Download PDF | (The Medieval Mediterranean 15) Shaun Tougher - The Reign of Leo VI (886-912)_ Politics and People-Brill Academic Publishers (1997).
264 Pages
INTRODUCTION
AIMS AND SOURCES
In the gallery of emperors who reigned over the Byzantine empireduring its long life of more than a thousand years the figure of Leo VI(886-912) is not an unfamiliar one to those conversant with Byzantium's history. He was the heir of Basil I (867-886) the founder of theMacedonian dynasty, one of the empire's longest-surviving dynasties. His parentage is infamously uncertain; it is undeniable that hismother was Eudokia Ingerine, but whether his father was her loverMichael III (842-867) or her husband Basil the Macedonian is still amatter of debate. I It is equally notorious that Leo married four timesin succession, creating ecclesiastical conflict that outlasted the temporal boundary of his reign.2
This emperor is also an inescapable figurein the study of the legal, literary and military history of Byzantiumdue to his achievements in these spheres.' Yet beyond these points Leo and his reign are generally under-appreciated. Much is assumedrather than explored. It is a common perception that the emperorwas feeble in the arena of foreign affairs, and in particular that theBulgarians and the Arabs were able to run rings round him becausehe had no foreign policy.' As for internal affairs it is presumed that hewas under the thumb of unethical favourites.s Leo has even sufferedthe ignominy of being dismissed as rather 'colourless'.' Such observations are superficial and inadequate, and indeed save for a few spe-cific areas the reign of Leo VI has not been subjected to the samedegree of attention as has been devoted to his father and son, Basil Iand Constantine VII.' It is these two figures that tend to come tomind when the history of the early Macedonian dynasty is considered, the first as its energetic establisher, the second as its great literature-producing myth-maker.' It is a striking fact that of the emperorswho reigned from 867-959 only Leo VI has not been the focus of astudy of his life and times in this century.' This lack of a comprehen sive study only serves to perpetuate the misconceptions that still persist concerning Leo and his reign, and it is this void in the documenting of the early history of the Macedonian dynasty that this book aims to begin to fill.
Whilst there is a lack of a major tome on this emperor significant piece-meal work has been produced on Leo VI and his reign. Thiscentury several scholars have studied aspects of the emperor and histimes. Vogt, who wrote a study on the reign of Basil I, did not indulgeLeo to this extent, but did contribute an examination of his early lifefrom his birth to his accession.10 Further, together with Hausherr heproduced an eagerly awaited study, edition and translation of Leo'sEpitaphios on his parents. 11 Throughout the early decades of this century Gregoire published many vital studies on the literature that touched on Leo's reign.12 In the thirties Grumel made crucial headway in settling several of the dubious points of chronology regardingthe reign.13 Naval history formed the distinctive background ofDolley's numerous, but flawed, articles on the period.L4 Vasiliev'scontribution to the understanding of the reign lies in the field offoreign affairs, especially Byzantium's relations with the Arabs and the Russians.15
In the seventies there appeared a fascinating study onLeo the writer by Grosdidier de Matons, which focused in particular on three of his works.16 In more recent years Leo's legal work andideology have been addressed by Schminckl7, and Magdalino hascontributed several significant studies on diverse aspects of the reignsuch as literature, art, ceremonial and politics, which have shed muchlight on the character of Leo and his reign.18 Above all these scholarshowever there tower two figures who have made major contributionsto the study of Leo VI and his reign: Romilly Jenkins and PatriciaKarlin-Hayter. A glance at the contents of their collections of articlesin the Variorum Reprints series reveals the extent of their importance inthe study of Byzantine history of the ninth and tenth centuries.19These two scholars must be read by anyone studying the early Macedonian dynasty, and it is through them that Leo VI emerges asrather different to the popular perception of the emperor. ForJenkinsLeo was a `great' emperor, whose greatness however `does not lie onthe surface', not in spectacular military victories but in less visible`counter measures' that `were both permanent and salutary'.20
Further Jenkins perceived Leo as a man of great `tenacity of will'.21Karlin-Hayter shared this more positive view of Leo and his reign, which she particularly emphasised in an article addressing Leo's handling of foreign affairs. She demonstrated that it was mistaken todismiss Leo `as asupine and feeble sovereign who left government toa series of deplorable favorites, devoting himself exclusively to wifetrouble and impractical theorizing', and she asserted that `there isabundant evidence that Leo was very much an acting ruler'.22 There is no doubt thatJenkins and Karlin-Hayter constitute the Byzantinistswho are most familiar with Leo's reign and most appreciative of itscharacter and that of the emperor, but neither has produced a tome, setting their views in an extended narrative of the reign. Jenkins didnot survive to write his intended study of the reign of Leo VI28, whilst Karlin-Hayter's important assessments of the figures and facets of thereign are scattered in the commentary of her invaluable edition of theLife of Euthymios.24
It is this missing extended analysis of the reign that this book aims to address. However this book will not simply be the work the Jenkins never wrote and that Karlin-Hayter has not yet written. A comprehensivetreatment of the reign is not envisaged, but a more selective investigation focusing in particular on the political history of the reign andthose people who were key players in it. Further Jenkins's and KarlinHayter's opinions will not be automatically followed. In part this isbecause views of Byzantine history and society alter, but also becausethe arguments of these scholars do not always convince. For instanceregarding the former case in recent years a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of political groupings within Byzantium and of the biases which could motivate them has developed25; thus it is nolonger sufficient or accurate to talk of `military aristocrats' who wereopposed to the rule of Leo VI.26 An example of the latter case isJenkins's attempt to explain the flight of the eunuch Samonas, apalace official close to Leo VI, back to his native Arab empire as astage-managed drama that would enable this ally of the emperor todiscover what members of the `military aristocracy' were plottingwith the Arabs.27 This theory has not met with widespread acceptance, but as yet no other interpretation of the events has been offered.28
As for Karlin-Hayter, it is difficult for example to accept her insistence on the reliability of the evidence of the Life of Euthymiosconcerning both Stylianos Zaoutzes (a key figure in the early years ofLeo's reign) and Nikolaos (the sometime patriarch of Constantinople).29 It is perfectly evident that the author of the Life has a natural bias against Stylianos and Nikolaos, for they were both opponentsand enemies of the saintly Euthymios. Evidence from other sourcesthat tells a different story to that of the Life is too easily discounted byKarlin-Hayter. As for the aspects of the political history chosen to befocused on these were selected by the necessity to cover elements of the reign that have not received sufficient attention, such as the fall of the patriarch Photios on Leo's accession, the emperor's particularattachment to eunuchs, the relationship between the emperor and thesenatorial order, Leo's own reputation for wisdom, and the role ofAlexander during his brother's reign. The objective then was to fill gaps or flaws in the existing literature so as to provide a fuller andmore rounded picture of Leo and the political history of his reign.
The structure of the book has been arranged so as to give a roughchronological progression from Leo's birth in 866 to his death in 912. Chapter One serves as an introductory guide to both the reigns ofBasil I and Leo VI, to provide a context for the closer studies of thesubsequent chapters. Chapter Two addresses the problem of the relationship between Basil and Leo, and concentrates on what is knownof their attitudes to one another rather than trying to prove if Leo wasillegitimate or not. Chapter Three is concerned with Photios's end at the hands of his ex-pupil, who deposed, exiled and tried him duringthe first year of the reign. Chapter Four is devoted to the figure ofStylianos Zaoutzes who was the emperor's right-hand man for most of the first half of the reign, and tries to gauge how accurate it is toconsider Stylianos as the true ruling force for this period. Chapter Five investigates Leo's contemporary reputation as a wise man. Chapter Six deals with the familiar tetragamy crisis, but takes a different angle by tracing Leo's marital problems from their origin and byhighlighting how the emperor sought to achieve his goals. The focusof Chapter Seven is military affairs. To avoid merely repeatingKarlin-Hayter's essential survey a more limited scope was taken, investigating the emperor's attitude to the two major military problemsof his day, Bulgaria under Symeon and Arab naval power. Chapter Eight was inspired by the commonly found image of the good relationship between the emperor and his senators, and is particularlyconcerned with Leo's relationship with his eunuchs and his strategoi of the Phokas, Doukas and Argyros families. Finally in Chapter NineLeo's brother Alexander, who was co-emperor and eventual successor, takes centre stage. Politics and people are the central interest, as well as the desire to show that Leo VI, as Jenkins and Karlin-Hayter appreciated, should not be underestimated. The fundamental problem at the root of negative perceptions of the reign of Leo VI is a source one, as Jenkins and Karlin-Hayter recognised.30 For the study of the reign the two major sources are thechronicle of Symeon the Logothete and the Life of Euthymios, whicheach have a peculiar slant. The, chronicle is marked by hostility to theMacedonian dynasty.31 It seems that the Logothete, who compiled his chronicle in the mid-tenth century, was a partisan of RomanosLekapenos, the usurper who interrupted the reign of ConstantineVII; his chronicle, the most significant part of which is the periodfrom 842 (where the chronicle of George the Monk breaks off) downto the year 948, is sympathetic to this figure at the expense of theMacedonians. Jenkins asserts that `The Logothete's selection of incidents is undoubtedly dictated by dislike of the Macedonian emperors'32, and also argues that for the years 867-913 (covering the reigns of Basil I, Leo VI, and Alexander I) the Logothete relied for hischronology on a series of annals.33 Although the Greek text of theLogothete chronicle has not been edited it is familiar from the editedvariant versions of it, such as the chronicles of Leo Grammaticus andthe Continuator of George the Monk.34 Other more distinct variants are the chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon (which is more condensed, contains regnal years, has an extreme bias against Photios and extends tothe year 962) and that of Theophanes Continuatus (which contains pro-Macedonian versions of the reigns of Michael III and Basil I andcontinues down to the year 961, but basically copies the Logotheteversion of the reign of Leo VI, though it shows a marked favouritismtowards the Phokades, Doukai and Argyroi).35 It was the Logothetewho first recorded the detail that Eudokia Ingerine was still the mistress of Michael III after her marriage to Basil the Macedonian, andthat Basil's sons Constantine, Leo and Stephen were in fact the children of Michael. It is the Logothete's negative image of the reign ofLeo VI (which is nearly two and a half times longer than his account of the reign of Basil 136) that still plagues modern accounts of it; Leopersecuted the innocent Photios, was led astray by Stylianos Zaoutzesand Samonas, and was largely powerless against the military threat ofthe Bulgarians and the Arabs. The Logothete was determined tosaynothing good about this emperor, and unfortunately Leo never received the eulogistic treatment that Constantine VII ensured was lavished on Basil", which would have injected some balance into thepicture. The other major source for the reign, the Life of Euthymios, doeshowever convey a more positive image of the emperor. This biography of the monk Euthymios (c. 832-917)36, the spiritual father of LeoVI, was probably written between the years 920-925 by someone whohad had an insider's perspective on court affairs during the reign; Karlin-Hayter asserts that the Life contains `the personal reminiscences of an eye-witness', pointing to the vivid and life-like detailscontained within the biography, particularly involving the emperorhimself.39 One especially memorable episode related is the unexpected visit of the emperor to the monastery of Euthymios at Psamathia when the monks were at dinner, and Karlin-Hayter ob-serves that `The most lively and picturesque scenes in Psamathialeave Euthymius more remote than Leo'.40 Certainly althoughEuthymios is the true hero of the Life the emperor also emerges as asympathetic figure, human and tragic with all his flaws and crises onshow. He is in turns arrogant, humble, proud, deflated, angry, distraught, mischievous and dignified. There is no doubting the value of this source for a better understanding of Leo and a knowledge of certain details of his reign. However the scope of the source is ultimately limited, for it is primarily concerned not with relating all manner of information about Leo's reign, but with explaining howEuthymios had come to replace Nikolaos as patriarch and how it wasthat he supported the granting of economy to the emperor in thematter of his fourth marriage; it was concerned with the explaining of `a situation that was not easy to explain' in the aftermath ofNikolaos's triumph as `the champion of morality' in 920.41 The Life isfurther limited by other factors. There are lacunas within the text; it is missing both its beginning and its end and there are three gaps inthe middle. Most crucially for the study of Leo VI it is missing anaccount of how Euthymios came into contact with the imperial familyand became Leo's spiritual father, his role in the episode of Leo'simprisonment, and accounts of the death of Stylianos, the coronationof Constantine VII, the death of Leo VI, the accession of Alexander I and the restoration of Nikolaos to the patriarchal throne.42 Further, although for many the truthfulness of this source is unassailable, theLife is surely untrustworthy when it comes to describing the deeds andcharacters of the two main opponents of Euthymios, StylianosZaoutzes and Nikolaos. Although Karlin-Hayter noted that de Boor thought the Life to be so fair `as to be magnanimous', and she herself describes it as `remarkably truthful', her own observation that it is`essentially a skillful defence of Euthymius' should give greater pausefor thought.43 It is true that the Life has an early date and that itsauthor is evidently familiar with events and episodes from the reign, but this is no guarantee of honesty. Karlin-Hayter's trust in the author led her to accept that Stylianos Zaoutzes was indeed an allpowerful force from the very start of Leo's reign, though she herself was not entirely convinced and notes that `the V. E. certainly exaggerates Leo's non-participation' in the purge against Photios and his family in the opening stages of the reign, a purge the Life fully ascribesto Stylianos.44 As for the case of Nikolaos Karlin-Hayter believes theLife when it asserts that the patriarch was in league with the rebel general Andronikos Doukas and that Doukas had already defected tothe Arabs by Christmas 906 when Nikolaos was still patriarch, although both the Byzantine and Arab chronicles indicate that Doukasonly defected after the fall of Nikolaos in February 907.45 IndeedKarlin-Hayter is adamant that the chronology of the Life is always tobe favoured over that of the Logothete chronicle, despite the fact that Jenkins demonstrated that the Logothete is chronologically accuratefor the years 867-913.46 Thus when it comes to the major sources forthe reign of Leo VI one is faced by a combination of a hostile chronicle and a vivid but not unbiased saint's life, a fact which accounts forthe poor image of Leo VI and his reign. Yet as both Karlin-Hayterand Jenkins knew this is not the whole picture. Jenkins observed that beyond the Logothete chronicle `there is a cloud of other witness tothe essential goodness of his [Leo VI's] character and to the soundness of his policies'47, whilst Karlin-Hayter noted that there is `a variety of other sources' that `refuses to fit [the] picture' that is delineatedby the two major sources.48 A consideration of this varied cloud constitutes the rest of this introduction. Several of the authors of sources that date to or concern the reignof Leo VI were officials of the emperor, and many of them are well known for their own roles in Byzantine history. Some of the authorswere emperors themselves, such as Leo's father Basil I. There havesurvived two parainetic texts, that is addresses of advice, written as iffrom the emperor Basil I to his son and heir Leo VI.49 These textsowe much to previous examples of the genre such as Isocrates's ToNicocles and To Demonicus, but they are especially indebted to a sixthcentury AD example, that of the parainesis of Agapitos, a deacon ofHagia Sophia, to the emperor Justinian I (527-565).50 The two paraineseis for Leo were probably written in 879 and 886 respectively, after Leo's promotion to heir-apparent and then again on hisrestoration as heir-apparent after his release from imprisonment. Basil in fact is probably not the real author, and the patriarch Photiosis the favourite candidate for the authorship of the First Parainesis.
Thetexts themselves are not concerned with the concrete details of how tobe a good emperor and how to govern well; they deal with the realmsof ideology, though sometimes it may be suspected that a certainphrase or comment has particular relevance to political actualities. Despite this the texts are valuable for the study of Leo's life and reignfor they are a good barometer for the political atmosphere, and alsoas ideology is a crucial factor to consider in the assessment of thereign of any emperor. In his capacity as atriklines Philotheos compiled in September 899the text known as the h'Kletorologion, which describes the order of precedence that was in use in the imperial palace in Constantinople at that time and the various feasts that occurred throughout the courseof the Byzantine calendar, with the stated objective of creating an upto-date handbook for the members of Philotheos's own profession.51This text is basic to an understanding of the middle Byzantine imperial administrative system, particularly as it existed at an exact moment in the reign of Leo VI.52 The text does however cast light onother aspects of the reign. For example it testifies that the emperor was already renowned for his wisdom, and also gives some indications as to why this was so; it reports the changes that Leo made in certainceremonies and the order of precedence; it reveals the high proportion of feasts celebrated throughout the year that had as their focusthe glorification of the Macedonian dynasty, but also suggests that thememory of Michael III was a consideration; and it also casually indicates that the empress Zoe Zaoutzaina, Leo's second wife, was still alive in September 899.
It is surely a text which has more interest than has been appreciated. One of the most intriguing figures in the reign of Leo VI is LeoChoirosphaktes, a diplomat and relative of the emperor. His career was already in progress under Basil I whom he served as mystikos, but it was under Leo that he came to particular prominence, as a successful ambassador to the courts of Bulgaria and Bagdad, as a suspectedHellene, and as a letter writer and poet.53 Several of his letters fromthe course of his career have survived, together with letters of thosemen whom he had contact with, and these letters give greater depthto certain episodes of the reign. For instance there is the correspondence between Choirosphaktes and the Bulgarian leader Symeon fromthe negotiations in the aftermath of the Byzantine defeat in 896; theletters between Choirosphaktes and his friends whilst he was still inBagdad in 906 on a mission to conclude a peace between theByzantines and the Arabs, but also to bring back writs of economyfrom the eastern patriarchs for the fourth marriage of the emperor; and finally the pleas for liberty Choirosphaktes sent to Leo VI afterhis exile towards the end of the reign. These letters contain a wealthof valuable details, such as the recognition of the emperor's skill inastronomy, the outcome of the embassies that Choirosphaktes wasinvolved in, and some of the factors that led to his own fall and exile.
A certain amount of Choirosphaktes's poetry has also survived, andthis too adds to the knowledge of Leo VI and his reign. For instancehis poem for the occasion of the unveiling of the palace bath built bythe emperor has, thanks to the studies of Magdalino54, revealed muchof the further dimensions of the reign that would never be guessedfrom a reading of the chronicles. Choirosphaktes also wrote poems onthe occasion of one of the emperor's weddings, the coronation ofConstantine VII, and the deaths of Leo the Philosopher, Photios andthe patriarch Stephen.55 Arethas is also a key figure from the .reign, as well as being anextremely important commentator upon it.56 Originally from Patrasit appears that Arethas came into contact with Leo through Basil I. Throughout the reign, and beyond, he is found wearing many different hats, and his writings document them all. Before becoming archbishop of Caesarea he is found as the author of orations for certaincourt occasions in the years 901-902.
These orations have great import, for they represent all the panegyrics on Leo VI that are possessed, and they also reflect key events such as the appointment of Nikolaos as patriarch in March 901, the translation of the relics of Lazaros to Constantinople by the emperor, and certain incidents inthe field of foreign affairs.57 However Arethas became an enemy of the emperor over the fourth marriage, and was in fact the leadingfigure of the opposition., From this period in his career several of his letters survive voicing his disapproval.58 Yet after the opposition lost the battle when the emperor won his economy from the pope and theeastern patriarchs in 907 Arethas was reconciled, and in his writings of this phase he is found justifying his apparent change of side.59 It was during this period of realignment with the imperial will that Arethas composed a vicious assault upon the exiled LeoChoirosphaktes who had been writing to the emperor and trying topersuade him to liberate him.
This tract was called Choirosphaktes or Wizard-Hater (Miaoyorls), an allusion to the Beard-Hater of Choirosphaktes's pagan literary hero the emperor Julian (361-363), and was designed to prevent the emperor from giving in to the exiled Leo.60 It is a fascinating document, both for its brutal animosity and for what it reveals of the reasons for Choirosphaktes's disgrace. His writings after the death of Leo VI are also of interest for the effects of thetetragamy crisis continued to be felt, especially as Nikolaos had returned to the patriarchal throne and set about ousting those who had replaced him and his clergy. Again Arethas conducted a war ofwords.61 During this period he also wrote another pro-economydocument, but in another format; this is his funeral oration onEuthymios who died in 917.62 This text fills in some of the blanks ofthe Life of Euthymios, such as the early career of Euthymios, as well asfurther detailing the crimes of Nikolaos and Alexander. In the studyof the reign of Leo VI an appreciation and knowledge of Arethas'swritings plays a vital part, as Jenkins acknowledged and as is clearfrom Dolley's erroneous conclusions based on his dating of the arrival of the relics of Lazaros in Byzantium, a dating that did not take intoaccount the testimony of Arethas.63 Another figure who features prominently in the tetragamy crisis isNikolaos, who was patriarch from 901-907 and again from 912-925, and he too has left behind a corpus of letters and documents.64 Hewas a friend of Leo from his youth, being his fellow student andspiritual brother, and he had a lengthy career under the emperor, first as his mystikos and then as patriarch.
It is unfortunate that thebulk of his writings, his letters, only date from his career after Leo'sdeath, a fact that has prompted the suggestion that his earlier lettersmay have been destroyed in the course of the dispute over the fourthmarriage.65 However some of the surviving letters do refer back toevents of Leo's reign. Of particular importance is one that was written soon after Nikolaos's return to the patriarchal throne in 912, forin it he sets forth to the pope his version of the tetragamy affair. Inother letters Nikolaos alludes to military events and church affairsduring the reign. Of Nikolaos's other writings that date from thereign one of particular interest is his homily on the fall of Thessa lonike which he appears to have delivered shortly after the event.66Although the evident gap in Nikolaos's corpus of letters is to be regretted those writings that he has left behind that touch on the reignare of value. Leo VI himself was also a prolific writer, and exercised his pen ina broad range of fields; he wrote guides on military matters, compiledand produced collections of laws, wrote homilies, orations, hymnsand poems, and also composed a guide on the spiritual life for monks.67
All these works are of relevance in an appreciation of Leoand his reign but some stand out as being of key importance. Thoseof his homilies which have been recognised as of particular historical interest are his funeral oration on his parents, his speech on theinstallation of his brother Stephen as patriarch, and his homily on thefeast of Elijah; the funeral oration delivered in 888 reveals Leo'spublic attitude to his Macedonian origins, the speech on Stephen'sinstallation indicates that not everyone was happy with this appointment, and the Elijah homily revolves around the emperor's fall in 883and subsequent restoration in 886 and expresses Leo's guilt. Of thelegal work the collection of Novels (new laws) is most significant for it conveys the emperor's attitude to various issues, highlights points of ideology, and attests to the important position of Stylianos Zaoutzessince most of the Novels are addressed to him.
Of great importance is the Taktika, Leo's handbook on war for his generals. Although basedon previous manuals, especially the sixth-century Strategikon, it hasmuch to offer to an appreciation of the emperor and his reign; it contains some references to episodes from the reign, reveals Leo'sattitudes on several matters but most obviously that of war and themilitary situation of his day, and above all indicates that this was anemperor who was concerned with foreign affairs. Although Constantine VII never produced or commissioned anaccount of his father's reign there are surviving works of this emperor and his milieu that add to the sum of knowledge on the life and deedsof Leo VI. The most significant of these must be the guide on foreignaffairs that Constantine produced for his own son Romanos II between 948-952, known as the De Administrando Imperio.68 This text isvital in proving that Leo's military record is not as appalling as theLogothete makes out. Amongst the stories relating to military affairsin the west, north and east of the empire of Leo VI its information onthe creation and reorganisation of themes and the intense diplomaticactivity with Krikorikios of Taron is of especial note. It also toucheson more domestic matters, containing episodes relating to two ofLeo's chief aides, Samonas and Himerios, and details the building oftwo imperial galleys by the emperor.
The Book of Themes is also ofinterest, relating Leo's importance in the creation and development of some themes and mentioning known people and episodes from thereign.69 The Book of Ceremonies is naturally significant, and also recordsceremonies that Leo was involved in either as a participant or as anaugmenter or creator.70 It was in this work that Philotheos'sKletorologion was preserved, and it also reveals that Leo commissionedLeo Katakalon to produce a work on imperial expeditions, whichConstantine VII later found and exploited.71 It also describes theforces amassed for a Cretan expedition under Leo. Whilst Leo maynot have got his own Life he does feature in that of Basil, as animperial son and heir whose particular qualities were mildness andwisdom, depicted in mosaic and educated by Photios, as the client and heir of Basil's own Peloponnesian patroness Danelis, and aboveall as the innocent and passive victim of Basil's detested favouriteTheodore Santabarenos.
The Life of Euthymios is not the sole hagiographical work touchingon the reign. One of the most significant others is the Life of Theophano, the emperor's sainted first wife.72 The author73 of this text, a friend of,Theophano's family, describes not just the life and death ofTheophano but is especially concerned to relate the benefits the saintbrought to his family in the way of miraculous cures. Strikingly theLife makes no mention of the tension between Leo and Theophano, and Ryden has described it as `a quite competent cover-up of sadhistorical facts'.74 It does however provide information about episodesfrom Leo's early life, such as his marriage to Theophano, his imprisonment and the circumstances of his release. Remarkably it preservesa positive image of Stylianos Zaoutzes, a fact which indicates that itwas written when Stylianos was still in favour, or at least that it haspreserved an early version of the Life. Most of the other existing Lives touch on Leo and his reign in amuch less direct fashion. The Life of Constantine the Jew is of note sinceit includes an episode relating to Leo's imprisonment.75 It recordsthat Constantine, a converted Jew who became a monk and residedon Mount Olympos, visited Constantinople when Leo was in prisonunder the threat of death. At this time Constantine predicted to themonks with whom he was staying that Leo would be released, accedeto the throne on his father's death and that his subjects would benefitfrom his rule.76
There is evident pro-Leo sentiment; again he is theinnocent victim, again he is loved by the populace of Constantinople, and his future rule is described in terms of approval, all of whichinspires the conclusion that the author of the Life lived during Leo'sreign.77 An episode where Leo's sister Anna consults Constantine isalso of note. Several episodes in the Life of Blasios also involve the emperor.78Blasios was a native of a suburb of Amorion, and had served in Constantinople as one of the patriarch Ignatios's clergy before endingup in Rome via Bulgaria. He stayed in Rome for eighteen years andreturned to Constantinople in the reign of Leo VI when AntonyKauleas was patriarch (893-901). He took up residence in the Studitemonastery, where he was eventually buried and where his Life waswritten, probably around 930.79 Blasios's contact with the emperorbegan on his return to Constantinople, and the author of the Lifereveals information of interest when describing their relationship. Heasserts that Leo was a customary calligrapher, that the emperor hadseen Blasios in a dream, and that he issued Blasios with a chrysobull protecting the rights of the monks on Mount Athos. Other episodesand figures from the reign are mentioned too. A barbarian assault onDemetrias is referred to, the Studite monastery and its abbot Anatolios are discussed, and the patriarch Antony Kauleas is mentioned.
The Life of Theoktista, the story of a woman taken prisoner fromLesbos by the Arabs in the early ninth century but who managed toescape on the island of Paros, is known to have been written byNiketas the magistros, a familiar historical figure .8' He became thefather-in-law of Romanos Lekapenos's son Christopher, and was subsequently exiled for urging his son-in-law to oust his father and takepower for himself Niketas relates that he heard the story about Theoktista during a stop off on the island of Paros during a diplomatic mission to Crete in the time of Leo VI. His comments about hisown life and his attitude to Leo's reign are also of interest. He assertsthat he served his apprenticeship in the navy under the greatHimerios, and that the fortunes of the Byzantine empire had diedupon the demise of Leo VI. Such an attitude contrasts starkly withthe gloomy vision of the Logothete, yet Niketas's opinion is shared bythe author of a homily on the peace concluded with the Bulgarianempire in 927 who looks back upon Leo's reign as a golden age ofpeace and prosperity.81 It is notable that all the above Lives, just like that of Euthymios, convey an extremely positive image of Leo VI. The one exception tothis trend is the conjectured Life of Niketas David, conjectured because this text only exists in fragmentary form.82
The evident hero of these fragments is the figure Niketas, the one time pupil of Arethas and one of the most vociferous opponents of the emperor's fourth marriage.83It is no surprise then that in this text Leo is portrayed as a sinning andsavage tyrant in the mould of iconoclastic persecutors and martyrmaking governors. Here Leo is certainly not `most wise' but in fact `most lewd'. However the fragments are of undoubted interest whenthe stereotypes are set to one side. There is intriguing informationregarding Niketas's trials and imprisonment under Leo and the emperor's concern for the succession of his son Constantine. In addition to single Lives there are collections recording the feast days of various saints and events, where a small entry is usually alsoincluded giving detail upon these subjects. The most notable of these is the Synaxarion of Constantinople, which was probably compiled under the emperor Constantine VII.84 Here there is much informationtouching on Leo's reign, such as details on his brother Stephen, the patriarch Antony Kauleas, the empress Theophano again, the eunuch Constantine, and the relics of Lazaros that were brought toConstantinople by the emperor. One striking absence is Euthymios. Another curious feature is an episode concerning the curing of theempress 'Zoe, Leo's second wife, by the laying on of the relic of thegirdle of the Virgin, an episode that has particular chronological ramifications. 85 Several non-Byzantine authors and texts also deserve mention.
Of these the most significant is the Arab chronicler Tabari. Tabari, whodied in 923, chronicled events from the beginning of the world downto 910 AD and provides information on military and diplomatic events from Leo's lifetime.86 His testimony is particularly appreciatedgiven the inadequacies of the Logothete record. Another Arab historian worthy of mention is Masudi (896-956), who often has snippetsof unique information on Byzantine-Arab affairs during the reign, nodoubt picked up during his wide-ranging travels; it is known that hemet Leo of Tripoli in 921, a man who caused that Byzantines muchtrouble as an effective naval commander.87 Of western writers the one who has most to say about Leo is thefamed Liudprand of Cremona, who probably picked up stories about the emperor during his diplomatic visits to the city of Constantinople, particularly that of 949 to the emperor Constantine VII.` From thepages of his Antapodosis Leo leaps out as a mischievous figure, suggesting that his behaviour evinced by his surprise visit to Psamathia recorded by the Life of Euthymios was more typical than might otherwisebe guessed. Liudprand also fascinates with his details on Michael IIIand Basil I, and on the Bulgar Symeon, Leo's archenemy.
The Russian Primary Chronicle is also noteworthy, for it refers toByzantium's relations with the Rus during Leo's reign. It is a twelfthcentury document written in Slavonic, and it details the assault ofOleg the prince of Kiev on the Constantinople of Leo VI in 907, andthe resultant treaties.89 Given the unusual nature of this text its evidence was once hotly debated and denied, but due primarily to thework of Vasiliev it is generally accepted that the information doeshave some historical validity.90 The above survey of sources has by no means been exhaustive but has simply sought to highlight those texts that are of particular significance for the study of Leo VI and his reign. A wealth of other itemsdo have relevance and importance, such as letters, poems, inscriptions, seals, coins, documents, works of art, and incidental notes in other chronicles, histories and saints's Lives. Notice and discussion of these, as well as elaboration on the texts and authors already cited, will appear when appropriate in the relevant Chapters.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق