Among Christian Emperors the Vita Basilii by Constantine Vii Porphyrogenitus

AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS THE VITA BASILII BY CONSTANTINE VII PORPHYROGENITUS

LIEVE VAN HOOF*

Constantinople, late September 867. Michael III, emperor of the Byzan- tine empire, is murdered in somewhat obscure circumstances. The reign of the Amorian dynasty comes to an end, as Basil, a scion of a Macedonian peasant family who made a career for himself under Michael III and was appointed co-emperor in 866, takes over the helm. He thus inaugurates the Macedonian dynasty, which was to rule the Christian Empire of the East for almost two centuries. When Basil dies in 886, Leo VI succeeds him. As requested by filial obe- dience, Leo writes an êpitáfiov lógov, a laudatory funeral oration for Basil, from which we may derive some information about Basil’s life.1 After Leo’s death in 912, his son Constantine manages to seize power only around 945, becoming sole emperor after a long struggle. During his reign, Constantine not only engaged in politics, military campaigns and diplomacy, but was also concerned about the arts – starting the so-called Macedonian Renaissance. Literature flourished. The emperor himself was directly or indi- rectly involved in the composition of works such as De administrando impe- rio, De thematibus, De ceremoniis, Excerpta de legationibus, and Geoponika. He also showed interest in history, notably in the emperors since 813. Two works of history concerning this period were conceived at the emperor’s command. The one work treats the period from 813 until 886, and is usually ascribed to a certain Genesius, although the identity of the author is not

* Lieve Van Hoof currently prepares a doctoral dissertation on Plutarch in the Dept of Classical Studies of the K.U.Leuven. 1 We used the edition of A. Vogt – I. Hausherr, Oraison funèbre de Basile I par son fils Léon VI le Sage, Orientalia Christiana, 77 (Rome, 1932). 164 LIEVE VAN HOOF clear.2 The other is the so-called Theophanes Continuatus,3 which begins with the year 813 as well, and in six books goes down to the reign of Constan- tine VII himself.4 The author of books 1-4 and 6 is unknown to us. Book 5, however, dealing with the emperor Basil, was written by his grandson, the emperor Constantine. This work, referred to as Vita Basilii, is the object of the present article. Around 950, many years after Basil’s death, Constantine wrote a work about his grandfather, discussing his origins, life, deeds, and death. Why did Constantine write this work? What did he want to say? And whom did he want to say it to? In the following pages both text and context will be taken into account in order to answer these questions. First, we shall analyse the text. What kind of work does it claim to be? To what extent does it meet its claim and in what ways does it fail to do so? To what genre does the text ulti- mately belong? Second, we shall compare the results of our analysis with the context in which the text was written. In this way we hope to give an answer to the questions we are examining.

In the prologue (§1), Constantine states that he intends to report from beginning to end the deeds and acts of the great and famous emperor Basil. His aim (¿v) in doing this, according to the emperor himself, is twofold: he wants posterity to know the roots of the famous and long reigning house of the Macedonians and (kaí) he wants to provide the descendants of Basil with an example of virtue and courage. Three characteristics of the work can be derived from this statement. One: Constantine is positively prejudiced about Basil, as if writing an encomium.

2 See A. Lesmüller-Werner, Byzanz am Vorabend neuer Grösse. Überwindung des Bilderst- reites und der innenpolitischen Schwäche (813-886). Die vier Bücher der Kaisergeschichte des Ioseph Genesios, Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber, 18 (Wien, 1989), p. 13. On the other hand H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner I, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII, V, 1, (München, 1978), p. 351, points out that it is not even certain that the text was composed by an author called Genesius. 3 Edited in the series of the Patrologia Graeca, volume 109: Historiae Byzantinae scriptores post Theophanem, ex editione Francisci Combefisii accedit Josephi Genesii Historia de rebus Constantinopolitanis, accurante et denuo recognoscente J.-P. Migne (Turnhout, 1975 [= Paris, 1863]). 4 About the works grouped under the name of Theophanes Continuatus, see Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur (see n. 2), pp. 339-343. AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 165

Two: the author’s primary purpose is comparable to that of an historian. Three: his secondary purpose is biographaphical. We shall examine the Vita Basilii in light of each of these three characteristics, and we shall further examine the interrelationships between them.

Because the Vita Basilii contains encomiastic elements and treats the life of an emperor, one is reminded of the basilikòv lógov as defined by Menan- der Rhetor of Laodicea.5 According to this author an eulogy of an emperor should emphasize and magnify the good and pass over the doubtful or bad in silence (368, 3-8). Constantine's work indeed fits this definition in that it profusely describes Basil's good deeds and characteristics. Basil originates from famous families on both his father's and his mother's side; his childhood and youth are surrounded by portents announcing his great future; he is pious, just and obedient; he saves the life of the emperor Michael; and after his accession to the throne, he is successful not only in war, but also in politics, administration, justice and legislation, and social welfare. He respects religion and culture. In doing all this, Basil personifies the four cardinal virtues: temperance, courage, wisdom and justice. Because he is so good and competent, God has elected him emperor and assists him in everything he undertakes. In return, Basil promotes the church both inside and outside the empire. To the Byzantine mind, this is exactly how the relationship between the emperor and God should be.6 These numerous positive elements notwithstanding, the author explicitly states that he will not credit his grandfather with any achievements that are ficticious or doubtful (§47), and that he will refrain from excessive praise (§5). Historical research has shown that there is no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the accomplishments ascribed to Basil in the Vita Basilii.7

5 We use the edition by D.A. Russell – N.G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford, 1981). 6 Cf. O. Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfi- schen Zeremoniell (Darmstadt, 1956 [= Jena, 1938]), pp. 145 and 214-215, and id., Vom oströmischen Staats- und Reichsgedanken (Darmstadt, 1956 [= Leipziger Vierteljarhrsschrift für Südosteuropa, 4, Heft 1/2, 1940]), pp. 253-256. 7 See R.J.H. Jenkins, ‘The Classical Background of the Scriptores post Theophanem', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), pp. 28-29. A. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World (London – New York – Toronto, 1973), p. 592. L. Breyer, Vom Bauernhof auf den Kaiserthron. Das Leben des Basileios I., Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber, 14 (Graz – Wien – Köln, 1981), p. 11. 166 LIEVE VAN HOOF

Compared to the praise in Isocrates' Euagoras,8 or to Leo VI's in his funeral laudation, Constantine indeed shows restraint. For example, Constantine has none of the manifold comparationes which are so typical of epideictic speeches and in which the subject of the panegyric is explicitly and favourably compared with others.9 Although Constantine's statements may contain a certain truth, one can also read them in a different way. One might indeed wonder what the author means when he writes (§5) that he will not relate any omi- nous stories about Basil's youth. Perhaps this is a subtle praeteritio – “there are many portentous stories to be told, but I will not do so”. And when the author claims not to tell any lies (§§47, 102), we may reasonably question whether he is telling the whole truth, especially since there is not a single negative remark about Basil in the whole work. Indeed, the few elements present that might create a negative impression prove instead to be positive. For example, the fact that Basil's journey from Macedonia to Constantino- ple left its mark upon him (§9) contributes to the image of the common man who made his way to the throne by personal excellence. The negative acts which Constantine could not pass over silently are also given a positive twist. Clearly this is the case for the murder of Michael. According to Constantine, Michael behaved so badly that he sharpened the swords against himself (§20). Despite this Basil did not conspire against him nor take an active part in the murder. Another example is Constantine's account of the quarrel between Basil and Leo (§§100-101). We can conclude that Constantine in general gives a very favourable image of Basil. He does not go as far as Isocrates or Leo VI by writing a straightforward panegyric. Still there is no doubt that he is positively prejudiced about his subject. Given the way that he spoke about his grandfather in the prologue and his intention to present the latter as an example for his descendants, one would not have expected anything else.

The basilikòv lógov, however, is characterised by more than just the laudatory treatment of the subject. Menander Rhetor indicates topics to be dealt

8 Larue van Hook (ed.), Isocrates, III, The Loeb Classical Library (London – Cambridge, Mass., 1961). 9 Cf. H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literatur- wissenschaft (Stuttgart, 19903). AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 167 with and a structure in which to arrange them. The actual treatment of the subject should start with patrív and then discuss génov, génesiv, fúsiv, âna- trofß, êpitjdeúmata, prázeiv katà tòn pólemon and prázeiv katˆ eîrßnjn. Eminent Byzantinists such as P.J. Alexander10 and R.J.H. Jenkins11 have already noticed that the Vita Basilii resembles this model. They also point out some differences: Basil's peace- and wartime realizations are not treated in the ‘right' order; they are not structured according to the four cardinal virtues; they are dealt with in an ‘historical' rather than ‘biographical' fashion; and Constantine's verdict on Basil's predecessor is too severe, according to the guide- lines of Menander. These observations are enlightening. However, we believe that a second look at the text can yield far more precise similarities and differences between the Vita Basilii and the basilikòv lógov. The first item that Constantine deals with is indeed Basil's patrív. In con- formity with Menander's advice (369, 23-24), the author does not dwell too long on Adrianople. Instead, he explains in a kind of ring-structure (Mace- donia – Armenia – Macedonia) how Basil's family moved from Armenia to Macedonia. Next comes Basil's génov. Constantine follows the tradition inau- gurated by Photius, ascribing to Basil a great ancestry:12 he became a descen- dant not only of the Arsakids, but also of Alexander the Great and – for the first time since the fourth century13 – Constantine the Great. The third item is the génesiv. Against Menander's advice (371, 11-14), Constantine does not embellish his account with portents surrounding his grandfather's birth. This silence is significant and begs an explanation. We might expect to find the answer in Constantine’s own statement (§5), where he treats Basil's fúsiv as it emerges in his childhood. After some portentous legends, the author claims to fear becoming a flatterer by rendering such stories. This, however, is comparable to Menander's concern for the piqanón (371, 12), and is thus insufficient to explain why Menander recommends but Constantine does not

10 ‘Secular Biography at Byzantium', Speculum 15 (1940). 11 ‘Classical Background' (see n. 7). 12 In reality, as we will see below, Basil was of rather humble birth. 13 See A. Markopoulos, Constantine the Great in Macedonian Historiography. Models and Approaches, in New Constantines. The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries. Papers from the Twenty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St Andrews, March 1992, ed. P. Magdalino, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publica- tions, 2 (Cambridge, 1994), p. 163. 168 LIEVE VAN HOOF recount such signs surrounding the future emperor's birth. We will have to come back to this question later on. After Basil's fúsiv, his grandson discusses his ânatrofß, explaining Basil's lack of education by saying that Basil did not need any teachers.14 Constantine does expand on Menander’s sixth topic, the êpitjdeúmata (372, 3-12) calling his grandfather pious, just, respectful, obedient, kind, merciful (§6). Next, the rhetor from Laodicea recommends a treatment of the prázeiv of the emperor. Constantine, however, is not yet ready for that. He first needs to explain how Basil gained the throne, and therefore he digresses. It is interesting to see how the author himself describes this digression (§20). He clearly considers it to be an excursus. This can be inferred because he announces that he will treat Michael's life briefly (dià braxéwn), whereas with Basil's he introduced (§1) his work as a survey of all his acts. He considers the excursus necessary (de⁄n) and indicates its function: it will show that Michael signed his own death warrant by behaving badly, whereas Basil was predestined by God to become emperor. The excursus thus helps to refute the implicit charge of murder against Basil. By inserting the overview of Michael's life at this point in the text, Constantine has avoided reporting Michael’s murder in its proper chronological location, which would have placed it immediately following Basil’s appointment as co-ruler and raised sus- picions about Basil's involvement. The passage is not a parallel story, but an excursus with a clear function in and for the main narrative. This is important for our present investigation. It shows that Constantine, as we indicated above, could not pass over certain of his grandfather's negative acts in silence, contrary to Menander's advice. It also shows an interest in the subject's rise to power, something that would be of no importance if one wished only to praise an emperor in a basilikòv lógov. Thus the excursus once again indicates that the Vita Basilii is not a basilikòv lógov. Then Constantine again follows Menander and deals with Basil's prázeiv. The Christian emperor first discusses some peaceful accomplishments, then turns to military successes, and finally returns to peacetime achievements.

14 The fact that both Menander and Constantine mention Cheiron in this context does not prove that Constantine depended upon Menander. In the art and literature of antiquity Cheiron was widely used as the model of the pedagogue. Cf. A.H. Griffiths, s.v. ‘Centaurs', in The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford – New York, 19963), pp. 308-309. Also the author of the historical work transmitted under the name of Genesius compares Basil’s education to that of Achilles by Cheiron (76, §24). AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 169

He arranges his material thematically and geographically, and in so doing, he does not follow Menander’s lead. On the other hand, the four cardinal virtues are present in Constantine's report, and even in the details about the virtues, his text has similarities to Menander's.15 Apart from those seven topics which are to be discussed successively, Menan- der speaks of two more items. The first is the túxj (376, 24-30). According to Menander one should stress the good túxj accompanying one's subject. We have already mentioned the privileged relationship Basil had with God. The second is a comparison to the previous reign (376, 31-377, 9). We have already seen that Constantine is more critical of Michael than Menander advises, and that the Vita Basilii does not contain straightforward comparationes as is the case in Isocrates’ Euagoras. We may also add that Constantine inserts this information about Basil's predecessor at a place other than where Menander suggests. Moreover, Michael is denied exactly those deeds and characteristics which Basil has in abundance and which make one a good emperor of the Eastern Christian Empire. The people, the army, and the sen- ate all love Basil (§§19, 28, 48), but they hate Michael (§§18, 24, 27). Michael acts against the law (§20, 26), Basil improves it (§§30, 31, 33). God turns his back on Michael (§24), but He protects Basil. In this way Michael becomes a real bête noire,16 which of course increases the contrast with Basil.

Menander recommends that the ‘actual treatment' of the subject as described above be preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue. Constantine follows this recommendation of Menander, but he implements it in a different way. In the prologue he does not say, as Leo VI does, that Basil was so great an emperor that one can hardly find words to describe him, but instead he talks about himself and his writing. In the epilogue, on the other hand, he does give a laudatory summary of Basil's life as Menander advises, but a concluding prayer is missing. Instead he speaks about his own work again. The

15 Dikaiosúnj, for example, implies for Menander that an emperor is Ømerov, filánqrw- pov and eûprósodov, that he appoints just collaborators and levies fair taxes. Constantine represents his grandfather as Ømerov (§§28 and 34), filánqrwpov (§34) and eûprósodov (§§29, 30, 72 and 93). His collaborators are just (§31) and his taxes fair (§§91 and 99). 16 The expression is from Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur (see n. 3), p. 275. 170 LIEVE VAN HOOF differences are significant. Two important explanations for them are made explicit in the text. First, Constantine talks about his writing (ânagrácasqai, §1). As far as we know, no attention has been given to this word in previous studies, yet it is of the utmost importance for understanding certain features of the Vita Basilii. A final prayer is indeed expected and appropriate in the per-oratio of a speech, but it is far from necessary or even usual at the end of a written work. The written character of the work can also account for Con- stantine's caution in telling legends about Basil's birth, for in general it is easier for a reader to examine the work that is before him critically than it is for a listener.17 The written character also explains why Constantine does not feel the need to make transitions to new topics as clearly as Menander recommends: the requirements of written texts are different from those of oral texts in this regard. The Vita Basilii is also less rhetorical than Isocrates' Euagoras or Leo’s Funeral Oration in that, for example, comparationes, consecutive and comparative subclauses, exclamations and anacolutha are less frequent. Finally we can also say that a spoken encomium would be shorter than the Vita Basilii. The work thus contains much information that a speech would inevitably have left aside. This becomes even more obvious if one compares Constan- tine’s Vita Basilii to his father’s Funeral Speech. Leo VI explicitly states that he is not writing history, but a laudatory speech,18 and often touches only in general terms on items that Constantine discusses more in detail. A clear example is the treatment of Basil’s finding favour with his predecessor Michael: whereas Leo (145b-146a), in a single sentence, states that Basil, after his trip to Constantinople, became Michael’s friend and co-emperor, Constantine (§§13-18) relates at length how Michael first noticed Basil and then promoted him. The result of this different treatment is that Leo’s text is much shorter than Constantine’s, and gives us less historical information. This brings us to the second explanation: Constantine repeatedly speaks about history (§§1, 3, and 102). From the very first paragraph, the Vita Basilii seems to be historiographical. Constantine not only speaks of the work that he is about to write in terms of ïstoría, but he also proposes to treat the whole

17 See also Menander (371, 12-14). 18 Most explicit is 141a (oû gàr ïstorían, âllˆ eûfjmían êrgáhetai), but see also 138a, 139b, and 152a. AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 171 life and all the deeds of his grandfather. By doing so he hopes to save this information from oblivion, an aim obviously shared by historians. To a certain extent, Constantine's desire to offer Basil as an example for his descendants is also related to historiography. Indeed, other historians consider the lessons of history to be part of the value of their work, especially for the politicians that we may assume Basil’s offspring to be.19 Another similarity to historical works lies in the overall chronological structure of the Vita Basilii. As we have seen, Constantine begins with Basil's ancestors, then deals with his birth, education, rise to power and reign, and ends with his death. Where he runs counter to chronology, he indicates it and defends his decision. This is the case with the treatment of Basil's achievements. Constantine inserts them in chronological order. He stresses this cor- rectness by using time- and order-indicating adverbs at the beginning of his account (tóte dé, êpeíper…, §30). However, it soon appears that there are other structuring principles at work. Constantine first treats Basil's piety (§32), then his lawgiving activities (§33), followed by a picture of his children (§35), his military achievements (§§36-71), as well as other topics. The material is thus thematically ordered.20 Again, within the report of Basil's military campaigns, the structuring principles are based on geography (East §§38-51; West §§52-58), then tactics (land force §§38-58; navy §§59-71). At another place (§34) Constantine relates an anecdote involving Basil's sons Constantine and Leo. By association he subsequently treats Basil's other children (§35). In all these cases the author does not unconsciously run counter to chronology. In the case of Basil showing his gratitude to the Monastery of Diomedes and Danielis (§§73-77) for example, Constantine explicitly

19 See, for example, Polybius' Histories (1.1). Although it was a topic in Byzantine historiography to make historiography a ‘useful' discipline (see A. Lesmüller-Werner, Byzanz am Vorabend neuer Grösse. [see n. 2]), as Genesius, writing on Constantine’s command, illustrates, it should be noticed that Constantine is not explicit about it in his Vita Basilii. 20 There are other biographies as well that have the first part chronologically ordered, the second more thematically. The fact has been described as ‘a natural answer to a biograp- her’s need to pause and organize, once the subject of the biography has reached a plateau in life’. Cf. T. Hägg – Ph. Rousseau, Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London, 2000), p. 4. 172 LIEVE VAN HOOF states (§74) that it took place at the beginning of his reign, and (§77) not, as might be suggested by the order in which he treated it, after Basil's military campaigns. About the order in which he treated these military campaigns, he declares (§71) that he made one story out of many facts, the order of which he could no longer determine. These statements of Constantine show that he is aware that he does not always follow chronology even if he gives the impression to be doing so.

However, if we want to examine whether the Vita Basilii can really be called an historical work, we must be careful not to be misled by Constantine's remarks that he is writing ïstoría, nor by the similarities to that genre which we have mentioned. As we wrote above, the Christian emperor does not go as far as to tell bald lies, but he might not be telling the whole truth. He only renders what makes Basil worth imitating, and therefore fails to meet the stan- dards21 of historical exhaustiveness22 and objectivity. One possibility is that Con- stantine did not know the whole truth and thus could not write it, even if he would have wanted to. On the other hand Constantine may have known the truth, but not have wanted to write it. In this case, the question arises why he didn’t want to, and why he wrote the work as he did. We shall revisit this question later, when discussing the context that gave birth to the Vita Basilii. One more difference with historical works should be mentioned. Apart from being a lesson in politics, history is also useful for ‘predicting’ the future.23 In order to do so, it is important that history shows the causes of things.24 In the Vita Basilii causality is present as a structuring principle. For example, because Basil is so good, people envy him. As a reaction, Basil makes his sons Constantine and Leo co-emperors (§34). Causality also plays a role in Basil's rise to power: because Michael is so bad and Basil so good, the former is murdered and the latter becomes emperor. In this case human causality is reinforced by divine predestination,25 together making a very strong

21 Cf., e.g., Polybius 1.14-15, 10.21, 12.14-15 and 12.25a. 22 As he himself states (§47), he does not even always tell the whole truth in praisewor- thy matters, and thus certainly fails to be historically exhaustive. 23 See Polybius 6.2 and 12.25b. 24 Polybius 1.1 and 10.21. 25 At this point of the text, it becomes clear why Constantine, although excusing it, had to insert some portentous stories about Basil's childhood and youth. AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 173 argument in Constantine’s defence of his grandfather. Nevertheless causality is often absent where we would expect it in a historical work: for instance, Constantine does not explain why Krum decides to attack Adrianople (§4), nor does he investigate the ultimate causes of the military successes under Basil's reign (§§36-71).

Given these differences between the Vita Basilii and historiographical works, and given that the title contains the word ‘life' (bíov) and that the work mainly deals with the life of a single person, the natural direction in which to look next is biography. We must be careful, however. In the title – His- tory of the Life and Deeds of the Famous Emperor Basil –, as well as in the rest of the Vita Basilii, ‘life' does not refer to the genre of the bíov. The simple criterion of ‘one-person-as-subject' also does not seem to be sufficient to determine the difference between history and biography.26 What is more, research has shown that ‘biography in antiquity was not a rigidly defined genre. Consequently the boundaries with neighbouring genres – the encomium, the biographical novel […], the historical monograph on the deeds of a great man like Alexander the Great – are blurred and sometimes artificial. One should not think of a single “biographical genre” with acknowledged conventions, but rather of a complicated picture of overlapping traditions, embracing works of varying form, style, length, and truthfulness'.27 In the end, then, one could even ask whether there is any point in our questioning the genre of the

26 Arrian’s Anabasis, for example, though having Alexander as its subject, is still a work of history. For the many histories of Alexander the Great that have been written, see N. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great. The So-called Vulgate Authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius (Cambridge, 1983). 27 C. Pelling, s.v. ‘Biography’, in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, (Oxford – New York, 19963), p. 242. There does not seem to be anything like an intercultural model for biographies. Ehlers, La biographie antique, Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, 44 (Genève, 1997), p. 3, argues that ‘intrakulturell gängige Termini und Begriffsinhalte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft und damit der europäischen Tradition, die oft zugleich Bewer- tungen darstellten, bei interkultureller Verwendung in Frage gestellt wurden'. The Byzan- tine tradition was, of course, in part tributary to the classical one, but gradually developed its own forms as well. In the case of biography, the hagiographical tradition seems to have been of the utmost importance. See P.J. Alexander, ‘Secular Biography at Byzantium', Spe- culum 15 (1940), pp. 194-209, and, more recently, Hägg – Rousseau, Greek Biography (see n. 20). 174 LIEVE VAN HOOF

Vita Basilii. Notwithstanding the blurred boundaries, we still believe there is. The form of a work necessarily has an influence on its content28: historians and biographers do not select their material according to the same criteria. Furthermore, the choice of a genre provides information about the aim of an author, and thus will help us to answer the questions we set out at the beginning of this article. Finally it must be underlined that writers in antiquity at least theoretically made a difference between history and biography. One of the most well-known statements in this respect can be found in the work of Plutarch of Chaeronea, at the beginning of his Life of Alexander (§1.1-2).29 In this passage the author states that he will not describe all the many deeds of Alexander and Caesar, but only briefly address most of them. Two reasons (gár) are given to explain this way of working: he is not writing history (ïstoríav) but a life story (bíouv), and great, famous deeds often do not show virtue or vice (dßlwsiv âret±v Æ kakíav), whereas little things, like words and jokes, often reveal someone's character (∂mfasin ≠qouv êpoíjse). Plutarch, as we may grasp from this passage, does not discuss at length all the deeds of his subject, but makes a selection. Other authors of biographies as well speak about a conscious selection of material. Polybius, for example, in his Histories mentions that he has written a work on Philopoimen in three books – a work that has not survived. The aim of that work was to praise Philopoimen’s deeds, and it contained, among other things, information about his family, childhood and youth. In the Histories on the other hand, the author wants to be impartial, and discusses more at length the actions of Philopoimen’s riper years.30

28 Concerning biography, H. Sonnabend, Geschichte der antiken Biographie von Isokrates bis zur Historia Augusta (Stuttgart – Weimar, 2002), p. 3, clearly states that ‘die Form prä- judiziert also in gewisser Weise den Inhalt und damit die historische Aussage'. 29 We use the edition of C.L. Lindskog – K. Ziegler (eds.), Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae. Vol. II Fasc. 2, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Stuttgart – Leipzig, 1994). As suggested by several scholars (e.g. T.E. Duff, Plutarch's Lives. Exploring Virtue and Vice [Oxford, 1999], pp. 17ff.), the context of Plutarch’s statement where he tries to show the originality of his work compared to the many works on Alexander that already existed, should be taken into account. Duff also points out that Plutarch elsewhere speaks about his Vitae as ïstoría, which proves that he did not distinguish history and biography in an absolute way. 30 Histories, 10.21. Another clear example can be found in Cornelius Nepos, Life of Pelo- pidas (1.1). AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 175

Plutarch moreover, as we can read at the beginning of his Life of Alexan- der, was particularly interested in his subject's ¥qov. ÈJqov, usually translated as ‘character', has to do with virtue and vice, with morality as it appears through acting. Indeed, what Plutarch does in his individual Lives is to tell his reader certain words and deeds of the subject in order to give him an impression of the subject’s character – including both virtues and vices. It is obvious that this implies a selection of the material by the author. Plutarch, we can say, (re)constructs the life of his subject in order to shape a character. In this sense his work can be termed ©qo-poiña. But Plutarch also aims at ©qopoiña in another sense. As we can read at the beginning of the Lives of Aemilius and Timoleon31 (§1.1 and 1.3-4), the author wants to mould his readers' character, to make them better people. Accord- ing to Plutarch rationality (lógov, frónjsiv) is important to attain âretß.32 Thus if reading the Lives incites one to reflect on a hero’s character, it also moulds the reader's character. Plutarch achieves this, for example, by showing his readers the reactions that a subject’s contemporaries had to his behaviour. Often there is more than one reaction, and it is not clear whether a particular act is good or bad. Thus Plutarch shows his readers that it is often impossible to pass an absolute judgement, that much depends upon the context, and that people are never either good or bad. Plutarch wants his readers not so much to judge as to reflect and understand.33

The Vita Basilii, then, does not correspond to Plutarch's idea of a biography. The Christian emperor Constantine wants to inform posterity about his grandfather's life and deeds. He therefore runs through all the ‘important' facts of his life. He did not select in order to demonstrate character. This is clear, for instance, in the treatment of military affairs. Whereas Plutarch brings up a military deed if it shows a specific virtue or vice of his subject, Constan- tine runs through Basil's military campaigns. The latter wants to hand down deeds, the former to sketch a character. Furthermore, Constantine wishes his grandfather to be an example for his descendants. This implies, as we have

31 See Lindskog – Ziegler, Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae (see n. 29). 32 This opinion can be read for example in De virtute morali 443 C-D. 33 Cf. Duff, Plutarch's Lives (see n. 29), pp. 69-70. 176 LIEVE VAN HOOF seen, that the author only renders what is positive of Basil. Plutarch on the other hand shows both virtues and vices of his subjects. His aim is to improve his readers' character by making them reflect. Constantine sets an example, Plutarch moulds a character.

There are more differences. Constantine and Plutarch differ in their personal evaluations of their subjects. Constantine often adds a laudatory epithet to Basil's name and never refrains from explicitly mentioning Basil's qualities. Plutarch rarely gives his own opinion about his subjects34 and often leaves virtues and vices to be deduced from the facts by his readers. Furthermore there is a difference regarding authorial self-reflection in general. Constantine in his Vita Basilii more than once speaks about himself, his activities, his writing and his purposes. He even dedicates a paragraph to his method of working (§47). Plutarch differs in this respect. In his Life of Antony, for example, personal inter- ventions are rare: he expresses his disagreement with other versions or explanations of certain episodes; he says that he inserted some details for illustra- tion (§10.5); he relates that his grandfather and father told him something (§28); and he gives just a few examples of Antony's jokes (§29.3) and nothing more. Finally, Constantine and Plutarch treat other personages differently. Both authors focus on their main subject, but in their works other characters appear. In the Vita Basilii Michael comes to mind. But as we demonstrated earlier, he was featured in an excursus that served the main story. All other personages are treated similarly, and apart from Michael they are only mentioned or briefly introduced. A clear example is Andreas. When Constantine praises him (§50), he does not intend to make him another example for his readers. Instead it augments Basil's greatness that he appointed such a competent general. Plutarch on the other hand aims to mould his reader's character through reflection even if this reflection is about somebody other than the main subject. Thus in the Life of Antony the reader is invited to think about Fulvia, Octavia, Cleopatra and Octavian as well. And what's more, Octavian is not just a mirror image of Antony. He has his own virtues and vices. This ‘equal' way of treating two antagonists further demonstrates that Plutarch desires to make his readers realise that reality is not black and white, but shaded.

34 Ibid., p. 54. AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 177

As for similarities between the Vita Basilii and Plutarch's biographies, they do not go further than the fact that both write about one person; they begin with his ancestry and follow his life more or less chronologically until his death. Constantine and Plutarch do not have the same goals, and therefore do not write the same kind of works. In the past however, a different thesis has been proposed. In 1948, Jenk- ins spoke of an ‘influence of Plutarch at every turn, in the vocabulary, the conjunctive phrases, the arrangement of material, the gnomic and often platitudinous asides'.35 As far as vocabulary and style are concerned, Jenkins was probably right. The arrangement of the material is indeed mainly chronological in both cases as well. But both works share this characteristic with history, and even with the basilikòv lógov. And the Vita Basilii treats exactly those items Menander Rhetor summed up for the basilikòv lógov. Jenkins himself acknowledged this in a later article.36 Finally we may wonder what exactly Jenkins intended by “gnomic and often platitudinous asides” Constantine and Plutarch would share. If by “asides” he means the little things, words or jokes that Plutarch renders in order to show character, then this, as we have seen, does not apply to Constantine. Nor does Plutarch intervene frequently, let alone in a gnomic way. Apart from resemblances in vocabulary and style, what remains true, as Jenkins wrote, is that Michael shares some negative qualities with Plutarch's Antony (Life of Antony), and that Constantine's phrasing of them more than once shows a resemblance to Plutarch's. Jenkins gives two explanations for Constantine's choice of Plutarch's Antony: ‘the opposition between the fun- damentally unworthy Antony and the sage, austere and statesmanlike Octa- vian struck Constantine as parallel to that between Michael and Basil', and he ‘realized, though naturally he was not going to say it, that Michael strik- ingly resembled Antony in his good qualities, his generosity, his popularity, his personal courage, as well as in his bad'. It seems to us that there is a con- tradiction between those two explanations, the former saying that Constan- tine chose Antony because Plutarch's image of him was monochromatic, the

35 ‘Constantine VII's Portrait of Michael III', Académie Royale de Belgique. Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques 34 (1948), p. 72. 36 ‘Classical Background' (see n. 7), p. 25. 178 LIEVE VAN HOOF latter because it was shaded. Why, then, does Constantine ‘quote' Plutarch? As we have seen, Constantine is very negative about Michael in order to ‘justify' why he was murdered. All the quotations from Plutarch's Life of Antony have to do with various negative qualities Michael and Antony share. There is no indication in the Vita Basilii that Constantine knew Antony's virtues. Moreover, had Constantine been aware of them, we believe that he would not have quoted Plutarch at all: he would have realised that even if he did not explicitly mention any of Antony's virtues, his readers might think of them and transpose them to Michael. And that of course would run counter to Con- stantine's purpose to present Michael in a negative way. It could be objected that Constantine foresaw his readers' reaction and prevented it by denying Michael some of Antony's virtues. This, however, does not apply to all of the latter's virtues. Moreover, for no virtue is there in fact a real ‘denial' of Plutarch in the sense that Constantine would verbally allude to a virtue of Plutarch’s Antony and then explain that that virtue did not apply to Michael. On the contrary, the virtues that Michael lacks are, as we have seen, the very same virtues that make Basil a great Byzantine emperor. Thus Constantine sets the two emperors in strong opposition to each other. But he does not do so by equating them to Plutarch's antagonists. Basil indeed does not seem to bear any specific resemblances to Octavian. As for Michael, some of his vices37 reminded Constantine of Plutarch's Antony, and in those cases his text has got features in common with Plutarch’s. The Vita Basilii does not allow us to draw any further conclusions about Constantine's knowledge or interpre- tation of Plutarch. The explanation of the quotations must thus be the same as the one for the resemblances with Plutarch in vocabulary and style: a literary fashion or a demonstration of education. If we take into account that the Vita Basilii was written in the period of so-called Macedonian Renaissance, this is not surprising. During Michael’s reign, Bardas had organized the Magnaura School, and Constantine himself would revive or reorganize it. Students

37 F.H. Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie von Prokop bis Niketas Choniates (München, 1971), p. 101, showed that the vices Constantine endowed Michael with can be found as well in works of authors more positively disposed towards him. W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford, CA, 1997), p. 450, states that Michael indeed loved drinking and sports. AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 179 applied themselves to grammar, eloquence and philosophy, and also studied the ancient writers.38 It is not difficult to understand that Plutarch, as a poly- histor, was among the most popular authors of this time of encyclopedism,39 and it is likely that this author figured amongst the authors touched upon in the school. It was, so we can conclude, possible for Constantine to know Plutarch, as it was realistic for him to suppose that his readers would recog- nize his learned allusions to the Chaeronean.

Our analysis of the text has demonstrated that the Vita Basilii, as suggested in its prologue, indeed shows resemblances to the genres of encomium, history and biography. Synthesizing our findings, however, we would label the work an encomiastic biography. Constantine’s work, it is true, shows many features of encomia, but nowhere does it create the impression that it is a speech delivered at a particular occasion – we consider this fact decisive in consid- ering it an encomiastic biography rather than a biographical encomium. As for historiography, Constantine pretends that his work belongs to this genre, by explicitly saying so, by using topoi typical for that genre, by stressing that he is not telling any lies, and, we can add, by conceiving it as part of a historiographical work. For indeed, as we stated in our introduction, the Vita Basilii was handed down to us as the fifth book of a work covering the history from 813 onwards. However, the Vita Basilii, as we have seen, does not meet the standards of a historical work. The fact that it contains information about the political and military history of Basil’s time does not speak against this: biographies as well contain historical information about the world in which their subjects lived, and as we are dealing with the biography of an emperor, it is logical that it would include political and military facts as well. On the other hand, recounting a great number of Basil’s achievements can be still another way for Constantine to create the impression that he is writing a historiographical work. Still, it is on Basil that Constantine focuses at every

38 This information is given by G. Vikan, ‘Education', in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzan- tium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan (New York – Oxford, 1991). 39 See R. Hirzel, Plutarch, Das Erbe der Alten, 4 (Leipzig, 1912), p. 99. A tenth-century gloss in the margin of a manuscript of the Tactica, composed for Leo VI, even suggests that already Constantine's father Leo was not unfamiliar to Plutarch. Cf. G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica I. Die byzantinischen Quellen der Geschichte der Türkvölker (Berlin, 19833), p. 402. 180 LIEVE VAN HOOF turn. Therefore we label the Vita Basilii, following the life of a single man from beginning to end, with attention also for “less important” ages as childhood and youth, a biography. As we have seen, though, the term ‘biography' can cover a wide range of writings. The Vita Basilii is certainly not a Plutarchan biography. To a certain extent, it fits Polybius’ description of his laudatory work on Philopoimen. Still, the Vita Basilii is not as openly encomiastic as Polybius’ work seems to have been, and probably also recounts more achievements of Basil’s riper years. We hope that our study has shown some of the characteristics of this particular biography.

Why, then, did Constantine write this work? Why did he want to write about his grandfather? And why did he compose the work as he did, writing an encomiastic biography but presenting it as a work of history? Apart from treating it himself, the importance Constantine attached to this part of history is also evidenced by the fact that he also had it described by another author, usually denoted as Genesius.40 To answer these questions a brief review of the family’s history may be useful.41 We can infer from the Vita Basilii that Basil's roots were rather humble (§5), that he was not an educated man (§6), that he owed his rise in power to the emperor Michael (§§13-18) but made his way to the throne only because his benefactor was murdered. That combination of facts made it difficult for Basil to be accepted as the new emperor: he had to justify his being in power. Photius provided a solution for the first two problems by invent- ing42 a descent from the Arsacids on the one hand and by providing the emperor's children with a good education on the other. As for the third prob- lem, Basil seems to have made it worse by dedicating the Néa, the new church built by Basil in the Great Palace, also to his predecessor's namesake, the archangel Michael.43

40 See the introduction. 41 See also Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (see n. 7), pp. 582-598. 42 Cf. G. Moravcsik, ‘Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basileios I', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15 (1961), p. 154. 43 Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (see n. 7), p. 586, notes that Constantine, probably by mistake, speaks of the church as a ïlastßrion (§83). AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 181

Leo was born around 864.44 His mother was Eudocia Ingerina, mistress of Michael III and Basil's second wife, a situation that soon gave rise to doubts about Leo’s paternity. After Basil's death in 886, Leo succeeded him and wrote his êpitáfiov lógov, a laudatory funerary speech. The fact that he wrote the encomium can be interpreted as a sign that at least he did not openly doubt that Basil was his father, and in the text, Leo takes for granted that he was so indeed. Furthermore, he elaborated his Arsacid ancestry and stressed his education by his epithet ö sofóv. As for the murder of Michael, Leo passes over it very quickly, saying that Michael died âneikástoiv krímasin (148b), an inscrutable destiny. Leo married four times, thus breaking the law that he himself had issued about marriage. His last wife, Zoe Carbonopsina, finally gave birth to a son, Constantine. After a long struggle for legitimacy, Constantine managed to come into power in 944. Only a few years later he wrote his History of the Life and Deeds of the Famous Emperor Basil. In order to collect information about Basil, Constantine will have read his father Leo’s Funeral Oration, a highly rhetorical and encomiastic work about Basil, and thus have received a distorted image of him. But Constantine must have had more information. As we can read in the title of the text of the so- called Theophanes Continuatus,45 Constantine himself gathered the information needed for the composition of that work, and so will have been well acquainted with the imperial history. And what’s more, being born less than twenty years after his grandfather’s death, and being a member of the imperial family still struggling for power, he must have known more, not only about battles and religious controversies, but also about the weak points of the new dynasty. If we see the author nonetheless giving a fully positive account of his grandfather, we must conclude that he deliberately distorted the picture.

From this survey of the family history, with its scandals and difficulties, it will be clear why Constantine had to deform it. But why did he want to write about that difficult family history at all? Would it not have been easier and safer to pass over this topic? This was

44 See Vogt – Hausherr, Oraison funèbre (see n. 1), p. 10. 45 T¬n dè kaq ˆ ∏kasta tàv üpoqéseiv ö aûtòv basileùv Kwnstant⁄nov filopónwv sunéleze. 182 LIEVE VAN HOOF probably impossible, for the public apparently knew the history, and thus an answer, a justification, was needed.46 But then Leo had already given one. Still, Leo’s Funeral Oration was probably not meant for such a wide audience,47 and thus was insufficient. The fact that Constantine, in turn, had to struggle for power proved it. In his Vita Basilii, Constantine objects to the three problems many in the people had with the Macedonian dynasty since its beginning by giving his own version of the facts. By pretending to be writing history, the author conceals that this is his -partial- version of the truth. Having another author – who was not a member of the imperial family and was thus less suspect – largely writing the same version of facts may have been another way to conceal the distorting.48 Thus, Constantine could hope to change the opinion49 others had about the beginning of the Macedonian dynasty, and achieve his first aim: to hand down to posterity (his version of) the roots of the dynasty. That was one reason for Constantine to write his Vita Basilii. But there may have been still another reason, one concerned with a justification not of the past, but of the future: Constantine wrote his work the way he did in order to assure the dynastic legitimacy of his family once and for all. In Constantine's narrative, Basil is a great person whom God therefore made emperor. He thus reigned legitimately. But why then does he state that he is making him an example? It is significant that Constantine writes that he is providing historical information to posterity (to⁄v metépeita, §1), and an example for Basil's offspring (to⁄v êkgónoiv êkeínou, §1). Indeed, if Basil was a legitimate emperor because God elected him for his piety and other good

46 See Moravcsik, Sagen und Legenden (see n. 42), p. 106, and P. Karlin-Hayter, ‘L'enjeu d'une rumeur. Opinion et imaginaire à Byzance au neuvième siècle', Jahrbuch der Öster- reichischen Byzantinistik, 14 (1991), pp. 85-111. 47 The speech Leo wrote one year after his father’s death will probably have been read, if ever, in presence of a limited circle of people. Also, the fact that only one manuscript of this speech survived (Athos, 360 Serruys = L 408 Eustratiadès) can be an indication pointing in this direction. See also the introduction of Vogt – Hausherr, Oraison funèbre (see n. 1). 48 This is not to say that Genesius’ work, including a description of the reigns of the emperors preceding Basil, did not have any intrinsic worth for Constantine, who seems to have been truly interested in history, as in other fields of knowledge. As a testimony to this, one can think not only of the reorganization of the Magnaura School, but also of the many works written on his command. 49 ‘Die Biographie hatte in diesem Sinn die Funktion eines meinungsbildenden Forums, sie prägte die Auffassungen der gebildeten Oberschichten von einzelnen Persönlichkeiten'. See Sonnabend, Geschichte der antiken Biographie (see n. 28), p. 13. AMONG CHRISTIAN EMPERORS 183 qualities, then his descendants, the future emperors, if they conform to Basil’s example, will also be protected by God, and thus reign legitimately as well. By describing its past the way he does, the Christian emperor Constantine assures the future of the Macedonian dynasty.50

50 I wish to thank Jeffrey Beneker for correcting my English.