Constantin Zuckerman

The Reign of Constantine V in the Miracles of St. Theodore the

Recruit (BHG 1764)
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 46, 1988. pp. 191-210.

Abstract
REB 46 1988 France p. 191-210
C. Zuckerman, The Reign of Constantine V in the Miracles of St. Theodore the Recruit (BHG 1 764). — One of St. Theodore the
Recruit's miracles in his anonymous enkomion BHG 1764 is an eye-witness account of an Arab raid dated « in the fourteenth
year of the God-protected and Christ-loving reign of Constantine, (...) at the beginning of the seventh indiction. » The present
study suggests that in spite of the pious epithets, the emperor in question is Constantine V, the only Constantine whose
fourteenth year overlapped a seventh indiction. The study presents the historical background of the raid — dated in 753/4 — and
analyzes the ideological stand of the author of the enkomion, a closet icon-worshipper who used St. Theodore's miracles to state
the orthodox position on all major planks of the iconoclast controversy. In the Appendix, miracles # 2 and # 3 are related to
events from Heraclius' first Persian campaign of 622, which permits to take a fresh look at the geographical setting and the
chronology of the campaign.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Zuckerman Constantin. The Reign of Constantine V in the Miracles of St. Theodore the Recruit (BHG 1764). In: Revue des
études byzantines, tome 46, 1988. pp. 191-210.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1988_num_46_1_2230
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V
IN THE MIRACLES OF ST. THEODORE
THE RECRUIT {BHG 1764)

Constantine ZUCKERMAN

The anonymous enkomion listed in the BHG 1764 under the title of
convenience « Life, Education and Miracles of St. Theodore the Recruit »
was pronounced in Euchaita (Avkhat), the city in north-eastern Anatolia
which housed the saint's relics and constituted the recognized center of his
cult. It was edited twice by Delehaye from the sole manuscript preserved,
the eleventh century Vindobonensis theol. gr. 60'. In this text, the miracles
which follow the description of St. Theodore's earthly exploits all have a
distinctly local character. The first tells the story of St. Theodore's icon
preserved in Euchaita « till this very day ». It turns out that shortly after
his martyr's death, the saint volunteered to pose for the painter in full
armour ; thus the resulting image faithfully reproduced his appearance in
life. Miracles #2 and #3 are concerned with the desecration of St. Theod
ore's relics by Persians and the divine punishment subsequently inflicted
on their army not far from Euchaita. And finally, the last five miracles, by
far the largest part of the collection, occurred in the author's own time
when the very existence of the city was endangered as the result of Arab
attacks. An eye-witness, the author of the enkomion not only recounts the
events in vivid detail, but also provides the date of the most destructive
incursion. It started « in the fourteenth year of the God-protected and

1 . H. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires, Paris 1 909, p. 1 83-20 1 , and
in AASS Nov., IV, p. 49-55. The complete title runs as following : Βίος προ τοϋ μαρτυρίου
και ή έκ παιδος αναγωγή τε καί αΰξησις και θαύματα εξαίσια τοϋ αγίου και πανενδόξου
μεγαλομάρτυρος Θεοδώρου.
Revue des Études byzantines 46, 1988, p. 191-210.
192 C. ZUCKERMAN

Christ-loving reign of Constantine (...) at the beginning of the seventh

indiction » and continued until spring.
This date, reliable as it may appear, has suffered at the hands of scholars
a fate not unworthy of the martyr himself. In his final edition of the text,
Delehaye printed it with the following correction : τω τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτω
ετει της θεοφύλακτου και φιλοχρίστου βασιλείας <'ΡωμανοΟ, είκοστω πρώτα»
Κωνσταντίνου. He claimed that no fourteenth year of any Constantine
corresponded to a seventh indiction2. Sigalas, convinced that the text
could not be written before the ninth century since it features St. Theodore
slaying the dragon, also placed it under Constantine VII ; however, instead
of inserting a reference to Romanos I like Delehaye, he preferred to
correct the indiction3. Dorothy Abrahamse, who consecrated an appendix
in her PhD thesis to the dating of St. Theodore's miracles, rejected, with
perfect justification, Delehayes conjecture ; yet her own conclusions
turned out to be even more radical. Citing general historical considerations,
she proposed to set the Arab attack in the seventh century, « under
Constantine IV or possibly Constans II », thus renouncing any attempt to
account for the elements of dating provided by the text4. And yet, such an
arbitrary approach to the date as it was actually transmitted is hardly
founded. For it did happen, and only once, that the fourteenth year of an
emperor named Constantine overlapped a seventh indiction. It was in 754
and the emperor in question was Constantine V.
It is easy to imagine that Delehaye, when checking the regnal years and
the indictions, did not even consider this reign. The last thing one would
expect in a text qualifying Constantine V's rule as θεοφύλακτος and φιλό-
χριστος is a story of a saint coming to pose for his icon. Another difficulty
is that Constantine V's fourteenth year (18 June 754-17 June 755) included
not the beginning but the end of the seventh indiction (1 Sept. 753-31 Aug.
754)5. None of these problems, however, is of such weight so as to
undermine the value of the date transmitted and, what is more, being
patently interrelated, they contribute to each other's solution.
As we hope to show below, the major Arab raid which hurt Euchaita
must have taken place not later than autumn-winter 753/4. As it is most

2. AASS Nov., IV, p. 53, cf. p. 17. The resulting year is 933/4.
3. A. Sigalas, Des Chrysippos von Jerusalem enkomion auf den hi. Johannes den Täufer,
Athens
— which1937,
in fact
p. has
100 n.
no 1bearing
; Sigalas'
on the
datequestion
is 927. On
of dating
the episode
— seeofn.the
32 below.
dragon-slaying
4. D.Z. de F. Abrahamse, Hagiographie Sources for Byzantine Cities, 500-900 A.D., The
University of Michigan Ph.D. Thesis 1967, p. 347-354, cf. p. 25.
5. Incidentally, Delehayes correction presents the same problem. The regnal year of
Romanos I started on December 17th, and so the beginning of the seventh indiction
belonged to his thirteenth year.
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 193

often the case, the indictional date is the one to be preferred. The Arabs left
in March and Constantine V's regnal year started in June ; a mistake of few
months which led our author to cite the next regnal year could be easily
forgiven in a sermon held, in all evidence, quite a number of years after the
events. If a slip of memory, however, it was a Freudian error. In spite of
the fact that Constantine V's fourteenth year overlapped the seventh
indiction for less than three months, this combination was by far the most
conspicious date in his entire long reign. In the hows promulgated that
summer, the council of Hiereia provided the highest church legitimation
for the iconoclast policy administratively introduced by Leo III. Later,
when it seventeenth anathema was, as the acts of 787 put it, « erased », the
same hows was used to endorse Constantine V's disdain for the cult of
saints6. Nothing could be more edifying than to make the Arabs attack,
« for our sins » and « to set us right again », and then have the saint
intervene and save Euchaita at the very date of the iconoclast council
— even if to achieve this effect, one had to stretch Constantine V's
fourteenth year a few months back.
Our enkomion seems to be the only iconophile text produced in
Byzantium under, or shortly after the death of, the most denounced of the
iconoclast emperors which reached us in its original form. Therefore, it
should not be surprising that its author pleads the iconophile cause in a
way, or rather in a tone, which has little in common with the unbridled
invectives of those polemists who wrote either outside Byzantine borders
or, more often, after the disappearance of the « Isaurian » dynasty. As we
hope to show below, the enkomion is in fact polemical to the core. In
selecting and presenting St. Theodore's miracles, his anonymous devotee
found an excellent opportunity to state the orthodox view on each major
plank of the iconoclast controversy. Yet being a loyal subject of the
emperor like the overwhelming majority of the iconodules, he would not
dream of denying Constantine V the pious qualities of θεοφύλακτος and
φιλόχριστος which belonged him ex officio1.

6. Mansi, XIII, 348 ; cf. A. Lombard, Constantin V, empereur des Romains, Paris 1902,
p. 116-117.
7. The dating formula in a contract from 766 from Ravenna features domnis piissimis
perpetuis augustis Constantino a Deo coronato magno pacifico imperatore (...), sedet Leone
a Deo servato ( = θεοφύλακτος) magno imperatore, etc., éd. A. Guillou, Régionalisme et
indépendance dans l'empire byzantin au VIIe siècle, Rome 1969, p. 314. Constantine V's
ecclesiastical policy being inequivocally condemned, his political authority in Ravenna
was null, yet the titles of the reigning emperor were not a matter to mess with even if,
unlike for the author of our enkomion, there was no personal risk involved.
194 C. ZUCKERMAN

Unlike in the later Vitae, it is obvious that in real life the iconodules had
to reach a certain modus vivendi with their iconoclast rulers8. A first hand
demonstration of this is probably the most striking feature of our text.
However, it is also of considerable interest for the military and social
history of the period, and we will start therefore by placing the Arab
incursions it describes in their proper historical context.

The story of the Byzantine-Arab warfare in the 750ies, as it emerges in

modern research, is rather confused in details for so, to a certain extent, are
also the sources themselves. Obviously, the main attention of Arab histo
rians was focused on the inner turmoil in the Caliphat which followed the
Abbasid revolt, while in Byzantine chronography the iconoclast council of
754 overshadowed all other events. In many respects the Greek sources
prove inferior. The two major Arab campaigns of Constantine V, clearly
distinguished by Arab and Syrian writers, are merged in Theophanes into
one, while Nicephoros expressly mentions only the first. Moreover,
Nicephoros ignores entirely while Theophanes mentions only sporadically
the Arab raids in the Byzantine territory which are regularly recorded in the
Arabic sources9.
For the years that interest us here, the Arab historian al-Ja'qubi preserved
the following tradition. In the days of the Caliph Abu'l 'Abbas, « in the year
133, the Emperor of Romans (and that was Constantine) advanced until he
laid siege to Melitene and blockaded it, etc. ». After the city was destroyed,
« Abu'l 'Abbas wrote to 'Abd Allah the son of 'Ali, telling him that owing
to neglect on his part the enemy had wrought havoc ; and he told him to
go to the spot with the forces that he had with him and to throw his forces
into the frontier district. And he advanced until he passed through the
pass ; and he continued making his dispositions until the news of the death
of Abu'l 'Abbas reached him »l0. Abu'l 'Abbas died in June 754 and by this
date, 'Abdallah son of 'Ali had already been back and preparing a major
invasion of the Byzantine territory from Syria ; since, however, he rushed

8. A fascinating example of such cohabitation, involving an iconodule abtess and the »

family of the emperor, has recently been studied by C. Mango, St. Anthusa of
Mantineon and the Family of Constantine V, An. Boll. 100, 1982, p. 401-409, reprinted
in Byzantium and Its Image, London 1984.
9. For a survey of Arab sources, see E.W. Brooks, Byzantines and Arabs in the Time
of the Early Abbasids, English Historical Review 15, 1900, p. 728-47 (Part I) and 16, 1901,
p. 84-92 (Part II) ; cf. R.-J. Lilie, Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der
Araber, Munich 1976, esp. p. 169-70.
10. Translated in Brooks, ibidem, Part I, p. 732.
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 195

with all the troops which he gathered to press his own claim to succession
instead, this invasion never took place". Thus his earlier expedition against
the Byzantines, when he actually « passed through the pass », must have
taken place after the destruction of Melitene yet before summer 754.
The dates cited in recent studies for Constantine V's raid on Melitene
range from 750 to 75212, yet it is difficult to see any valid reason for such
discord. According to the Breviarium of Nicephoros, Constantine V took
the field (εκστρατεύει) immediately (ευθύς) after the coronation of his son
Leo13, that is, after Pentecost (June 6) 751. The alleged contradiction
between this indication, which is the most precise we have, and the data of
Arab sources can easily be shown to be more apparent than real14. The
actual capture of Melitene by Constantine V (παρέλαβεν) is recorded in
Theophanes under
Theophanes' anni mundi
a.m. 6243
lag (750/1)15.
as a ruleYet
onesince
yearinbehind,
the period
thisconsidered,
date must
correspond in fact to 751/216. Thus all Theophanes says is that Melitene,
which, as we know from Arab historians, was taken after a siege, did not
surrender before September 751. On the other hand, there is no reason to
believe that Constantine V spent the winter 75 1/2 in the Arab territory. The
success of his campaign was due to its suddenness, and the Byzantines
retreated before the main Arab troop, occupied during the siege of
Melitene by suppressing a revolt in Mesopotamia, could engage them in
battle.

11. For the background events on the Arab side of the border, see H. Kennedy, The
Early Abbasid Caliphate, London-Totowa 1981 ; cf. F. Tuquan, 'Abdallah b. 'Ali, a
Rebellious Uncle of al-Mansur, Studies in Islam 6, 1969, p. 1-26.
12. E.g. Lilie, op. dt. in n. 9, p. 164-65, adopts 750 (though he cites, without comments,
sources incompatible with this date) ; C. Mango, The Breviarium of the Patriarch
Nicephorus, in Byzantium. Tribute to Andreas N. Stratos, Athens 1986, p. 548, hesitates
between 750 and 751 ; J. Herrin, in Byzanz (Fischer Weltgeschichte 13), ed. by
F.G. Maier, Frankfurt am Main 1973, p. 96, cites 752.
13. Ed. de Boor, p. 65.
14. The Arab writers mention the expedition under A.H. 133 (9 Aug. 750 to 29 July
751). So Brooks, art. cit. in n. 9, Part II, p. 88, n. 204, assuming that the entire campaign
must have ended within this period, placed it before Leo's coronation ; he rejected out
of hand Nicephoros' date for its start, June 751, as being by far too late. However, his
assumption is ostensibly forced. Neither of the Arab sources which describe the
campaign is strictly annalistic. In the passage cited above, al-Ja'qubi states that in A.H.
133, Constantine V « advanced until he laid siege to Melitene » ; then he continues his
narrative without indicating further dates until the death of Abu'l 'Abbas in the summer
754. Also al-Baladhuri, in Brooks, ibidem, Part II, p. 88-89, names A.H. 133 as the year
when Constantine V's expedition started ; then he describes the capture of Melitene and
many other events yet does not cite any date before A.H. 139. Thus neither of the Arab
historians can be taken to imply that Melitene was captured in A.H. 133 and not the year
after.
15. Ed. de Boor, p. 427.
16. See G. Ostrogorsky, Die Chronologie des Theophanes im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert,
in BNJT, 1928/9, p. 1-56.
196 C. ZUCKERMAN

We do not know how soon 'Abdallah son of 'Ali threw his forces into the
frontier district, yet in 752-the first half of 754, the initiative clearly passed
to the Arabs. The author of St. Theodore's miracles indicates that the Arab
incursion occurred after a period of peace (περαιωθείσης ειρήνης) and
indeed, the Arab sources complain that under the last Umayyads, in
743-750, there was an interruption in the yearly Arab raids into the
Byzantine territory17. However, it did not take long to the first Abbasid
Caliph Abu'l 'Abbas to consolidate his rule, and then he was certainly in
a position to avenge the destruction of Melitene. For Arab raiders based in
the region of Melitene Euchaita was on the standard route of invasion18.
Thus it is not surprising that one of Abdallah's raiding parties which
« passed through the pass » into the Byzantine territory reached Euchaita
in the autumn 753 and so provided the occasion for the series of miracles
numbered in the present text #4, #6 and #7. Miracles #9 and #10,
added by the author to slake his listeners' thirst for more and more wonders
of their saint, took place during a lesser and apparently later raid, probably
one of those which are regularly listed in the Arab sources since the
mid-fifties19.
Thus it was in the autumn 753 that St. Theodore saved Euchaita, and this
how it happened20 :

(MIRACLE #4) Just before the Arabs approached the city, a most
respectable lady had a vision which she made known in public. She saw a
host of barbarians before the city wall (προ τοϋ τείχους της πόλεως) trying to
force their way through the gate, and she clearly saw the martyr, on a horse
and in full armour, gallantly fighting back every barbarian attack. He was
standing before the gate, just at the place where he is depicted (ΐστόρηται)
as having performed miracles against Scythians and Huns21. The Arabs could

17. E.W. Brooks, The Arabs in Asia Minor (641-750) from Arabic Sources, Journal of
Hellenic Studies 18, 1898, p. 182-208, esp. p. 202.
18. Hélène Ahrweiler, L'Asie Mineure et les invasions arabes, Revue historique 227,
1962, p. 1-32, esp. p. 10, reprinted in Études sur les structures administratives et sociales
de Byzance, London 1971.
19. There are no miracles numbered 5 and 8, yet between miracles #4 and #6 as well
as between # 7 and # 9 appear long digressions — which are patently a part of the
original text — emphasizing the saints' power of intercession. What probably happened
was that at a certain stage, the digressions were numbered as miracles and then some
later scribe who saw the mistake omitted the numbers accorded to them without
changing the numbering of the other miracles. Had two more miracles been consciously
rejected, the editor who cut the text would have hardly retained unchanged the numbers
of the miracles he kept.
20. The miracles are cited in a somewhat shortened paraphrase.
21. The application of the verb ίστορεΐν to the depiction of saints' exploits becomes
particularly common in the anti-iconoclast polemic ; see DuCange s.v., and cf. esp.
Adversus Constantinum Caballinum, PG 95, 340. The enkomion for St. Theodore by
St. Gregory of Nyssa describes the elaborate paintings which decorated the martyrium
in Euchaita (PG 46, 737). Mentioned in the enkomion are only scenes of the martyrdom,
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 197

do nothing against the cross and the martyr of Christ. But then the lady saw
an angelic force coming from above and heard a voice saying to the martyr :
« Leave them the way open for it is not against God's wish that they fight this
land ». The holy man obeyed immediately leaving the way free. Yet at the
same time, he kept entreating God not to abandon to the savage attackers a
people whose safeguarding God Himself had entrusted to him. And as the
martyr was reminding the Lord Christ of how his own body was burned
because of Him and how his abode would be desecrated by the enemy, God
in his eternal mercy showed His love for us and while chastising us, did not
utterly deliver us over unto death. For with the exception of a few, we could
all save ourselves in the fortress (έν τοις όχυρώμασι) by the grace of the Holy
Spirit.

This miracle is a story of a compromise. When in very similar circums

tances, two angels ordered St. Demetrios, the holy patron of Thessalonike,
to leave his city which was doomed to fall into the hands of Avars and
Slavs, the saint resolutely turned them out placing his hope in the mercy of
Him who sent them. « I should better perish with my fellow-citizens than
live when they die », proclaimed St. Demetrios from his relics-shrine and
his disobedience was rewarded : the siege failed and the city was saved22.
By way of contrast, St. Theodore abandoned his position in the gate, and
the citizens of Euchaita did not even try to follow his example and to
defend the city wall. As we learn from a recently published inscription, this
wall was built under Anastasius23, yet after the city was ravaged and burnt
by Persians in 622, the wall may have never been properly restored24. Thus
the Arabs occupied the polis — only by a special miracle, St. Theodore's
martyrium which fell into their hands was saved from destruction25 —

yet it is natural that they were later completed by representations of St. Theodore's
posthumous exploits. The invasion of the Sabir Huns took place in 515 (Theophanes, ed.
de Boor, p. 161). St. Theodore's intervention on behalf of his city against « Scythians »
— Goths in 379 was recorded immediately after the event by St. Gregory in the
aforecited enkomion ; see our forthcoming note 'Gregory of Nyssa's Enkomion for
St. Theodore the Recruit and the Gothic Uprising in Asia Minor in 379'.
22. P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius, I, Paris 1979,
p. 159-65.
23. C. Mango-I. SevCenko, Three Inscriptions of the Reigns of Anastasius I and
Constantine V, 5Z65, 1972, p. 379-93, esp. p. 379-84.
24. The burning of Euchaita by the Persians is discussed in the Appendix. On the
disastrous effects of the seventh century Persian invasions on the cities of Asia Minor,
see C. Foss, The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity, English Historical
Review9Q, 1975, p. 721-747, and the references there to other studies by the same author.
25. MIRACLE 6 : « The Arab leader, moved by some diabolic zeal against the shrine
of the holy martyr, prepared spades and crowbars and was ready to level it to the ground.
Yet at the very moment when he gathered his people in the shrine and was explaining
to them his plan, he was struck by God's wrath. He fell prone to the ground and rolled
around in foam biting his own tongue. So his plan was thwarted, and his people
transferred him to his quarters still possessed by the evil spirit ».
198 C. ZUCKERMAN

while the population spent the winter in the okhyromata. MIRACLE #7

describes their sad return after the Arabs had left.
The invading force occupied the city during the entire winter and turned
it into their headquarters. There they gathered the captives and the live-stock
from nearby provinces, and so, towards March, all streets and houses of
Euchaita were full of carcases of animals which emitted such stench that
even the Arabs themselves could not stand it any more and had to leave.
Many of the citizens who came back from the fortress (έκ των όχυρωμάτων)
were so distressed by this scene of devastation that they decided to move to
other cities. Yet the martyr did not let his city be abandoned. On his
instigation, clouds gathered over Euchaita — and over Euchaita alone ! (έν
μόνη τΓ| πόλει) — and produced such a boisterous rain that no one could
remember anything similar in our days. So the city was cleaned and received
again its joyful inhabitants.

In one of the years that followed, a new raid forced the population to
move to the fortress once more. Since, however, the Arabs did not maintain
this time a steady presence nearby, some people stayed in the city. One of
them was the priest whose adventure is related in MIRACLE #9.
Because of the enemies' annual incursion, we were all keeping close to the
fortress (τοις όχυρώμασι προσπελαζόντων ημών), and only one priest was left
by the bishop in the city (έν τι) πόλει) to keep the service in St. Theodore's
shrine. On Friday, on the eve of the saint's spring festival, the priest and his
psalm-readers were surprised in the shrine by a sudden Arab raid. The latter
escaped, but the priest who was inside at the altar was captured. The Arabs
took him out of the city (έξω τοϋ άστεως), tortured him and threatened to kill
if he did not disclose the hiding place of those who escaped and the cache
of the holy vessels. Yet then at night, one of his fellow captives approached
him with the request to take care of her child who was at the time in the
fortress (έν τφ κάστρω). She swore to the priest that he would be there very
soon himself, for she had just seen the martyr, in a great rage against the
Arabs, violently snatching the priest out of their hands. The next morning,
the Arabs — who were camping outside the walls — sent the priest into the
city with four guards who were instructed to kill him on the spot if he refused
to show them what they wanted. But once they were inside near the so-called
Tetrapylon26 — which is an excellent place to make good an escape — his
bonds were suddenly released. He pushed his guards aside like so many
cripples and gained his salvation by flight. The barbarians could not find him
anywhere and left the city in shame. That day was the saint's Saturday, and
so his memory could be celebrated by the very people he saved.

The author could not be more explicit in showing the mutually comple
mentary function of the « city » {polis or astu) and the « fortress » {okhyro-

26. A decorative archway in the center of a city where the two main streets crossed.
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 199

mata or kastrori)11. The role of the fortress was to provide an emergency

refuge, while the polis remained the main area of habitation. Because of its
low location at the foot of the hills, the city could not be adequately
fortified, and under the Turks, the main inhabited site switched indeed to
the hill country to the south while leaving Euchaita-Avkhat a mere village.
« The mound of no great size » described by Anderson a few minutes to
the east of the new site, Avkhat Hadji Keui, may very well be the fortress
which appears in our text28. Yet in the period discussed, the city, however
badly damaged, was neither reduced to nor transferred to the protected
kastron. This idea, so popular among modern students of the early
Byzantine urbanism, does not seem to have appealed to the citizens of
Euchaita as long as St. Theodore's martyrium situated in the polis remained
the main attraction of their city if not its raison d'être.
The literary evidence on Byzantine cities during the « Dark Age »,
besides being largely restricted to Constantinople and Thessalonike, is
notoriously meager. In fact, we know no other contemporary source which
would reflect the struggle for survival of a small provincial town like
Euchaita, and if only for that, the Miracles of St. Theodore deserved to be
presented in some detail. Yet not less remarkable than the actual events is
the civic spirit which animates their description. Our author's stand in the
iconoclast controversy, to the analysis of which we now pass, cannot be
properly understood without taking into account his civic loyalty as a
citizen of Euchaita. He is an iconophile because he cherishes the icon of
St. Theodore ; he believes in the power of the relics because the potence of
St. Theodore's relics is manifest to all. His devotion to his saint and to his
city are inseparable, for only by St. Theodore's unremitting intercession the
city continued to exist29.

27. On okhyroma(ta), the most general term designating a stronghold fortified by man
or by nature, cf. G. Dagrons remarks in G. Dagron and H. Michaescu, Le Traité sur
la guérilla de l'empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963-969), Paris 1986, p. 225-230. For a
synonimic use of okhyromata and kastron comparable to our text, see the Strategikon of
Mauritius, ed. G. Dennis — tr. E. Gamillscheg (CFHB 17), X, 1 : the example cited in
the discussion of πώς δει πολιορκείν όχυρώματα εχθρών concerns the κάστρον of
Arzanene.
28. J.G.C. Anderson, A Journey of Exploration in Pontus, Brussels 1903, p. 12-13.
29. On the cult of civic saints and icons as new local symbols of loyalty and
protection, see some penetrating remarks by P. Brown, A Dark Age Crisis : Aspects of
the Iconoclast Controversy, Society and Holy in the Late Antiquity, London 1982, p. 275f.
The author goes far beyond the evidence, however, when he affirms that the iconoclasm
constituted, among the rest, an attempt on the part of the central imperial authority to
destroy these local focuses of loyalty as potentially « disruptive for the unity of the
Empire », ibidem, p. 282f., esp. p. 289-294.
200 C. ZUCKERMAN

In the rich literary tradition which grew with the legend of St. Theodore
the Recruit, our text has a lineage of its own. The story of St. Theodore's
birth and education originates in a short and relatively ancient Vita (BHG
1765) a large part of which our author copied almost word for word30. At
the end of the tenth century, his text was adapted in its turn by the famous
general and compilator Nikephoros Ouranos31. We should also note that
once situated in the second half of the eighth century, our enkomion
acquires a special interest for the history of the legend as the earliest
datable record in Greek of St. Theodore's fight with the dragon32. Thus it
constitutes a curious parallel to a contemporary legend which presents
Constantine V as a dragon-slayer in his own right33.
Unlike the first, biographical part of the enkomion, the collection of
miracles is neither rooted in the preceding hagiographical tradition nor did
it prove attractive for St. Theodore's later enkomiasts34. Even Nikephoros

30. Edited by A. Sigalas, 'Ανωνύμου Βίος και ανατροφή του αγίου Θεοδώρου τοϋ
Τήρονος, EEBS 2, 1925, ρ. 220-226, and by Η. Delehaye, AASS Nov., p. 45-46. The link
between this text and our enkomion was first noted by Hengstenberg (infra n. 32), p. 99
n. 1, and then by both editors.
31. F. Halkin, Un opuscule inconnu du magistre Nicéphore Ouranos (Vie de saint
Théodore le Consent), An. Boll. 80, 1962, p. 308-324, reprinted in Martyrs Grecs IIe-
Vlir s., London 1974. Halkin clearly showed the dependence of Ouranos' text on our
enkomion, yet since he followed Delehaye and dated the enkomion at the end of the
tenth century — that is, in the same period in which Ouranos produced his compilat
ion — he preferred as an alternative solution to consider both texts as derived from a
common, earlier source. Once the early dating of the enkomion is established, this
complicated construction proves superfluous.
32. The most comprehensive survey of its various versions is by W. Hengstenberg,
Der Drachenkampf des heiligen Theodore, Oriens Christianus 2, 1912, p. 78-106,
241-280, with a Nachtragin 3, 1913, p. 135-137. Hengstenbergs terminus quo ante for the
emergence of the dragon legend in the Greek acts of St. Theodore the Recruit was 890,
the date of Parisinus gr. 1470, the oldest manuscript of St. Theodore's Vita, BHG 1761,
which contains this episode. He notes, however, that in Egypt, St. Theodore was known
as a dragon-slayer as early as the first third of the seventh century. The earliest
iconographie representation is on the seal of Peter, the (arch)bishop of Euchaita, dated
by the respective editors in the eighth century (V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de
l'empire byzantin, V/l, Paris 1963, no. 852), or in 640-730 (G. Zacos and A. Veglery,
Byzantine Lead Seals, 1/2, Basel 1972, no. 1288).
33. According to a legend preserved in a ninth century chronicle from Naples (ed.
G. Waitz, Scriptores rerum langobardicarum et italicarum saec. VI-IX, Hannover 1878,
p. 422-23), Constantine V slayed single-handedly a huge dragon who blocked an
aqueduct and killed many with his stench ; cf., most recently, S. Gero, The Legend of
Constantine V as Dragon-Slayer, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 19, 1978,
p. 155-159. At the origin of this legend is, no doubt, the restitution by Constantine V of
the aqueduct of Constantinople.
34. The standard text in the field remained the collection of St. Theodore's miracles
produced in the second half of the fifth century by Chrysippos of Jerusalem ; ed.
A. Sigalas, Des Chrysippos von Jerusalem enkomion auf den hi. Theodoros Teron,
Leipzig-Berlin 1921. On the text's uses by later writers, see A. Sigalas, Ή διασκευή των
ύπο τοΟ Χρυσίππου παραδεδομένων θαυμάτων τοϋ αγίου Θεοδώρου, EEBS 1, 1924,
ρ. 295-339. With the exception of the miracle with the icon (see n. 39 below), the miracles
described in our enkomion were not known to other hagiographers.
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 201

Ouranos, who had faithfully compiled the biographical part, cut his text
short after the first miracle. And indeed, the events of his own time which
the author presents as miracles strain, to say the least, the limits of the
miraculous. So all the fighting in miracle #4 occurred in the «most
respectable lady's » vision. In reality, the population simply retreated to
the kastron which the Arabs who were on a plundering raid had visibly no
intention to storm. A good rain in March is hardly a wonder. And in the
story of the priest, his most prosaic escape contrasts sharply with the
preceding vision in which he was violently snatched from the hands of his
captors by the enraged martyr. Yet when speaking to contemporaries, the
author of the enkomion had to stick to the facts, while on the other hand,
he was obviously in need of most recent confirmations of St. Theodore's
powers.
The iconoclast controversy, especially in the last decennium of Constan-
tine V's reign, involved a wide range of issues, from the nature of Christ and
to the status of monks35. Yet the most essential agenda, as it is concisely
formulated in the Life of St. John of Gotthia, comprised three planks : the
sacredness of icons, the veneration of relics and the intercession power of
the saints36. Those are the issues addressed, in this very order, in St. Theod
ore's miracles.
(MIRACLE # 1) The pious lady Eusebeia, desirous of possessing an
image of her beloved martyr Theodore, tries to describe him to a painter, yet
to no avail : the latter proves unable to produce an image of adequate
resemblance. After she departs in despair, the painter receives a visit from a
soldier who interrogates him about what the woman wanted and then
volunteers himself as a model promising the painter that the result will satisfy
his client. And indeed, the soldier was no other than St. Theodore himself.
Eusebeia recognizes his image and takes it joyfully to Euchaita where it is
preserved (σφζεται) till this very day.
This anecdote joins a well known pattern of miracles in which the saint
appeares to a painter and so personally authenticates his icon. In the
preserved traditions, this particular care for the way they are being depicted

35. See S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V, Louvain
1977, and the works cited by Gero.
36. According to this Life, St. John, consecrated bishop of Gotthia a few years after
the iconoclast council of 754, requested and received from the patriarch of Jerusalem a
definition of faith περί τε των ιερών εικόνων και τιμίων λειψάνων και των πρεσβειών των
αγίων, AASS Iunii, V, ρ. 191 Α. On St. John's Life and on the synodikon of Theodore, the
patriarch of Jerusalem, see G. Huxley, On the Vita of St John of Gotthia, Greek, Roman
and Byzantine Studies 19, 1978, p. 161-169, esp. p. 162-3 ; cf. Gero, op. cit. in η. 35, p. 120.
By an understandable distortion, the accusations against the iconoclast council of 754
focused in later sources on the same three points ; see, e.g., The Synodicon Vetus, ed.
J. Duffy and J. Parker, Washington 1979, p. 124.
202 C. ZUCKERMAN

is mainly characteristic of the 10-1 lth century saints37. However, an

analogous legend concerning the image of St. Thecla could be plausibly
attributed to the iconoclast period, and Gilbert Dagrons comments on the
latter are equally pertinent to the story of St. Theodore's icon. In both cases,
the quest for the miraculous betrays the same urge to establish an immed
iate link between the prototype and the replica in a period « où le statut
de l'icône s'accommode mal de l'intervention d'un artiste, et où toute image
cultuelle se doit d'être un peu 'acheiropoiète' »38.
A mid-eleventh century sermon by Metropolitan of Euchaita John
Mauropous reveals that the icon of St. Theodore « the foot-soldier (πεζός) »
— which is none other than the one described in our miracle — became a
focal point of a special festival which attracted huge crowds of pilgrims39.
Though this does not necessarily prove that the icon enjoyed the same
degree of veneration as early as the eighth century, the story of its
miraculous origin recorded in our text suggests that already then it
commanded a considerable local attachment. Nevertheless, we note that in
speaking about the icon, the author of St. Theodore's miracles shows a
remarkable restraint. All he says is that it is « preserved » — not venerated,
etc. — in the city ; he does not attribute it any wonder-working either.
Our author is much more assertive in regard to St. Theodore's relics and
his presbeia.

(MIRACLE #2) In bygone days, when the godless people of Persians

had occupied our land (την χώραν ήμύδν κατενέμετο), they entered the saint's
shrine and laid bare his bones. Immediately, a fragance spread all over the
shrine and many of those who gathered there were relieved from evil spirits
and healed from various corporal diseases. Seeing the wonder-working
power accorded by God to St. Theodore's relics, each of the healed took a

37. The relevant texts are translated in C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire,
312-1453, Englewood Cliffs 1972, p. 210-214, and discussed by G. Dagron, Le culte des
images dans le monde byzantin, Histoire vécue du peuple chrétien, éd. by J. Delumeau,
Toulouse 1979, reprinted in La romanité chrétienne en Orient, London 1984, p. 133-160,
esp. p. 147-149.
38. G. Dagron, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle, Brussels 1978, p. 414.
39. Iohannis Euchaitorum metropolitae quae in codice Vaticano graeco 676 supersunt,
éd. P. de Lagarde, in Abh. der hist.-phil. Classe der kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Goettingen 28, 1881, p. 207-209. The miraculous origin of this icon was also known
outside Euchaita ; in a slightly different version, its story appears in a kontakion from
Constantinople, unfortunately of an indefinite date ; see P. Maas, Kontakion auf den hi.
Theodoros unter dem Namen Romanos, Oriens Christianus 2, 1912, p. 48-69. Recently,
Ν. Oikonomidès, Le dédoublement de saint Théodore et les villes d'Euchaita et
d'Euchaneia, An. Boll. 104, 1986, p. 327-335, forwarded the view that St. Theodore's icon
described by John Mauropous was of the martyr's type frequently represented on the
seals of the metropolitans of Euchaita in 1 Oth- 1 lth centuries, namely a bust with a cross.
However, Oikonomidès did not take into consideration the description of the icon in our
enkomion and in the kontakion cited above ; what is more, we doubt that a bust could
be described by John Mauropous as πεζός.
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 203

part of them to himself as a priceless medicine. Yet very soon they were
forced to bring all the bones back, for the earth started trembling and did not
cease until the Persians themselves — ϊσασιν γαρ θαυμάζειν τα μεγαλεία τοΟ
Οεοο και πολέμιοι — ordered them to restore St. Theodore's body to its
original form. The Persians appointed one of the captive priests to keep the
relics, and the latter transferred them to Eleutherios the Great (τφ μεγάλω)
who was at the time the bishop of our city and who subsequently built anew
St. Theodore's shrine40. (We learn from the next miracle that before retrea
ting,the Persians burned the martyrium together with the rest of the city).

St. Theodore's power of intercession (presbeia, parresia, hikesia) is

exemplified in all remaining miracles. Moreover, in two long digressions,
the author reminds his fellow-citizens of the saint's other interventions on
their behalf which are innumerable and relates these benefits to the
presence of the relics in their midst41. True, such reminders are not
uncommon also in miracle collections devoid of any polemical tendency ;
it is their intensity in our text which makes them remarkable.
The challenge to which our author responded by demonstrating time and
again the powers of his saint came from Constantinople. It was probably
not the danger of St. Theodore's relics being physically hurt : there is
nothing to show that Constantine V ever made the destruction of relics a
matter of regular policy42. However, a source which seems to reproduce the
emperor's position with reasonable fidelity affirms that the only merit he
recognized in saints was of having saved their own souls. Not even the
apostles and the Theotokos herself, claimed the emperor orally and in
writing, have the power to intercede for their devotees43. These ideas, which
mark a departure from the line endorsed by the council of 754, were
embraced by the emperor in the mid^oOies44.
We hesitate to follow in the pass of those scholars who make the later
iconodule allegations their own and affirm that Constantine V translated
his newly acquired theological convictions into a formal ban on the cult of
the saints45. Any interdiction of that kind, if actually implemented, would
have necessitated such a radical reform of the liturgy — as well as renaming
churches consecrated to the saints, etc. — that it would have left traces in

40. Eleutherios the Great, unknown from other sources, should be added to the list
of bishops of Euchaita compiled by R. Janin, DHGE, XV, 1312-3.
41. See n. 19 above.
42. Cf. J. Wortley, Iconoclasm and Leipsanoclasm : Leo III, Constantine V and the
Relics, Byzantinische Forschungen 8, 1982, p. 253-279. Even if in some isolated cases, like
St. Euphemia's, the destruction of relics cannot be excluded, there was no systematic
campaign for their removal from churches.
43. Adversus Constantinum Caballinum, PG 95, 337.
44. Theophanes, ed. de Boor, p. 439-440.
45. E.g., Lombard, op. cit. in n. 6, p. 119f. ; Gero, op. cit. in n. 35, p. 147. It is never
explained, however, what practical form such a ban could take.
204 C. ZUCKERMAN

the sources. In fact, there are none. However, Constantine V made his
views widely known, and no persecution could hurt the cult of the saints
worse than imperial neglect.
Unlike his hero, the author of St. Theodore's miracles had evidently no
ambition to become a martyr. As far as the subject permitted, he strived to
stay on the safe side of that evasive line which demarcated theological
exposition from open assault on the imperial authority. Thus instead of
engaging in polemics, he presented the hard facts, laying a special emphasis
on the manifestations of St. Theodore's power in his own generation.
Contrary to the elder George's disciple who edited the « Admonition of an
Elder Concerning the Holy Icons » in the security of his Syrian exile, our
author did not go so far as to interpret the events of his time as the
fulfilment of apocalyptic predictions on the evil rulers of the last days46. Yet
when, in explaining the Arab incursion, he speaks about « our sins », God's
just trial and the deserved punishment, one may hear in these admittedly
traditional terms a clear note of reproach. In this context, the date — which
in a text of this genre, one would not expect to be cited in such detail —
acquires an ambiguous sound :
« In the fourteenth year of the God-protected and Christ-loving reign of
Constantine, when the peace between Romans and Saracens came to an end,
at the beginning of the seventh indiction, the wicked sons of Hagar took the
field and laid waste to our entire land because of our sins. For the truth is
that the evils that befall the attacked are sent by God's just judgement to
those who deserve punishment. For 'war', says the Prophet Hosea, 'came
upon the children of disobedience, and nations shall be gathered against
them to chastise them for their iniquity (Hosea X, 9-10, adapted from
memory)'. So this is what happened in our land... ».
Was then the date, which marks, as said, the year of the iconoclast
council, only the date of the punishment or also the date of the sin ? The
anonymous author of St. Theodore's enkomion clearly intended it to mean
both.
The Arab assault on Euchaita and the council of Hiereia took place in
one and the same year, the seventh indiction, for it was the indiction that
constituted the permanent year of reference as opposed to changing regnal

46. B. M. Melioranskij, Georgij Kiprijanin i loann Ierusalimljanin, dva maloizvestnykh

bortsa za pravoslavie ν VIII veke, St. Peterburg 1901, p. v-vin, and the editor's remarks,
p. 32-39. It is most remarkable, on the other hand, that in the main part of the pamphlet
which closely reproduces the actual disputation between George and the iconoclast
Bishop Cosmas on the eve of the council of 754, the defender of icons refutes with
indignation his opponent's attempts to catch him in disloyalty towards the reigning
emperor, cf. p. 22-24.
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 205

years of the emperors. To bring this edifying coincidence nearer to his

listeners, the author of the enkomion paid no heed to the fact that between
the events, the regnal year changed. So it happened that Constantine V's
fourteenth year was advanced well into the thirteenth, and the Arab raid
received not only the indiction — which was correct — but also the regnal
year of the hows of Hiereia, a combination which was known to all. Thus
it was an easy guess, for which sins God chastised the land.
If our analysis of the text as a whole is accepted, this fusion of the two
dates is all too understandable. Like the miracles themselves, their selection
and presentation, it reveals a polemical tendency that fits into the back
ground of the later period of the first iconoclasm. None of the afore-cited
attempts to shift the date of the text backward or forward could be properly
substantiated to constitute a valid alternative. The far-reaching textual
corrections involved appear all the more superfluous since, as we hope to
have shown, the date transmitted makes perfect sense as it is. We conclude,
therefore, that the enkomion for St. Theodore {BHG 1764) was written by
an eye-witness of the raid of 753/4, probably in the last years of Constant
ine V himself or under Leo IV (775-780), who maintained the essentials of
his father's iconoclast policy as well as a strict respect for his memory. After
all the times innumerable that St. Theodore saved Euchaita, it was indeed
only fair that when his own cult was in peril, one of the city clerics
volunteered to defend St. Theodore.
206 C. ZUCKERMAN

Appendix. Heraclius' first Persian campaign in miracles #2 and #3.

The date of the Persian occupation and the burning of Euchaita de
scribed in miracles # 2 and # 3 is not indicated, yet there is only one period
to which they can possibly be assigned. From the time of Anastasius when
Euchaita received a bishop of its own1 — a bishop is mentioned in
miracle # 2 — and throughout the entire century that followed, we know
of no Persian incursion into Byzantine Asia Minor which penetrated as far
as Euchaita. Persian occupation of a city in Helenopontos was only
conceivable during the major invasions of the early seventh century. What
is more, certain details contained in miracle # 3 would seem to allow us to
determine also the precise year in which Euchaita was burnt.

(MIRACLE #3) When the Persians were camping before the city, they
were suddenly hit by a Roman expeditionary force. Boiling with anger, they
slaughtered numerous captives and set on fire the city and the martyr's
shrine. Yet that they paid dearly, as the warrior martyr got his hands on them.
They were still not far from the city when another Roman force engaged and
routed them near the mountain called Omphalimos. The few who escaped
reached the river called Lykos, yet there, by God's judgement, they were
struck by hail as big as stone projectiles and none of them returned to his
land. At that place, the Roman soldiers built a shrine dedicated to the Martyr
— whom they considered their fellow and champion — which exists till this
very day.
This sequence of events strongly resembles the description of Heraclius'
first Persian campaign in George of Pisidia's Expeditio Persica2. The main
battle was preceded by a tactical sortie by a small force led by the emperor
in person which disguised the redeployment of the rest of the army to a
position in the Persians' rear. George of Pisidia does not pretend that the
Persians suffered any losses in this first abrupt engagement, yet he descri
bes their rage and disappointment when they later discovered Heraclius'
maneuver. With the Byzantine army blocking their retreat back to Persia,
slaughtering the captives was a logical step to take. After fifteen days of
skirmishing, the main battle was fought and the Persians were completely
routed. True, George of Pisidia mentions neither the miraculous hail nor
the part played by St. Theodore, yet these are the kind of details that
posterity often knows better than the actual participants of events.

1. C. Mango-I. SevCenko, Three Inscriptions of the Reigns of Anastasius I and

Constantine V, BZ 65, 1972, p. 379-84.
2. Ed. A. Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia. Poemi I : Panegirici Epici, Ettal 1959, p. 84-175.
Cf. Ν. Baynes, The First Campaign of Heraclius against Persia, English Historical Review
19, 1904, p. 694-702.
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 207

Another consideration in identifying the two descriptions is that both

texts situate the battle in one and the same region. According to George of
Pisidia, the location of the two armies before the battle was the following :
έπει γαρ είς χειμώνα προς το Πόντιον
κλίμα διατρίψας συντόμως ό βάρβαρος
τας είσβολας κατέσχε της όδοΟ φθάσας,
ό δέ στρατός σου δυσχερείς τας είσβάσεις
άπαξ προληφθείς είχε τας προς ήλιον, κ.τ.λ.
We translate : « For towards the winter, the barbarian, by a quick action
(διατρίψας συντόμως), occupied first (φΟάσας) the entrance road leading to
the region of Pontus, and so your army, forestalled this time only (άπαξ
προληφθείς), had difficulty entering the way leading to the east, etc. »3.
Then, as we have mentioned, Heraclius outflanked the Persian general
Shahrbaraz and took a position in his rear. Thus it was in Pontus which the
latter tried to blockade that the two armies met for the decisive battle half
a month later. George of Pisidia's other indication is no less valuable. He
claims that the « Barbarian », after having discovered Heraclius' army
between himself and Persia, considered two alternatives : either forcing his
way straight to the east by attacking the Byzantines, or undertaking an
arduous march in order to regain Persia through the Cilician Gates. The
Persian general had good reasons to reject both plans ; instead, he followed
Heraclius « like a dog on a chain »4. What we learn, however, is that the
longitude of the Cilician Gates constitutes the eastern limit for the initial
maneuvers in Pontus ; had the two armies met farther to the east, Shahrba-
raz's second plan would make no sense.
The geographical indications in the enkomion make it possible to
localize the theater of hostilities with much more precision. The mount
Omphalimos in our text was identified by Father Jean Darrouzès as the

3. Exp. Pers. II, 256-260. N. Oikonomidès, A Chronological Note on the First Persian
Campaign of Heraclius (622), Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1, 1975, p. 1-9, esp.
p. 3, translates « After having spent the winter (i.e. 621-2) in the region of Pontus, the
barbarian (i.e. Shahrbaraz) moved quickly and managed to occupy the access of the
road ; your army (i.e. Heraclius') had difficulty entering the way leading to the east, since
the enemy had moved first... ». However, this translation ignores the obvious parallelism
between « προς το Πόντιον κλίμα (...) ό βάρβαρος τας είσβολας κατέσχε ττ)ς όδοϋ » and « ό
δέ στρατός σου δυσχερείς τας είσβάσεις (...) είχε τας προς ήλιον » and so makes disappear
the information required by the context, namely the access of which road Shahrbaraz
occupied.
4. Exp. Pers. II, 335-358. Oikonomidès, ibidem, p. 4-5, concludes from this passage that
the Persians actually marched all the way to the Cilician Gates and then returned and
confronted again the Byzantines. Yet George of Pisidia makes it clear, in our view, that
the contradictory plans passing through Shahrbaraz's mind were not implemented in
practice (see esp. 1. 348-9).
208 C. ZUCKERMAN

mount Ophlimos mentioned by Strabo in eastern Helenopontos5. Its

identification with one of the peaks in the area is still a matter of dispute,
yet Strabo's description is sufficiently precise to make the differences
slight ; the most convincing proposal is G. de Jerphanions who identified
Ophlimos as the Bouhale Dagh, about 90 km east of Euchaita6. The river
Lykos flows about 30 km farther to the east, and the fleeing Persians could
have reached it the same day.
In most studies, the itinerary of Heraclius' first Persian campaign is
unnecessarily tangled. After the landing in Pylae, he is made to descend as
far to the south as Caesarea in Cappadocia and then wander back to the
north in order to reach Pontus7. George of Pisidia's lines cited above make
it clear, however, that the Byzantine army approached Pontus from the
west. We prefer, therefore, the itinerary traced by Pertusi — on the
assumption that from Pylae, Heraclius advanced straight eastward8. Shahr-
baraz tried to block Heraclius' progress soon after the latter reached
Helenopontos, to the west of Euchaita. This region lies north or slightly
north-west of the Cilician Gates, and this explains the plan of retreat
ascribed by George of Pisidia to the Persian general. After his successful
maneuver, Heraclius continued to advance to the east. For fifteen days the
two armies remained very close, and Heraclius' advance was obviously very
slow. He may have taken the road of Euchaita which in the meanwhile was
abandoned by the Persians ; to reach O(m)ph(a)limos, he did not need to
make more than 10 km a day. There, not far from the Armenian border, was
fought the battle which turned the tide in the last confrontation between
Persia and Byzantium. Immediately after the battle Heraclius returned to
Constantinople. The campaign ended. According to Theophanes, the
troops took their winter quarters in Armenia9.

5. Strabo XII, 3,30. I am most grateful to Father Darrouzès for communicating me

this unpublished identification.
6. G. de Jerphanion, Carte du bassin moyen de Yechil-lrmak, Paris 1913 (?).
7. After Baynes, art. cit., p. 696-7, see, most recently, J. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians,
Bonn 1984, p. 171 (esp. n. 341, p. 435-9). In support of this itinerary, initially proposed
as a hypothesis, Haldon adduces the mention of Caesarea in Sebeos. He owes, however,
a more comprehensive analysis of Sebeos' data in order to prove that the latter's
reference to Caesarea should be set in the context of Heraclius' first campaign and not
of the second as it was generally assumed.
8. See the map appended to Pertusi's edition. It is remarkable that with no knowledge
of the enkomion, Pertusi brings Heraclius to the exact location where according to the
latter text the battle took place.
9. Ed. de Boor, p. 306. A curious description of the campaign can be found in
A. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, I (602-634), Amsterdam 1968, p. 135-144.
Stratos makes Heraclius march directly to Armenia, for « we know from Pisides that the
first encounter took place somewhere in Armenia » (p. 139). We could not, however,
trace the source of this information in the Expeditio Persica. Then Stratos situates the
 THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE V 209

When did Heraclius confront Shahrbaraz ? He landed at Pylae on 6 April

622 ; for some time afterwards he was engaged in reorganizing and training
his army. As to what followed, the opinions differ. The chronology
accepted before Oikonomides' study placed Heraclius' sortie at the end of
January and the main battle early in February 623. Oikonomides' dates are
late July and early August 622, respectively. Both proposals are based on
the assumption that between the two events, George of Pisidia describes a
moon eclipse ; it is then identified either with the one of 23 January 623 or
the one of 28 July 62210.
At the first glance, it may appear indeed as if George were describing an
eclipse :
"Εκλειψιν εσχεν ή θεός της Περσίδος,
εκλειψιν εσχε και λόγω και πράγματι.
οϊμαι δέ, χαίρει Περσικές βλάβης χάριν
φθίνουσα και λήγουσα και μειούμενη*
άεί γαρ αύτοϊς μάλλον έκλείπειν θέλει
ήπερ προλάμπειν δυσσεβως τιμώμενη.
No wonder that such a superficial compiler of the Expeditio Persica as
Theophanes speaks expressis verbis of an eclipse of the moon". Within their
context, however, the verses cited acquire a more mundane meaning.
Oikonomides is right to notice that George plays up the fact that the fifteen
days of skirmishing before the main battle fell exactly between full moon
and the moon's complete disappearance at the end of the lunar month.
Persian Goddess' desertion in these crucial days provided George with a
ready source of ridicule. Accordingly, Oikonomides admits that the last
four verses in the passage cited describe the gradual decrease of the moon
on the wane. Out of deference for the traditional interpretation, he

main theater of hostilities on the line Melitene-Theodosioupolis-Satala, that is up to

400 km to the east from the region we suggested. This time he does not claim George
of Pisidia's support. On the contrary, Stratos admits that his geography of the campaign
cannot be reconciled with the plan to pass through the Cilician Gates attributed by
George to the Persian general. Too bad for Pisides ! Stratos knows better : he simply
dismisses « Pisides' verse » which « confuses the issue » (p. 141).
10. Oikonomides, art. cit., and the references there.
11. Ed. de Boor, p. 305. Theophanes' dependence on the Expeditio Persica in the
description of the campaign as well as the numerous instances when he failed to
understand his source are discussed, with references to earlier studies, in Pertusis
commentary. In regard to the passage cited, however, Pertusi does not doubt that
George of Pisidia describes a moon eclipse.
210 C. ZUCKERMAN

affirms nevertheless that the first two lines refer to an eclipse12. In our view,
this segmentation of a continuous description has no foundation, and
nothing more is described but a waning moon. Once we admit that George
of Pisidia had no eclipse in mind, the chronological precisions based on its
dating become irrelevant. The only clue for the timing of the campaign's
decisive stage that George did provide was thus that the two armies met είς
χειμώνα, « towards winter », that is late in autumn 622.

Constantine Zuckerman
c/o Centre d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance
Collège de France. Paris

12. Oikonomidès, art. cit., p. 4-5, esp. n. 24. The lines we cite follow a description of
a Persian night attack which failed because there was a full moon. « The moon-eclipse »,
affirms Oikonomidès, « occurred the same night and discouraged the Persians ». The
logic of this reasoning escapes us. Why should an eclipse so conveniently timed have
discouraged the attackers ? On the contrary, it could have saved their maneuver ! What
George actually says, however, is that in the night of the attack the barbarians prayed
in vain for the extinction of their Goddess who turned their enemy (Exp. Pers. II, 368-75).
Only in the fifteen days that followed, the moon gradually waned (III, 1-16).