This article is about a junior Byzantine emperor that managed to be at the center of an alleged and very complex political scheme, the son of Emperor Basil, who was allegedly cuckolded by his co-ruler, Michael, with either a woman that possibly doesn't exist or Michael's alleged lover. A seemingly well-trained heir that was much loved by his father, over the other children, he died early and therefore fell to the wayside of history, and has largely become an obscure figure nevertheless intricately tied to the aforementioned conspiracy. Article has passed GAN and recently a MILHIST A-class review.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Yeah I tend not to be super strict on the licensing when it comes to works that are hundreds of years old and obviously public domain. (
t ·
c) buidhe18:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"His parentage is a matter of debate, but he is generally assumed to be the son of Byzantine Emperor Basil I..." Assumed by whom? Historians?
Done
Also, in that sentence, I don't think you need to say that Basil was the Byzantine Emperor, seeing that it was already made abundantly clear in the first sentence.
Done
"Constantine was made co-emperor by his father in c. January 868" The previous sentences have stated that Constantine's parentage is unknown, so this sentence is ambiguous. Maybe replace "his father" with one specific name.
Fixed
Is there an appropriate link for "Syria"?
Done
"As emperor, he served in several campaigns alongside his father... and accompanied him on military campaigns..." Repetition; please try to merge these sentences, seeing as they are about similar events.
Done
Add
WP:ALT to File:Solidus-Basil I with Constantine and Eudoxia-sb1703 (reverse).jpg
In the "Parentage" section, Emperor Michael is mentioned early on, but the hyperlink to his actual article appears further in the text, which is somewhat confusing to readers. Please link
Michael III upon first mention.
Done
"Historian Cyril Mango states his belief..." Add "the" before historian (
false title).
Done
"Judith Herrin, instead, argues a different date for the marriage of Basil and Eudokia..." Judith Herrin is introduced with little context, with the previous sentences implying that maybe she is also a historian. Maybe try "the British
archaeologist" or "the British
byzantinist", or something of that nature.
Done
"Historians Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher do not take a position in their 2007 work..." Watch out for false titles again.
Done
"Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia." -> "In his 1994 Ph.D. thesis, Tougher supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia." would be a phrasing that is less confusing.
Done
"...a tool to explain why, Leo, but not Constantine, is said to be hated by Basil, as Basil would therefore consider Constantine his true son." The use of the word "is" implies that Leo is still alive, when clearly he is not.
Done.
"...and that Michael does not seem to have viewed Leo in any paternal way, stating that "this in itself is telling"." I'm questioning the usage of the quotation. It feels out of place and personally, I did not gain a new undertsanding of the subject matter from reading it. I would remove it, but that's up to you.
I personally find it useful; I'm not opposed to removing it but I don't see any real reason to
"Constantine is thought to have received more direct education and attention from Basil, whereas his other brothers may have been accompanied by court eunuchs." Thought by whom?
If you do add the aforementioned link to
Coronation of the Byzantine emperor, remove the one currently at "Some historians date the coronation to 6 January 868...".
Done
"Historians Charles Previté-Orton and Werner Ohnsorge take the position..." False titles
Done
"Basil was severely effected by Constantine's death, and declared a period of mourning after this, possibly lasting up to six months." needs a citation.
This should be covered by Tougher, but I'll double check.
It is indeed covered by Tougher 1997 p.53; I've also added the ending date of the mourning from the source.
"and his first wife, Maria or second wife Eudokia Ingerina" - don't think that comma is needed there (or if it is then you need one after her name as well and also one before Eudokia's name to be consistent)
Done
"while others argue there is no concrete evidence" => "while others argue that there is no concrete evidence"
Done
"Constantine was the intended heir of Basil, and as such received much attention from him, and accompanied him on military campaigns" - think you can dispense with both those commas
Done
"another brother, Alexander (r. 912–913) was raised to co-emperor" - comma needed after the brackets to close the subordinate clause
Done
"which he did;" - I would change that semi-colon to a full stop. The sentence is very long and convoluted as it stands and the but after this can stand alone
Done.
"but admit either of the three are possible" => "but admit that either of the three are possible"
Done.
"many historians use an argument that Constantine is Maria's son" => "many historians use an argument that Constantine was Maria's son"
Done
"to explain why, Leo, but not Constantine," - comma before Leo's name is not needed
Done
"suggesting either Basil believed them both" => "suggesting that either Basil believed them both"
Done
"who he could not have known would be male" => "whom he could not have known would be male"
Done
"and is, therefore, the son of Maria" => "and was, therefore, the son of Maria"
Done
"Tougher argues that this engagement reflects that more of a child's engagement than a true marriage" => "Tougher argues that this engagement reflects more of a child's engagement than a true marriage" (I think)
Fixed.
"Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI and his son Constantine VII, as well as Joseph Genesius exclude" => "Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI and his son Constantine VII, as well as Joseph Genesius, exclude"
Done.
"Lean Basil and Eudokia" - is therefore a different way to phrase this? I thought at first glance that "Lean Basil" was a different person who was also called Basil and who was notable for being slim :-D
I stopped by with a view to closing but looking over the Parentage section alone I have several concerns, so I'm recusing coord duties to review and spotcheck sources:
I was a bit dubious about the prose and felt I needed to check the sources to ensure I didn't misrepresent them if I copyedited. This immediately led me to a couple of roadblocks when investigating the citation for His parentage is heavily disputed, although Byzantine emperor Basil I (r. 867–886) is generally accepted as his father. Basil had been born into a peasant family (Vasiliev p. 301): firstly, the link to Vasiliev's History of the Byzantine Empire takes me to Volume II of the work, whereas the page I was looking for is in the first volume; secondly, when I did find Volume I, I could find no mention of Constantine nor, explicitly, of Basil's peasant origins -- thus the citation appears to support none of the statements it covers.
Rare double screw-up on my part; made a note to cite the "generally accepted" bit to a battery of citations and then forgot; the peasant origin part was the only one I pulled from another article
Basil I, and apparently I decided against checking which of the two refs supported it; both now fixed.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, when I see that I ask myself to whom was Basil nominally the father? To contemporaries? Subjects? If by "nominally" we really mean "in name only" then I assume we're not talking about historians, who should be asking what are the facts (or at least the most likely assumptions). I'm not saying change it (not yet anyway), I just want to hear more of your take on it... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
22:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ian Rose: I just mean that (to contemporaries) he was seen as the father, and consequently to historians, he's the "nominal" father. He may not be the de facto father, but basically, everyone (historian and contemporary) agrees he was the de jure father; Basil certainly saw at least Constantine as his son.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum23:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To clarify "Basil certainly saw at least Constantine as his son"; there's a lot of discussion by Historians on if Basil truly saw others, such as Leo, as his son; opinions range from "yes, but they didn't really get along" to "no, and he hated him". Constantine was definitely loved by Basil and Basil seems to have been fond of Alexander, which seems to fit with a narrative that only those two were truly his sons (perhaps all too conveniently), whereas he seems to be more distant with Stephen, and perhaps outright disliked Leo.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum23:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Basil's predecessor, Michael, while married to Basil (Garland & Tougher) -- my reading of the source suggests that Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Michael III, and to have remained so even after marrying Basil might be more accurate (you don't need "Basil's predecessor" as Michael was introduced as emperor in the previous sentence).
Fixed.
The historian Cyril Mango states his belief that Constantine was the child of Basil and Maria, along with Anastasia -- supported by source, no action required.
a view shared by George Ostrogorsky -- supported by source, no action required.
Leo Grammaticus, a 10th-century historian, on the other hand, suggests that Constantine was the son of Michael and Eudokia -- could do without "on the other hand" but supported by source, no serious action required.
done.
The historians Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher do not take a position in their 2007 work but admit that either of the three are possible while leaning toward Basil as the father -- per the source I'd agree with the first bit but not sure about them leaning toward Basil as the father, I might've missed something so could you point out how you feel this is supported?
"For one, Constantine is referred to directly as Basil's son often "In 879, Basil’s eldest son Constantine died unexpectedly", and such things as "This undermines the argument that the birth of Leo was particularly significant. Further, it seems rather odd that Leo would have been the first child of Michael and Eudocia if they had been having an affair since Michael was a teenager." I read this as clearly leaning toward Basil, if not directly saying it must be him; originally I had it as "all three possible", so I am comfortable changing it back if this seems too close to original research.
@
Ian Rose: In light of rereading all three bits of the Tougher cites,(including Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher) I think I have read too much into various bits of the texts towards a "lean" Basil opinion; in light of a lack of explicit "this is what happened", I fear the current text brushes too close to original research; I will change them as appropriate. 1994 Tougher does note that he believes Eudokia was the mother, whereas 1997 Tougher only leans toward it (states that there is no reason not to believe it), but I now think lean Basil might constitute OR on my part, so I will change 1994 Tougher to Basil/Michael and Eudokia, 1997 Tougher to Basil/Michael and lean Eudokia, and 2007 to "all three possible". Apologies for making this so difficult, I think I was far too eager to make it simple.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Anti-Macedonian sources, such as Symeon Logothete, usually assume that Constantine was the son of Eudokia, and provide information regarding the alleged infidelity of Eudokia, and the arrangement between Michael and Basil -- I can only check Garland & Tougher here but they seem to support this statement.
I'll wait for your responses before I consider if it's necessary to ask you to re-check the whole article to ensure the rest of the referencing is spot-on, and then for me to do another spotcheck.
BTW, among my prose concerns was the number of times the term "argues" (or variants) appears in the Parentage section: 14. No problem using "argues" occasionally but there are other terms one can use in such instances: "contends" or "opines", for instance, or simply say "According to".
Tks for such prompt responses/actions, Iazyges. I'll peruse these changes and the rest of the article, perhaps copyediting along the way, and let you know any further thoughts. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
21:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi again, thanks for your responses above, I've copyedited Parentage based on that and also the remainder of the article, pls check that I haven't misinterpreted anything. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Great, my last query is re. the Parentages of the children table: do the question marks mean the source doesn't mention the person or persons in question? Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Mmm, I wonder if leaving it blank or just putting a dash would work better -- the question mark could be interpreted as "unknown", when it's really more like "not applicable"... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
00:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is about a junior Byzantine emperor that managed to be at the center of an alleged and very complex political scheme, the son of Emperor Basil, who was allegedly cuckolded by his co-ruler, Michael, with either a woman that possibly doesn't exist or Michael's alleged lover. A seemingly well-trained heir that was much loved by his father, over the other children, he died early and therefore fell to the wayside of history, and has largely become an obscure figure nevertheless intricately tied to the aforementioned conspiracy. Article has passed GAN and recently a MILHIST A-class review.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Yeah I tend not to be super strict on the licensing when it comes to works that are hundreds of years old and obviously public domain. (
t ·
c) buidhe18:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"His parentage is a matter of debate, but he is generally assumed to be the son of Byzantine Emperor Basil I..." Assumed by whom? Historians?
Done
Also, in that sentence, I don't think you need to say that Basil was the Byzantine Emperor, seeing that it was already made abundantly clear in the first sentence.
Done
"Constantine was made co-emperor by his father in c. January 868" The previous sentences have stated that Constantine's parentage is unknown, so this sentence is ambiguous. Maybe replace "his father" with one specific name.
Fixed
Is there an appropriate link for "Syria"?
Done
"As emperor, he served in several campaigns alongside his father... and accompanied him on military campaigns..." Repetition; please try to merge these sentences, seeing as they are about similar events.
Done
Add
WP:ALT to File:Solidus-Basil I with Constantine and Eudoxia-sb1703 (reverse).jpg
In the "Parentage" section, Emperor Michael is mentioned early on, but the hyperlink to his actual article appears further in the text, which is somewhat confusing to readers. Please link
Michael III upon first mention.
Done
"Historian Cyril Mango states his belief..." Add "the" before historian (
false title).
Done
"Judith Herrin, instead, argues a different date for the marriage of Basil and Eudokia..." Judith Herrin is introduced with little context, with the previous sentences implying that maybe she is also a historian. Maybe try "the British
archaeologist" or "the British
byzantinist", or something of that nature.
Done
"Historians Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher do not take a position in their 2007 work..." Watch out for false titles again.
Done
"Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia." -> "In his 1994 Ph.D. thesis, Tougher supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia." would be a phrasing that is less confusing.
Done
"...a tool to explain why, Leo, but not Constantine, is said to be hated by Basil, as Basil would therefore consider Constantine his true son." The use of the word "is" implies that Leo is still alive, when clearly he is not.
Done.
"...and that Michael does not seem to have viewed Leo in any paternal way, stating that "this in itself is telling"." I'm questioning the usage of the quotation. It feels out of place and personally, I did not gain a new undertsanding of the subject matter from reading it. I would remove it, but that's up to you.
I personally find it useful; I'm not opposed to removing it but I don't see any real reason to
"Constantine is thought to have received more direct education and attention from Basil, whereas his other brothers may have been accompanied by court eunuchs." Thought by whom?
If you do add the aforementioned link to
Coronation of the Byzantine emperor, remove the one currently at "Some historians date the coronation to 6 January 868...".
Done
"Historians Charles Previté-Orton and Werner Ohnsorge take the position..." False titles
Done
"Basil was severely effected by Constantine's death, and declared a period of mourning after this, possibly lasting up to six months." needs a citation.
This should be covered by Tougher, but I'll double check.
It is indeed covered by Tougher 1997 p.53; I've also added the ending date of the mourning from the source.
"and his first wife, Maria or second wife Eudokia Ingerina" - don't think that comma is needed there (or if it is then you need one after her name as well and also one before Eudokia's name to be consistent)
Done
"while others argue there is no concrete evidence" => "while others argue that there is no concrete evidence"
Done
"Constantine was the intended heir of Basil, and as such received much attention from him, and accompanied him on military campaigns" - think you can dispense with both those commas
Done
"another brother, Alexander (r. 912–913) was raised to co-emperor" - comma needed after the brackets to close the subordinate clause
Done
"which he did;" - I would change that semi-colon to a full stop. The sentence is very long and convoluted as it stands and the but after this can stand alone
Done.
"but admit either of the three are possible" => "but admit that either of the three are possible"
Done.
"many historians use an argument that Constantine is Maria's son" => "many historians use an argument that Constantine was Maria's son"
Done
"to explain why, Leo, but not Constantine," - comma before Leo's name is not needed
Done
"suggesting either Basil believed them both" => "suggesting that either Basil believed them both"
Done
"who he could not have known would be male" => "whom he could not have known would be male"
Done
"and is, therefore, the son of Maria" => "and was, therefore, the son of Maria"
Done
"Tougher argues that this engagement reflects that more of a child's engagement than a true marriage" => "Tougher argues that this engagement reflects more of a child's engagement than a true marriage" (I think)
Fixed.
"Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI and his son Constantine VII, as well as Joseph Genesius exclude" => "Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI and his son Constantine VII, as well as Joseph Genesius, exclude"
Done.
"Lean Basil and Eudokia" - is therefore a different way to phrase this? I thought at first glance that "Lean Basil" was a different person who was also called Basil and who was notable for being slim :-D
I stopped by with a view to closing but looking over the Parentage section alone I have several concerns, so I'm recusing coord duties to review and spotcheck sources:
I was a bit dubious about the prose and felt I needed to check the sources to ensure I didn't misrepresent them if I copyedited. This immediately led me to a couple of roadblocks when investigating the citation for His parentage is heavily disputed, although Byzantine emperor Basil I (r. 867–886) is generally accepted as his father. Basil had been born into a peasant family (Vasiliev p. 301): firstly, the link to Vasiliev's History of the Byzantine Empire takes me to Volume II of the work, whereas the page I was looking for is in the first volume; secondly, when I did find Volume I, I could find no mention of Constantine nor, explicitly, of Basil's peasant origins -- thus the citation appears to support none of the statements it covers.
Rare double screw-up on my part; made a note to cite the "generally accepted" bit to a battery of citations and then forgot; the peasant origin part was the only one I pulled from another article
Basil I, and apparently I decided against checking which of the two refs supported it; both now fixed.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, when I see that I ask myself to whom was Basil nominally the father? To contemporaries? Subjects? If by "nominally" we really mean "in name only" then I assume we're not talking about historians, who should be asking what are the facts (or at least the most likely assumptions). I'm not saying change it (not yet anyway), I just want to hear more of your take on it... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
22:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ian Rose: I just mean that (to contemporaries) he was seen as the father, and consequently to historians, he's the "nominal" father. He may not be the de facto father, but basically, everyone (historian and contemporary) agrees he was the de jure father; Basil certainly saw at least Constantine as his son.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum23:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To clarify "Basil certainly saw at least Constantine as his son"; there's a lot of discussion by Historians on if Basil truly saw others, such as Leo, as his son; opinions range from "yes, but they didn't really get along" to "no, and he hated him". Constantine was definitely loved by Basil and Basil seems to have been fond of Alexander, which seems to fit with a narrative that only those two were truly his sons (perhaps all too conveniently), whereas he seems to be more distant with Stephen, and perhaps outright disliked Leo.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum23:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Basil's predecessor, Michael, while married to Basil (Garland & Tougher) -- my reading of the source suggests that Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Michael III, and to have remained so even after marrying Basil might be more accurate (you don't need "Basil's predecessor" as Michael was introduced as emperor in the previous sentence).
Fixed.
The historian Cyril Mango states his belief that Constantine was the child of Basil and Maria, along with Anastasia -- supported by source, no action required.
a view shared by George Ostrogorsky -- supported by source, no action required.
Leo Grammaticus, a 10th-century historian, on the other hand, suggests that Constantine was the son of Michael and Eudokia -- could do without "on the other hand" but supported by source, no serious action required.
done.
The historians Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher do not take a position in their 2007 work but admit that either of the three are possible while leaning toward Basil as the father -- per the source I'd agree with the first bit but not sure about them leaning toward Basil as the father, I might've missed something so could you point out how you feel this is supported?
"For one, Constantine is referred to directly as Basil's son often "In 879, Basil’s eldest son Constantine died unexpectedly", and such things as "This undermines the argument that the birth of Leo was particularly significant. Further, it seems rather odd that Leo would have been the first child of Michael and Eudocia if they had been having an affair since Michael was a teenager." I read this as clearly leaning toward Basil, if not directly saying it must be him; originally I had it as "all three possible", so I am comfortable changing it back if this seems too close to original research.
@
Ian Rose: In light of rereading all three bits of the Tougher cites,(including Lynda Garland and Shaun Tougher) I think I have read too much into various bits of the texts towards a "lean" Basil opinion; in light of a lack of explicit "this is what happened", I fear the current text brushes too close to original research; I will change them as appropriate. 1994 Tougher does note that he believes Eudokia was the mother, whereas 1997 Tougher only leans toward it (states that there is no reason not to believe it), but I now think lean Basil might constitute OR on my part, so I will change 1994 Tougher to Basil/Michael and Eudokia, 1997 Tougher to Basil/Michael and lean Eudokia, and 2007 to "all three possible". Apologies for making this so difficult, I think I was far too eager to make it simple.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Anti-Macedonian sources, such as Symeon Logothete, usually assume that Constantine was the son of Eudokia, and provide information regarding the alleged infidelity of Eudokia, and the arrangement between Michael and Basil -- I can only check Garland & Tougher here but they seem to support this statement.
I'll wait for your responses before I consider if it's necessary to ask you to re-check the whole article to ensure the rest of the referencing is spot-on, and then for me to do another spotcheck.
BTW, among my prose concerns was the number of times the term "argues" (or variants) appears in the Parentage section: 14. No problem using "argues" occasionally but there are other terms one can use in such instances: "contends" or "opines", for instance, or simply say "According to".
Tks for such prompt responses/actions, Iazyges. I'll peruse these changes and the rest of the article, perhaps copyediting along the way, and let you know any further thoughts. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
21:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi again, thanks for your responses above, I've copyedited Parentage based on that and also the remainder of the article, pls check that I haven't misinterpreted anything. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Great, my last query is re. the Parentages of the children table: do the question marks mean the source doesn't mention the person or persons in question? Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Mmm, I wonder if leaving it blank or just putting a dash would work better -- the question mark could be interpreted as "unknown", when it's really more like "not applicable"... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
00:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply