LIFE OF JUSTINIAN BY THEOPHILUS

http://penelope.uchicago.e u/Tha!e"/E/#o$an/Te%t&/&e con a"!/'ou"nal&/EH#/(/Li)e*o)*Ju&tinian*+!*The ophilu&,.ht$l

For the last two centuries and a half historians have been accustomed to quote, as an authority for several curious facts connected with the emperor Justinian and his scarcely less famous wife the empress Theodora, a life of Justinian by a certain Theophilus, described as an abbot and as the preceptor of Justinian. One of these facts is the Slavonic origin of the family of Justinian, a circumstance not only interesting in itself, but important as showing that Slavonic tribes had settled in Upper acedonia or !estern Thrace in, or soon after, the middle of the fifth century, a date considerably earlier than we should otherwise be entitled to accept. "nother is the so#ourn of the young Justinian as a hostage at $avenna in the court of Theodoric the %reat, a so#ourn from which the future emperor must have derived a &nowledge of the condition of 'taly under Ostrogothic rule of supreme value for his subsequent war against the successors of Theodoric. " third is the opposition made by the mother of Justinian to his marriage with Theodora, and the fact that the graces and accomplishments of that lady did not prevent her from being regarded as a source of danger to Justinian and the empire. These points were all of historical significance. (ut of the authority on which they rest, of Theophilus himself, nothing has been &nown beyond the curt statements of the undoubtedly learned writer who cites him, and whom all subsequent historians seem to have followed as a sufficient voucher for the genuineness and worth of the original Theophilus himself. This learned writer is )icholas "lemanni, scrittore in the *atican library. 'n +,-. he published at /yons the first edition of the 0"necdota0 or unpublished history of 1rocopius of 2aesarea, which, as all the world &nows, treats of the life, acts, and character of the emperor Justinian and the empress Theodora, of (elisarius and his wife "ntonina. 'n the preface which "lemanni prefi3ed, and in the very full

and valuable notes which he appended to his edition, he refers several times to a 0/ife of Justinian0 by a p,45 person whom he calls 0Theophilus Justiniani praeceptor,0 0Theophilus "bbas.0
1

"lemanni neither tells us where he found or read this 0/ife of Justinian,0 nor gives us any other clue whatever to it. 'n fact, the e3tracts given in the footnote, together with the mention in the preface of 0Theophilus Justiniani praeceptor0 as a writer contemporary with 1rocopius, are all that he says regarding this personage, who is not mentioned by any other writer. 't came to be supposed that as "lemanni was himself an official of the *atican library, and had printed the 0"necdota0 from two manuscripts which he found there, the manuscript of this 0/ife of Justinian0 by Theophilus must also be preserved in that library. $epeated searches were made, but failed to discover the boo& or any trace of it. /ater writers, however, assumed Theophilus to have been what "lemanni0s references implied him to be, a contemporary and trustworthy authority6 and went on quoting from "lemanni the statements regarding Justinian above given. ' need refer to a few only of the more important of these writers. /udewig, the famous #urist and chancellor of 7alle, in his elaborate 0/ife of Justinian and Theodora0 says of the 0/ife0 by Theophilus, after referring to "lemanni0s e3tracts, cu#us copia nobis non est6 and again, )omen (igleni8ae prodidit solus Theophilus, Justiniani biographus6 cu#us testimonium laudamus fide "lemanni, qui eum legit in membranis *aticanis 9p+-5:. 9"lemanni, however, did not say he read Theophilus in a *atican manuscript.:
2

The learned 1hilippo 'nverni8i, in a note to the preface to his boo& on the reign of Justinian, says<=
p,4;

7is >sc. scriptoribus? quendam Theophilum historicum addit "lemannus, quem fuisse Justiniani praeceptorem /udewigius putavit. @uis autem novus hic Theophilus fuerit, semper est ignoratum< nec /udewigius, nec 7offmannus, nec, cu#us fide creditur e3tare, "lemannus, demonstrare id veterum auctoritate potuerunt. @uin etiam vir clarissimus %uillelmus Otto $eit8 in tertia adnotatione ad 7istoriam Theophili JCti Joannis 7enrici ylii cap. ', solide "lemannum refutavit. @uare ut opinor de hac re desitum est disputari. Ast autem qui censeat hanc Theophili 7istoriam "lemannum in *aticana (ibliotheca legisse6 in qua tamen cum diu et ab aliis et a me doctorum hominum et laudatae (ibliothecae peritissimorum opera fuerit quaesita, nullus code3 profecto in quo e3taret Theophili historia, nulla est pagina reperta.
3

%ibbon 90Becline and Fall,0 chapter C/: assumes Theophilus on the evidence of "lemanni. 0For this curious fact >that Justinian had lived as a hostage at the court of Theodoric? "lemannus quotes a manuscript history of Justinian by his preceptor Theophilus.0 9"lemanni, however, did not say that the history of

Theophilus was in manuscript.: %ibbon quotes other statements, such as the names *pravda, 'sto&, (igleni8a, without hesitation. ore recent writers seem to have simply accepted and followed "lemanni without further inquiry, ta&ing the names he gives as genuine, and endeavouring to e3plain their etymology. See among others Schafari& 90Slavische "lterthDmer,0 vol. '' p+,E: and U#falvy 90'mperator Justinianus %enti Slavicae vindicatus0:, both p,,Eof whom, li&e some writers of our own day, ta&e the Slavonic origin of Justinian as proved by these apparently Slavonic names. )o one, however, e3plored the mystery of Theophilus and his /ife6 and the general belief has, ' thin&, been that "lemanni drew upon some ancient manuscript of a real writer contemporary with Justinian, which manuscript, then in the *atican, has long since disappeared. Theophilus had in fact passed into one of the minor riddles of history, which there seemed no prospect of ever solving. 'n January +55., being engaged in studies relating to the history of Justinian and especially to the Ostrogothic war, ' visited $ome, and inquired at the *atican library regarding the supposed manuscript of Theophilus. The officials of the library, whose courtesy ' desire to ac&nowledge cordially, informed me that it had often been searched for, but in vain. "fter an e3amination of the manuscripts of 1rocopius in the library, from which no light on the sub#ect could be gained, ' determined to pursue my inquiries in some of the greater private libraries of $ome, following in this the advice given to me shortly before at Florence by the distinguished head of the /aurentian library there, the "bate "n8iani, and by my friend Signor %iorgi, head of the *ittore Amanuele library in $ome. 7aving heard that )icholas "lemanni had been in intimate relations with the (arberini family, ' proceeded to the library in the (arberini palace, and there, after a short search, found a manuscript entitled 0*ita Justiniani,0 written on paper of quarto si8e and bound up with some other manuscripts in a small boo&. ' copied it out, and here give the whole of it verbatim. 't is written on paper in a seventeenth century handwriting, -F cent. long by -E cent. wide 9about +E inches by 5:, is mar&ed (arb. CCC*'''.G;, has a modern binding on which, on the bac&, are the words Suares Opuscula, and is described as follows in the catalogue of the library made by the librarian 1ieralisi< Opuscula quae erant inter schedas Josephi ariae Suaresii alienis manibus e3aratas. 2od. chart. in fo. saec. C*''.
4

The 0/ife of Justinian0 which is bound up among these opuscula is followed by a sort of commentary, which bears the heading 0A3plicationes.0 (oth the /ife and the e3planations are contained in two sheets of paper 9folded:, and are in the same handwriting. ' copied them out6 and the copy then made has been recently carefully collated with the original by Signor /evi of the $eale SocietH $omana di Storia 1atria, to whom my best than&s are due for this service. ' give here the te3t of the 0/ife0 and notes in full before proceeding to ma&e some observations upon them.

p,,+

Ju&tiniani -ita.

A3 opusculo continenti *itam Justiniani 'mperatoris scripto literis et characteribus 'llyricis usque ad annum imperii e#us 5E per (ogomilum 1astorem seu "bbatem monasterii S. "le3andri martyris in Bardania prope 1ri8rienam civitatem natale solum eiusdem Justiniani, quod opusculum asservatur in bibliotheca monacorum 'llyricanorum regulam S. (asilii profitentium in monte "tho seu sacro in acedonia supra "egaeum mare. 7ic (ogomilus cum diutius fuisset pedagogus Justiniani factus est episcopus Sardicensis dictusque a /atinis et %raecis B B vir magnae sanctitatis et in catholica religione tuenda constantissimus.
6

)atus est *pravda (1) 9nomen Justiniani gentili sermone: in 1ri8riena (2) sub imperio Ienonis $egis 2onstantinopolitani et 1atriarchatu "cacii novae $omae, postquam imperatores in veteri $oma esse desierunt< quasi Beus vellet edere $egem qui recuperaturus esset occidentale imperium et cum orientali in antiquum splendorem restituturus.
7 8

1ater e#us fuit 'sto& (3) e3 progenie et familia sancti 2onstantini (4) = magni $egis $omanorum et ma3imi monarcharum 2hristianorum. ater vero (igleni8a (5) = soror Justini qui regnavit in nova $oma. 'sto&i soror fuit /ada, quae nupsit Selimiro (6) 1rincipi Slavorum, qui complures filios habuit, inter hos $echiradum quem singulari certamine, ut dicetur, interfecit Justinianus. 'sto& cum esset 'lne8, hoc est, Bynasta inter Bardanos, dedit filio *pravdae pedagogum egregium sanctum virum (ogomilum (7) pastorem seu "bbatem monasterii S. "le3andri martyris, vitae Justiniani scriptorem, qui puerum summa diligentia sanctissimis moribus inde literis /atinis et %raecis instru3it. *erum cum ab avunculo Justino eni3e diligeretur, ab eodem ad castra trahebatur, (ogomilo nunquam a latere adolescentis abscedente.
9

Tyrocinium deposuit #ubente Justino, qui #am pridem primos ordines $omanorum ductabat6 quo tempore idem Justinus contra 2aesarides (8) Ienonidas pro "nastasio rege decertabat, cum avunculo miles in 'llyricum revertitur ob (ulgaros $omanis cervicibus imminentes, a quibus cum esset interfectus $astus (9) du3 militiae 'llyricanae cum primoribus Bucibus Justinus (arbaris occurrens plus nimio insultantes repressit. At quia (ulgaris au3ilio affuerat $echirad (10) Selimiri filius, nec ullis precibus aut promissius eum Justinus a societate (ulgarorum abstrahere poterat, ob idque simultas gravissima inter Justinianum et germanum suum $echiradum e3arserat, unde ad #urgia et probra in quodam colloquio p,,-devenerant, res ad singulare certamen inter eos est deducta, in quo certamine Justinianus nondum vigesimum annum attingens adversarium mira virtute ad ripas fluminis uravae 9is /atinis est oschus: prostravit, quas ob res ingentia munera tum ipse tum du3 militiae Justinus et e#us milites 'llyricani accepere. @uoniam autem

periculosum vulnus in eo certamine Justinianus acceperat, 2onstantinopolim curandus mittitur, ubi "nastasio regi acceptissimus fuit, qui eum studuit a verae $eligionis cultu abducere, quod ubi (ogomilus pedagogus e#us animadvertit, sollicitus de salute adolescentis eundem ad Justinum in castra, mo3 in patriam ad matrem viduam nuper ab 'sto&o relictam redu3it. Sed Justinianus pertesus atrium domesticum brevi ad avunculum rediit, quem ad argum 1annoniae oppidum reliquias e3ercitus Sabiniani Bucis a %othis fusi colligentem invenit, a quo ad Theodoricum regem %othorum "nalimiri filium in 'taliam mittitur, ad suorum Bucum, qui paulo ante Sirmiensem $egionem (ulgaris abstulerant, au3ilia impetranda, a quo benigne acceptus et au3ilia obtinuit et diutius tanquam obses $avennae detentus quamdiu Justinus %othorum militum opera usus est, habitusque est Theodorico loco fratris, quin immo 'llyrico more fraternitatis (11) vinculo sese colligarunt.
10

"d avunculum reversus cum Justinus nullam e3 *u&ci88a (12) con#uge sobolem speraret, #ubente eo connubio illigatur, ducta (osidara (13) egregia puella, licet reclamante (igleni88a, quippe quae indolem puellae alioquin scitissimae et eruditissimae sed sevioris et arrogantioris ingenii aliquando obfuturam fortunae et pietati filii pertimescebat, praesertim quia vetula quaedam divinationibus addicta (osidaram futuram *raghidaram (14) $omano 'mperio, infle3uramque rectitudinem *pravdae, e3 sortium augurio consulenti (igleni88ae praedi3erat. *erumtamen mores tunc temporis e3cultissimi variarumque scientiarum peritia cum e3imia forma con#unctae apud Justinum et ipsum Justinianum praevaluerunt, quamobrem (igleni88a paulo post moerore consumpta e vivis e3cessit antequam fratrem fastigium $omani regni conscendisse gaudere potuisset. Trigenario maior cum "nastasius $e3 (ogomilum ad Sardicensem episcopatum favore Justini promotum cum multis aliis episcopis ob 2atholicam $eligionem 2onstantinopolim evocatos ve3aret, Justinianus cum avunculo Justino a Bucibus 'llyricanae militiae destinantur >sic? ad "nastasium obtestando nisi impetum tumultuantis militiae vellet e3periri ab insectatione 2atholicorum "ntistitum desisteret, quorum libertate deterritus cum subornasset delatores qui eos con#urationis in $egium caput initae accusarent, carceribus utrumque mancipavit, mo3 in eosdem capitalem tulit sententiam. *erum apparentibus ei in somnio Sergio et (acho martyribus quorum cultus insignis habetur inter Bardanos, et dira minantibus si homines innocentes et imperio digniores quam ipse foret perdere auderet, absolutos cum episcopis 2atholicis dimisit, cui tamen brevi Justinus regno successit. Sub imperio Justini Justinianus dignam principe viro ecclesiam in 'llyrico sub Scodrensi urbe supra (arbenam fluvium Sergio et (acho martyribus e3tructam dicavit. 'dem auctoritate avunculi Acclesiam olim a arciano oeconomo 2onstantinopolitanae ecclesia 2onstantinopoli %othis concessam 2atholico ritu per Joannem $omae veteris pontificem p,,.consecrari curavit, retento tamen psalmodiae et liturgiae usu %othico sermone in gratiam suae gentis 'llyricae eandem linguam cum %othis colentis. Justino succedens templum ad

imitationem illius quod in $egia urbe divinae sapientiae dicaverat Sardicae (15) in gratiam Apiscopi (ogomili seu Bomnionis olim sui pedagogi condidit. AC1/'2"T'O)AS quorundam nominum quae leguntur in praecedenti fragmento observatae per Joannem Tomco arnavich 2anonicum Sibensem fragmenti interpretem.
11

+. *pravda vo3 'llyrica derivata a 1ravda, hoc est Justitia. *pravda autem cum illa praepositione * significat directam Justitiam, quo nomine ab 'llyricis scriptoribus tam Justinianus quam uterque Justinus dicti sunt. -. 1ri8riena. 'ta scribitur patria Justiniani tam ab antiquis quam recentioribus 'llyricis sita eo prorsus loco quo 1rocopius Tauresium ponit, nimirum inter Bardanos super Apydamnum. 7oc "gathias de bello %othico (ederinam appellat et hodie sub Turcis inter fines antiquae Bardaniae et recentioris 7ercegovinae seu Bucatus Sancti Sabae visuntur tam intra quam e3tra civitatem complura vestigia et rudera e3imiorum vestigiorum aedificiorum estque titulus nunc 1etri 2alitii episcopi nuper cum missione 1atrum Societatis Jesu ad curandas 2hristianorum reliquias sub Turcica tyrannide per acedoniam Bardaniam et 1annonias misere gementum a Smo Bno )ro 1aolo * destinati. .. 'sto& vo3 'llyricana Orientem significans intra nomina nostratum antiquis usitatior quam recentioribus, qui saepius nominibus sanctorum virorum quam gentilibus appellare filios consueverunt. G. Familiam 2onstantini professi sunt complures e3 'llyricis principibus usque quo a Turca sedibus pulsi cum familiis interierunt. 'ta $eges et Bespotae Serviae $eguli Scardi montis, Buces S. Sabae, etc. 4. (igleni88a nomen 'llyricum ab albedine ductum, /atinis "lbulam sonans. ,. Selimiri filii a Justiniano $ege saepius nomen regium super Balmatas petierunt nec unquam impetrarunt, eo quod $echirad Selimiri filius a Justiniano occisus a (ulgaris contra $omanos stetisset. F. (ogomilus 'llyrica vo3 Beo carum significans. 5. 2aesarides 1atronimicum nomen usitatissimum apud 'llyricos apud quos Iar $egem seu 'mperatorem significat Iarevichi ut habet author 2aesaridae interpretantur. ;. $astus nomen 'llyricum 2rescentem significans< hunc puto esse quem arcellinus 2omes "ristum appellat, Buctorem militiae 'llyricanae. +E. $echirad nomen 'llyricum compositum a rechi, hoc est loqui, et rad, hoc est cupidum, ita ut requirad loqui cupidum significet. 2uiusmodi nomen aliquorum

$egum %othorum in 7ispania fuit, quae tamen nomina ab ignaris linguae %othicae seu 'llyricae male per 1recaredos efferuntur et scribuntur.
12

++. Solemnitas vinculi fraternitatis ad hunc usque diem tanti fit apud 'llyricos ut non solum inter 2hristianos homines credatur vera #ungi fraternitas, sed etiam inter 2hristianos et Turcas habeatur validissima. %raecique authores scribunt u3orem Justini ubi is ad regum assumptus fuit /upicinae nomen in Auphemiam commutasse. +.. (osidara nomen 'llyricum compositum a (ogh, idest Beo, et Bar, hoc est dono, ut (osidara nihil aliud sit nisi a Beo donata vel Bei donum, quod idem est cum %raeco nomine Theodora. +G. *raghidara nomen itidem 'llyricum, a *rag, hoc est Biabolo vel hoste, et dar, hoc est dono, compositum ut *raghidara sit diaboli vel hostis donum oppositum Theodoro. +4. Sardica progressu temporis a templo Justiniani Sophiae nomen ad hodiernum usque diem usurpavit. "nte fores dicti templi Justinianus nobile sarcophagum (ogomilo seu Bomnioni santissimo viro e3citavit, carminibusque super crustas marmoreas illustravit.
13

p,,G +-. *u&ci88a nomen 'llyricum lupae proprium. Unde /atini

The discovery of this manuscript and an e3amination of its contents give rise to several questions which ' shall endeavour to discuss as briefly as possible. '. The first of these questions is< 's this the 0/ife of Justinian0 by Theophilus which "lemanni quotes in the notes to his edition of the 0"necdota0 of 1rocopius, and for whose e3istence he has hitherto been the sole authorityJ On this it may be observed that all the facts which "lemanni gives in his notes on the authority of Theophilus are found in this manuscript. They are< +. That a church was erected by Justin and Justinian at S&odra 9or Scutari: on the river (arbena 9(oyana: 9in northern "lbania: to SS. Sergius and (acchus. -. That Justinian was born in the reign of Ieno and patriarchate of "cacius. .. That Justinian was over thirty years of age when he came to (y8antium near the end of the reign of "nastasius. G. That Justinian contracted the rite of fraternitas with Theodoric the Ostrogothic &ing. 4. That Justinian was as a youth a hostage at $avenna with Theodoric.

,. That (igleni8a, the mother of Justinian, opposed his betrothal to Theodora. F. That (igleni8a distrusted the character of Theodora, having been warned by an aged female soothsayer that she would prove not a gift of %od but a gift of the devil. 5. That the original names of the mother of Justinian, of Sabatius, his father, and of Justinian himself were (igleni8a, 'sto&, and *pravda respectively. ;. That Justinian before he ascended the throne was instructed in theology by the abbot Theophilus. "lemanni does not quote Theophilus for a few other facts stated in the manuscript. (ut these are mostly facts in themselves improbable, which he may well have doubted, e.g. that 0'sto&,0 father of Justinian, was a prince among his own people, that Justinian &illed $echirad in single combat, that Justinian0s mother died after his marriage with Theodora but before the accession of her brother Justin. 't might perhaps have been e3pected that he should also mention that Theophilus calls the empress Auphemia, the wife of Justin ', *u&ci88a. (ut as "lemanni quotes Theodorus /ector and Theophanes 9p.5G of his notes: for the statement that her real name had been /upicia, he may have thought it undesirable to quote Theophilus for a less wellKattested name, although one which arnavich, the fragmenti interpres, e3plains as the Slavonic equivalent of /upicina.
p,,4

From this it may be concluded that "lemanni had before him our present manuscript of Theophilus and nothing else. 'f any one suggests that there may then have e3isted and been read by him a full life of Justinian bearing the name of Theophilus which has now disappeared, and which contained all that the present manuscript contains together with other matters, the answer is not only that "lemanni would probably have quoted from it some of those matters, not appearing in our manuscript, but also that the passage 9beginning licet reclamante: which he copies in full from Theophilus 9pG+4 of his notes in (onn edition: tallies word for word with the present manuscript, e3cept that "lemanni gives levioris where the word in the manuscript 9which is obscurely written: seems to be sevioris or sLvioris. 2onsidering these facts, and considering that no trace has ever been discovered of any other life of Justinian by any Theophilus, although repeated searches have been made, and considering also that the manuscript is of the same date as "lemanni, was among the boo&s belonging to Suares, the friend of "lemanni, and was placed in the library of the (arberini, patrons of "lemanni, it seems practically certain that we have here the materials, and all the materials, which "lemanni possessed, and that no further authority is therefore attributable to his statements quoted from Theophilus than can be shown to belong to this present manuscript6 although it is of course possible that "lemanni may have had stronger grounds for attaching value to the manuscript than those which we now possess. "pparently he did value it. 7e quotes it with respect, and he seems to have rather e3pected that 0Theophilus0 would, li&e a

regular historian, have given the date of Justinian0s birth by reference to the consul of the year 9consulem reticet Theophilus, see above, note +, p,45:. That is to say, we have in this manuscript the Theophilus of "lemanni, the biographer of Justinian, and there is no other. 'f there be any Theophilus who wrote Justinian0s life, this is he. ''. The ne3t question is< !ho wrote our present manuscriptJ 't is all, both the te3t of the fragmentum and the notes 9explicationes: which follow the fragmentum, in the same in& and handwriting and on paper of the same ma&e and si8e. oreover the explicationes are stated to be by the person who translated the fragmentum = fragmenti interpretem. The manner and substance of the fragmentum, and the fact that (ogomilus 9the Slavonic equivalent of Theophilus:, who is called the author of the life, is nevertheless always spo&en of in the third person, ma&e it clear that the fragmentum is not a literally translated e3tract from a boo& purporting to be written by a person named Theophilus or (ogomilus, but can only be an abstract of that boo& or parts of it. Aven supposing that the original boo& did not purport to be composed by (ogomil in his own person, but to relate facts about him, as the boo& of Beuteronomy 9or at least large parts of it:, although attributed by the Jews to oses, does not itself purport to be composed by oses, who is always spo&en of in the third person, still the character of the fragmentum is that of an abstract rather than of a simple translation from an original treatise in another language.
p,,,

't may therefore be ta&en that the te3t, no less than the notes, is in its present form the wor&, and is probably actually written by the hand, of the person described as the author of the notes, who, however, professes to be, as regards the te3t, nothing more than a translator. This person is John Tomco arnavich, canon of Sebenico in Balmatia, and afterwards archdeacon of "gram and bishop of (osnia. Of him something must be said, because our estimate of the worth of the fragmentum depends largely on the our #udgment of him. !hen ' discovered the manuscript and found that it was evidently from a Slavonic source, ' applied at once for help to my friend r. "rthur John Avans, &eeper of the "shmolean useum at O3ford, whose travels in Slavonic countries and writings on Slavonic history and antiquities have won for him a deserved reputation. 'n tracing the life and writings of arnavich ' have received much help from him, as well as from the &indness of . 2onstantin JireMe&, the distinguished historian of the (ulgarians, and of my friend 2ount Ugo (al8ani. 7elp was the more needed because arnavich0s boo&s are scarcely to be found in Angland = the (odleian library containing only one of them, and that of no value for the present purpose, the (ritish useum one only, and the University library at 2ambridge none at all. . JireMe& has sent me a valuable letter, which will be found at the end of this article, and for which my best than&s are due to him.

'van Tom&o arnavich 9written in Serb ern#avNiN or rnaviN:, a person of note in his day, was born in the episcopal city of Sebenico, p,,Fthen under *enetian rule, in +4F;, being, according to his own account, the scion of an ancient family of (osnian nobles, but, anyhow, the son of a customhouse officer in the Tur&ish service. 7e went early to $ome, was educated there by the Jesuits, and attracted, by his quic& intelligence, the regard of some eminent men, among others of 2ardinals (aronius and Sacchetti, of Francis (arberini, afterwards cardinal, and of 2ardinal 1a8many, archbishop of %ran and primate of 7ungary. 7is literary career began with a boo& entitled 0Be $egno 'llyrico 2aesaribusque 'llyricis Bialogorum /ibri Septem,0 which is referred to you some as having been printed and published at $ome in +,E., but which, according to others, was not printed, but remains in manuscript. Some years later he entered the service of Faustus *erantius, bishop of 2sanad in 7ungary, and in +,+G, on the recommendation of this Balmatian, was summoned to $ome to be employed in ma&ing translations into and from the SerboK2roat language. 'n +,-- he was appointed archdeacon of "gram. 'n +,-, he aspired to the bishopric of Sebenico, with the support of 2ardinal Francis (arberini6 but the *enetians, who disli&ed him as an adherent of the Jesuits, prevented his nomination, alleging that he was a Tur&ish sub#ect. 7owever, in +,.+ the emperor Ferdinand ''', &ing of 7ungary, nominated him bishop of (osnia and Biacova, and the nomination was confirmed by 1ope Urban *'''. 9'n the same year he had received the honour of $oman citi8enship by diploma.: 7e seems to have never visited his see, which, to be sure, was in the hands of the Tur&s, but when not employed in ecclesiastical missions to have lived at $ome, continuing his literary labours. !e hear that his retention of the post of lector in the p,,5chapter of "gram 9which was deemed to imply residence: after he had become titular bishop of (osnia caused many heartburnings between him and the other canons of that church. 7e died in +,.;, probably in $ome, although the place of his burial is not &nown.
14 15 16 17 18

"s this manuscript describes arnavich as canon of Sebenico 9a preferment he had received as early as +,E; or +,+E:, but not as archdeacon of "gram, it would seem to be posterior to +,E;, and probably to +,+G, but anterior to +,--. !e have already seen reason to thin& that "lemanni read it before +,-., the year of the publication of the Anecdota of 1rocopius6 and this date is confirmed by the reference in the explicationes to opportune 1aul * as the reigning pontiff = for 1aul * was pope from +,E4 to +,-+. arnavich was evidently a fanciful or fraudulent genealogist, and so ignorant of history and ethnology as to suppose the %oths = the *isigoths of Spain, as well as the Ostrogoths = to have spo&en the same language as the Slavonic Serbs. (ut in these points he was probably not below the average of learned men in his day< /uccari, the historian of $agusa, and other writers of that and the following century identify the two races. Aven in our own day we see men otherwise intelligent commit incredible follies when they enter the field of genealogy, while, as to philology, *ictor 7ugo believed the language of the (asques and that of the 'rish 2elts to be the same. arnavich was obviously a wholly uncritical person. !hether he was also untruthful we have no sufficient materials for #udging, and it

is therefore hard to say now much weight is to p,,;be attached to his statement regarding the manuscript which he declares to e3ist in the monastery at ount "thos. 7is boo&, 0Be 2aesaribus 'llyricis,0 may probably throw some light on the of the present manuscript. (ut ' have been unable to procure a copy, and am informed that it is e3ceedingly rare. . JireMe& says that the most learned 2roatian bibliographer, . Ou&ul#eviN, has never seen it.
19

'''. From arnavich who purports to translate an ancient author, we naturally turn to that author himself, and as&< !as there ever any person called (ogomil by those who spo&e Slav and Theophilus by those who spo&e %ree&, a person who was the preceptor of Justinian, abbot of S. "le3ander near 1ri8rend, and preferred by the emperor "nastasius to the bishopric of SerdicaJ So far as ' have been able to ascertain, no trace of any such person e3ists in any author of the si3th or ne3t succeeding centuries. !e hear of no preceptor of Justinian, of no contemporary biographer of Justinian, of no Theophilus who in anywise answers to the account given in the (arberini S. of the author of the supposed /ife. The reader will have observed that the name Theophilus occurs nowhere either in the fragmentum or in the explicationes. !e hear only of (ogomilus, and the only suggestion of Theophilus is in the remar& in the explicationes that (ogomilus P Beo carus, which would in %ree& be Theophilus. The name Theophilus would therefore seem due to "lemanni, who may have had his doubts about this 0'llyric0 9i.e. Slavonic: name of (ogomil for a bishop at the beginning of the si3th century, though he accepted the 0'llyric0 names of Justinian and his family.

20

The fragmentum, however, as well as the explicationes, identifies (ogomil, the preceptor of Justinian, with Bomnio, bishop of Serica 9Sofia:. )ow Bomnio is an authentic personage, mentioned by arcellinus 2omes 9ad ".B. 4+,: in a passage to be quoted presently. 's there any ground for believing that this p,FEBomnio was the preceptor of Justinian, or was called either (ogomilus or TheophilusJ ' have not been able to find any, and am led to conclude 9on grounds which will appear later: that (ogomil the preceptor and biographer of Justinian is a purely legendary personage, who at some date long subsequent to the si3th century was identified with the historical Bomnio. For the purposes of our present inquiry Theophilus and (ogomilus are mere names of which it has pleased "lemanni and arnavich to attach to what they call a life of Justinian. '*. The ne3t question is, !hat is the relation of our (arberini library manuscript to the 0/ife of Justinian0 by (ogomil 9Theophilus:, from which it purports to be e3tractedJ The only evidence we have for the e3istence of such a 0/ife0 bearing the name of (ogomil is that which the manuscript itself supplies, i.e. the evidence of arnavich, who calls himself, in the explicationes, 0fragmenti interpretem0. 't is quite possible, and consonant with what we &now of other literary forgeries, that arnavich should have simply invented this Slavonic original in the monastery

on ount "thos in order to provide a plausible source and apparently historical basis for his legendary tales. A3ternal evidence for the e3istence of the original there is none, beyond that in the present (arberini S., and a passage in a later boo& of arnavich0s in which he refers to (ogomil as an authority for the fact that the descendants of the emperor 2onstantine were in his 9 i.e. (ogomil0s: day still living 0above the sources of the $hine between 'taly and %ermany,0 adding that (ogomil is called Theophilus by "lemanni in his notes to 1rocopius. (ut the p,F+internal evidence seems to me to point slightly the other way, and to favour the view that arnavich believed in some sort of an original which he was using, however freely. 7e was not publishing a boo& for which he sought to gain credence by representing it as a translation of an e3tract from an ancient writing, for the present manuscript bears no signs of having been intended for the world. The ordinary motive for falsification is therefore absent. )or is there again in the fragmentum which we can perceive arnavich to have had any personal reason for forging, as if, for instance, he had endeavoured to support by it his derivation of his own family from the gens arcia. 't may be said that we do not now &now for what purpose the fragmentum was composed. (ut, in fact, it seems to have no special point or purpose. 't is a collection of scattered observations which, so far as can be discovered, have not been put together for any of the ob#ects usually contemplated by a literary falsifier. These notices redound to no one0s credit or discredit. They prove nothing of any present interest to any party, sect, or family. They have nothing that can be called literary quality6 they have not even any literary or historical unity. "nd as to the 0)otes0 they do not loo& as if the fragmentum had been written with a view to them, so that they might develop it and confirm its themes by references to other sources. One reference to an historical source there is which might have this aim 9see post as to 2omes arcellinus:, but on the theory ' am stating we should have e3pected many6 and the impression made by the 0)otes0 rather is that the writer is in good faith e3plaining names and facts which he has somewhere read or heard, but has not himself invented. Thus he #ustifies his translation 02aesarides0 by p,F-reference to 0Iarewichi,0 ut habet author. 7ad he wished to give these statements further verisimilitude, it would have been easy for him to insert in the fragmentum things which he could in the 0A3planations0 show to fit neatly in with the statements of recognised historical authorities.
21 22

't is therefore at least a possible view that arnavich himself believed in the e3istence of this 0/ife of Justinian0 written in 'llyric 9Slavonic: letters and characters, in the library of the (asilian Slavonic mon&s on "thos. 7e had probably read some old Slavonic writings even in his youth, when he produced 0Bialogi de 2aesaribus 'llyricis0 and edified 2ardinal (aronius by stories about the emperor 2onstantine6 and his position as Slavonic translator at $ome after +,+G would give him opportunities of perusing many others, and doubtless also meeting persons who brought manuscripts to $ome from the Aast. 't is not li&ely that he ever visited ount "thos = he does not even himself profess to have done so = but he may have been shown what purported to be copies of originals preserved there. "nd in another of his wor&s he refers, though indeed in disparaging terms, to documents collected by the mon&s of "thos. oreover, we
23

shall see presently that the there are traces in other quarters of some of the legends and names referred to in the fragmentum. On the whole, therefore, the probabilities are that arnavich has given in this manuscript statements which he was not inventing, but was drawing from some document or documents which he had seen, or whose contents had been repeated to him. 't is characteristic of himself and of the school to which he belonged that he should be utterly loose and uncritical, not only in accepting documents shown him and reporting their substance, but also in giving the vaguest indications of the source whence he derived them. (e this as it may, the fragmentum has not the character of a direct translation from an ancient original couched in narrative form. 't is a series of detached notes6 but whether the alleged original consisted of such detached statements regarding Justinian and the events of his time, or had the form of a regular narrative, we have no grounds for con#ecture. The original, whatever it was, was apparently short 9it is called opusculum:, and may have contained few facts of importance beyond those which the (arberini fragmentum purports to give. "s "lemanni in all probability &new arnavich at $ome between +,E. and +,-., and had obtained p,F.the statements which he quotes in the notes to the Anecdota either from arnavich directly or from this manuscript in which arnavich is named, it may be assumed that "lemanni would desire to get from arnavich all possible information of historical value for the illustration of the Anecdota. "s "lemanni gives nothing save what we find in the manuscript, we may conclude either that the alleged original contained little more, or that arnavich remembered or possessed little more drawn from that original. There may, of course, have been abundance of semiKmythical matter in the original, but this "lemanni, who was critical as well as learned, would not transfer to his pages. 't is an obvious guess that arnavich may have written our present manuscript at the suggestion of "lemanni, and the latter, when he had done with it, have placed it in the library of his patrons, the (arberini, which was then being formed, or given it to Suares, who was then librarian in that library. 1erhaps it contained whatever arnavich, interrogated by "lemanni, could recall to mind from what had been shown him as a copy of the boo& in the ount "thos library, or could find in his notes made from that copy, and was put on paper in this form for the purpose of "lemanni0s notes to the Anecdota. 't is of course also possible, but perhaps less li&ely, that arnavich is simply romancing, that he is putting together a number of statements drawn from various sources, fathering them upon one original, and localising that original on ount "thos.
25 26

24

The evidence we possess seems to me insufficient to enable us to decide between several hypotheses which may be formed regarding the relation of arnavich to the fragmentum and to the alleged original. (ut whatever hypothesis be true = and this is the point of practical consequence for the historical student = no greater authority can be allowed to the fragmentum, even supposing it to be a series of genuine e3tracts from a then e3isting Slavonic original bearing the name of (ogomil, than would be due to a boo& in which arnavich would have

recorded the Slavonic traditions he had himself collected from such old manuscripts as he had seen in Balmatia or at $ome. Boes there now e3ist in a monastery of Slavonic mon&s professing the rule of S. (asil on ount "thos any such manuscript relating to Justinian, and bearing the name of (ogomil, as the fragmentum describesJ r. "rthur Avans, when he visited the p,FGmonasteries of "thos in +554, made, at my request, inquiries regarding the manuscripts preserved in the Slavonic monasteries there, but was unable to discover any trace of such a boo&. (ut as the contents of the Slavonic libraries are in great confusion, no proper catalogue e3ists, e3cept at the $ussian monastery, and the mon&s do not seem to &now what they possess, it is possible that if it ever was there it may be there still. 't may, however, have been since the beginning of the seventeenth century transferred to $ussia, whither many manuscripts from "thos have gone. 2areful inquiries ought to be made both in the Slavonic monasteries of "thos and at 1etersburg and oscow. 't need hardly be said that the "thos manuscript referred to in the fragmentum could not possibly have been written in the lifetime of the alleged (ogomil himself, for it is stated to be written in Slavonic characters, and these were not invented till three centuries after Justinian0s time. )either could any contemporary of Justinian have used any Slavonic tongue for literary purposes. 'f there was ever any life of Justinian written by a contemporary ecclesiastic, it must have been composed in %ree& or /atin, and a Slavonic boo& purporting to contain it could only be a translation from one of those classical languages e3ecuted long afterwards. *. !hat is the character of the contents of the (arberini manuscriptJ ' do not now attempt to give a thorough e3amination of these contents, reserving such criticism for a future occasion, but confine myself to the following observations. +. The fragmentum obviously betrays a Slavonic source. !hatever is new in it relates to the Slavonic tribes, or personages alleged to be Slavonic, including even Theodoric. )ow in the days of the supposed (ogomil the Slavonic tribes were fierce heathen, dwelling in the northern frontiers of the empire, and frequently ravaging it. " certain number of Slavs may possibly have already settled within the empire, in northern acedonia and Thrace. These would, however, be still in a condition of great rudeness, and their language was not reduced to literary shape for centuries afterwards. The great migration which slavonised the countries east of the "driatic falls in the first half of the seventh century6 there p,F4seems to be no evidence of Slavonic settlements either at 1ri8rend or Ochrida or Us&iub as early as the end of the fifth.
27

-. The romantic and indeed semiKmythical character of much of the manuscript 9fragmentum: is palpable. For instance, 'sto&, the father of Justinian, is presented as a chieftain among the Bardanians, and as also a scion of the family of 2onstantine the %reat. !ithout necessarily accepting the statement of 1rocopius in the Anecdota that the emperor Justin, the uncle of Justinian, was a

peasant, it is abundantly clear that if the father of the emperor Justinian had been a prince and a descendant of 2onstantine, that sovereign and his adulators 9among others 1rocopius in the De Aedificiis: would have recorded the fact. The young Justinian, as befits the son of a prince, is accompanied even in his campaigns by a tutor, who occupies the intervals of drill in giving theological instruction. Justinian sustains his character of the young hero by encountering and &illing in single combat his cousin, 1rince $echirad, son of Selimir, prince of the Slavs. 't need hardly be said that this e3ploit, as well as the name of $echirad, is un&nown to authentic history. 91ursuant to his information of Slavs and %oths, arnavich in his notes ma&es out the name to be the same as the !estK%othic $ecared.: The (ulgarians are conceived as already near and dangerous enemies to the empire. "s we shall see presently, they are mentioned by arcellinus as ma&ing an irruption in 4E- ".B. 9as also in G;; and 4.E:. 'n other authors, however, they do not appear as being at this time formidable, and we hear nothing of Justin0s having held a command against them. )ot only the whole family of Justinian, but apparently even Theodora, are conceived of as Slavonic< at least the name (osidara 9e3plained etymologically to be the 0gift of %od0: is given as if her original name, and Justin represented as the suggestor of her marriage with Justinian. 't is implied that this marriage too& place before the emperor Justin ' reached the throne, but we gather from 1rocopius that in reality it occurred towards the close of Justin0s reign. There is a mar&ed ecclesiastical flavour about the narrative. (esides the prominence given to (ogomil 9who is described as abbot of the monastery of S. "le3ander near 1ri8rend and bishop of Serdica 9Sofia:, we are reminded of the heretical proclivities of "nastasius 9who leant to onophysitism:6 he is presented as a persecutor of 2atholic bishops, and a desire to pervert the orthodo3y of Justinian is attributed to him when that young hero goes to 2onstantinople to be cured of the wounds received in his single combat with $echirad. There is a mi3ture in this part of the narrative of the religious tract with the fairy tale. $eference is made to the consecration as a catholic church of the %othic 9i.e. "rian: p,F,church at 2onstantinople by 1ope John ', with the retention, however, of the %othic, i.e. Slavonic, tongue in the liturgy. )otice is ta&en of the foundation of two famous churches, the monastery 9catholic: of SS. Sergius and (acchus near S&odra 9or Scutari: in northern "lbania, and the church of S. Sophia at Serdica. ' do not say that the tales here related are to be connected with those churches, though the apparition of SS. Sergius and (acchus may have something to do with the building of the monastic church at S&odra6 but the mention of them points to an ecclesiastical source.
28

The most curious and novel feature of the manuscript is the nomenclature which it supplies of the members of Justinian0s family = 'sto&, (igleni8a, *u&ci88a, /ada, *pravda, $echirad. Of these 'sto& is not alleged to have any connection with Sabatius, the name which 1rocopius and Theophanes give as that of Justinian0s father, and which seems to be a genuine Thracian name, connected with a Thracian solar deity a&in to the %ree& Bionysos. (igleni8a may have been slavised from *igilantia or (iglantia, which "lemanni con#ectures to have been the name of Justinian0s mother, p,FFand which we &now was the name of his sister, the mother of Justin ''. *u&ci88a is said by arnavich to have the same meaning 9sheKwolf: in Slavonic as /upicina, which *ictor Tununensis and 1rocopius 9Anecdota:, or /upicia, which Theophanes and Theodorus /ector give as the original name of the empress Auphemia6 so it may be a Slavonic equivalent invented in the same way as (osidara for Theodora.
29 30

The same origin may be suggested for the name *pravda, which on the faith of this manuscript, or rather of "lemanni0s quotation from it, has been assumed to have been the original name of Justinian = the notes to the manuscript say, of both the Justins also. 't is a Slavonic version of Justinus, Justinianus, ta&en as derived from #ustus, #ustitia. For this name, however, another authority may be cited, which, though nearly as late as the (arberini manuscript, refers to an earlier source. /uccari in his 0"nnali di $ausa,0 published at *enice in +,E4, two years after arnavich wrote his 0Bialogi de 2aesaribus 'llyricis,0 says 9lib. ':<= Selemir dopo questo 9come si vede nell0 Afemeridi di Bioclea: prese per moglie la sorella d0 'sto& barone slavo, il quale avea per moglie (igleni8a sorella di %iustiniano e madre di %iustino >Justin ''? imperatori romani, i quali, come ho veduto in un Biadario in (ulgaria in lingua slava, sono chiamati Urauda, che significa %iustiniano o %iustino.
31

7ere we have the names of the (arberini manuscript, but 'sto& is the brotherK inKlaw, not the father, of Justinian, and (igleni8a is the emperor0s sister. The Slavonic origin of Justinian seems to have largely accepted by the Slavs in the middle ages, and was a natural belief for those who localised his birthKplace either at 1ri8rend or Ochrida, the (ulgarian tradition fi3ing on the latter spot, the Servian on the former. So auro Orbini of $agusa, in his boo&, 0'l $egno degli Slavi0 91esaro, +,E+:, says 9p+F4:<= Fu e8iandio slavo %iustiniano primo di questo nome imperadore. 'l quale 9secondo il 1latina ed il (osen: nacque nella cittH di 1ri8ren, ch0 Q nella Servia< o 9come vole )iceforo 2allisto: nella cittH di "chrida, la quale, egli dice, fu ancora chiamata %iustiniana 1rima6 e hoggi la chiamano Ochrida. 't often happens that the descendants of an incoming people appropriate, after a few generations have passed, the heroes of those among whom they have settled. So the 2eltic "rthur was a sort of national hero to the "ngloK)ormans of the middle ages. "nd it is natural that the inhabitants of a place should give

themselves the credit of any famous native of that place, though born before their ancestors settled there6 for immigrations are after a p,F5time forgotten, and people assume that their predecessors were their progenitors. . JireMe&, whose authority is of course of the highest, informs me 9see his letter at the end of this article: that the names *pravda, 'sto&, *u&ci88a, *raghidara, (igleni8a, are all of them suspicious from the point of view of Slavonic etymology, and can hardly be referred to a date even so early as the middle ages, much less the si3th century. 't is of course possible that they may be late forms, or corrupted forms, of genuine old Slavonic names. (ut it seems more probable that they are not natural growths, but either translations, more or less happy, of /atin and %ree& names 9e.g. Justinianus, /upicina, Theodora:, or essential Slavonic names of comparatively recent origin. r. "rthur Avans suggests to me an ingenious theory regarding these names, which may be stated as follows<= Justinian0s father was of Bardanian origin, and his name, as we &now from 1rocopius, was Sabatius. )ow Sabatius is the name of a Thracian god who, as $oesler has shown, may from some points of view be regarded as the sun god. Thracian was still a spo&en language in the si3th century, and the name might retain a solar or &indred meaning = perhaps that of Oriens. "ssuming that in the land of Justinian0s birthplace a Thracian population was subsequently slavonised, the name, together with the glorious traditions attaching to it, may have been ta&en over in a translated form as 'sto&, which, at least in the later Slavonic dialects, means the Aast or the rising sun. So too Justinianus, who represents the romanised Thracian element, had been translated into *pravda. . JireMe& has observed that the words 'sto& and *pravda are not genuine and natural Slavonic nameKforms. Some e3planation is therefore needed for them. (ut they appear as names of persons, of Slavs in Balmatia and 7er8egovina, as early, 'sto& as the twelfth century, *pravda as the fifteenth 9see note .E, ante:. ay not this fact be e3plained by the e3istence of Slavonic legends regarding Justinian and his family received before that date from the earlier indigenous elements of the peninsula which the Slavs had assimilatedJ These names, passing as those of national heroes, would come to be bestowed on persons as proper names. 't is anyhow clear that both names are anterior to arnavich, and not invented by him6 and this increases the li&elihood that the other names, with regard to which we have no clue at present, are similarly not of his ma&ing, but ta&en from some preKe3isting source. (ut any such source is plainly legendary and not historical. There is no ground whatever for accepting the ascription to Justinian of a Slavonic origin. 7e came from a region, whether p,F;Ochrida, or 1ri8rend, or Us&iub 9as 7ahn and To8er and Avans hold:, in which we find Slavs established not long after his time. (ut the probabilities are that his family were Thracians and not Slavs.
32

The references to the wars between the empire, the Slavs, and the %oths, contained in the manuscript, seem drawn partly from the narrative of arcellinus 2omes, partly from the Slavonic legend, some fragments of which are preserved in the chronicle of the priest of Bioclea.
33

arcellinus says 9ad ann. G;;:<= "ristus 'llyricianae ductor militiae cum C* millibus armatorum et cum BCC plaustris armis ad praeliandum necessariis oneratis contra (ulgares Thraciam devastantes profectus est. (ellum #u3ta Iyrtum fluvium consertum, ubi plus quam milia '* nostrorum aut in fuga aut in praecipitio ripae fluminis interempta sunt. 'bique 'llyriciana virtus militum periit, )icostrato 'nnocentio et "quilino comitibus interfectis. 7e does not, however, mention "ristus as &illed. "gain, ad ann. 4E4, arcellinus describes the defeat of Sabinianus ductor militiae by undo 9not undus: %eta 9the %oth: on the ban&s of the argus. This seems to be the ground for the reference to the reliquiae Sabiniani e3ercitus a %othis fusi. Selimir does not appear in arcellinus. (ut we find him in the chronicle of 1resbyter Biocleas, where he is described as &ing of Balmatia and the ad#oining regions. "ccording to this boo& 9which ' quote from the edition of it in /atin sub#oined to the 0Be $egno Balmatiae0 Joannis /ucii 9Fran&fort, +,,,::, Totila and Ostroylus are two brother &ings of the %oths, who are Slavs. "s they descend upon the empire, Totila ta&es 'taly for his share, which he ravages, passes into Sicily and dies there. Ostroylus conquers 'llyria and Balmatia, being opposed by the armies of Justinian. Ostroylus leaves a son Sevioladus or Senudilaus, who reigns twelve years and is succeeded by his son Syllimirus or Selemirus, who, though himself a heathen, is peaceful, p,5Eand protects the christians6 he ma&es a treaty with them, and they become his tributaries. 7e is succeeded by his sons, first by (ladinus, then by $atomir, who persecutes the christians. 7ere we have legends different from those of arnavich, because Selimir in the latter is Justinian0s uncle, while in 1resbyter Biocleas he is the grandson of an invading heathen enemy of Justinian. Of $echirad ' find no trace here, nor of 'sto& or (igleni8a, but /uccari tells us that in his 1resbyter Biocleas Selemir is the brotherKinKlaw of 'sto&, and 'sto& the brotherKinKlaw of Justinian.
34 35

The story of Justin and Justinian rescuing the orthodo3 bishops seems to refer to the event described by arcellinus as follows 9ad ann. 4+,:<= /aurentium /ychnidensem >episcopum?, Bomnionem Serdicensem, "lcissum )icopolitanum, %aianum )aisitanum et Avangelum 1autaliensem, catholicos 'llyrici sacerdotes, suis "nastasius >'mperator? praesentari #ussit obtutibus. "lcissus et %aianus episcopi apud (y8antium vita defuncti sunt, Bomnione et Avangelo ad sedes proprias, ob metum 'llyriciani catholici militis, e3templo remissis.

arnavich in his notes identifies the (ogomilus of the (arberini manuscript with this Bomnio. (ogomil may have been the legendary name of the Serdican prelate whom a local tradition commemorated as the orthodo3 confessor who withstood the onophysite emperor, this tradition connecting itself with the inscription on the tomb in front of the church at Serdica. 1ossibly we have here the germ of the legend. !hen it was supposed that Justinian, himself a Slav, rescued the pious Slavonic bishop, it would come to be believed that the bishop had been the instructor in theology of the champion of orthodo3y. 't is remar&able how little there is in the manuscript of historical interest or value beyond these new names, themselves, as has been indicated, more than suspicious. The chief fact is the visit of Justinian to the great Theodoric, his being received by the latter into a species of artificial brotherhood 9 :, and his subsequent so#ourn as a hostage at $avenna. Unhappily the circumstances narrated as having led to these events are so questionable as to throw great doubt on the events themselves. They are wholly unconfirmed by other historians, and they assume an importance both for Justin twelve years before he reached the throne and for Justinian at the age of twenty 9or a little more:, which is in itself improbable. )ote that both the author of the manuscript and arnavich 9assuming them to be different: conceive of the %oths as spea&ing Slavonic, and doubtless therefore of Theodoric as a Slav. "s already observed, the author of the fragmentum 9or rather of p,5+the statements contained in it: evidently &new the chronicle of arcellinus 2omes, a boo& which had considerable value for the catholic clergy of the middle ages in the Slavonic countries, because it has a certain /atin colouring.
36

arnavich in his notes refers to arcellinus, to 1rocopius 9the De Aedificiis:, and to "gathias. !hether, however, either the author of the statements contained in the manuscript or arnavich 9supposing them to be different persons: &new the Anecdota is not clear. There are three passages in the manuscript which may have been suggested by that boo&. One is the shadow which is felt to rest on the empress Theodora. This, however, may be sufficiently e3plained by the reputation of that lady for heterodo3y, which had led to her being severely handled by ecclesiastical writers from *ictor Tununensis down to 2ardinal (aronius. The second is the opposition of the ladies of the imperial household to the marriage of Justinian and Theodora, attributed by 1rocopius to the empress Auphemia, Justinian0s aunt, by our manuscript to his mother (igleni8a, whom 1rocopius does not name. The third is the legend as to the imprisonment and deliverance from death of the emperor Justin = an anecdote which recalls the story told in chap. , of the Anecdota, though the colour of the narratives is different. (ut instead of the dream by which John 2roo&bac&, the general in the 'saurian e3pedition, was forbidden to put Justinian to death, we hear in the manuscript of an apparition of SS. Sergius and (acchus. Other writers 9Ionaras, 2edrenus, Aphraemius: also tell the tale of Justin0s imprisonment and release6 and it is more li&ely that the author of the manuscript drew from one of them, who give a religious turn to the tale, than from 1rocopius.
37

'f it be thought that these points of contact are sufficient to show that the writer of the manuscript must have seen the Anecdota, the argument will be strong that arnavich was either the author or the very free redactor of the manuscript, because the Anecdota, although not un&nown before their publication in +,-. 9seeing that Suidas refers to them:, were unli&ely to have been seen by any Slavonic author of the alleged 0*ita Justiniani0 of p,5- ount "thos6 whereas arnavich in $ome might have learnt about them from "lemanni before they were published in +,-.. (ut the presumption seems to be rather the other way. 7ad arnavich read the Anecdota, he would probably have referred in his notes to several passages in it which would have suited him. (ut he has not done so. 't is worth while to notice an omission singular in an author desiring to claim Justinian and his family for the Slavonic race. )othing is said about (elisarius, who plays so great a part in the wars of Justinian, who was undoubtedly of Thracian birth 9he came from %ermania, near Serdica:, and for whose name the plausible Slavonic etymology of (eli Tsar or !hite 1rince has been suggested, and was, for a while, generally accepted. 't is now, ' believe, re#ected by Slavonic scholars on the ground that the word tsar is itself later than the si3th century, being probably 9though perhaps not certainly: formed from 2aesar. These observations on the contents of the (arberini manuscript may be summarised as follows<= The substance of the boo& is semiKmythical and romantic, and in some points diverges widely from the truth of history. The names given are apparently of comparatively late origin6 and as regards those which have %ree& or /atin equivalents, it is far more probable that they have been formed by translating the %ree& or /atin names into Slavonic than that they are themselves Slavonic originals from which the %ree& and /atin names were formed by translation. The origin of the facts given is to be found partly in Slavonic legends which had grown up round the famous name of Justinian, partly in the conscious harmonising and wor&ing up together of legend and of authentic history to be found in e3isting sources, some of which, such as arcellinus 2omes, perhaps also Theophanes and Ionaras, the author of the statements contained in the manuscript &new. *'. !e may now proceed to state the general conclusions to which the foregoing inquiry seems to have led us. These conclusions may be modified by further information as to Slavonic legends of this order, possibly even by an e3amination of arnavich0s boo& 0Be 2aesaribus 'llyricis,0 if a copy of it can be found. So far as present data enable us to go, we may, ' thin&, adopt the following propositions. +. This (arberini manuscript of ours is the 0*ita Justiniani0 quoted by "lemanni, and which subsequent writers have quoted from him.

-. This boo& is, however, not a life of Justinian, nor even an e3tract from a life of Justinian, but an abstract from an original 9whether real or supposed:, which, though called by the abstractor p,5.a life, was more probably a collection of notices relating to Justinian and the churches he founded. .. The (arberini manuscript, as well as the explicationes which follow it, was written by arnavich, and probably at $ome, and before +,-+. G. The e3istence of the original 0*ita Justiniani0 said to e3ist in the (asilian monastery on ount "thos cannot be assumed, for we have no evidence regarding it e3cept that of arnavich, and he is a witness not above suspicion. On the whole, however, in the absence of positive grounds for holding arnavich to have invented it, there seems reason to thin& that some boo& of the &ind did e3ist, though perhaps not on "thos, or at least that he believed in its e3istence. 4. There is nothing to show that there ever e3isted either a preceptor of Justinian or a bishop of Serdica named (ogomilus or Theophilus, the identification of such a person with the historical Bomnio being apparently arbitrary and baseless. uch less then have we any ground for accepting the authorship of the opusculum on ount "thos 9assuming its e3istence: as that of this alleged contemporary of Justinian. ,. "ssuming this original on ount "thos to have e3isted, it cannot have been very old in the form in which arnavich used it, probably, to #udge by the forms of the Slavonic names it contains, not older than the fourteenth century. F. The legends it contains may of course be older, but how much older it is impossible to say in the absence of sufficient evidence from other quarters regarding them. They have a mar&ed ecclesiastical tinge, and may have arisen from local traditions connecting the great and orthodo3 emperor with 1ri8rend and its churches on the one hand, Serdica and its church on the other. The former would be Servian traditions, the latter (ulgarian. There would thus seem to be here a mi3ture, perhaps an internal harmonising, of Servian and (ulgarian legend. (oth meet in BomnioK(ogomilusKTheophilus, who is abbot at 1ri8rend and bishop at Serdica.
38

5. )o veritable historical authority can be claimed for any one of the statements of this manuscript. Aven the assumption, made for a long time past on the faith of "lemanni0s citations from it, that Justinian0s true name was *pravda, and he of Slavonic race, must now be considered unfounded. 7e doubtless came from Thrace or acedonia, but to which of the races then dwelling in those countries he belonged it seems impossible to determine6 for although the name *pravda is given also by the writer whom /uccari cites, that writer is doubtless also the mere repeater of a tradition, and entitled to no more weight than this mysterious (ogomil of ours. The name of his father, Sabatius, seems to point to the old Thracian stoc&.

!hat the manuscript does is to give us a glimpse into a sort of cyclus of Slavonic legends attaching themselves to the great name of Justinian, as other Slavonic legends were connected with "le3ander the %reat, as "quitanian legends were connected with 2harlemagne, %erman legends with Theodoric and with "ttila, (ritish legends with "rthur, 'talian legends with Totila. Other traces of such legends are found in the priest of Bioclea, and others may possibly e3ist in Slavonic boo&s which have not become &nown to western scholars.
p,5G

One may feel inclined to regret that the results to which this inquiry into the supposed biographer of the emperor has led us should be so purely negative, teaching little more than that Justinian had become a legendary hero among the South Slavonic races. There is nevertheless some satisfaction in destroying assumptions which we now find to be groundless, and in clearing up what has been, since arnavich and "lemanni launched their Theophilus upon the world two centuries and a half ago, one of the standing pu88les of later $oman history. James (ryce.

Lette" )"o$ .. /on&tantin Ji"e0e1.

Notice& conce"nant la -ita Ju&tiniani a2ec le& e%plication& e .a"na2ich an& un .S. e la Bi+l. Ba"+e"ini 3 #o$e. +. /e nom Upravda pour l0empereur Justinien ne se trouve dans aucun des ouvrages historiques compilRs ou traduits en slavon pendant le moyen Sge, H ce qu0ils me sont connus et H ce qu0ils sont dR#H publiRs et accessibles. -. /0auteur de la Vita Justiniani s0est servi Rvidemment de la chronique du 2omes arcellinus. Be lH viennent Domnion, RvTque de Serdica 9 arc. ad a. 4+,:, slavisR avec un second nom (ogomil, 0 Aristus 'llyricianae ductor militiae0 9ad a. G;;, changR en 0$astus du3 militiae 'llyricianae,0 Sabinianus avec la bataille de argus 9 arc. ad 4E4:. 0Selimir princeps Sclavorum0 est un personnage mythique, pris de la 2hronique du Biocleas, cap. '*, oU il figure comme roi de Balmatiae. Une source dalmate se trahit par la mention du cRlQbre monastQre catholique 9ordinis Sti (enedicti: St. Sergii et Bacchi, qui se trouvait sur la (oyana, , milles de Scutari, +5 milles de la mer, #usqu0au C*'e siQcle un port commercial trQs frRquentR, San Sergi des 'taliens, Sveti Srg des Slaves. S. Alexandre, H qui la *ita attribue un couvent dans la contrRe de 1ri8ren, est le martyr romain de Brusipara entre "drianople et 2onstantinople, dont la lRgende se trouve dans les "cta SS. (oll. ai ''' +;F. /0Rglise de St. Sophie H Sardica n0a pu Ttre fondRe par Justinien 0in gratiam (ogomili seu Bomnionis olim sui pedagogi 60 c0est un Rdifice by8antin d0une Rpoque plus rRcente, apparemment de

la mTme Rpoque, c. H d. du C'e siQcle, lorsqu0on a construit l0Rglise de St. Sophie ! "chrida qui a le mTme plan que celle de Sophia, opinion prononcRe dR#H par le voyageur russe *. %rigoroviM en +5G4. .. 'l est intRressant de remarquer que l0auteur de la Vita fait Justinien p,54originaire de #ri$ren. 'l adopte Rvidemment l0opinion, prononcRe vers +,EE par les Balmatins Orbini 90$egno degli Slavi,0 +,E+, p+F4: et /uccari 90"nnali di $ausa,0 +,E4, p,+: que Justiniana 1rima est #ri$ren. /es indigQnes et surtout le clergR de ces pays identifiaient au contraire Justiniana 1rima tou#ours avec "chrida, idRe qui se maintient dans les actes et les titres de l0Rglise d0Ochrida H partir du C'''e siQcle. G. i&losich 90(ildung der slavischen 1ersonennamen,0 !ien, +5,E: n0a trouvR aucun nom de personne formR de pravda, #ustice. J0en connais cependant un e3emple, un gentilhomme her8Rgovinien %adi$ "prouda 9sic:, qui est mentionnR dans les protocolles du sRnat de $aguse, rRdigRs en latin et en italien, +G4;, +G,-, +G,;K+GF+, +GF,K+GFF, comme ambassadeur du 0herceg0 de la 7er8Rgovine Stefan et plus tard de son fils *lat&o. /a forme slave de ce nom, qui paraVt avoir RtR un sobri&uet 9diffRrent des patronymi&ues en Kich P KiN, avec lesquels sont Rcrits les collQgues de ce $adiN < %rup&oviN, 1as&aniN Wc.:, Rtait sans doute Opravda, du verbe opravdati, opravditi, #ustum censere, #usta ratione regere, purgare, defendere, to #ustify, to vindicate, rechtfertigen 9cf. i&losich, 0/e3. palaeoslovenicum,0 et BaniMiN, 0Bict. du vieu3 serbe,0 '', --4:. B0ailleurs le nom Opravda ne peut pas Ttre d0ancienne date 6 au moyen Sge prRdominent les noms composRs de deu3 thQmes < $adoKSlav, *Xl&oKdrug, SlavoK mir 9cf. les formes grecques -, -!"#, $#%-&#, et les anciens noms germaniques: 6 les contractions, plus familiQres 9le premier thQme avec un suffi3e:, ne commencent H se rRpandre que vers la fin du moyen Sge. 4. /es autres noms de la *ita sont Rgalement suspects. /e soiKdisant 'sto( est comme nom de personne un 'YZ[ \(]^_`aba de la lRgende sur Justinien. Bans les dialectes slaves de la presqu0Vle (alcanique isto& au moyen Sge signifie seulement fons, effluvium, ostium fluminis 6 il y a aussi une rivi)re 'sto& en Serbie 9au +Ge siQcle: 6 l0ad#ectif istoMcn, fontanus, #)*. /0orient est au moyen Sge tou#ours vXsto&, orientalis vXstoMcn 6 isto&, oriens, istoMcn, orientalis, ne paraVt qu0au +4e siQcle. Vu(ci$$a 9nom qui se trouve aussi ailleurs, mais qui sonnait au moyen Sge en serbe et bulg. *lXMica:, Bo$idara 9dans les monuments seulement le masc. (o8idar:, Vraghidara 9tout H fait isolR: portent aussi le type d0une Rpoque rRcente. Vraghidara est, outre cela, mal formR dans sa phonRtique, avec une consonne gutturale au lieu d0une palatale 9g avant i devient d:< de vrag, diabolus, on peut dRriver seulement vradidara, comme de bog, deus, bodidar. *igilantia P (igleni8a n0a pu Ttre compris comme slave 90"lbula0 de arnavich: en Balmatie et 2roatie que lorsqu0on y Rcrivait, depuis le +4 e siQcle, gl pour le

l mouill* 6 cependant de bieli, albus 9au3 dialectes bVli:, on peut s0attendre seulement H (ieleniea, (ileniea 9un nom sans parallQle: avec un l dur. ,. 'van Tom&o +arnavich 9lise8 rnavi,:, nR H Sebenico +4F;, mort H $ome +,.;, ne mRrite pas beaucoup de confiance. /e prof. "rmin 1aviN a publiR une biographie dRtaillRe de cet historien, hagiographe et poQte, dans les actes de l0acadRmie d0"gram 90$ad #ugoslavens&e a&ademi#e,0 vol. CCC''' 9+5F4: pp45K+-F. arnavich, qui avait aussi le dRfaut de construire sa gRnRalogie, en se dRclarant luiKmTme descendant du roi serbe *u&afin 0 rn#avMeviN0 9+.,,K+.F+: et mTme de la gens arcia de $ome, et cela naturellement en se basant sur des documents falsifiRs, a dRbutR H $ome en p,5,+,E5, comme #eune homme encore, par la publication d0un livre De 'llyrico Caesaribus&ue 'llyricis. 2et ouvrage est citR par *alentinelli comme De 'llyrico Caesaribus&ue 'llyricis Dialogorum libri septem +,E5 6 mais ni Ou&ul#eviN, le premier bibliographe croate de nos #ours, ni 1aviN luiKmTme n0a eu la chance d0en trouver un e3emplaire. 'l serait intRressant de voir ce qu0il raconte lH sur l0origine illyrique de Justinien. 'l est difficile de dire si /uccari, qui a signR la prRface de ses 0"nnali di $ausa0 9*ene8ia, +,E4: le + #anvier +,EG, a dR#H pu avoir dans ses mains ce livre, paru en +,E.. 'l ne le nomme pas dans le catalogue des 0auctori citati nella presente opera.0 'l nous raconte 9p.: qu0un 0barone Slavo0 'sto( Rtait pQre de Justinien, et que Justin et Justinien 0 com0 ho veduto in un Diadario in Bulgaria in lingua slava, sono chiamati Vprauda 9alors tous les deu3:, che significa -iustiniano g -iustino.0 On pourrait aussi supposer que /uccari a pris 9peutKTtre dans quelque rRcit sur le rRtablissement de l0orthodo3ie aprQs "nastase par Justin et Justinien, insRrR dans une chronique slavonne: l0aoriste opravd+ 9de opravdati 0#ustifier0: pour un nom d0homme, mais d0un autre chtR le nom 'sto( che8 lui fait penser qu0il a puisR dR#H d0une source semblable au3 productions de la fantaisie de arnavich.
39

2onstantin JireMe&. 1rague < + #anvier +55,. #ost.scriptum. = /e gothisme ou la gothomanie, comme l0appellent les historiens actuels de la 2roatie, c0est H dire la confusion des %othes avec les Slaves, est trQs vieille en Balmatie. On la rencontre dR#H che8 le presbyter Biocleas 9C'' s.: et che8 Thomas, archidiacre de Spalato 9C''' s.:. B0aprQs l0analyse de l0historien croate $aM&i 9prRsident de l0acadRmie d0"gram: dans sa dissertation sur les sources de l0histoire croate et serbe 9en croate, "gram, +5,4, p4;: la premiQre partie du Biocleas 9chap. 'KC'C: n0est qu0un libellus -othorum, qui est antRrieur mTme H Biocleas, Rvidemment une composition indigQne, faite en Balmatie. /icinius et sa femme, soeur de Constantin le -rand, figurent comme ancTtres des )eman#ides serbes dans la biographie du despote Atienne /a8areviN 9+.5;K+G-F:, Rcrite par 2onstantin le 01hilosophe0 en +G.+ 9publiRe par 'agiN dans le 0%lasni&,0

#ournal de la sociRtR savante serbe, vol. G-:, et dans la seconde rRdaction des annales serbes, rRdigRe H la mTme Rpoque. /a premiQre rRdaction, de la fin du C'* s., ne connaVt pas encore cette fantaisie gRnRalogique, de mTme que toutes les biographies des )eman#ides composRes au3 C''' et C'* siQcles. 20est une traduction de la chronique de Ionaras, faite en Serbie vers +GEE, qui dRbute par l0identification des Baces avec les Serbes, qui nomme /icinius un Serbe etc. 9Cf. 'agiN, 0Ain (eitrag 8ur serbischen "nnalisti&,0 "rchiv fDr slaw. 1hilologie, (d. ''. /e voyageur Schepper en +4.. 9 Rm. de l0acadRmie de (ru3elles, t. CCC, +54F: a reeu des moines du monastQre de ilefeva en 7er8Rgovine la mTme gRnRalogie de saint Sava, fils de )eman#a, descendant de /icinius. Justinien, au contraire, ne #oue aucun rhle remarquable dans ces compositions. 1rague < . aoit +55F.

The Autho"&4 Note&:

These references are as follows 9' give them by the numbers of the pages of "lemanni0s notes in the (onn edition of the Anecdota< " Justino et Justiniano superbissimum templum ad urbem Scodram (arbenamque fluvium Sergio et (acchio martyribus e3citatum fuit, ut pluribus narravit Theophilus Justiniani praeceptor 9p.,.:. Theophilus Justiniani praeceptor licet sub Ienone et "cacio patriarcha dicat >Justinianum natum?, consulatum tamen reticet 9p.,5:. Sub finem "nastasii dominatus (y8antium venisse Justinianum trigenario ma#orem, Theophilus e#us praeceptor affirmat 9p.,;:. 7ac ratione et fide 9i.e. : Justiniani frater fuit Theodoricus %otthorum re3, ut Theophilus Justiniani praeceptor e3plicat 9p.F+:. *enit $avennam Justinianus plane adolescens, eoque missus est obses ad Theodoricum %otthorum regem a Justino avunculo e3ercitus duce, ut Theophilus Justiniani praeceptor e3ponit 9p.5.:. Justiniani mater (igleni8a repugnabat >sc. quominus Justiniano Theodora desponderetur?, quod cum evincere illa nequivisset, ut Theophilus in *ita Justiniani affirmat, moerore contabuit 9p.5G:. Bu3it Justinianus Theodoram egregiam puellam, licet reclamante matre (igleni8a, quippe quae indolem puellae alioqui scitissimae et eruditissimae, sed levioris et arrogantioris ingenii aliquando obfuturam fortunae et pietati filii pertimesceret, praesertim quia vetula quaedam divinationibus addicta Theodoram futuram Baemonodoram $omano imperio, infle3uramque rectitudinem Justiniani e3 sortium augurio consulenti (igleni8ae praedi3erat 9pG+4:. (igleni8a soror Justini, mater Justiniani imperatoris. . . . )omen (igleni8ae Theophilus in *ita Justiniani prodidit 9pG+5:. Sabatius Justiniani pater 'sto(us appellatus est ab 'llyriensibus. Theophilus in *ita
1

Justiniani 9pG+5:. Justinianus imperator 0prauda a suis gentilibus dictus est. 'dem Theophilus 9pG+5:. "ntequam imperium caperet, a Theophilo abbate praeceptore suo theologicis #am erat studiis imbutus Justinianus 9pG.5:.

,
J. 1. /udwig, Vita Justiniani at&ue Theodorae Augustorum1 necnon Triboniani2 urisprudentiae Justinianeae proscenium . 7alae Salicae, +F.+.
2

,
'nverni8i, 1hil., De rebus gestis Justiniani +agni, $omae, +F5.. !. O. $eit8 in his edition of the paraphrase of Justinian0s 'nstitutes by the famous #urist Theophilus, one of the authors of the 'nstitutes, says 9''.+E.;, note . to 2hap. ': that he is surprised that none of those who have written about the various Theophili has mentioned Theophilus "bbas, the preceptor and biographer of Justinian. 0' do not &now,0 he proceeds, 0whether this life of Justinian has ever been published or still lur&s in the *atican library, for ' cannot find it anywhere. ' thin& that this abbot was not our paraphrast, seeing that the latter died in ".B. 4.G, and could not have written the life of Justinian who died in 4,5. oreover, a preceptor could not have written the life of a person who lived to the age of eightyKthree. Forte igitur "lemannus humani aliquid passus est, qui abbatem hunc eidem Justiniano cu#us vitam scripsit praeceptorem adsignaverit, quum alium Justinianium magni Justiniani e3 patre nepotem 9cu#us pater %ermanus fuit quique sub Justino secundo contra 1ersas feliciter pugnavit et deinde Tiberio imperatori insidias fecerit: illi abbati discipulum dare deberet.0 $eit8, therefore, also accepts "lemanni0s Theophilus as a good authority, though he desires to put him a generation later than that to which his being the instructor of the emperor Justinian would assign him.
3

So the learned /e (eau in his 3istoire du Bas 4mpire 9edition of St. artin, 1aris, +5-F: and . Bebidour in his very recent Dissertatio de Theodora Justiniani 0xore 91aris, +5FF: and in his monograph /5'mp*ratrice Theodora 91aris, +554: quotes Theophilus without hesitation as an indubitable authority. So also r. 2. A. allet in the number of this $eview for January +55F. "t p44 9note: of his monograph, . Bebidour doubts whether this Theophilus the biographer of Justinian is or is not to be identified with Theophilus the #urist and paraphrast of the 'nstitutes.

,
Joseph aria Suares was born at "vignon in +4;; and died at $ome +,,,. 7e was a man of considerable learning, and soon after +,-- was placed by 2ardinal Francis (arberini in charge of the library formed by this magnate. 'n +,.. 1ope Urban *''' 9uncle of the cardinal: named him bishop of *aison.
4

,
5

This title is written in a different hand from that of the

S., and in different in&.

,
6

1ossibly we ought to read Bomnio6 see post, p,,;.

,
't is hard to say what the fifth letter of this word is, whether a u or an n or a v, for the writing in the S. is obscure. (ut ' believe it to be a v, and have consequently printed the name all through as *pravda. The numbers in brac&ets, which in the original are placed over instead of after the words to which they belong, refer to the 4xplicationes which follow.
7

Thayer0s )ote< j(rac&etsj actually refer to what in modern "merican Anglish are called parentheses6 in this !eb transcription, these notes are mar&ed in the following style = 9+: = and are lin&ed to the corresponding A3plicatio, and viceK versa.

,
'n the S. the words aut 1ri8riota, or perhaps 1ri8rieta6 are interlined in a different hand.
8

,
9

$ead One8, which in Slavonic means a prince.

,
10

Ought to be "malamiri.

,
11

So apparently in the

S. $ead Sicensem.

,
12

Or 1rocaredos.

"t the bottom of the last page of the S. are the words, written in a different hand from that of the S., ad procopium "lemannus, f. 96 a little lower, the words missum ab urbe.
13

,
The 2ount of Sebenico writes to *enice of arnavich, in +,-,< orlacco, nato qui, quando suo padre era qui datiario per il Turco, poi cacciato suo padre per ordine publico, alievo de0 %esuiti.
14

,
7e tells us 9p+GF of the %egiae Sanctitatis 'llyricanae 6oecunditas : that (aronius 9who died in +,+E: was so much moved by what he 9 arnavich: told relating to 2onstantine the %reat, that tantus heros lacrymis prae pietate effusis, in meum proruens comple3um, magnas se mihi debere gratias, et a #uvene imberbi tali didicisse minime pudere, disertis verbis non solum sit protestatus, sed conscenso curru ad easdem 9nempe 2onstantini: sacras imagines adorandas statim sese contulit. !as this at hearing that the emperor 2onstantine was a SlavJ
15

,
. JireMe& remar&s that at this time the 7oly See favoured the use of the national tongue in the South Slavonic countries, in order to combat the influence of the boo&s printed in Slavonic at TDbingen by protestant Slavs from Balmatia and 'stria.
16

,
"mong the wor&s of arnavich ' find references to the following< "ratio in laudem 6austi Verantii ep. Chanadiensis 9*enet. +,+F:6 Vita #etri Berislavi Bosnensis ep. Vesprimensis 9$omae, +,-E:6 "ratio in adventu ad urbem Sicensem illustr. viri 6r. +olini2 sereniss. %eipublicae Venetae legati 9*enet. +,-.:6 Sacra Columba ab importunis vindicata suae&ue origini restituta 9$omae, +,-4:6 0nica gentis Aureliae Valeriae Salonitanae Dalmaticae 7obilitas 9$omae, +,-5:6 %egiae Sanctitatis 'llyricanae 6oecunditas 9$omae, +,.E:6 'ndicia Vetustatis et 7obilitatis familiae +arciae vulgo +arnavitiae 7issensis2 per Joannem Tomcum e usdem generis 9$omae, +,.-6 with portraits of the author of *u&assin, &ing of Servia:6 S. 6elix episcopus et martyr Spalatensi urbi vindicatus 9$omae, +,.G:6 Vita +agdalenae +odrussiensis sanctae mulieris 9$omae, +,.4:6 #ro sanctis 4cclesiarum ornamentis et donariis 9$omae, +,.4. This is said to be the best of his wor&s:6 Vita Beati Augustini Casotti ep. 8agrabiensis 9*indob. +,.F:6 translation into Slavonic 90'llyrian0: of the Doctrina Christiana of 2ardinal (ellarmin 9$omae, +,-F:6 an 'talian life of
17

S. argaret, daughter of (ela, &ing of 7ungary. 7e was also the author of sundry dramatic and other poems in his vernacular tongue, which he wrote with some force and spirit. " life of S. Sabbas, which he left in manuscript, was published by 'van /uciN at *enice in +F5;.

,
Further information regarding arnavich may be found in Farlati, 'llyrici Sacri, tom. '*, pp5E, 5+6 Angel, 6ortgeset$te /itteratur der 7ebenl9nder des ungarischen %eiches 97alle, +F;5:6 Schafari&, -eschichte der s:dsla;ischen /itteratur 91rague, +5,4:6 "lberto Fortis, Viaggio in Dalma$ia 9*enice, +FFG:. This lastKnamed writer accuses 9p+G,: arnavich of having found in the papers of (ishop *eran8io, and published as his own composition, the life of (ishop 1eter (erislav, which had really been written by "ntonio *eran8io a century before, 0adding a few sentences to it to ma&e it appear to be his own, and leaving out the few lines which reveal the real biographer, "ntonio *eran8io.0 This charge is doubted by %. %. 1aulovich /uciN, who, however, rebuts it only by saying that 0our e3cellent arnavich left such rich and abundant fruits of his own genius that he did not need to steal from any one else.0 'ts /atin is far better than that of arnavich0s other wor&s, a fact which increases the suspicion. 1rofessor "rmin 1aviN has written a full biography of arnavich in the Acts of the Academy of Agram 9vol. CCC''' +5F4:, from which, as ' cannot read Serb, some interesting facts have been supplied to me by . JireMe&, r. Avans, and r. !. $. orfill of O3ford.
18

,
't is hard to ma&e out whether this boo& was ever printed. The abate "lberto Fortis 9already quoted: says arnavich wrote in +,E. un grosso manoscritto, che si conserva ancora, quantunque sia un po0 mutilato. 1erhaps the S. is still in some $oman library. arnavich refers to it in one of his later boo&s 9the -entis Aureliae 7obilitas: as written by himself 0olim,0 but without saying whether it had been printed or not. !hen in $agusa some little time ago, ' was informed that a copy e3isted there, but it was said to have been sent to 1esth. y friend, r. "rthur J. 1atterson, professor of Anglish literature in the university of 1esth, tells me that no copy can be found in any of the three chief libraries of that city or in any of the libraries of "gram. Br. Oonrad aurer tells me it is not in the university library at unich6 and has &indly ascertained for me that it is not in the university library at TDbingen, which is rich in Slavonic boo&s of the si3teenth and seventeenth centuries.
19

,
't is natural to fancy that the name (ogomil may have something to do with the remar&able sect, bearing that name in Slavonic vernacular, who subsequently arose in (ulgaria, and who are commonly &nown in history as 1aulicians. There
20

does not, however, seem to be anything to connect this manuscript or the legends it refers to with that sect.

,
'n the dedication of his boo& %egiae Sanctitatis 'llyricanae 6oecunditas 9$ome, +,.E: to the emperor Ferdinand ''', &ing of 7ungary 9who ne3t year nominated him as bishop of (osnia:, arnavich, wishing to prove that the house of 7absburg is descended from 2onstantine the %reat, writes as follows< 2onstantinum autem gentis tuae conditorem e3stitisse praeter animi corporisque omnium tuorum gentilium dotes a tot seculis ipsum sanctissimi principis e3emplar perpetuo praeferentium ipsimet in ea tellure progeniti quae urbem a 2onstantini posteritate utpote in eadem a declinatione $omani imperii dominante 2onstantiam idcirco adhuc appellatur sub tuorum sceptris continent, facile con#ecture concedunt, tum quia nullus qui tuae familiae "ugustalem antiquitatem maturiori stylo prosequitur aliunde natales e#us quam e3 antedicta tellure educit, tum Justiniani magni $omani imperatoris infantiae institutor e#usdemque vitae et ma3ima e3 parte imperii scriptor, 'llyricis (ogomilus, /atinis et %raecis Theophilus apud )icolaum "lemannum in notis ad 1rocopii fragmenta appellatus, 2onstantini posteros suo tempore supra $heni fontes intra 'taliae %ermaniaeque fines, longe a turbis superstites fuisse, potestate in vicinas gentes claros, est author. On this passage 9which ' owe to the &indness of 2ount Ugo (al8ani, the boo& not being to be found in any Anglish library: it may be observed< 9+: The absence of any reference to the (arberini S. and to the 9alleged: original of (ogomil on ount "thos may be thought to cast doubt on arnavich0s recollection of these two documents. (ut he did not need, in a passing mention of (ogomil, to say where his boo& e3isted, and the (arberini S. had never been published6 indeed, it may have been in the hands of "lemanni or Suares, whereas "lemanni0s edition of the Anecdota had appeared in +,-.. 9-: arnavich here refers to "lemanni only as an authority for the name Theophilus. The name (ogomil is not in "lemanni, but is the name given throughout the (arberini S. 9and, so far as ' &now, nowhere else: to our supposed biographer. 9.: The statement that the descendants of 2onstantine were living near the sources of the $hine is not to be found among "lemanni0s citations from Theophilus. )either is it in the fragmentum, which merely says that Justinian, born at 1ri8rend, was descended from 2onstantine. !as it then in some part of the original 9alleged: (ogomil which the fragmentum does not give, or is it an invention of arnavich0s, attributed to his (ogomilJ 't is a statement not li&ely to have formed part of any Slavonic legend, which would not trouble itself about descendants of 2onstantine far away in the northKwestern "lps, however desirous to find them in 1indus or the (al&an. One naturally suspects that arnavich is here using (ogomilKTheophilus as a name upon whom to father statements for which he wishes to claim authority. (ut be this as it may, the reference in this dedication not only confirms, if that wanted confirming, the conne3ion between arnavich and the (arberini S., but shows that ten years or more after the date of the S. he still believed, or professed to believe, in his
21

(ogomil. 't is odd that, in the absence of all other clues to the Theophilus of "lemanni, this clue, slight as it is, should not have been laid hold of.

,
't may be thought that arnavich, stimulated by "lemanni0s discovery of the Anecdota, wished to have a share in the fame and tal& which that discovery was li&ely to ma&e, and volunteered his information about Justinian accordingly, to be inserted into "lemanni0s notes. (ut "lemanni, though he quotes Theophilus, never refers to arnavich in any way. So that even the motive of a desire for notoriety seems wanting.
22

,
'n the Vita S. Sabbae he says< *itae e#us 9i.e. S. Sabbae: fusiori stylo prosequendae non defuit occasio e3 iis monimentis quae a solitariis viris "thos incolentibus collecta ad memoriam posteritatis habentur transmissa, verum cum ea %raeca fide laborare non ambigamus, utpote posterioribus temporibus conscripta quibus e3tincto /atinorum imperio in %raecia latinae quoque sinceritatis puritas evanuit, 1alaeologis regnantibus principibus, Wc. 2ited by 1aviN in the article mentioned above.
23

,
"lemanni, born in +45., had been secretary to 2ardinal Scipio (orghese, who apparently finding him unsuitable, got him a post in the *atican library in +,+G. 7e died in +,-,.
24

,
' am inclined to suspect that arnavich got from "lemanni some of the learning with which he has enriched his explicationes, e.g. the statement that 0/atin and %ree& authors0 gave the original name of the empress Auphemia as /upicina, and the reference to the name (ederina in "gathias. See "lemanni0s notes at pp.,E, .,F, .5G of (onn edition.
25

,
2ardinal (arberini, uncle of Francis, arnavich0s patron, became pope under the title of Urban *''' in +,-., and reigned till +,GG.
26

There are a few, but only a few, names which seem to be of Slavonic origin in the long list of forts built or repaired in the northern provinces which 1rocopius gives in the De Aedificiis. . JireMe&, however, says 9in a letter to me:< 0/es noms de certains chSteau3 che8 1rocope ont une ressemblance avec les noms slaves, mais rien de plus 6 il y a aussi des e3plications du 8end 9le thrace d0aprQs les recherches de mon collQgue, le professeur !ilhelm Tomasche& H *ienne, paraVt avoir RtR une langue iranienne:, et de l0albanais. Cf. Ore&, 4inleitung in die sla;. /iteraturgeschichte, -de Rd., p-F;, sqq.0
27

Schafari& 9Sla;ische Alterth:mer, ''.+-K+G: thin&s that by the end of the fifth or beginning of the si3th century the Slavonic tribes held the north ban& of the /ower Banube, and were beginning to settle quietly south of that river. (ut he does not bring them in Upper acedonia and )orthern "lbania till the seventh.

,
arnavich in his notes refers to (ogomil as the person to whom there e3isted a marbleKcased monument with an inscription in the church of S. Sophia at Serdica 9Sofia:, identifying him with Bomnio, a bishop of Serdica mentioned by arcellinus 2omes. ' owe to the courtesy of r. ). $. O02onor, her a#esty0s representative at Sofia, the following information regarding the ancient cathedral there, which he has obtained for me from some of the archaeologists of that city. 0The ruins of the old cathedral church named S. Sophia stand over those of a smaller church bearing the same name, which is said to have been built in the si3th century by Justinian. The local traditions confirm these historical statements, and add that, the wife of Justinian having found relief from a sic&ness for which she had come to Serdica to be cured, the emperor erected the said church. The original church had not, however, the form of the cathedral of S. Sophia in 2onstantinople, any more than such form can be discovered in the ruins of the present church. The present building was erected in the thirteenth century by one of the 2omneni 9J:. 't was converted into a mosque when the Tur&s too& the city. 'n the great earthqua&e of +545 its minaret fell down, and ever since it has remained abandoned. 'n the course of some diggings made in +55G at the bac& part near the altar, there were found two sarcophagi of brown stone, which are now in the building of the %ymnasium. The s&eletons were far gone in decay. )o inscription is to be seen anywhere. A3cavations have not been made at or round the porch of the church.0 . JireMe&, however, informs me that the e3isting church belongs to the eleventh century, and thin&s that it is the ruins of the apse that have given rise to the belief that there was previously 0a smaller church.0 See his remar&s in an article on the antiquities of (ulgaria in the Arch9ologisch.epigraphische +ittheilungen of *ienna for +55,, vol. C. 7e observes that the traditions of the people began very early to connect this S. Sophia with the S. Sophia of 2onstantine and the old emperors.
28

't need hardly be said that the names of places in the fragmentum are some of them obviously later than the si3th century. The whole fragmentum is so evidently long posterior to that age that it is not worth while to go into this point further.
29

,
The name 'sto& appears in /uccari 9 Annali di %ausa: as that of a )arentine of the twelfth century. 't is said to be also the name of a river and of a town near 1ri8rend. "nd /uccari also mentions a 7er8egovinian, in ".B. +G,G, who bears the name *pravda = *pravda Oatunar di Babar. This may be the same person as the $adi8 Oprouda mentioned in . JireMe&0s letter at the end of this article.
30

,
The name 'sto& does not appear in the version of 1resbyter Biocleas which we now possess. /uccari probably read a different one.
31

,
To ma&e Justin, the uncle of Justinian, a Slav, it would be necessary to suppose the Slavs to have begun to settle in !estern Thrace or Upper acedonia as early as ".B. G4E. "nd if he and his nephew Justinian had belonged to a race of lately entered and rude barbarians, whose tribes were perpetrating horrible cruelties and ravages on the northern frontiers of the empire during Justinian0s own time, 1rocopius would probably in his Anecdota, where he see&s to heap every disgrace upon Justin and Justinian, have availed himself of the fact as one discreditable to both sovereigns. (ut that spiteful historian merely says that Justin was the unlettered son of a peasant who came from his Bardanian home to 2onstantinople with nothing but a bag of biscuits on his bac&.
32

,
This chronicle is ascribed to the twelfth century. Bioclea is Bu&li in near the la&e of S&odra.
33

ontenegro

,
There is evidently in these legends a mi3ture of Totila and of "laric. ' found another curious instance of the mi3ture when, in visiting 2aprara in Umbria, the place where Totila probably e3pired after his defeat in the great battle of ".B. 4--, ' was told by the inhabitants that a great barbarian &ing was buried beneath the channel of the river.
34

,
)ear the beginning of /uccari0s Annali di %ausa Selemir is presented to us as a sort of eponymus of the South Slavonic race, having three brothers, /ech 9for the 1oles:, 2ech 9for the (ohemians:, and $uss 9for the $ussians:.
35

,
"lthough by that time monophysitism had quite died out in the eastern church, there was an opposition, strong down to and in our own days, between the catholics loo&ing to $ome, and the orthodo3 loo&ing to 2onstantinople. 'n arcellinus0s time there was also an opposition, though one rather due to the fact that whereas the /atins were all opposed to monophysitism, there was a considerable monophysite party 9to which, indeed, "nastasius and Theodora belonged: in 2onstantinople and the %ree&Kspea&ing districts generally.
36

,
The tale of the feminine opposition to Justinian0s marrying Theodora certainly seems to suggest the story in 1rocopius. (ut it must be remembered not only that in 1rocopius the opposing person is different, but the events are differently conceived altogether. 7ere Justin arranges the match, and does so before he comes to the throne6 in the Anecdota Justin, being a wea& and aged emperor, is induced to consent to it, apparently at the end of his reign, and to change the law in order to ma&e it possible.
37

,
't is noteworthy that /uccari also refers to a (ulgarian source 9the Diadario: as well as a Serb one 91resbyter Biocleas:.
38

,
'l est H noter qu0Orbini 9+,E+, p+F4: ne connaVt encore ni 'sto& ni Upravda, quoique il dRclare Justinien Ttre Slave.
39

klm< http<nnbg.wi&ipedia.orgnwi&inoBEo;"oB+o5.oBEo(( oB+o5-oB+o5.oB+o5EoBEo(BoBEo(ApoBEo(5p oBEo(5oB+o5+oB+o5-oBEo(A

oB+o5EoBEo(5oB+o5FoBEo(4oB+o5+oBEo("oBEo(ApoBEo(B oBEo(EoB+o5+oBEo(( oBEo(4oBEo(GoB+o5+oB+o5-oBEo(-oBEo(ApoBEo(BoBEo(Ep oBEo(.oBEo(AoB+o5-oBEo(5oB+o5-oBEo(4