GYZi-1 NTION

Rgvua b~TERNATtoNat.e DE) ÉTuoes ByzaNTINES

fondée en 1924
par Paul GRAINDOR et Henri GRÉGOIRE

Oraane de la Société belge d'Études byzantines

xxxv (f965)

MÉMORIAL
HENRI GRÉGOIRE

Publü avec le concours du Ministère 'de l'Éducation nationale et de la Culture

HE:'\Rl (;R{(;()!Ri' BRUXELLES

i IHB l-I <)i) l' FONDATION BYZANTINE
ROE DU MUSÉ&, 5
1965

02 0 0 2
158 H. HUNGER
Bevor Belthandros sein endgültiges Urteil spricht, prüft
er an der letzten Kandidatin alle wesentlichen Eigenschaf-
ten genau : flBTà È(!BV'V'Y)Ç àx(!t/3ijç axonôJv xaÂôJç Tà navra
(643). Es sind dies : Grosse bzw. Wuchs (i)Âtxta), Schûn-
heit allgemein (evfloeq;ta), dem Ideal entsprechende Gesichts-
züge (rà xaÂÂ'Y) TOV neoawnov), Bewegungen und Wendungen
(rà aûafla xai rà Âvywfla) und schiesslich die Haltung (èm-
T~IJevfla). Hier finden wir alle jene Punkte wieder, die auch
bei der Brautschau am Kaiserhof die cntschcidcnde Rolle
spielten.
Bei der Übereinstimmung all dieser Züge halte ich es für
ausgemacht, dass die Schilderung der Schonheitskonkurrenz
in << Belthandros und Chrysantza >> auf die byzantinische Hof-
sitte der Brautschau zurückzuführen ist. Leider wissen wir
nicht, wie lange sich diese Sitte hielt. Die Herausgeber der
Vita Philareti meinten, die Kirche habe daran Anstoss ge-
nommen und im Zusammenhang mit dem um Kaiser Leon
VI. ausgebrochenen Tetragamiestreit ihren ablehnenden
Standpunkt durchgesetzt (1). Wir müssen uns zwar darüber
im klaren sein, dass dies nur eine auf einem ex silentio-Schluss
aufgebaute These ist. Anderseits ist das Fortbestehen der
Brautschau am Kaiserhof im 10. Jahrhundert deshalb un-
wahrscheinlich, weil eine derartige Unternehmung- für
jeden Herrscher aus anderen Gründen - weder bei Kon-
stantinos VII. oder Romanos II., noch auch bei Nikephoros
II., Johannes I. oder Basileios II. in Frage kam. Vielleicht
hat das besondere Verhaltnis Romanos' I. Lakapenos zu
seinem Schwiegersohn Konstantinos VII. und deren zusam-
mengenommen lange Regierungszeit die kaiserliche Braut-
schau aus der Mode gebracht. Dass die Erinnerung an diese
Sitte aber noch im 13. Jahrhundert lebendig war, als Belthan-
dros und Chrysantza entstand, glauben wir gerne, da die
Brautschau sich inzwischen auch an HOfen des Westens ein-
gebürgert hatte. Russland, auch hierin ein gelehriger Schüler
von Byzanz, kannte sie noch im 17. Jahrhundert.
Wien Herbert HuNGER.
(1) Byzantion, 9 (1934), 104.
A " CONSOLATIO "
OF THE PATRIARCH NICHOLAS MYSTICUS
B~ the death of Henri Grégoire we have lost a great By-
zantme scholar, and many of us a genial friend. I think it
appropriate to contribute to his memorial volume a Conso-
latio, or naeaflV0rJnx6ç, together with a few comments on the
circumstances in which it was written. It was addressed
by the Patriarch Nicholas, in a year between 913 and 919,
to Constantine the Chamberlain (naeaxotflwp,evoç), on the
death of the said Constantine's sister. One version of it has
long been known, since it stands as no : 47 in the printed
editions of Nicholas' letters (1). But there exists another
version, which internai evidence shows to have been the car-
lier of the two. This version is found on ff. 84-87v of MS
Vind. ph. gr. 342. Lambros (2) observes of it, Elve f) fl( rwv
~1HŒTO~Wv. naeà Migne lvO' av. a. 236. But it is not. Only
m the1r fmal sentences do the two versions coïncide. Why
two versions should survive in two separate' MS sources,
we must ask lower down. But first, the text:
MS Vind. ph. gr. 342 f. 84.
KwvaTavrtvr.p naeaxotp,wp,évq;>
èn' cMeÂq;fj xotfl'Y}Oetan
OliJa, réxvov fJflwv, wç Tà q;vatxà xévrea <f. 84v> 1:-ijç avp,-
naOetaç p,eyaÂrJv èp,note'i rijv obvvrJv èni ro'iç ndOeat rwv avy-
yevwv, xal flÛ.Âtara orav èaû 1JlVXiJ xaOaeàv oÂwç xai cpvatxov
btaaf/>,ovaa ro cp[Âreov, xai ou xal Myovç xal naeaxÂ'fjaetç cpt-
Âovetxovat Vtxif.v al TWV cpvatxwv xévrewv obvvat. Lltà rovro
xal aè elxàç ènl np Oavdrr.p rijç àiJeÀcpfjç àÀyelv xai raeaaaeaOat
(1) MAI, Spic. Rom., 10, 318-20; MIGNE, P.G., CXI, cols. 236-40.
(2) Néoç 'E).).rrvop:v'ljpwv, 19 (1925), 19.
160 R. J. H. JENKINS
i'f;v 1pvxhv tJVfhnaOij xat cptM.odrpov (îna, xaî oo<!vr;v vcpÎaraaOat
fhh f3ovÂofhévr;v àxovstv rwv nagaxJ.1]aswv. 'AJ.X cl xai rowv-
-rov -rà aàv n(!fiyfha xaî ourw acpoogàv -ri\ èüyr;,ua, àV.' IJfho>ç
èxûvo èvOVJhYJOÉvuç, fJn ov w5vov },[av T01JÇ avyyevsïç cpt}.sî:;
à.Uà xaî noUe{> nUov -rvyxavet:; Owrpt},Jjç, ngàç ravrrrv otevo~­
Or;JhëV èJ.Oûv nagaxÂr;atv, xai avv (1d(! nët(!aOijvat TOV {3a0v-
Ta<OV vùpovç rij::; àOvpîœ; n) no0Piv6rrnov ÈfWÎ dxvov
veyxûv.
'Arpijxev i;Jhfiç i; àoëÎ.rp1) · à}).à pft ,u6vov rof5ro (m:vOvwvpeOa,
WÇ àcpijxev ~JhfiÇ, àUà xàxeivo ngoasntÂoyt(IVftëOa, nov àm}gs
x ai n(!àç < f. 85 '
rwaç e, xwgrwev.
' ,"'1nwue'YJ'() r;psv o,ut
xaî Oéaç rà f;ov xagt(OfhÊvYJÇ f;f1ZV . àU' ÈVVOWf181' neàç TLVUJV
Of1lÂiav èxeîvr;, neàç TÎYUJY ;.œ-réaTrJ Oeweîav xaî àn6Âavatv.
KaréÂmev i;Jhfiç, àÂÂà xa-rüaf3e naréea xaî ràv iiUov avyyevij
XO{}OV, §; cJ)p xat f;f1ê.ÏÇ rhv yÉYêtJlY }.a{Jr)vuç, %at fhlX(!à np {JÎcp
'1:
-cov-ccp n(!oanatr;avreç, ,, ' ' ' '
na~~.tv neoç av-rovç acptr;Of1S a.
1:' ()
O'Y]fhSY fjç ànûavowv i;oovijç èv np avveîvat -rhv àodcprJv wO'
f;f1WY . à).).' ànoÂavet YVV èxeîvr; xaOa(!fiÇ ovrwç àyaÂÂtaaewç
Ot' Jw OfhtÂei avvotat'l:WfhÊV'YJ -roiç -cijç paxae{aç èxeÎV'YJÇ ( wijç
ij;twf1évou;. M~ -colvvv â fhèV f;p..eiç èM;afhSY àneareeijaOat
x.aeo(!Wf18V, â oè xat yé'j'011 8 ;.u:racn:a<JSl n(!OÇ TO(Ja1Jr'Y}Y fha-
x.aeuh'Y}Ta elr; naeoeacnv od)WfhSV, fh'Y}bè rhv f;p..e-céeav ànoOV(!W-
p..e()a C'Y}p..lav, -cà oè beelv'Y}Ç ué(!b'Y} naeà t:pavÂov notWfhSOa.
Kahot -,;{ 'CO<JOV'COV f;p..eiç È('Y}p..tw0'Y}f18V oaov av-cff neoayéyove
ueeMjaat ; IIavrwç M, el wç àÂ'YJOwç èa Jhèv < f. 85v > cptÂabdcpot,
wane(! uaÎ. Èap..Év, et ilVa %al ('YJfhlaV vnétJ'l:'Y}fheV f;fhBÎÇ, Xa(!tv
-cov fheyéOovç cbv èxéeoavev f; àosÂcp~, ovbaf1WÇ lxew ÂÔyov
, ~ '
ot:peÎÂO"fle'V. El bè x at' ovuev st
ëiS(!OV 0' {3'lOÇ t)" ou• ~ or;
' e<JTL
, x at' na' v."'aç
àYafhéVel -rà èxei0ev <JU'Y}YWf1a<a, -rf fJvacpo(!OVfheV OU neoJ..a{Jovaa
besfv'Y} bt~vvae rhv ooôv, uaî neàç -chv uotvhv xa-caax~vwatv
1 1
lt:pOaaev ; "H uaî lv -c{{> nae6vu {3tcp el OV'CUJÇ l::-cvxe %0lV'YJY 0 ov
àntévat, fJvat:pO(!SÎV ÈfhéÂÂOfheV el n(!OÂa{JoiJaa ÈxefV'Y} ua<~V'C'YJC1e
neoç -càv -rônov o15 -rhv noeeiav ènenol~fheOa ; 'AJ.X OV VOf1L(UJ
-cov-co naOsiv f;p..fi.ç, p..fi.ÂÂov bè xafeetv uaÎ -c{{> @e{{> evxaeta-ceiv
{)u neo f;f1WV -cov nôvov -cijç obotnoe[ar; ua-ranavaaaa slç ÈxeÎ-
V'YJY ua-céa-c'Y} -chv Matrav . r} ovxt nôvoç oÀoç f;fhWV 0 {3toç xaî
1 ~ ' 1
-raÀamwefa, cbv eveovaa uaî -rijv uaranavaw etç T'YJY 11axaetav
xa-rétJT'Y} àvanavatv ; Mi} oi!v, -réxvov f;fhWV, wanee t:pOoVWfheV
av-r:ff -cijç àvanavaewç xaî -cijç àÂvnov owywyijç uaî ànôvov,
i]r; ixeÎv'Y} -rvxovaa ovfhevovv ovu àno-< f. 86 >Mxerat wç t:ptÂoîw-
A "CONSOLATIO" OF THE PATRIARCH NICHOLAS MYSTICUS 161
raç èàv oer[ }.vnovfhévovç xaî Oenvovvraç, à},).à pfiÂÂov àyavax-
ui %al Ù.nOIJT(!É!peTat ÈnÎ TOlÇ xaÂoiç cJ)y avTfl n(!OtJëyÉveTO Ù.no-
},avëtV {3aaxaivov-raç.
Kaî àUwç M, el f1Êv n ;évov vnéarYJ xaî rij:; cpvaewç àJ..M-
-rewv xaÎ 8 f''IJ nanwç floêtfheV av-rijv vnoadaw0at, etXO'l:UJÇ
à).yovp..ev ÈnÎ ûp avfhf3e{3r;x6u xat uon-c6Jhe0a · el oÈ ovoÈv
TOtof5-rov, dU' onsg l'owv Tff ô.v0gwn[v!) (W[J, TÎ ÈnÎ Tip lotcp
OVIJXe(!alVOf.lSY neayp..ait ; Tf wanel} %aTayoyyv(Of18Y Tfjç JT.a(!à
(ieoù bebopévJF §; àexiJr; f;piv -ra;ewç ; xai béov evxagwuiv
WÇ rpgovitwv:;, (VÇ avve-rovç, w:; noÂÂWY xaeirwv nagà @sov
' Â'ta ç Jj;uo,uÉYOVÇ, ~f'ÛÇ r'Jè wanE(! uatVOTOf1{ay àna(laf1V()'YJTOY vno-
tJTaYTSÇ otà -rov {3oij.v xaî auvOewna(etv uaî nevOeiv -roû-rov xaTa-
{3m]aet:; nowv11eOa ; Ovx O(!Wf1eY -rov-rov -ràv ijÂtov, wç xaÂ6v,
w:; fhÉyav, wç nfi.aav <hY yijv Tip t:pwÛ ne(!tÂâp..novra (1) ; 'A).).à
bovÂevet xaî aVTOÇ -cff oeOOfhéVrJ Tét;et avnp, xai vnop..évet
'Eaunf7 o: - lxÂEt1plV TOV < f. 86V > t:pUJTÔç, OVTUJ TOV @eov neoara;avroç
àn' ô.exifr;. Ovx oewp..ev -coY avp..navra uôap..ov owtxovp..evoY
-roZç uOslat v6p..otç, xai vvv p..ÈY àYOovaav -r:ijY yijv, vvv M -rà
àvO'YJ àno{JaÀÂovaav ; Kai cpvrà navra aeu p).y xop..wvra roiç
t:pVÀÂOtÇ xai TOÏÇ uaenoïç, aeu bè YVfhVà TOVTUJY xaOO(!WfheVa ;
Naî o1], uaî ({{>a nav-ra, oaa xeeaaïa, oaa lvvoea, oaa owv~xe-cat
n\v àéea, xaî -cavra 'COY oeoop..évov xat(!OY Otap..eT(!OVVTa rijç
(wijç, snetTa TOV xateàv xaraÂvovra (2) ; Tt ovv ènî TOV'CUJV
nanwv aw(OfhÉY'YJV O(!WYTSÇ -cijv -ca;tv <ijç t:pvaewç ovoév u
naaxop..sv ovbè xaworop..{ay -ctYà f;yovfheOa -rà ytvôp..evov, slç
i;Jhfi.Ç Oè p..6vovç oewneç wç xatYOTOflOVfheYot neYOOvfhev, on
xarà rovç xotvovç YÔfhOVÇ olxovop..ovp..eOa ; Kai nwç a.;wY
rov-co rijç aijç xaî natbevaewç xaî avvéaewç xai -cwv Ostwv ÈÀ-
niowv alr; éavrov Uav~(!'i'Y}aaç ;
'A).).' èétawfhev rà néYOor;, -cà bétxeva, rnv uaT~t:petav. Fevw-
~
JheOa f;fhWY avTWY uai naeaXW(!~IJWfheY Toiç X(!Lp..aat -cov @eov,
' () '
oç naeéaxe xaÎ TTJY yÉveatv xa0wç avTàç < f. 87 > èoou[p..aae
xaî IJVfh{3toiêVIJat iJJhiY -r:nv yÂvxv-caT'YJ'V àoûcp~v oaov lxewe
avp..t:pÉ(!OV, xaÎ neoaeÀa{Je-ro 'l:aV'C'YJV xarà TTJY aVTOV Ô.nôèé'YJTOY
{3ovÀhY xat xeiatv. IIUov èuûvoç f} oaov iJJhsiç {3ovÂÔp..eOa xaî
evx6p..e0a, 6 t:ptÂ61pVXOÇ OVTUJÇ IIaT~(!, -rà i;Jhheea btevOeui x ai
(1) nerJ.tÂâp.nwv cod.
(2) debine usque ad finem inter se congruunt ambo exempla.
11
162 R. J. H. JENKINS
<5te;âyet uarà rà avpcpieov. 'Hpûç pôvn rfi ènd)vpfq. l/..uôpeOa
uat neoç TaVTrJV vopîCowv uat 7:0 wcpiÀtpov avp{3t{3âCew . uav
pèv avvreixn rà neâypara rfi èmOvpfq., uaÀwç ~pïv cpieeaOat
rov {3îov vnoÀap{3âvopev, av Oè p?], wç èn' àavpcpôerp Ti}ç Cwijç
auvoxweovpeOa. ,Eueïvoç oè av x ovrwç, à/../..à x at ôtà TWV
Àvneïv xat (J7:VCJ!êt11 OOXOVVTWV n/..iov 7:0 ocpeÀoç Ofowatv r} lfaov
av TlÇ ~y1]aal7:0 Otà TWV ~ovvôvrwv wcpeÀeïaOat. "Qau flêTa-
{3âÀwpev elç evxaewrîav, elç alvov, elç oo;o/..oyîav, xâew pèv
elOôuç èq/ lfaov xat(!OV àne/..avaapev rijç avp{3uf)(Jewç, xâetv
15è vvv opoÀoyovvuç lfn Èx rijç paratÔ7:rJ7:0Ç TaVT'Y)Ç xat rijç
ènwbvvov xat ovrwç noÀvnevOovç Cwijç ànâeaaa <f. 87v> ~
àoe/..cp1}i neoç r1}v pauaeîav xar?]vrrJae xal Cw1}v xat ànô/..avaw
xal nâarJÇ ÀVnrJç è/..evOieav xat xarrJcpeÎaç, xat btà rovro à;{aç
OVfJ'Y)Ç ovxl nevOeïaOat à/../..à CrJÂOvaOat piiÀÂov xai pauaetCeaOat.
Of the recipient, Constantine the Chamberlain, we know
a good deal. He was born in Paphlagonia, the son of a small-
holder called Metrios (1). Our document shows that Metrios
was dead at the time of writing. Constantine's mother's
name is not recorded, but the other version shows that she
was still alive in c. \:116 (2). The date of Constantine's birLh
is conjectural ; but if he could be created Grand Chamber-
lain (naeauotpwwvoç (3)) in 908 (4), he can scarcely have
been born later than c. 880. If, on the other hand, his sister
was still nubile at this time or a few years later, he will not
have been much older. His father had him emasculated in
infancy, with a view to promoting his career as a confidential
servant in the Capital and thus establishing the family for-
tunes : 'for he saw ', says the Synaxarion, 'how his neighbours
castrated their male offspring and trained and educated them
and sent them off to the Capital, and he was wounded by
(1) Synaxar. Cp., cols. 721-4 (Synaxaria selecta, June 1) ; cf.
Pseudo-Symeon (Bonn), 713-5. The name recurs at Cout. Geo.
Mon. (Bonn), 842, line 5.
(2) MIGNE, P.G., CXI, col. 237 A.
(3) See J. B. BuRY, The Imperial Administrative System, 124-5.
(4) The date of his promotion is fixed by that of the dismissal of
Samonas, which was June 908; see JENKINs, Speculum, 23, (1948),
234, note 99.
A "cONSOLATIO" OF THE PATRIARCH NICHOLAS MYSTICUS 163
jealousy '. The boy j ustified ali his ambitions. He first
entered the service of Basil Magister and bû rov uavtuÀeÎov (1),
a diplomat and a judge. He next took service with Samo-
nas, the all-powerful protovestiary and later chamberlain
of Leo VI from 900 to 908. In these two appointments
he will have gained much experience both of government
and of high society. A yet higher post was in store for him.
In 907 or 908 Samonas presented Constantine to the 'empress'
Zoe, fourth 'wife' of Leo VI, to be her servant. Zoe contrac-
ted a deep and lasting affection for the cunuch, so much so
that the emperor could for a time believe that the relations
between the two were improper. Constantine's influence
soon became paramount at Court ; and Samonas, who saw
his own authority cclipsed, intrigued, at first with success,
to discredit him in the emperor's eyes. But his intrigue was
exposed, and in June 908 Samonas himself was stripped of
his office and retired. Constantine was made chamberlain
in his stead, and retained the post until the death of Leo VI
in May 912 (2). ,
Along with the rest of Leo's appointments, he was dismissed
by Alexander (912-913) ; but resumed his post when Alexander
died. When, in February 914, the palace revolution came
which overthrew the Patriarch-Regent Nicholas and restored
the empress Zoe to the seat of government, Constantine at
once became, and during about five years (914-919) remained,
the most powerful man in the empire. He was head of the
government. With him were leagued in the Council his re-
latives, the brothers Constantine and Anastasius Gongylios (3),
like him eunuchs and Paphlagonians. Constantine Malelias,
head of the imperial chancery, another eunuch, made up the
executive quartette (4).
(1) For the office, see F. DôLGER, Byzantinische Diplomatik, 50-
65 ; and for the man, ibid., 53-4. There is a slight difficulty here :
at THEOPH. CoNT., (Bonn), 375, line 12, i.e., before 908, Basil is called
Magister, while at ibid., 388 line 2, (anno 914), he is only Patricius.
But we need not doubt the identity.
(2) THEOPH. CoNT., 375-6.
(3) See GRÉGOIRE and ÜRGELS, Byzantion, 24 (1954), 148, note 1.
(4) THEOPH. CoNT., 395, lines 4-6; cf. DOP., 16 (1962), 240.
164 R. J. H. JENKINS
The proceedings of the new government, which did not lack
ability, in Armenia, in Italy and in the war with Bulgaria,
need not be rehearsed (1). They even succeeded in getting
the Patriarch Nicholas, whom they had ousted, to work for
them with an appearance of good-will (2). But the important
point for us to note is that Constantine the Chamberlain
fortified his persona! position by marrying his sister to the
military aristocrat Leo Phocas (3), to whom he committed
the command in chief of the great army which was to annihi-
late Symeon of Bulgaria in 917. After the defeat of this army
on August 20, Constantine's government was of course totally
discredited. He seems to have entertained a wild notion of
making Leo Phocas emperor, and perhaps of marrying him
to the empress Zoe (4 ). However this may be, at or near the
end of the year 918 he was outwitted by the admirai Roman us
Lecapenus, shanghaied (5), and held incomunicado until
Romanus was firmly in control (March 25, 919). Then he
was allowed to return to the palace, but set to work at Ro-
manus' dictation. This was not to his liking ; and when
Leo Phocas revolted against Roman us, the 'government of
eunuchs' (6 ) joined him en bloc. On the collapse of this
revoit, the eunuchs feil into Romanus' hands. He is known
to have pardoned the brothers Gongylioi and Malelias. What
happened to Constantine the Chamberlain we do not know.
(1) S. RuNciMAN, Romanus Lecapenus, 53 ff.
(2) Other letters of Nicholas to Constantine the Chamberlain are
extant from these years : e.g. MIGNE, P.G., CXI, cols. 264-8 (n° 8 :
66, 67); and J. DARRouzÈs, Epistoliers byzantins, 138-9 (n° : 66),
in which Nicholas even goes so far as to express an affection for the
empress Zoe, which he certainly did not feel (needless to say, the
15éanotva referred to is not, as the editor states, <<l'épouse du person-
nage,,, but the empress: cf. CEDRENUS (Bonn), II, 291, lines 6-7).
(3) THEOPH. CONT., 390-1 ; CEDRENUS, Il, 291.
(4) So RuNCIMAN, op. cil., 57-8 and note 2, conjectures. But Leo
Phocas had probably been married twice already (see below), and a
third marriage would certainly have been strenuously resisted by the
Patriarch Nicholas.
(5) THEOPH. CoNT., 391 ; cf. LIUDPRAND, Antapodosis, III, 26.
(6) As Symeon of Bulgaria contemptuously called them : P.G.,
CXI, col. 124 B.
A "CONSOLATIO" OF THE PATRIARCH NICHOLAS MYSTICUS 165
He is not heard of again. But some expressions of the Pa-
triarch Nicholas (1) may indicate that he shared the fate of
his brother-in-law.
Such are the facts of the career of Constantine the Chamber-
lain. We have now to resort to conjecture. We know that
Constantine's brother-in-law was Leo Phocas. It is tempting
to identify the sister for whose death Constantine is here
consoled with the wife of Leo Phocas (2). But h'e may well
have had others sisters. Granting for a moment that she was,
then certain consequences seem to follow. A passage in the
chronicle suggests that carly in 919 Phocas had a son Symeon
who was old enough to command a brigade of life-guards (3).
This Symeon, therefore, cannot have been much Jess than
twenty years old at the time, and may hilVe been more.
Therefore, if the sister of Constantine here in question was
indeed Leo Phocas' wife, then she was his second wife : since,
in the revised version of the Consolatio (4), Nicholas, speaking
of Constantine's old mother, says : << 1 will add that though
she desired (5) to carry in her arms grand-children of her
(daughter's) womb, her pleasure would have been enhanced
if (her daughter) had been alive to bear her company>>. This
must mean that the daughter has died in bearing her first
child, who has apparently survived. He cannot have been
a youth of twenty. Nor would Leo Phocas, in about 900,
have dreamt of marrying the sister of an obscure Paphla-
gonian eunuch.
The date of the Consolatio has been correctly determined
by Grumel (6). It cannot be before 913, since during Con-
stantine's first term of office (908-912) Nicholas was in exile,
and between May 912 and June 913 Constantine was not
chamberlain. Therefore the date must be between 913 and
(1) Ibid., col. 160 C.
(2) Cf. RuNCIMAN, loc. cil.
(3) Cont. Geo. Mon., 885, line 10. This is not quite certain, as the
subject may be John Garidas, and not Leo Phocas. But what follows
makes it most likely that Phocas is meant.
(4) P.G., tom. cil., col. 237 A.
(5) Reading noOovaa for the meaningless noOovan of the MS.
(6) Les Regestes, 1/2, n° : 637.
166 R. J• H. JENKINS
Constantine's disappearance in 919. This consideration sup-
ports the conjecture that the lady was Leo Phocas' wife ;
since the period of Constantine's supremacy is the only period
during which such a marriage could have been made. If the
marriage took place at the beginning of this period (in 914
or 915), and if the wife died in childbirth a year or so later,
this brings us to the year 916: and it is interesting to note
that Toumanoff has proved this to be the exact date of
Nicholas' preceding letter, to King George of Abasgia (1).
The problem of two versions of so simple a matter as a
formai consolatio is hard to solve (2). We can say with some
confidence that the version printed here was the earlier of
the two, since, at the point where the two coalesce, our text
bas bum:a ràv uateàv uaraÂvovra, << and then (we see how)
time brings them to their end>> ; which is continuons and sen-
sible. The other version has Lltà rt ; uateàv Âvovra, which
is nonsense. It is a clumsy attempt to join two separate
scripts. As the Mai-Migne version is the later, it is reasonable
to suppose it was the one finally sent to the chamberlain.
It is, besides, a less stilted, more persona! document, with its
references to Constantine's mother and brother-in-law. But
how the version printed here got into circulation we are not
in a position to say.
Dumbarton Oaks. R. J.H. JENKINS.
(1) Le Muséon, 69 (1956), 81.
(2) For another instance of two drafts of the same piece of writing
by Nicholas, see my article in DOP., 16 (1962), 236 and note 24.
LA DATE DE LA RUPTURE
ENTRE PIERRE ET ASEN (VERS 1193) *
Cet article est consacré à un épisode de l'histoire des re-
lations bulgaro-byzantines, sujet auquel s'intéressait vive-
ment feu le Professeur Henri Grégoire, - à la rupture entre
Pierre et Asen. Cet événement eut une grande impor-
tance dans l'histoire de la lutte du peuple bulgare pour l'in-
dépendance. Malgré cela, aujourd'hui encore, la date de la
rupture entre les deux frères est discutée. M. Bachmann la
situe aux environs de 1192, I. Dujcev et G. G. Litavrin vers
1186. Ce que nous savons à ce sujet provient exclusivement
des discours d'orateurs byzantins de la cour d'Isaac II Ange;
la solution du problème dépendra donc de la datation de ces
discours.
D'après Litavrin, nous aurions une allusion à la << mésen-
tente entre les frères>> dans un discours de Jean Syropoulos
daté par Dujcev du début de l'année 1187 (1). Mais, en réa-
lité, le discours de Syropoulos ne peut être mis en rapport
avec l'événement qui nous intéresse. Le rebelle, nous dit
Syropoulos, fut puni par une maladie cruelle: les jambes
paralysées par la goutte, il devait se faire porter et ne pouvait
plus se tenir debout. <<Maintenant il ploie le genou, mais
bientôt (fterà fttue6v) il inclinera la tête aussi en guise de
salut >> (2). Comparant les frères à un taureau et à un âne
(*) Traduit du russe par E. VooRDECKERS.
(1) G. G. LITAVRIN, BoJirapn:n :n: B:n:aaHTHfl B xx-xu BB., Moscou,
1960, p. 453; I. DuJcEv, IIpoy<maHIŒ B'hpxy Ô"bJJrapcHOTO cpenHo-
BeHoBn:e. Sofia, 1945, p. 89. Dujcev date le discours du jour de l'É-
piphanie, c.à.d. du 6 janvier 1187, Litavrin du printemps de la même
année.
(2) M. BACHMANN, Die Rede des Johannes Syropulos an den Kaiser
Isaak II. Angelos, München, 1935, pp. 17, 17-22.