for he had, after all, been favored by Theophilos, the arch-iconoclastic Emperor of the ninth century. His support of Bardas had to be downplayed and he had to be acquitted of any participation in the murder of Theoktistos (3), which brought his patron Bardas to power. It is difficult to believe that anyone but a descendant would go to so much trouble on behalf of a man whose memory was otherwise not controversial.
The text of Theophanes Continuatus, for example, is far more extensive than On the Reigns, yet it records far fewer incidents involving Constantine. This suggests that such incidents were not contained in whatever common sources the two historians used. According to the argument made above regarding the relative chronology of the two works, the first part of the continuation was written after the corresponding sections of Genesios' work. Therefore, if the continuator consulted Genesios, he chose to downplay Constantine's importance. His claim that Theodora sent Constantine to confront the iconoclastic Patriarch John VII (1) entirely avoids, but can be easily inferred from, Genesios’ melodramatic account of John's subsequent accusations (2). After all, Constantine had held high office and it is unlikely that the historical record would have erased every trace of his career.? An embassy to John, and the calming of the troops after the murder of Bardas (8), are perfectly plausible actions for a man of his station, though they fall short of earning him a biography.
Theophanes Continuatus also records Constantine's ministrations to the tortured Ignatios (5). He probably copied this incident from Genesios, but his decision to include it indicates that he may have had reasons of his own for preserving Constantine's good memory. According to Theophanes Continuatus (150, 198), Constantine's son. Thomas became Logothetes of the Dromos, a position he held around 907, but also again during the minority of Constantine VIL}? who later paid tribute to Thomas’ culture and ability in the Vita Basilii (229).%
This connection may explain the favorable inclusion of Constantine the Armenian in the Vita Basilii (229-230), which was written before the corresponding sections of Book 4 of Genesios. In that text Constantine VII depicts Constantine the Armenian as a friendly countryman of Basil, who helped the future Emperor during a wrestling match. Significantly, when Genesios re-wrote the same passage he made Constantine a close relative of Basil. Genesios, if indeed he was descended from Constantine, was claiming to be more than just a supporter of the Macedonian dynasty.
This review of the evidence indicates that the author of our text had a personal or family interest in depicting Constantine the Armenian favorably, and that he may indeed have been a descendant of his named Genesios. Leo Choirosphaktes, a high official under Basil I and Leo VI, corresponded with a Genesios, who was Magistros and Patrikios. These letters are dated by their editor to 906, as is a letter by Thomas, the son of Constantine the Armenian, to Leo Choirosphaktes?6 Even if this Genesios could be connected with Constantine the Armenian (he might be the other son, the brother of Thomas), he is still too early to be our author. Now Thomas had a grandson, Romanos Genesios, who was active in the later part of the tenth century.?7 The father of Romanos Genesios, and thus presumably the son of Thomas, was also named Genesios?9 A. Markopoulos believes that this Genesios (the son of Thomas and father of Romanos Genesios) was the follower of Symeon the New Theologian mentioned in that mystic's biography by Niketas Stethatos?? But according to Niketas, this Genesios was the spiritual son of Symeon in the last quarter of the tenth century, and campaigned for the rehabilitation of the Saint in 1010/11. Chronology dictates that, if this man is connected to the family of Thomas, then he is Romanos Genesios and not the son of Thomas named Genesios (Romanos Genesios' father).
We may thus conclude tentatively, along with the scholars already noted, that the most likely candidate for our author is the Kanikleios Genesios, son of Thomas, grandson of Constantine the Armenian, and father of Romanos Genesios.4?
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق