University of Oxford
Browse

File(s) not publicly available

E00050: Theophylact Simocatta in his History describes the execution in 602 of *Maurice (East Roman Emperor, S00039) and his sons, by the men of the usurper Phocas, all in the region of Constantinople. A hagiographical account of their deaths, now lost, is probably written under Heraclius. Their execution is miraculously announced by statues in Alexandria (Egypt). Written in Greek in Constantinople in the early 7th century.

online resource
posted on 2014-09-18, 00:00 authored by CSLA Admin
Theophylact Simocatta, History 8.11-13

After describing the flight of Maurice from Constantinople, and the coronation and triumphal entrance of the usurper Phocas into the city, Simocatta gives an account of the murder of the deposed emperor and his sons. Maurice and his younger sons had sought sanctuary at the shrine of *Autonomos on the Gulf of Nicomedia (E00007), while his eldest son and heir apparent Theodosios was in Nicaea. The execution is described as follows:

8.11.1-6
(1.) ὁ δὲ τύραννος τούτων ἀκηκοὼς ἀποπαύει τὰ πλήθη καθυλακτοῦντα περὶ τῶν μὴ καιρίων, τῇ δ’ ἐπαύριον πρὸς τὸν φόνον τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος ἐκβακχεύεται. τοιγαροῦν ὁ Μαυρίκιος τῷ μεταμέλῳ φιλοσοφήσας τὸν κίνδυνον τὸν δακτύλιον πέμπει Θεοδοσίῳ τῷ παιδὶ ἐπιβεβηκότι Νικαίας τῆς πόλεως ἀναζεῦξαί τε πρὸς αὐτὸν θᾶττον προσέταξεν. (2.) οὕτω μὲν οὖν Θεοδόσιος γεγονὼς πειθήνιος τῷ πατρὶ πρὸς τὰς συμφορὰς ηὐτομόλησε καὶ φιλυπόστροφος γεγονὼς πρὸς ἀποσφαγὴν παραγίνεται. τοίνυν ὁ τύραννος στρατιώτας ἐκπέμψας ἐς τὸ ἀντιπέραν τῆς βασιλίδος τῶν πόλεων, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ Χαλκηδόνος πόλις καθίδρυται, ἀναιρεῖ τὸν Μαυρίκιον εἰς τὸν λεγόμενον Εὐτροπίου λιμένα. (3.) προαναιροῦνται τοιγαροῦν ἐπ’ ὄψεσι τοῦ βασιλέως οἱ παῖδες οἱ ἄρρενες, ἐντεῦθεν τῷ τῆς φύσεως ξίφει τῷ φόνῳ τῶν παίδων προκολάζοντες οἱ φονευταὶ τὸν Μαυρίκιον. ὁ μὲν οὖν Μαυρίκιος φιλοσοφῶν τὸ δυστύχημα τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων ἀνεκαλεῖτο θεὸν καὶ πυκνότερον ἐπεφθέγγετο· “δίκαιος εἶ, κύριε, καὶ δικαία ἡ κρίσις σου.” (4.) γίνεται γοῦν καὐτὸς παρανάλωμα ξίφους ἀποτομὴν τῆς κεφαλῆς ὑποστάς, ἐπιτάφιον ὥσπερ τῶν τέκνων τὴν ἐς ὕστερον ἑαυτοῦ ἀναίρεσιν κληρωσάμενος, προεπιδειξάμενος τὴν ἀρετὴν ἐν τῷ μεγέθει τῆς συμφορᾶς. (5.) τῆς γὰρ τιθήνης ὑποκλεψάσης ἕν τι τῶν βασιλικῶν μειρακίων καὶ πρὸς ἀποσφαγὴν τὸ ἑαυτῆς ὑπομάζιον παραδούσης, κηρύττει λόγος ἀληθὴς Μαυρίκιον τὸ ἀπόρρητον ἐξειπεῖν τοῖς φονεύουσι καταμηνῦσαί τε τὴν ἀποκρυβὴν τοῦ παιδός, καὶ μὴ δίκαιον εἶναι κατισχυρίζεσθαι τὸν φόνον παρανοθεύεσθαι τῇ ὑποκλοπῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ. (6.) οὕτω μὲν οὖν ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ νόμων φύσεως ὑψηλότερος γεγονὼς ὑπαλλάττει τὸν βίον. λέγεται δὲ τὸν βασιλέα Μαυρίκιον πρό τινων τῆς ἀναιρέσεως χρόνων ἐν τοῖς σεβασμιωτέροις τῆς οἰκουμένης ναοῖς ἐν γράμμασι καθικετεῦσαι τὸν ἕνα τῆς ὑπερκοσμίου τριάδος Χριστὸν κύριον τὰς ἀντιδόσεις τῶν βεβιωμένων κατὰ τοῦτον δῆτα τὸν θνητὸν καὶ ἐπίκηρον κόσμον ἀπολαβεῖν.

'(1.) When the tyrant [Phocas] heard this, he checked the masses’ howling about inopportune matters and, on the morrow, was roused to frenzy for the murder of the emperor. Now Maurice in repentance philosophically accepted the danger, sent his ring to his son Theodosios who had reached the city of Nicaea, and commanded him to return to him quickly. (2.) And so Theodosios thus became obedient to his father, volunteered for the disaster, came back willingly and arrived for slaughter. Then the tyrant dispatched soldiers to the coast opposite the queen of cities, where the city of Chalcedon is also located, and slew Maurice at the so-called harbour of Eutropios. (3.) Accordingly, the male children were slaughtered first before the emperor’s eyes; hence by his kin to the sword, by the slaughter of his sons, the murderers inflicted advance punishment on Maurice. And so Maurice, accepting the misfortune philosophically, called on the supreme god, and repeatedly uttered: “Thou art just, O Lord, and thy judgement is just.” (4.) So he too became a victim of the sword, suffering severance of the head; he was allotted his own slaughter last, as if it were an epitaph for his children, having first demonstrated his courage in the magnitude of the disaster. (5.) For, after the nurse had secretly stolen one of the royal infants and provided her own suckling for slaughter, true report proclaims that Maurice declared the secret to the murderers, revealed the concealment of the child, and asseverated that it was not right to pervert the murder by the secret theft of his son. (6.) And so, the emperor, having become so much superior even to the laws of nature, ended his life. It is said that, some time before his slaughter, the emperor Maurice had supplicated by letter in the more venerable churches of the inhabited world, the Lord Christ, One of the supermundane Trinity, to exact repayment for his misdeeds in this present mortal and perishable world.'

Next Simocatta tells of the testament of Maurice, which was discovered in the early years of Heraclius’ reign. According to it, the emperor planned to divide the empire among his sons, bequeathing the East to his eldest son Theodosios, and the West to his younger son Tiberios. He also appointed Dometianos, bishop of Melitene and a relative of his, as guardian of his younger children.

After this digression, the author returns to the account of Maurice’s murder, describing the sad sight of the bodies of the emperor and the princes floating in the sea near Chalcedon (8.12). Simocatta recalls that this was the theme of a speech he gave before a moved audience during a memorial ceremony held at the tomb of Maurice after the accession of Heraclius. The officer in charge of the execution, a certain Lilios, took the heads of Maurice and the princes to the usurper Phocas and had them publicly exposed at the Kampos, the military marching field of the Hebdomon. All the troops that had participated in the coup against Maurice eventually met their death in a misfortunate way, mostly in the wars with Persia, which Simocatta interprets as divine punishment.

In the next section (8.13), Simocatta discusses the end of Maurice’s eldest son Theodosios, who was not with his father and brothers when they were arrested at the shrine of Autonomos. Theodosios, summoned by his father, returned to the shrine and was executed at the nearby site of Diadromoi. Simocatta tells of rumours that Theodosios escaped execution, which he dismisses as inaccurate. Finally, Simocatta recounts the story that, on the day of Maurice’s execution, a man in Alexandria heard statues in the temple of Tyche (Tychaeum) talking and announcing the death of the emperor. Nine days later, the official announcement of the emperor’s death reached Alexandria, confirming what the statues had said. Simocatta interprets this as an act of demons. The story was officially announced by the governor of Egypt (Augustalis) Peter, a relative of Simocatta.

Text: de Boor and Wirth 1972. Translation: Whitby and Whitby 1986, modified. Summary: Efthymios Rizos.

History

Evidence ID

E00050

Saint Name

Maurice, East Roman Emperor (582-602) and his sons : S00039

Saint Name in Source

Μαυρίκιος

Type of Evidence

Literary - Other narrative texts (including Histories)

Language

  • Greek

Evidence not before

620

Evidence not after

640

Activity not before

610

Activity not after

641

Place of Evidence - Region

Constantinople and region

Place of Evidence - City, village, etc

Constantinople

Place of evidence - City name in other Language(s)

Constantinople Constantinople Κωνσταντινούπολις Konstantinoupolis Constantinopolis Constantinople Istanbul

Major author/Major anonymous work

Theophylact Simocatta

Cult activities - Liturgical Activity

  • Sermon/homily

Cult activities - Non Liturgical Practices and Customs

Composing and translating saint-related texts

Cult Activities - Protagonists in Cult and Narratives

Monarchs and their family Soldiers

Source

Theophylact Simocatta wrote his History in Constantinople probably in the late 620s. The period covered by his work is the reign of Maurice (582-602), and the main subjects of the historical narrative are the wars of the East Roman Empire with Persia, and with the Avars and the Slavs in the Balkans. Several digressions of hagiographical, chronographical and geographical interest are inserted in the narrative. Using various earlier sources, Simocatta produces a positive account of Maurice, portraying him as a good emperor overthrown by a tyrant (Phocas). In fact, Maurice was very unpopular in his own times, but cleansing his memory was important to legitimise the rule of Heraclius (610-641), who presented his own coup against Phocas as avenging the murder of Maurice. A supporter and successful official of Heraclius’ regime, Simocatta apparently served this particular political agenda. Further reading: Whitby and Whitby 1986, xiii-xxx (introduction); Whitby 1988; Frendo 1988; Olajos 1988.

Discussion

Simocatta’s chapters on the fall and execution of the emperor Maurice appear as a compilation of disparate notes which serve a dual purpose: on the one hand, they assert that Maurice received divine atonement for his sins, and on the other hand, they refute rumours that one or two of his sons had escaped execution. Both were instrumental for the legitimisation of Heraclius’ coup against Phocas, and of his rule as emperor. Heraclius posed as the avenger of the overthrow and murder of Maurice by Phocas who had legitimised his own coup through the accusation that Maurice had betrayed the army. The latter was difficult to refute even for a militant apologist of Maurice like Simocatta. The rehabilitation of the emperor’s memory was therefore achieved in theological terms: Maurice indeed sinned, but requested from God to be punished for his sins during his mortal life: his violent death was the tragedy that brought divine atonement and spared him from eternal punishment. The emperor demonstrated courage and virtues that rendered him 'superior to the laws of nature': he willingly accepted death and his last words were a paraphrased quote from Psalm 118 (119):137 and Job 3:2. The fact that he and his children were arrested while seeking sanctuary at a church completes the image of an almost martyrial death. Maurice’s insistence on his sons dying with him is a peculiar aspect of Simocatta’s narrative. It seems that at least the rumour about Theodosios having escaped execution was justified, and that is precisely what Simocatta appears most anxious to refute. His version of the events defends Heraclius’ regime against claims that heirs of Maurice had survived the coup, putting in question Heraclius’ legitimacy. The narrative is constructed according to hagiographical topoi common in martyrdom accounts concerning groups of martyrs. These include the motif of Maurice stoically witnessing the execution of his sons before being himself killed, and the miraculous announcement of the emperor’s death by the demon-possessed statues in Egypt. In the latter case, the author is probably implying that the regicide was the result of demonic inspiration. Michael Whitby believes that the death of Maurice was related in pamphlets written in the style of hagiography, and circulated in the early years of the reign of Heraclius. If this is true, Simocatta must have used them as a source for these chapters (Whitby 1988, 104-108). Indeed he may even have been involved in composing them: he was the panegyrist chosen to give the eulogy during a memorial ceremony held at Maurice’s tomb shortly after the accession of Heraclius, and was commissioned to write an entire history of the reign of Maurice. It is therefore clear that he was given a central role in the Heraclian propagandistic effort to rehabilitate the memory of Maurice. It is probably no coincidence that the story about the talking statues in Alexandria came from a relative of Simocatta, the Augustalis of Egypt, Peter. It is probable that Maurice and his sons received a limited form of veneration among the pious emperors resting in the Holy Apostles. This is probably echoed in an entry in the 10th century Synaxarion of the Church of Constantinople, which records a feast in 'the memory of the pious emperors Konstantinos and Markianos with his children, held in the Great Church and the Holy Apostles' on 28 November. V. Grumel (1966) has convincingly argued that this is a feast in the memory of Tiberius II Constantine and Maurice with his sons (the name of the latter mistakenly recorded as Marcian). The November date clearly fits with the time of Maurice's execution. In all cases, this passage offers a fine example of how hagiographical writing could be consciously employed for the construction of historical memory, which could generate some form of cult. Further Reading: Whitby 1988, 104-108, 124; Whitby and Whitby 1986, 227-232; Frendo 1988, 155-156; Olajos 1988, 126, 145-146, 152-153.

Bibliography

Edition: de Boor, C., and Wirth, P., Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Leipzig: Teubner, 1972). Translation: Whitby, M., and Whitby, M., The History of Theophylact Simocatta: An English Translation with Introduction and Notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). Further reading: Frendo, J.D.C., “History and Panegyric in the Age of Heraclius: The Literary Background of the Composition of the Histories of Theophylact Simocatta,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988), 143-156. Grumel, V., "La memoire de Tibère II et de Maurice dans le Synaxaire de Constantinople," Analecta Bollandiana 84 (1966), 249-253. Olajos, T., Les Sources de Théophylacte Simocatta Historien (Leiden: Brill, 1988). Whitby, M., The Emperor Maurice and his Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

Usage metrics

    Evidence -  The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC