Authorship of Strategikon

AUTHORSHIP OF THE STRATEGIKON OF CECAUMENUS
GEORGINA B CKLER / OXFORD

L In 1881 in the Review of the Public Education Ministry at
St. Petersburg B. Wassiliewsky printed and annotated extracts, some in
the Byzantine original, some in a Russian translation, from three un-
published MSS. in Codex 436 of the Moscow Synodal Library. This
15 th Century Codex contains works by different authors, copied by
two scribes, of whom the first concerns us now. In Matthiae's Cata-
logue of 1805 our three documents are called "nescio cuius -
". Study of a photographic copy1) shows that this supposed unit
contains three distinct entities, though the marginal numbers of the
chapters run on more or less consecutively throughout. We have from
136 verso to 229 recto
1. (After a Table of Contents) the S t r a t e g i k o n proper, a book
of maxims and stories on various subjects civil and military, unique
in Byzantine literature.2)
2. Seven irrelevant chapters, chiefly copied from St. John Damas-
cene.8)
3. A Logos N o u t h e t e t i k o s , or Counsels to an Emperor.4)
All three divisions are f ll of misspellings, due partly to obyious
ignorance in the copyist, partly to the chaotic state of llth Century
grammar, syntax, orthography and accents.5)
When Wass. and Jernstedt published the text6) of these three parts
they made it readable by frequently correcting vowels, moods etc. A
new edition of the MSS. (omitting Part II s extraneous7)) with (1) an
English translation (2) Wass/s comments Condensed, both Russian and
Latin, (3) emendations suggested by Heisenberg8), is in prospect. Mean-
*) Kindly provided by the USSR Society for cultural relatione with foreign
countries.
8 4
*) 136213. ) 213217. ) 217229.
5
) For Prodromne' poeme in (a) Classical Greek (b) the yulgar tongue then
current v. B. Z. 23 (191420) 397.
6
) St. Petersburg 1906. N o other copy hae ever been fonnd.
7
) Chaptere 228234.
8
) Whoee partially annotated copy I possees throogh the generosity of hie
widow.
Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Authenticated | 134.93.79.225
Download Date | 11/25/13 3:02 PM
8 I. Abteilung
while tne present article aims at proving that the author of Parts I
and III was not a "nescio quis" but the great Byzantine general Cata-
calo Cecaumenus.
Of the Byzantinists who have studied these documents, Banescu,
Diehl, Heisenberg, Jernstedt, Jorga, Krumbacher, Leger, Neumann, Run-
ciman, Schlumberger, Valdenherg and Wass., none entertain this idea
except Neumann who summarily dismisses it. Sometimes the two pam-
phlets are considered one, sometimes the L. N. is ignored, but in the
55 years since the Codex was discovered nobody has identified the
author. Krumbacher says: "Ein byzantinischer Optimat" of the llth Cen-
tury. Diehl states that though '^before retiring to his native Thessaly1)
. . . he had served in the army and been often at court" he was essen-
tially "a great provincial landholder". Wass. believes he was a Cecau-
menus, not nearly related to Cat. Cec. or he would haye mentioned the
fact; Schlumberger and Banescu accept this argument from silence. If
however the author of Parts I and III was himself the famous general,
Byzantine fear of jealousy might have sealed his lips about his own
exploits. Wass. considers that the L. N. was addressed to Alexius I,
and the Str. partly to Michael Cecaumenus that Emperor's general.
Our evidence i s exclusively internal; the treatises were apparently
unknown to literary Byzantium, much though the Alexias resembles
them in general outlook.2) Throughout our two writings we find cha-
racteristics that substantiate the confessed lack of "Hellenic culture".8)
They contain only one mythological reference, no Homeric quotations,
and indeed no literary allusions except several to the Bible, two to
St. Greg. Nazianzen and one to Cassius Dio. There is simple religious
faith but no theology, few mentions of Saints and no animadversions
against heretics. Historical names, Hannibal, Augustus etc., are brought
in to point various morals, but the stories mainly deal with the Em-
pire from 980 to 1078. The Str. is sometimes addressed to the writer's
sons, but oftener gives advice to the public in all its variety, rieh and
poor, generals, officials, landowners, clergy. As the topics change, so
do the tone and style. Usually the writer appears s a faithful servant
of the Empire, but chs. 218226 express the sentiments of an inde-
pendent almost hostile "toparch" in the provinces. Again, many pas-
sages are remarkably terse, others equally prolix. Different dates of
l
) "Native" expresses a pure assumption on part ("Byz. Portraits"
trans. Harold Bell. p. 326).
*) The similarity between Str. eh. 79 and Alex. XIII: 3 s to rams and mines
and mounds (common features of every siege) is too slight to detain us.
8
) Str. 75: 30.

G. Backler: Authorehip of the Strategikon of Cecaumenue 9
composition may explain this without its implying different authorships,
but it adds to the difficulty of identifying the writer. In the L. N. the
reader addressed is an Emperor, and the man who held the pen clearly
is or has been an important Courtier.1)
Before studying the autobiographical notices in our text and com-
paring them with the career of Cat. Cec. in the chronicles, we must
say a word of the "Prologue" in political verses prefixed to the Str.
by an unknown later writer. Every word would fit Cat. Cec.2), and
thongh it has been asserted that the whole is a lato conventional
heading such s might preface various works without any special rele-
vance8), there is at least nothing here to disprove our theory. We can
therefore pass on the general's biography s given by Psellus, Cedrenus,
Zonaras and Anna Comnena, and summarized by Banescu.4)
II. Cat. Cec. was born in the Armenian province of Coloneia and
apparently began fighting in 1038, when while protospatharius he led
the % under Maniaces in Sicily. After his chief s
recall in 1040 he defended Messina against Sicilians and Moslems, and
by a sortie gained a brilliant victory. In April 1042 he was in the
capital when Mich. V, for whom he tried to hold the Palace, was de-
posed and blinded. Next year when Vestes and governor of the Pari-
strion5) he twice ronted Russian raiders. Two years later we find him
Duke of Iberia and commanding at Ani. Eecalled in 1047 to Constan-
tinople to save Const. IX from Leo Tornicius, he soon returned to gain
two victories in 1048 over the Seljuks. On the first occasion he left
his camp deserted and sprang from ambush upon his enemies advancing
to seize it. On the second he was hampered by the dilatoriness of one
colleague and the capture of another. In 1049 while
he was sent to Bulgaria by Const. IX, whose troops had
been defeated by the Patzinaks. In 1050 Nicephorus the Rector against
Cat.'s ad vice delayed the attack, and defeat followed; Cat. was badly
wounded but saved by a friendly Patzinak captor, and presumably not
released till the peace of 1053. In 1056 he is and Duke of
1
) His democratic ideas on a eovereign's duties are discuseed by Valdenberg
in Byzantion 3 (1926) 95 If he was Cat. Cec. writing for Alexius I, it was clearly
while he was still loyal, i. e. before the Diogenes conspiracy of 1094.
2
) The & , which has been held to conflict with Cedr. II: 615,17
(where Cat. Cec. is said to have attained hie high position "not throngh his an-
cestors . . . but through his own achievements") is substantiated by line 2 of the
same page, and by Zonaras XVIII l, both classing him with the nobles. In the
chronicles we find the Cat. family holding high positions.
4
) Byz.-neugr. Jbb. 5 (1926) 43. ) Bull. Acad. Roum. XI (1924) 26.
') The frontier-duchy created after 1018; v. Byzantioii 8 (1933) 283.

10 I. Abteilung
Antioch, but is dismissed by Mich. VI. Next year having failed to get
the rank of , Gat. joined other discontented nobles; and after
refusing the throne helped to seat Isaac Comnenus on it; he himself
became Curopalates. Then, according to Wass., Cat. Cec. vanishes from
history", but Banescu maintains that having lived on, perhaps in reti-
rement, under 51/, reigns, he was the general of that name who took
part in 1094 in the Diogenes conspiracy, and was consequently im-
prisoned and blinded.1)
III. Let us now see what each of our documents teils about its
author. We may dismiss any argument s to date drawn from imperial
epithets. The latest Emperor mentioned is Mich. VII who is called
*), usually the adjective for living monarchs. But a dead
predecessor, Const. IX? is also *) not .4') The
writer clearly was a law unto himself in such matters.5)
Turning to the first treatise we find that its author had a
who was once toparch of Tibion in Armenia, and "the enemy of the
Greek Empire".6) Later on we read of -
who once governed Hellas from Larissa7), and Wass. classes
him among "the numerous Armenien b o y a r s who sought refuge in
Constantinople", and were sent into the provinces.8) This Cecaumenus
was & to the Larissan "family of Niculitza".9) If we take
and & naturally, our author's paternal grandfather
was a Cec., whose son or daughter married the child of a Nie. This
grandfather, formerly a hostile toparch, cleverly defended Larissa three
years for Basil II against the Bulgarians. After another 3 years under
a new governor Larissa was taken by Samuel.10) was
now living in Constantinople, but the family never forgot Larissa. Our
writer himself once 'Tield authority" in those parts and knew its Bishop;
the prominent citizen 11) was probably his own
uncle. Twice again appears. Once the phrase so clearly
refers to 6 lines above12) that we cannot avoid taking
s the gen. not of but of .19) Later we learn
8
') Alex. IX: 8, 9. ) Str. 73: 26. ) Str. 18: 18; 22: 27.
4
) 'Of blessed memory". Paseim of past Emperors.
5
) It has been euggested that no one after the reign of Mich. VII, remembering
the Usurpation of Botaniatee and Alex. Comnenus, could have written Str. 73:
2628. But the succese of Botaniatee before he "was himself destroyed" lasted
only three years, and Alexius was in a sense no usurper but the lawful succeseor
of his uncle Isaac I.
e 7 9
) Str. eh. 73. ) Str. eh. 169. *) Cedr. II: 447. ) Str. 66: 7. 10.
10
) In 986. Wass. Praefatio p. 5, note 2. ") Str. eh. 142, 170186.
lf 18
) Str. 39: 13,19. ) Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, "childish word for ".
Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

G. Backler: Authorehip of the Strategikon of Cecanmenus 11
1
that Nie. of Larissa ) when imprisoned by Const. X wrote
. As this happened when John Xiphilinus
was Patriarch2) (at least 81 years after 983 at which date the
with a toparchy and a governorship behind him must have been al-
ready no longer young), we must read for 3) and under-
stand "father" s before. This having warned his cousin
or nephew John Ma'ius not to nndertake tax-gathering in **the circuit
of Arabiens" in Armenia, "departed to hie own country". His advice
was disregarded and subsequently he saw Mai'us imprisoned in Constan-
tinople for debt.4)
On the other side we read5) of "My maternal grandfather, Deme-
trius called Polemarchius", an "outstanding leader" in Bulgaria, who
succeeded in taking Serbia6) from the Greeks. Schlumberger arbitrarily
assumes7) that this man was Bulgarian born, and also that the patri-
ciate granted him by Basil II "after Bulgaria was peaceful" must be
assigned to 1018; but surely we may take s alluding to
some pacific interval in the long struggle. 6 was probably
not a family name but a personal epithet8), and this Dem. Polemar-
chius may well have been Dem. Gatacalo called Polemarchius.
IV. The tempting identification with a character in the chronicles
presents more difficulty. Cedrenus writing of 1001 describes the com-
mandant of Serbia s , 9);
he was captured by Basil II, taken to Constantinople and made patri-
cius. The locality, the enmity to the Empire and the honour bestowed
all correspond with what we know about Dem. Polemarchius, but how
could the latter be Nicolas nicknamed Niculitza? We may suggest
1. that Gedrenus is often inaccurate s to names and other details10),
so that the commandant may not have been Nicolas at all; 2. that
though Niculitza may seem a str nge nickname for a man christened
*) He 18 called & in Str. 71: 18, and thongh Byz. terms of
relationehip are nsed with notorioua loosenees and ,& with its verb may
denote any "connection by marriage" (Soph. Lexicon, and cf. Plut. Marius 35, 9,
where & is umother-in-lawte father1'), it seems better to take the word
literally, and assuine that the writer and his prisoner uncle had arranged some
marriage between their children.
8 4 6
) 106475. ) MS. nanov. ) Str. eh. 95. ) Str. eh. 76.
e
) In Macedonia, just over the Bulgarian frentier.
7
) Byzantine I: 639.
8
) Cf. 6 ITeraffroe, Str. 72: l, and v. Moritz, Zunamen bei den byzantinischen
Historikern.
9
) II: 452.
10
) Thus the same Scleros is Baeil in one place and Romanus in another
(Hr 483, 487), and Baeil U appeare s 7 in 969 and 20 in 976 (U: 379, 416).

12 I. Abteilung
Demetrius, we have at least one analogous instance in Anna Comnena's
Basil Curticius xccl ,.1) As to the connection
between the writer of the Str. and "the family of Niculitza", we have
seen that some member of that family was & to his grand-
father, and we assume that our author^s mother was that member's
daughter.2) And if, combining our pamphlets with Cedrenus' story, we
believe that Dem. Polemarchius not only bore the nickname of Nicu-
litza himself but inherited it frorn his father and transmitted it to his son
, we may remind ourselves that soubriquets running through
families were not unknown in the ancient world.8) As to his father,
we believe that he figures prominently in L. N. eh. 244, which we will
now examine. The writer states that " *) &
after much Service" was made by Romanus II Duke of Hellas and
Domestic of the Guards there. In the fourth year5) of the next reign
he was replaced s Domestic by Peter nephew of "the King of France",
and "young" Basil writing to him s Vestes6) said: Instead of the
guards I give thee command over the Vlachs of Hellas".7) These Vlachs
lived in summer on the Western slopes of Mt Pindus, in winter on
the Thessalian plain. When Nie. became their ruler he may still have
remained in his old capital Larissa, held from 980 to 983 by his
connection Cecaumenus. And we believe it to have been this Niculitza's
son whom Samuel "transported" (presumably into Bulgaria) after the
capture of Larissa in 9868), and who in 1001 tried to hold Serbia for
l
) Alex. V: 5, p. 139.
*) Though an Engliehman would hardly call bis grandfather Dem. Polemar-
chins on one page, and refer to him vaguely s of "the family of Niculitza'1 on
another, a Byzantine would like the variety; Anna Comnena epeaks of Constan-
tine Euphorbenus Catacalo in five different ways.
*) Pauly Wissowa deals with "erbliche Beinamen1' under Namenwesen XVI,
1649, 1663, Signum II, A. II, 244960, and Spitznamen III, A. U, 1824, 1828,
instancing ? , L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, and
Aenobarbus s "Beiname der gens Domitia". In modern times we have Italian
surnames like Grossi from nicknames, and family soubriquets in English schools.
4
) Here to be taken s "great grandfather", a legitimate assumption (v. L.
and S. Lexicon) necessary to our argument.
6
) According to Cedrenus' dating this means 980, Basil's "fourth year" not
after accession but of independent rule, when (at 27) he was still .

) Wass. translates Vestes by "chamberlain". But Ebersolt (Melanges Diehl
I: 87) says this rank had become by the eleventh Century a mere dignity without
official duties. Cat. Cec. was Vestes when governing the Paristrion (Gedr. II: 555).
For the vagueness of Byzantine titles see Banescu, Bull. Acad. Roum. X (1923) 57.
7
) Nie. evidently lost his Dukedom also; 6 years before 986 "Cecaumenus
avus" had the &$ (Str. eh. 169).
) Str. eh. 170.

G. Buckler: Authorship of the Strategikon of Cecaumenus 13
bis new master against Basil II; the patriciate given to him did not
keep him loyal, and he escaped from Constantinople to Samuel^s camp,
finally surrendering in 1018 to the Emperor, who sent him captive to
Thessalonica.1) If we identify the Nie. of Str. eh. 170 with Cedrenus'
Nie., and the Nie. of L. N. with his father, the affront offered to the
latter to please a foreign prince may, in spite of his greatgrandson's
courtierlike reluctance to blame Basil, explain the subsequent history,
especially s Nie. the Second2) was allowed by Samuel to retain his
freedom and property, and probably served in the Bulgarian army.8)
If he was the same s Dem. Polemarchius (possibly Catacalo) the "ma-
temal grandfather" of Str. eh. 76, then the year he captured Serbia
rnust have been before 1001 when he held it for Samuel, and the si-
lence of our document about his further career is explained by his
inglorious end in prison.
One point deserves mention. If Byzantine titles and terms of rela-
tionship were vague, so was the whole System of family names, with
no definite rule s to transmission.4) Names like Catacalo and Cecau-
menus might have come to the bearer from any of his four grand-
parents. And readers who for other reasons believe the writer of the
two pamphlets to have been Cat. Cec. need not be surprised if his
maternal grandfather was Dem. Polemarchius nicknamed Niculitza, and
if (though is usually a paternal ancestor) this second Nicu-
litza's father is spoken of by his greatgrandson s
, just s a man Jones with a mother born Smith might
talk of "my Smith greatgrandfather".
The third Niculitza, , is one of the principal characters
in the book. If our reasoning is correct, he was the writer's maternal
uncle and wrote his autobiography for the writer's father. He was
known s *) and was possibly the man whose gardens"
near Larissa Alexius I visited in 1083.6) The Str. relates that he had
*) Cedr. II: 452 sqq.

*) Son, we believe, of the Duke, father of Nie. the Larissan, and maternal
grandfather of the autor of L. N.
3
) Cedr. II: 436.
4
) Neither son of Nicephorue Bryennius and Anna Comnena was Bryennius;
one was Alexius Comnenus, the other John Ducas (a eister being Irene Ducaena),
from the family of the maternal grandmother: PG CXXVII, 1116, CXXXffl, 1399.
5
) Str. 68: 18. Perhaps connected with the tenth Century patricius Calocyrus
Delphinas (SS. Rer. Ital. V: 40, Cedr. II: 443).
e
) Alex. V: 5, p. 138. If Niculitza was a Catacalo and Delphinas a place-name
from a property, we may compare a contemporary Catacalo, Conetantine called
Euphorbenue or Phorbenus from a Cyprue estato (Archaeclogia LXXXIII [1934] 346).

14 L Abteilung
two brothers, Theodore and Demetrius, two sons Gregoras and Pan-
crates and two daughters, and that under Const. X he was an impor-
tant person in Constantinople s well s Larissa where he had a house.
His painful experience of the neighbouring Vlachs, who had (we believe)
been subject to his father1) but revolted against the Emperor in 10662),
accounts for the bitter hatred expressed in eh. 187 against this al-
together untrustworthy and perverse race".
V. As to the exploits of our author or authors we have only two
clear indications3), the post4) in Larissa and a claim to have fought
in the Bulgarian campaign of 1040.6) It is proposed to show later that
both were applicable to Cat. Cec., who might well have written the
pamphlets; our present concern is to see what similarities support the
theory that the two writings are from one pen. These appear every-
where.
Both works exemplify the folly of taking bad advice by the in-
stance of .6} Both preach moderation towards offenders,
extol forgiveness s "divine" and condemn even to enemies or
wrong-doers.7) Precautions against ill-wishers are recommended in al-
most identical phrases.8) Both pamphlets dwell on the unreliability of
accusations. Both despise and ] yet even foreign ene-
mies and inferiore are to be treated s . All forms of ^
deserve reverence, though merit surpasses noble birth. Both plead for
just reward to the soldier who gives" or "sells" his blood; both em-
phasize the responsibilities of the Emperor's "first man'', and both de-
precate excessive honours to stranger races. Both denounco
xal s fiscal grievances; both abhor , but men of
Position and emperors must alike & against the
public.9) Allusions to "Basil (II) born in the purple" occur throughout
the pamphlets. The Vlachs of Hellas appear in both; so do the Va-
rangians, Delianos of Bulgaria, and Mich. IV with his unfortunate re-
liance on "palace officials" (notably his brother John), and his trium-
phant last campaign; while the dramatic overthrow of Mich. V in 1042
gives rise to two eloquent passages.10) In both works the sovereign is
!
) L. N. 96: 22. *) This date is fixed by the comet. Str. eh. 173.
8
) The fact that the writer of Str. had sons (eh. 191) teils us nothing.
4
) Ot undefined * Str. eh. 142. ) L. N. eh. 246.
^ Str. 50: 21; L. N. 93: 3.
7
) Str. eh. 38, 41, 134, 135, 137, 190. L. N. eh. 235, 236.
8
) Str. 3: 15. L. N. 100: 12.
9
) Str. eh. 19, 20, 23, 68, 116, 132; 11, 111, 128, 138; 3, 47, 177, 185; 100.
L. N. eh. 236, 239, 247; 239, 250; 241, 250; 242247, 259; 247
10
) For all Nomina v. Index.

G. Backler: Authorship of the Strategikon of Cecanmenus 15
addressed s , and emperors like generals must be
xccl , ,*) Distrust of sycophants and the value of candid
friends are indeed didactic commonplaces, but the horror of flatterers
in Str. 19: 8 is in keeping with the long moral tale about Augustus
in L. N. eh. 2545. The need of stores for ordinary life and even more
in a siege2) is elaborated in Str. eh. 89, 168sqq. and L. N. eh. 252.
Finally one small fact is noteworthy; St. Greg. Nazianzen is quoted
in botb documents, being the only Church Father thus honoured in
either.8)
In short, style, point of view and sentiments in our two pamphlets
are so similar that henceforward we will assume the one authorship.4)
VI. We will now consider the statements either prefaced with "I
have seen or confirming by their authoritative ring the author's asser-
tions that nothing is recorded except personal experience or reliable
testimony.5) Most of the moralizing is entirely general. Justice warped
by bribery, fickle Fortune, the dangers of borrowing, lending or standing
surety, of living under cliffs, eating mushrooms or sporting with im-
beciles, disasters due to , wealth arousing jealousy, or unwise
love towards friends, these are topics suitable to any treatise at any
period. Though the mention of various emperors down to Mich. VII
suggests a Byzantine of the late eleventh Century s writer, this leaves
a wide r nge of possibilities. Do other ailusions make the authorship
of Cat. Cec. not only conceivable but a plausible supposition?
1. The fall of Mich. V in 1042 is described in both documents s
by an eye witness; Cat. Cec. was that Emperor's staunch adherent. This
is our first argument, but there are many others; the places and people
mentioned6) are noticeably those that enter into the general's career.
2. We hear how "my grandfather, toparch of Tibion" captured an
Armenien fortress; how "my father" was consulted about a fiscal post
at Arabiens (an Armenian town), the context suggesting that "his na-
tive land" was in this province, and how the Armenian Senachyrim
ceded land to Basil II. Armenia is an important division of the Em-
pire, and the near-by Armeniac thenie with its fortress Amasea figures
in the story of Nie. the Larissan. Cat. Cec., born in the province of
Coloneia7) (counted ecclesiastically s Armenian), first appears leading
l
) Str. eh. 169/58. L. N. eh. 235, 245/251 (cf. Basil I to his son Leo: PG.
CVI1 cols. XXV, XXXII).
*) e. g. Larissa. ) Str. 52: 18 sqq. L. N. 100: 19.
4 6
) Cf. Jorga in Byzantion 2 (1926) 278 note 1. ) Str. eh. 64, 191.
e
) For text references y. Index Nominnm; for other sourcee Praefatio p. 10 sqq.
*) PseUns, Chron. Mich. VI eh. III.

16 I. Abteilung
the Armeniac contingent. He afterwards commanded at Ani, the former
capital of the Armenian kings.1)
3. The writer takes special interest in the Bulgarians, whose lan-
guage he twice quotes, and the Patzinaks. Eleven stories in Str. deal
with these two nations, and L. N. mentions the revolt of Deliatius. We
shall submit later that Cat. Cec. may well have fought in the campaign
of Mich. IV against Delianus and Alusianus, which ended in the Em-
peror's victorious advance to Triaditza and his return to Constantinople
to die. MichaeFs conquest of the Bulgarian Castle Boianos with its
commandant Botkus is recorded only by our writer, who probably wit-
nessed it; the same is true of the previous capture of Delianus' general
Lytoboes at Demetrias. Cat. was governing the Paristrion in 1043, ex-
posed to Patzinak attacks from across the river, and in 1050 he fought
in Bulgaria against these raiders, whose captive he remained three
years. The warning of Str. eh. 47 against bestowing land on enemies,
except "under great necessity" may refer to the fact that, because in
1048 Const. X gave their chief three fortresses on the Danube, the
Patzinaks crossed the ice and defeated the Greeks, causing Cat. Cec. to
be summoned from the East in 1049.2) Some incidents in which Cat.
Cec. could not have participated, i. e. the victory of Basil II over Sa-
muel at Zagoria in 1014 and his undated failure to take Moria, s
well s the Bulgarian capture of Larissa in 986 and of Serbia in Mace-
donia some time before 1001, were probably related to our writer by
his Cec. and Nie. grandfathers. The defeat of Constantine the Rector
in 1049 was before Cat. had arrived from the East, and that of the
monk Basil occurred while Cat. was in captivity.8)
4. We pass to Sicily, with three allusions, and Dalmatia. Basil Pe-
diadites the Catepan, left behind in the island after Maniaces' recall
in 1040, was after "many Services" reprimanded by Mich. IV for setting
up a gaming table. Our author treats him more leniently than does
Cedrenus, who says that he fled, after his "greed and cowardice and
sloth" had helped to lose Sicily; if Cat. Cec. who was then holding
Messina wrote the Str. we must surely believe it rather than the Chro-
nicle. We may here note the similar fact that in judging the logothete
Nicephoritza, Str. differs widely from the historians. Our author calls
him "excellent in all respects and very wise" etc.; Attaliates and Zo-
naras represent him s clever and efficient but greedy crooked brutal
and extortionate, twice deposed for cruelty from the Dukedom of
l
) Gedr. II: 523, 674.
*) Cedr. II: 684 sqq.
8
) His kind treatment by an old "eubordinate" might have suggested Str. 7: 20.

G. Backler: Authorship of the Strategikon of Cecaumenus 17
1
Antioch, and made judge of Greece through bribery. ) As our author
hates any form of oppression or venality, he clearly did not believe
these stories about Nicephoritza, and if he was indeed Cat. Cec. Duke
of Antioch in 1056 we are bound to give credence to him.
The second passage about Sicily describes a son saving his father
in an eruption of Etna. This was a popul r tale2), but it is tempting
to fancy that Cat. Cec. heard it on the spot and wrote it down here.
Finally in L. N. eh. 246 we learn what no other Byzantine relates,
that the Norwegian Harold Haardrade visited Constantinople3) and with
his followers was sent by Mich. IV "to Sicily, for the Greek army was
there, making war on the island". When the Bulgarian Delianus re-
volted, Harold again fought for Michael. "And haying subdued Bul-
garia the Emperor returned." Then the writer adds: "And I also was
then striving on the Emperor's behalf." Cat. Cec. who defended Messina
in 1040 was in April 1042 at Constantinople, and Cedrenus4) implies
that he had r e c e n t l y come s t r a i g h t from Sicily. But Cedrenus is
notoriously careless, and it is perfectly possible that Cat. made some
stay on the Epirote coast, and then, before reaching Constantinople,
fought in the Bulgarian campaign of Mich. IV who died Dec. 1041.
A general leaving Sicily would naturally go to ItaJy and sail from
Brindisi to Durazzo, or Otranto to Avlona.5) If Cat. chose Durazzo6)
he might have met its catepan before the latter's defeat at Dioclea by
the Serbians. Again he might have learnt two facts only recorded in
Str., how another Catacalo, the Clyzomenite, Strategus of Ragusa, had
been outwitted by the sarne Serbians, and how Dobronas, archon and
toparch of Dalmatia, wishing to court Mich. IV had thrice visited the
capital and from his third visit that Emperor and Const. IX did not
let him return. Cat. Cec. when in Constantinople in 1042 may even
have seen Dobronas and his wife in the prison where they died.
From Durazzo Cat. might well have gone to serve against the Bul-
garians, arrivi g on the scene while the defence of Thessalonica (1040)
with the valour of Harold Haardrade7) and the repulse of the Bulga-
rian rebel Alusianus was fresh in men's minds. Cedrenus ascribes this
relief to the miraculous Intervention of St. Demetrius, but our writer8),
l
) Str. eh. 184. Attal. 180sqq. Zonaras XVIII, 16sqq.; v. Bratianu, Byzantion 9
(1934) 643. For the support given by Nicephoritza to the Comneni whom Cat. Cec.
originally helped to power v. Camb. Med. Hist. IV: 326.
s
*) Str. 63: 7, v. Wass.' note. ) In 1040. Cf. the Icelandic Saga of Harold.
4
) Gedr. II: 538. *) Alex. I: 16; VI: 5, p. 159.
6
) His chief Maniaces croesed from Otranto to Durazzo: SS. Rer. Ital. V: 43, 258.
7
) v. Praefatio 14, on Cedrenus' ,&,.
8
) Str. eh. 63.
Byzamt. Zeitschrift XXXVI l '2

18 L Abteilung
like a true soldier, puts it down to the stupidity of the enemy in
attacking when exhausted and still unsettled after a marcb.
5. Returning again to the other side of the Adriatic, we have two
narratives and one allusion about Normans in Italy. The second story,
of the treacherous cruelty of Robert Guiscard to a Calabrian prince,
probably occurred first. Wass.' date of 1054 is borne out by the
Western chroniclers, who however give a far milder account of the
"tortures" inflicted than do our writer and Anna Comnena.1) The other,
about the crafty Norman capture of Otranto, can be assigned to 1055.
Finally the comet of 1066 was thought at Constantinople to forebode
a "Frankish" Invasion. As our writer had under Const. X a relation
living in Larissa on fatally intimate terms with the Vlachs who in
1081, so Chalandon believes8^ were of material help to Gniscard in
his attack on the Balkan peninsula, these three mentions of Normans
are not surprising. About Cat. Cec. we know nothing between his
liberation in 1053 from his three years Patzinak captivity and 1056
when Mich. VI removed him from the Dukedom of Antioch, so why
should he not have been in Italy in 10545 and heard our two
stories there? Again, every Byzantine soldier was accustomed to Nor-
mans s mercenaries, but Cat. Cec. had special reasons for realizing
that s allies or foes they were "most intelligent*'.8) -
served loyally with Maniaces in Sicily and in 1050, again along-
side of Cat. Cec., he led his "compatriots" in the Patzinak campaign.
But after intriguing with the Moslems he was overthrown by them4),
his capture being due to such slothful self-indulgence on the part of
his followers s might have inspired our writer's recurrent exhortations
to temperance, care and watchfulness.6) In 1057 a Frank called Ran-
dolph displayed great gallantry fighting for Mich. VI against Isaac
Comnenus and Cat. Cec. This "barbarian" had been made patricius, a
proceeding of which, according to our author, "the great emperors of
happy memory" would have disapproved.6) Finally the career of the
Frank Urselius against whom the future Alexius I won his first laureis
must have been well known to Cat Cec. if he lived till 1094.
Of other mercenaries our writer specially mentions Russians and
Varangians in the imperial garrison of Otranto. Who knew more about
these Northerners than Cat. Cec who defeated Russian raiders in 1043
') Alex. I: 11.

8
) Alexis I Comnene p. 86. ) Str. 30: 16.
4
) Gedr. II: 5979, 6169.
*) Cf. the Bulgarian commandant at Demetrias: Str. eh. 76.
e
) Gedr. II: 630. L. N. eh. 243.

and (we believe) fought beside Varangians in the Bulgarien campaign
of 1040?
6. Our writer is interested in the provinces both "outer" and "middle".1)
He urges the Emperor to travel all over his dominions and he exhorts
the thematic officials, the and the , to kindness, im-
partial justice and incorruptibility.2) Cat. Cec. governed the Paristrion,
then Iberia and finally Antioch. This last post may explain why we
find Syria listed among specially famous provinces, and two stories
about Antioch introduced. One dates from the 6th Century; the other,
about Apelzarach's unhoped return across "the Iron Bridge beyond
Antioch" to his Arabian home in 1033, may have been related to Cat.
Cec.3) by Maniaces, who was in Edessa then and with Cat. in Sicily
in 1038. Once again our writer differs from Cedrenus, who represents
this "Pinzarach" s sent back by Romanus III "with a great anny" to
recover Syria, and once again we submit that if Cat. Cec. wrote the
Str. he is a sounder authority than the chronicler. Our writer alludes
to the themes' hatred of , and ,*) and his sen-
timent that everyone "flees from a tax gatherer", who is invariably
dishonest, would be natural to any governor.5) But s Cat. Cec. was
Duke of Iberia 10449, the disastrous extortions there of Serblias,
collector for the extravagant Const. IX, would have come painfully
home to him.6) Our writer is emphatic that no must ever
accept fiscal duty and that a bought post is always corruptly ad-
ministered.7) The experience of Cat. Cec. in various localities might
well have produced these sentiments, also the earnest plea in L. N.
eh. 259 that the Emperor should personally investigate the tax-gathering
in the provinces. Certainly the presumable recipient Alexius I needed
this advice; his daughter describes no journeys of his except for war
or to convert heretics.
If Cat. Cec. ever lived in Thessaly and was in Larissa in 1066,
then the "increases and declarations" in fiscal matters there might
easily have earned his disapproval.8) It is to this possible residence
in Hellas that we must now turn. Our writer knows that theme in-
timately, devoting much space to Larissa, telling two elsewhere un-
*) Str. 5 : 4 . ) L. N. eh. 259.

8
) He might eqnally have heard the tale in Antioch in 1056
4
) v. Verba notabiliora (Index).
*) Str. eh. 96. Cf. D lger, Byz. Arch. Heft 9, p. 61, and B. Z. 30 (192930) 460.
e
) About 1044. Cedrenus doee not record the secession of the inhabitants to
u
the king of the Persiane", s doee Str. eh. 60.
8
*) Str. eh. 62, 95, 96, 139, 140. ) Str. 70: 13. L. N. 98: 11.
2*

20 I. Abteilung
known stories about Demetrias, and another about an unnamed town
that Wass. identifies with Castoria near Tricala1), and twice vaunting
the strength of Serbia near the Thessalian border. He himself once
had "authority in the parts of Hellas". All this is impossible to recon-
cile with the career of Cat. Cec. up to 1057, when Cedrenus last men-
tions him s helping Isaac Comnenus to become Emperor. But bet-
ween then and 1094, when he reappears plotting with Diogenes at
Serrhae in Macedonia, we get 37 years which he may have spent in
Hellas or anywhere, and the Caesaropolis of his banishment is pro-
bably the Thessalian "Kaisareia".2) Our writer's intimacy with the
Niculitza of the Vlach rising would explain his admonitions against
disloyalty, but if he was Cat. Cec. his earlier experience would double
their weight. The pretender Maniaces, once his chief, feil in 1043
near Ostrovo, and Cat. may have seen him before going himself to
the Paristrion. In 1047 Tornicius' attempted Usurpation brought Cat.
Cec. from the East; the year 1094 witnessed the failure of Diogenes
to unseat Alexius. These three collapses might well make a blinded
old man assert: "The Emperor seated in Constantinople always wins".3)
7. Our author thoroughly understands the duties and faiiings and
trials of an . Sometimes he adopts the point of view of such
a "border soldier" of the Emperor, sometimes that of a virtually inde-
pendent toparch, suspecting his neighbour.4) In the Paristrion
and Iberia and Syria Cat. Cec. held the imperial border against hostile
races, and his need for haodling "the subjects" with gloves6) must
everywhere have been great, with Russian or Patzinak or Turkish
raids always imminent.
8. Passing on to the personal idiosyncrasies of our writer, we
maintain that they are what might have been expected from Cat. Cec.
Probably his attitude to women will strike an ordinary reader most.
They are bad enemies but worse friends; their charms are always a
snare even in church, and though a wife may be regretted when dead,
yet alive neither she nor a daughter should be trusted near men,
especially kinsmen or servantsi young women are safer "shut up and
unseen like criminals".6) We cannot say whether such precautions were
customary, and s to Cat. Cec. we do not even know if he was married.
2
) Str. eh. 82. ) Alex. IX: 8. Procopius Aed IV: 3.
8
) Str. eh. 168, 1856. Between 1081 and 1094 the Alexias records five
abortive conspiracies. As stated above, Botaniates did not "win" for long, and
Alexius Comnenus seemed to many a lawful claimant.
4 6
) v. Verba notabiliora. ) Str. eh. 61.
e
) Str. 1012, 112, 121, 128, 131, 132, 145.

It is however significant that the intimacy of Euprepia, sister of
Const. IX, with Tornicius whose conspiracy Cat. Cec. was summoned
to quell, was thought justified by relationship. Psellus' phrase1) might
have served s motto for the beguiling cousin of Str. eh. 102.
As to troubles threatening from an empress' wounded pride or
roused emotions2), the fear expressed would be natural in Cat. Cec.,
servant to two husbands of the imperious and amatory Zoe.
The evils of double re-marriage (between a widower and a widow)
where both have children, might have struck anyone famili r with the
disastrous union of Empress Eudocia with Romanus IV, and their three
families, one Ducas and two Diogenes. But they would have pecu-
liarly impressed Cat. Cec., sharer in the conspiracy of that son of Ro-
manus and Eudocia whose boyhood was embittered by his jealous
half brother Mich. VII.S) Our author calls Romanus IV "a man mindful
of friendship", though his behaviour to Niculitza of Larissa hardly
justifies the epithet. If Cat. Cec. wrote our pamphlets and was this
Nie 's nephew, it may have been memories of kindness (however slight)
to his uncle that made the old general support Romanus7 son in his
attempt to seize the crown.
Relationship is feit by our writer to involve heavy responsibili-
ties.4) Lawless kinsmen may ruin a man, s many Byzantines (no-
tably Mich. IV) experienced; feuds between the interrelated Ducas,
Diogenes and Comnenus families occurred throughout the lifetime of
Cat. Cec. One outcome was the distrust of the old towards the young,
whether kinsmen or not, seen in many writers of the day.5) Cat. Cec.
who lived to be over 70 would naturally share these feelings. In
1057, when about 40, he had the throne offered him partly because
he was the oldest conspirator. As a senior he would resent any aflront
to age, and the slighting reference to his "fa iers" made by Mich. VI 6 )
might, if he wrote our treatises, have prompted their unvarying respect
for the older generation, and the remark in Str. eh. 128 that praising
a man while belittling his parents is an insult.
Not only between old and young however does suspicious jealousy
exist. Our writer emphasizes the dangers encompassing the Emperor's
envied "first man" 7 ) to whom "everything" is committed. Cat. Cec.
*) $: Chron.
Const. IX eh. CI.
) Str. 4: , 6: 29. *) Alex. IX: 6.
4
) Str. 62: 25, eh. 146.

) Str. eh. 109; v. Buckler, Anna Comnena p. 149.
e 7
) Gedr. II: 610, 620. ) Str. eh. 3, 7, 8.

22 I- Abteilung
faithfully championed Mich. V and helped Isaac I to the throne, receiv-
ing in return the high rank of Curopalates: none would better know
the risks run by the sovereign's favourite. Our author writes s an
important person1) bound, whether active or retired, to be wary in
word and deed and all acquaintanceship, outwardly obedient to but
inwardly critical of an incompetent superior.2) Caution towards every-
one, even one's attendant or secretary, is preached3) with a persistence
worthy of Lord Chesterfield's Letters to his son. Disinterested
friendship is a myth, and the Str. ends with the words: 'Thou must
beware of thy friends even more than of thine enemies".4) These truly
Byzantine sentiments might have dictated Cat. Cec.'s behaviour in 1057
s described by Cedrenus.5) He with the other rebels was afraid that
their colleague Bryennius would betray them; he was afraid that his
own taunting message to Mich. VI would bring trouble; he was s
much afraid of treachery from Isaac Comnenus s Isaac was from
him; he was afraid that the Emperor's proposals were hypocritical,
foreshadowing death or blinding for all. The lying crookedness of a
sovereign's spokesmen (stigmatized in the case of Niculitza and the
imperial messengers6)) appears here in Cedrenus7 story. Michaeli en-
voys made lavish promises to Isaac and received credence. "Only
Cecaumenus was dissatisfied with everything", fearing treachery, with
reason s the messengers were playing a double game.
If envoys are suspect to our writer so are doctors. We are remind-
ed of Anna Comnena's contempt for the "sons of Aesculapius" sur-
rounding her father's deathbed, and of Psellus' attitude, in the Century
of our pamphlets, towards the "medical arts" from which Romanus
vainly expected a eure, and towards the mistakes of the ufirst of the
doctors" in treating Isaac L7) In the latter instance, Cat. Cec. would
have known the circumetances intimately. Distrust of all drugs and
terror of deadly ones8) would be natural for anyone who knew that
suspicions of poisoning had accompanied the deaths of Const. VII,
Romanus II, John I and Rornanus III.
l
) The Str. though profeseing to dread a rise uto high estate" blamee all
ehirking of responsibility (eh. 7, 8, 56, 111). Possibly Cat. Cec. lived to repent
refusing the crown.
f
) Str. eh. 1113, 145 etc. Cat. Cec. may have shared Peellus' disapproval of
Conet. IX and his vices.
8 4
) e. g. Str. eh. 77, 103, 127. ) 80: 5 repeated from 27: 4.
8 e
) Gedr. II: 620 sqq. ) Str. eh. 180.
7
) Alex. XV: 11. Chron. Rom. III eh. XXV; Is. Comn. LXXIVLXXVIII.
8
) Str. eh. 118, 125. L. N. 235.

6. Buckler: Authorship of the Strategikon of Cecaumenus 23
Spiritual physicians also incur criticism. Our writer scorns prelates
who are worldly or ambitious or rapacious instead of pious and chari-
table.1) The Patriarch Cenilarius, with whom Cat. Cec. cooperated in
1057, grew overbearing and was exiled.2) His successor Lichudes was
a prominent politician, and may have needed our author's caution
not to accept sacred office unless God clearly wills it. The third,
Xiphilinus, was a famous reformer and philanthropist. Psellus8) extols
bis charitable bounty, which with his honest kindness to Niculitza of
Larissa (countering an emperor's duplicity) might have made him our
author's ideal. Since Cat. Cec/s history during these years is unknown,
no connection can be traced between him and these two last Pa-
triarchs, but s the next two, Cosmas and Garidas, were puppets re-
spectively of the Ducas and Comnenus houses, prominent in Byzan-
tine history from 1057 onwards, he must certainly have known their
characteristics. Cosmas was , a worthy follower
of our writer's "ascetics"; Eustratius was "neither versed in letters
nor trained in the conduct of affairs, a simple man, more fitted for
quiet or a corner".4) His successor Nicolas Grammaticus, Patriarch
when Cat. Cec. was blinded, was rather noted for than for
. These four unworldly prelates would clearly have been pre-
ferred to their self-important predecessors by our writer; if he was
Cat. Cec., personal experience would have led him to deprecate clerical
ambition.
Our author's religious demands upon the laity, that they should
join reverently in sacred offices, read the Scriptures and associate with
monks, are too general to afford any clue to identity. One injunction
however, to forgive all insults except to "holy images", may recall the
trial of Italus early in Alexius' reign5), possibly witnessed by Cat. Cec.
Other allusions may lurk under the scorn expressed of soothsayings,
dreams and "wizardries"; Cerularius and even Xiphilinus were accused
of dabbling in magic6); Cosmas credited with prophetic power was
thought liable to mistake human suggestions for divine inspirations.7)
To Cat. Cec. such occult leanings might well have seemed to entail
loss of judgment and moral strength.8)
9. If our writer's likings and prejudices harmonize with our know-
ledge or guesses about Cat. Cec., still more do his military pronoun-
l f
) Str. eh. 128. ) Zonaras XVIII: 3, 4. cf. Str. 79: 30.
*) Sathas, BGMAE IV: 421.
4
) Alex. II: 12, III: 2. Str. eh. 123. Zonaras XVIII: 21.
e
) Str. eh. 106. Alex. V: 9. ) Rev. Hiet. III (1877) 266.
7
) Alex. II: 12. ) Str. eh. 11 f, 141. L. N. 99: 1.

24 I. Abteilung
cements. He declaims against injustice everywhere1), to "Senators" and
ordinary "citizens" alike, and Alexius' injuries to the Senate were
notorious.8) But the championing of the army, "the glory of the em-
peror and the strength of the palace"3), is specially vigorous. Never
must its pay be decreased or delayed or its deserts forgotten. Would
not a general who like Cat. Cec. had seen Const. X min the Empire
by his anti-militarism4) feel bound to protest against harsh meanness
to the troops?
First one word about the navy, "the glory of the Empire7'.5) Our
writer discusses its equipment and management and asserts its vital
importance, but, believing that long service makes ships' officers slack,
he suggests giving naval commands to superannuated soldiers. Cat.
Cec. had an acquaintance with sea-fighting6) unnsual in that age of
preponderatingly land campaigns. In 1043 a Russian fleet unsuccess-
fully attacked Constantinople, and the Greeks pursued up the Black
Sea, but then, possibly from fatigue and fear of superior numbers s
Cedrenus reports, possibly from inefficient personnel or defective
supplies snch s our writer deprecates, turned to fly.7) The Russians
continued Northward to the Danube, and near its mouth their land
forces were defeated by Cat. Cec. then governing the Paristrion. Me-
mories of this raid might well have inspired the caution in Str.
eh. 223 concerning str nge vessels in one's ports.
On land our writer's allusions (too frequent to make references
necessary) to ambushes, sorties, surprises and other stratagems would
come naturally from the pen of Cat. Cec. In 1040 having deceived
his besiegers by three days' inaction he made a successful sally from
Messina; in 1048 he lay in ambush near his empty camp, and rushing
out cut the advancing Turks to pieces.8) His subsequent advice to
attack a tired and still disordered Turkish army9) would doubtless
have secured victory if his colleague had not set it aside. Similar
behaviour by his commander in 1050 brought defeat by the Patzinaks
and capture for Cat. Cec.10), who, when Nicephorus ordered him the
to cease attempting to "out-general" his , must
have found it hard to respect a chief obviously "ignorant and inca-
l
) All are: "Adam's sons": L. N. 98: 32; cf. Str. 7: 18.
8
*) Zonaras XVIII: 29. ) L. N. 101: 29.
4
) Pselius Chron. Const. X eh. XVIII. Zonaras XVIII: 8.
6 6
) L. N. eh. 2568. ) Cedreous II: 565.
7
) L. N. 102: 10 might almost describe the incident.
8 9
) Gedr. II: 524, 674. ) Gedr. II: 575; cf. Str. eh. 63, 64.
10
) Gedr. II: 698.

1
pable". ) The dilatoriness and defeat of the monk Basil came later,
and the dismay of the captive Cai Cec. on hearing the news may
be reflected in our writer*s vivid account. Again, the feeling displayed
over the folly of any leader who contemplates cowardly flight2) may
echo the words of Cai Cec. to Isaac Comnenus in the battle of 1057.
With his right wing defeated, Isaac wished to flee, but Cec. drove
back his Imperialist opponents, bursting into their camp and throwing
down their tents. So Isaac took heart again, and the day was won
for the usurper by his subordinate's courage.3) Perhaps we may see
in the stricture again st insults to besiegers over the wall a reference
to the way the Durazzo garrison jeered at the pseudo-Michael, and
thongh we have no evidence that Cat. Cec. was there he might have
heard the story from Anna Comnena's Informant George Palaeologus.4)
In his horror at the shedding of "Christian blood" our writer reminds
us forcibly of Alexius I whose subject Cat. Cec. was for many years.5)
But this and the receptive yet wary attitude towards hostile ambassa-
dors and deserters were probably common to all Byzantines6), though
if Cat. Cec. wrote our pamphlets and was himself grandson to Nie.
the "patrician" turncoat, the warnings against unduly honouring ene-
mies have special point.7) The more general military maxims, such s
the leader's need of both caution and courage, the indispensability of
good scouts and sentries, fine horses and sufficient stores, the dangers
of sallies from a castle against a strong enemy, the wisdom of having
few counsellors or none, the necessity of concealing small numbers,
choosing a camp site carefully, deferring battle when food is plentiful
or help expected, and hastening it when supplies are low, above all
the duty of a general, in strategy to be not merely well taught but
inventive, and in handling his soldiers to show justice, individual
knowledge of each, clemency, and incorruptibility, endeavouring "to
excel everyone" in every good quality, all this so closely resembles
Leo's Tactica that detailed comparison would be most instructive,
though irrelevant to our present discussion. One thing however is cer-
tain, that our writer frequently alludes s an equal to l der military
authors. He takes independent views about proper relations between
generals and men, the wisest behaviour after defeat and the need for
new siege "devices''8); even if other writings may be "better" or in
s
) Str. eh. 11. *) Str. 12: 246. ) Gedr. II: 630.
4
) Str. eh. 190. Alex. IV: l and XIV: 7.
) Str. 71: 18 Alex. X: 9, XIII: 8. cf. I: 12, II: 12.
e
) Str. eh. 29, 36, 36, 82, 1789. Passim in AJexias.
8
0 Str. eh. 47. L. N. eh. 2426. ) Str. eh. 37, 38, 4l, 42, 44.

26 Abteilung. G. Buckler: Authorehip of the Strategikon of Cecaumenus
grander style, he can claiin for bis work absolute originality and
truthfulness. Though himself without he respects all
study, especially of historical books f ll of facts on firsthand evidence.1)
Such an attitude towards the narration of events would surely have
been more impressive, and the maxims and illustrations more likely
to survive, if the author was one of the most distinguished comman-
ders of bis age, modest enough or prudent enough to suppress bis
personal achievements.
Such are the internal evidences supporting our view that Cat. Cec.
is not only a possible but actually the most probable author of these
two quaint and unique documents first brought to our knowledge by
a Russian scholar. It would be a fitting "whirligig of time" if an
ancestor of this scholar had been among the 800 Russian captives
sent nearly 900 years ago to Constantine IX in Constantinople by this
bis most famous general.2)
J
) Str. eh. 54, 113, 129, 142, 160, 191. *) Gedr. II: 555.


Authorship of Strategikon

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Authorship of Strategikon

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AUTHORSHIP OF THE STRATEGIKON OF CECAUMENUS

GEORGINA B CKLER / OXFORD

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

*) Cedr. II: 452 sqq.

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

') Alex. I: 11.

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

*) Str. 5 : 4 . ) L. N. eh. 259.

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz

Brought to you by | Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Main

Potrebbero piacerti anche