finally led to the division of Armenia between them at the end of the fourth century. The smaller western part, with the city of Theodosiopolis (now Erzerum) had been taken by the Roman Empire; the eastern larger part of Armenia had fallen to the Persian Sassanids, and was known in the east as Persarmenia. According to one historian, the political division of Armenia "into two parts, eastern and western, led to a cultural break in the life of the Armenian people due to the difference between the Byzantine and Iranian rule."2 Justinian the Great had introduced important military and civil reforms in Armenia with the intention of destroying some of the surviving local customs and transforming Armenia into an ordinary imperial province.

In the seventh century, after the conquest of Syria and the defeat of Persia, the Arab's occupied Armenia. Armenian, Greek, and Arabic sources give contradicting accounts of this event. The Armenians later tried to take advantage of the troubled affairs of the Caliphate, which frequently turned the attention of the Arabs away from Armenian problems, and made several attempts to throw off the new yoke. These attempts at revolt were repaid by terrible devastations on the part of the Arabs. N. Marr says that at the beginning of the eighth century Armenia was completely ruined by the Arabs; that the "feudal lords were exterminated with much cruelty and the glorious achievements of Christian architecture were destroyed. In short, the fruit of all the cultural efforts of the preceding centuries were reduced to nil."24

When the Arabian Caliph found himself greatly in need of Armenian aid for his struggle with the Byzantine Empire in the middle of the ninth century, he conferred the title of "Prince of Princes" upon the Armenian ruler, Ashot, of the family of Bagratids. The wise administration of this ruler received general recognition, and at the end of the ninth century the Caliph conferred upon him the title of King. By this act a new Armenian kingdom, ruled by the dynasty of Bagratids, was definitely established. When news of all this had reached Basil I, shortly before his death, he hastened to

23 N. Adonz, Armenia in the Epoch of Justinian (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 3–4 (in Russian).

4 N. Marr, "The Caucasian Cultural World and Armenia," Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, LVII (June, 1915), 313-14; see Barthold, p. 467 (in Russian).

bestow a similar honor upon the new King of Armenia by sending him a royal crown. He also signed a treaty of friendship and union with him. In a letter to Ashot, Basil called him his beloved son, and assured him that of all states Armenia would always remain the closest ally of the Empire.25 All this shows very clearly that both the Emperor and the Caliph needed Ashot the Bagratid as an ally in their struggle with each other.

The anarchy which set in after Ashot's death forced the Muslims to intervene in the internal affairs of Armenia, and it was only in the reign of Ashot II "the Iron," in the first half of the tenth century, that Armenian territory was cleared, to some extent, of Arabs with the help of the Byzantine army and the assistance of the King of Iberia (Georgia, Gruzia). Ashot himself went to Constantinople to the Byzantine court of Romanus Lecapenus, where he was accorded a triumphant reception. Ashot II was the first ruler to assume the title of Shahinshah, meaning "King of Kings," of Armenia. In the second half of the tenth century Ashot III transferred the official capital of his kingdom to the fortress of Ani. In a subsequent period many magnificent edifices were erected here, and the city became a rich center of civilization. Until the recent great war the ruins of Ani were within the boundaries of Russia, and the Russian scholar, N. Marr, had devoted much time to a thorough study of them. His excavations have resulted in brilliant discoveries, highly significant not only for the history of Armenia and the civilization of the Caucasian peoples in general, but also for a clearer conception of Byzantine influence in the Christian East.

The new disturbances in Armenia in connection with the Bulgarian complications of the Empire forced Basil II to assume the personal leadership of a campaign into the pre-Caucasian districts as soon as the Bulgarian war was over. The outcome of this expedition was that one part of Armenia was annexed to the Empire and the other part was placed in vassal dependence. This new expansion of the Empire in the east, for which the capital accorded Basil a triumphant reception, was the last military victory in the active and glorious reign of the aged basileus. In the forties of the elev26 Jean Catholicos, Histoire d'Arménie, trad. Saint-Martin (Paris, 1841), p. 126.

enth century, under Constantine IX Monomachus, the new capital of Armenia, Ani, was taken over by the Empire. This put an end to the rule of the Bagratids (Bagratuni). The last member of this dynasty was lured to Constantinople, where he received lands in Cappadocia, a money pension, and a palace on the Bosphorus in place of his lost kingdom of Armenia.

The Byzantine Empire, however, was unable to maintain its power in Armenia because the population was greatly dissatisfied with the administrative as well as the religious policy of the central government. The Seljuq Turks took advantage of the existing state of affairs, and by making frequent irruptions into Armenia gradually conquered it.

The relations of the Byzantine Empire with the Bulgarians and Magyars during the time of the Macedonian dynasty.-The relations with Bulgaria in the time of the Macedonian emperors were extremely significant for the Empire. Although in the time of King Simeon Bulgaria became a formidable enemy of the Byzantine Em

pire, threatening even the capital and the Emperor's power, the

rulers of the Macedonian dynasty completely subjected this kingdom and transformed it into a Byzantine province.

During the reign of Basil I peaceful relations were maintained with Bulgaria. Immediately after the death of Michael III the negotiations concerning the restoration of the union between the Bulgarian and Greek churches came to a happy ending. King Boris went so far as to send his son, Simeon, to be educated in Constantinople. These friendly relations were very advantageous for both sides. Relieved of all anxiety about his northern borders, Basil could pour all his forces into the struggle with the eastern Arabs in the heart of Asia Minor and the western Muslims in Italy. Boris, in his turn, needed peace for the internal upbuilding of his kingdom, which had only recently adopted Christianity.

After the accession of Leo VI (886), peace with Bulgaria was broken immediately because of some dispute regarding certain customs duties which were highly detrimental to Bulgarian trade. Bulgaria was ruled at this time by its very famous King Simeon, educated, as we know, in Constantinople. His "love of knowledge

led him to reread the books of the ancients,"26 and he rendered his kingdom great services in the realms of culture and education. His wide political schemes were to be realized at the expense of the Byzantine Empire. Leo VI, aware of the fact that he was unable to offer adequate resistence to Simeon because the Byzantine army was engaged in the Arabian campaigns, appealed for help to the wild Magyars. The latter agreed to make a sudden irruption into Bulgaria from the north in order to divert Simeon's attention from the Byzantine borders.

This was a very significant moment in the history of Europe. For the first time, at the end of the ninth century, a new people, the Magyars (Hungarians, Ugrians. Byzantine sources frequently call them Turks, and Western sources sometimes refer to them as Avars),27 became involved in the international relations of European states, or, as C. Grot puts it, this was "the first appearance of the Magyars on the arena of European wars as an ally of one of the most civilized nations."28 Simeon was defeated by the Magyars in several early battles, but showed much skill in handling the difficult situation, by trying to gain time in negotiations with the Byzantine Empire, during which he succeeded in winning over the Patzinaks. With their aid he defeated the Magyars and forced them to move north to the place of their future state in the valley of the Middle Danube. After his victory over them Simeon turned his attention to the Byzantine Empire. A decisive victory over the Greek troops brought him to the very walls of Constantinople. The defeated Emperor succeeded in negotiating a peace treaty according to which he bound himself to refrain from any hostile action against the Bulgarians and to send rich gifts to Simeon every year.

After the Arabian siege and pillage of Thessalonica in the year 904, Simeon became very desirous of annexing this great city to his kingdom. Leo VI succeeded in preventing the realization of this scheme only by ceding to the Bulgarians other lands of the Empire.

Nicolai Mystici, Epistola, XX; Migne, Patr. Gr., 111, col. 133.

"The problem of the origin of the Magyars is very complicated. It is very difficult to determine whether they were of Finno-Ugrian or of Turkish origin. See Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, p. 492; the Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 194–95.

28 C. Grot, Moravia and Magyars from the Ninth until the Beginning of the Tenth Centuries (St. Petersburg, 1881), p. 291 (in Russian).

We still have the boundary stone set up between Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire in 904 bearing an interesting inscription about the agreement between the two powers.29 Here is what the Bulgarian historian, Zlatarsky, has to say about the importance of this inscription: "According to this agreement all the Slavonic lands of contemporary southern Macedonia and southern Albania, which until this time belonged to the Byzantine Empire, now [in 904] became part of the Bulgarian Kingdom; in other words, by this treaty Simeon united under the Bulgarian sceptre all those Slavonic tribes of the Balkan peninsula which gave Bulgarian nationality its ultimate aspect."30 From the time of this treaty until the end of Leo's rule we do not hear of any collisions between Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire.

During the period which elapsed between the death of Leo VI and the death of Simeon the Bulgarian in the year 927 there was almost continuous warfare between the Empire and Bulgaria, and Simeon very definitely strove to conquer Constantinople. In vain did Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus send him humiliating epistles, written "not with ink, but with tears." At times the patriarch tried to abash Simeon and threatened that the Byzantine Empire would form an alliance with the Russians, the Patzinaks, the Alans, and the western Turks, i.e., the Magyars or Hungarians.32 But Simeon was well aware of the fact that all these projected alliances could not be realized, and hence the threats had no effect upon him. The Bulgarian army defeated the Greeks in several battles, took Hadrianople, and forged its way as far south as the Dardanelles. Bulgarian troops penetrated also into middle Greece and, on the other hand, reached the walls of Constantinople, threatening to occupy it any moment. The suburban palaces of the Emperor were set on fire. Meanwhile, Simeon attempted to form an alliance with the

29 Th. Uspensky, "The Boundary Stone between Byzantium and Bulgaria under Simeon," Transactions of the Russian Archaeological Institute at Constantinople, III (1898), 184-94 (in Russian).

30 V. N. Zlatarsky, Accounts of the Bulgarians in the Chronicle of Simeon Metaphrastes and Logothete (Sbornik za narodni umotvoreniya, nauka i knizhnina) (Sofia, 1908), XXIV, 160 (a reprint, in Bulgarian). See also idem, A History of the Bulgarian State in the Middle Ages (Sofia, 1927), I, part 2, pp. 339-42 (in Bulgarian).

21 Nicol. Mystici, Epist., V; Migne, 111, col. 45.

22 Idem, Epist., XXIII; Migne, 111, cols. 149-52.