The tragic court

The AD sixth-century hosted perhaps the greatest historians since the Classical era, at least among the Greeks. Procopius needs no introduction; he was succeeded by the equally-excellent Agathias and then Menander Protector. (Slightly marred in that Agathias didn't get to finish his work and that Menander didn't get copied after the Crusade.) The earliest seventh-century saw a ... different approach to the epic events of that time. Stephen Euthymiades is here to discuss "Theophylaktos Simokatta" the Egyptian. Which itself barely survived: Vaticanus graecus 977 is all we got.

I know: I am teasing Stephanos a bit. I am, after all, a Latin. I will say, though, that Efthymiadis' approach to this (presumed) historian seems plausible.

Simocatta is not well-loved today. That, say Efthymiadis' early footnotes, is because modern historians are coming off their Agathias (and maybe Menander) high, so expect more from this time's historians. Efthymiadis suggests we quit treating Simocatta as An Historian. That one's "oecumenical history" is, rather, The Tragedy Of Maurice. It reads as a Tragedy For Almost Everybody, Hamlet-style.

I believe what is happening here is that Justin II - meaning, Tiberius II - and Maurice patronised actual historians. Where those Emperors wanted propaganda, they commissioned epigrams. Heraclius was a different beast. I have been (most) unkind to James Howard-Johnston but where (I think) he nails it, is in describing the deluge of ink Heraclius expended upon literary pageantry. Hence, George of Pisidia and (in the victory lap) the Alexander Neshané. Some might even wonder about sura 30.

This inspired a counter-literature. The Syriac Christendom produced another Alexander legend - where the great king failed, in a Gilgamesh-like quest for the eternal life macguffin.

In Heraclius' circle and counter-circle, Efthymiadis proposes, is where we'd see The Tragedy Of Maurice. Tiberius II represents the good old days, but he falls prematurely ill. All he can do for Maurice, at the end, is to deliver some Mirror For Princes advice. Maurice fails to heed it, losing his kingdom and his life to Phocas' tyranny. The Sasanians, called "Persians" here, are mired in violence and tyranny as well (again: Simocatta is no Procopius or Agathias, he has no real interest in Iran).

Vg 977 has a preamble. This casts the post-Phocas régime, descendents of Heraclius the Elder, as (what else) the new Heraclids. Debate sputters on (well, as of AD 2010) about whether Simocatta intended this juxtaposition. In this manuscript (tradition?), it reads as classic "glory to God and to His Emperor" that is, as humbug; to (astro)glide the path before comes the... well, you know. Brace yourself, Herry!

So, I got no problem surmising that Simocatta wrote both - although I'll concede separately, maybe the opening panegyric first. Procopius had earlier proven that the same man as wrote an On Buildings could also write an Anecdota.

As a Tragedy set in the past, Simocatta has comments about his present. Here and there appear prophecies of the future, and not just about Zoroastrian Iran which, as Simocatta "predicted", had no future. Additional debate swirls around when Simocatta was writing. Robert Hoyland quoted that the Persians made an apologia to "Maurice" - meaning, to any Emperor who'd hear it - for the continued existence of Persian authority over the eastern border. After all, what profit would devolve upon the Romans should the Persians be bereft of power, and transmit mastery to another phylos?

Hoyland saw an "irony" here; as contrast to other predictions placed in the past, as in apocalyptic. Hoyland didn't think Simocatta - constantly warning the Roman king - could be warning the king now. Efthymiadis disagrees: it's Simocatta's tragedy, whose irony is deliberate. The Tragedy #8.12.13 knew that Khusro II Aparvez had been killed. Efthymiadis thinks that Kovad II Shiroë had died too, and that Simocatta is bringing the irony again.