Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 4 (1897).djvu/561

 APPENDIX 537 But the words sith novo Romanua rege are not there. B- a careful examination of the characters it raaj-, I think, be shown that the oracle ran : — Quintili mense si regnum stat in urbe nihil Geticum iam The last word reads atmct (]jossibl3-, by an anagrammatic mistake, mchud). 15. KOTRIGURS, UTURGURS, TETRAXITO GOTHS— (P. 344, 42G) It was natural enough for Gibbon to describe the peo])le of Zabergan who in- vaded the Illyric peninsula in a.d. 559 as Bulgarians. Victor Tonnennensis ad aim. .5G0 has the notice : Bulgares Thraciam pervadunt et uscjue ad Sycas Con- stantinopolin veniunt ; and it is clear that he refers to the same invasion which is described in detail by Agathias. Malalas, in his record of the event (p. 490 ; March a.d. .559), describes the invaders as oi OSi'ioi xal ol 2<cAaj3oi, Huns and Slavs (and his notice is copied bj- Theophanes, p. 5^33, ed. de Boor). But Agathias does not sj)eak of Bulgarians or Slavs ; in his history Zabergan is the chief of the Kotrigur Huns, whom we already knew from Procopius. In the Gothic War, B. 4, c. 4, 5, 18, Procojiius explains that the Kotrigurs dwell "on this side of the Maeotic Lake," the Uturgurs (who appear in Agathias as the Utigurs ' ) beyond it, on the east side of the Cimmerian Bosporus. The Don was the boundary between their territories. And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kotrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt that Kotrigurs, Utigurs, and Bulgarians belonged to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, — were, in fact, Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion. The close relation of kinship, and at the same time a clearly marked political distinction, between the Kotrigurs, Uturgms and Bidgarians is showm l)y the legends which represent (1) Kuturgur and Uturgur as the sons of the same father, who divided his kingdom (Proc. B. G. iv. 5), and (2) Kotragos as a son of Kuvrat, the ancestor of the Bulgarians (Nicejihorus Patriarch., Brev. p. 33, ed. de Boor ; Theophanes, p. 321, e(l. de Boor), along with the notice (ib.) that the Kotragoi near Lake Maeotis are 6mo<|)1'Aoi of the Bulgarians. But it is highly improbable that Kotrigur is another name for Bulgarian. It is far safer to keep tribes ai)art than to identify them. The Kotrigurs (as is clear from Procopius) abode between the Don and the Dnieper ; the Bul- garians, whose invasions of Thrace began in the end of the fifth centurj-, as we know from Ennodius and Marcellinvis, were probably settled nearer the Danube (in Moldavia and Bessarabia). Compare Jordanes, Getica, c. 37, p. 03, ed. Mommsen. We must therefore explain the notice of Victor Tonnennensis by the natural supposition that Bulgarians joined in the Kotrigur expedition ; and that Slavs, from the regions north of the Danube, also took })art in it, is stated b}- Mala- las. The previous dealings of Justinian with these Huns of the Dnieper and Don are recorded by Procopius (B. G. 4, 18, 19). He adopted the same principles of policy which were afterwards formulated into a system in the De Adniiniati-a- tioiic Imprrii of Constantine Porphyrogennetos. The danger to the Em])ire was from the Kotrigurs who were nearest to it ; and so Justinian cultivated friendly relations with the Uturgurs who wore farthest from it, gave them j-early jjrescnts, and endeavoured to stir up discord between the two peoples. In a.d. .550, a band of Kotrigurs, invoked by the Gepids against their enemies the Lombards, crossed the Danube and ravaged Imperial territory. Justinian incited Sandichl, the king of the LTturgurs, to invade the Kotrigur territory, where he wrought great destruction (? A.D. 551). The same jjolicy was re])eated after the invasion of Zabergan in a.d. .5.59 ; and Sandichl, having cai)tured their wives and children, I Priscus has Onogurs ; Theophylactus Unnugurs; Jordanes Hunugurs,