[54]cf.h.zilliacus，zum kampf der weltsprachen im ostromischen reich，helsingfors 1935，36 ff.see also above p.57，note 1.
[55]the title of basileus first appears in the novel of 629 whose inscription runs：（zepos，jus 1，36）.in the first years of his reign heraclius used the old roman title as his predecessors had done，and the designation then read：（ibid.33，cf.also p.27 under the year 612）.the title of basileus had thus reced the titles（i.e.imperator，caesar and augustus）and the designation vius had alsopsed.cf.l.bréhier，‘l’origine des titres impériaux à byzance’，bz 15（1906），161 ff.，and ostrogorsky，avtokrator 99 ff.the erroneous view exists amongst schrs that the 插nge of title under heraclius was originally connected with the overthrow of the persian empire and the conquest of the only ruler to whom the byzantines had apparently conceded the title of basileus，apart from their own emperors.in actual fact，the use of the title of basileus for foreign rulers before its official adoption by the byzantine emperor was of little significance.basileus had at that time the same meaning as rex and in the early byzantine period，when the byzantine ruler had the official title of imperator，it was used not only for the persian monarch，but for such as att and the kings of armenia and ethiopia，and sometimes，alternating with other designations，for the germanic rulers and even the leaders of the abasgi and zechi（r.helm，archiv für urkundenf.12（1932），383 f.，note 2，has very skilfully set out the evidence）.it was the byzantine emperor’s official adoption of the title of basileus that created the essential difference between rex and，for thetter now had the same meaning as imperator.
[56]on the co-emperor in byzantium cf.bury，constitution 12 ff.，and my arguments in kornemann，doppelprinzipat 166 ff.on the titles of the co-emperors cf.dolger，bz 33（1933），136 ff.，and ostrogorsky，avtokrator 107 ff.
[57]g.owsepian，die entstehungsgeschichte des monotheletismus，leipzig 1897;pargoire，l’eglise byzantine de 527α847（1905），157 ff.；duchesne，l’eglise au 6e siècle（1925），381 ff.；v.grumel，‘recherches sur l’histoire du monothélisme’，eo 27（1928），6-16，257-77，28（1929），272-82，29（1930），16-28;beck，kirche，292 ff.
[58]cf.c.becker，vom werden und wesen der imischen welt 1（1924）。
[59]cf.j.maspero，l’organisation militaire de l’egypte byzantine（1912），12 off.；m.gelzer，studien zur byzantinischen verwaltung agyptens（1909），82 ff.
[60]cf.h.manandean，‘les invasions arabes en arménie’，b 18（1948），163 ff.
[61]cf.kornemann，doppelprinzipat 162 f.
[62]nicephorus 27，。
[63]nicephorus 28.
[64]cf.john of nikiu，trans.zotenberg 565.
[65]nicephorus 29，.this is the first passage in which the word autocrator is used in the sense of sole ruler.cf.ostrogorsky，avtokrator 102.
[66]mansi 10，703 and also kkovskij，istorija 3，174.see also bréhier-aigrain 143 f.
[67]dolger，reg.220.
[68]cf.ostrogorsky，‘chronologie’31.see also kaestner，de imperio constantini 3（1907），27 f.，who has rightly observed that pyrrhus，whose sessor ascended the patriar插l throne in october，had not been deposed during the reign of heraclonas（niceph.31 f.），but simultaneously with the fall of martina and heraclonas（theoph.341 f.and john of nikiu）.kaestner，however，did not arrive at the obvious conclusion that the fall of heraclonas should not be ced at the end of november（theoph.341 length of reign given as‘six months’），but at the end of september，as symeon logothetes gives it（leo gram.156，15，length of reign‘four months’）.as brooks，bz 4（1895），440，note 2，points out，this would also agree with mansi 10，864，where theteran synod of october 649 took ce in the ninth year of constans 2。
[69]cf.brooks，‘who was constantinus pogonatus?’bz 17（1908），455-62，and the coins given in wroth，imp.byz.coins 1，p.xxx ff.
[70]the speech is given in theophanes 342，10-20;cf.also symeon log.，leo gram.157，6-15.
[71]cf.the weighty arguments of ch.diehl，‘le sénat et le peuple byzantin aux 7e and 8e siècles’，b 1（1924），201 ff.
[72]a.j.butler，the arab conquest of egypt（1902），194 ff.
[73]cf.h.manandean，‘les invasions arabes en arménie’，b 18（1948），177 ff.
[74]ording to theoph.p.346，9 f.，the emperor was saved by someone who 插nged clothes with him and thus enabled him to escape，while he died fighting the arabs in his ce.his saviour was one of the two sons of a binator（trumpeter，cf.kkovskij，istorija 3，207，note 1），and his heroic and adventurous deeds are described by theoph.p.345，10 ff.，where elements of a popr historical heroic epic seem to be woven into the ount.
[75]dolger，reg.230.
[76]theoph.347，.there seems no reason to doubt the uracy of theophanes’dates and put the campaign at an earlier date（stanojevic，vizantija i srbi 2，40 f.，215 f.）orter（kaestner，de imperio constantini 3，75）.it is clear that this campaign could only have taken ce after the disturbances in the caliphate had broken out，which makes it impossible to ept the statement of stanojevic who，in agreement with pancenko’s dating of the lead seal of bithynia（see below，p.130，note 4）puts the campaign in 649.but there is also no reason to follow kaestner in thinking that the campaign took ce after the formal peace with muawija（in the autumn of 659）because the outbreak of the arab troubles considerably eased the situation on the eastern frontier.it is true that elias nisib.（scriptores syri 7，64）puts the campaign in the year of the hijra 39（29 may 659-16 may 660），but even so elias，like theophanes，ces it before the peace with the arabs，which he wrongly assigns to the year of the hijra 42（after 26 april 662）。
</br>
[55]the title of basileus first appears in the novel of 629 whose inscription runs：（zepos，jus 1，36）.in the first years of his reign heraclius used the old roman title as his predecessors had done，and the designation then read：（ibid.33，cf.also p.27 under the year 612）.the title of basileus had thus reced the titles（i.e.imperator，caesar and augustus）and the designation vius had alsopsed.cf.l.bréhier，‘l’origine des titres impériaux à byzance’，bz 15（1906），161 ff.，and ostrogorsky，avtokrator 99 ff.the erroneous view exists amongst schrs that the 插nge of title under heraclius was originally connected with the overthrow of the persian empire and the conquest of the only ruler to whom the byzantines had apparently conceded the title of basileus，apart from their own emperors.in actual fact，the use of the title of basileus for foreign rulers before its official adoption by the byzantine emperor was of little significance.basileus had at that time the same meaning as rex and in the early byzantine period，when the byzantine ruler had the official title of imperator，it was used not only for the persian monarch，but for such as att and the kings of armenia and ethiopia，and sometimes，alternating with other designations，for the germanic rulers and even the leaders of the abasgi and zechi（r.helm，archiv für urkundenf.12（1932），383 f.，note 2，has very skilfully set out the evidence）.it was the byzantine emperor’s official adoption of the title of basileus that created the essential difference between rex and，for thetter now had the same meaning as imperator.
[56]on the co-emperor in byzantium cf.bury，constitution 12 ff.，and my arguments in kornemann，doppelprinzipat 166 ff.on the titles of the co-emperors cf.dolger，bz 33（1933），136 ff.，and ostrogorsky，avtokrator 107 ff.
[57]g.owsepian，die entstehungsgeschichte des monotheletismus，leipzig 1897;pargoire，l’eglise byzantine de 527α847（1905），157 ff.；duchesne，l’eglise au 6e siècle（1925），381 ff.；v.grumel，‘recherches sur l’histoire du monothélisme’，eo 27（1928），6-16，257-77，28（1929），272-82，29（1930），16-28;beck，kirche，292 ff.
[58]cf.c.becker，vom werden und wesen der imischen welt 1（1924）。
[59]cf.j.maspero，l’organisation militaire de l’egypte byzantine（1912），12 off.；m.gelzer，studien zur byzantinischen verwaltung agyptens（1909），82 ff.
[60]cf.h.manandean，‘les invasions arabes en arménie’，b 18（1948），163 ff.
[61]cf.kornemann，doppelprinzipat 162 f.
[62]nicephorus 27，。
[63]nicephorus 28.
[64]cf.john of nikiu，trans.zotenberg 565.
[65]nicephorus 29，.this is the first passage in which the word autocrator is used in the sense of sole ruler.cf.ostrogorsky，avtokrator 102.
[66]mansi 10，703 and also kkovskij，istorija 3，174.see also bréhier-aigrain 143 f.
[67]dolger，reg.220.
[68]cf.ostrogorsky，‘chronologie’31.see also kaestner，de imperio constantini 3（1907），27 f.，who has rightly observed that pyrrhus，whose sessor ascended the patriar插l throne in october，had not been deposed during the reign of heraclonas（niceph.31 f.），but simultaneously with the fall of martina and heraclonas（theoph.341 f.and john of nikiu）.kaestner，however，did not arrive at the obvious conclusion that the fall of heraclonas should not be ced at the end of november（theoph.341 length of reign given as‘six months’），but at the end of september，as symeon logothetes gives it（leo gram.156，15，length of reign‘four months’）.as brooks，bz 4（1895），440，note 2，points out，this would also agree with mansi 10，864，where theteran synod of october 649 took ce in the ninth year of constans 2。
[69]cf.brooks，‘who was constantinus pogonatus?’bz 17（1908），455-62，and the coins given in wroth，imp.byz.coins 1，p.xxx ff.
[70]the speech is given in theophanes 342，10-20;cf.also symeon log.，leo gram.157，6-15.
[71]cf.the weighty arguments of ch.diehl，‘le sénat et le peuple byzantin aux 7e and 8e siècles’，b 1（1924），201 ff.
[72]a.j.butler，the arab conquest of egypt（1902），194 ff.
[73]cf.h.manandean，‘les invasions arabes en arménie’，b 18（1948），177 ff.
[74]ording to theoph.p.346，9 f.，the emperor was saved by someone who 插nged clothes with him and thus enabled him to escape，while he died fighting the arabs in his ce.his saviour was one of the two sons of a binator（trumpeter，cf.kkovskij，istorija 3，207，note 1），and his heroic and adventurous deeds are described by theoph.p.345，10 ff.，where elements of a popr historical heroic epic seem to be woven into the ount.
[75]dolger，reg.230.
[76]theoph.347，.there seems no reason to doubt the uracy of theophanes’dates and put the campaign at an earlier date（stanojevic，vizantija i srbi 2，40 f.，215 f.）orter（kaestner，de imperio constantini 3，75）.it is clear that this campaign could only have taken ce after the disturbances in the caliphate had broken out，which makes it impossible to ept the statement of stanojevic who，in agreement with pancenko’s dating of the lead seal of bithynia（see below，p.130，note 4）puts the campaign in 649.but there is also no reason to follow kaestner in thinking that the campaign took ce after the formal peace with muawija（in the autumn of 659）because the outbreak of the arab troubles considerably eased the situation on the eastern frontier.it is true that elias nisib.（scriptores syri 7，64）puts the campaign in the year of the hijra 39（29 may 659-16 may 660），but even so elias，like theophanes，ces it before the peace with the arabs，which he wrongly assigns to the year of the hijra 42（after 26 april 662）。
</br>