Normas de Acotación

The Vita Basilii is a eulogistic biography of the Emperor Basil I, commissioned and perhaps even written by his grandson, the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, in the mid-tenth century.192 The work is often thought of as the fifth book of six in the

Theophanes Continuatus, a volume of separate histories compiled c.963 and covering

the period 813-960. Around the time the Vita was published, the Basileiai of the courtier Genesios appeared. Genesios’ work chronicles the period 814-886, and, since it too was part of Constantine VII’s historical programme, one observes many similarities in the accounts of the reign of Basil, presumably indicative of a common source.193

The Vita Basilii has been the subject of much study relating to its genre and the presentation of both Basil and his ousted predecessor Michael III.194 The Vita has also been mined by J. G. C. Anderson and Norman Tobias for its information on campaigns conducted by Basil and his subordinates, though Tobias gives little thought to the provenance of this military content, persisting only with the reconstruction of events.195 Romily Jenkins considered that ‘much painstaking, and comparatively speaking, honest work’ went into the Vita Basilii’s accounts of Basil’s campaigns,196

192

Ševčenko (1998). As the production and form of the Vita is discussed in chapter four (285-286) we will not concern ourselves with such matters here.

193

First observed by Hirsch (1876): 229-230. For the relationship between the two texts see Kaldellis (1998): ix-xiv, where it is suggested that the similarities may have been a consequence of Genesios’ dependency on the Vita Basilii. This contradicts the views of Franjo Barišić (1958) and Athanasios Markopoulos (2009b), who persuasively argue that Genesios wrote first. For detailed discussion on the ties between Book IV of the Theophanes Continuatus and the Vita Basilii, see Varona (2009).

194

See, for example, Adontz (1933a; 1934); Jenkins (1948); Moravcsik (1961); Maguire (1983): 91-93; Dagron (1984): 74-97; Markopoulos (1994): 160-164; Kazhdan (2006): 137-144.

195

Tobias’ work (2007) fills an obvious void - Basil’s foreign policy did not generally concern Albert Vogt (1908) in his influential monograph on Basil’s reign. The articles by Anderson (1896; 1897) remain useful for reconstructing Basil’s campaigns.

196

and on this point Arnold Toynbee was in general agreement.197 Further investigation is necessary to test the validity of these claims.

Historical Method

Indication of the research undertaken by the author of the Vita Basilii is found in the narrative. The preface to the Theophanes Continuatus notes: ‘You have gathered together material partly from works written down here and there by some authors, and partly from oral tradition’.198 To what extent this statement applies to the historical method of the Vita Basilii is unclear; scholarship is increasingly moving towards distinguishing the first four books of the Theophanes Continuatus from the Vita

Basilii.199 We may, in any case, postulate a similar research programme behind the latter text, which interrupts its coverage of Basil’s eastern campaigns to discuss narrative approach and source material:

Let no one wonder or cavil if we have reported such momentous events succinctly or in barest outline, as if in a rapid survey. On the one hand, our narrative has imitated, as it were, the speed of those actions and has been for that very reason so simple and cursory – for, indeed, those <strongholds> were then conquered, and those missions accomplished, in less time than it takes now to tell the tale. On the other hand, because the long years that have already elapsed here, so to speak, blurred the details of these deeds, silencing <what happened> in between, and

197

Toynbee (1973): 594.

198

τὰ µὲν ἐκ τῶν γεγραµµένων σποράδην τισί, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἀκοῇ παραδεδοµένων συνηθροικὼς (Theophanes Continuatus: 4.21-5.2. Greek text taken from the revised prooimion found in Ševčenko 1998: 82.37-39, trans. 85).

199

Ševčenko (1998: 87-89) determined that the preface only applied to the four-book Theophanes Continuatus. The forthcoming CFHB critical editions, which offer separate publications of the Vita Basilii and Theophanes Continuatus (Books I-IV and VI), suggest that we should move away from the traditional six-book idea popularized by the CSHB edition of Immanuel Bekker.

because we lack the knowledge needed both to given an account of the various orders of battle, methods of attack, extension or contraction of phalanx

formations, and to tell what opportune uses were made of military stratagems, it has been impossible for us to devote much time to single points, or, so to speak, lovingly linger over them, all of which are devices used to draw out the story. As for the things whose credibility does not rest on evidence, even if they perchance are passed on by word of mouth, we do not want to accept them merely on faith, to avoid the appearance of offering the emperor a fictitious narrative of deeds that never happened; all the more so, because in his lifetime he himself plainly

frowned upon fawning flattery uttered for the sake of currying favour. We who have neither the ability nor the leisure to commit to writing what is a matter of universal agreement can hardly be expected to indulge in long disquisitions about what is controversial.200

The Vita Basilii generally summarizes campaigns, even those involving Basil. The above admission suggests there were two reasons for this. The first argues that the campaigns were as described - swift and often consisting of little more than the

capture of fortresses. It seems that the author had no desire to write dramatic accounts of siege warfare, and his audience little interest in reading them. The siege

200 Εἰ δὲ συντόµως τε καὶ ψιλῶς τὰ οὕτω µεγάλα οἱονεὶ κατ’ ἐπιδροµὴν ἀπαγγέλλοµεν, µηδεὶς θαυµαζέτω, ἀλλὰ µηδὲ ἐγκαλείτω. ἅµα γὰρ τὴν ταχύτητα τῶν πράξεων ἐκείνων µιµεῖσθαι ἡ διήγησις ἔοικεν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως ἐστὶν ἁπλῆ τε καὶ ἐπιτρέχουσα· θᾶττον γὰρ ᾑρέθη τότε ἐκεῖνα καὶ <τὰ> τῶν πράξεων ἔλαβε τὴν συντέλειαν, ἢ νῦν ἀπήγγελται. ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐπεὶ ὁ χρόνος ἤδη ῥεύσας διὰ µέσου πολὺς τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα τῶν ἔργων διὰ τῆς µεταξὺ σιγῆς οἷον ἡµαύρωσεν, καὶ οὔτε παρατάξεων τρόπους οὔτε προσβολῶν ἐφόδους οὔτε φαλάγγων ἐκτάσεις καὶ συστολὰς οὔτε στρατηγηµάτων ἐπικαίρους χρήσεις εἰδέναι καὶ ἀπαγγέλλειν ἔχοµεν, οὐκ ἔστι περὶ τὰ κατὰ µέρος ἐγχρονίζειν καὶ οἷον ἐµφιλοχωρεῖν, ἐξ ὧν πλατύνεται τὸ διήγηµα. τὰ δὲ ἀµάρτυρον ἔχοντα τὴν πίστιν, εἰ καὶ λέγεται πολλάκις, ἀλλ’ ἡµεῖς ἀβασανίστως προσδέχεσθαι οὐ βουλόµεθα διὰ τὸ µὴ δόξαι πεπλασµένην µὴ γεγονότων πραγµάτων διήγησιν ἀνατιθέναι τῷ βασιλεῖ, µάλιστα ὅτι οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνος ἔτι ζῶν τὰ πρὸς χάριν θωπευτικῶς ὑποτρέχοντα ῥήµατα ἐφαίνετο προσιέµενος. οἱ δὲ µηδὲ τὰ παρὰ πάντων ὁµολογούµενα δυνάµενοι ἢ σχολάζοντες παραδοῦναι γραφῇ, σχολῇ γ’ ἂν περὶ τὰ ἀµφίβολα τὸν λόγον ἀποµηκύνοιµεν (Vita Basilii: §47.1-20; trans. 167-169).

descriptions of Leo the Deacon indicate that this state of affairs would soon change dramatically, though this development is discussed in its proper place.201 The author of the Vita also insists that detailed knowledge about campaigns was lacking, as many years had elapsed since the reign of Basil. There is also a suggestion that certain information, perhaps overly favourable to Basil, was considered suspect, and

subsequently omitted. Prima facie, it would appear that the author of the Vita Basilii did not have access to extensive written material on the military ventures of Basil’s reign. It is however possible that the author is excusing a lack of interest in military exposition; he might also be addressing concerns that he indiscriminately included all eulogistic stories about his subject, a defence later made by Anna Komnene when writing her Alexiad.202

The military content of the Vita Basilii is at least unlikely to derive entirely from oral sources. In the passage quoted above, the author indicates that he was wary of accepting oral evidence ‘without examination’ (ἀβασανίστως). While the passage recalls the famous admonition of Thucydides, the author of the Vita Basilii may actually be alluding to the greater authority of written sources. Joseph Genesios, writing around the same time, insists that he relied exclusively upon oral accounts: ‘I have now undertaken the complex task of writing…by listening both to men who lived then and who have some limited knowledge of what transpired and to oral traditions that have come down from that time’.203 How literally one should take this

201

See below, 51-57.

202

For further discussion on the ambiguity in this passage of the Vita Basilii, see van Hoof (2002): 165- 166. Anna Komnene’s tendency to interrupt her account and assure the reader of her impartiality and the veracity of her text is discussed below, 103-109.

203

ὅθεν κἀγὼ νῦν τὴν περὶ τούτων γραφικὴν σπουδὴν πολυτρόπως ἀνῃρηµένος, ἔκ τε τῶν τότε βεβιωκότων καὶ ἀµωσγέπως εἰδότων ἔκ τε φήµης δῆθεν δραµούσης ἠκουτισµένος (Genesios: pr.10-12; trans. 3).

statement is contestable,204 though in any case the extensive time passed since Genesios came to write about these events raises serious doubts. Therefore, while at least one historian of the court of Constantine VII presented his historical

investigation in the Thucydidean tradition of interviewing eyewitnesses and acquiring information orally, the reality, as the prooimion to Theophanes Continuatus and the method passage of the Vita Basilii suggest, was almost certainly very different.

Sources for Military Narratives

If Romily Jenkins accepted the Vita’s claims that information on Basil’s campaigns was lacking, we must conclude that he merely gained the impression that extensive research was undertaken from the actual accounts of military operations conducted by Basil and his subordinates. Suggestions as to the written sources behind these

accounts are not lacking. Cyril Mango postulates the existence of a lost encomium of Basil I, the hypothesized common source used also by Genesios.205 Yet a lost

encomium of Basil I would not account for all episodes described by the Vita Basilii, not least those expeditions involving only Basil’s subordinates. Mango further discerned a ‘selective use’ of archival material, namely inventories and diplomatic reports, though was less certain about the origin of the Vita’s accounts of Basil’s wars. The frequent lists of minor forts captured,206 Mango considers, ‘points to a factually circumstantial source rather than a rhetorical encomium’;207 that Constantine VII was able to locate at least one detailed report of a triumph held by Basil I in 878 may

204

Kaldellis (1998: 3 n.1) notes that ‘ἀκούειν’ might mean ‘reading’ rather than ‘listening’, and thus Genesios could here be referring to textual research, and not, as Ljubarskij (1997) determines, purely oral sources.

205

Mango (2011): 10-11. See also Alexander (1939), where it is suggested that the funeral encomium for Basil delivered by his son Leo VI was consulted by the author of the Vita Basilii.

206

For example, Vita Basilii: §40.19-21, 43-45; §46.35-38.

207

suggest that records of imperial campaigns were also available.208 This idea tallies with that of Mark Whittow, who suggests - without elaboration - dispatch origins for the Vita’s accounts of Basil’s campaigns.209 Whittow’s proposal, however, is

inconsistent with the claims of the author of the Vita to be lacking military details and accurate dates: ‘…because the exact date of each deed was not known, [the wars of Basil] have been recounted in one sequence in the present account’.210 The problem is underlined by Paul Lemerle, who has shown the chronology of the Vita Basilii to be particularly suspect in regard to Basil’s wars against the Paulicians.211

Nevertheless, when we consider the detail provided for certain episodes, and the unlikelihood of oral sources, Mango and Whittow are surely correct to suggest that the author had written accounts at his disposal. The independent actions of the admirals Niketas Ooryphas and Nasar against the Arabs of Sicily and Crete, related with command perspective and extensive detail, are suggestive of post-campaign reports filed by these generals.212 Another commander subject to a lengthy narrative is Andrew the Scythian, domestikos ton scholon under Basil and victor over an Arab army at Podandos near Tarsos. Upon his return to Constantinople, Andrew was not rewarded but slandered to the emperor by jealous men who accused him of cowardice

208

Constantine VII, Text C: ll.724-807 describes a triumph held by Basil I upon his return from Tephrike and Germanikeia. John Haldon (1990: 54-55, 58) suggests that information offered by Constantine in his treatises on imperial expeditions may have derived from official records of Basil’s campaigns: ‘These may have been official accounts preserved in the palatine archive, perhaps intended originally for the glorification of the emperor; or accounts extracted from some now-lost encomiastic compositions’. 209 Whittow (1996a): 356. 210 εἰ δὲ µὴ συνηµµέναι τοῖς χρόνοις ἀλλήλαις αἱ πράξεις ἐτύγχανον, ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ διήγησις, ἀλλ’ ὅµως ἐπεὶ ὁ ἑκάστης πράξεως ἀκριβὴς ἠγνοεῖτο χρόνος, διὰ τοῦτο µίαν κατὰ τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν τάξιν ἐδέξατο ἅπαντα (Vita Basilii: §71.29-33; trans. 247).

211

Lemerle (1973): 96-108.

212

Vita Basilii: §§52-55, §§60-61 (Ooryphas); §§62-65 (Nasar). For these actions, and discussion of Basil’s western policy in general, see Tobias (2007): 124-128, 153-201. The author omits a number of actions performed by independent generals – including Andrew the Scythian and Nikephoros Phokas – known from other sources. See again ibid: 130-133, 140-141.

for not pressing on to capture Tarsos. Having been dismissed from command, Andrew was replaced by Stypeiotes, who is shown to be a foolish and inexperienced general in the subsequent account of his own attempt to take Tarsos, suffering a disastrous defeat through his negligence.213 Alexander Kazhdan proposed that the author of the Vita Basilii drew upon an oral or written hagiographical source, which apparently related Andrew’s success, showed him to be the victim of an injustice, and presented his replacement as inept in the field.214 Cyril Mango recently dismissed Kazhdan’s hypothesis without further consideration,215 though the intense piety displayed by Andrew, which sees him weep upon receiving a letter from the emir of Tarsos blaspheming against the Virgin Mary, and consequently invoking her

assistance, is difficult to otherwise explain if it did not originate in a semi-

hagiographical source. Invective against Stypeiotes alongside this praise is extremely consistent with ‘historical hagiography’ of the late ninth and early tenth century.216

A strong candidate for an informed written source is the lengthy narrative of the defeat of the Paulician heretic Chrysocheir and his subsequent death, which, Mango opines, ‘reads as if it were due to an eyewitness’.217 Genesios’ account of the same events, which is remarkably similar, is thought by Lemerle to have been drawn from the testimony of a witness, ‘peut-être au rapport d’un officier, qu’il [Genesios] aurait pu consulter dans les archives du Palais’.218 Only a participating officer could have

213

Vita Basilii: §§50-51. According to another source, Symeon the Logothete (132.25; 133.3, 6-10), Andrew was removed because Theodore Santaberenos, a court favourite of Basil, accused him of siding with Basil’s son, Leo, in a dispute against his father. It is subsequently revealed that he was reinstated following Stypeiotes’ defeat.

214 Kazhdan (1993). 215 Mango (2011): 13. 216 See below, 280-285. 217

Mango (2011): 13; Vita Basilii: §§41-43. For discussion of this campaign see Kaegi (1981a): 281- 282; Tobias (2007): 111-114.

218

furnished details on the dispute between the soldiers of the Charsian and Armeniakon themes, the tactical dispositions which brought victory in the battle, and the pursuit and slaying of Chrysocheir by one Poulades, complete, in both accounts, with speech elements. Genesios and the author of the Vita Basilii clearly consulted a common source, though the Vita extends the account to relate Basil’s reaction to receiving the head of Chrysocheir. He shot three arrows into it, fulfilling an earlier promise he had made to God prior to the expedition, and disclosed at the beginning of the Vita’s account of this campaign. The bookending of the expedition with a tale confirming God’s support for Basil, a theme consistent with the propaganda of his reign,219 indicates that the original source was a commemorative written account of the expedition, perhaps based on dispatches and eyewitness testimony but crucially not neglecting Basil and the divine cause of victory over a heretical enemy. Even if the elements concerning Basil, not present in Genesios’ account, were invented by the author of the Vita Basilii, then Lemerle’s suggestion of an official report written by an officer serving in the expedition is the only plausible alternative.

The Campaigns of Basil I: Panegyric and Distortion

There can be few doubts that the author of the Vita Basilii drew upon encomiastic material from Basil’s lifetime or possibly more detailed dispatches, as Cyril Mango suggests. If the Vita Basilii derived from an encomium of Basil, praise of the emperor and the glossing over of his failures is to be expected.220 Basil is the focalizer for many of his campaigns, and there are numerous episodes attesting to his commitment and heroism. In the narrative of Basil’s eastern campaigns of 871-873, it is reported

219

See Moravcsik (1961).

220

For such recommendations, see Menander Rhetor, Peri Epideiktikon: 368.3-8. The potential influence of Menander’s treatise on imperial orations on the format of the Vita Basilii is discussed by van Hoof (2002).

that the emperor ordered the construction of a bridge over the swollen Euphrates, joining his soldiers in the endeavour, lifting with ease what it otherwise took three soldiers to carry.221 A very similar tale features in the Taktika of Leo VI, confirming that the story predated the Vita Basilii, and strengthening the notion that it was propagated nearer to Basil’s lifetime. Leo’s additional note that Basil saved many soldiers from great danger during the crossing indicates that the original episode may have been even more generous in its praise of the emperor.222 A comparable sense of commitment is observed in the Vita Basilii’s report of Basil’s campaign in northern Syria in 877-878. While traversing rough terrain around Kallipolis and Padasia, Basil led by example, dismounting and proceeding on foot through the narrow passes.223 References to Basil’s military prowess are surprisingly few, though an abstract one is observed in the account of the attack on Melitene in 873:

[Basil] made a show of bravery, so that not only those under him, but also the enemy were astounded by his courage and fortitude. For he engaged the enemy with prudence and vigour, revealed high spirit in deeds, and distinguished himself in acts of daring, showed courage and imperturbability in the very midst of

danger, and amidst much slaughter was the first to turn back the enemy.224

221

Vita Basilii: §40.1-15.

222

‘We recall that our ever-memorable father and emperor Basil did this when he was on campaign against Germanikeia in Syria. He arrived at the river called Paradeisos and stationed himself in the middle of it with lamps, and in his presence and in safety the entire army under his command made the crossing easily and securely. He frequently gave a hand and, by himself, saved several soldiers from great danger’ (Leo VI, Taktika: §9.14; trans. 159).

223 Vita Basilii: §48.5-8. 224 τὴν οἰκείαν ἀρετὴν ἐπεδείξατο, ὡς µὴ µόνον τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς πολεµίους περιφανῶς ἐκπλαγῆναι τὴν ἀνδρείαν αὐτοῦ καὶ εὐχέρειαν. ἐµφρόνως γὰρ ἅµα καὶ νεανικῶς προσµίξας τοῖς πολεµίοις καὶ κατὰ χεῖρα γενναῖος φανεὶς καὶ τόλµῃ διαφέρων καὶ παρὰ <τὰ> δεινὰ ὁρώµενος εὐθαρσής τε καὶ ἀκατάπληκτος, πρῶτος τοὺς ἀντιτεταγµένους ἐτρέψατο φόνῳ πολλῷ (ibid: §40.21-30; trans. 145).

The deeds attributed to Basil here are non-specific, and the praise rather standard for a soldier emperor, rather suggestive of encomia.225

Another element of this pro-Basil slant is that setbacks suffered by the emperor appear to be played down. According to the Vita Basilii, Basil abandoned a siege of the Paulician capital of Tephrike in 871 because the defences of the city were too

strong.226 However, the hostile Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete alleges that Basil was defeated in many battles outside the city, and would have been captured had he not been saved by one Theophylact Abastakos.227 This historicity of this report is just as questionable, for this rendition of Symeon’s chronicle was favourable to the

Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos, and Abastakos happened to be Romanos’ father.228 Paul Lemerle prefers the account of Symeon, though Tobias employs evidence from Arabic sources which suggests that Basil at least conducted a disciplined

withdrawal.229 More intriguing is the decision of Genesios to include reports of Chrysocheir’s damaging counter-raids the following year and Basil’s failed

negotiations, a set of events viewed by Mango as ‘inglorious’ to Basil and perhaps for this reason omitted from the Vita Basilii.230 When Basil besieged Melitene in 873, he was again frustrated in his efforts, with the Vita Basilii asserting that the imperial army forced the defenders to retreat within the city before Basil, observing the

225

Jenkins (1954) proposes that the Vita Basilii drew upon a number of ancient texts, many now lost, so it may be the case that there are classical models for some of Basil’s purported feats. Certainly, later individuals were written about in similar fashion by authors seeking to lavish praise upon their subjects. Basil partaking in heavy labour to encourage his troops is reminiscent of the conduct of Nikephoros II Phokas at Antioch in 968 (Leo the Deacon: 74.12-15), which, translators Talbot & Sullivan note, is in itself similar to an episode in the Vita of St. Nikon (§35.24-25), where the saint carries stones to the site of a proposed new church to encourage the people of Sparta to supply building materials. Imperial panegyrics boasted that Manuel I Komnenos had physically contributed to the construction of new fortifications at Dorylaion and Soublaion – see in general Stone (2003).