Notes and Doctiments Downloaded From

Home , Balearic Islands, Diocese of Pontus, Thebaid

1894 315

Notes and Doctiments Downloaded from

THE BOJIAN EMPIEE IN 600 A.D.

WITH our present materials it is impossible to trace the successive administrative changes •which transformed the empire of Hierocles into the empire of Constantine Porphyrogennetos. In the ' Novels ' http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ of Justinian we have indeed a record of several important and significant changes which that emperor introduced ; but with this exception, which does not carry us very far, we have hitherto had no official or express register of provinces between the ' Synek- demos' and the treatise ' On the Themes.' To gain a fully satisfac- tory view of the development we require at least three lists, one

dating from the early years of the seventh century, a second from at University of California, Santa Barbara on July 7, 2015 the reign of Constans, a third from the age of Leo the Isaurian. Of these the second would be, perhaps, more valuable even than the third; but records of the latter half of the seventh century are so rare that we have little chance of ever discovering such a treasure. In the meantime we may congratulate ourselves on the partial recovery of the first, a list enumerating the provinces at the beginning of the seventh century. The unearthing of this document is the work of the distinguished scholar Professor H. Gelzer of Jena. As his editionl of his discovery may easily escape the notice of some English historical students, whom his results might interest or concern, I propose to state briefly here what the most important of those results are. In the firBt half of the ninth century, under Michael the Amorian or his son Theophilus, an Armenian named Basil com- piled an ecclesiastical notitia of the empire. This notitia is preserved in several manuscripts, of which some date from the eleventh century, and had been already edited repeatedly but imperfectly. The edition of Professor Gelzer (1890) rests on a new collation of the manuscripts, and is provided with an elaborate commentary and four maps. But the most important result of his labours is the discovery that in this ninth-century notitia lies embedded a valuable document of much earlier date. Professor Gelzer has made it

1 Oeorgii Cyprii Deacriptio Orbis Romani. Aeeedil Leonit Imperatoru DiatypotU genuina adhuc irudiia. Tenbner, 1891. 816 THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN 600 A.D. April quite clear that Basil's compilation consists of two parts of totally different character, drawn from two totally different sources. The first part enumerates the bishoprics of Thrace and Asia Minor, and is obviously of ecclesiastical origin—is, in fact, a copy of an ecclesiastical notitia of the Constantinopolitan diocese. The second part is a list of the cities and forts of the provinces of Italy, Africa, Egypt, and the East. On the face of it—and Gelzer has proved the fact with a completeness which leaves nothing to be desired— this part is of profane origin. It is, as the compiler lets out under Downloaded from ' Cyprus,' a copy of a notitia written by one George, a Cyprian (Aa.7ri0os iv fj lyevvydi] Tewpyios 6 Kwrpwj 6 ypdyfras TTJV fBlfSXcv i£ fj» ravra fUTsX^Brjcrav). Basil put together these two different texts, without apparently the slightest consciousness that they were heterogeneous. http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ The time at which the book of George the Cyprian was written can be defined approximately; but here I cannot agree in every par- ticular with the conclusions of the editor. In the first place, a prior limit is given to us at once, as Professor Gelzer points out, by the mention of the /cdtrrpop "Zanoxdprtav, which, as we tnow from John of Ephesus, was instituted by Maurice. Now Maurice'B first campaign in the east was either in 577 or 578 A.D. (see my ' Later

Eoman Empire,' ii. 104), and therefore George wrote not earlier at University of California, Santa Barbara on July 7, 2015 than the reign of Tiberius. But we can bring the limit further down, as Gelzer goes on to show. Daras, which is mentioned as Boman by George, was Persian from 574 to 591 A.D. ; therefore 591 is the prior limit. On the other hand, a posterior limit is given without any difficulty by the fact that Syria and Egypt still belonged to the empire. This gives us 684 A.D., the year of the Arab invasion of Syria. We get a similar limit, though not so early or precise, by the mention of the Ligurian towns Luna, Genua, Vintimilia, which were won by the Lombards in the reign of Rotharis (686-52 A.D.) So far all is clear. But when Professor Gelzer tries to narrow the limits more closely I cannot agree with all his arguments. The circumstance that George goes out of his way to mention the exile and martyrdom of St. Sergius at Caesarea and Anastasiopolis (Sergiopolis) is not in itself a cogent argument for placing the work in or very near the reign of Maurice. It is true that in that emperor's days St. Sergius, the revered of Chosroes, was prominently before the eyes of the Romaioi (cf. Theoph. Sim., v. 18); but supposing there happened to be any other evidence tending to place George's book later, say, than 620, the reference to Sergius could not bo pressed. In fact, that reference could be completely explained by supposing that George was alive under Maurice and had taken a special interest in the cult of St. Sergius, though he did not write his ' Descriptio' till a later period. But Professor Gelzer has better grounds than this for fixing a posterior 1894 THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN 600 A.D. 317 limit earlier than Heraclius. George mentions Brixillum, in the province of Aemilia, and Urbevetus (OpfiofMpa, now Orvieto), in the province of Campania. Now Urbevetus passed to the Lom- bards about 606, while Brixillum was lost soon after Mantua, which was captured in 602. Assuming that George had accurate and early intelligence of events in Italy, we get 603 or 604 as a posterior limit for his work. But his editor goes still further. Observing that while Brixillum appears Mantua is not mentioned, he con- cludes that the ' Descriptio' must have been composed in the short Downloaded from interval which elapsed between the loss of Mantua and the loss of Brixillum. Qiiarc in eo acqtiiescendum est, vt primis imperatoris Phocae annis mm scripsissc statuamus. Now I totally dissent from this argument from omission; and Professor Geker himself may be cited as a witness to the uncertainty of his argument, for http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ he points out that the codex of George, which Basil used, must have been .gravely corrupt, and that a large number of important Italian towns which we know to have been Boman—e.g. Tarra- cina, Ariminum, Bononia, Ancona, Barium, Hydruntum, &c.—are omitted. These omissions were due not to George's negligence, but tins librarii erroribus a quo codices nostri dependent (p. xviii). Therefore, I hold, it is just as likely that the omission of Mantua and Cremona may arise from the same cause as the omission of at University of California, Santa Barbara on July 7, 2015 Barium and Ariminum, as from the intention of George himself. And then, if the argument from apparent silence is permissible, I could find grounds for fixing the composition of the work as post 610, if not post 616 or even 621; for if he wrote before the first of these dates how comes it that he did not mention Carthago Spartaria, which was Boman in that year ? how comes it that he omitted all the plurimas urbes which, Isidore tells us, were captured by Sisebut in 616, and the urbes rcsidaas which were taken by Suinthila, who became king of the Visigoths in 621 ? The mention of Brixillum and Urbevetus shows us that we can make no such inferences from the omission of the cities of Boman Spain. We have no right, then, to draw any inference from the omission of Mantua and Cremona; I therefore propose to modify Professor Gelzer's conclusion, and submit that our data do not permit us to fix the date of George's ' Descriptio' in 603-4 with any greater probability than in 592.. We are only entitled to say that the limits of its date are 591 and 606 (possibly 604). It is unfortunate for us that Basil did not transcribe the entire work of the Cyprian. For Ulyricum, Thrace, and Asia he used his ecclesiastical source, and thus we have only those parts of George which relate to Italy, Africa, Egypt, and the East (Anatolic diocese). Gelzer shows that no province in Italy, which we know from other sources to have been Boman about .600 A.D., has been omitted by George (see his useful table, pp. xxv, xxvi). But in the 818 THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN 600 A.D. April manuscript of George, which Basil had, many of the provinces had got placed under the head of other provinces among the towns and castra, owing to a copyist's carelessness. Thus Bruttii (Bperawla), Calabria, Venetia, and Apulia all figure among the towns of Campania. That these errors crept into a manuscript of George which Basil used, and did not arise at a later time in a copy of Basil's compilation, is shown clearly by a remarkable interpolation. Among the Italian provinces occurs Calabria, in the later sense of the name, as equivalent to Bruttii, the sense which it bore Downloaded from in the time of Basil, but which it did not yet bear in the time of George. The interpolation is clearly due to Basil, and of course Professor Gelzer calls attention to it. But he might have also pointed out its significance in regard to the character of the manuscript which was in Basil's hands. Basil inserted Calabria because http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ he missed it in George's list; he missed it because the province or theme of Calabria existed in his own time. He did not miss Apulia or Venetia, because they no longer existed as provinces; and he was quite unconscious of the historical change which the name Calabria had undergone. He did not recognise the true Calabria embedded among the Campanian towns.8 Some quite new light is cast on the administration of the prefecture of Africa. According to the scheme of Justinian, framed at University of California, Santa Barbara on July 7, 2015 after the conquest of Belisarius and preserved in the' Codex' (i. 27), Africa was to consist of seven provinces—Proconsularis (Zeugitana), Byzacium, Tripolitana, Numidia, two Mauritanias,8 and Sardinia. The two Mauritanian provinces were, as under Diocletian, Sitifensis and Caesariensis. But the restored Caesariensis did not go further west than Caesarea itself—in fact, consisted only of Caesarea and a few coast towns. Mauritania was never entirely recovered from the Moors. The double arrangement was made in prospect of further conquest, for the parts actually recovered were not large enough to constitute two provinces of ordinary size. Before 600 A.D. three important changes—of which, before Gelzer's work, we knew nothing—were made in the African prefecture. When George writes, it consists of only six provinces, and of them only four are the same as under the Justinianean regulations. (1) Tripolitana has been separated from Africa and joined to the diocese of Egypt. (2) Mauritania, Sitifensis, and Caesariensis have been thrown together to form one province, which is called Mauri- tania Prima. (8) A new province, entitled Mauritania Secunda, has been formed out of the remnant of the old Mauritania Tingitana

1 I cannot imagine what the mysterious Uarra^Ut (between Bperanla and KaXa0fia) in ihe Campanian towns represents, unless the name somehow was given to Istria. 1 There can be no doubt that Mauritania*, preserved by the Monte Casino mann- script (the others having Mauritania), is the true reading. My statement (Later Roman Empire, ii. 8i) mast be modified accordingly. 1894 THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN 600 A.D. 819 and the imperial possessions in Spain, including the Balearic Islands. It seems probable that this last change was later than 690. In that year we find still a special magister militum Spaniae (Gomenciolus,' G. I. L.' ii. 8420); and we may suspect that Spain's annexation to the prefecture of Africa concerned its military as well as its civil administration, and that the dukes of whom we hear (e.g. the dux of Malaca in 605) henceforward obeyed the prefect at Carthage, as they had before obeyed the master of soldiers at

Corduba or at New Carthage. Downloaded from Thus the provincial arrangements of Africa c. 600 A.D. correspond partly to the system of Diocletian, partly to the older system before Diocletian, partly to the scheme of Justinian, and in two important respects differ from all these. Diocletian's principle of an administrative connexion between north-west Africa, Tin- http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ gitana, and Spain has been restored; but the bond is closer. Instead of forming three provinces under a vicar, Tingitana, the Balearic Islands, and what is left of Baetica form one province. But, on the other hand, by the new system it is south-east Spain which is connected with Africa, not—as by the old system—north- west Africa which is connected with Spain. The two Mauritanian provinces of the Principate, which had been divorced by Diocletian, are restored; but the western province now extends beyond the at University of California, Santa Barbara on July 7, 2015 straits. Justinian's union of Sardinia with Africa is maintained. The two wholly new arrangements are the addition of Spain to the prefecture at one end and the loss of Tripolitana at the other. In regard to Egypt the only change, of which we were hitherto ignorant, is the extension of the diocese westward at the expense of Africa. Thus Egypt now consists of ten provinces—Egypt i. and ii., Augustamnica L and ii., Arcadia, Thebaid inf., Thebaid sup., Libya inf., Libya sup., Tripolitana. The two Egypts had been constituted by Justinian in 685 A.D. (NOV. viii.); the list of places in each, given by George, supplies important material for defining the boundary between them. Coming to the diocese of the East, we find that the provinces in 600 A.D. correspond to the provinces of Hierocles, with three exceptions. (1) The new province of Theodorias, of which the chief towns are Laodicea, Paltos, Gabala, and Balaneae, has been formed on the Syrian coast. (2) Mesopotamia has acquired new boundaries, and is now named Upper Mesopotamia or FourtJi Armenia. (8) There is a province called Other Fourth Armenia (hrap^ia A 'Ap/xevi'as a\Xi7»)., Between this arrangement and that which Hierocles describes, we have an intermediate stage in the remodelling of the Armenian provinces by Justinian in 686 A.D. He instituted four Armenias (' Novel' 81), of which the fourth—which alone concerns as now—was formed out of the satrapies of Sophanene, Anzitene, Sophene, Asthianene, and Balabitene. The next change was 320 THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN 600 A.D. April doubtless made by Maurice at the close of the Persian war, when Chosroes restored Arzanene to the empire, as well as the region of Taronitis or Turuberan. Taronitis was not incoporated in the provincial system, but Arzanene was joined to the province of Mesopotamia, and Sophanene, with its chief town, Martyropolis, was severed from the Fourth Armenia and joined likewise to Meso- potamia. With this enlargement of Mesopotamia, partly at the expense of Fourth Armenia, was connected a change of nomen-

clature, the object of which is not quite clear. Fourth Armenia Downloaded from was assigned as an alternative name to Mesopotamia; and the old Fourth Armenia was named Oilier Fourth Armenia, and separated from the diocese of Pontus to be joined to the diocese of the East. For the details of the boundaries of these provinces, with the pas- sages of Armenian writers bearing on the subject, the student of http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ geography will find full information in Professor Gelzer's preface. The other ' Armenian' provinces, not belonging to the Eastern diocese, are not included in our fragment of George's ' Description It is as well, however, to mention in this connexion that we know from other sources (proceedings of Councils) that Maurice changed the nomenclature here also. Justinian's Third Armenia became Firtt Armenia, and Justinian's First Armenia became. Great

Armenia. Second Armenia remained the same. J. B. BUBT. at University of California, Santa Barbara on July 7, 2015

THB SUPPOSED LATIN PENITENTIAL OP EGBEBT AND THE MISSINa WOBK OF HAT.TTGAB OF CAHBBAI. THE Bodleian MS. 718' has been made famous by the writings of Spelman, Wilkins, Johnson,8 the brothers Ballerini, Wasserschleben, Maassen, Haddan and Stubbs, and Lord Selborne. The manuscript has been exhaustively described by the last-named author in the second edition of his ' Ancient Facts and Fictions concerning Churches and Tithes' (1892); nevertheless of the four books into which the manuscript is divided the first alone has been traced to its sources. "Who wrote the last three books ? The evidence here produced will, I believe, suffice to prove that these three books formed part of a work • De Yita Sacerdotum,' by Halitgar, bishop of Cambrai. As a preliminary it will be well to analyse the contents of the manuscript 718, and this can be done very briefly, as extracts from different parts of the volume have already appeared in print. The handwriting of the whole manuscript is English, and, save for some fly-leaves at the beginning and end, which contain notes made at various times,9 belongs to the end of the tenth or beginning 1 No. 8682 in Bernard's catalogue. * Ed. Baron. ' An account of these notes is given in the appendix.