Studies on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire

Peter Charanis

Studies on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire Collected Studies

With a preface by Speros Vryonis Jr.

VARIORUM REPRINTS London 1972

ISBN 0 902089 25 0

Published in Great Britain by VARIORUM REPRINTS 21a Pembridge Mews London W11 3EQ Printed in Switzerland by REDA SA

1225 Chine-Bourg Geneva

VARIORUM REPRINT CS8

CONTENTS

Author's preface Introduction I

Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine

1-19

Empire Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Main Papers, XIV. Oxford, 1966.

Il

Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century

25-44

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XIII. Washington, 1959.

III

The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire

140-154

Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.III, No.2. Mouton & Co. The Hague, 1961.

IV

Some Remarks on the Changes in Byzantium in the Seventh Century

71-76

Recueil des travaux de 1lnstitut d'Etudes byzantines, VIII, I (Melanges G. Ostrogorsky, 1). Belgrade, 1963. V

The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

196-240

Byzantinoslavica, XXII. Prague, 1961.

VI

A Note on the Ethnic Origin of the Emperor Maurice

412-417

Byzantion, T. XXXV. Bruxelles, 1965.

VII

The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century

69-83

Byzantion, T. XVIII (1946-48). Bruxelles, 1948.

VIII

On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century Studies offered in Honour of St. Kyriakides (Prosphora Eis Stilpona P. Kyriakiden). Thessalonica, 1953.

140-147

IX

The Jews in the Byzantine Empire under the First

75-77

Palaeologi Speculum, Vol. XXII, No.1, (1947). The Mediaeval Academy of A merica.

X

The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece

141-166

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, V. Washington, 1950. XI

On the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece during the Middle Ages

254-258

Byzantinoslavica, X. Prague, 1949.

XII

The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History of Athens and Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries

163-172

Historia. Zeitschrift fur alte Geschichte, Band IV. Heft 2/3, 1955.

XIII

Nicephorus 1, The Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.D.)

75-92

Byzantina-Metabyzantina, VoLI, Part I. New York, 1946.

XIV

On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages

74-86

The American Historical Review, VoLLII, No.l, Washington, 1946.

XV

On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and its Recapture by the Byzantines

343-350

Speculum, VoLXXVII, No.3, (1952). The Mediaeval Academy of America.

XVI

On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Band 46. Munich, 1953.

91-103

XVII

The Term `Helladikoi' in Byzantine Texts of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Centuries

615-620

Epeteris Byzantinon Spoudon, 23. Athens, 1953.

XVIII

Hellas in the Greek Sources of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Centuries

161-176

Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr., edited by Kurt Weitzmann. Princeton, New Jersey, 1955.

XIX

Graecia in Isidore of Seville

2-25

Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Band 64. Munich, 1971.

XX

Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities and their Ethnic Effects on the Regions around Thessalonica

229-247

Balkan Studies, VoLXI, No.2. Thessalonica, 1970,

XXI

Observations on the History of Greece during the

1-34

Early Middle Ages Balkan Studies, VoLXI, No.1. Thessalonica, 1970.

XXII

How Greek was the Byzantine Empire? Bucknell Review, VoLXI, No.3. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 1963.

Index

This volume contains a total of 364 pages

101-116

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

Chronologically the first of these studies was published in 1946; the last in 1971. Each one of them was written to stand by itself and as a consequence there is, in the case of a few, some repetition, but this repetition does not affect

the essentials of any one of them. When written there was much in them, particularly in those which relate to the problem of the Slavic settlements in Greece proper, which was controversial, but the views which they express are now generally accepted. Paul Lemerle's reservation on my position, which I based on the Chronicle of Monemvasia, to the effect that the Slavs established themselves in the Peloponnesus as early as the reign of Maurice, in view of a recent publication, sponsored by Lemerle himself, which puts the foundation of Monemvasia during the reign of Maurice, is no longer tenable. [Peter Schreiner,

"Note sur la fondation de Monemvasie en 582-583", Travaux et Memoires, 4 (1970), 471-475.] There is very little in these studies which I would not hold were I writing them today. On one important matter, however, I have changed my mind. I think now, in view of the oddness of the number of Slavs settled in Asia Minor by Constantine V given by one of the chroniclers, that that number should be taken at its face value, instead of trying to reduce it as I did in Study VII, a study which in other respects remains solid. Two further observations: the term Slavesiani was most probably formed [Cf. G. Soulis in Epiteris Byzantinon

Spoudon, 19 (1949), 339]by analogy with Thracesiani, Carabisiani, and as a consequence does not derive from Slavisia as I had thought; the Gypsies, originally from India, came to Byzantium from Armenia and as a consequence my view that they were the descendants of the Zatt does not hold. [G. Soulis, "The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 15 (1961)

143ff.] There is also a misprint which I would like to call to the reader's attention. On page 240, line 16 of Study XX one should read 658 and not 568 as is there stated. The confused setting of lines 19-20 on page 219 of Study V can be easily corrected by eliminating: "hence his birth at Lakapa (Laqabin), a place south of Melitene"_

I should like to acknowledge with thanks the kindness of journals and institutions which granted permission for the reproduction of these studies in this volume. These include: the Cambridge University Press; Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection; l'Institut d'Etudes byzantines (Belgrad); the Medieval Academy of America; the Princeton University Press, and the Society for the Promotion of Macedonian Studies. Also the editors of the American Historical Review, the Bucknell Review, Byzantina-Metabyzantina, ByzantinoSlavica, Byzantion, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Epiteris Byzantinon Spoudon, Historia, and the Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies.

New Brunswick, N.J. January 1972

PETER CHARANIS

INTRODUCTION

Not the least of the fascinations which the Byzantine Empire has held for historians is its remarkable variety. It lies in the tradition of the earlier Macedonian and Roman and of the later Ottoman empires. As a multinational, polyglot, multisectarian political entity Byzantium ruled over Greeks, Latins, Slavs, Vlachs, Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Georgians, Lazes, Albanians, Patzinaks, Cumans, Jews, Gypsies, Berbers, many of whom preserved their languages and among them there existed a variety of religious affiliations: pagan, Orthodox,

Catholic, Monophysite, Islamic, Judaic, not to mention the bewildering variety of heresies from each group. The study of Byzantine demography has, conse-

quently, been one of the most important aspects in the development of Byzantinology. Byzantinists have concerned themselves with the identification

of ethnic-religious groups, the nature of their own particular culture, their numerical extent, the imperial policies of colonization with various ethnic groups, and the nature and extent of cultural interaction among various groups and particularly the interaction of their cultures with the formal culture of the imperial establishment which propounded religious Orthodoxy in the form of the seven ecumenical councils and utilized Greek as the language of administration

and in its formal cultural expressions. The study of Byzantine demography has encountered two basic obstacles, obstacles which are to be seen in historical investigations of the ethnic aspects of other multinational empires such as those of the Ottomans, Romanovs, and Hapsburgs. The first of these obstacles which has affected the study of Byzantine pluralistic society is ultimately of a political nature and arose from the onset of modern nationalism and the irredentist aspirations of the Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs, Albanians, Rumanians,'and Armenians (formerly subjects of the Ottomans) who after liberation emerged as competitors for various lands once ruled by the Turks. Thus history was seized as a tool to be utilized in support of national aspirations. This warping of history to political ends has not remained limited exclusively to the national historians of the Balkans, for it has enjoyed a substantial tradition among a number of historians from central and northern European countries who also had certain political and emotional predispositions in regard to the history of southeast Europe. As scholarship began to refine the study of the Byzantine phenomenon, and particularly as the .Gibbon-inspired odium was dispelled and replaced by a vision of Byzantium as a civilizing force, the various national historians of the Balkans began to vie in claiming various shares of the Byzantine accomplishment as their ethnic contribution.

The second obstacle to the study of Byzantine demography is a direct result of the general development in European historiography during the latter half of the nineteenth century. The appearance of Gobineau's brilliantly written Inegalite des races humaines in 1853 established new canons for the interpretation of world history, canons which employed the test of `purity of

blood' or the `proper mixture of blood', and in which the `Nordic race' and `Nordic blood' were the determinants in politico-cultural greatness and creativity.

For over two generations scholars, students, and unfortunately politicians and

legislators, imbibed this racist or biological interpretation of history. He wrote in the introductory chapter to his famous work: "And when I have shown by examples that great peoples, at the moment of their death, have only a very small and insignificant share in the blood of the founders, into whose inheritance they come, I shall thereby have explained clearly enough how it is possible for civilizations

to fall - the reason being that they

are no longer in the same hands."

[The Inequality of Human Races, tr. A. Collins (London, 1915), 26.] Gobineau's fallacious principles were applied to history throughout Europe, America and the Near East, wherever there were to be found practitioners of the `critical' historiography evolved by the West. Consequently many Greek, Bulgar, Slav, and Turkish scholars, along with numerous western scholars, have approached Byzantine demography, and argued their own ethnic claims, in terms of the canons of Gobineau: purity of blood.

It is as a result of these two baneful influences, political preoccupation and racist conceptions, that one of the most important and fascinating aspects of Byzantium, its demographic composition, has been discussed in largely unintelligible and meaningless terms. Indeed Byzantine demography has become the

Homeric question of Byzantine studies by dint of the voluminous outpouring on the subject. Unfortunately the legacy of Gobineau continues to lie heavy on this field, much as that of Gibbon at an earlier period. As late as 1963, in a lecture delivered at the University of Cincinnati, one of the most distinguished Byzantinists of our era made the following pronouncement: "Well, then: as regards the fifteenth, and subsequently the nine-

teenth, century claim to historical, that is, racial continuity with ancient times in the Greek peninsula: no educated person nowadays would maintain this claim in the realm of sober, historical fact. The failure of the Hellenes to survive as a recognisable racial group in the later Roman empire mattered the less since, after the conquest of Greece by Alexander, its people themselves evinced a striking, and continuously increasing, decline in the creative genius which had characterised them during the past four and a half centuries. They now became, over a wide area of the Mediterranean and the Near East, the interpreters and codifiers of their ancestors. It may well be that the chief reason for this decline lies in the region of biology rather than of politics: I mean, in a final disequilibrium between the two racial stocks, Nordic and Mediterranean, whose harmonious

fusion had till then produced so much of glory and nobility, of creative artistry and intellectual majesty." [R. Jenkins, Byzantium and Byzantinism (Cincinnati, 1963), 22.1

The Gobineau stereotype, purity of blood (or the right mixture), culture, and ethnic affiliation, is immediately evident, though the writings of the two men are separated by over a century. The collection and printing in one volume of Peter Charanis' articles on Byzantine demography mark an important landmark in the study of the subject. His studies are characterized by insight, objectivity, and an impeccable fidelity to the primary sources. Because of the paucity and difficulty of the sources on demography their critical evaluation has assumed a dominating position in demographic scholarship. Charanis, in a life time of study, has subjected the written records, numismatics, and toponymy to an intense and searching analysis, and in his synthesis has remained bound to primary sources, refusing to abandon them in the face of seductive secondary speculations. It is this austerity of historical method and rich knowledge of the primary historical monuments which have made of the author the foremost authority on Byzantine demography, and have enabled him to remain free of the passionate pronouncements of nationalist and racist historians. The present volume constitutes the basic study of

Byzantine demography and will serve as the foundation and sure guide for further investigation of the subject.

SPEROS VRYONIS, Jr.

I

Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empires

IN i9r t a general history of the Byzantine empire appeared in England, written by Edward Foord. It was a small book, characterized by a straightforward narrative simply told, with no attempt at an analysis of the institutions of the empire or of the various problems associated with its historical evolution. It is a book which no scholar today will use as a reference. But the ordinary reader may still read it with profit, for the general narrative is on the whole sound and the spirit which impregnates it is one of sympathy for the empire. Foord's critical observations on the image of the Byzantine empire created by such men as Voltaire, Gibbon, and Lecky are well taken.

What is particularly interesting in Foord's book, however, at least in so far as the present study is concerned, is the series of tables which he appended.2 The peculiarity about these tables is this: in three of them we are given the area in square miles of the empire at various epochs of its existence; in only one are we given an estimate of its population. This is at the end of the reign of Theodosius I (395), when, according to Foord, the combined population of the provinces which came to form the eastern empire numbered (on estimate) 65,ooo,ooo souls. In giving this figure Foord gives no reference to his sources nor does he explain the basis of his calculations. The omission is serious, but what immediately comes to one's mind is not so much this omission as the question, why was it that he gave a figure for the population of the empire in 395 and failed to do so for the other periods for which he gave

the area of the empire in square miles. The answer, I think, is simple: he had no sources and no basis for making a calculation himself.

Fifty-five years have elapsed since the appearance of Foord's book and, despite the tremendous progress we have made in our knowledge of Byzantium, we are hardly any further advanced than he was. The problem, however, has not remained without some investigation. W. G. Holmes in the second edition of his Age of ,Justinian examined the question and came to the conclusion that the population of the empire during the reign of Anastasius numbered fifty-six million. His reasoning for so concluding, however, has no real scientific value. He urges, and gives as evidence the existence of a number of large cities, that the regions which constituted

the empire toward the end of the sixth century were much more flourishing and 'considerably more, perhaps even double, as populous' as the same regions at the ' These observations do not include Italy and chronologically do not extend, except incidentally, much beyond the end of the twelfth century. ' Edward Foord, The Byzantine Empire: The Rearguard of European Civilization (London, 19, 1), Tables I and III.

I 2

P. CHARANIS

beginning of the twentieth century, when, according to him, they had a population of twenty-eight million.' The first really systematic attempt, however, to examine the question of the size of the population of the Byzantine empire was made by A. Andreades. This was in the form of a paper which he delivered at the Fourth International Congress of Byzantine Studies held in Sofia, published in 1935 .2 But all that Andreades did in this paper was to pose the problem, expose its difficulties, and analyse the various factors which affected favourably or unfavourably the size of the population of the empire. Except for the population of Constantinople to which he had previously devoted a monograph he gives no figures.

About the same time that Andreades published his paper, E. Stein, then in the United States, prepared a series of lectures on the history and institutions of the Byzantine empire which he intended to deliver during the academic year 1935-6But owing to the illness of the author which occurred in 1936, the lectures were not delivered. However, after the war the text which Stein had prepared was revised

by G. G. Garitte and J. R. Palanque and was published in Traditio. Stein in this work gives actual figures of what he thought the size of the population of the empire

was at certain periods of its existence: 26 million during the fourth century (the eastern and Balkan provinces only); 30 million under Justinian; 20 million during the first half of the eleventh century; Io to 12 million during the period of the Comneni and about 5 million during the reign of Michael VIII Palaeologus.3 Stein gives no references, nor does he discuss the basis of his calculations. Hence, if there is any validity in these figures, this validity must rest on the profound erudi-

tion of the author, an erudition, however, which in its profundity did not extend much beyond the end of the sixth century. Another scholar by no means as well versed in the history of the Byzantine empire as Stein has also given some figures. J. C. Russell in his monograph on ancient and medieval population offers the following figures of the size of the population of the

eastern empire; 24 million in the year 350; Ig million in 600; about 11 million in 800; 15 million in Iooo; and about 7 million in i2oo.4 Russell's work is a serious and comprehensive study, but there is reason to doubt its conclusions. The figures which he gives are based, in the final analysis, on the assumption that the principal city of a region constituted approximately one and a half per cent of its population. But, apart from the arbitrariness of this assumption, there is also this problem: if the estimate of the population of the city involved is wrong, then the estimate of the population of the region will also prove to be wrong. To give an example: he estimates the population of Edessa at the time of the Crusades at 24,000. He considers Edessa as the second ranking city in Syria and relates its population, according to

another formula which he worked out, to the population of Antioch, the first ranking city of the region. The population of Antioch he fixes at 40,600, and so 1 W. G. Holmes, The Age of Justinian and Theodora, 2nd ed. (London, 1912), i, p. 237. In note 2 on the same page Holmes writes: 'Taking all things into consideration, to give a hundred

millions to the countries forming the Eastern Empire, in their palmy days, might not be an overestimate.' ' A. Andreades, 'La population de l'Empire byzantin', Bulletin de t'Institut archeologique bulgare, ix (Sofia, 1935), PP. 117-z6,

' E. Stein, 'Introduction a l'histoire et aux institutions byzantines', Traditio, vii (1949-

1951), P- 154.

' J. C. Russell, Late, Ancient and Medieval Population (= Transactions of the American

Philosophical Society, N.S. xlviii, Part 3; Philadelphia, 1958), p. 148.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

3

comes to the conclusion that Syria at the time of the Crusades had a population of about 2.7 million.' But according to information recently cited by Vryonis2 and whose accuracy can hardly be doubted, the population of Edessa about this time numbered 36,000. If we take this figure as the actual population of Edessa and use the formula of calculation which the author worked out, we will get for Antioch a population of just over 6o,ooo and for Syria as a whole a figure of about 4 million, 1.3 million more than the figure given by Russell. Accordingly, in the figures given by Russell there is indeed much room for doubt. These are, as far as I know, the only attempts made to arrive at figures of the population of the empire at some of the periods of its existence. Boak's work, while giving some figures of the population of the empire at the time of Constantine, deals essentially with the west and is concerned primarily with the problem of manpower shortage, which he thinks was brought about by a decline in population.3 A. H. M. Jones in his monumental work which covers the period from z84 to 6oz delves into the matter of population, but with the exceptions of Rome, Constantinople, Alexan-

dria, and Antioch gives no figures.4 And my own sketch, which discusses the problem in the thirteenth century, does no more than to point out that there was a decline. The figures which it gives relate to a few cities, including Constantinople.5

In one of his studies A. Andreades stated that on matters relating to the demography of the empire the sources are lacking. The statement has been challenged by D. Jacoby who has himself devoted two important works to the problem, one relating to the question of the size of the population of Constantinople and the other to the population of the countryside for the period covered by the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries.s In the latter work Jacoby seems to have taken his cue from

Dolger, who, in the introduction to his edition of certain documents, praktika, relating to the monastery of Iveron, discussed among other things certain rural demographic phenomena which these documents reveal.' What Dolger pointed out

in particular was that in certain villages, as, for instance, Gomatou in western Macedonia, certain conditions in the population after 1301 may be noticed: there is some decline in the number of households; new households make their appearance; but while some of the old ones disappeared, others continued to exist. And so, despite

the fluidity in the agrarian population in the first half of the fourteenth century, caused by the general disturbance which characterized the period, there was nevertheless a certain degree of stability in the rural population of the empire. Jacoby's study, based on the same kind of documents, i.e. praktika and others of a similar nature, is more extensive and covers more villages but comes pretty much to the same conclusions. On the matter of numbers, of the twelve villages which Jacoby Ibid., p. tot. Speros Vryonis, 'Problems in the History of Byzantine Anatolia', Ankara Univ. D. T. C. Fahultesi Tarih Arayttrmalars Dergisi, Cilt 1. (1963), p. 119, n. 21.

'A. E. R. Boak, Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West (Ann Arbor, 1955), PP. 5-6. On Boak's book see the critical review by M. I. Finley, Journal of Roman Studies, xlviii (1958), pp. 156-64. 'A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602 (Oxford, 1964), ii, PP. 1040-45.

s P. Charanis, 'A Note on the Population and Cities of the Byzantine Empire in the Thir-

teenth Century', The Joshua Starr Memorial Volume (New York, 1953), PP. 135-48.

' D. Jacoby, 'Phinomenes de demographic rurale k Byzance aux XIIIe, XIVI et XVI sitcles', Etudes Rurales, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Sorbonne), VII Section (5-6) (1962), pp. 16t-86.

' F. Dolger, 'Sechs byzantinische Praktika des 14. Jahrhunderts fur das Athoskloster

Iberon', Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klosse. Neue Folge, xaviii (1949), pp. 23-30.

H

4 studied only four seem to show a slight increase in population as between an earlier and a later date. The general picture is that of decline. The documentation used by Dolger and Jacoby has thus been made to yield some rather interesting results. Knowing the nature of this documentation, however, and

its fragmentary condition, it is hardly possible to expect that it can be made to produce any figures as to what the total rural population of the empire may have been at any one time during the period over which this documentation extends. As for the period not covered by this documentation, i.e. the period before the middle of the eleventh century, the task of arriving at any figure for the rural population of the empire is absolutely hopeless. The social and economic structure of the Byzantine empire was predominately agrarian, but it was never just a society of villages. Numerous agglomerations of people, which, whatever their character, we may call cities, existed throughout the long history of the empire. The Byzantine city has recently become the subject of considerable discussion, but this discussion has been centred around two points: (i) the form and evolution of the Byzantine city' and (2) the question as to whether the Byzantine city did not cease to exist during the critical period in the history of the empire covered by the seventh and eighth centuries.' On the matter of population only Constantinople has been the subject of systematic discussion. We need not go here into details with reference to the sources on the question of the size of the population of Constantinople. They have been repeatedly examined. Andreades, who was the first to study the problem systematically, at one time came to the conclusion that from the fourth to the twelfth century the population of the Byzantine capital must have rarely fallen below 500,000 souls, and at times must have approached the 8oo,ooo or i,ooo,ooo mark.' Subsequently, however, he revised his figures. In a study published posthumously, he wrote, 'The population of Constantinople in its palmy days cannot have been under 500,000 souls and, occasionally perhaps, was in excess of that figure'.4 In making the last statement Andreades

was perhaps influenced by E. Stein who had in the meantime re-examined the problem and come to the conclusion that the population of Constantinople in the first quarter of the fifth century was probably in the neighbourhood of 250,000, but by the beginning of the reign of Justinian it must have risen to well over 500,000, very close indeed to 6oo,ooo and perhaps more than this.' But the same Stein some years later, in a more general work to which reference has already been made, expressed the view that from the period of Justinian to 1204, when Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders, its population was without doubt never inferior to 500,000 and may have at times reached the figure of 9oo,ooo.' See, for instance, the important study by Ernst Kirsten, 'Die byzantinische Stadt',

Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress (Munich, 1958), pp. 1-48. Also the discussion of this paper where additional bibliographical references are given: DiskussionsBeitrdge zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress (Munich, 1961), pp. 75-102. ' George Ostrogorsky, 'Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xiii (t959), PP. 45-66. The problem of town and village was one of the subjects which was given full discussion at the twelfth international Congress held in Ochrida, Yugoslavia, in 1961: Actes du XII Congres International d'Etudes Byzantines (Belgrade, 1963), i, pp. 1-44, 275-98. Some Russian scholars hold that the city in the Byzantine empire disappeared in the course of the seventh and eighth centuries, but this is not the generally accepted view.

' A. Andreades, 'De Is population de Constantinople sous leg empereurs byzantins', Metron, vol. i, no. z (1920), pp. 69-119. This is a revised and enlarged article which was published in Greek in 1917, and republished in his Oeuvres, i (Athens, 1938), PP- 387-421. In Byzantium, ed. N. H. Baynes and H. St. L. B. Moss (Oxford, 1948), p. 53 ' Ernst Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, i (1959), pp. 128, 480, n. 194.

"Introduction Introduction k l'histoire ...' (seep. 2, n. 3), p. 154.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

5

Since Stein, if we except two or three incidental notices,' there have been two other systematic re-examinations of the question, one by J. C. Russell and the other

by D. Jacoby. Russell puts the population of Constantinople at the height of its prosperity (the reign of Justinian before 541) at no more than 192,000,2 and Jacoby

thinks that it did not exceed 375,000, or at the most 400,000. Russell's figure is somewhat vitiated by calculations essentially hypothetical in nature and also by the

fact that he interprets the 8,ooo,ooo measuring units of grain, reported in Edict xnu, c. 8 of Justinian as the quantity which Egypt was required to furnish annually to Constantinople, to have been modii. To be sure the measuring unit in this instance is left out, but, as elsewhere in the same edict (c. 6) the artaba, a unit roughly three times as large as the modius, is specifically stated as the measuring unit, the artaba must have been meant. Now 8,000,000 artabae were enough to feed considerably more than 500,000 persons, indeed, according to Russell himself, 670,000. Jacoby's

study, a piece of work most cautiously done,3 takes into account and examines minutely all the material that there is, but in the final analysis what constitutes the basis of its calculations is the area of the city and the density of the population per hectare. This would work perfectly if the area and the density of the population per hectare were both known, but in the case before us, while the area given may be accepted as fairly accurate, the density is conjectural, based on elements - the existence in Constantinople of large public buildings, squares, gardens, open cisterns, and analogies with western medieval towns of a later period and with

Ottoman Constantinople - whose significance in determining the density of population per hectare of Byzantine Constantinople is itself conjectural. Russell, using the same approach, comes out with entirely different figures from those given by Jacoby. Both Russell and Jacoby, in giving their estimates, do not take seriously the testimony of Procopius as to the number of victims of the pestilence which hit Constantinople in 541. Procopius, an eye-witness to the outbreak, says that the greatest virulence of the disease lasted three months, with between 5,000 and 10,000 and at times more dying each day.4 If, taking this information, we strike an average ' R. S. Lopez puts the population of Constantinople between Heraclius and Leo VI (d. 912) at no more than ioo,ooo. In arriving at this figure Lopez says that he used his 'own judgment and the preliminary data collected by [his] student John Teall': 'East and West in the Early Middle Ages, Economic Relations', Relationi del X Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiche, iii (Florence, 1955), p. 120, and note i. When Lopez wrote this article, Teall had not yet published his work. It appeared in 1959: John L. Teall, 'The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xiii (1959). He estimates the population of Constantinople as follows: 'probably 500,ooo souls within the walls' in about 400 (p. 92); the disasters, ushered in by the reign of Heraclius, 'probably all but halved the population of Constantinople and its suburbs' (p. xoo); 250,000 before the plague of 747 (pp. 104-5); attained probably its maximum population, i.e. over Soo,ooo, in the tenth century (p. io6 et seq.). On page 134 Teall justifies his figures, but his references pertain only to the fifth century. ' Russell, op. cit., p. 66: about 147,880 as of the middle of the fifth century; p. 93: 'the city would have had about 192,000 persons at its height under Justinian'. ' D. Jacoby, 'La population de Constantinople 6 l'epoque byzantine: un probl6me de demographic urbaine', Byzantion, xxxi (1961), pp. 81-109. For figures, pp. 107-8. ' Procopius, 11. xxxociu. 1-3; for figures given by John of Ephesus, J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1923), ii, pp. 64-65. Further outbreaks of the pestilence took place in 555, 558, 56o-61, 585 and 6o8. Agathias (Historia, Bonn ed., p. 297), describing the outbreak of 558, says that tens of thousands died in Constantinople. Also Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, ed. by J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), pp. 177-9. Writing about the pestilence of 585, a late oriental writer says that it carried away 400,000 of its inhabitants: Agapius de Menbidj, Histoire Universelle, tr. by A. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, viii (Paris, 1912),

P 439. This figure is, of course, an exaggeration, but it does indicate a populous city at the end of the sixth century. On the plague of the sixth century, see further John L. Teall, 'The

I 6

of 7,500 victims daily, this would mean that during the three months that the disease

was at its greatest virulence something like 675,000 persons died. But even if, allowing for exaggeration, we reduce this figure by two thirds, we are still left with 225,000 victims. This figure is not at all impossible, if we assume, as we shall have to assume, a population larger than either Russell or Jacoby are willing to admit. How much larger is, of course, difficult to say, but Stein's estimate of close to 60o,oo0 at the beginning of the reign of Justinian is, for the reasons he gives, very reasonable indeed. The poet Ausonius,r writing sometime after 379, described twenty notable cities of the Roman world and ranked Constantinople immediately after Rome and ahead

of Alexandria and Antioch. By the end of the first quarter of the fifth century, according to another writer of the period, Constantinople outstripped Rome both in wealth and numbers2 and, of course, stayed ahead of Alexandria and Antioch, ranked by Ausonius about even. Beloch3 has estimated the population of Alexandria in the period of Augustus at about 500,000 including slaves, but by the middle of the

third century, as the result of the civil wars and pestilence, if we are to believe Eusebius, it diminished considerably.4 Russell estimates the population of Alexandria at one period, after a documents somewhat similar to the Notitia of Constantinople, at 215,877 and for a later period at 121,948.6 Neither period, because of the nature of the document, can be given chronological precision but in both cases it is

before the end of the third century. Russell, however, is notoriously low in his estimates, and besides this there is a certain arbitrariness in the way he interprets this document. In any event before the end of the fourth century Alexandria had fallen behind Constantinople, and, if we are to believe Ausonius, was no larger than

Antioch. Now, the population of Antioch towards the end of the fourth century probably did not exceed 2oo,ooo. Libanius says that it numbered 150,ooo anthropoi, while John Chrysostom in one of his sermons, in a passage which has been variously

interpreted, speaks of its demos as numbering 200,000.7 Alexandria then, at the beginning of the fifth century, must be given a population of about 200,000. But it is quite possible that both cities grew in population in the course of the fifth century. The statement of Malalas that in the earthquake which hit Antioch in 526, 250,000 persons perished (Procopius puts this figure at 300,000) is no doubt an exaggeration, but does indicate a populous city. Another earthquake in 528, the sack of the city in 540 by Chosroes who carried many of its citizens away to found another Antioch Barbarians in Justinian's Armies', Speculum, xl (1965), pp. 3o5-7. Teall minimizes the figures

given by the historians, but cites official documents which show the destructiveness of the pestilence of 541-3. 1 Ordo Urbium Nobilium, consulted in the edition of the works of Ausonius, Loeb Classical Library, vol. i (London, 1961). I Sozomen, cxiii. J. Beloch, The Bevolkerung dergriechisch-rimischen Welt (Leipzig, 1886), p. 479-

4 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Loeb Classical Library, London, 1932), ii, p. 183. Cf.

Allan Chester Johnson, Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian (Baltimore, 1936), P. 235.

" P. M. Fraser, 'A Syriac Notitia Urbis Alexandrinae', Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,

xxxvii (1951), PP. 103-8. Russell, op. cit., pp. 66-67.

° On the population of Antioch see G. Downey, The Size of the Population of Antioch', American Philological Association: Transactions, lxxxix (1958), pp. 84-91. Downey gives various figures found in the sources and various estimates given by modem scholars, but comes to no conclusion of his own. The passage of Chrysostom, he thinks, refers to the population of Antioch in the time of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred at Rome under Trajan, c. 100-117. This is difficult to believe, for Chrysostom, in talking to his audience, must have had in mind the city of his time, if they were to understand his allusions.

0

The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

7

near Ctesiphon, the pestilence of the sixth century, and still another earthquake in 588, said to have killed 6o,ooo persons, must have reduced Antioch by the end of the sixth century to a mere shadow of what it had been at the beginning of that century. As for Alexandria, it is said that in 552, as a result of the riot which broke out over religion, 200,000 Monophysites were massacred;' and, according to an Arab writer, when it was first taken by the Arabs it numbered 6oo,ooo inhabitants.2 These are grossly exaggerated figures, of course, but they do suggest a populous city.3

The information which we have about the three principal cities of this early period of the empire has made possible certain estimates, however conjectural, of their population; but to pursue this inquiry into the numerous provincial towns would be a fruitless task. Apart from an isolated reference here and there, as for instance the statement of 'Joshua the Stylite' that when Amida was taken by the Persians during the reign of Anastasius more than 8o,ooo perished and many were led away,4 or that of Theophanes to the effect that when the Persians captured Caesarea in 611112 they took tens of thousands of prisoners,5 there is simply no information. This at the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh. As for the period that followed, i.e. the seventh and eighth centuries, the state of our information is much worse, indeed virtually non-existent. This lack of information, and the radical changes that took place in the society of Byzantium in the seventh and eighth centuries, have led some scholars to the belief that the city in the Byzantine empire had ceased to exist during this period.

This is not a tenable view, for while some cities did indeed disappear, in the Balkan peninsula especially, and others must have declined,6 while still others, with the loss of Syria and Egypt, ceased to be under the jurisdiction of Byzantium, the city as a phenomenon of the Byzantine landscape continued nevertheless to exist. But if it is certain that cities continued to exist, it is equally certain that we know very little about them, especially as concerns the size of their population. It is only

with the ninth century that we begin to find some references here and there; and though these references, as we enter the period covered by the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, become more numerous, they help us very little in determining the population of the cities to which they relate. Terms and expressions such as these: 'marvellous', 'great', 'populous', 'large', 'famous', 'city with a numerous population', or with 'a multitude of inhabitants', are frequently met with in the sources, particularly in those of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, but also of the tenth.' Obviously, while they may give us some idea of the importance 'Jean Maspero, Histoire des Patriarches d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1923), p. 163.

'Alfred J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman

Dominion (Oxford, 1902), p. 366, n. 3.

' A. H. M. Jones (op. cit., ii, p. 1o4o) estimates the population of Alexandria in the sixth century on the basis of its annona at between 250,000 and 375,000. He may be very close to the truth. ' The Chronicle of yoshua the Stylite, tr. by W. Wright (Cambridge, 1882), pp. 42-43. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), ii, p. 594. The statement of Zonaras (xii, 23: Bonn ed., ii, p. 594) that about the middle of the third century Caesarea had a Population of 400,000 seems fantastic. ' The following passage drawn from Arabic sources of the ninth century does indicate a reduction in the number of cities even in Asia Minor: 'In the days of old cities were numerous in Rum but now they have become few. Most of the districts are prosperous and pleasant and have each an extremely strong fortress, on account of the frequency of the raids which the fighters for the faith direct upon them.' Hudud al-'Alum: The Regions of the World, tr. by V. Minorsky (London, 1937), P. 157. ' For instance, Nicaea: Theoph. Cont., Bonn ed., p. 464; Demetries: John Carneniates, Bonn ed., p 506; Trebizond; Macoudi, Les prairies d'or, tr. by C. B. de Meynard et P. de

I 8

of the cities to which they relate, they are of no help in determining the size of the population. Here and there, however, some figures are given which may help to conjecture an estimate, but the instances are very few. Both Greek and oriental sources agree in calling Amorium in Phrygia the greatest city of the empire next to Constantinople (probably of the cities in Asia Minor). Already in the eighth century it is referred to as a great city, a city of great extension.' At the time of its capture by the Arabs in 838 it is said by Mas'udi that 30,000 persons were killed, and according to another Arab writer many thousands were taken prisoners, many of whom were sold into slavery, while 6,ooo of them were killed for lack of food and water as they were being led away to the Moslem lands. The figure of those killed while being led away did

not include the wealthier element, presumably because they might be ransomed at a high price or exchanged for important Arabs held prisoners by the Byzantines.' One does not know how many of those killed or taken prisoners may have been villagers who had sought safety behind the walls of Amorium, but, with some allowance made for this, one may suppose, if the figures given are correct, that Amorium

at the time of its capture by the Arabs in 838 may have had a population in the neighbourhood of 40,000 souls. We have some similar information about Thessalonica, called by Theophanes at the end of the eighth century the megalopolis of Illyricum. When this great city of the Greek peninsula was sacked by Leo of Tripolis in 904, 15,000 persons were killed while 30,000 more were taken prisoners and were eventually sold as slaves.3 As most of the prisoners were made up of children, youths, and women, and in view of the later literary tradition that Thessalonica was indeed a most populous city, in this respect second only to Constantinople, one may suppose that its population at the beginning of the tenth century may have been as high as 500,000 and that in the course of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries it may have passed that figure.4 A few more figures may be given. When the Turks took

Erzeroum in 5049 they killed, it is said, 140,000 persons;s Edessa about 1071 is said to have had a population of 35,000;6 the population of Nicaea has been put at between 25,000 and 30,000, while that of Prusa has been estimated at about 30,000.7 Tralles, when reconstructed by Andronicus during the reign of his father, Michael VIII, was settled by 36,000 people.8 The statistical information given by Benjamin of Tudela might have been very useful, if, besides giving the number of Jews who inhabited the cities which he visited, he had also given some idea of the ratio of the number of Jews to that of the rest of the population. Still, when he says that in the Courteille, ii (Paris, 1904), p. 3; Claudiopolis in Galatia: Leo Diaconus, Bonn ed., p. 68; Attalia: H. Gr6goire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques chretiennes d'Asie Mineure, i (Paris, 1922), p.104, n. 304. Also on Attalia and Trebizond : Ibn Haugal in A. Vasiliev-H. Gr6goire, Byzance et les Arabes, ii, 2 (Brussels, 1950), P. 414. ' Ghevond, Histoire des guerres et des des Arabes en Armenie, tr. from Armenian by

G. V. Chahnazarian (Paris, 1856), p. 151; Michael Syrus, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarchejacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199), ed. and tr. by J. B. Chabot, iii (Paris, 1905), P. 95; Yaqubi, in Vasiliev-Gr6goire, Byzance et les Arabes, i (Brussels, 1935), P. 275. ' V. Vasiievsky and P. Nikitin, Skazaniya a 42 Amoriiskikh Mutenikakh (Martyres XLII Amorienses) (=M6moires de 1'Acad6mie des Sciences de St. P6tersbourg, VIIle serie, clause historico-philologique, vol. vii. no. 52. St. P6tersbourg, 1905), PP. 4, 11, 42, 71; VasilievGr6goire, op. cit., pp. 275, 294-5, 172, 173, 332, 337.

' H. Gr6goire, 'Le communiqu6 arabe sur Is prise de Thessalonique (9o4)', Byzantion,

xxii9g2 PP. 373-5.

f. Charanis, 'A Note on the Population ...', 140. ' Cedrenus, Bonn ed., ii, p. 558. Charanis, op. cit., pp. 144-5. ' Vryonis, op. cit., p. 119, n. 21.

' Ibid., p. 145.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

9

city of Thebes there were 2,000 Jews, we are entitled to suppose that the population of that city may have been i o,ooo and perhaps more.' The figures given here are really of no great significance compared to the relatively large number of cities which are attested to have existed at different periods of the empire. Nor can we turn to archaeology for help. We must agree, therefore, with Kirsten that 'estimates of the number of inhabitants of cities or of their losses ... are not possible. For even when the perimeter of a city fortification is preserved, the proportions of the surface actually covered with houses, as well as the number of the houses, cannot be determined'.2 Thus it is absolutely impossible to estimate on the basis of the extant sources the total urban population of the empire at any one

period of its existence. As pointed out above, it is also impossible to give any estimate of the total rural population of the empire. This in turn makes it impossible

to give any figures as to what the total population of the empire at any one time may have been. All we can say is that at times Byzantium was a great power, and as a great power it must have had a population whose size must have been considerable.

But if it is not possible to determine in figures the size of the population of the empire at any one period of its existence, it is possible nevertheless to discern certain trends. The view is generally accepted that the Roman empire suffered serious losses in population during the third century, and that these losses continued on into the fourth and fifth centuries. These losses were apparently greater in the west than in the east, but the east suffered also. We have already noted the decline in the population of Alexandria in the course of the third century; the Egyptian countryside seems also to have suffered;3 and there are indications that there was some decline also along the western coast of Asia Minor and in the islands of the Aegean.4 By the end of the fourth century, however, this process of decline (we are thinking of the regions which constituted the eastern empire only) seems to have come to an end, with a recovery taking place in the century that followed. The indications attesting to this recovery are few, but unmistakable. The researches

of Tchalenko into the highlands of northern Syria between Cyrrhus, Antioch, Apamea, and Chalcis ad Belum have revealed a prosperous countryside, especially for the period between 45o and 55o.5 The diocese of Cyrrhus, a territory of about 1,6oo square miles, is said by Theodoret, its famous bishop in the early part of the fifth century, to have had 8oo parishes of orthodox Christians. Taking the number 250 as the average for each parish, Cumont, who was the first to make use of the

information given by Theodoret, puts the population of the diocese of Cyrrhus .during the period of the bishopric of Theodoret at 200,000, and this without taking into account the heretics who apparently were many but for whom no figure is given.' Another scholar, applying the number of inhabitants per square mile which these figures give, comes to the conclusion that Syria, including Palestine and Trans` Benjamin of Tudela, Travels, in Manuel Komroff, Contemporaries of Marco Polo (New

York, 1932), p. z62. Benjamin calls Thebes a large city. Kirsten, op. cit., p. 46.

Arthur E. R. Boak, 'The Population of Roman and Byzantine Karanis', Historia, iv

(1955), PP. 157-62. ` A. H. M. Jones, 'Census Records of the Later Roman Empire', _7ournal of Roman Studies,

('953),pp 49-64.

Georges Tchalenko, Villages antiques de la Syrie du nord. Le massif du Belus d l'e<poque

romaine, i (Paris, 1953), PP. 422 et seq.

' Franz Cumont, 'The Population of Syria', Journal of Roman Studies, xxiii (1933), PP.

I87-9o.

I 10

jordania, must have had a population of something like 10,000,000, almost twice as much as the estimates given by Beloch.' This figure is probably too large, but the fact that the diocese of Cyrrhus, a great deal of which was barren hill country, may have had more than 200,000 inhabitants in the early part of the fifth century offers some proof that Syria, whatever its losses in population - if any - as the result of the crises of the third century, had recovered, at least to some extent, by the end of the fourth century. On Egypt the information is of a different type, but here again we are justified in supposing an increase of, or at least a stability in, its population following the decline which may have taken place in the third century. At the time

of its conquest by the Arabs, we are told, there were 6,ooo,ooo Egyptians, not including women, old men, and boys below the age of puberty, subject to the poll tax.2 This compares favourably with the figure given by Josephus who says that during the reign of Nero the population of Egypt, not including Alexandria, numbered 7,500,ooo.3 We have no figures on Asia Minor, but given the fact that the fifth century was free of any pestilence and that at the same time, besides a minor skirmish, there were no invasions by the Persians, Asia Minor too must have more than recovered whatever ground it might have lost in population in the course of the

third century. Only in the Balkan peninsula, as the result of the repeated and devastating raids of the barbarians, do we have a definite decline. For this we have no less an authority than the emperor Anastasius himself who noted officially that the incursions of the barbarians had reduced the agricultural population of Thrace.4

But the population of the Balkan peninsula in relation to the population of the oriental provinces, including Egypt, must have been very small, and hence the decline that it may have suffered could not have affected very materially the population of the empire as a whole. One may say, therefore, that by the beginning of the sixth century the combined population of the regions which constituted the eastern empire was larger than the combined population of the same regions at the beginning of the fourth century. A new chapter in the demographic evolution of the empire began in 541. In that year broke out the great pestilence so vividly described by Procopius and which, at intervals, continued to manifest itself down to the end of the sixth century. A modern scholar has estimated the loss in population by 6oo as a result of this pestilence at 40 per cent for the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor, and at 1o per cent for Syria and Egypt. How he arrived at these figures I do not know and in general I distrust his estimates, but there can be little doubt, evert if we show the greatest reserve in accepting the testimony of Procopius, John of Ephesus, and Evagrius, that the loss of life was great.5 And this at a time when the Persians were devastating the eastern provinces, looting their villages, and emptying their cities of their inhabitants, while

Kotrigurs, Utigurs, and then Avars were turning the Balkan peninsula into a desert, destroying its cities and making it ready for its occupation by the Slavs.e This depopulation, particularly of the Balkan peninsula, explains why some emperors, especially Tiberius and Maurice, sought to remedy the evil by transferring 1 F. M. Heichelheim, 'Roman Syria' in Tenney Frank, ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, iv (Baltimore, 1938),P. 758. ' Eutychius, Annales, P.G. cxi. col. 1105. ' Josephus, De Belloyudaico, it. xvi. 4. Cf. Johnson, Roman Egypt . . ., pp. 245 et seq. Codexjustinianus, x, xxvii, 2. ' See above, p. 5, n. 3; Russell, op. cit., p. 148.

' P. Charanis, 'Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century', Dum-

barton Oaks Papers, xiii (1959), P. 39, n. 99.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

rr

people from the newly acquired regions of Armenia to Thrace and elsewhere' In these transfers many motives were involved, but the military and economic were the dominant ones: to furnish the lands where the transferred people were settled with soldiers for their defence, but also with the necessary manpower for the revival of their economic life. This is made clear by the statement of Evagrius in connexion with the transfer of i o,ooo Armenians to Cyprus in 578: 'Thus land which previously had not been tilled was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them and they fought resolutely and courageously against

other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics because of the easy rate at which slaves were provided.' 2

We need not enter here into details concerning the big political and military events of the seventh century. These are well known matters, at least in broad outline, and can be found in any general manual on Byzantine history. The immediate demographic consequences of these events are also obvious. The loss of Egypt, Syria and, by the end of the seventh century, Armenia deprived the empire of millions of inhabitants. In Egypt alone, as we have pointed out, the loss in population amounted to more than 6,ooo,ooo souls. Meanwhile the Balkan peninsula was flooded with Slavs to such an extent that Thrace south of the Balkan mountains, Thessalonica and its immediate surroundings, Attica, the eastern Peloponnesus, certain points on the Adriatic, and the Aegean islands were the only regions left under the direct and effective jurisdiction of the empire.3 Here, too, the immediate effect of the new developments was to reduce the population controlled by the empire.

Asia Minor was saved, but not without a protracted struggle in the course of which the countryside was ravaged and thousands of inhabitants were killed or carried off to slavery.4 After the Byzantine victory at Acroinon in 740, said to have been decisive in the saving of Asia Minor, the Arab invasions of Asia Minor took the form of raids, but not just along the frontier; they often went deep into the peninsula. These raids were in general conducted for booty, but this booty included people and often involved the killing of thousands of inhabitants of the regions affected. Reference has already been made to the thousands that were taken prisoners at the time of the capture of Amorium and to the many more thousands that were killed. But Amorium was not an isolated instance. In a homily probably delivered in 864 at the time of the inauguration by the emperor Michael III of the palatine church of Our Lady of the Pharos, the Byzantine patriarch Photius declared that the emperor 'reerected subject cities which have long lain low, and built others from the founda' On these transfers see P. Charanis, 'The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire', Comparative Studies in Society and History, iii. No. 2 (1961), p. 141.

s Evagrius, op. cit.; the translation is taken from the English version of Evagrius which appeared in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library: Theodoret and Evagrius, History of the Clnodl (London, 1854), P. 444. ' An old theory that Slavs did not settle south of the Danube until the reign of Phocas, now

generally rejected, has been revived by Ion Nestor: 'La penetration des Slaves dana Is

p6ninsule balkanique et is Grpce continentale. Considerations sur les recherches historiques et arch6ologiques I', Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Europdennes, i (1963), pp. 41-69. Nestor's arguments are not convincing. For the Slavs in Greece see Charanis, 'Ethnic Changes ...', PP. 40-41. I am pleased to see that Paul Lemerle has accepted my view, except for some minor reservations not really tenable, of the soundness of the Chronicle of Monemvasia as a historical source; 'La Chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: Le contexte historique et legendaire', . Revue des Etudes Byzantines, xxi (5963), PP. 5-49On the Arab raids in Asia Minor from 641 to 743 see E. W. Brooks, 'The Arabs in Asia Minor (641-750) from Arabic Sources', Journal of Hellenic Studies, xviii (1898), pp. 182 209.

Also H. Arhweiler, 'L'Asie Mineure et les invasions arabes (VIIe-IXe siecles)', Revue Historique, ccxxvii (1962), pp. 1-32.

I I2

tions, and re-peopled others and made the boundaries secure for the towns'.1 This was a homily delivered before, and addressed to, the emperor and hence allowance should be made for rhetorical exaggerations. It is known from inscriptions, however,

that Michael III, probably about 858-9, reconstructed Ancyra and that he also restored Nicaea.' About Ancyra we know that it was devastated by the Arabs in 806,

restored by Nicephorus I, and devastated again in 838 during the reign of Theophilus.2 There is some evidence that other towns seem to have suffered considerably.

Pergamon, taken by the Arabs at the beginning of the eighth century, seems to have undergone a serious decline during the Isaurian period, while Nyssa in Cappadocia was in a state of ruin about the middle of the ninth century." And in 863 Amisos, the important seaport on the coast of the Black Sea, was taken and ravaged. Indeed the entire Armeniac theme was devastated.' Along the frontier both Lycandos and Tzamandos are said to have been abandoned, and a whole region,

whose location is not exactly known, but which is probably to be identified with Sobesos-Suve§, south-west of Caesereia, and was called Symposion, had been reduced to a desert. This region, re-peopled by Armenians under the leadership of Melias, who had reconstructed both Lycandos and Tzamandos, was included in the theme Lycandos, organized during the reign of Leo VI.' Meanwhile the western and north-western coastal region of Asia Minor must have also suffered. As is well known, the Arabs seized the peninsula of Cyzicus in 67o and made it the basis of operations for their attacks on Constantinople, which began in earnest in 674 and lasted until 678. During this period they lived on the country which they must have devastated terribly. That their incursions left wide open spaces in this part of Asia Minor can be easily inferred from the fact that numerous new peoples were settled there by action of the government. The settlement in 691 of the Cypriots in the region of Cyzicus by Justinian II,' the settlement of thousands of Slavs in Bithynia by the same emperor, and yet more thousands (208,000) settled by Constantine V in the eighth century about the Artanas River, a little stream which flows into the Black Sea west of the Sangarius and not far from

the Bosphorus, are facts too well known to need detailed elucidation.' The new settlements were no doubt effected in part for military purposes, but also in order to re-people and rehabilitate regions which had become sparsely inhabited. The conquest of Crete by the Arabs in 827 or 8z8, and the subsequent Arab raids in the ' C. Mango, tr., The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge, Mass., 1958). P. 185.

' H. Gr6goire, 'Inscriptions historiques byzantines', Byzantion, iv (1927-28), pp. 437-49. For Nicaea, A. M. Schneider and W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Iznik (Nicaea) (Berlin, 1938), PP- 51-52. Also A. M. Schneider, 'The City Walls of Nicaea', Antiquity, xii (1938), Vasiliev-Gregoire, Byzanwe et les Arabes, i, pp. z4.4 et seq. On Ancyra, see also Cedrenus, ii, P. 34, where it is said that Ancyra was reconstructed by Nicephorus I, but then destroyed again by the Arabs shortly afterwards. Vasiliev-Gr6goire, Byzance et les Arabes, i, p. 152.

Ibid., p. 250. ' P. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963), pp. 29-30. For the possible identification of Symposion with Sobesos-Suve3 see H. Gr6goire, 'Notes 6pigraphiques', Byzantion, viii (1933), pp. 86-87. Cf. R. J. H. Jenkins, ed., Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Admimstrando Imperio, ii. Commentary (London, 1962), p. 190.

r Charanis, 'Transfer of Population ...', 143. See Charanis, 'The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century', Byzamtion, xviii (1946-48), pp. 70-71. Cf. 'Ethnic Changes ...', p. 43, where I accept the correction made by Maricq and Ostrogorsky. In my 'Slavic Element ...' I downgraded the figure of 2o8,ooo Slavs, who, according to Nicephorus, were settled by Constantine V. It should perhaps be taken at its face value.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

13

Aegean which left some of the islands virtually uninhabited, must have also affected the coast of Asia Minor.' The last word has not yet been said on Byzantine Asia Minor, and least of all on the fluctuations of its population. It may be taken, however, as very probable that

from about the middle of the sixth century a decline set in in the number of its inhabitants and that the decline continued, now less, now more, throughout the seventh, the eighth, and at least the first half of the ninth centuries. The emperors were aware of this and tried to remedy the situation by the settlement of new peoples,

but whether these settlements fully made up for the losses is highly questionable. It is more than probable, therefore, that the population of Asia Minor at the end of the fifth century was much more numerous than it was in the middle of the ninth. There must have been some increase, however, beginning with the second half of the ninth century and in the course of the tenth; this increase may have continued until the appearance of the Turks and the consequent debacle of Byzantine power in Asia Minor in the second half of the eleventh century. Our information for this is meagre, but we know at least that Asia Minor was no longer subjected to the almost continuous Arab raids which in the centuries before contributed so much to the thinning of its population. There are a few references to the existence of some fairly large and prosperous cities. There was an increase in the number of episcopal sees.' And, as Ostrogorsky remarks, the insatiable drive of the landed aristocracy for more land presupposes a certain degree of abundance of agricultural labour.3 Then, too, the influx of the Armenians, which started about the middle of the tenth century and continued into the eleventh, however it may have disturbed the ethnic stability of Asia Minor, must have increased the number of its inhabitants .4 It is understood, of course, that the reference, territorially speaking, is still to the Asia Minor before the great Byzantine expansion. That expansion, which eventually came to include all of Armenia and northern Syria, gave to the empire in its Asiatic possessions a population much more numerous than it had possessed at any other time since the great losses to the Arabs in the seventh century. In Europe the occupation of the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs probably had the effect of increasing rather than decreasing the population as a whole. But for at least two centuries the empire profited very little, except indirectly, to the extent that it was able to seize Slavs and settle them in Asia Minor, Constantinople itself, which

had no doubt recovered from the destructive pestilence of the sixth century, suffered another blow, the pestilence of 746-7, which so reduced its population that the emperor Constantine V found it necessary to transfer a number of people from the Aegean islands and from elsewhere in the empire, including Greece, in order to re-people it.b Thrace, which had escaped Slavic occupation, was apparently

sparsely populated. This may be inferred from the fact that the thousands of Armenians and Monophysite Syrians who had been gathered by the Byzantine armies at the time of the reign of Constantine V (741-75) during their raids in the regions of Germanicea (Marash), Miletene, and Erzeroum, were settled in Thrace. 1 K. M. Setton, 'On the Raids of the Moslems in the Aegean in the Ninth and Tenth

Centuries and their Alleged Occupation of Athens', American Journal of Archaeology, lviii (1954), PP. 311-19; George C. Miles, 'Byzantium and the Arabs: Relations in Crete and the Aegean Area', Dumbarton Oaks Papers, aviii (1964), pp. 5-to. s Cf. Ahrweiler, op. cit., pp. zB et seq.

° G. Ostrogorsky, Vas Steuersystem im byzantinischen Altertum and Mittelalter', Byzantion, vi (1931), P. 233. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire, pp. 29, 31-33. Charanis, 'Transfer of Population . . .', p. 144.

14

Some years later, during the reign of Leo IV, thousands more - 150,000, according to an oriental source - were seized by a raiding expedition into Cilicia and Syria and were also settled in Thrace. In making these settlements the emperors involved no doubt thought of the protection of Thrace, but if Thrace was reasonably densely populated, there would have been no need to bring settlers from the outside. The people seized could have very well been settled in Asia Minor, as indeed some of them were.'

Ostrogorsky, in an article published in 1952, formulated the theory that 'the gradual establishment of the Byzantine thematic system in the Balkan peninsula

reflects ... the process of the gradual establishment of Byzantine authority in certain Balkan regions from which it had been driven out by the Slavic migrations'." This theory is not entirely correct, for Thrace, central Greece (at least Attica), and

the eastern Peloponnesus were not occupied by the Slavs, and yet they were not erected into themes until some time after the Slavic migration; Thrace, some time between 68o and 687, probably as a measure against the Bulgars who had already established themselves south of the Danube; Hellas, after 687, but not later than 695, probably to resist the pressure of the Slavs; and the Peloponnesus, some time before 780, probably as the result of the reorganization of the command in the Aegean s But in general it may be conceded that where the theme organization did not exist, there, too, the jurisdiction of Byzantium was not effective. On this basis it was not until about the middle of the ninth century that the empire re-established its effective jurisdiction over the coastal regions of the Balkan peninsula, along the Aegean and the Adriatic to a point somewhat north of Dyrrhachium. Meanwhile, the theme of the Peloponnesus was extended to include the western part of that peninsula, long occupied by Slavs, and its population was strengthened by the settlement of new peoples, Greeks brought from Calabria, and a variety of other peoples, brought from other parts of the empire.

The question of how populous the Balkan regions now definitely under the effective jurisdiction of the empire were depends on two other questions: how numerous were the Slavs who had come to settle there and to what extent the older population had been eliminated. To both these questions there is really no answer. Most of the Slavs, it may be recalled, settled in the interior of the Balkan peninsula, but there are notable indications in the sources that significant numbers of Slavs settled at various times around the lower Strymon, in the region of Thessalonica, in Epirus, in Thessaly, in central Greece, and in the Peloponnesus. However, they could not have been overwhelmingly numerous compared to what was left of the

original population, which must have suffered terribly by their coming, for, if they had been so numerous, they would not have lost their identity as most of them did, though the process took a long time. Accordingly, if we assume, as we have

indeed assumed, that Thrace was sparsely populated, and take into account the destructiveness of the pestilence of 746-7, and consider the fact that urban life in some of the regions newly integrated had been reduced to a minimum, we shall not be far from the truth if we conclude that the Balkan regions of the empire, which

by the middle of the ninth century had come effectively under its jurisdiction, 1 Charanis, 'Transfer of Population...', p. 144. 1 Ostrogorsky, 'Postanak Terns Helada i Peloponez', Zbornik Radova Vizantolofkog Instituta SAN, i (1952), p. 64. This work was translated for me by Michael Petrovich. On the Peloponnesus see P. Charanis, 'Hellas in the Greek Sources of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Centuries', Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton, 1955), PP- 174 et seq.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

15

could not have been very populous. The efforts of the emperors to strengthen the population of some of these regions, as for instance the western Peloponnesus by Nicephorus 1,1 and Thrace by Constantine V and his successor,2 were offset at least to some degree by the depredations of the Bulgarians, particularly by those of Krum. It is only towards the end of the ninth century that we begin to notice some degree of greater activity, but this is a matter to which we shall come back.

The Seljuk assault, begun already during the first half of the eleventh century, culminated, as is well known, in the battle of Manzikert in 1071, an event which broke the power of the Byzantines in Asia Minor. There was a partial recovery under

Alexius Comnenus, but already by the middle of the twelfth century there are serious signs indicating that the part of Asia Minor under Byzantine control was internally in a state of decay. Dorylaion, which at one time had been a city of some size, was by the end of the reign of Manuel I in complete ruin;3 so were Sublaeum,4 Attalia,b Ephesus,4 Nicomedia,7 and perhaps Tralless and also Pergamon, which

earlier in the century seems to have been in a flourishing position. With the foundation of the empire of Nicaea a certain recovery no doubt took place, but the situation worsened in the course of the second half of the thirteenth century. It

is said that the Meander region became a desert, with no inhabitants, not even monks, left.° Nor was the situation in the Cayster, Hermus, and Caicus regions much better. Pergamon, early in the fourteenth century, was certainly completely in ruins, as was Smyrna.10 Conditions were no better farther north in the region of the Sangarius. It is well known that many Christians fled from these regions and sought refuge in the European possessions of the empire." The cause of all this, of course, was the push of the Turks towards the coast. This push caused desolation and drove out many of the inhabitants, but it would be a mistake to claim that it emptied all the country completely of its Christian population. In the fourteenth century we find many Greeks in the Osmanli realm12 and also in Attalia,18 which apparently, in its new location, prospered under Moslem rule. In the European possessions of the empire the demographic evolution was somewhat different. There, as in the orient, the destruction of the Bulgarian kingdom and ' Charanis, 'Nicephorus I, the Savior of Greece from the Slavs', Byzantine-Metabyzantina, i, pt 1 (1946), pp. 79 et seq. Nicephorus I is also said to have rebuilt Thebes: Cedrenus, 11, P. 34-

' In the Arab work known as Khitab at Uyun, composed sometime after the middle of the eleventh century, but based in part on Arab writers of the ninth century, we have the following

passage on Thrace, that part of Thrace, no doubt, nearest to Constantinople: 'And, when Maslama had encamped at Kustantiniyya, he blockaded the inhabitants and attacked them with

siege engines.... And the district of Marakiya [Thrace] was at that time waste...; but

at the present time is well-peopled'. E. W. Brooks, 'The Campaign of 716-718 from Arabic Sources', Journal of Hellenic Studies, xix (1899), p. 23. Brooks in note 6 of that page remarks: ' "At the present day" therefore means soon after Boo'. But this must have been before the devastation by Krum. Cinnamus, Historia, Bonn ed., p. 294. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, Bonn ed., p. 229. ° Edrisi, Gfographie, tr. by P. A. Jaubert, ii (Paris, 1840), p. 134. Ibid., p. 303. Ibid., p. 299.

s Charanis,'A Note on the Population ...', p. 145. ° Pachymeres, Historia, i, Bonn ed., p. 310. Voyage d'Ibn Batoutah, tr. by C. Defr@mery et B. R. Sanguinetti, ii (Paris, 1914), P. 315 for Pergamon, p. 31 0 for Smyrna. Pachymeres, ii, p. 389.

1s G. G. Arnakis, 'Captivity of Gregory Palamas by the Turks and Related Documents as

Historical Sources', Speculum, xxvi (1951), pp. 114-16. 1' Ibn Batoutah, 258-60.

I

i6 the consequent territorial extension of the empire added, of course, considerably to its population. But a revival had already set in by the beginning of the tenth century.

In Greece Corinth,' Patras, Lacedemon, Thebes,2 Athens, and farther north Demetrias,3 and Serres, to give a few examples, began to show considerable activity.

Thessalonica seems to have recovered fully from the disaster of goo, for an Arab traveller early in the tenth century refers to it as a 'huge and large' city.4 And there

is the reference in Cecaumenus to a populous city in Hellas which the Bulgar Symeon tried to take." Unfortunately he does not name the city. The Bulgar wars under Symeon and Samuel may have retarded somewhat the process of growth. Arethas of Caesarea, for instance, wondered if the Cadmeia of Thebes still stood after the incursions of Symeon.6 And a passage in the life of St Peter of Argos, no doubt referring to the campaign of the Bulgarians during the reign of Symeon, reads: 'barbarians for three years possessed the Peloponnesus; they massacred many people and thoroughly devastated the whole country, completely destroying the traces of former wealth and good order.'' Notice the expression 'former wealth and good order,' which shows that the Peloponnesus was clearly on the road to recovery after the dark period of the earlier centuries. The Bulgarian wars caused, of course, hardships, shifting of population and loss of life elsewhere as well, but once they were over a period of relative prosperity and growth in population seem to have set in. P. Tiv6ev in a recent articles mentions a number of cities, described by the sources of the twelfth century by one or more of the following terms: 'megalo-

polis', 'well-peopled', 'populous', 'prosperous', 'beautiful', 'wealthy', 'famous'. The cities he cites are Corinth, Athens, Thebes, Larissa, Kitros, Janina, Castoria, Thessalonica, Serres, Zichna, Philippi, Rodosto, Mossinopolis, Demotica, Adrianople, Serdica (Sofia), Philippopolis, Nig. To them I may add Lacedemon, Libadhia, Demetrias, Armyros, Carystos, Ochrida, Scopia, Christopolis, Drama, Selymbria, Heracleia, Gallipoli, Panados.9 Edrisi, from whose work most of the information referring to these cities is derived, adds further that the Peloponnesus was very prosperous, and that one could count in it about fifty cities among which sixteen were very important.1° One is tempted to say, especially when one recalls that it was about this time that Vlachs and Albanians appear in numbers, that the Balkan regions effectively controlled by the empire were more populous in the twelfth century than ever before in their history. But all this was shattered by the foundation of the second Bulgarian kingdom, the Fourth Crusade, and the disasters of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This is a period into which we shall not enter, I On the evolution of Corinth see R. L. Scranton, Medieval Architecture in the Central Area of Corinth (Corinth XVI) (Princeton, 1957), PP- 33, 49, 67, 83 ' Patras, Lacedernon, Thebes, rebuilt and re-peopled by Nicephorus I ; see p. 15, n. 8 above. ' Cameniates, p. 506.

' A. Vasiliev, 'Harun-Ibn-Yahya and his Description of Constantinople', Seminarium Kondakovianum, v (1932), p. 16z. Cf. Gregoire's review in Byzantion, vii (1932), pp. 666-73. ' Cecaumeni Strategicon et incerti scriptoris De olciis regiis Libellus, ed. V. Vasilievsky et V. Jernstedt (St. Petersburg, 1896), pp. 32-33.

' N. Bees, 'The Incursions of the Bulgars under Tsar Symeon and the Related Scholia of

Arethas of Caesarea' [in Greek], Hellenica, i (lgz8), p. 337. ' A. A. Vasiliev, 'The "Life" of St. Peter of Argos and its Historical Significance', Traditio, v (1947), PP. 173 et seq.

' T. Tiveev, 'Sur les cites byzantines aux XIPXII° sitcles', Byzantino-Bulgarica, i (1962),

PP. 145-82-

' Edrisi, pp. 125, 512, 296, 296, 295, 288, 289, 298, 298, 297, 297. The page references

correspond to the order of the cities given in the text. 10 Ibid., p. 124.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

17

hoping that the remarks which we made at the beginning of this paper will suffice.

We may now summarize the fluctuations of the population of the empire as follows. At the beginning of the sixth century the combined population of the regions which constituted the eastern empire was more than the combined population of the same regions at the beginning of the fourth century. A decline set in in 541 and this decline

continued, or at the most there was no appreciable increase, down to about the middle of the ninth century. Meanwhile the empire suffered huge losses in population by the conquests of the Arabs and the occupation of virtually all the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs. A new era began towards the end of the ninth century and lasted till 1071. The huge territorial expansion of the empire during this period added, of course, greatly to its population, but there was also an increase in the old provinces. The loss of the eastern provinces following Manzikert decreased the population of the empire, but there was also a decline in the course of the twelfth century in that part of Asia Minor which had been recovered by Alexius Comnenus and his immediate successor. In the Balkan peninsula, beginning with the end of the ninth century, but especially after the Bulgarian wars, a definite increase set in and this increase continued almost down to the end of the twelfth century. No figures can be given for any one of these periods.

In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian (820-23) against the emperor Michael II, the Byzantine historian Genesius lists a variety of peoples from whom the armies of the rebels had been drawn: Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals, Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, Armenians,

adherents of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and Athinganoi.' I have often quoted this statement because it reflects better than any other passage found in the sources the multi-national character of the Byzantine empire. It is a well-known fact that in its long history the Byzantine empire was never a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. The territorial losses of the seventh century, it is true, deprived the empire of huge groups of non-Greek speaking elements, but

these groups were replaced by others. In the Balkan peninsula, among the new peoples, the Slavs were the most numerous, though it took some time before they came under the effective jurisdiction of the empire. But, as we have already pointed out, there were others, settled there for military, demographic, and cultural reasons

by the central imperial authorities. These included Armenians in Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece; Monophysite Syrians in Thrace; Turks in Macedonia and Thrace; Mardaites in the Peloponnesus, in the island of Cephalonia, and in Epirus; and perhaps Persians also, though exactly where we do not know.' There were also some Jews.3 The ethnic situation became more complicated by the appearance (beginning in the eleventh century) of Albanians and Vlachs, descendants of the Latinized Illyrians and Daco-Thracians, whom the Slavs had pushed into the mountains when they occupied the Balkan peninsula in the late sixth and in the seventh centuries. The Vlachs were particularly numerous and aggressive. Towards the end of the twelfth century they were responsible for the foundation of the second Bulgarian kingdom at the expense of the empire. Only along the Aegean coast, in

Greece proper, the Aegean and Ionian islands, and the Thracian regions near Genesius, Historia, Bonn ed., p. 33 Charanis, 'The Transfer of Population . . .', pp. 140-54On the Jews in the Byzantine empire the fundamental book is still that of Joshua Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire (Athens, 1939).

X8

Constantinople and on the Black Sea coast was the Greek-speaking element predominant as the empire reached the apogee of its territorial extent and power. Slavs, of course, had settled in Greece,' but we may consider unfortunate a recent serious attempt to revive the theory of Fallmerayer.2 The fact that these Slavs were absorbed and lost their identity and language - though in certain regions, such as the western Peloponnesus, they had remained undisturbed for over two hundred years - is in itself proof that they had not destroyed or driven out completely the native Greek element. Besides, the same sources which speak of the destructiveness of the Slavs state also that many of the native Greeks found refuge in other parts of the invaded regions. In the Hellenization of the Slavs in Greece the imperial government did indeed, as I have shown elsewhere, play a role,3 but it is unthinkable that its efforts alone, without a considerable native Greek element to back them up, would have succeeded as thoroughly as they did. Books, the church, and the administration could hardly have perpetuated so many elements of Greek folk-lore and so many Greek names of 'hills and rocks, streams and gullies, capes and bays, cultivated plants and woods'.4 The ethnic situation in Asia Minor was somewhat different, but not radically so. There the ancient native population finally lost its identity, and Greek became the language spoken by the people, however different the racial antecedents of these peoples may have been.6 But in Asia Minor, too, many new ethnic elements had been introduced. Goths who had been settled there are known to have existed down to the beginning of the eighth century, though by then they may have been partly Hellenized. The Vandals, mentioned by Genesius in the passage we have quoted, may have been the descendants of the Vandals settled in Asia Minor by Justinian. Towards the end of the seventh century and again about the middle of the eighth, thousands of Slavs, as we have already stated, were brought into Bithynia. How long these Slavs retained their identity cannot be determined, but elements of them are

known to have existed down to the tenth century. A Bulgarian settlement near Ephesus is claimed for the eleventh century. Farther down, in the south-western corner of Asia Minor there existed in the tenth century a colony inhabited by a people called Mauroi (Black), whose rough behaviour toward the natives betrays their alien character and perhaps also the recent origin of their settlement. Who these Mauroi were is not known, but they may have been, as Rudakov suggests, Arabs from Africa who were settled in this part of Asia Minor in order to serve in the navy. Mardaites and also thousands of Saracens from the East were settled in Asia Minor.6 In the twelfth century Serbs were brought to Asia Minor and in the I To the large literature on the invasion of Greece by the Slavs I may add two recent items: Homer A. Thompson, 'Athenian Twilight: A.D. 267-600', journal of Roman Studies, alit (1959), pp. 61-72; D. M. Metcalf, 'The Slavonic Threat to Greece circa 580: Some Evidence from Athens', Hesperia. journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, mi (1962), PP. 134-57.

s Romilly Jenkins, Byzantium and Byzantinirm (The University of Cincinnati, 1963), pp. 21-42. $ Charanis, 'Nicephorue I, the Savior of Greece from the Slavs'.

4 R. M. Dawkins, 'The Place-Names of Later Greece', Transactions of the Philological Society (London, 1931-32), pp. 1-46; S. P. Kyriakides, Ilaaoa Kai Aatcic IloasTaopos riuv Newr'pa'v'E..A,iswv (Athens, 1946), PP- 3--97-

5 Charanis, 'Ethnic Changes ...', pp. 25-27. Cf. Vryonis, op. cit., 115-16, who makes an

important observation on the persistence of Phrygian as a spoken language.

6 On all of these, see in general my 'The Transfer of Population ...'; 'The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor...'; on the Cumans, P. Charanis, 'On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor', llpooqtupa air E. 17. Kvpwe.'Snv (Thessaloniki, 1953), P 145.

I The Demography of the Byzantine Empire

19

thirteenth, Cumans. But by far the most numerous non-Greek-speaking element in Asia Minor were the Armenians. To the Armenians in the Byzantine empire I have devoted a special study, so I need not enter into details here. Suffice to say that

beginning with the seventh century, but especially during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, they dominated the political and military life of the empire and also played a role in its intellectual activities.'

The various peoples - non-Greek-speaking in origin - to which we have referred were not passive subjects of the empire but were active participants in its

life. Their role was particularly great in the army. The thematic armies of the empire, the core of its military organization, were largely made up of these peoples. This was, indeed, the principal reason why some of them were settled in the empire, though economic, demographic, and cultural considerations were sometimes taken

into account. Individuals from among these peoples occupied high posts - at times the throne itself. Known by name are Saracens, Bulgars, Turks, Slavs, Georgians, and others who at times occupied important posts in the military, administrative, and ecclesiastical life of the empire.2 This is a subject, however, which has not yet been fully studied. But here again, as we have already noted, the Armenians were most prominent. Byzantium knew no racial distinctions. Careers, one might say, were open to talent. In this multi-national state, which was the Byzantine empire, the Greek-speaking element was most probably more numerous than any other single group, but most probably also it did not constitute a majority. This was certainly true at the time of the widest territorial extent of the empire, about the middle of the eleventh century.

It should be pointed out, however, that the tendency was towards Hellenization, and as a consequence many non-Greek elements in time became Greek. This was particularly true of those who participated actively in the military and political life of the empire, especially those who came to occupy high posts. The latter, with few exceptions, integrated themselves thoroughly into the political and military life of the empire, identified themselves with its interests, and adopted the principal features of its culture, features which were essentially Greek, but Greek, of course, as they had evolved throughout the centuries. But the process of Hellenization involved masses of others, too. Thus many a Byzantine Greek was no doubt the product of a mixture, but whether the product of a mixture or not, he was a Greek nevertheless. I would like to leave it at that.

' Seep. 12,n.6. For the specific references, see P. Charanis, 'How Greek was the Byzantine Empire?', Bucknell Review, xi, no. 3 (1963), p. 115, n. 41. There is some evidence that Albanians, too, held high military posts already in the eleventh century, but on this see E. L. Vranouses, Ko uaKOprmc i if 'Ap5dw,r (Jannina, 1962), pp. 5-29. The author, I think, is right in equating KO uOKOprgc with KOpus (rids) ROprgs but is not convincing in denying the Albanian origin of the personage concerned.

II E HNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM THE Byzantine Empire was never in its long history a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. It is true that the conquests of the Arabs in the seventh century deprived the empire of great numbers of non-Greek-speaking elements and gave to it an aspect which appeared to be more Greek than had been the case before. Egypt and Syria, where a national consciousness and a literature in the native languages had begun to develop, were lost; so also was Africa with its Latin and Punic-speaking population. There remained Asia Minor, parts of the Balkan peninsula, the islands of the Aegean, including Crete, certain regions of Italy, and Sicily. Here the Greekspeaking elements were strong, but the ethnic homogeneity which they suggest was more apparent than real.

Let us first look at Asia Minor. No doubt, under Hellenistic and Roman domination, the native population of that very important peninsula had been deeply affected by Hellenism, but neither in language nor in culture, particularly in the isolated regions of the back country, was the victory of Hellenism complete.' The evidence for this is scattered and largely circumstantial, but it is unmistakable. The native languages survived long into the Christian era. We know that Phrygian, which in the first three centuries of our era witnessed a true renaissance,2 was still spoken in the sixth century.3 The same was true of Lycaonian.4 Celtic, which, according to Jerome,5 was heard in Galatia in the fourth century, survived until the end of the fifth and probably beyond. So we may infer from a hagiographical text concerning a posthumous miracle of St. Euthymius, who died in 487. According to this text a Galatian

monk who had lost his speech was cured by the saint, but at first he could 1 For example, in the sixth century the city of Tralles was thoroughly Greek-speaking, but the back country was hardly impregnated by Hellenism, as is shown by the fact that it still remained predominantly pagan. Agathias, Historiae (Bonn, 1838), roe; E. W. Brooks, lohannis Ephesini historiae ecclesiasticae pays tertia, CSCO (Louvain, 1936),81, 125 (English trans. R. Payne Smith [Oxford,186o], 159,230)-

W. M. Calder, "Corpus Inscriptionum Neo-Phrygiarum," Journal of Hellenic Studies, 31 (rg11), ' 161-215; 33 (1913), 97-104; 46 (1926), 22ff. On page 164 of volume 31 Calder writes: The existence of over sixty inscriptions of which no two are exactly alike, and all of which exhibit intelligent syntactical variation, is sufficient proof that Phrygian was not a moribund language surviving in a few fixed formulae, but was the everyday language of the uneducated classes at the period to which the texts belong."

For a map indicating the Phrygian-speaking zone in Asia Minor about A. D. 250 see W. M. Calder, ed., Monuments Asiae Minoris antique, VII: Monuments of Eastern Phyrgia (Manchester, 1956), xliv. For a corpus consisting of the Neo-Phrygian inscriptions published up to 1928 see J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmaler (Berlin, 1932), 128-140. Cf. Calder's remarks, Monuments of Eastern Phrygia, p. xxvii. ' Journal of Hellenic Studies, 31, 165; Karl Holl, "Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in Kleinasien in nachchristlicher Zeit," Hermes, 43 (1go8), 248. We are told concerning an Arian bishop Selinas that his father was a Goth, his mother a Phrygian, and that for this reason he used both languages. He also preached in Greek. Socrates, Historia Ecclesiatica V. 23. Migne, PG, 67. 648; Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastics. VII.16. Migne, PG, 67.1468. Life of St. Martha, Acta Sanctorum, May, V, 413C. Cf. Holl, op. cit., 243-246. For the use of Lycao-

nian at the time of St. Paul, Acts of the Apostles, 14, I1. Jerome, Commentarium in Epistolam ad Galatas II, 3 (Migne, PL, 26. 357). Cf. F. Stahelin, Geschichte de r kleinasiatischenGalater, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1907), 104; W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Comment-

ary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (New York, 1900), 145-164; J. G. C. Anderson, "Exploration in Galatia cis Halym," Journal of Hellenic Studies, 19 (1899), 316-318.

II 26

speak only in his native tongue.6 The continuous use of Mysian is also attested.

We are told about St. Auxentius, who lived during the first half of the fifth

century, but whose biography was written at the beginning of the sixth century, that, as he had come from Mysia, he was barbarian in language., In Cappadocia the native language continued to prevail certainly throughout the fourth century, as we learn from Gregory of NyssaB and also from Basil, who says that the Cappadocians were saved from a certain heresy because "the grammatical structure of their native tongue did not permit the distinction between `with' and `and."'9 In Cappadocia, too, there lived a people known as the Magusaeana, who scandalized the Christians by the tenacity with which they adhered to their strange practices, including marriage between brother

and sister.1° In Isauria also the native tongue continued to be used. The evidence for this is a hagiographical text written after 596.11

I have found no evidence later than the sixth century attesting the persistence of native languages in Asia Minor. The chances are, however, that these languages, at least some of them, continued to be used long beyond the chronological limits of our evidence, for languages do not die out overnight. The Phrygians, for instance, as we may infer from what we know of the background of Michael II, seem to have been only semi-Hellenized as late as the beginning of the ninth century. Michael, who is described as coarse, ill-educated,

and contemptuous of Hellenic culture, was no doubt typical of the natives of Phrygia, many of whom may not have known any Greek at all.12 We may suppose, then, with some reason, that there was no complete linguistic homogeneity in Asia Minor in the seventh century. This supposition is strengthened

by the persistence of the native heresies, known from both ecclesiastical writers and epigraphy.13 Montanism was widespread in Phrygia, Lycaonia, and perhaps also in Cappadocia, Galatia, and Cilicia.14 Procopius states that A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), 122. 7 Vita S. Auxentii, Migne, PG, 114. 1428; Holl, op. Cit., 241f. 6 Contra Eunomium, Migne, PG, 45. 1045 De Spiritu Sancto, Migne, PG, 32. 208. 10 Saint Basil, The Letters, ed. and tr. Roy J. Deferrari, 4 (Cambridge, Mass., 1939) (Loeb Classical Library), 44-46; Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, ed. E. H. Gifford (Oxford, 1903), 1:352 (book VI, chap. 10). 11 Holl, op. Cit., 243. In Cilicia, too, the native language was spoken at least until the fifth century. We are told by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, that an ascetic whom be knew personally spoke Greek though he was Cilician by race. We may infer from this that there were natives in Cilicia who did not speak Greek. Theodoret, Retigiosa Historia, Migne, PG, 82. 1488. 12 Theopbanes Constinuatus, (Bonn, 1838), 49. Cf. J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accesion of Basil I (London, 1912), 78. 1e W. M. Calder, "The Epigraphy of the Anatolian Heresies," Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester, 1923), 59-91. For evidence of the persistence of some of the ancient heresies of Asia Minor as late as the seventh decade of the ninth century see C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. English Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge,

Mass., 1958), 279-282; 288-289. Photius speaks further (289) of "the ungodly ideas of those halfbarbarous and bastard clans which had crept into the Roman government." The reference no doubt is to the iconoclasts whom apparently Photius did not consider completely Hellenized. Cf. Mango's note (289, note 16). 16 G. Bardy, "Montanisme," Dictionnaire de lhdologie catholique, 10 (1929), 2368, for the early period. For a Montanist inscription of the sixth century see H. Grigoire, "Du nouveau sur la hierarchic de la secte montaniste d'aprhs une inscription grecque prks de Philadelphie en Lydie," Byzantion, 2 (1925), 329-336.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 27 the Montanists in Phrygia destroyed themselves rather than abandon their heresy,15 but the evidence is that they continued to exist. They are mentioned in the Acts of the Council in Trullo (692), in which they are called Phryges. The same Acts refer to other heresies in Asia Minor, especially in Galatia, as being numerous, and mention some, all of long standing, by name.16 Montanists

are known to have existed during the reign of Leo III.17 We also know that early in the ninth century the Paulician Sergius Tychikos corresponded with a certain Leo the Montanist.'8 The reference to this correspondence is rather

significant, for it indicates that the Montanists, who henceforth cease to appear in history, may have merged with the Paulicians.19 This would explain

the apparent increase in the strength of the Paulicians in Phrygia and the consequent apprehensive attitude toward them of the ecclesiastical and imperial

authorities of Constantinople.20 Some of the Montanists may have merged with the Athinganoi, another strange sect of considerable importance both in Phrygia and Lycaonia.21 Michael II is said to have inherited from his parents the beliefs of the Athinganoi, and Nicephorus I was accused of being friendly to both them and the Paulicians.22 Early in the ninth century the Athinganoi were either exterminated or driven out of their homes, and some of them were settled on the island of Aegina where the natives referred to them as aliens.23 This attitude toward them does not prove that their language was

not Greek, since the term alien could very well have been applied to newly established settlers from another province. The fact, however, that the Gypsies,

descendants of the foreign Zatt who had been settled in the Empire in 855, came to be called Athinganoi may indicate that the latter were distinguished by their strange language.24

There is some basis for believing, therefore, that in the seventh century is Procopius, Anecdote, XI. 14; XI. 23. Is Mansi, XI:984 (Canon 95)17 Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, I (Leipzig, 1883), 401. For other texts, J. Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire (Athens, 1939), 91-9211 H. Gr6goire, "Pr6cisions g6ographiques et chronologiques sur les Pauliciens," Academic royale de Belgique: Bulletin de la Classe des Leitres et des Sciences Morales et Politigues, 5e

33 (Brussels, 1947),

317.

11 Cf. F. C. Conybeare, The Key o/ Truth. A Manual o/ the Paulician Church in Armenia (Oxford, 1898), LXXIV; CLXXXV. Gr6goire, ibid., 301. There is some evidence to the effect that a community

of Cathari continued to exist in Philadelphia, Lydia, as late as the thirteenth century. "Cathares d'Asie Mineure, d'Italie et de France," Memorial Louis Petit (=Archives de l'Orient chretien, I) (Paris, 1948), 144-145 his" Ignatius, Vita Nicephori, ed. C. de Boor, Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula (Leipzig, 188o), 158-159. P1 Theophanes, 1:495; Genesius, Historia (Bonn, 1834), 32; Theophanes Continuatus, 42. On the

Athinganoi one may further consult Joshua Starr, "An Eastern Christian Sect: the Athinganoi, "The Harvard Theological Review, XXIX, 2 (1936), 93-106. 11 Theophanes Continuatus, 42; Theophanes, 1:488. Jews also are known to have existed in Asia Minor, as in Constantinople, but they do not appear to have been very numerous. Starr, The Jews in

the Byzantine Empire, 88ff., 98f.; A. Sharf, "Byzantine Jewry in the Seventh Century," BZ, 48 (1955), 111.

s The Li/e of Saint Athanasia of Aegina, Acta Sanctorum, August, III, 170E. 2M. J. De Goeje, Memoires d'histoire et de geographic orientate, no. 3. Mimoire sur les migrations des Tsiganes d travers dAsie (Leiden, 1903), 75. On the ancestry of the gypsies one may consult, in addition to the work of De Goeje, A. A. Vasiliev-H. Gregoire, Byzance et les Arabes, I (Brussels, 1935), 223-224;

J. B. Bury, op. cit., 40, note r.

m 28

there still remained certain elements of the ancient native population of Asia Minor that had not been completely absorbed by Hellenism, either in language or in culture. But this point should not be too greatly stressed. The native elements were finally absorbed, though perhaps they retained some of their

own traits. The administration, the army, the schools, but above all the official Church, with its insistence upon orthodoxy and its use of Greek, were powerful agents of Hellenization. The events of the seventh century, too, may have strengthened Hellenism in Asia Minor. We know that many Christians, the majority of whom were doubtless Greek-speaking, fled from Syria and Egypt when these territories were conquered by the Arabs.26 We do not know exactly where they settled, though it is more than likely that many of them settled in Asia Minor. However, the settlement of new peoples, some of whom,

notably the Slavs, will be mentioned in the course of this paper, was to complicate the ethnic composition of Asia Minor.26

One of the most important developments in the Byzantine Empire toward the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh was the rise to prominence of the Armenians. They were to maintain this position throughout the seventh and eighth centuries, while in the ninth and tenth centuries they improved it even further. At the end of the sixth century the Byzantine Empire controlled the major part of Armenia,27 but the events of the seventh century, in particular the rise of the Arabs, deprived it of this control,28 though it still retained some Armenian-speaking lands. It was from these lands that the Empire drew its Armenian recruits, but many Armenians who entered its service also came from the Armenian regions under foreign control. Sometimes they came as u P. K. Hitti, Origins of the Islamic State (New York, 19x6), 18o: "In the year 49 the Greeks left for the seacoast"; 194: They (the Greeks of Tripoli) "wrote to the king of the Greeks asking for relief through reinforcement or ships on which they might escape and flee to him. Accordingly, the king

sent them many ships which they boarded in the night time and fled away." 195: "He [a certain Greek patrician] made his way together with his followers to the land of the Greeks"; 189: "The fact is that when Damascus was taken possession of, a great number of its inhabitants fled to Heraclius, who was then at Antioch, leaving many vacant dwellings behind that were later occupied by the Moslems"; 227: "At last they[the people and soldiers of Antioch] capitulated, agreeing to pay poll tax or evacuate

the place. Some of them did leave; but others remained, and to the latter Abu-Ubaidah guaranteed safety, assessing one dinar and one jarib [of wheat] on every adult"; 231 f: "When the Moslem armies reached these towns [the Greek towns of Syria], their inhabitants capitulated, agreeing to pay poll tax or evacuate the place. Most of them left for the Byzantine Empire"; 348: "Some of its [Alexandria's] Greek inhabitants left to join the Greeks somewhere else." Hitti's book is a translation of the Futuh al-Buldan of al-Buladhuri. ae We may mention, for instance, the Goths who, in the early centuries of the Empire, were settled in Bithynia, in the territory which later formed the theme of Optimati. They were still there in the eighth century, though they seem to have been Hellenized. Theophanes, 1:385; "Acta Graeca SS. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii" Analecta Bollandiana, i8 (1899), 256. Alans seem to have settled in the Pontic regions of the Empire sometime between 662 and 666. P. Peeters, "A propos de la version armbnienne de l'historien Socrate," Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, 2 (Brussels, 1934), 669, note 2. Vandals were settled in Asia Minor by Justinian. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, II 14, 17. 27 Under the Emperor Maurice the Byzantine frontier in Armenia followed a line extending from

Nisibis to lake Van, Maku, Dvin, Garni, and Tiflis. Nisibis, Maku, Dvin, Garth, and Tiflis did not belong to the Empire. P. Goubert, Byzance avant 1'I slam, i (Paris, 1951), ego-295; cf. Ernst Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 (Brussels, 1935), 27fl.

sB The Arab domination of Armenia was established in the second half of the seventh century. H. Manandean, "Les invasions arabes en Armenie," Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948), 190.

II ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 29 adventurers, but more often as refugees. Thus in 571, following an unsuccess-

ful revolt against the Persians, the Armenian Catholicos, a few bishops and numerous noblemen fled to Constantinople.29 The leading men among these refugees, were, besides the Catholicos, Vardan Mamiconian and his retinue. There

were also among them some Iberians (Georgians), headed by one Gorgonis, who had joined the Armenians in their unsuccessful revolt.30 Vardan joined the Byzantine army; the rest seem to have settled in Pergamum, where an Armenian colony is known to have existed in the seventh century. From this colony sprang Bardanes who, under the name of Philippicus, occupied the imperial throne from 711 to 713.31 More Armenians immigrated after Armenia had fallen into the hands of the Arabs. Thus, about 700 a number of Nakharars

with their retinues sought refuge in the Byzantine Empire, and were settled by the emperor on the Pontic frontier. Some of these later returned to Armenia but others remained.32 More Nakharars, completely abandoning their possessions in Armenia, fled to the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Constantine V Copronymus.33 Still more came about 790. It is said they numbered i2,ooo, and they came with their wives, their children, their retinues

and their cavalry. They were welcomed by the Emperor and were granted fertile lands on which to settle.34 We are not told the location of the lands given to them. This Armenian immigration to the Byzantine Empire was to continue in the centuries to come.-5 The Armenians, however, did not always come willingly. They were some-

times forcibly removed from their homes and settled in other regions of the

Empire. Justinian had already resorted to this measure, but the numbers involved were small, perhaps a few families.36 Transplantations on a large a John of Ephesus, trans. Smith, 125-126, Brooks, 61-62; Theophanes, I: 245 Ibid., Smith, 403, Brooks, 231-232; Theophanes of Byzantium, Fragments (Bonn, 1829), 485 H. Gelzer, "Pergamon unter Byzantinern and Osmanen," Abhandlungen der Xoniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenscha/ten (Berlin, 1903), 42f. Another Armenian colony may have existed at Pidra

in the Anatolikon theme. It is known that Leo V, the Armenian, had immigrated there as a boy. Theophanes Continuatus, 6; Genesius, 10, z8. The exact location of Pidra is not known. " Ghevond, Hisloire des guerres et des conquetes des Arabes en Arminie, tr. from Armenian by G. V. Chahnazarian (Paris, 1856), 22, 33-34; cf. J. Laurent, L'Armenie entre Byzance et !'Islam depuis Is conquete arabe jusqu'en 886 (Paris, 1919), 184, note 4; J. Muyldermans, La domination arabe en Armenie... (Paris, 1927), 98-99. " Ghevond, 129. " Ibid., 162. In reporting this incident Asoghik deplores the fact that, whereas the nobility was able to flee, the poor had to stay and serve the Arabs. Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, Histoire universelle (1e partie), tr. from Armenian by E. Dulaurier (Paris, 1883) (Publications de l'Escole des Langues Orientales Vivantes, XVIII), 162. " Mention should also be made of the Armenian Paulicians who were driven out of their homes some time before 661 and some of whom settled in the Pontic regions of the Empire, more specifically in the area at the junction of the Iris and Lycus rivers. Their settlements extended almost as far as Nicopolis (Enderes) and Neocaesarea (Niksar). These were regions where the Armenian element was already considerable. Comana, for instance, is referred to by Strabo (12, 3, 36) as an emporium of the Armenians. Cf. "Pr6cisions gLographiques et chronologiques sur les Pauliciens," 294f., 298f.; S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cambridge, 1947), 34. Our source for the expulsion of the Paulicians from Armenia is a discourse of the Catholicus John of Odsun (717-728). This event is said to have taken place during the Catholicate of Nerses who is apparently Nerses III (641-661). op. cit., 3oo. The discourse of John of Odsun is also cited by Sirarpie der Nersessian, "Une apologie des images du septi6me si6cle," Byzantion, 17 (1944-45), 70-71" Proeopius, De hello Gothico, III 32, 7; cf. R. Grousset, Histoire de l'Armenie des origins d 1071 (Paris, 1947), 242, Grousset's statement concerning vast transfers of Armenians to Thrace by Justinian is not borne out by his references.

30

scale took place during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice. In 578 Io,ooo Armenians were removed from their homes and settled on the island of Cyprus.87

"Thus," says Evagrius, "land, which previously had not been tilled, was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them, and they fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, because of the easy rate at which slaves were procured."31 A transplantation on a vaster scale was planned by Maurice, and partially carried out. Maurice, who may have been of Armenian descent, though this is extremely doubtful 80 found the Armenians extremely troublesome in their own homeland. The plan which he conceived called for the cooperation of the Persian king in the removal from their homes of all Armenian chieftains and their followers. According to Sebeos, Maurice addressed the Persian king as follows: The Armenians are "a knavish and indocile nation. They are found between us and they are a source of trouble. I am going to collect mine and send them to Thrace; send yours to the East. If they die there, it will be so many enemies that will die; if, on the contrary, they kill, it will be so many enemies that they will kill. As for us we shall live in peace. But if they remain in their country, there will never be any qu}et for us." Sebeos further reports that the two rulers agreed to carry out this plan, but apparently the Persians failed to cooperate. For when the Byzantine Emperor gave the necessary orders and pressed hard for their execution, many Armenians fled to Persia 90 The Byzantines, however, did carry out the deportation, though only in part. In ordering this removal, Maurice's real motive was, no doubt, the fact that he needed the Armenians as soldiers in Thrace. Further deportations and settlement of Armenians in the Byzantine Empire, especially in Thrace, are attested for the eighth century. During the reign of Constantine V Copronymus thousands of Armenians and monophysite Syrians were gathered by the Byzantine armies during their raids in the regions of Germanicea (Marash), Melitene, and Erzeroum, and were settled in Thrace.41 Others, also from the environs of Erzeroum, were settled along the eastern frontier. These, however, were subsequently seized by the Arabs and were settled by them in Syria.42 During the reign of Leo IV, a Byzantine raiding 37 Theophylactus Simocatta, Historiae, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1887), 143; John of Ephesus, Smith, 412, 437, Brooks, 236, 252. Cf. Honigmann, op. cit., 23.

'^ Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), 215. The translation is taken from the English version of Evagrius which appeared in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library: Theodoret and Evagrius, History of the Church (London, 1854), 44430 N. Adontz has tried to prove the Armenian origin of Maurice: "Les de Maurice et de Constantin V, empereurs de Byzance," Annuaire de I'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, 2 (Brussels, 1934), 1-12. But see Goubert, op. cit., 36-41. 40 Sebeos, Histoire d'Heraclius, tr. from Armenian by F. Macler (Paris, 1904), 3o-31. Cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurhunden des ostromischen Retches, I (Munich, 1924), p. 13, no. rob. 41 Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 188o), 65, 66; Theophanes, 1:427, 429; Michael Syrus, Chronique, ed. and trans. J. B. Chabot, 2 (Paris, 1901), 518, 521, 523: Agapius of Menbidj, Histoire universelle, tr. A. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, 8 (1912), 544; Ghevond, op. cit., 126-127. 4' Agapius of Menbidj, 531, 538; Dionysius I of

Chronique, tr. J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1895), 56-57. Cf. A. Lombard, Etudes d'histoire byzantine. Constantin V, empereur des Romains (740-775) (Paris, 1902), 35. Among the people involved were some Alans also.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 31 expedition into Cilicia and Syria resulted in the seizure of thousands of natives,

150,000, according to one authority, who were settled in Thrace.43 These, however, were chiefly Syrian Jacobites, though some Armenians may have also been among them. Nicephorus I used Armenians, along with other nationalities, in his resettlement of Sparta at the beginning of the ninth century46 Moreover, many individual Armenians are known to have come from Armenia and to have entered the service of the Byzantine state in both the seventh and eighth centuries. Occasionally, however, Armenians were driven out of the Byzantine Empire. We are told that the Emperor Philippicus, himself of Armenian descent, drove the Armenians out of his realm and forced them to settle in the regions of Melitene.45 We do not know the reason for this; it may have been religious, but it had no consequence insofar as the role of the Armenians in the Byzantine Empire was concerned. That role was to grow in importance in the centuries to come. Thus, the Armenians were 'very much in evidence in the Byzantine Empire in the seventh and eighth centuries. They came of their own volition as refugees

or were forcibly removed from their homes, and they settled in various parts of the Empire, particularly in Thrace and on the eastern frontier. Also, despite the conquest of Armenia by the Arabs, a conquest which was virtually complete by the end of the seventh century, some Armenian-speaking lands still remained in the possession of the Empire. However, it was as soldiers and officers of the army that the Armenians exerted their greatest influence in Byzantium. It is well known that the Armenian element occupied a prominent place in the armies of Justinian. Armenian troops fought in Africa, Italy, and along the eastern front. They were also prominent in the palace guard46 Procopius mentions by name no less than seventeen Armenian commanders, including, of course, the great Narses.47 But the Armenians constituted only one among the different elements that made up the armies of Justinian. These elements included many barbarians: Erulians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Lombards, Moors, Sabiri, Slavs and Antae, Vandals; a number of Persians, Iberians, and Tzani; and among the provincials, Illyrians, Thracians, Isaurians, and Lycaonians.48 " Theophanes, I:451-52; Ghevond, op. cit., 15o; Michael Syrus, 3:2. 44 P. Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (195o), 154-155. In 792, following the suppression of a revolt among the Armenians, one thousand of them were removed from the Armeniac theme and were settled in Sicily and other islands: Theophanes, 1: 469. 1s Theophanes, I:382: Michael Syrus, 2:482; Agapius of Menbidj, 500. 6e Procopius, De belle Persico, II 21, 2; De bello Vandalico, II 24, 2; De hello Gothico, II 27, 16; III 6, so; III 26, 24; III 27, 3, 1o; Anecdote 24,16. 47 The names of these commanders are listed in the index of the Haury edition of Procopius under Armenians orPersarmenians. Some of these commanders, as for instance Gilacius, spoke only Armenian: De bello Gothico, III 27, 24. In the plot which led to the assassination of Gontharis, the bodyguard of Solomon, the conspirators communicated between themselves in Armenian: De hello Vandalico, II28, 16. eB For Erulians: Procopius, De hello Persico, I 13, 20; II 24, 13, 41; De hello Vandalico, II 4, 28;

II 14, 12; De hello Gothico, II 13, 18; III 33, 13; IV 26, 13; Agathias, Historia (Bonn, 1828), 57, 79, 149, 184. For Gepids: De bello Gothico, IV 26, 13. For Goths: De bello Gothico, I 16, 2; III 1, 6; De belto Persico, II 14, 10; II 18, 24; II 21, 4. For Huns, De hello Persico, I 13, 20; I 21, 11; 1 12, 6; De bello Vandalico, I 11, 11-12; II 1, 5-10; De bello Gothico, I 5, 4; 1 27, 2; IV z6, 13; Agathias,

60-67. For Lombards, De bello Gothico, III 39, 20; IV 26, 12; IV 33, 2, 3; Agathias, 184. For

II 32

Under the immediate successors of Justinian, the composition of the Byzantine

army remained very much the same. "It is said," writes Evagrius, "that Tiberius raised an army of 15o,ooo among the peoples that dwelt beyond the Alps around the Rhine and among those this side of the Alps, among the Massagetae and other Scythian nations, among those that dwelt in Paeonia and Mysia, and also among the Illyrians and Isaurians, and dispatched them against the Persians."4D The figure given by Evagrius may perhaps be question-

ed, but the rest of his statement cannot be doubted. It is confirmed by Theophanes, though the figure he gives is much smaller (15,ooo).60 John of Ephesus

reports that, following the breakdown of negotiations with Persia (575-577), a force of 60,000 Lombards was expected in the East.61 The same author states: "Necessity compelled Tiberius to enlist under his banners a barbarian people from the West called Goths. . who were followers of the doctrine of the wicked Arius. They departed for Persia, leaving their wives and children at Constantinople."fi2 In Constantinople the wives of these Goths requested that a church be allocated to them, so that they might worship according to their Arian faith. Thus, it seems quite certain that the ethnic composition of the Byzantine army under Tiberius remained substantially the same as it had been during the reign of Justinian. The situation changed in the course of the reign of Maurice, chiefly as a result of the Avaro-Slavic incursions of the Balkan peninsula. These incursions virtually eliminated Illyricum as a source of recruits and reduced the potential of Thrace. They also cut communication with the west and made recruitment there most difficult. The Empire had to turn elsewhere for its troops. It turned to the regions of the Caucasus and Armenia. In the armies of Maurice we still find some Huns63 and also some Lombards;54 Bulgars too,55 but the Armenian element dominates. In this respect Sebeos is once more a precious source. In connection with the war which Maurice undertook against the Avars after 591 Sebeos writes: Maurice "ordered to gather together all the Armenian cavalry and all the noble Nakharars skilled in war and adroit in wielding the lance in combat. He ordered also a numerous army to be raised in Armenia, an Moors, De hello Gotkico, I 5, 4; III 1, 6; De hello Persico, II 21, 4; Agathias, 184. For Sabiri: De hello Gothico, IV 11, 22-26; Agathias, 1177. For Slavs and Antae: De hello Gothico, I 27, 1-2; II 15, 18, 22; III 22, 3; Agathias, 186. For Vandals: De hello Vandalico, II 14, 17; De hello Persico, II 21, 4. For Persians: De belloGotkico, III 11, 37; IV 26, 13. For Iberians: De hello Persico, I 12, 11-13; 122, 16; II 28, 1; De hello Gotkico, I 5, 3; III 4, 10. For Tzani: De hello Gotkico, IV 13, 10; Agathias, log. For Illyrians: De hello Gotkico, III 11, 11, 15, 16, III 12, 4; 111 39, 9; IV 26, 10; De hello Persico, II 21, 4. For Thracians: De hello Persico, II 21, 4; De hello Gothico, II 5, 1; II 11, 5; III 6, 10; III 12, 4; III 39, 9; IV 26, 10. For Isaurians: De hello Persico, I ,8, 5, 38-40; De hello Gothico, I 5, 12; II 11, 5; 111 36, 7, 14; Agathias, 184. For Lycaonians, De hello Persico, I x8, 38-40-

Among the provincials, especially natives of Asia Minor, there was a strong dislike for military service; St. Basil wrote in one of his letters: " ... a large number of persons are presenting themselves for the ministry through fear of the conscription." Basil, Letters, ed. Deferrari, I:344 (Letter 54)0 Evagrius, 209 f. °' Theophanes, I:251. 61 John of Ephesus, Smith, 407, Brooks, 234 " Ibid., Smith, 207, Brooks, 113. " Theophylactus Simocatta, 67. O1 Ibid., 104. 00 Michael Syrus, 2:72.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 33 army composed of soldiers of good will and good stature, organized in regular

corps and armed. He ordered that this army should go to Thrace under the command of Musele (Moushegh) Mamiconian and there fight the enemy."66 This army was actually organized and fought in Thrace. Mamiconian was captured and killed,57 whereupon the raising of an Armenian force of 2,000 armed cavalry was ordered. This force, too, was sent to Thrace.66 Earlier, during the Persian wars, important Armenian contingents under the command of John Mystacon operated on the eastern front.59 In 602 Maurice issued the following edict: "I need 30,000 cavalrymen, as tribute, raised in Armenia. Thirty thousand families must be gathered and settled in Thrace."60 Priscus was sent to Armenia to carry out this edict, but before he had time to do so the revolution that overthrew Maurice broke out, and the edict apparently was not enforced. It is interesting to observe the correlation between the number of cavalry and the number of families that were to be transplanted to Thrace. Each family was ob-iously intended to furnish one cavalryman, and no doubt each family was going to be given some land. Here we have, perhaps,

an indication that Maurice sought to extend the system of military estates in Thrace.80a But, however that maybe, it is quite clear that under Maurice Armenia

became the principal source of recruits for the Byzantine army.61 The same was true under Heraclius, himself of Armenian descent,°2 though that Emperor also drew heavily on the people of the Caucasus -Lazi, Abasgians, Iberiansbe Sebeos, 35-

67 Cf. Goubert, op. cit., I:197. 68 Sebeos, 36-37 Cf. Goubert, op. cit., I:zoo; Dolger, op. Cit., 12, no. 94. 61 Theophylactus Simocatta, 205, 216. Se Sebeos, 54-55. Cf. Goubert, op. cit., I:zog; Dolger, op. cit., 16, no. 137, 10a The widely accepted view which associates the increase of military estates throughout the Empire

with the establishment of the theme system and places both of these developments in the seventh century has very recently been questioned: J. Karayannopoulos, "Contribution au probleme des 'themes' byzantins," L'ketlEnisme contemporain, ser. 2, 10 (1956), 492-501; Die Entstekung der byzantinischen Themenordnung (= Byzantinisches Archiv, Heft io) (Munich, 1959), 71-88. See also Paul Lemerle, "Esquisse pour une histoire agraire de Byzance: Les sources et les problemes," Revue kisto-

rique, 220 (1958), 43-70. Karayannopoulos contends that the spread of military estates and the establishment of the theme system were not related, that both developed gradually over a long period of time, and that no one emperor was responsible for either. However this may be, it is very probable, as this passage from Sebeos suggests, that the growth of military estates was connected with the shifting of population from one province to another and the resettlement of immigrant peoples for military purposes. As both of these practices were frequently resorted to in the seventh and eighth centuries, it is in those two centuries, but most probably in the seventh, that one should put the beginnings of the wide distribution of the military estates. This is not the place to discuss Lemerle's interpretation of the military estates. 11 Scholars have long recognized that the ascendency of the Armenian element in the Byzantine Empire dates from the reign of Maurice. M. K. Patkanian wrote in 1866: "A partir de cette 6poque [the reign of Maurice] les chefs des milices arm6niennes, en Thrace, commencerenta jouer on role important dans l'arm6e grecque, parvinrent aux plus hauts grades militaires, et plusieurs dent re eux monterent m@me sur le trbne des empereurs." M. K. Patkanian, "Essai d'une histoire de la dynastie des Sassanides, d'apres les renseignements fournis par les historiens armdniens, " tr. from Russian by Evariste Prud'homme, journal asiatique, 7 (1866), 194, note 3. Armenian troops under Armenian officers were also stationed in Byzantine Italy during this period. Cf. H. W. Haussig, "Anfinge der Themenordnung," in F. Altheim-R. Stiehl, Finanagesckichfe der Spatantike (Frankfurt a. M., 1957), 1o6, note 76.

11 The father of the Emperor Heraclius, also named Heraclius, who served as general during the reign of Maurice, is said to have been a native of a city located in Armenia. Theophylactus Simocatta, op. cit., log-11o. John of Nikiu calls the Emperor Heraclius a Cappadocian. Chronique, tr. H. Zotenberg (Paris, 1883), 431. 3

II

34 as well as on the Khazars.63 It should also be observed that among the defenders

of Constantinople against the Avars in 6z6 there were some Armenians." As we have said, by the end of the seventh century Armenia was lost to the Arabs, but throughout that century the Armenians continued to be one of the dominant elements in the Byzantine army. The Armeniacs, whose territory in the seventh century included Armenian-speaking lands, were primarily Armenians." The significance of the Armenian element in the Byzantine Empire is further illustrated by the number of persons of Armenian descent who came to occupy influential positions. They served as generals, as members of the imperial retinue, as governors of provinces. Under Heraclius the Armenian Manuel was named praelectus augustalis in Egypt.86 Armenian generals served the same Emperor in the field. One of these, Vahan, was actually proclaimed Emperor by his troops just before the battle of Yermuk.67 He later retired to Sinai and became a monk. Armenian princes in Constantinople were very influential.

They even plotted to overthrow Heraclius and to place on the throne his illegitimate son, Athalaric.68 In 641 it was the Armenian Valentinus, an Arsacid, who enabled Constans II to assume the throne following the death of his father.

Valentinus was put in command of the troops in the East, but shortly afterwards, having failed in a plot to seize the throne for himself, he was executed.69

Other Armenian generals are known to have served under Constans II. Two of these, Sabour, surnamed Aparasitgan,70 and Theodore were commanders of the Armeniacs.71 After the violent death of Constans II, the Armenian Mizizius (Mj ej Gnouni) was proclaimed Emperor, and though he was not able to maintain this position, he should be included among the emperors of Armenian descent

who occupied the Byzantine throne.72 Later his son John felt strong enough to rebel against Constantine IV, but he, too, failed and was destroyed .73 Many Armenians are known to have been prominent in the service of the Empire in the eighth century also. The Armenian Bardanes occupied the throne from 711 "An 0 Theophanes, I:304, 309, 316; Nicephorus, 15; Agapius of Menbidj 463. Cl. H. Armenian Dynasty on the Byzantine Throne," Armenian Quarterly, 1 (1946), 9u Chronicon Paschale, I (Bonn, 1832), 724. There was an Armenian colony in Constantinople during this time. F. C. Conybeare, "Ananias of Shirak (A.D. 600-650)," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 6 (1897), 572. Cf. P. Peeters, "A propos de la version armenienne de l'histoire de Socrate," Annuaire de 1'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, 2 (Brussels, 1934), 673. es Theophanes, I: 469. ee Ibid., I:338; Michael Syrus, 2:425. 67 Theopbanes, I: 318; 338 J. B. Bury considers him a Persian: A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (London, 1889), 2:263f. But cf. Lebeau-St. Martin, Histoire du Bas-Empire, ri (Paris, 1830), 208, note 2; 214; also A. Pernice, L'Imperalore Erarlio (Florence, 1905), 280. w Sebeos, 93.

n Ibid., 103-4; 105. Cf. H. Manandean, op. cit., x82. For the account given by the Greek sources cf. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1889), 2:283ff. 70 Theophanes, I:348; Michael Syrus, 2:451 and note. 9. Cf. Laurent, op. cit., 194, note 3. 11 Sebeos, Io6. Cf. Manandean, op. cit., 19off. 11 Theophanes, I:352; Michael Syrus, 2:451. The Armenian version of Michael Syrus has Mejej in place of Mizizius. Langlois, who translated this version into French, remarks on this: "Mejej, en grec Mizizius, qui paralt, par son appellation, appartenir a la race ou famille des Gnouniens." V. Langlois, Chronique de MichelleGrand, patriarche des Syriens jacobites, traduite pour la premiere fois sup la version armenienne du prBtre IscA6h (Venice, 1868), 241 and note 6. Cf. Laurent, op. cit., 193, note 4; Lebeau-St. Martin, op. cit., 11:406, note ,. 78 Michael Syrus, 2:455.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 35 Artavasdos, son-in-law of Leo III and at one time general of the to M.

Armeniacs, also attempted to seize the crown, and for a time was actually master of Constantinople.74 He was ably assisted by other Armenians, his cousin Teridates, Vahtan the patrician, and another Artavasdos.75 During the brief period when he held Constantinople, he crowned his son Nicephorus, Co-Emperor and made his other son, Nicetas, general of the Armeniacs.76 The

Armeniacs, the vast majority of whom, as has been said, were Armenians, constituted Artavasdos' strongest supporters." Other eminent Armenians are known to have served the empire under Constantine V Copronymus. Tadjat Andzevatzik, who came to Byzantium about 750, proved to be a successful commander in the course of Constantine's Bulgarian campaigns. Under Leo IV we find him as general of the Bucellarii.78 He subsequently fled to the Arabs. Another Armenian, the prince Artavazd Mamiconian, who joined the Byzantine forces about 771, was general of the Anatolikon under Leo IV.79 More Armenians are mentioned during the teign of Constantine VI and Irene. Bardas, onetime general of the Armeniacs, was involved in a conspiracy to have Leo IV succeeded by his brother Nicephorus and not by his son Constantine.80 Another Vardas lost his life in the Bulgarian campaign which Constantine VI conducted in 792.81 Artasaras, or Artashir, was another Armenian general active during the reign of Constantine VI.82 Alexius Musele (Moushegh), drungarius of the watch and later general of the Armeniacs, seems even to have aspired to the throne. At least he was accused of entertaining this ambition and was blinded 83 His family, however, achieved great distinction in the ninth and tenth centuries.

Another great Byzantine family of Armenian descent, the Skleroi, made its 74 Theophanes, L 386, 395, 414; Nicephorus, 59. 76 Theophanes, 1:418, 419, 420. 7e Ibid., 417-

" Ibid., 41878 Ghevond, op. cit., 150, 153; Theophanes, I: 45.r. Cf. Laurent, op. cit., 193, note 3. Under Constantine V, a Constantine, son of the patrician Bardanes was put to death in 766 for conspiracy. Theophanes, I: 438. A Bardanes was general of the Armeniacs in 772. Theophanes, I:445. As the name Bardanes is Armenian, these persons may have been Armenians. 70 Ghevond, op. cit., 134, 750; cf. Laurent, op. cit., 193; Theophanes, I:45r. Two other Armenians, Varaz-Tirots, general of the Armeniacs, and Gregory, son of Mousoulak, general of the Opsikion, served the Empire under Leo IV. Cf. N. Adontz, "L'dge et l'origine de 1'empereur Basile I," Byzantion, 9 (1934), 242.

10 Theophanes, I:454. Bardas' Armenian origin is indicated by his name. 11 Ibid., I : 468. I do not know on what basis Adontz refers to this Bardas as the father of Leo V the Armenian. N. Adontz, "Role of the Armenians in Byzantine Science," The Armenian Review, 3, no. 3 (195o), 64. Under Constantine VI, Irene, and Nicephorus I, we encounter a number of persons who bore the Armenian name Bardanes and who were probably Armenians: Bardanes, patrician and domesticus scholarum; Bardanes, general of the Thracesians; Bardanes, called the Turk, general of the Anatolicon, who made an attempt to seize the throne; Bardanes, called Anemas, a spatharius. Theophanes, I:471, 474, 479-8o, 482. Another Armenian, the patrician Arsaber was Quaestor under Nicephorus I. In the unsuccessful plot of 8o8 to overthrow Nicephorus, Arsaber had been chosen as the new emperor. Theophanes, I :483. Cf. J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I (London, 1912), 14. This Arsaber was the father of the Empress Theodosia, wifeof Leo V the Armenian. Genesius, 21. AnotherArmenian named Bardas a relative (av)yau pos) of Leo V, was general of the Thracesians during the reign of this Emperor. S. Theodori Studitae Vita, PG, 99. 300. Cf. Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, 68, 72. See further N. Adontz, "Sur l'origine de Leon V, empereur de Byzance," Armeniaca, II (1927), 9-1011 Theophanes, I:468, 469. 88 Ibid., 1:466, 467,468; cf. Lebeau-St. Martin, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 12 (Paris, 7831), 355, note 3. 3'

II

36

appearance in Byzantium at this time or soon thereafter. Leo Skleros, governor of the Peloponnesus at the beginning of the ninth century, is the first member of this family known to us M It will be noted that most of these Armenians were associated at one time

or another with the Armeniac theme. The turbulent, but very energetic, thematic corps of the Armeniacs is very much in evidence throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. It is the clearest indication of the prominence of the Armenian element in the Byzantine Empire during this period. It should be pointed out, however, that in general the Armenians who entered the service of the Empire embraced orthodoxy and so identified themselves with the interests of the Empire. Yet there were always Armenians within its borders who sought to maintain their own traditions. The event which, as we have already observed, brought the Armenians into prominence was the collapse of Byzantine power in the Balkan peninsula and the consequent loss of the sources which in the earlier centuries had furnished the Empire with some of its best troops. No doubt the most important ethnic change in the Balkan peninsula since ancient times was brought about by the incursions and the settlement of the Slavs. The circumstances and exact chronology of the Slavic settlements in the Balkan peninsula are still, despite the meticulous work of many scholars, a historical puzzle. The reason for this is, of course, the brevity and chronological vagueness of our sources. This vagueness is best illustrated by the compilation known as the Miracula Sancti Demetri, the most important single text we possess on the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan peninsula. No less than three serious studies of this text have been made in the last five years,86 but they serve only to emphasize the difficulty of the problem since they offer different solutions to the crucial questions of chronology. The problem has been further confused

by the nationalistic bias of certain scholars. The following facts, however, are sufficiently clear.

The first appearance of the Slavs in the Byzantine Empire can be dated no earlier than the sixth century.86 Throughout this century, beginning with the reign of Justinian, Slavs repeatedly invaded the Balkan possessions of the Byzantine Empire. Not until the reign of Maurice, however, did any Slavs settle in these territories. Between the years 579-587 there took place the irruption of several barbarian waves led by the Avars, but consisting mostly 81 Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia...," 145. 0 P. Lemerle, "Ia composition et la chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S. Demetrii," BZ, 46 (1953), 349-361; A. Burmov, "Les sieges de Thessalonique par les Slaves dans Miracula Sancti Demetrii Martyris et leur chronologie," Annuaire de l'Universitd de Sofia. Facultd de Philosophic et Histoire. Livre I, histoire, 47 (1952) (in Bulgarian), 167-215; F. Barifii, Miracles de St. Ddmdtrius comme source historique (Academic Serbe de Sciences. Monographies CCXIX. Institut d'Etudes Byzantines, 2) (Belgrade, 1953). As I read neither Bulgarian nor Serbian, I have relied principally on the French resum6 which both Burmov and Bari§i6 give of their respective works. I have, however, with the help of my friend George Soulis, consulted certain sections of the Bulgarian and Serbian texts. Cf. also Ep. Chrysantbopoulos, "T&Biphlaeavw&rmvTOG'Ayiov ArlyrlTpfov," 6e0Aoyla, 24 (1953), 597-606; 25 (1954),

145-152; 26 (1955), 91-106, 293-309, 457-464; 593-619; 27 (1956), 82-94; 260-272, 481-496. This work has now appeared under the same title in book form: Athens, 1958. It is a serious study, but I find myself unable to agree with its main conclusions. " Cf. F. Dvornik, The Slavs. Their Early History and Civilization (Boston, 1956), 34 if.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 37 of Slavs. The latter came in great numbers, and, as the troops of the Empire were engaged in the war with Persia, they roamed the country at will. They

devastated Illyricum and Thrace, penetrated deep into Greece and the Peloponnesus, helped the Avars to take numerous cities, including Singidunum, Viminacium (Kostolac), Durostorum (Silistria), Marcianopolis, Anchialus, and

Corinth, and in 586 laid siege to the city of Thessalonica, the first of a series of great sieges which that city was destined to undergo at their hands.87 What is more, they came to stay. "The Slavonians," wrote John of Ephesus in 584, "still encamp and dwell in the Roman territories and live in peace there, free from anxiety and fear, and lead captives and slay and burn."88 The counteroffensive launched by Maurice after 591, following the successful termination of the Persian war, had the effect, on the whole, of checking the repeated incursions of the Avars, who then seem to have transferred their operations farther west beyond the limits of Byzantine territory. The treaty of peace

which the Empire concluded with them in 6oi (the date is not absolutely certain) fixed the Danube as the boundary line between the two powers, but left the way open for the Byzantines to cross that river and chastise any Slavs that might appear dangerous.89 There is no indication, however, that the Slavs who had penetrated into the Empire were forced to retire beyond the Danube, or that they did so of their own accord. The settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan peninsila occurred mainly in the

seventh century, more specifically during the disastrous reign of Phocas (6oz-6io) and the early years of Heraclius. For the reign of Phocas there are no specific references in the sources to any Avaro-Slav invasions of Byzantine

territory, but a general statement in Theophanes, apparently derived from Theophylact Simocatta 9° leaves no doubt, despite a recent attempt to minimize its significance,91 that the Avars came repeatedly. For the reign of Heraclius our information is more explicit, though it leaves much to be desired, especially with regard to chronology. The Slavs had by now not only reached the Aegean,

but also taken to the sea. "It happened...," we read in the Miracula Sancti 67 Cf. H. Gregoire, "L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes," B yzantion, 18 (1944-1945),98-118; P. Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de 1'6poque romaine jusqu'au VIIIe siecle," Revue historique, 211 (1954), 281 ff; L. Hauptmann, "Les rapports des Byzantins avec les Slaves et les Avares pendant la seconde moiti6 du VI' si8cle," Byzantion, 4 (1927-28), 137-170. The siege of Thessalonica took place on Sunday, 22 September, in the reign of Maurice: Miracula Sancti Demetrii, Migne, PG, 116. 1288. This must have been either in 586 or 597, for these are the only two years during the reign of Maurice when 22 September fell on a Sunday. Considering the position of the Avars in the year 597, it seems unlikely that they could have besieged Thessalonica in that year. The year 586 is, therefore, to be preferred: Charanis, "On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and its Recapture by the Byzantines," Speculum, 27 (1952), 347; Barisi6, op. cit., 6o-64. Some scholars, however, have shown preference for the year 597. For a list of the scholars who have taken a position on this issue one way or another, Barisi6, op. cit., 10. To the list given by Bari§i6 we may add Burmov (op. cit., 183-185) and Lemerle ("La composition et la chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S. Demetrii," 354) both of whom adopt the year 597. w John of Ephesus, trans. Smith, 432. as Hauptmann, op. cit., ,6off. Theophanes, 1: 290; Theophylactus Simocatta, 308.

F. Bari§i6, "De Avaro-Slavis in Phocae imperatoris aetate," Recueil des travaux de l'Acad. Serbe des Sciences, XLIX: Institut d'Etudes Byzantines, 4 (Belgrade, 1956) (in Serbian with a Latin summary), 76-86. I have consulted the Serbian text with the help of Dr. Milo§ M. Velimirovi6.

H 38

Demetrii, that "during the bishopric of John of blessed memory, the nation of the Slavs, a countless multitude, was aroused. This multitude was drawn from

the Drogubites, Sagudates, Velegezetes, Vajunetes, Berzetes, and others. Having first invented ships hewn from single pieces of timber, they took to the sea with their arms and pillaged all Thessaly and the islands about it and those about Hellas. They also pillaged the Cyclades, all Achaea, Epirus, and the greater part of Illyricum, and parts of Asia."92 The precise date of this event is not known, although Barigic is probably right in placing it toward the end of 614.93 A year or so later the same Slavs, under the leadership of a certain Hatzon, laid siege to Thessalonica. The city, however, withstood their assault, and they had to turn for help to the Khagan of the Avars. He came two years later, but to no avail. Meanwhile cities of the interior such as Naissus and Sardica had fallen to the barbarians. The narrative of this series of events leaves one with the definite impression that the Slavs who were involved in them had not come from afar, but were already settled in the Balkan peninsula, including the region of Thessalonica. Indeed, if we except the passages that

deal with events of the sixth century, we find in the Miracula no distinct reference to invasions by Slavs coming from afar. The Slavs involved in the various attacks against Thessalonica were already settled in Macedonia. They had established themselves there in the period between the beginning of the reign of Maurice and the early years of the reign of Heraclius.

An episode described in the Miracula indicates that other invaders who were not Slavs settled in the region of Thessalonica later in the seventh century.

This is the episode involving Kouver,B4 a Bulgar whom the Khagan of the Avars had placed at the head of a mixed group under his domination. This group consisted of the descendants of Christian natives whom the Avars had carried away many years previously (about sixty years before, we are told) and the Avars, Bulgars, and other barbarians under the domination of the Khagan with whom these Christians had intermarried. These people dwelt in the region of Sirmium, maintained the traditions of their Christian ancestors, and were anxious to return to their old homes. Kouver, exploiting this desire, induced them to revolt and, after defeating the Avars who tried to check him, directed his followers toward Thessalonica, and then moved them in the direction of Monastir, where we lose sight of them. The date of this event is uncertain, but I am inclined to agree with those who place it toward the end of the reign of Heraclius.95 This seems to fit in with what we know of the history of

the Avars during this time. Their power in the Balkan peninsula was then in a state of decline, which had begun after their unsuccessful siege of Constantinople in 62698 An attempt has recently been made to identify the followers of Kouver n Miracula S. Demetrii, 1325 ff; A. Tougard, De 1'histoire Profane daps ies actes grecs des Bollandistes (Paris, 1874), x18-126. Tougard, op.cit., 187-18q. 0 Bari§i6, Miracles de St. Dlmetrius comme source historique, 149.

w For instance Gregoire, "L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes," iioff; Dvornik, op. cit., 63, note 2. The retirement of the Avars from the Balkan peninsula to regions farther north is associated by the Miracula S. Demetrii with the successful rebellion of Kouver: Tougard, op. cit., i89. 00 For the latest views on the Avar siege of Constantinople in 626 see Bari§i6, "Le siege de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves en 6s6," Byzantion, 24 (1954, published in 1956), 371-395.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 39 with the Croats and Serbs, who also made their appearence at about this time and who contributed decisively to the disintegration of the Avar power in the Balkan peninsula.97 This suggestion is tempting, but in view of the obscurity of our sources, which may not have preserved the various names involved in their original form, the identification must be considered doubtful. The Croats and Serbs, representing the last Slavonic wave to reach the Balkans, came with the consent of Heraclius and settled in the upper territory of the peninsula, the Croats in Dalmatia as far as the Sava, the Serbs in the region of the Urbas and the Morava, the ancient Margus.98 The Bulgar9B and Avar invasions of the Balkan peninsula in the sixth and seventh centuries created a demographic crisis. The cities of the interior were plundered and destroyed, while vast stretches of the countryside were left desolate and empty of their inhabitants. Hundreds of thousands of natives, Illyrians, Thracians, and Greeks were deported; thousands of others were killed. Those deported were settled in the regions beyond the Danube, where,

as we learn from the text concerning Kouver, they intermarried with the barbarians. Doubtless the vast majority of them were absorbed and lost their identity. Some, however, tried to preserve their traditions and, like the followers of Kouver, made an effort to return to the homes of their fathers. Others no doubt stayed behind. This may provide a clue to the solution of the riddle concerning the origin of the modern Rumanians. South of the Danube the virtual elimination of the native population facilitated the establishment of the Slavs. Their settlements covered the heart of the peninsula and extended to the Adriatic, the Aegean, and the Balkan mountains. They were numerous in the region of Thessalonica, a fact known not only from literary sources, but also from many place-names of Slavic origin.100 Thrace, though often devastated by the Slavs, escaped their occupation, but even there they established some settlements, as, for instance, near Vizya.101 The native Illyrians and Thracians of the occupied regions retired into the mountains, where they remained unnoticed till the eleventh century, when they emerged as Albanians and Vlachs. The ethnic composition of the heart of the Balkan peninsula was thus transformed. The coming of the Bulgars into the region between the Danube and the Balkan mountains during the reign of Constantine IV,102 though of great political importance, had hardly any ethnic consequences, °' Grdgoire, "L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes," 116ff. But see above, p. Off. Constantine Prophyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), 122 ff. Cf. Gregoire, ibid., 88 ff.

n The depopulation of the Balkan peninsula began with the invasions of the Bulgars (Utigurs and Kotrigurs) during the reign of Justinian. Thousands of inhabitants were deported beyond the Danube. Some of them managed to return. It is said, for instance, that as a result of the war between the Utigurs and the Kotrigurs, incited by Justinian about 550, "many tens of thousands of Romans," who had been previously captured by the Kotrigurs and transferred to the regions west of the Don, succeeded in escaping and returning to their native land. Procopius, De belloGothico, IV 1g, 1-2. We are also told that Justinian settled two thousand Kotrigurs with their wives and children in Thrace. Procopius, De bello Gothico, IV 19, 7100 Max Vasmer, Die Slavers in Griechenland (Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissen-

schaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, nr. 12) (Berlin, 1941), 202ff. 101 Tougard, op. cit., 156. 101 Theophanes, 1:356-359.

II

40

except that perhaps the Bulgars left the imprint of their character upon the Slavs, by whom they were eventually absorbed. Slavs also settled in the Greek peninsula proper. This fact is quite evident; and no serious scholar has ever questioned it. What has been disputed is the precise date and the magnitude of the settlement. The sources, which are lacking in detail, give the impression that the country was flooded by the Slavs and that they overwhelmed every region.103 We know that the Velegezetes

who took part in the piratical expedition of 614, an expedition to which we have already referred, settled in Thessaly.104 It is quite possible that the Vajunetes, who took part in the same expedition, eventually moved to Epirus, a region which is known from other sources to have been invaded by the Slavs.

We also know by name two tribes which eventually settled in southern Peloponnesus. The Slavs likewise penetrated into Attica and into Locris and, we may assume, also into Boeotia, although we are given no specific indication of their settling there in the seventh century. Further, we are told that western Peloponnesus was completely occupied by the Slavs. If we now turn to the

place-names of Slavic origin, we find that, according to Vasmer, they are most numerous in Epirus and western Greece (558), western and central Peloponnesus (387), and in Thessaly, including Phthiotis (230). They are least numerous in Attica (18), Argolis (18), Boeotia (22), Corinth (24), ad okis (45).105 The Slavic origin of some of these names has been questioned,. and some reserve has been shown concerning the historical inferences that ay be drawn from them,107 but even if we make due allowance for these observations, they remain nevertheless very significant. Indeed, they confirm what we know

from the literary sources which, despite their fragmentary nature, clearly indicate that the regions of Greece most affected by the Slavic invasions were Thessaly, western Peloponnesus, and Epirus; those least affected were central Greece, including Attica, and eastern Peloponnesus. Slavs, then, not only settled in Greece, but did so in considerable numbers. Though the date of this settlement has been a subject of dispute, the evidence points to the period which extended from just before the beginning of the reign of Maurice to the early years of the reign of Heraclius. That more Slavs may have come later in no way alters this fundamental conclusion. The settlement 103 For a brief summary of the sources, Vasmer, op. cit., 11-1g. See also Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece," 141-166. The latest literature is discussed ibid., 164-166. The following works have appeared since: A. Bon, Le Pdlopondse byzantin jusqu'en X204 (Paris, 1951), 27-64; P. Charanis, "On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus," BZ, 46 (1953), 19-103; A. Maricq, "Note sur les Slaves dans le PElopon6se," Byzantion, 22 (1952), 337-348; Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans...," 305f. In connection with the Slavonic settlements in Greece there has been considerable discussion concerning the precise geographical meaning of the term "Hellas." On this problem see Charanis, "Hellas in the Greek Sources of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Centuries," Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton, 1955), 161-176. 1" Tougard, op. cit., 166, 176. 101 Vasmer, op. Cit., 20-76; 128-174; 85-110; 120-123; 126-127; 118-120; 123-125; 113-118.

106 D. Georgakas, "Beitrage zur Deutung als Slavisch erklgater Ortsnamen," BZ, 41 (1942), 351-381; DXaffixi tu18paorl o-r6 roalowulxb 'rls 'Hmlpw, EIS Mvllptly Xplorov EoL1\rl (1892-7956) (Athens, 1956), 149-161. 1m D. Zakythinos, 01 D,6por Ic'DQ681 (Athens, 1945), 72-82.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 41 of Slavs in Greece does not, however, mean that the Greek population was com-

pletely obliterated. Despite the Slavic flood, the Greeks held their own in eastern Peloponnesus, in central Greece, including Attica (a region which is known to have been a theme as early as 695), and, of course, in the islands. A number

of strongholds are known to have remained in the hands of the Byzantines. In the Peloponnesus there was Monemvasia in the south and Corinth in the north.1°8 In central Greece there was Athens, where, if we may believe a hagiographical text, a Cappadocian conversed with philosophers and rhetoricians in the eighth century;109 And farther north there was Thessalonica. These

strongholds, even Thessalonica, were not great urban establishments in the seventh century, nor for that matter in the eighth, but they were to serve as centers for the pacification, absorption, and eventual Hellenization of the Slavs in Greece. Thessalonica in particular may be called the savior of Greece from

the Slavs, for had she succumbed to their repeated attacks in the sixth and seventh centuries, the chances are that Greece would have been completely inundated by them. In the end, the Slavs in Greece proper were absorbed and disappeared from history. Fallmerayer's statement that there is no real Hellenic blood in the veins of the modern Greeks cannot, therefore, be accepted. The Slavic penetration of Greece affected also the ethnography of Sicily and southern Italy. Scholars have noted that whereas about A.D. 6oo Sicily "contained a considerable Latin element," by 65o it "had become completely Greek in language, rite, and culture. "110 The explanation for this, it was thought, lay in the influx of a considerable number of Greek-speaking elements from Syria and Egypt as a result first of the Persian and then of the Arab conquests. But for this, with the exception of one or two texts referring to a few individuals, there is no evidence. The evidence that exists is of a different nature.111 We 106 Monemvasia was founded by Lacedaemonian refugees at the time of the invasion of the Peloponnesus by the Slavs during the reign of Maurice. Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia...," 148. On Corinth and Athens during the seventh century see Charanis, "On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and its Recapture by the Byzantines," 343-350; "The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History of Athens and Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries," Historia, 4 (1955), 163-172. 109 Life of St. Stephen of Surozh, ed. V. Vasil'evskij, Russho-vizaniijshija izsledovanija, II (St. Petersburg, 1893), 75: "-ev1TEV9els 6t Trarpl6Os sic Tds 'A9flvas trrt8pa av eTXs y&p t nOui,(av TOO TrpOauvvfjeni Kai Karaarrfaaoecn T6v va6v TMs esop{ITopos. Efprsv 6t halos tveayevels Tov T6Trov Kal Trarp(ovs ciAoodipovs is wal,t)TOpos. rrd:vras rrpoaopatjoas sat Sia)e)Oels oinc dalya, Iv KmvaravnvovTr6Mi 17rto-rpege.

110 L. White, Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, Mass., 1938), 17. 111 See my paper "On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages," The American Historical Review, 52 (1946), 74-77. But see further 0. Parlangeli, Sui dialetti romanzi e romaici del Salento (Memorie dell'Inslitulo Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere. Classe di Lettere, Scienze Morali e Stvriche, ser.III, XXV-XXVI (Milan, 1953). 141f. For a contrary opinion see Stam. C. Caratzas, L'origine des dialectes neo-grecs de l'Italie mEridionale (Paris, 1958), 47-61. The arguments of Caratzas against the view expressed here, especially since he accepts the testimony of Arethas of Caesarea, leave me absolutely unconvinced. See also, S. G. Kapsomenos, 'H papntpla TOO aetlAoylou yldc r v hin kaoly Tov FJJigvlapoO oTily peoeppptvtl 'I-raala, TTenpayptva ToO e' A1s8v.

BuCavnvoA. zuvespfou, 3 (Athens, 1958), 299-324. Besides the lexical material, which constitutes the basis of his work, Kapsomenos examines also the historical evidence, but his examination is very superficial. The question of the survival of Greek in southern Italy is briefly touched upon by E. Pulgram, The Tongues of Italy. Prehistory and History (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), 50. He is inclined to agree with those who claim the continuity of ancient Greek, but refers also (50, note 7) to B. Migliorini who, in his as yet unpublished work, The Italian Language, suggests a compromise: "the two factions are not really so far apart since even Rohlfs admits that the hold of Greek had become very tenuous by the time it was in fact invigorated through fresh Byzantine immigration." Cf. my paper (75, 84) where I make this observation.

II

42

know that at the time of the great Avaro-Slav invasion of the Peloponnesus during the reign of Maurice many Peloponnesians fled and sought refuge elsewhere. We are specifically told that among these Peloponnesians, many Lacedaemonians settled in Sicily, while the people of Patras found. new homes in the territory of Rhegium in Calabria. And although documen i0 slacking, it is not improbable that other Greeks, too, from Epirus, central Grr ece, and west-

ern Peloponnesus went to Sicily or Italy at that time. As the Slavs occupied virtually all the western part of the Peloponnesus, the Peloponnesians who succeeded in fleeing could find no nearer haven than Sicily or Italy. That Greek-

speaking elements from Syria and Egypt may also have settled in Sicily and southern Italy cannot, of course, be ruled out, but such evidence as there is clearly indicates that the bulk of the settlers came from Greece, particularly from the Peloponnesus, during, and as a result of, the great Avar and Slav invasions of the late sixth century and perhaps later. It is interesting, too, to observe that as a result of the changes which took place in the Balkan peninsula and in Italy during this time, the effective jurisdiction of the papacy was reduced to lands where the Greek-speaking element was very considerable. This fact explains the predominance of Greek-speaking orientals among the popes of the seventh and eighth centuries. It is well known that of the thirteen popes who occupied the pontifical throne from 678 to 752 eleven were Greek-speaking. The ethnography of Asia Minor also was to some degree affected by the coming of the Slavs. In their various raids the Slavs touched upon Asia Minor,112

but there is no evidence that they settled there of their own volition. They were brought to Asia Minor by the Byzantine emperors for political and military reasons; political, because the emperors wanted to reduce the pressure that the Slavs were exerting in the Balkan peninsula, especially in the region around Thessalonica; military, because they wanted to enroll these Slavs in their armies. There are for the seventh century two references in our literary sources to the establishment of Slavic colonies in Asia Minor. The first tell us that in the course of an expedition which the Saracens made into "Romania" in 665, five thousand Slavs went over to them and were settled by them in Syria."3 "Romania" means Asia Minor in this context, and although we are not expli-

citly told that the Slavs in question were settled there, the chances are that they formed a military colony which had been established in those parts. The second reference is more explicit. We are told that in 688 Justinian II "made an expedition against Sclavinia and Bulgaria ... and sallying forth as far as Thessalonica, seized many multitudes of Slavs, some by war, others with their

consent... and settled them in the region of the Opsikion theme," i.e., in Bithynia.114 From among these Slavs Justinian raised an army of 30,000, which he led against the Arabs (A.D. 692). Twenty thousand of these Slavs-probably an 112 Tougard, op. cit., 1x8. lie Theophanes, I: 348.

114 Ibid., 364; Nicephorus, op. cit., 36. Justinian's expedition to Thessalonica is also attested by an inscription that has been edited by A. A. Vasiliev, "An Edict of the Emperor Justinian II, September 688," Speculum, 18 (1943), 1-13. But cf. Gregoire, "Un edit de l'empereur Justinien," Byrantion, i7 (1944-1945), 1r9-124a.

II

ETHNIC CHANGES IN SEVENTH-CENTURY BYZANTIUM 43 exaggerated figure -deserted to the enemy, an act of betrayal which so angered

Justinian that he killed the remaining io,ooo together with their wives and children. Formerly I expressed the view that Justinian had destroyed the entire Slavic colony in Bithynia,115 but a more attentive reading of the text, as A. Maricq has pointed out,110 does not bear out this conclusion. The Slavic colony in Bithynia not only survived,117 but was, in the following century, augmented by another great settlementlle and perhaps by others besides.119 In the beginning of the ninth century a Slav of Asia Minor very nearly ascended the throne; the

view, however, that his uprising was an expression of Slav nationalism is a figment of the imagination.120 The Slavs of Bithynia still existed in the tenth century,121 though they were eventually absorbed and lost their identity. But let us return to the Balkan peninsula. The settlement of the Slavs in that area virtually eliminated the Latin-speaking element from the Byzantine Empire. The Latinized Illyrians and Thracians were killed or deported, or else retired into the mountains, where they lived unnoticed for centuries. It is true that the Empire still clung to Ravenna, Rome, and Naples, had a foothold in southern Italy, controlled all of Sicily, and did not lose Carthage until the very end of the seventh century. Here the Latin-speaking element was dominant, although in Sicily and southern Italy Greek had begun to gain the upper hand. But these were peripheral regions which did not play a significant role, in spite of the importance that the Byzantine emperors attached to retaining them. It had been otherwise with Illyricum and Thrace. Illyricum had been for a long time the best recruiting ground for the Byzantine army. Some of its ablest officers had come from there as well as from Thrace. The loss of Illyricum meant the elimination of the most important Latin-speaking element of the Empire. In the central regions of the Empire there was, thenceforth, no significant seg-

ment of the population that spoke Latin, and Latin had to surrender its position as the language of the administration and of the army. Under Heraclius Greek became the official language of the state. Latin ceased to be studied and was eventually forgotten.122 An emperor of the ninth century refered to it as a "barbarous Scythian language."123 In the meantime developments in the west gave to the papacy a western orientation, and so there evolved the conditions which were to bring about the separation of the Latin and the Greek worlds. 16 Charanis, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century," Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948), 74. According to Michael Syrus (2:470) the number of Slavs who deserted to the Arabs numbered only about seven thousand. Cf. Maricq, op. cit., 349. 110 Maricq, loc. cit.

I am now inclined to agree with Ostrogorsky that the seal which refers to the Slavs in Bithynia dates from 694195 and not from 65o as I had formerly thought. Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staales (Munich, 1952), 107, note i. r'" Nicephorus, 68f.; Theophanes, 1:432. ... Theophanes Continuatus, 50. But cf. Charanis, op. cit., 73. 'm Charanis, op. cit., 79-80. 121 Charanis, op. cit., 80-81.

lss On the status of Latin in the Eastern Roman Empire one may consult the important work of H. Zilliacus, Zum Kamp/ der Weltsprachen im ostromischen Reich (Helsinki, 1935). It was only gradually, however, that Latin was eliminated as the language of the army. It was still in use at the end of the seventh century. Cf. A. Pertusi, "La formation des thbmes byzantins," Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress (Munich, 1958), 25-26 and note x29. 1n Michael III in a letter to Pope Nicholas I : Nicolai Papae Epistolae et Decreta, Migne, PL, 119. 932.

II

44

Among the many scholars who have attempted to determine the causes of this estrangement only a few have given due weight to the occupation of the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs. In reality this was one of the most important causes.12a In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian, the historian Genesius, himself of Armenian descent,I25 lists a variety of peoples from whom the army of the rebel had been drawn; Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals, Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, and Armenians, as well as adherents of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and Athinganoi.12e Even if the identity of all these nations is not entirely clear,127 the mere enumeration of them illustrates vividly the multi-racial character of the Byzantine Empire. I

speak here of the ninth century, but the same could be said of both the preceding and the following periods. Greeks, including the Hellenized natives of Asia Minor, Armenians, Slavs, peoples from the Caucasus, obscure tribes such as the Mardaites whom Justinian II removed from Lebanon and settled in the Empire (probably in the region of Attalia),I28 remnants of the Huns, Bulgars, and Turks-all these nationalities were represented in the population of the Empire. The Greeks no doubt predominated, but some of the others, as, for instance, the Armenians and the Slavs, were both important and numerous. But, despite the multi-racial nature of the Empire, two forces tended to give it unity. The first was orthodoxy; the other was a common language. Both were Greek, and to the extent that they were Greek the Empire also was Greek. But in another sense the Empire was neither Greek nor Roman. It was above all Christian, and in it, if we may use the words of St. Paul, there was "neither Jew nor Greek," but "all one in Christ Jesus."12e RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 1"l Prof. F. Dvornik has repeatedly emphasized the importance of this factor. See his recent work, The Slavs. Their Early History and Civilization, 44-45 Cf. also above, p. Io ff. 1"e C. de Boor, "Zu Genesios," BZ, io (Igo1), 62-65. lee Genesius, 33.

1" Vasiliev-Gregoire, Byzance of les Arabes, I:31, note 2. Cf. F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Sfudien (Leipzig, 1876), 1311-

228 Theophanes, I:363, 364; Agapius of Menbidj, 497; Michael Syrus, 2:469. Cf. Honigmann, op. cit., 41; J. Morelli, Bibliotheca manuscripts graeca et latina, I (Bassano, 1802), 217. In the ninth and tenth centuries we find Mardaites also in the Peloponnesus, at Nicopolis in Epirus, and Cephalonia: Theophanes Continuatus, 304, 311; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De ceremontis, I (Bonn, 1829), 665-

M Gal. III27,28.

III THE TRANSFER OF POPULATION AS A POLICY IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE *

In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian (820) against the Emperor Michael II (820-829) the Byzantine historian Genesius lists a variety of peoples from whom the armies of the rebel had been drawn: Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals,

Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, Armenians, adherents of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and the Athenganoi.1 Some of these peoples are well known; the identity of others, despite efforts made to determine it, is by no means certain.E But in any case, their listing by the Byzantine historian illustrates vividly the multi-racial character of the Byzantine Empire. This was in the ninth century, but the situation was no different for the period before, and it would not be different for the period after. The Byzantine Empire was never in its long history a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. If by virtue of its civilization it may be called Greek, it was never, except perhaps during the very last years of its existence, an empire of Greeks. There is nothing particularly new in this statement, for the Byzantine Empire, which, as is well known, was the continuation of the pagan Roman Empire, was made up of lands inhabited by peoples of different racial origins and cultural traditions. To be sure the conquests of the Arabs in the seventh

century deprived the Empire of great numbers of non-Greek speaking elements and gave to it an aspect which appeared to be more Greek than had been the case before Egypt and Syria, where a national consciousness and a literature in the native languages had begun to develop, were lost; so also was Africa with its Latin and Punic-speaking population. There remained Asia Minor, parts of the Balkan peninsula, the Islands of the Aegean, including Crete, certain regions of Italy, and Sicily. Here the Greek-speaking elements were strong, but the ethnic homogeneity which they suggest was more apparent than real.3 Other studies of population transfer will follow as sequels to this article. Ed. Genesius, Hi.storia (Bonn, 1834), p. 33. A. A. Vasiliev-H. Gregoire, Byzance et les Arabes, I (Brussels, 1935), pp. 31, note 2 Cf. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig, 1876), p. 131. Cf. Peter Charanis, "Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Centu. ry", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), pp. 25-44. " t

f

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

141

The native peoples of Asia Minor, for instance, were not, at least as late as the beginning of the ninth century, as thoroughly Hellenized as is generally believed. This is shown not only by the fact that some of the native languages

as, for instances, Phrygian, Isaurian, and perhaps also Celtic continued to be spoken past the sixth century, but also by the persistence well into the ninth century of certain strange heretical sects native to Asia Minor as the Athenganoi, the Sabbatians, the Tetraditai, and others.4 ' But more important were the ethnic changes brought about by the arrival of new peoples as, for example, the Slavs, and by certain practices of the imperial government, notably the recruitment of barbarians for the army and their settlement in the Empire, and the transfer of peoples from one region of the Empire to another. It is the latter practice that I would like to examine in this essay. Inherited from the pagan Roman Empire this practice was frequently resorted to throughout the duration of the Byzantine Empire. We need not here trace its origin or give examples of its use during the early centuries. Justinian certainly resorted to it. We know that he settled Vandals in Asia Minor and Kotrigurs, a Bulgar people, in Thrace.5 Meanwhile, a number of Goths had been settled in Bithynia, in the territory which later formed the Optimate theme. They were still there at the beginning of the eigth century, though by then they were at least partly Hellenized.e Justinian also removed Armenians from their homeland and settled them elsewhere in the Empire, but the numbers involved were small.7 Transfers on a larger scale were resorted to by the immediate successors of Justinian. In 578, when Tiberius was Emperor, 10,000 Armenians were removed from their homes and settled on the island of Cyprus .8 A transplantation on a still vaster scale was planned by Maurice, Tiberius' successor, and was partially carried out. Maurice, who may have been of Armenian descent, though this is extremely doubtful," aimed at nothing less than the Ibid., pp. 25-28. Procopius, De bello Vandalico, 11 14, 17 for Vandals; De bello Gothico, IV 9, 6 for Kotrigurs.

Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), 1:385; Acta Graeca SS. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii, in Analecta Bollandiana, 18 (1899), p. 256. ' Procopius, De bello Gothico, III 32, 7; Cf. R. Grousset, Histoire de l'Arminie des origines d 1071 (Paris, 1947), p. 242. Grousset's statement concerning vast transfers of Armenians to Thrace by Justinian is not borne out by his references. e Theophylactus Simocatta, Historia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1887), p. 143; John of Ephesus, iiistoria ecclesiasticae pars tertia, tr. into Latin by E. W. Brooks (Louvain, 1936), pp. 236, 252; English trans. by R. Payne-Smith (Oxford, 1860), pp. 412, 437; Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), p. 215. Cf. E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 (Brussels, -1935), p. 23. Two years earlier, during the reign of Justin II, Sabiri and Albanians were moved on this side of the Cyrus river (in the region of the Caus

casus) in order to make certain that they would not be friendly with the Persians. Menander Protector, Excerpta ex historia (Bonn, 1829), p. 394. 9

N. Adontz has tried to prove the Armenian origin of Maurice: "Les lbgendes de

III

142

removal of virtually all the Armenians from their homeland. According to Sebeos, the Armenian historian who is one of our principal sources for this period, Maurice addressed the Persian king as follows: The Armenians are a knavish and indocile nation. They are located between us and they are a source of trouble. I am going to collect mine and send them to Thrace; send yours to the East. If they die there, it will be so many enemies that will die; if, on the contrary, they kill, it will be so many enemies that they will kill. As for us, we shall live in peace. But if they remain in their country, there will never by any quiet for us.

Sebeos further reports that the two rulers agreed to carry out this plan, but apparently the Persians, in the end, failed to cooperate. For when the Byzantine Emperor gave the necessary orders and pressed hard for their execution, many Armenians fled to Persia. The Byzantines, however, did carry out the deportation, though only in part." In 602 the same Emperor issued the following edict: "I need 30,000 cavalrymen, by way of tribute, raised in Armenia. Thirty thousand families must be gathered and settled in Thrace." Priscus, one of the generals of Maurice, was sent to Armenia to carry out this edict, but before he had time to do so, the revolution that overthrew Maurice broke out, and the edict apparently was not enforced. No doubt, the most important ethnic change in the Balkan peninsula since ancient times was brought about by the incursions and the settlement of the Slavs late in the sixth and early in the seventh century." The settlements of the Slavs covered the heart of the peninsula and extended to the Adriatic, the Aegean, and the Balkan mountains. They were numerous in the region of Thessalonica, a fact known not only from literary sources, but also from many place-names of Slavic origin. Thrace, though often devastated by the Slavs, escaped their occupation, at least for several centuries, but even there they established some settlements, as, for instance, near Vizya. The native Illyrians and Thracians of the occupied regions retired into the mountains, where they remained unnoticed until the eleventh century, when they emerged as Albanians and Vlachs. Slavs also settled in Greece proper, particularly in Thessaly, western Peloponnesus, and Epirus. Except for the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, a compilation of the seventh century which relates the successful resistance of Thessalonica against the

Maurice et de Constantin V, empereurs de Byzance", Annuaire de l'Institur de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, 2 (Brussels, 1934), pp. 1-12. But see P. Goubert, Byzance avant P/slam, I (Paris, 1951), pp. 36-41. 1' Sebeos, Histoire tr. from Armenian by F. Macler (Paris, 1904), pp. 3031. Cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches, I (Munich, 1924), p. 13, no. 108. 11

For what follows see Charanis, "Ethnic Changes ...", 36-43; also by the same

author, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century", Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948), pp. 69-83.

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

143

Slavs who tried several times to take it, we have virtually no information concerning the efforts, if any, made by Byzantium to bring the Slavs under its effective jurisdiction.. We do know, however, that in 657-658 Constans II, the Emperor of Byzantium, made an expedition into Sclavinia (by Sclavinia here the region of Thessalonica is probably meant) and "took away prisoners and subdued the land". We know also that in 665 five thousand Slavs deserted to the Saracens when the latter made an incursion into Asia Minor and were settled by them in Syria. As there is no evidence to the effect that Slavs settled in Asia Minor on their own volition, the Slavs of Asia Minor who deserted to the Arabs in 665 must have been settled there by the Byzantine authorities most probably following the expedition of Constans II into Sclavinia to which reference has just been made. A transfer of Slavs from the Balkan peninsula into Asia Minor on a larger scale was affected by Justinian II. We are told that in 688 Justinian II "made an expedition against Sclavinia and Bulgaria ... and rallying forth as far as Thessalonica, seized many multitudes of Slavs, some by war, others with their consent ... and settled them in the region of the Opsikion theme",

i.e., in Bithynia. From among these Slavs Justinian raised an army of 30,000, which he led against the Arabs (A.D. 692). Twenty thousand of these Slavs-this figure is doubtless an exaggeration-deserted to the enemy, an act of betrayal which so angered Justinian that he killed the remaining 10,000 together with their wives and children. Justinian II was responsible for other population transfers. In 688 he removed the Mardaites, a Christian people of unknown ethnic origin, from

the region of the Amanus mountains and settled them elsewhere in the Empire. We find them in the tenth century living in Attaleia in Pamphylia, in the Peloponnesus, in the island of Cephalonia and in Epirus, serving the Empire as sailors.12 In 691 Justinian II removed the Cypriots, together with their archbishop and other ecclesiastics, and settled them in the region of Cyzicus. The new settlement was called Justinianoupolis. Not long afterwards, however, the Cypriots returned to their homeland and as a consequence their settlement near Cyzicus was abandoned.'3 The same Emperor is said to have settled Scythians in the mountainous regions of the Strymon River in eastern Macedonia." The term Scythian was used by the Byzantines to designate the various Turkish peoples with whom they came in contact; '= Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 363, 364; Michael Syrus, Chronique, tr. from Syriac by J. B. Chabot, II (Paris, 1901), p. 469; Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn, 1938), pp. 304, 311; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis, I (Bonn, 1829), p. 665; J. Morellii, Bibliotheca Manuscripts Graeca ei Latina, I (Bassani, 1802), pp. 217, 218. " Mansi 11: 961; Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 365; Michael Syrus, op. cit., 2: 470. Constantine-Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi (Rome, 1952), pp. 88 f. Cf. B. A. Panchenko, "Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii VII.v", Bulletin de l'Institut archeologique russe a Constantinople, 8 (Sofia, 1903), p. 53. Panchenko considers these Scythians Turks, and identifies them with the Vardariotae Turks.

III

144

it was also sometimes used to designate the Slavs. The Scythians referred

to in this instance, however, must have been a Turkish people, for the general policy of Justinian II was to weaken rather than strengthen the Slavs in Macedonia. More transfers were made in the course of the eighth century. During the

reign of Constantine V Copronymus (741-775), thousands of Armenians and monophysite Syrians were gathered by the Byzantine armies during their raids in the regions of Germanicea (Marash), Melitene, and Erzeroum, and were settled in Thrace.15 Others, also from the environs of Erzeroum, were settled along the eastern frontier. These, however, were subsequently seized by the Arabs and were settled by them in Syria.16 The same emperor removed a number of people from the islands and Greece (755) in order to repeople Constantinople which had suffered grievously by the plague of 746.17 But more important was his transfer of Slavs from the Balkan peninsula to Asia Minor. The Slavs involved numbered, according to one chronicle, 208,000.

They were settled in Asia Minor about the Artanas River, a little stream which flows into the Black Sea west of the Sangarius and not far from the Bosphorus.18 Another big transfer was made during the reign of Leo IV (775-780). The people involved were chiefly Syrian Jacobites, though some Armenians may have also have been among them. They had been seized by the Byzantines in a raiding expedition into Cilicia and Syria and settled in Thrace. According to an oriental source, they numbered 150,000.19 Some years later (792) about a thousand soldiers, probably Armenians, were removed from the Armeniac theme and were settled in Sicily and other islands following the suppression of a revolt which had broken out among the Armeniacs, an army corps which consisted chiefly of Armenians.E9

Theophanus the Confessor in his account of the reign of Nicephorus I (802-811) puts the emphasis on what he calls the ten oppressive measures of that Emperor. The first of these measures was an order to have Christians from every province of the empire transplanted to Sclavinias. Theophanes considers this forced emigration worse than imprisonment. Some of those Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 427, 429; Michael Syrus, 2: 518, 521, 523; Nicephorus, Opuscula Hisiorica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 65, 66; Ghevond, Histoire des guerres et des conqu@tes des Arabes en Arminie, tr. from Armenian by G. V. Chahnazarian (Paris, 1856), pp. 126-127. 16 Agapius of Menbidj, Histoire universelle, tr. A. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, 8 (1912), pp. 531, 538; Dionysius I of Tell-Mahr6, Chronique, tr. J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1895), pp. 56-57. Cf. A. Lombard, Etudes d'histoire byzantine. Constantine V, empereur des Romains (740-775) (Paris, 1902), p. 35. Among the peoples involved were some Alans also. 17 Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 429. Is Nicephorus, op. cit., 68 f. Cf. Charanis, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia 15

Minor...", pp. 76 if. Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 451-52; Chevond, op. cit., p. 150; Michael Syrus, op. cit., 3: 2. Theophanes, op. cit., 1: 469.

III

TRANSFER OP POPULATION

145

involved, he says, wept over the graves of their fathers and considered the dead more blessed than the living. Others preferred to hang themselves rather than abandon the soil of their birth. The order, however, was carried out and its execution required about six months, from September to Easter, which in that year (810) fell in March. Despite the brevity of this statement, its meaning is quite clear. A considerable number of people were, by order of Nicephoius, removed from their homes and were settled in regions of the Empire which were inhabited predominately by Slavs. Theophanes does not locate these regions, but we learn from another source that one of them was western Peloponnesus. Nicephorus, we are told, rebuilt the city of Patras and settled it with Greeks brought there from Calabria for this purpose. He also rebuilt and resettled the city of Lacedaemon, using for this purpose various peoples brought from Asia Minor, including some Armenians. The peoples transferred to western Peloponnesus were Orthodox Christians and no doubt predominantly Greek speaking, for the object of Nicephorus was to Christianize the Slavs who since the reign of Maurice had dominated the western Peloponnesus st Quite different were the people involved in the transfer which was ordered by Michael I (811-813). Known as Athinganoi, they were adherents of a strange sect characterized by an exaggerated levitical purity, an indulgence in astrological, demonic, and magical pursuits, and the observance of the

seventh day as the Sabbath. At the beginning of the ninth century the Athinganoi were to be found chiefly in Phrygia and Lycaonia, where another

heresy, that of the Paulicians, had made considerable progress. Removed from their homes by order of Michael I, they were apparently settled in the European provinces of the Empire, for some years later we find some of them in the island of Aegina.22 The Athinganoi eventualy disappeared but not before they gave their name to a foreign people, the ancestors of the Gypsies, who are definitely known to have existed in Byzantium during the first half of the eleventh century and perhaps as early as the ninth.23 The imperial authorities turned also against the Paulicians in Asia Minor, but the ultimate effect of their measures was to drive them towards the mountainous regions of the eastern frontier where they fortified themselves in certain localities, the most famous of which was Tefrike.u There they On all this see Charanis, "Nicephorus 1, The Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.D.)", Byzantina Metabyzantina, I (1946), pp. 75-92. -" Charanis, "Ethnic Changes in Seventh-Century Byzantium", p. 27. e9 P. Peeters, "Histoires monastiques georgienne", Analecta Bollandiana, 36-37 (191719), pp. 102-103. Cf. M. J. De Goeie, Memoires d'histoire et de geographie orientale, 3: Memoire sur les migrations des Tsiganes d travers I'Asie (Leiden, 1903), p. 75. Who 2'

one may ask, are the Tzingoi mentioned by the Arab astronomer Apomasar (Ab(I Ma'shar Ja'far ibn Muhammed ibn 'Umar al-Balkhl, d. 886) as translated into Greek probably in the tenth century?: Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, V, 3 (Brussels, 1910), p. 54. "' H. Gregoire, "Precision geographiques et chronologiques sur les Pauliciens", Aca-

leagued themselves with the Arabs and so became a menace to the Empire, at times even threatening its territorial integrity. The Paulicians were a religious sect and as such probably included elements of different ethnic origins, but the majority were no doubt Armenians. When finally during the reign of Basil I (867-886) their strongholds were taken and razed to the ground, their army defeated and their leader killed (872), they were forced to abandon their homes and were settled elsewhere in the Empire. We know that some of them were settled in southern Italy, in the regions under the jurisdiction of the Empire.25 But not all the Paulicians were removed from the eastern regions of the Empire, for we find that in the tenth century the Emperor John Tzimiskes transferred a considerable number of them from

Asia Minor to Thrace, settling them in the region around the city of Philippopolis.16 They were no doubt predominantly Armenians. Meanwhile,

other Armenians had been settled in Crete following the recovery of that island from the Saracens in 961.27 And some years later, perhaps in 988, Basil II removed a number of Armenians from the eastern provinces and settled them in Macedonia.2 The Armenians settled in Crete and in Macedonia were not Paulicians. The annexation of Armenia, completed by the middle of the eleventh century, led to further transfers of Armenians into the older as well as the newly acquired regions (non-Armenian) of the Empire. Armenians began to move in the direction of the Empire towards the beginning of the tenth century and were responsible for the integration into its administrative system

of certain deserted regions along the eastern front, as those, for instance, which came to constitute the theme of Lycandos.29 During the second half of the tenth century, Armenians were encouraged and perhaps forced to move from their homes in order to repeople the various towns captured from the Arabs as, for instance, Melitene, captured in 934, Tarsus, captured in 965, Antioch, captured in 969, and others, which had suffered considerable losses in population as the result of the departure of most of the Moslems. We know, for instance, that Armenian and Syrian Jacobites were used by ddmie royale de Belgique: Bulletin de la Classe des Lertres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 5e Ser., 33 (Brussels, 1947), pp. 294 f.; S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (Cambridge, 1947), pp. 26-46. :s H. "La carribre du premier Nicbphore Phocas", Prosphora eis Stilpona P. Kyriakiden (Thessalonica, 1953), p. 251. t° Cedrenus, Historiarum compendium (Bonn, 1839), 2: 382; Anna Commena, Alexiad, 2 (Bonn, 1878), pp. 298 f. Leo Diaconus, Historia (Bonn, 1828), p. 28. 21 29 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, Histoire universelle (deuxibme partie), tr. from Armenian by F. Macler (Paris, 1917), p. 74. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik and tr. 15 R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), pp. 238-240 (Bonn, pp. 227-228); De rhematibus, ed. A. Pertusi (Rome, 1952), pp. 75-76, 143-146 (Bonn, 32-35); Honigmann, op. cit., 64; H. Grigoire, "Notes 6pigraphiques, VII", Byzantion, 8 (1933), pp. 79 ff.

III

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

147

Nicephorus Phocas to repeople Melitene which had become virtually deserted 3°

It was the annexation of Armenia which intensified this movement and gave to it the aspect of a mass migration. For as the Byzantines annexed the various Armenian territories, they transferred their princes elsewhere in the

Empire and these princes took along with them, besides their families, a numerous retinue, consisting primarily of their nobility and the latter's following. So numerous indeed was the nobility that followed their princes that their going is said to have emptied Armenia of the most valiant elements

of its population. The Greeks, wrote Matthew of Edessa, "dispersed the most courageous children of Armenia.... Their most constant care was to scatter from the orient all that there was of courageous men and valiant generals of Armenian origin." 31 Of the actual number involved in this dis-

placement no figure can be given.

The national Armenian historian, Tchamtchian, puts those who followed Senacherim, one of the displaced Armenian princes, at 400,000, and this figure has been repeated by others,12 but there is nothing in the existing sources which bears this figure out. All

that we have is the figure given by a medieval Armenian historian, who says that Senacherim was followed by 16,000 of his compatriots, not counting the women and children.33 But whatever the final figure, there can be little doubt that the number of Armenians who left their homes and settled elsewhere in the Empire was a large one. The repeated raids of the Seljuk Turks

which began in earnest about this time increased this number still more. The chroniclers who report this migration no doubt exaggerate in their descriptions, but their accounts, after allowance has been made for this exaggeration, remain nevertheless impressive. Armenians by the thousands were forced to leave their homeland and went to settle in Cappadocia, in Cilicia, and in northern Syria. Meanwhile other peoples were transferred or were settled in different regions of the Empire. In 834, for instance, several thousand Persians (seven thousand according to one account, fourteen thousand according to another, " On the westward expansion of the Armenians, Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, op. cit., p. 141; German translation of this work, H. Gelzer and A. Burckhardt (Scriptores sacri et profani, 4) (Leipzig, 1907), p. 196; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, tr. from Syriac E. A. W. Budge (Oxford, 1932), 1:169; Honigmann, "Malatya", The Encyclopaedia of Islam, III (London, 1936), p. 194. Cf. M. Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides de Jazira et de Syrie (Paris, 1935), p. 736. " Matthew of Edessa, Chronique, tr. from Armenian by E. Dulaurier (Paris, 1858), pp. 113, 114. ax M. Tchamtchian, History of Armenia (in Armenian), II (Venice, 1785), p. 903. I consulted Tchamtchian's work with the help of Professor Sirarpie Der Nersessian. M. Brosset in LebeauSaint-Martin, Histoire du Bas-empire, 14 (Paris, 1838), p. 211; Fr. Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de l'Arminie (Paris, 1900), p. 124. J0 Continuator of Thomas Ardzrouni, Histoire des Ardzrouni, tr. from Armenian, M. Brosset, Collection d'historiens ArmEniens, I (St. Petersburg, 1874), p. 248.

thirty thousand according to still another) under the leadership of Babek and Nasr, who was subsequently christened Theophobos, fled to the Byzantine Empire, joined the Byzantine army, and became Christian. In 838 these Persians revolted; thereupon, the Emperor Theophilus dispersed them, settling them in the different themes of the Empire." Towards the beginning of the tenth century, the exact date is not known, Turks, subsequently known as Vardariotae, were settled near the Vardar River, apparently not far from Thessalonica sa Other Turks are known to have dwelled near Ochrido in

the region of the Rhodope mountains, though the circumstances and the date of their establishment are not known se A Turkish colony established before 1025 was also located in Thrace, for it already existed during the reign of

In 941 the entire Arab tribe of the Banii H'abid, discontented apparently with the Hamdanides, emigrated from the region of Nisibis in Mesopotamia and came to settle in the Byzantine Empire. The new arrivals numbered 12,000 horsemen and brought with them, besides their families, their slaves, flocks, and all their transportable goods. They were followed in addition by many of their neighbors. Once in Byzantine territory, they embraced Christianity, enrolled in the Byzantine army, and in return were Basil 11.37

given lands, animals, clothes, and even some precious objects.se Bulgarians too were transferred from one region of the Empire to another,

especially after the destruction of the first Bulgarian kingdom by Basil II. We know, for instance, that Bulgarians settled in the various Thessalian fortresses were removed and were settled in the district of Voleron, located apparently in what is now western Thrace in the neighborhood of Alexandropolis.90 Others, originally from western Macedonia, were settled in the H. Grbgoire, "Manuel et Theophobe ou ]a concurrence de deux monasti res", Byzantion, 9 (1934), pp. 183-222.

3

H. Gelder, "Ungedachte and wenig bekannte Bistii.merverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche", Byz. Zeitschrift, 2 (1893), p. 46. Concerning the origin of these Turks: G. L. Fr. Tafel, De Thessalonica eiusque agro ' (Berlin, 1839), pp. 70-74 (Persians); R. Janin, "Les Turcs Vardariotes", Echos dOrient, 29 (1930), p. 444 (Persians); Panchenko, op. cit., p. 53 (Turks, the Scythians whom Justinian II settled); P. Kyriakides; Byzantinae Meletae, II-V (Thessalonica, 1937, cover 1939), pp. 251 ff. (Magyars); V. Laurent, "0 Bardari8ton etoe Tourkon. Perses, Turcs asiatiques ou turcs hongrois?", in Recueil dedii a la memoire du Professeur Peter Nikou (Sofia, 1939). pp. 275 ff. (A mixture of Persians, Hungarians, and Turks from Asia Minor.) s" Anna Comnena, op. cit., 1: 199. Ochrido is to be distinguished from Ochrida, the ancient Lychnidus. On the location of Ochrido, Kyriakides, op. cit., pp. 251-52; C. J. JireZek, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinople and die Balkanpasse (Prague, 1877), p. 97. 37 Life of Athanasius of Mount Athos, ed. by I. Pomi5lovskii (St. Petersburg, 1895), p. 92; Cf. "Vie de S. Athanase l'Athonite", ed. by L. Petit, Analecta Bollandiana, 25 (1906), P. 72. 39 Ibe H'auqal, tr. M. Canard, in H. Gregoire-A. A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, 11, 2 (Brussels, 1950), p. 420; Cf. Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des Haamdanides.. as

pp. 737-738. Cedrenus, op. cit., 2: 453, 461. On the location of Voleron, Kyriakides, op. cit., p. 30. 31

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

149

regions of the lower Danube, whose population by the end of the eleventh

century came to be made up of a mixture of peoples, including some Pechenegs.40 Bulgarians may have also been settled in Asia Minor in the eleventh century, for a biography of a saint who thrived during that century mentions a Bulgarian town located in the region of Ephesus.41 Bulgarians had been settled in different parts of the empire by Michael 1 (811-813),42 but whether or not the Bulgarian town near Ephesus was a survival of these settlements is a matter which cannot now be determined. Farther down, in the southwestern corner of Asia Minor there existed in the tenth century a colony inhabited by a people called Mauroe (Blacks) whose rough behavior towards the natives betrayed their alien character and the recent origin of their settlement.43 Who these Mauroe were is not known, but they may have been, as Rudakov suggests, Arabs from Africa who were settled there in order to serve in the navy.44

Transfers of population are attested for the later centuries, though the Empire declined politically and lost its important territories. In the twelfth century Pechenegs were settled in Macedonia'45 Serbs in Bithynia,46 near Nicomedia, and perhaps also Armenians brought there from Cilicia" In the thirteenth century the emperors of Nicaea settled Cumans both in their European as well as in their Asiatic provinces.4B Michael VIII Palaeologus brought Tzacones-ancient remnants of the Lacedaemonians-from the Morea in order to repeople Constantinople following its recovery from the Latins in Michael Ataliates, Historia (Bonn, 1853), p. 204. De Sancto Lazaro, monacho in monte Galesio, Acta Sanctorum, Novembris 3 (Brussels, 1910), p. 537. 42 Cedrenus, op. cit., 2: 52. 49 Vita S. Pauli lunioris in Monte Latro, ed. Jacobus Sirmondus, Analecta Bollandiana, 11 (1892), pp. 138-140. 40 41

44

A. P. Rudakov, Sketches of Byzantine Culture based on Evidence drawn from

Greek Hagiography (in Russian) (Moscow, 1917), p. 56. I consulted this book with the help of Cyril Mango. John Zonaras, Epitomae hisroriarum, III (Bonn, 1897), pp. 740 f.

Nicetas Choniates, Historia (Bonn, 1835), p. 23. These Serbs were doubtless the inhabitants of the servochoria which are mentioned in the Parritio regni graeci at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Cf. G. L. Fra. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, Urkunden 4B

zur d1teren Handels- and Staatsgesclrichte der Reprtblik Venedig, I (Vienna, 1856), p. 475.

" A large colony of Armenians is known to have existed in the Troad at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Although nothing is known of the circumstances of its establishment, it may have been the result perhaps of the transfer of Armenians from another region as that, for instance, which was effected by John II Comnenus when he took Anazarbus in 1138. Cf. Gregory the Priest, Chronique, In Dulaurier, Recueil des des Croisades: Document Armdnien, I (Paris, 1869), p. 619. "1Jistoriens Gregoras, Historia, I (Bonn, 1829), p. 37. See further, Charanis, "On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century", Prosphora eis Stilpona P. Kyriakiden (Thessalonica. 1953), pp. 140-141. For a Cuman settlement before 1195, G. Rouillard et P. Collomp, Acres de Lavra (Paris, 1937), p. 125. For the date of the document containing this information, F. DSlger, "Zur Textgestaltung der LavraUrkunden and zu ihrer geschichtlichen Auswertung", Byz. Zeitschrift, 39 (1939), pp. 34 f. `D Pachymeres, Historia, I (Bonn, 1835), p. 188.

III 150

126190 The same Emperor settled a number of Turks, followers of the Seljuk Sultan Izzedin Kaikaus II in the Dobrogea. These, according to some authorities, still survive in the present day Gagauses who live in the neighborhood of Varna and far to the north. Descendants of the followers of Izzedin were settled

in Verroia in Macedonia where we still find them during the later part of the fourteenth century. Others, including descendants of Izzedin himself, found their way into Morea, established themselves there, and intermarried with the Byzantines. The famous family of the Melikitae, whom we find in the fifteenth century, were apparently an offshoot of these Turks.-10 At the same time other peoples, as for instance Albanians, were settled in the Morea.51 Meanwhile, numerous Latins, a subject which I shall not elaborate here, had come to Byzantium, beginning with the eleventh century, either as mercenaries or merchants or conquerors. Thus, throughout its duration, the Byzantine Empire made it a matter of policy, for reasons of state, to transfer peoples from one region to another within its borders and also to accept for settlement barbarians who came to

it or were invited or seized by it for that purpose. Foremost among these reasons of state was the military. There is little doubt that the transfers affected by Tiberius, by Maurice, by Justinian II, by Basil II, and by others were resorted to because the elements involved were needed for the army in some particular spot. It was indeed these transfers and settlements of new peoples which enabled the Empire to reorganize its armies and so survive the crisis of the seventh and eighth centuries and then take the offensive. Besides the military there were also economic reasons for these transfers. Indeed, the military and economic reasons were often related. The historian Evagrius writes concerning the transfer of the 10,000 Armenians to Cyprus in 578: "Thus land which previously had not been tilled was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them 5° The literature on the Gagauses is considerable. I cite here some of the more important works: G. D. Balaschev, The Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Establishment with his aid of the stare of the Gagauses on the Western Coast of the Black Sea (in Greek) (Sofia, 1930); A. Manof, "Who are the Gagauses?" (in Greek), Epeteris Hetaereias Byzantindn Spouddn, 10 (1933), pp. 381-400; P. Mutafciev, Die angebliche Einwanderung von Seldschuk-Tiirken in die Dobrudscha im XIII. Jahrhundert (Sofia, 1943). But see V. Laurent, "La domination byzantine aux bouches du Danube sous

Michel VIII Palaelogue", Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europien, 22 (1945), pp. 194 ff.; also G. I. Bratianu, "Les Roumains aux bouches du Danube", ibid., pp. 199 ff.; P. Wittek, "La descendance chretienne de la dynastic Seldjouk en Macedoine'", Echos d'Orient, 33 (1934), pp. 409, 412; Wittek, "Yazijioghlu 'Ali on the Christian Turks of the Dobruja",

Bulletin of the Society of Oriental and African Studies, 14 (1952), pp. 639-668; V. Laurent, "Une famille turque au service de Byzance: les Mblikbs", Byz. Zeitschrift, 49 (1956), pp. 349-368. 1 have not seen the work by E. M. Hoppe, "Die tiirkischen Gagauzen-Christen", Oriens Christ., 41 (1957), pp. 125-137. On the settlement of Albanians and other peoples in the Peloponnesus (the Morea) see now D. A. Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Moree, II: Vie et Institutions (Athens, 1953), 20-45.

bI

III

TRANSFER OF POPULATION

151

and they fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, because of the easy rate at which slaves were procured." 52 The Armenians settled in Macedonia by Basil II about 988 were brought there, we are told by the Armenian historian who reports the incident, in order to serve as a bulwark against the Bulgarians and also to help increase the prosperity of the country. Justinian II no doubt removed the Cypriots to Cyzicus in order to rehabilitate the country which had been terribly devastated by the Arabs. The repeopling and economic rehabilitation of the country were no doubt the reasons for the numerous transfers made in the eighth century. The same factors were operative in the movement of peoples, particularly the Armenians, in the tenth century. There were other purposes served by the transfers of population. They helped in the recovery and Byzantinization of certain regions which had been occupied by the barbarians. The transfers made by Nicephorus I, for instance, laid the basis for the eventual absoption of the Slavs in Greece. They served or were intended to serve for the elimination of certain troublesome heresies as the Athenganoi and also the Paulicians, though in the latter case military objectives were also involved. They served finally to remove recalcitrant elements which, if left in their homeland, might have become serious sources of trouble. This was no doubt the principal reason for the removal of the Paulicians in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries and of the Armenian princes and their retinues in the eleventh. It was also a factor in the transfer of Slavs from the Balkan peninsula to Asia Minor in the seventh and eighth centuries.

There is no doubt that transfers of population and the settlement of new peoples were major factors in the military and demographic revival and economic prosperity of the empire. Transfers of population contributed also to the elimination of heretical groups as the Athenganoi and the absorption of barbarians as the Slavs in Greece. But in at least two instances the policy of transfer had disastrous consequences and contributed to the decline of the Empire. I am referring to the removal of the Paulicians and the Armenian princes and their retinues.

I1 will be recalled that Paulicians were settled in Thrace in the eighth century and again in the tenth. In transplanting the Paulicians to Thrace the aim of the Byzantine authorities was "firstly to drive them out of their strong cities and forts which they held as despotic rulers, and secondly to put them as trustworthy guards against the inroads of the Scythians by which

u

Evagrius Scholasticus, op. cit., p. 215. The translation is taken from the English version of Evagrius which appeared in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library: Theodoret and Evagrius, History of th,.? Church (London, 1854), p. 444.

the country of Thrace was often oppressed".55 It was doubtless hoped also that they would be absorbed by the indigenous inhabitants and so disintegrate

as a heretical sect. But the outcome was quite different. Not only did they hold tenaciously to their beliefs, but converted also many of the indigenous inhabitants who for various reasons were dissatisfied with the Byzantine administration. By the end of the eleventh century Philippopolis and the surrounding country was almost entirely inhabited by them. "All the inhabitants of Philippopolis", writes Anna Comnena, "were Manicheans, except

a few ... They increased in number until all the inhabitants around Philippopolis were heretics. Then another brackish stream of Armenians joined them and yet another." 54 Inimical to Byzantium from the beginning, the Paulicians became so still more as the result of measures taken by the imperial authorities to suppress them. They showed this enmity in the most dangerous way, by cooperating

with its enemies whenever the opportunity offered itself. Thus in 1086 it was the Bogomiles, an offshoot of the Paulicians of Philippopolis, who urged the Pechenegs and Cumans to invade the Empire, an invasion which repeated

several times devastated Thrace and came close to overwhelming the Byzantine capital. The energy and diplomacy of Alexius I Comnenus saved

the situation 55 A century later when Frederick Barbarossa passed by Philippopolis on his way to the Holy Lands during the Third Crusade, the Paulicians there welcomed him as liberator, and while the Greek inhabitants fled, they sought to give him provisions, guards, and information.50 And again in 1205 the Paulicians of Philippopolis conspired with John Asan of Bulgaria to turn the city over to him.57 Thus the enmity of the Paulicians no doubt contributed to the breakdown of the political authority of Byzantium

in the Balkans, though in this there were other and more important factors involved.

In displacing the Armenian princes and their retinues in the eleventh century the object of the Byzantine authorities was to assure the peaceful control of the newly acquired Armenian lands by remc:ing the elements that might be a source of trouble. This was, as I have already observed, traditional Byzantine policy which had often worked. This time, however, it

proved to be one of the major factors in the breakdown of Byzantine Anna Comnena, 2: 298: I have used the translation of E. A. S. Dawes. The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena (London, 1928), p. 385. Ibid., 2: 299 f.; Dawes, 385. 54 55 P. Charanis, "The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century", A History of the Crusades, I, ed. M. W. Baldwin (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 214 f. 54 Nicetas Choniates, op. cit., pp. 527, 534. 51 Geoffroi de Ville-Hardouin, La conquete de Constantinople, ed. and tr. into modern French by M. Natalis de Wailly (Paris, 1872), p. 239. For a general account in English on the Paulicians and Bogomiles: S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualistic Heresy (Cambridge, 1947); D. Obolensky, The Bogomiles: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism (Cambridge, 1948). 55

III TRANSFER OF POPULATION

153

authority in Asia Minor. For the displacement of the Armenians coming as it did at a time when their homeland was being subjected to the repeated raids of the Seljuks had removed the element which, fighting for its native land, might have checked these raids and so prevented the occupation of Asia Minor by the Seljuks. But more important, the displacement of the Armenians weakened the position of the Empire in the regions to which they were removed. For in some of these regions, as for instance in Cappadocia, their settlements disturbed the social and ethnic complexion and so created serious tension, while

in others, as for instance Cilicia and northern Syria, the new settlers were ready to start separatist movements the moment the opportunity presented itself. What particularly contributed to the development of tension between the Armenian element and the rest of the population were the ecclesiastical problems which the annexation of the Armenian lands and the consequent dispersion of the Armenians had created. There had always been heretical groups in the Empire, but Orthodoxy, as it finally crystalized, had come to prevail as one of the unifying forces of the Empire-the Greek language and the imperial tradition were the other two-but now for the first time since the loss of Egypt and Syria in the seventh century there was a powerful religious minority, dominant in certain regions of the Empire, very strong in others. Both Church and state were very much concerned about this situation and, as a consequence, brought pressure to bear upon the Armenians to accept the orthodox point of view. But the Armenians, whose cultural and national development was strongly associated with their religious

beliefs and practices resisted stubbornly, and the efforts of the Byzantine

church to bring them in line only served to increase the tempo of this resistance.58 Greeks and Armenians came to dislike each other intensely This dislike at times turned into bitter hostility and found expression in attrocious deeds as, for instance, that of Kagik, the dispossessed king of Ani, who had the Greek bishop of Caesarea seized and put into a sack together

with his large dog and then had his men beat bishop and dog until the enraged animal tore his master to pieces.59 But more serious than these outbursts was the effect that this hostility had upon the army. The battle of Mentzikert which determined the fate of Asia Minor and in the long run the fate of the Near East for centuries was lost by the Byzantines at least in part because the Armenian contingents deserted.60 Still less perhaps was the loyalty of the Armenian civil population. In any case, just before the battle On the attempts of the Byzantines to have the Armenians accept the orthodox point of view and the Armenian resistance to these attempts see the brief but excellent account of Speros Vryonis, Jr., "Byzantium: The Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 2 (1959), pp. 169 ff. 59 °tl

Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., pp. 152-154.

60

Michael Syrus, op cit., 3: 169; Attaliates, op. cit., p. 113.

III

154

of Mentzikert the Byzantine Emperor had to take special measures in order to protect his army from the hostile acts of the Armenian civil population.B' As later generations of Armenians acknowledged, the hostility between Greek and Armenian was one of the most important factors in the breakdown of Byzantine authority in Asia Minor.e2 The Byzantine Empire, as it has been observed at the beginning of this essay, remained throughout its long history a multi-national state. One of the factors which made it so was the transfer of peoples from one region of the Empire to another and the settlement of new ones, a practice which was traditional with the Byzantines. It may be said, however, that despite its multi-national character, three forces tended to give it unity. One was Orthodoxy, the other a common language, and the third the imperial tradition. The first and the second were Greek and to the extent that they were Greek the Empire was Greek also. The third was Roman, and to that extent the Empire was also Roman. But in another sense the Empire was neither

Greek nor Roman. It was above all Christian, and in it, if I may use the words of St. Paul, there was "neither Jew nor Greek", but "all one in Christ Jesus". The official definition given to this oneness "in Christ Jesus", however, was not accepted by all, and the efforts made by the imperial authorities to have it accepted created tensions, tensions which in the end contributed to the political disintegration of the Empire, its decline and final fall. In this disintegration two important steps may be noted. The first was in the seventh century when the monophysitic natives of Egypt and Syria offered little resistance to the conquest of these regions by the Arabs. The second was in the eleventh century when the tension between Greeks and Armenians facilitated the establishment of the Turks in Asia Minor. In both

instances the source of the trouble lay in the failure of these peoples to accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the efforts of the imperial government to impose these decisions upon them.

Atlaliates, op. cit., p. 135. F. Macler, "Erzeroum ou topographic de la haute Armbnie", Journal Asiatique, 11th series, 13 (1919), p. 223. Macler quotes an Armenian writer of the seventeenth

01

42

century who says in effect: The Armenians hated the Greeks, the Greeks hated the Armenians and so God sent the Turks to punish both.

IV

SOME REMARKS ON THE CHANGES IN BYZANTIUM IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY

In an essay published in 1959, George Ostrogorsky wrote : .. . during the seventh century the Byzantine empire underwent far-reaching changes and emerged from these bearing substantially different traits. In the provinces new agrarian conditions came into being, and with these new social relationships. The old aristocracy of great landowners was, to a considerable extent, replaced by a growing class of small proprietors.

It was a time which saw the formation of a new economic and social order, a new administrative system and a new military organization; in a word, a time in which, after the collapse of the old system, the renovation of the Byzantine state was accomplished"1. Exactly when during the seventh century did these changes and the consequent renovation of the Byzantine state take place? Ostrogorsky does not say here; but he has expressed himself in no uncertain terms elsewhere. He wrote in 1941 and in substance repeated quite often thereafter: ,,It was the great Emperor Heraclius who breathed fresh life into the aging Roman empire and restored it by his decisive reforms"2. The decisive reforms attributed

to Heraclius by Ostrogorsky relate, of course, to the creaticn of the

theme system, the diffusion of the military estates and the emergence of a considerable body of free peasants. These were developments which were closely interlated. The creation of the theme system entailed the diffusion of the military estates which in turn promoted the growth of the free peasantry. And so in time the agrarian society of Byzantium was reinvigorated, and the state found the necessary military force and financial resources to restore itself as a world power. According to another scholar Heraclius may have also been responsible for important changes in the urban economy of Byzantium. In the opinion of Robert S. Lopez

it was Heraclius who brought the reorganization of the trade guilds, '. George Ostrogorsky, ,Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages," Dumbarton

Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), 47.

2. ,Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages," The Cam-

bridge Economic History, I (Cambridge, 1941), 196; cf. History of the Byzantine State,

English Translations by Joan Hussey (New Brunswick, N. J. 1957), 86 ff.

IV 72

classifying some private, others public, and preserving the principle of heredity in their recruitment only for the latter. This in turn must have affected the structure and economy of urban li.fe3. This general picture as drawn so clearly by Ostrogorsky and in its origins attributed to Heraclius was, until quite recently, generally accepted. Some recent studies, however, seriously question its historical accuracy,

at lest in so far as it relates to Heraclius and more than suggest that it should be abandoned. What I have in mind in particular are publi-

cations of P. Lemerle, A. Pertusi and J. Karayannopulos. Early in 1958 Lemerle published the first section of a long and penetrating memoire devoted to a critical examination of the sources relating to the agrarian conditions of Byzantium and the various problems associated with them'. That the Byzantine empire went through profound changes in the course of the seventh century Lemerle does not doubt. He does not doubt either that these changes affected its agrarian life. The landscape which he draws of the countryside of the Byzantine empire as of the end of the seventh century end the beginning of the eighth is one dominated by a considerable number of free peasants, free in person, movement, and property. Large landowners there still were and also dependent peasants and slaves too but the free peasant was very much in evidence. This in contrast to the earlier period when various classes of dependent peasants dominated the scene and the large estate was the principle feature of the agricultural picture of the empire. Lemerle uses as his principle source the Farmer's Law. which he places, as is now generally the c:se, towards the end of the seventh century or the beginning of the eighth and which he analyzes in detail. But while expressing the view that a radical change did indeed take place in the agrarian society of the empire in the seventh century, Lemerle finds no evidence to attribute this change to any measure issued

by an emperor, a measure thought out in advance for the purpose of producing this effect. In his opinion no specific measure of social reform

is here involved. The change was brought about by an evolutionary process induced by the pressure of event, not by a revolutionary step. For Lemerle the important factor in bringing about this change was an increase in the man power of the empire brought about by the arrival and the settlement of masses of Slavs in the Balkans, in the Greek peninsula and even in the islands." As for the military estates he is willing 3. Robert S. Lopez, ,The Role of Trade in the Economic Readjustment of Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century, ,Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959), 77-78 and note 21 for additional references. I shall not discuss further the view of Lopez. What can be said in favor of it, has been said by Lopez, and what may be said against it, has been said by his critics as, for instance, F. Dolger: Cf. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 43 (1950), 244 and 46 (1953), 235, 472. It is true, however, that the principle of heredity as far as the private guilds were concerned did break down, and this may have happened during the reign of Heraclius.

Cf. Peter Charanis, ,,On the Social Structure of the Later Roman Empire," Byzantion, 17 (1944-45) 49. °. P. Lemerle, ,Esquise pour une histoire agraire de Byzance: Les sources et les problbmes, ,Revue Historique, 219 (1958), 49-74

IV 73

to admit that there must have existed in the seventh century something which continued in a sense the estates of the limitanei of the earlier period, but fails to see how one can attribute to them the role which one usually does, i. e. as an important factor in the military organization of the empire -,nd as a stimulant to the growth of the free peasantry. Certainly the texts which refer to the seventh century nowhere make any mention of them. Lemerle, of course, as is characteristic of him in all his works, subjected the sources to a most searching and critical analysis and proceeded on the sound principle of pas de documents, pas d'histoire. But the

truth of the matter

is

that these sources are so meagre that if one

adhered strictly to this principle there would be no more that one could say than this that the agrarian structure of the Byzantine empire at the end of the seventh century was rather different from that which obtained

in the sixth century. Search cs hard as one might one would find no

factual indications anywhere in the sources of how and under what circumstances the change took place. Lemerle's explanation that the change

is to be attributed to the abundance of labor brought about by the

influx of the Slavs is in reality a conjecture, for nowhere in the sources is it said that the Slavs increased the supply of labor of the empire and so transformed the structure of its agrarian society. Masses of Slavs did settle in the Balkans and in the Greek peninsula, that is a fact, but it is also a fact that the vast bulk of these Slavs long remained outside the actual jurisdiction of the empire and as a consequence they could not have affected in any profound way the agrarian structure of the empire, at least not by the end of the seventh century or by the beginning of the eighth, dates which are generally accepted for the compilation of the Farmer's Law, the only document that attests to the change in question.

A more plausible explanation for this change as pointed out at Ochrida,5 is to be sought in the transfer of peoples, only a few whom, at least in the seventh century, were Slavs, brought about by the emperors, particularly Maurice, in the last quarter of the sixth century and reinforced by others, carried out in the seventh and eighth centuries.6 These transfers were specific acts aimed at specific objectives, viz. the increase of the military potential and economic and, in consequence, fiscal resources of

the empire. The peoples involved were no doubt settled as freemen as the transfer of the 30,000 Armenian cavalrymen projected bu Mau ice would indicate. This particular transfer was to be a military colony' - the establishment of military estates was apparently envisaged - but its general

effect no doubt would have been to increase the ranks of the free peasentry. In general, military settlements could not but affect the agrarian '. XIIe Congres International des Etudes Byzantines. Ochride, 1961 Rapports Complenlentaires. Resumes (Belgrade-Ochride 1961), 12-15 8. On these transfers see P. Charanis, ,The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire, ,Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3(1961), 140-154. '. S@b@os, Histoire d'Heraclius, tr. from Armenian by F. Macler (Paris, 1904)

54-55. Cf. P. Charanis, ,Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century, ,Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13(1959), p. 33 and n. 60 a.

IV 74

society of the empire as a whole, for, as Ostrogorsky long ago pointed out, while some members of the family might serve in the army, the rest of the family ,swelled the free peasant forces which could be occupied in the clearing of untilled ground"." If the transfers of peoples constituted, as I believe, the underlying cause for the transformation of the agrarian society of Byzantine then we must, with Ostrogorsky, place the beginning of this transformation early in the seventh century and include among its features not only the increase in the free peasantry of the empire, but also the diffusion of the military estates. We cannot, however, attribute this beginning to Heraclius. Maurice is perhrps a better candidate.

But the changes in the agrarian society of the empire were not the only changes which took place in the seventh century. There were also important administrative changes affecting especially the provinces. The reference is, of course, to the new provincial administrative arrangement known as the theme system, the essential element of which consisted of an army corps permanently stationed in each province and headed by a general who served at the same time as governor of the province, exercising both military and civil authority. The consensus is general that the new administrative system was

in its essentials well formed by the end of the seventh century. No agreement exists, however, rs to the period of its origin. Ostrogorsky

and some others put its beginning in the reign of Heraclius, Ostrogorsky as early as 6209. The question, frequently reviewed in recent years, has been most comprehensively examined by A. Pertusi who has published no less than three studies remarkable for their thoroughness and penetration10. Pertusi passes in review the views of other scholars, subjects the texts to a most searching analysis and comes to the conclusion that the theme system as a provincial organization made its appearance in the second half of the seventh century. It assumed its essential character toward the end of that century or the beginning of the next. Meanwhile John Karayannopulos also addressed himself to this problem and made his results known by two publications". Karayannopulos too reviewed the literature, and carefully examined the sources, but in addition delved deeply into the provincial administrative conditions of 8. ,Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire..., 197. 1. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, N. J.) 86 f; ,Korreferat zu A. Pertusi, La Formation des Th6mes Byzantine," Berichte ZumXI Internationalen ByzantinistenKongress Milnchen 1958 (Munich, 1958), 8. 10. Constantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus. Introduzione. Testo Critico. Commento by A. Pertusi (Citta del Vaticano, 1952); ,Nuova Ipotesi sull'Origine dei ,Temi" Bizantini,"

Aevum, 28(1954), 126-150; ,,La formation des thCmes byzantins," Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress Miinchen 1958 (Munich, 1958), 1-40. ". ,Contribution au problCme des ,th&mes" byzantins,", L'hellenisme contemporain, ser. 2, 10 (1956), 453-504; Die Entstehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung(=Byzanti-

nischen Archiv, Heft 10) (Munich, 1959).

IV 75

the empire rs of before the seventh century. He came out with the conclusion that the roots of the theme system are to be found in the earlier period, that the institution developed gradually and that in its

origins cannot be assigned to a specific period or attributed to any particular emperor. It had assumed definite form, however, by the middle of the eighth century. Finally there are the remarks on Heraclius which Lemerle has published very recently12. Devastatingly critical of the gener::lly accepted, on the whole encomiastic, view on Heraclius, these remarks

deprive that emperor of virtually all glory not only as a reformer, but :lso as a statesman and, to some extent, even as military commander. Heraclius had nothing to do either with the origin of the theme system or the diffusion of the military estates. The criticisms of these scholars against the view which places the origin of the theme system e--rly in the seventh century seem overwhelming. I have long reflected over them, but in theend I have not been convinced. And this for the following re. sons:" The references in the De 7'hematibus of Constantine Porphyrogeni us

are no doubt vague, but they lend themselves better to an inte_-pretation

in favor of an earlier rather than a latter origin of the new provincial administrative system. The text where the Byzantine emperor speaks of the origin of the name of the Armeniacs, attributing it to the reign of Heraclius, expresses, to be sure, the opinion of the author. However, it is the opinion of a man who, if on the whole uncritical, nevertheless had delved into the problem and in all probability had at his disposal materials no longer extant. It is an opinion, as a consequence, not without some significance. In the passages where it is said that, as a result of the cont action of the empire caused by the incursions of the Sarcens, the emperors who followed Heraclius parcelled their authority, the emphasis is on the parcelling and, as a cnosequence, Constantine is speaking he- .-e of a process, the process of how the themes of his day came to be delete what they were. What Constantine seems to say when all his references are taken together is this that at least one of the themes, that of the Armeniacs, goes .back to Heraclius while others came into existence as

time went on by a process of parcelling. Then there is the much discussed text in the chronicle of Theophanes. In 622 Heraclius, we are

told in this passage, in preparation for his campaign against the Persians, crossed over into Asia Minor and proceeded to the regions of the themes,

gathered his troops together and added to them new recruits. I have carefully studied the various interpretations given to this passage and I

have come to the conclusion that Ostrogorsky is right. Themes here are regions and as a consequence provinces. Thus provinces organized as 'Z. P. Lemerle, ,Quelques remarques sur le regge d'Heraclius," Studi medievali, 3a serie, 1 (Centro Italiano di Studi Sull'alto medioevo, Spoleto, 1960) 347-361. ". What follows can only be in the present state of information, a matter of opinion. The texts referred to are thoroughly discussed, with exact citations by Pertusi, Karayannopulos, Ostrogorsky and to some extent by Lemerle.

IV 76

themes were already in existence in 622. They were most probably created by Heraclius.

Now to summarize: The changes which the Byzantium empire underwent in the course of the seventh century consisted primarily of the growth of the free peasantry, the diffusion of the military estates and the development of the theme system. The first two were brought about by the transfer of peoples carried out by the emperors of the last quarter of the sixth century, especially Maurice; the third was, in its beginning, the work of Heraclius. Dumbarton Oaks

V THE ARMENIANS IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian (820-823) against the Emperor Michael II (828-829), the Byzantine historian Genesius lists a variety of peoples from whom the armies of the rebel had been drawn: Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals, Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, Armenians, adherants of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and the Athinganoi.1 Some of these peoples are well known; the identity of others, despite efforts made to determine It, is by no means certain.2 But in any case, their listing by the Byzantine historian illustrates vividly the multiracial character of the Byzantine empire. This was in the ninth century, but the situation was not different for the period before and it would not be different for the period after. The Byzantine empiic was never in its long history, a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. Among the various ethnic groups in the Byzantine empire, the Armenians constituted one of the strongest. At the end of the sixth century the Byzantine empire controlled the major part of Armenia. The events of the

seventh century, the rise of the Arabs in particular, deprived it of this control, but it still retained some Armenian-speaking lands. The expansion of the empire which began late in the ninth century greatly increased the extent of these lands. By the middle of the eleventh century, all Armenia was in Byzantine hands, though shortly afterwards it was permanently lost to the Seljuk Turks.

The great source of the Armenian element in the Byzantine empire consisted, of course, of the Armenian-speaking lands under its control. Thus in the eighth century, when all Armenia was in Arab hands, the native Armenian population under the control of the empire was not very large; whereas, in the eleventh century when virtually all Armenia was annexed to the empire It was very considerable. But the Armenian element In the Byzantine empire was not restricted to the Armenian lands proper. It found its way into other regions of the empire. Many Armenians came into the Byzantine empire even when Armenia was under foreign control. They came sometimes as adventurers, but more often as refugees. Thus in 571, following an unsuccessful revolt against the Persians, numerous Armenian noblemen, headed by Vardan Mamico1 Geneslus, Historia. Bonn, 1834, 33.

2 A. A. Vasillev-H. Gregotre, Byzance et les Arabes, I. Brussels, 1935, 31, Note 2. Cf. F. Hirsch, Byzantinlsche Studlen. Leipzig, 1878, 131. 196

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

197

nian and accompanied by the Armenian Catholicus and some bishops, fled to Constantinople.3 Vardan and his retinue entered the Byzantine army; the rest seem to have settled In Pergamon where an Armenian colony is known to have existed in the seventh century. It was from this colony that Bardanes came who, as Phillipicus, occupied the Imperial throne from 711 to 713.4

The religious ferment in Armenia which in the seventh century gave rise to the Paulician sect had the effect of bringing more Armenians into

the Byzantine empire. Armenian Paulicians, driven from their homes sometime before 662, settled in the empire, especially in the region of the junction of the Iris and the Lycus rivers in the territories of the Pontus.

Their settlements extended almost as far as Nicopolis (Enderes) and Neocaesarea (Niksar).5 These were regions where the Armenian element was already considerable. Comana, for instance, is referred to by Strabo as the market of the Armenians .6

The discontent which the conquest of Armenia by the Arabs caused forced other Armenians to seek refuge in the territories of the empire. Thus, about 700 a number of Nakharars with their retinue fled to the Byzantine empire and were settled by the Emperer on the Pontic frontier. Some of these later returned to Armenia, but others remained .7 More Nakharars, completely abandoning their possessions in Armenia, fled to the Byzantine empire during the reign of Constantine V Copronymus.8 Still more came about 790. It is said they numbered 12,000 and they came with their wives, their children, their retinue and their cavalry. They were welcomed by the Emperor and were granted fertile lands upon which to settle.9 We are not told the location of the lands given to them. As their title implies these refugees belonged to the Armenian nobility, who were sometimes criticised for fleeing the country and thus abandoning the poor 3 E. W. Brooks, Iohannis Ephesint htstoriae ecclesiasticae pars tertia, CSCO. Louvain,

1936, 61-62 (English Trans. R. Payne Smith. Oxford, 1860, 125-126); Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, I. Leipzig, 1883, 245. 4 H. Gelzer, Pergamon unter Byzantinern and Osmanen. (Abhandlungen der KBniglict preuBischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) Berlin, 1903, 42 f. 5 H. Grdgoire, Precisions geographiques et chronologtques sur les Pauliciens, Acaddmie royale de Belgique: Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 5 Ser., 33 (Brussels, 1947) 294 f., 298 f.; S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee, Cambridge, 1947, 34.

6 Strabo, 12. 3. 36.

t Ghevond, tiistoire des guerres et des conquetes des Arabes en Armdnie, tr. from Armenian by G. V. Chahnazarian. Paris, 1856, 22, 33-34; cf. 1. Laurent, L'Arm2nte entre Byzance et l'Islam depuls la conqu8te arabe iusqu'en 886. Paris, 1919, 184, note 4; I. Muyldermans, La domination Arabe en Armt nie ... Paris, 1927, 99-?'). 6 Ghevond, 129. Ibid., 162.

V 198

to the mercy of the Arabs.lo Mass migrations such as took place in the course of the seventh and eighth centuries seem to have subsided in the ninth, but individual Armenians continued to come into the Byzantine empire to seek their fortunes. The Armenians, however, did not always come willingly. They were sometimes forcibly removed from their homes and settled in other regions of the empire. Justinian had already resorted to this practice, but the numbers involved were small, perhaps a few families." Transplantations

on a large scale took place during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice. In 578, 10,000 Armenians were removed from their homes and settled in

the island of Cyprus. "Thus," says Evagrius, "land, which had been previously untilled, was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them that fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, on account of the easy rate at which slaves were procured."12

A transplantation on a vaster plan was conceived by Maurice and it was partially carried out. Maurice, who may have been of Armenian descent, though this is extremely doubtful,13 found the Armenians exi remely troublesome in their own homeland. The plan which he conceived i. alled for the cooperation of the Persian king in the removal from their homes of all Armenian chieftains and their followers. According to

Sebeos, Maurice addressed the Persian king as follows: The Armenians are "a knavish and indocile nation. They are found between us and are a source of trouble. I am going to gather mine and send them to Thrace; send yours to the East. If they die there, it will be so many enemies that will die; if, on the contrary, they kill, it will be so many enemies that they will kill. As for us, we shall live in peace. But if they remain in their country, there will never be any quiet for us." Sebeos further reports that the two rulers agreed to carry out this plan, but apparently the Persians failed to cooperate, for when the Byzantine emperor gave the necessary orders and pressed hard for their execution, many Armenians fled to 10 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, Histoire universelle (le partie), tr. from Armenian by E. Dulaurier. Paris, 1883 (Publications de I'Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes, XVIII), 162.

11 Procopius, De bello Gothico, III, 32, 7; cf. R. Grousset, Histoire de L'Armenie des ortgtnes d 1071. Paris, 1947, 242. Grousset's statement concerning vast transfers of Armenians to Thrace by Justinian is not borne out by his references. 12 Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier. London, 1898, 215. The translation is taken from the English version of Evagrius which appeared in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library: Theodoret and Evagrius, History of the Church. London, 1854, 444.

13 N. Adontz has tried to prove the Armenian origin of Maurice: Les l@gendes de Maurice et de Constantin V, empereurs de Byzance, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie

at d'Histotre Orientales, 2. Brussels, 1934, 1-12: but see P. Goubert, Byzance avant l'Islam, I. Paris, 1951, 34-41.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

199

Persia.14 The Byzantines, however, did carry out the deportation, though

only in part. In ordering this removal, Maurice's real motive was, no doubt, the fact that he needed the Armenians as soldiers in Thrace. Further deportations and settlement of Armenians in the Byzantine empire, especially in Thrace, are attested for the eighth century. During the reign of Constantine V Copronymus, thousands of Armenians and monophysitic Syrians were gathered by the Byzantine armies during their raids in the regions of Germanicea (Marash), Melitene and Erzeroum and were settled in Thrace.15 Others, also from the environs of Erzeroum, were settled along the eastern frontiers. These, however, were subsequently seized by the Arabs and were settled by them in Syria.16 During the reign of Leo IV, a Byzantine raiding expedition into Cilicia and Syria resulted in the seizure of thousands of natives, 150,000 according to one authority, who were settled in Thrace.17 These, however, were chiefly Syrian Jacobites, though some Armenians may have also been included. Many of the Armenians settled in Thrace were seized by the Bulgar Krum

(803-814) and carried away, but most of them eventually returned.

According to tradition, the parents of the future Emperor Basil I and Basil himself were included among these prisoners, but there is reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this tradition.18

The diverse ethnic groups established in Thrace were reinforced by later arrivals. In the tenth century, during the reign of John Tzimiskes, a considerable number of Paulicians were removed from the frontier regions of the east and were settler in Thrace, more exactly in the country around Phillippopolis.19 These Paulicians were most probably predominantly Armenians. A little later, perhaps in 988, Armenians were settled also in Macedonia. They were brought there from the eastern provinces of the empire by Basil II in order to serve as a bulwark against the Bulgarians and also to help increase the prosperity of the country.20 14 Sebecs, Hlstolre d'Hi raclius, tr. from Armenian by F. Macler. Paris, 1904, 30-31. Cf. F. D61ger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostrbmischen Reiches, 1. Munich, 1924, p. 13, Ns 108. is Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica, ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig, 1880, 65, 66; Theophanes, I, 427, 429; Michael Syrus, Chronique, ed. and trans. 1. B. Chabot, 2. Paris, 1901, 51B, 521,

523; Agapius of Menbidj, Histoire uniuerselle, tr. A. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis, 8 (1912), 544; Ghevond, op. cit., 126-127. 16 Agapius of Menbidj, 531, 538; Dionysius I of Tell-Mahrd, Chronique, tr. J. B. Chabot. Paris, 1895, 56-57. Cf. A. Lombard, Etudes d'histoire byzantine. Constantin V, empereur des Romains (740-775). Paris, 1902, 35. 17 Theophanes, I, 451-452; Ghevond, op. cit., 150; Michael Syrus, 3, 2.

18 For a careful examination of this tradition see N. Adontz, L'Age et l'origine de l'empereur Basil 1, Byzantion 8 (1933) 475-500; 9 (1934) 257 ff. 19 Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium. Bonn, 1839, 2, 382; Anna Comnena, Alexlad, 2. Bonn, 1878, 298 f.

20 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, Histoire universelle (deuxidme partie), tr. from Armenian by F. Macler. Paris, 1917, 74.

V 200

Meanwhile, other Armenians had been settled elsewhere in the empire. Nicephorus I used Armenians, among others, in his resettlement of Sparta at the beginning of the ninth century.21 Some time earlier, about 792, an unsuccessful revolt among the Armenlacs, a corps which was no doubt predominantly Armenian, led to the settlement of a thousand of them In Sicily and other islands.22 In 885 Nicephorus Phocas, grandfather of the tenth century Emperor by the same name, settled a multitude of Armenians in Calabria. These, as Gregoire suggests, may have been of the Paulician faith as Tephrike, the stronghold of that sect, had fallen to the imperial forces only a few years before and the Paulicians had been dispersed 23 Armenians, among others, were also settled in Crete following the recovery of that island in 961 by Nicephorus Phocas, the future Emperor 24 Two Armenian military settlements are known to have existed in western Asia Minor in the tenth century. These were the settlements at Prine and Platanion, which, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, furnished a number of Armenian troops in the expedition against Crete during the reign of Leo VI. Armenians, settled in the Thracesian theme, also participated in the expedition against Crete in 949.

It was through the army that the Armenian element in the Byzantine empire exerted its greatest influence. It is well known that the Armenian element occupied a prominent place in the armies of Justinian. Armenian troops fought in Africa, in Italy and along the eastern front. They were also prominent in the palace guard. Procopius mentions by name no less than seventeen Armenian commanders, including, of course, the great Narses.26 But the Armenians were only one among the different ethnic elements which constituted the armies of Justinian. These elements include many barbarians: Erulians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Lombards, Moors, Sabiri, Slavs and Antae, Vandals; some Persians, Iberians and Tzanis and among the provincials, Illyrians, Thracians, Isaurians and Lycaonians.27 Under the immediate successors of Justinian, the ethnic composition of the Byzantine army remained very much the same. "It Is said," writes Evagrius, "that Tiberius raised an army of 150,000 among the peoples that dwelt beyond the Alps around the Rhine and among those this side of the Alps, among the Massagetae and other Scythian nations, among those that 21 P. Charanis, The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950) 154-155. n Theophanes, 1, 469. 23 H. Gregoire, La carripre du premier Nic6phore Phocas, HQoogopri eis Etiaawva if KvplaxCSBv. Thessalonica, 1953, 251.

u Leo Diaconus, Historia. Bonn, 1828, 28. 25 P. Charanis, On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century, l7Qoacpopd Eig Y Q.nwva H. Kvplaxibgv, 142 ff. 26 P.

Charanis, Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959) 31. 27 [bid., 31.

V The Armenians In the Byzantine Empire

201

dwelt in Paeonia and Mysia, and also Illyrians and Isaurians and despatched them against the Persians."28 The figure given by Evagrius may perhaps be questioned, but the rest of his statement in its essentials cannot be doubted. It is confirmed by Theophanes, though the figure he gives is much smaller (15.000).29 And John of Ephesus reports that following the breakdown of negotiations with Persia (575-577), a force of 60,000 Lombards was expected in Byzantium.30 The same author states: "Necessity compelled Tiberius to enlist under his banners a barbarian people from the West called Goths-who were followers of the doctrine of the wicked Arius. They departed for Persia, leaving their wives and children at Constantinople."31 In Constantinople, the wives of these Goths requested that a church be allocated to them, so that they might worship according to their Arian faith. Thus, it seems quite certain that the ethnic composition of the Byzantine army under Tiberius remained substantially the same as it had been during the reign of Justinian. The situation changed in the course of the reign of Maurice, chiefly as a result of the Avaro-Slavic incursions into the Balkan peninsula. These incursions virtually eliminated Illyricum as a source of recruits and reduced the possibilities of Thrace. They cut communications with the West and made recruitments there most difficult. The empire, as a consequence, had to turn elsewhere for its troops. It turned to the regions of Caucasus and Armenia. In the armies of Maurice, we still find some Huns32 and also some Lombards.33 We find Bulgars too 34 But the Armenian is the element which dominates. In this respect Sebeos is once more a precious source. He writes in connection with the war which Maurice undertook against the Avars after 591: Maurice "ordered to gather together all the Armenian cavalry and all the noble Nakharars skilled in war and adroit in wielding

the lance in combat. He ordered also a numerous army to be raised in Armenia, an army composed of soldiers of good will and good stature, organized in regular corps and armed. He ordered that this army should go to Thrace under the command of Musele (Moushegh) Mamiconian and there fight the enemy."35 This army was actually organized and fought in Thrace. Mamiconian was captured and killed,36 whereupon, the raising of an Armenian force of 2,000 armed cavalry was ordered. This force, too, was sent to Thrace.37 Earlier, during the Persian wars, important Armenian 28 Evagrius, 209 f. 29 Theophanes, 1, 251. 30 John of Ephesus, Smith, 407, Brooks, 234. 31 Ibid.; Smith, 207, Brooks, 113. 32 Theophylactus Simocatta, Historia, ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig, 1887, 67. 33 Ibid., 104. 34 Michael Syrus, 2, 72. 35 Sebeos, 35. 36 Cf. Goubert, op. cit., 1, 197. 37 Sebeos, 36-37. Cf. Goubert, op. cit., 1, 200; DIJIger, op. cit. 12, N_ 94.

V 202

contingents under the command of John Mystacon operated on the eastern front.38 In 602 Maurice issued the following edict: "I need 30,000 cavalrymen by way of tribute raised in Armenia. Thirty thousand families must be gathered and settled in Thrace."39 Priscus was sent to Armenia to carry out this edict, but before he had time to do so the revolution which overthrew Maurice broke out and the edict apparently was not enforced. It is interesting to observe the correlation of the number of cavalry with the number of families which were to be transplanted to Thrace. Each family was obviously intended to furnish one cavalryman and no doubt each family was going to be given some land. Here we have perhaps an

indication that Maurice sought to extend the system of military estates in Thrace.90 But, however that may be, it is quite clear that under Maurice, Armenia became the principal source of recruits for the Byzantine army. The same was true under Heraclius, himself of Armenian descent91 though that Emperor drew heavily also from among the people of the Caucasus Lazes, Abasgians, Iberians - as well as on the Khazars.92 All throughout the seventh century indeed the Armenians were one of the most prominent elements in the Byzantine army. And if by the end of the seventh century the conquest of Armenia by the Arabs made it difficult to draw upon that country for new recruits, Armenians continued nevertheless to occupy an important position in the army of the empire. This was not only because

some Armenian-speaking lands remained within the boundaries of the empire, but also because a considerable number of Armenians had been integrated into its new military organization. The dominant feature of the new military organization of the empire was the theme system, a new provincial organization, the essential element of which consisted of the army corps permanently stationed in each province and commended by an officer who served at the same time as governor of the province, exercising both military and civil authority. The troops constituting these provincial or thematic corps were often drawn

from different ethnic groups and as a consequence their permanent assignment to any one province contributed in altering the ethnic composition of that province. The provinces brought into existence by the new organizations were called themes and differed from the old ones not only 38 Theophylactus Simocatta, 205, 216. 39 Sebeos, 54-55. Cf. Goubert, op. cit., 1: 209; D61ger, op. cit. 16, N9 137.

40 On some recent theories concerning the spread of military estates, see: Charanis, Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century, 33, note 60a. Al The father of the Emperor Heraclius, also named Heraclius, who served as general during the reign of Maurice is said to have been a native of a city looted in Armenia. Theophylactus Simocatta, 109-110. John of Nikiu calls the Emperor Heraclius a Cappadocian: Chronique, tr. H. Zotenberg. Paris, 1883, 431. 42 Theophanes, 1, 304, 309, 316; Nicephorus, 15; Agapius of Menbidj, 463. Cf. H. Gr4goire, An Armenian Dynasty on the Byzantine Throne, Armenian Quarterly 1 (1946) 9.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

203

in the form of their administration but also in extent and configuration. The theme system, whatever its origin, took definite form in the seventh century.43

Among the themes of Asia Minor the Armeniakon was one of the most important, in rank second only to the Anatolikon. It was a large territory, comprising in whole or in part six former provinces as these provinces are known to have existed in the sixth century. Cappadocia 1 and part of Cappadoncia II; Armenia I and what was still in the hands of the empire of Armenia II; Elenopontos and Pontos Polemoniakos. It was roughly in the form of a triangle whose two angles were located on the Black Sea, the one

at Sinope, the other at a point not far to the east of Trebizond, and the third a little to the south of Tyana.44 The theme had been organized perhaps as early as before 62245 and remained a unit throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. In the course of the ninth century it was parcelled out into a number of smaller themes. By 863 there were four themes in the

place of the previous one: the Armeniakon, a new and much smaller circumscription, the Charsianon, Chaldia and Koloneia. The new theme of Sebasteia, created about 912, was also formed out of territory which had formerly belonged to the Armeniakon.

According to an important source of the tenth century, the original Armeniakon theme was so called because of the neighboring Armenians and the Armenians who dwelled in it.46 This is not to be interpreted to mean of course that the population of the theme was everywhere predominately Armenian. Along the Black Sea, especially in the region of Trebizond,

the Greek-speaking element was certainly the most numerous. In the interior, in the region between the Iris and the Halys and in the loop which

the latter river forms; 1. e., the core of the lands which later came to constitute the small Armeniakon and the Charsianon themes, the old Cappadocian native population, by now deeply hellenized, most probably predominated. There were some Armenians, of course, but they were not in any considerable number. Quite different, however, was the situation in the eastern regions of the theme, the regions which were eventually detached from it to form the themes of Chaldia, Coloneia and Sebasteia. Here the Armenians were very numerous. In Chaldia, along the coastal 43 For a detailed study of the theme system with references to the older literature see A. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus, Studi e Testi, Vatican, 1952, 160. 44 Ibid., 117-120. 45 This is the opinion of George Ostrogorsky which, though it has been recently con-

tested, appears to me plausible. For a rejection of this view: 1. Karayannopulos, Die Entstehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung, Munich, 1959; A. Pertusi, La formation des themes byzantins, Berichte zum XI. internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongret. Miinchen 1958 (Munich, 1958) I, 1-40. But see G. Ostrogorsky, Korreferat zu A. Pertusi, r La formation des theme byzantine ', Ibid., I, 1-8. 46 Constantin Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, ed. Pertusi (Note 45 above), p. 63.

V 204

areas there were many Greeks, of course, but in the interior, in districts such as Keltzine, the Armenian element was very strong. It was strong also in the lands which later formed the themes of Coloneia and Sebasteia. These lands lay in the most part in Little Armenia where the Armenian language, despite the progress made by Hellenism, never ceased to be spoken.47 Important Armenian elements were also to be found in the region of the Iris-Lycus rivers where Neocaesarea, Comana, Gaziura, Amaseia and Eupatoria were located.48 This region was retained in the smaller Armeniakon theme. The comparatively strong Armenian element in the population of these eastern themes reflected, and was reflected by, the ethnic composition of their military organization. The military corps of the original Armeniakon theme consisted primarily of Armenians.49 Of the various themes into which it was broken predominately Armenian were the armies of Coloneia and Sebasteia,50 and no doubt also of the smaller Armeniakon. The Arme-

nian element must also have been considerable in the army of Chaldia. It has been said that the Armenian element must have predominated in the Byzantine army from the ninth century to the Crusades.51 The statist-

ical information necessary for an exact evaluation of this statement does not exist. There are, however, some figures. They go back to about the middle of the ninth century and are given by Arabic sources. They cannot be regarded therefore, as official. These Arabic sources list thirteen themes altogether, two in Europe and eleven in Asia Minor and give figures of the military strength of each. According to one set of figures the

total military strength of the thirteen themes mentioned numbered

90,000;52 according to another set, it numbered 80,000.53 The combined strength of the Armeniakon, which at this time still included Coloneia 47 F. Cumont, L'Annexion du pont poldmonlaque et de la Petite Armdnle. Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsey. Manchester, 1923, 115.

48 Bury, citing Adontz, says that in "the period after Justinian, and indirectly as a consequence of his policy" the Armenians expanded "westward towards Caesarea and northward towards the Black Sea": History of the Later Roman Empire. London, 1923, 2, 346, note 1. Cf. N. Adontz, Armenia in the Epoch of Justinian. St. Petersburg, 1908 (in Russian), 203. Adontz uses as his source the De Thematibus of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. As I know no Russian, I consulted Adontz's book with the aid of Cyril Mango. 49 Theophanes, 1, 469. 50 For Sebasteia at the beginning of the tenth century: Constantine Porphyrogenitus,

De Ceremonies. Bonn, 1829, 652.

51 G. Gregoire, Les Armenians entre Byzance at 1'Islam. Byzantion 10 (1935) 665. 52 E. W. Brooks, Arabic Lists of the Byzantine Themes, The Journal of Hellenic Studies

21 (1901) 72-76 and note 5 on p. 75. 57 Kodiima in M. J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, 6. LugduniBatavorum, 1889, 196-199. For an important amendation relating to the strength of the Armeniacs, H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung. Leipzig, 1899, 97-98. Cf. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito de thematibus, p. 118, who is inclined to accept the amendation. Koddma does not give the strength of Macedonia, but according to the source made available by Brooks, it numbered 5,000.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

205

and Sebasteia, Charsianon and Chaldia is given in the first case as 23,000 or over twenty-five percent of the total; in the second case as 18,000 or over twenty-two percent of the total. As these armies, particularly those

of the Armeniakon and Chaldia, were predominantly Armenian or of Armenian origin and as there were also Armenians in other thematic corps,59 we have perhaps in one or the other of these percentages, a rough

indication of the strength of the Armenian element in the army of the empire about the middle of the ninth century. This strength did not, of course, make the Byzantine armies Armenian, but it did give to the Arme-

nians a considerable influence in the military structure of the empire. The significance of the Armenian element in the political and military life of the empire may be further seen by the number of persons of Armenian descent who came to occupy influential positions. They served as

generals, as members of the imperial retinue, and as governors of provinces.55 Under Heraclius the Armenian Manuel was named p r a e f e ct u s a u g u s t a 11 s in Egypt. Armenian generals served the same emperor in the field. One of these, Vahan, was actually proclaimed emperor by his troops just before the battle of Yermuk. He later retired to Sinai and became a monk. Armenian princes in Constantinople were very influential. They even plotted to overthrow Heraclius and to place on the throne his Illegitimate son, Athalaric. In 641 it was the Armenian Valentinus Arsacidus who enabled Constans II to assume the throne following the death of his father. Valentinus was put in command of the troops in the East,

but shortly afterwards, having failed in a plot to seize the throne for himself, he was executed. Other Armenian generals are known to have

served under Constans II. Two of these, Sabour, surnamed Aparasitgan, and Theodore were commanders of the Armeniacs, as the troops stationed in the Armeniakon theme were called. After the violent death of Constans II, the Armenian Mizizius (Mjej Gnouni) was proclaimed Emperor. and though he was not able to maintain himself, he should be included among the emperors of Armenian descent who occupied the Byzantine

throne. Later his son John felt strong enough to rebel against Constantine IV, but he too failed and was destroyed. Many Armenians are known to have been prominent in the service of the Empire in the eighth century also. The Armenian Bardanes occupied the throne from 711 to 713. Artavasdos, son-in-law of Leo III and at one time general of the Armeniacs, also tried for the throne, and for a time was actually master of Constantinople. He was ably assisted by other Armenians: his cousin Teridates, Vahtan the patrician, and another Artavasdos. During the brief period sa As for instance the Anatolikon and the Thracesian: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremontts, 652, 657, 667. ss For the documentation of what follows see Charanis, Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine

Empire In the Seventh Century, 34-36.

V 206

when he held Constantinople, he crowned his son Nicephorus co-emperor and made his other son, Nicetas, general of the Armeniacs. The Armeniacs, the vast majority of whom, as has been said, were Armenians, were Artavasdos' strongest suporters. Other eminent Armenians are known to have served the empire under Constantine V Copronymus. Tadjat Andzevatzik, who came to Byzantium about 750, proved to be a successful commander in the course of Constantine's Bulgarian campaigns. Under Leo IV we find him as general of the Bucellarii. He subsequently fled to the Arabs. Another Armenian, the prince Artavazd Mamiconian, who joined the forces of Byzantium about 771, was general of the Anatolikon under Leo IV. More Armenians are mentioned in connection with the reigns of Constantine VI and Irene. Vardas, one time general of the Armeniacs, was involved in a conspiracy to have Leo IV succeeded by his brother Nicephorus and not by his son Constantine. Another Vardas lost his life in the Bulgarian campaign which Constantine VI conducted in 792. Artaseras or Artashir was

another Armenian general active during the reign of Constantine VI. Alexius Musele (Moushegh), Drungarius of the Watch and later general of the Armeniacs, seems even to have aspired to the throne. At least he was accused of entertaining this ambition, and was blinded. His family, as we shall see, achieved great distinction in the ninth and tenth centuries. Another great Byzantine family of Armenian descent, the Skleroi, made its appearance in Byzantium at this time or soon thereafter. Leo Skleros, governor of the Peloponnesus at the beginning of the ninth century, is the first member of this family known to us, but the family was already famous. A number of other persons who occupied important positions during the reigns of Constantine VI, Irene and Nicephorus I may also have been Armenians if one may judge from the Armenian name of Vardanes which they bore. These included: Vardanes, patrician and domesticus scholarum; Vardanes, general of the Thracesians; Vardanes, called the Turk, general of the Anatolikon, who made an attempt to overthrow Nicephorus I; Vardanes, called Anemas, a spatharius. Armenian also was the patrician Arsaber who was quaestor under Nicephorus I and who in the unsuccessful plot of 808 to overthow Nicephorus had been designated the new Emperor.

Illustrious personages of Armenian descent appear frequently also in the annals of the empire in the ninth century. They dominated the imperial throne. Leo V, known as the Armenian, occupied the throne from 813 to 820. He is referred to in one of the sources as digenes, `twyborn', i. e., born of two races, and these two races are given as Assyrian and Armenian.56 The thourough and careful investigation of all the sources, however, has shown that there is no truth in the tradition.57 Leo was, an ss Symeon Magister. Bonn, 1838, 603. 57 Adontz, Sur Vorigin de Leon V, empereur de Byzance, Armeniaca, 2 (1927), 1-10.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

207

Armenian 'who, while still young, hat settled in Pidra, an unknown place in the Anatolikon theme, and, like many others of his position, turned to

the army for a career and this eventually brought him to the imperial His wife Theodosia, was the daughter of Arsaber (Arschovir), patrician and quaestor, no doubt the Armenian Arsaber who, in the unthrone.

successful plot of 808 to overthrow Nicephorus, had been designated the new Emperor. Thus Leo V sprang from, and headed, an Armenian family, the Armenian nature of which is further illustrated by the Armenian names which its various members bore.58 Michael II, the man who in 820 overthrew Leo V, was a semi-hellenized native of the region of Amorion, probably of Phrygian descent,59 but the dynasty which he founded eventually became in part Armenian in blood and fell under the domination of the Armenians. Theodora, the wife of Theophilus, son and successor of Michael II, was a native of Ebissa in Paphlagonia, but she was of Armenian. descent at least from her father's side.60 Thus Michael III who succeeded his father Theophilus was partly Armenian. His mother's family dominated his reign. During the early years of his reign, while he was still a minor, the imperial office was provisionally in the hands of his mother Theodora who was assisted by a regency composed of members of her family and Theoctistes, the Logothete of the Course. To be sure the members of Theodora's family were soon shoved into the background and for nearly fourteen years Theoctistes, of whose racial origins we have no definite Information, was Theodora's most powerful minister. But his overthrow and murder in 856 brought to the fore Theodora's brother Bardas, who, until his violent death in 866,

was the real ruler of the state. At the same time Petronas, Theodora's other brother, was entrusted with important commands in which he showed considerable ability. His son Marianus was later made prefect of the city by Basil 1.61 Important positions were also given to the two sons of Bardas, the younger of whom, Antigonos, was only ten years old, and also his son-in-law, whose name, Symbatius, betrays his Armenian origin.62

Meanwhile, other members of Theodora's family had been placed in Positions of some importance. Her father Marinus had served as drunga56 Ibid., 9.

59 According to one tradition Michael's grandfather was a Jew who had been converted to Christianity: Michael Syrus, 3: 72. 60 The Armenian origin of Theodora is well known. Cf, G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Cyzanttne State. New Brunswick, N. J., 1957, 195. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia. Bonn, 1838, 148, where Manuel, uncle of Theodora, is referred to as Armenian. Though there is some confusion about the career of this Manuel, this confusion does not affect the Armenian origin of Theodora's family. Cf. H. Gregoire, Etudes sur le neuuiPme siecle, Byzantion 8 (1933) 524. fit Symeon Magister, 687; Georgius Monachus. Bonn, 1838, 839. 62 Theoph. Continuatus, 205; Georgius Monachus, 834.

V 208

rius and also as tumarch.63 Her brother-in-law Constantine Babutzikos, married to the sister Sophia, bore the title of magister and was at one time Drungarius of the Watch. He was one of the forty-two Byzantine officers who were put to death by the Arabs following their capture of Amorion in 838.64 Her other brother-in-law Arsavir, married to another of her sisters, Calomaria or Maria, was patrician and magister, titles which put him very high in the society of Byzantium.65 Both Babutzikos and Ar§avir were Armenians. Argavir's two sons, Stephen and Bardas, both became magisters. Bardas married the daughter of Constantine Kontomytes who was governor of Sicily during the reign of Michael III, while Stephen served in the regency at the time of the minority of Constantine VII.66 Thus, the Armenian family of Theodora at various times occupied important positions and with the elimination of Theoctistos, it came to control the state. And when the overthrow of Bardas and the destruction of Michael III himself, a year later, brought this control to an end, it was another Armenian family that came to the throne. Basil, the man responsible for the elimination of the now partly Armenian Amorian dynasty was, as is well known, of Armenian descent. His progeny, if we discredit the gossip concerning the paternity of his successor, Leo VI, was to rule the Byzantine state for about 190 years. About this dynasty, more will be said below. Other Armenians, both related and unrelated to the ruling houses, are known to have played important roles in the political and military life of the empire in the ninth century. Leo V, the Armenian, had a nephew, Gregory Pterotos, who served him as ii general. When Leo was overthrown, Pterotos was exiled by Leo's successor, Michael II, to the Island of Scyrus, but he managed to escape and join Thomas in his revolt against Michael II.

In the course of the revolt, however, he tried to shift his allegiance to Michael, but before he could act decisively he was attacked, defeated and killed by Thomas.67 More famous was the Armenian Manuel, known as

Amalicites. Protostrator, general of the Armeniacs, Domestic of the Schools, patrician and magister, Manuel served, and served well it would seem, four different emperors, Michael I, Leo V, Michael II and Theophi-

lus, though at one time, during the reign of Michael II, he fled to the Arabs.68 It is this Manuel who Is said to have been the uncle of the Empress 03 Theoph. Continuatus, 89.

61 Theoph. Continuatus, 175; Cedrenus, 2, 161. Cf. Vasiliev-Gregoire, Byzance et les Arabes, 1, 147, Note 1. On his Armenian descent, cf. P. Peeters, Acta Sanctorum, Nouembris, Tomus Quartus. Brussels, 1925, 546; J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 429. 65 Theoph. Contlnuatus, 175; Cedrenus, 2, 161; Peeters, op. cit., 546, Note 3; VasilievGr6goire, op. cit., 1, 221, Note 2. 60 Theoph. Contlnuatus, 175, 354, 398. 61 ibld., 57 f, 62 f. 86 ibid., 18, 24, 110, 120-121, 127, 148; Genesius, 52, 68

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

209

Theodora, but, as there is some confusion in the sources concerning his career, it may be that Theodora's uncle was another Manuel or even some other person, perhaps the Sergius of Niketia who led an expedition against Crete towards the end of the reign of Michael 111.69 Another Armenian, Constantine, surnamed Maniakes, was Drungarius of the Watch, and later, during the reign of Michael III, Logothete. He was a man apparently conscious of his Armenian descent for he is said to have befriended Basil, the future Emperor, very early in his career because like himself, Basil was an Armenian. Constantine was the father of Thomas the Patrician who served as Logothete of the Course under the regency during the reign of Constantine VII early in the tenth century. As this Thomas was the father of Genesius the historian, Constantine was thus the grandfather of the latter.70 Armenian also in origin was Alexius Musele to whom the Emperor Theo-

philus gave his daughter Maria in marriage. Alexius, whose family was also known as the Krenitae, was most probably the son of the Alexius Musele who, as has already been pointed out, had held important administrative posts under Constantine VI and Irene. Alexius bore the high rank-

ing titles of patrician, anthypatus, magister and Caesar. As Caesar, he became the heir presumptive to the throne, but the death of his wife and the birth of Michael, who later became Michael III, brought about a certain coolness between him and the Emperor and he retired to a monastery 71 Alexius had a brother Theodosios who, judging from the title of patrician which he bore, must also have been an important personage.72 As the brother of Alexius, Theodosios was of course, also Armenian. Armenian also was Theophiletzes, the rich courtier and important functionary who is said

to have given employment to Basil, the future Emperor, when the latter first arrived in Constantinople and later introduced him to the imperial court. Theophiletzes' Armenian descent may be inferred from the fact that he was a relative of Michael III and also of Bardas, the brother of the empress Theodora.73

The two crimes, the assassination of Caesar Bardas in 866 and that of Michael III in 867, which brought Basil I on the throne, illustrate still further the influential position which the Armenian element had come to have in the imperial court. The instigator of both crimes was, of course,

Basil himself, but it was only with the assistance of a number of other 69 Gregoire, Etudes sur le neuviPme siecle. Byzantion 8 (1933) 524; F. Dvornfk, The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953) 69 f. 70 Theoph. Continuatus, 150, 194, 196, 229, 238; Georglus Monachus, 835; Cedrenus 2, 280; C. de Boor, Zu Genesios, Byz. Zeitschr. 10 (1901) 62-65. 71 Theoph. Continuatus, 107 f.; Symeon Magister, 630; Cedrenus, 2, 118. Cf. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 126, Note 3. 72 Cedrenus, 2, 119.

73 Theoph. Continuatus, 224 f., 226, 229. 14 - Byzan[in.,sla,ica

V 210

important persons that he was able to bring them about. It has been said that all these personages, like Basil himself, were of Armenian descent 74 But if for this view there is no absolute proof, it can be shown readily that the majority of Basil's accomplices were indeed Armenians. Among those involved in the assassination of Caesar Bardas three are definitely known to have been Armenians: Marianos, the brother of Basil; Symbatios, the Logothete of the Course, and son-in-law of the Caesar; and Bardas, the brother of Symbatios. One, John Chaldos, known also as Tziphinarites, may also have been Armenian. The racial antecedents of two, Peter Bulgarus and Constantine Toxaras, cannot be determined with any certainty. Another of the conspirators is called Leo the Assyrian by one source, Asylaeon, cousin of Basil, by another. The same person, a cousin of Basil, and as such a 'Armenian, is probably meant.75 Marianos, John Chaldos, Constantine Toxaras and Asylaeon were also involved in the assassination of Michael III. As for the rest who took part in that conspiracy, there is some confusion in the sources. One of them, Symbatios, to be distinguished

from the son-in-law of Caesar Bardas who had been mutilated not

long after the death of the Caesar, was, like Marianos, the brother of Basil. Another, Bardas, identified further as the father of Basil the Rector, a personage about whom nothing else is known, may also have been the brother of Basil; or he may have been the brother of Caesar Bardas' son-in-law, who like the latter had participated in the murder of the Caesar. In either

case, he was an Armenian.76 Two others, Jacobitzes and Eulogios, are referred to as Persians. The latter is said to have addressed another of the conspirators, Artavasdos, captain of the Hetaireia, the foreign guard, in Persian. It has been suggested that all three, Jacobitzes, Eulogios and Artavasdos, were really Armenians, natives of those Armenian regions which had once been under the control of Persia, hence, the reference to them as Persians.77 The suggestion is tempting, but, as thousands of Persians had deserted to the empire during the reign of Theophilus78 it is not

improbable that these persons, at least Jacobitzes and Eulogios, were indeed Persians. As for Artavasdos, the probability Is that he was an Armenian who also knew Persian. Artavasdos is a name which we find borne by a number of persons who served the empire and who are known to have been Armenians. Marianos, the son of Petronas, may have also been invol74 Adontz, L'Age et l'origine de l'empereur Basil I, Byzantion 9 (1934) 229. 75 Symeon Magister, 678; Georgius Monachus, 830; Genesius, 106; Theodosius Melitenus, Chronographia, ed. T. L. F. Tafel. Munich, 1859, 170. 76 Symeon Magister, 688; Georgius Monachus, 837, edition by E. de Muralt. St. Petersburg, 1801, 750; Theodosius Melitenus, 176. Cf. J. B. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 458-479; Adontz, L'Age et l'origine de l'empereur Basil 1, Byzantion, 9 (1934) 299 ff. 77 Adontz, ibid., 231. 711 Gregoire, Manuel et Theophobe ou la concurrence de deux monasteres, Byzantion 9 (1934) 185 ff.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

211

ved in the conspiracy against Michael. He is not mentioned among those who actually committed the crime, but his involvement in it is suggested by the fact that Basil made him prefect of the city soon after the elimination of Michael. Marianos was at least partly Armenian. Thus, while not everyone involved in the crimes against Caesar Bardas and Michael III was Armenian, it was a predominantly Armenian group which put an end to the Amorian dynasty and placed on the throne the Armenian Basil. So influential had the Armenian element become in the imperial courtl The Armenian element was prominent also in the intellectual life of the empire in the ninth century. Intellectual activity in the Byzantine empire had never ceased to exist, but it had subsided considerably in the course of the seventh and eighth centuries and certain educational institutions, such as, for instance, the university which Theodosius II had established in the fifth century, had been allowed to decline. But there was a revival in the ninth century, giving a new impetus to learning which would continue

now more or less until the final fall of Constantinople. In this revival a number of persons played an important role. Foremost among these was Photios, the future patriarch and no doubt the most ancyclopaedis erudite the Byzantine empire produced. John the Grammarian, patriarch from 837 to 843, was another of these persons. John, who had laid the theological foundations for the renewal of iconoclasm in 815, was reputed among his contemporaries to be well versed in the science of the ancients. He had also taught the emperor Theophilus who came to look upon the promotion of learning as an important aspect of his reign. The revival of learning culminated in the reestablishment of the University of Constantinople,

housed in the palace of Magnaura and is for that reason known as the School of Magnaura. CaesarBardas founded and Leo the Philosopher, whose iame as mathematician and master of the science of antiquity extend as far as Bagdad, headed the school. A number of others, for instance, Constantine the Philosopher, the apostle of the Slavs, are known to have contributed to

the intellectual activity of the period, but John the Grammarian, Photios, Caesar Bardas and Leo the Philosopher seem to have been the prime movers. All four were, at least in part, of Armenian descent. Bardas's Armenian origin has already been pointed out; that of Leo can be inferred from the fact that he was a cousin of John the Grammarian of whose Armenian origins there can be little doubt, 79 and as for Photlos, the fact is that his

mother, Irene, was the sister of Arsavir, the Arsavir who had married 79 Theoph. Continuatus, 154. Cf. Lebeau. Histoire du Bas-Empire 13. Paris, 1832, 14,

Note 3. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 60, Note 3. His Armenian origin

is further indicated by his father's name, Pancratius, and by that of his brother's, Arfavir. See further: Cyril Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, English Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge, Mass., 1958, 240-243. Leo as relative or cousin of John: Theoph. Continuatus, 185; Cedrenus, 2, 166. For biographical references concerning the career of Leo see Mango, op. cit., 161-162. 14

V 212

Calomaria, the sister of Bardas and the empress Theodora80 These people appear, of course, thoroughly hellenized. Indeed it will be preposterous to call Photios anything but a Greek. Yet it may be asked whether their hellenization was not unaffected by their original background, whether in being absorbed they did not modify the culture which absorbed them. The number of Armenians subject to the Byzantine empire increased considerably in the period following the accession of Basil I to the throne. This was the result of two developments: the territorial expansion of the empire eastward and a movement westward by Armenians. The liquidation of the military resistance of the Paulicians effected finally in 872 by the destructions of Tephrike and the annihilation of the forces of Chrysochier, the Paulician chieftain, brought about the first important annexation. The Pauliclans were a religious sect which must have included elements of divers ethnic origins, but the Paulician strongholds which were now incorporated in the empire, were no doubt predominantly Armenian. To be sure, the surviving Paulicians were dispersed or entered the military ;organization of the empire to serve elsewhere, but the lands which they had been forced to abandon were soon to be occupied, under the aegis of the empire, by other Armenians. Besides, not all of the original inhabitants were removed. The inhabitants of the stronghold of Taranta, the modern Derende, which came to terms with the empire, certainly stayed and probably also some of those of Locana.81 Taranta is referred to as an Islamic city, but given its location in Paulician territory it must have also included Armenians among its inhabitants. As for Locana, it was no doubt inhabi-

ted predominantly by Armenians, for its chieftain was the Armenian Kourtikios (Kourterios) who now, together with his followers, entered the

services of the empire. Some years later, during the reign of Leo VI (886-912) additional Armenian territory was annexed, when the Armenian chieftain Manuel was induced to cede his lands, the region known as Tekis, to the empire. Located between the Euphrates and the Cimizgezek-su and bounded on the south by the Arsanas, Tekis was inhabited entirely by Armenians. Manuel, accompanied by his four sons, moved to Constantinople where he was showered with honors; two of his sons were vested with important commands, while the other two were given new holdings in the neighborhood of Trebizond. His former possessions, augmented by the addition of two districts, Kelzene and Kamacha, the one taken from the theme of Chaldia, the other eo Theoph. Continuatus, 175. Cf. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 156, Note 1.

Artavir, Photius' uncle, must not be confused with Argavir, the brother of John the Grammarian. See Adontz, Role of the Armenians in Byzantine Science, Armenian Review, vol. 3, Ne 3 (1950) 66. at Theoph. Continuatus, 268; Cedrenus, 2, 207; J. G. C. Anderson, The Campaign of Basil 1. Against the Paulicians in 872 A. D. The Classical Review 10 (1896) 136 f.; E. Honlgmann, Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Reiches. Brussels, 1935, 74.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

213

from that of Coloneia, and both Armenian speaking, were organized, sometime between 899 and 912, into the theme of Mesopotamia.83 The new theme was entirely Armenian. In the meantime, a considerable Armenian element moved westward and settled in the territory formed by the regions along the upper Tocha-su where the so-called desert of Symposion seems to have been located; the territory north of Arabisos where several bodies of water join to form the

Pyramos river (Gaihan-su) and where the old fortress of Lycandos was most probably located; and the territory finally along the upper Karmalas river (Zamanti-su) where at a high point near the river, not far from Azizie,

the Ariaratheia of the Greek, on the road which went from Caesareia to Gurun and thence to Melitene, the fortress of Tzamandos was built.84 The initiative in this settlement was taken by several Armenian chieftains, chief among whom, and no doubt the ablest and most aggressive, was a certain Mleh, the Melias of the Byzantine sources. Melias had entered the military service of the empire and had fought against the Bulgarians in the battle of Bulgarophygon in 896, but subsequently fell in disfavor and fled to the Arabs in Melitene. Some years later, Melias and four other Armenian chieftains, three of them brothers, who were with him in Melitene, were granted permission to return to the empire and were put in command of ,certain frontier districts, located in the territories referred to above. But as the four other Armenian chieftains soon passed from view-one was killed fighting the Arabs, another was exiled and nothing more is said of the two brothers of the latter - it was really Melias who reclaimed the country, whose grassy valleys, so favor-

able for the raising of cattle, are especially noted, and settled it with

Armenians. It was he also. who rebuilt the old fortress of Lycandos and founded the new one of Tzamandos. He was given the title of patrician, then that of magister and when about 914 the regions which he reclaimed were erected into a theme, the theme of Lycandos, he was made its first strategos or governor. Throughout the period after his return from Melitene, Melias served the empire loyally and well. His Armenian following never ceased to increase. By the time he died in 934 the theme of Lycanaz Theoph. Continuatus, 268; Cedrenus, 2, 207. 83 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik and tr. into English by R. J. H. Jenkins. Budapest, 1949, 226-227; De Thematibus, ed. Pertusi, 73, and 139 f. for commentary by editor. Honigmann, op. cit., 69.

84 In the location of these regions I have followed Honigmann, op. cit. 55, 64-66, and Map lI at end of book. For the road system of Asia Minor see J. G. C. Anderson, The Road System of Eastern Asia Minor with the Evidence of Byzantine Campaigns, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 17 (1897) 22-44 and plate I at the end of the volume. Honigmann does not agree with Anderson In the location of certain places.

V 214

dos, to use the words of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, was full of Armenians.85

The number of Armenians within the empire increased still more as a result of the Byzantine offensive along the eastern frontier, which began about 927. The most decisive event of this offensive in the annexation of new territory was the capture of Melitene in 934. Melitene was not Armenian country, though, at the time of its capture, some Armenians may have lived there. It was not long, however, before Melitene became an Armenian town.86

The capture of Melitene opened the way for the annexation of several territories across the Euphrates. As some of these territories belonged to the emir of Melitene, their occupation by Byzantium must have taken place shortly after the capture of that city. But no precise dates can be given. Included among these territories were: the country of Khanzit located south of the Arsanas in the loop formed by that river and the Euphrates and extending eastward in a southerly direction as far as the regions beyond Lake Golgik (Buhairat Sumnin) where, near the point where the Arghana-su, one of the sources of the Tigris, breaks through the Taurus, the fortress of Romanopolis was built; the city of Arsamosata (Asmosata, Simsat), located on the southern banks of the Arsanas further east, and its surroundings; and the country north of the Arsanas and east of the CimiAgezek-su. The Khanzit with Romanopolis was added to the theme of Mesopotamia,87 but Arsamosata and the region east of the Cimiggezek-su were organized into new themes known respectively as the Asmosaton88 and Charpezikion themes, though the latter gave way shortly after 949 to the new theme of Chozanon which seems to have been established about this time and included the same general area.89 The year 949 saw also an important new annexation. This was Theodosiopolis (Erzerum, Qaltgala) which was made the center of a new theme consisting of the country about 85 Const. Porphy., De Administrando Imperio, Moravcsik and Jenkins, 238-240. Bonn, 227-228; De Themattbus, Pertusi, 75-76, 143-146 (Bonn, 32-35) ; Honigmann, op. cit., 64. On Mellas: P. Kyriakides, To µokup(566oi,Xov roil arparriyou Mr? or, in 'eaiorgµovixA 'EnElML)IS riq $Lkoaopexi]c Exokti7S Too i1avETrLor7lpiov ©cooaXovLxrlc. Thessalonica, 1932,

320-326; Gregoire, Notes Opigraphiques, VII, Byzantion 8 (1933) 79 ff. Cf. John Mavrogordato, Digenes Akrites, III. Oxford, 1956.

as M. Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides de jariza et de Syrie. Paris, 1953, 736.

87 Const. Porphy., De Administrando Imperio, Moravcsik and Jenkins, 238 (Bonn, 226-227); De Thematibus, ed. Pertusi, 140. Honigmann, 70 and 90-92 for the location of Romanopolis. sa Const. Porhpy., De Administrando Imperio, ed. Moravcsik and Jenkins, 238 (Bonn, 226) ; Honigmann, op. cit., 77; Canard, op. cit., 737. 89 On Charpezikion: Const. Porphy., De Ceremontis, 662, 666, 667, 669; Honigmann, op. cit., 75-77. On Chozanon, Const. Porphy., De Administrando Imperio, Moravcsik and

Jenkins, 238 (Bonn. 226); Honigmann, op. cit., 77-78; Canard, op. cit., 782, Note 99.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

215

the source waters of the Euphrates and the Araxes 9° All these territories were Armenian speaking. To these territories was added in 966 the country of Taron, situated in the regions where the Arsanas is joined by its tributary, the Qara-su, which rises In the mountains of Nlmrud to the west of Lake Van. Its capital was the city of Mug- The country was ceded, no doubt under pressure, to Byzantium in exchange for other lands located elsewhere in the empire by the Armenian brothers Gregory and Pancratios (Bagrat) who had inherited

it from their father. The Byzantines probably did not consolidate their position until 975.91 Taron was, of course, Armenian country. Meanwhile the westward expansion of the Armenians continued. "During the patriarchate of Khatchik, patriarch of Armenia," writes the Armenian historian Asoghik, "the Armenian nation scattered and spread itself to the countries of the west to such an extent that he appointed bishops for An-

tioch of Syria, Tarsus of Cilicia, Soulndah (Lulnday) and for all these regions."92 Soulndah is the fortress of Lulon situated south of Tyana and commanding the road which went through the Cicilian Gates.93 It was anexed definitely by the Byzantines in 876-77. Khatchik was the Armenian Catholicus from 972-992,94 but the scattering and spreading of the Armenians for whom he saw fit to establish new bishoprics began somewhat earlier, a fact which can be established on

the basis of other oriental sources. Qne of these sources, for instance, while describing the successful campaigns of Nicephorus Phocas against the Arabs, remarks that many Armenians, having fled to the frontiers of Byzantium, were settled by the Byzantines, some in Sebasteia of Cappadocia where they "multiplied exceedingly", others in the fortresses of Cilicia which had been captured from the Arabs.95 This movement of the Armenians was no doubt encouraged, perhaps even forced, by the imperial authorities in order to repeople the various towns captured from the Arabs as, for instance. Melitene, Tarsus, captured in 965; Antioch, captured in 969 and others, which suffered considerable losses in population as the result of the departure of most of the Moslems. It is known, for instance, 90 Yahy8 Ibn Said, tr. into French by M. Canard in Extraits des Sources Arabes. Brussels,

1950 (= Vastliev-Gregoire, Byzance et les Arabes, II, 2), 95; Honigmann, op. cit., 79, note 2, 230. 91 Cedrenus, 2, 375; Adontz, Notes Armeno-Byzantines, Byzantion 9 (1934) 374 f.; La Taronfes en Armenie et d Byzance, Byzantion 10 (1935) 541 f.; Honigmann, op. cit., 48 f.; Grousset, op. cit., 493 f.

92 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, tr. Macler, 141; German translation, H. Gelzer and A. Burckhardt (Scriptores sacra et profani, 4). Leipzig, 1907, 196. 93 H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte and ungentlgend verbffentlichte Texte der Notitiae episcopatum, K. Akademle der Wissenschaften, Miinchen, Phil.-hist. Abteilung, Abhandlungen 51, Munich, 1901, 563, Note 2. Cf. Honigmann, op. cit., 68. 94 Fr. Tournebize, Histoire poiitique et religleuse de 1'Armdnle. Paris, 1900, 154. 95 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, tr. by E. A. W. Budge, Oxford, 1932, 1, 169.

V 216

that Armenians and Syrian Jacobites were used by Nicephorus Phocas to repeople Melitene which had become virtually deserted.96 The spread of the Armenians into Byzantine territory in the tenth century was not restricted to the newly conquered Cilician and Syrian lands but extended, as the mention of Sebastela in the reference quoted above indicates, into older provinces including the Cappadocian regions around Caesarea and Nazianzus where the existence of Armenian settlements in the tenth century has been confirmed by the investigation of modern scholars.97 A later oriental source in describing the spread of the Armenians into the Byzantine empire in the tenth century adds that in all the wars waged by the Romans "the foot soldiers of the Armenians marched and they aided them greatly".98 There is nothing in this statement indicating the relative numerical strength of the Armenian element in the Byzantine army, but the statement does attribute to this element a role of major importance. The Byzantine army in the tenth century as in all other centuries to the very end of the empire was composed of different peoples. The army of 50,000 men, for instance, which Bardas Phocas, the father of Nicephorus,

the future emperor, led against Saif al-Daula in 954, consisted, we are told, of Armenians, Turks, Russians, Bulgars, Slavs and Khazars.99 To these we may add Georgians, 100 converted Saracens'°' and other peoples, who fiught on other occasions and whose numbers were by no means insignificant. Nevertheless, as one examines the various campaigns of the Byzan-

tine forces in the tenth century, one is struck by the ever presence of the Armenian element. Armenians participated in every major campaign. They constituted about one third of the cavalry sent against Crete in the ill-fated expeditions of 911 and 949, and figured prominently among the forces of Nicephorus Phocas which succeeded in conquering the island in 960.102 They are found fighting In Italy under the elder Nicephorus, grandfather of the conqueror of Crete, during the reign of Basil I, and again in 934 under the patrician Cosmas.103 They fought in the Balkan 96 Honigmann, Malatya, The Encyclopaedia of Islam 3. London, 1936, 194. Cf. Canard,

Histoire de la dynastle des H'amdanides..., 736. 97 Grbgoire, Notes epigraphlques, 82 f. 99 Bar Hebraeus, op. cit., 169. 99 Ibn ZSfir, tr. Canard, Extracts des Sources Arabes, 125; Dahabi, Ibid., 243 f.; Canard,

Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides..., 779. For Turks, Khorasanians and Khazars in Constantinople at the beginning of the tenth century: A. A. Vasiliev, Harum-Ibn Yahya and his Description of Constantinople, Seminarium Kondakovianum 5 (1932) 158. 100 Cedrenus, 2, 361.

101 Mas`udi, tr. Canard, Extraits des sources arabes, 34, 36, Tabari, Ibid., 12, Ibn Ilaugal, Ibid., 419-421. 102 Const. Porphy., De Ceremonlis, 1, 652 ff., 666 ff.; Leo Diaconus, op. cit., 14; G. Schlumberger, Un empereur byzantin au dtxiPme siecle: Nicdphore Phocas. Paris, 1890, 46.

103 Grbgoire, La carriPre du premier Nicephore_Phocas, 235 f., 251; Const. Porphy., De Ceremonlis, 1, 661.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

217

peninsula as, for instance, in 971 when they contributed greatly to the victory of John Tzimiskes against the Russians and again in 986 when they served under Basil II against the Bulgars.104 It was in the campaigns against the Arabs along the eastern frontiers,

however, that the Armenian contingents in the Byzantine forces stand out most prominently. Their role can hardly be overestimated in the armies of John Curcuas whose appointment as generalissimo (Domestic of the Schools) of the Byzantine forces in the East in 923 may be said to mark the beginning of the brilliant general offensive against the Arabs. Melias and his Armenian followers were, for instance, a major factor in the capture of Melitene and the surrounding country in 934.105 In the multinational army of 50,000 men which Bardas Phocas put in the field in 954 the Armenian contingents were among the most important. They are said to have suffered the greatest losses in the disaster which followed.106 The Armenians are much in evidence too in the Cilician and Syrian

campaigns of Nicephorus Phocas,107 and they constituted the principal backers of Bardas Skleros when in 976 he rebelled against Basil 11.108 While it will be going too far to refer to the rebellion of Skleros as an Armenian national movement, there is no question at all about the Armenian composition of his forces. This prominence of the Armenian element in the forces of Byzantium along the eastern frontiers was no doubt the basis of the observation of the modern scholar which we have tried to analyze above that the Armenian (i. e., of Armenian origin) and the Armenian-speaking element must have been predominant in the Byzantine army from the ninth century to the Crusades. Predominant indeed it was if by

predominant we mean it was more important than any other national group that served in the Byzantine army. There is evidence in the sources to the effect that the Armenians serving in the Byzantine army did not constitute a disciplined lot. They could not

be relied on to keep their posts; they often deserted; and they did not always obey orders.108a As these accusations come to some extent from official sources, they cannot be dismissed entirely. But lack of discipline often is associated with spiritedness and of the spiritedness, bravery and 104 Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, op. cit., 45. Cf. Adontz, Samuel 1'Arrnenien, rot des Bulgares, Memoires de I'Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 38 (1938) 49. 105 Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides ..., 731 If. 106 Mutanabbi, tr. Canard, Extracts des Sources Arabes, 323. 107 Cedrenus, 2, 361; Bar Hebraeus, op. cit., 168; Canard, Histoire de la dynastte des H'amdanides..., 807, 822. 108 Cedrenus, 2, 419; Stephen (Asoghik) of Taron, tr. Macler, 56; Adontz, Notes Armeno-Byzantines, 380; Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des H'amdanides..., 844-845. 1081 Nicephorus Phocas, De velitattone bellica. Bonn, 1828, with Leo Diaconus, 88; von Lingenthal-Zepos, lus Graecoromanum. Athens, 1931, 1, 247; Canard, Histoire de la dynastic des H'amdanldes ..., 822; 1. Laurent, Byzance et les Tures Seldjoucides daps 1'Asie occidentale jusqu'en 1081. Nancy, 1913, 52, Note 1.

V 218

fighting qualities of the Armenian soldiers serving in the Byzantine army, there can be no question at all. There can be no question either about the great contribution which these soldiers made to the brilliant successes of this army in the tenth and eleventh centuries.

The role of the Armenians in the political and military life of the Byzantine empire, in the late ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries appears still more impressive when one examines the leadership which guided the empire during this period. For virtually every major figure In that leadership was of Armenian origin. First of all, there is the dynasty, the most brilliant in the history of the empire. The imperial house which ruled the state throughout this period is known as the Macedonian dynasty, but the term Macedonian as used here has no ethnic connotations. It refers rather to the place of the birth of Basil I, the founder of the dynasty. Basil was an Armenian, born in Macedonia where numerous Armenians had been settled. To be sure there are references found in Arabic sources which raise the question whether Basil may not have been a Slav. In some of these references he is called

simply a Slav without any further explanations; in others he is called a Slav because his mother was a Slav.109 Some modern scholars have taken

these references seriously and as a consequence have given to Basil a Slavic or Armeno-Slavic origin.110 But in view of the Byzantine and Armenian traditions both of which insist on the Armenian origin of Basil, their opinion is more than questionable. As for the Arabic references, they can

best be explained as the result of a confusion arising from the fact that Basil's birthplace was Macedonia whose inhabitants were regarded by the Arabs as Slavs. That Basil I, the founder of the most brilliant dynasty of the Byzantine empire, was indeed Armenian and Armenian on both sides, can be regarded as an established fact.111 Thus, the dynasty which Basil I founded was Armenian by descent.

There was some gossip recorded and passed on by the chronicles that Basil's successor, Leo VI, was actually sired by Michael III and as a consequence was not Basil's genuine son. The careful study of this gossip

has shown that it has no basis in fact,112 but even if it were true that Michael III was indeed the father of Basil's successor, that would still make Leo at least partly Armenian for, as the reader will recall, Michael's mother was the Armenian Theodora. 109 Tabari, tr. Canard, Extraits des Sources Arabes, 6; Eutychlus, Ibid., 25; Mas'Ildi, Ibid., 38, 395; Hamza al-Isfahdni, Ibid., 47; Ibn al-Atir, Ibid., 139; Sibt Ibn al-Gauzi, Ibid., 165.

110 See for instance, A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, 2nd ed. Madison, Wisconsin, 1952, 301.

111 For a thorough study of the origin and early career of Basil I; Adontz, L'Age et i'origine de 1'empereur Basile I, Byzantion 8 (1933) 475-550; 9 (1934) 223-260. 112 Adontz, La portee historique de l'oraison funebre de Basile 1 par son fils Leon VI le sage, Byzantion 8 (1933) 508 If.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

219

The Armenian element in the Macedonian dynasty was strengthened by the marriage of Constantine Porphyrogenitus to Helen, the daughter of Romanus Lecapenus. Thus Basil II, no doubt the ablest military leader that the Macedonian dynasty produced, had as a grandmother an Armenian lady and as a grandfather an emperor who was himself the grandson of the Armenian founder of the dynasty. The dynasty was, of course, hellenized-byzantinized is perhaps a more appropriate term-but the

form which this hellenization took was no doubt influenced by its Armenian antecedents, though the extent of this influence is a matter which the historian cannot really determine. Three of the ablest emperors of the tenth century were not legitimate members of the Macedonian dynasty, but they were associated with it and respected the rights of its members to the throne, though in the case of one, he would have liked, and indeed tried to have his family prevail. Two of these Emperors, Romanus Lecapenus (919-944) and John Tzimiskes (969-976) are definitely known to have been of Armenian origins. Romanus Lecapenus is said by the chroniclers to have been born in the Armeniac theme,113 but a modern scholar places his birth at Lakape (Laqabin), a place south of Melitene; hence his name Lecapenus.114 He was of obscure

origin and of limited, if any, formal education. His father was a certain Theophylact, called Abastactus, who, as a simple soldier, once saved Basil I from being captured by the Saracens.115 But the favor which was shown to him as a consequence of this feat apparently did not make him wealthy. In any case, the son is said to have been poor when he came to Constanti-

nople and entered the naval services of the empire. But he was able and a good judge of men and so rose in rank until he became governor of the naval theme of Samos and then Grand Admiral (Drungarius) of the Fleet. The latter position enabled him to prevail In the struggle for power which took place during the minority of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the son of Leo VI. In December 919 he was crowned Emperor to rule with young Constantine. Meanwhile, his daughter Helen was married to the young Emperor. Thus did this rustic Armenian become emperor and his daughter the wife of an emperor, himself the grandson of another Armenian. But this was not all. Romanus had four sons, three of them, Christopher, Stephen and Constantine, he raised to the throne to be his associates; the fourth, Theophylact, he eventually made patriarch. Thus, church and 113 Theophanes Continuatus, 419; Georgius Monachus, 91. 114 Gregoire, Notules, Byzantion, 8 (1933) 572 If. 115 Georgius Monachus, 841; Symeon Magister, 690; Theodosius Melitenus, 178. Con-

stantine Porphyrogenitus calls Romanus "a common, illiterate fellow" and not one among those who "have followed the Roman national customs from the beginning", De Administrando Imperio, ed. Moravcsik and Jenkins, 72 (Bonn, 88). See further Lindprand of Cremona, Works, tr. by E. A. Wright. New York, 1930, 119 ff.; 127.

V 220

state fell completely into the hands of the son and grandsons of the simple Armenian soldier who had served under Basil I and whose granddaughter besides was married to the only surviving descendant of that Emperor.

Though the son and grandsons of this Armenian eventually fell from power, his granddaughter, as the wife of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, remained Empress aad gave to the empire its next Emperor, the man who sired the great Basil 11.116

Quite different was the background of John Tzimiskes. He is said to have been born in the Armenian district of Khozan in a place called after him, Com9kacagh.1i7 John Curcuas, the commander (Domestic) of the Hikanatot who served under and plotted against Basil 1,118 was Tzimiskes' direct ancestor. The name of Tzimiskes' father is not known, but his grandfather was Theophilos, an able provincial governor and military

commander who distinguished himself in the wars against the Arabs during the reign of Romanus Lecapenus. Theophilos' brother was no other than the Armenian John Curcuas, the brilliant generalissimo (Domes-

tic of the Schools) of the Byzantine forces in the East during the same period. Thus, Tzimiskes, one of the truly great soldier-emperors of Byzantium, belonged by birth to a distinguished Armenian family which had

established itself among the military aristocracy of Byzantium. And through marriage he was related to other great families. His first wife Maria, who died before he became Emperor, was the daughter of Bardas Skleros, a member of an illustrious family of Armenian descent.119 Through

his mother he was related to the Phocades, one of the most powerful Byzantine families in the tenth century.120 His second wife was Theodora, the daughter of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Armenian Helen.121 It was his marriage to Theodora that gave to his occupation of the impe-

rial throne an air of legitimacy. He had come to the throne through murder, a murder for which he was not innocent, but he added greatly to its lustre and preserved it for the grandsons of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the great Basil II and his much less capable brother, Constantine VIII. The third Emperor of the tenth century who was not a legitimate member

of the Macedonian dynasty but was associated with it was Nicephorus 118 On the reign of Romanus Lecapenus and the Lecapeni in general: S. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign. Cambridge, 1929. 117 Matthew of Edessa, Chronique, tr. from Armenian by E. Dulaurier (Bibliotheque historique Armenienne). Paris, 1858, 16, 374. Cf. Armenian version of Michael Syrus translated by V. Langlois, Chronique de Michel le Grand. Venice, 1868, 281; Leo Diaconus, op. cit., 92. 116 Theophanes Continuatus, 277; Cedrenus, 2, 213. Cf. A. Vogt, Basile le empereur de Byzance (867-886) et la civilisation byzantine d la fin du IX6 sidcle. Paris, 1908, 153. 119 Leo Diaconus, 117; Cedrenus 2, 384. 120 Leo Diaconus, 38, 99. 121 Ibid., 127.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

221

Phocas (963-969), another of the truly great soldier-emperors of the

empire. Phocas belonged to one of the most distinguished Byzantine families of the tenth century. Of the beginnings of this family nothing is known. The name Phocas appears as early as the fifth century; it is also attested for the sixth century; and there is of course, the Emperor Phocas, apparently of Cappadocian origin, who overthrew Maurice and was in turn overthrown by Heraclius early in the seventh century.122 But there is no

evidence connecting the great tenth century family with any of these early Phocades. To be sure there was a tradition in Byzantium that the Phocades of the tenth century were an old family, and this tradition, apparently sponsored by the family, connected them with the descendants

of the great house of the Fabii, who, it was said, had originally been brought to Constantinople, along with other distinguished families, by Constantine the Great.123 But no evidence corroborating this tradition exists. The fact of the matter is that the first known member of this

family does not go further back than the second half of the ninth century. This was a certain Phocas, Cappadocian, i. e., born in Cappadocia, by origin, who became noted for his strength and courage and whom Basil I rippointed tumarch.124 Phocas had a son, Nicephorus by name, who as a young man attracted the attention of Basil I and so became a member of that Emperor's immediate entourage. This was the beginning of a brilliant carreer which extended well into the reign of Leo VI and in the course of which Nicephorus distinguished himself as provincial governor and general commander in the field.125 His two sons Bardas and Leo followed in his footsteps. Leo, in his bid for the throne during the minority of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, lost out to Romanus Lecapenus,126 but Bardas continued to serve the empire for many years. He was the father of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas.127

Thus, the Phocades were by origin natives of Cappadocia where their possessions were also located. In Cappadocia in the ninth century the Greek-speaking element no doubt predominated,128 a fact which, when taken in conjunction with the Greek name of the family, suggests a Greek origin for the Phocades. But this is not the view that has come to prevail. In the opinion of Adontz who is followed by Gregoire, the Phocades, like many other great families of Asia Minor in the tenth century, were Armenians. Their argument, based really on the fact that the Armenian name

of Bardas was used by virtually every generation of the family, has 122 Georgina Buckler, A Sixth Century Botaniates, Byzantion 6 (1931) 409 f. 123 Attaliates, Historla. Bonn, 1853, 217 If. 124 Gregoire, La carrigre du premier Nicdphore Phocas, 250. 125 For details, Ibid., 232-250. 126 Cedrenus, 2, 285 1. 117 Ibid., 2, 285, 316, 327. 128 Cf. Adontz et Gregoire, Nicephore au col roide, Byzantion 8 (1933) 208.

V 222

something to recommend it. For in Byzantium where the tendency was definitely toward hellenization and changes in name assumed Greek forms, the retention of a non-Greek name should only mean that the person who bore it was, if not entirely, at least in part of non-Greek origins.

Now, among the Phocades there are two given names which appear frequently and with a remarkable regularity: Nicephorus and Bardas, the first Greek, the second Armenian. Thus Nicephorus Phocas, the famous general who served under Basil I, and Leo VI, named one of his sons Bardas, the other Leo. Bardas in turn named his sons, one Nicephorus, the futute Emperor, the other Leo. The Emperor Nicephorus had a son who died before his father became Emperor, whose name was Bardas 129 Had the boy grown to manhood and sired a son, he would have named him, no doubt, Nicephorus. The brother of the Emperor Nicephorus, Leo, had a numerous family. One of his sons was named Nicephorus, another Bardas, the famous Bardas Phocas who rebelled against Basil II. This Bardas Phocas had a son Nicephorus who in turn named his son Bardas.130 When we next hear of the Phocades, it is in connection with the Emperor Botaneiates (1078-1081) who claimed descent from the Phocades and whose given name was Nicephorus.131

It is quite obvious that in their use of the names of Bardas and Nicephorus the Phocades followed a pattern which consisted in this: that grandfather and grandson usually bore the same name. And if we may judge from this pattern the first Phocas, the man who was named tumarch by Basil I, whose given name is not known, most probably was called Bardas, his father, judging from the name of his son, probably Nicephorus. The frequency and regularity with which these names were used among the Phocades represents quite obviously, an important family tradition.

And this tradition is perhaps not unrelated to the ethnic origin of the family. The Phocades of the tenth century were most probably of mixed origin. One side of them was Greek or deeply Hellenized, the other side was Armenian. Which side was Greek and which side was Armenian is, of course, impossible to say with any degree of certainty, but judging from the name of the family, the Greek side was probably the male one. Some Nicephorus Phocas, perhaps the father of the Phocas who was named tumarch by Basil I, married into an Armenian family whose head was a Bardas and so founded the great family of the tenth century. This view, based entirely on the names used by the family, finds some corroboration In the tradition concerning the origin of the family to which reference has already been made. According to this tradition the Phocades, it will be recalled, descended from the Fabii whom Constantine the 129 Cedrenus, 2: 351.

130 On all this see Adontz et Grdgoire, Nicdphore au col roide, 205 ft. 131 Cedrenus, 2: 726; Attaliates, 229. Cf. Buckler, op. cit., 407 if.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

223

Great had brought to Constantinople. But that was only one side the other side was Iberian in origin, going back to the Iberians whom Constantine, we are told, had brought from the west and settled in the country once inhabited by the Assyrians, then by the Medes and afterwards by the Armenians.132 Is this a cryptic allusion to the Armenian origin of

one side at least of the Phocades? It may be so interpreted especially since the Armenian name of Bardas was so frequently and with such a regularity used by them.

The Phocades then, if not entirely Armenian in origin were at least partially so. That means, of course, that Nicephorus Phocas one of the three emperors of the tenth century who were not legitimate members of

the Macedonian dynasty, but were associated with it, was also at least partially Armenian in origin. Thus, every emperor who sat on the Byzantine throne from the accession of Basil I to the death of Basil II (867-1025) was of Armenian or partially Armenian origin. But besides the emperors there were many others among

the military and political leaders of Byzantine during this period who were Armenians or of Armenian descent. Included among these were some of the ablest military commanders and administrative functionaries in the history of Byzantium. Some of these commanders and officials belonged to families of Armenian origin long established in the empire; others were new arrivals; while still others, although appearing for the first time, may have had established -antecedents about which nothing is known.

No doubt the ablest Byzantine commander in the field during the first half of the tenth century was the Armenian John Curcuas. Curcuas belonged to a well-to-do family established in the empire for some time. He was related to a metropolitan of Gangra, Christopher by name, who is said

to have directed his early education. His grandfather, named also John, was the Curcuas who, as commander (Domestic) of the Hikanatoi served under, and plotted against, Basil 1.133 The younger John Curcuas came into prominence with the rise to power of Romanus Lecapenus. Appointed generalissimo (Domestic of the Schools) of the Byzantine forces

in the East in 923, Curcuas served in that capacity for more than twenty-two years in the course of which he was almost continously engaged against the Arabs and almost always with striking success.Almost as able and equally accomplished was his brother Theophilos, who, as it has already been observed, was the grandfather of the Emperor John Tzimiskes. John Curcuas was removed from his command in 944 and was 132 Attaliates, 220 ff. 133 Theophanes Continuatus, 426. 134 Ibid., 426 f. On the career of John Curcuas: Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, 135-150.

V 224

replaced by the patrician Pantherios, who, as a relative of Romanus Lecapenus, was probably also of Armenian origin.135 Descendants of John Cur-

cuas were prominent in the political and military life of the empire throughout the rest of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century.136

Romanus Lecapenus turned also to a member of a family of Armenian origin long established in the empire for his chief naval commander. This was the patrician Alexius Musele whose family was already prominent at the beginning of the ninth century. Alexius was named Admiral (Drungarius) of the fleet and as such, participated in the wars against the Bulgarian Symeon in which he lost his life.137 Meanwhile Romanus had married one of his daughters to a member of the Musele family, perhaps to Alexius himself, thus strengthening the Armenian element in the family. Born of this union was the magister Romanus Musele who served as governor of the Opsikian theme during the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus following the overthrow of the Lecapeni and whose possessions in the region of Philomelion were so vast that Basil II saw fit to seize them.138 Basil's act apparently impoverished the family. To the Musele family belonged also perhaps the Armenian Alexius who served as governor of Cyprus during the reign of Basil 1.139 Alexius was the favorite name in this family. The Musele family is also referred to as that of the Krinitae. The name Krinites is used for the first time in connection with the Alexius Musele who, as has already been observed, was married to Maria, the daughter of the Emperor Theophilus. But the name was apparently older, for we are told that Alexius occupied the houses of Krenitissa, i. e., the houses of the lady of the family of Krenites. Whether the Krinitae were identical with the main Musele family or were a branch of it is not quite clear. In any case, they were of Armenian origin. A number of them are known to have occupied important positions. These include: George, Procopius, Arotras, Arotras' son Abessalom, and Paschal. George served under Leo VI and was charged by him to pursue Samonas when the latter escaped. Procopius commanded the Byzantine troops sent against the Bulgarian Symeon in 894; he was defeated and killed. Arotras, a protospatharius, served as governor of the Peloponnesus and of Hellas during the reign of Romanus Lecapenus; Abessalom was implicated in the unsuccessful attempt in 913

of Constantine Ducas to seize the throne; he was blinded and exiled. Paschal served as the Byzantine governor of Longobardia during the reign 135 Theophanes Continuatus, 429, Georgius Monachus, 917. 136 Theophanes Continuatus, 428; Cedrenus, 2, 347-348, 405, 483. 137 Theophanes Continuatus, 401; Georgius Monachus, 893-894. 138 Cedrenus 2, 343; Theophanes Continuatus, 443. Cf. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus. Lecapenus, 84. On the confiscation of the properties of Romanus Musele: von LingenthalZepos, 1, 266, Note 48. 139 Const. Porphy., De Thematibus, ed. Pertusl, 81.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

225

of Romanus Lecapenus. Paschal also, as imperial ambassador to Hugh of Provence, negotiated the marriage between Hugh's daughter and the young son of the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. There is another Krenites, referred to simply as protospatharius, who was used by Romanus Lecapenus as interpreter in his negotiations with the Armenian princes of Taron. Who this Krenites was is impossible to say, but the information about him that he was an interpreter in negotiations with Armenian princes is interesting, for it shows, as Adontz has remarked, that the Krenitae, though long established in the empire, still spoke Armenian. The family

seems to have retained its prominence past the middle of the eleventh century.l4o

The Skleroi, whose first known member, as had already been pointed

out, was governor of the Peloponnesus at the beginning of the ninth

century, was another established Armenian family of major importance in

the political and military life of the empire in the tenth century. The patrician Nicetas Skleros served under Leo VI and was entrusted with the

task of inciting the Hungarians against the Bulgarian Symeon, a task which he successfuly carried out.141 No doubt the most famous member of the family was Bardas Skleros. As generalissimo of the Byzantine forces in the east during the reign of Tzimiskes,142 Bardas distinguished himself in the field, but he is better known for his revolt against Basil II, a revolt in which, as has already been pointed out, his forces were predominantly Armenian, and which almost brought him 'on the throne.143 The Skleroi were related by marriage to other powerful families. Bardas' sister Maria was married to John Tzimiskes; his brother Constantine, to a Phocas, niece of the emperor Nicephorus, and sister of Bardas Phocas, Skleros' antagonist;144 and his own grandson Basil, to a member of the Argyri, Pulcheria, the sister of Romanus, who later became emperor.195 The Skleroi were politically influential throughout the eleventh century. A Skleros was involved in the revolt of the military which put Issac Comnenus on the throne in 1057; 146 another took part in the conspiracy of the Anemas family against Alexius Comnenus.147 190 For a study of the Krlnitae; Adontz, Les Taronttes en Armdnte et d Byzance, Byzantion 10 (1935) 535-540. 141 Theophanes Continuatus, 358; Cedrenus, 2, 255. 142 Cedrenus 2, 417.

193 For details of the revolt of Bardas Skleros: G. Schlumberger, L'epopde byzantine, 1. Paris, 1896, 354 if.; 726 if. 144 Cedrenus, 2, 392. 145 Ibid. 2.: 483, 501; Michael Psellos, Chronographie, ed., E. Renauld. Paris, 1928-1928,

125, 142 = Constantine IX, ch. 15, ch. 50. Basil's daughter was married to Constantine IX before he had become emperor. Basil's granddaughter was the beautiful Sklerina who served Constantine IX as his mistress. Psellos, Idem. 146 Cedrenus, 2, 622.

147 Anna Comnena, 2, 155 (Bonn Edition); 3, 70 (Ed., B. Leib, Paris 1945). 15

Bw_antinoxlavica

V 226

Reference has already been made to the magister Stephen, the son of Calomaria and the Armenian Arsavir, who served as a member of the regency appointed to guide the state during the minority of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.148 But more important in the central administration of the empire were two other personages of Armenian or partially Armenian descent. One was Stylianos Zaoutzes, the other was Basil the paracoemomenus. Zaoutzes was an Armenian born in Macedonia whom we first find In the entourage of Basil I. He was apparently one of Basil's most trusted courtiers for just before he died he committed to Zaoutzes "the direction of all matters, ecclesiastical and political". Under Leo VI he became the most powerful imperial minister, directing indeed "all matters, ecclesiastical and political". The title of basileopator, 'father of the emperor', was expressly created for him even before his daughter Zoe, who was the mistress of Leo VI, became Leo's wife.150 His death early in 896 was followed not long afterwards by that of his daughter. His family, threatened now with loss of power, plotted against the government but their plot was discovered and they were destroyed.151 It was this plot of the family of Zaoutzes that first brought into prominence the Saracen Samonas, one of the most remarkable personages in the intelligence service of the imperial government.

Basil the paracoemomenos was the illegitimate son of the Emperor Romanus Lecapenus who, as the reader already knows, was an Armenian. His mother was a Slav 152 Introduced into the government during the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus Basil became, beginning with the reign of Nicephorus Phocas, the real director of the civil administration of the empire. He was particularly effective during the early years of the reign of Basil II when his intelligence and cunning enabled the young Emperor

to weather the various storms which threatened him with destruction. Basil was indeed very greedy, but he was not only an able administrator, but also a statesman.153

A number of personages, active during the late ninth and early part of the tenth century may have also been of Armenian origins. Included among these was Leo, surnamed Apostyppes, who, as governor of Macedonia was sent in command of his troops to fight against the Saracens in Italy in 880. The failure of the campaign resulted in his disgrace and exile. It Is on the basis of the names of his sons, Bardas and David, that one may suppose that he was Armenian.154 Another, this one certainly an Armenian, was 148 See Note 66.

149 Vita Euthymit, ed. C. de Boor. Berlin, 1888, 2; edited with an English translation, P. Karlin-Hayter, Byzantlon 25-27 (1955-1957) 10. 150 Ibid. 3, 24 (de Boor); 12, 52 (Karlin-Hayter). 151 Cedrenus, 2, 258; Symeon Magister, 703. 152 Leo Diaconus, 48 f.; 94. -

153 See the sketch drawn of Basil by Psellos, ed. Renauld, 1, 3, 12. 154 Theophanes Continuatus, 305, 308, 307, 308.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

227

Adrian the patrician. Adrian must have been a person of some importance, for Romanus Lecapenus married his son Constantine to his daughter.155 Still another was Gregoras Iberitzes, who was Domestic of the Schools in 906-907. Iberitzes was the father-in-law of Constantine Ducas and was implicated in the revolt attempted by the latter in 913 to seize control of the government.156 Implicated in the same revolt was another personage,

Constantine Lips, who, judging from the name of his son Bardas, was probably also an Armenian. This Bardas, a patrician, was involved in the plot to overthrow Romanus II in 691. Lips had another son, named also Constantine who bore the title of anthypatos and patrician and was the great Hetaeriarch during the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.157 Kourtikes, known definitely to have been an Armenian and about whom more will be said below, was also a partisan of Ducas.158 Indeed among the known partisans of Constantine Ducas there are so many who seem to have been Armenian that one may raise the question whether that powerful Byzantine family may not have been of Armenian origin.159 Among the Armenians who entered the services of the empire toward the end of the ninth century and established a place for themselves and their family the most famous no doubt was Mleh, the Melias of the Byzantines.

Of this Melias and his activities along the eastern frontier reference has already been made. Melias was indeed a great figure whose deeds were later attributed to Digenes Akrites, the hero of the Byzantine epic in which,

as Melimentzes, Melias himself appears as one of Digenes' opponents. Melias died in 934, but he apparently left a son who also distinguished himself in the service of the empire, first as provincial governor and finally, under John Tzimiskes, as Domestic of the Schools. He died before Amida in 973. It is this Melias who is represented in a fresco in one of the churches in Cappadocia not far from Caesarea, where he is referred to as magister.ltO What happened to the family after 973 is not known; but it is interesting to observe that there were still at the beginning of the twentieth century heterodox tribes in the region of Adana and Tarsus which bore the name of Melemenjil.161

Reference has also been made to another Armenian who entered the services of the empire in the last quarter of the ninth century. This was Kourtikios, called more often Kourtikes, who, it will be recalled, was the 155 Ibid., 423; Georgius Monachus, 914. 156 Theophanes Continuatus, 382-383; Symeon Magister, 718-719; Georglus Monachus, 874-875. Cf. Adontz, Les Taronites en Armdnie et d Byzance, Byzantion 9 (1934) 737.

157 Adontz, Les Taronites en Armenie et d Byzance. Byzantlon 10 (1935) 532-534. 1,56 Cedrenus, 2: 280; Theophanes Continuatus, 383. 159 Cf. Adontz, Les fonds historiques de I'6popee byzantine Digenis Akritas. Byz. Zeitschr. 29 (1929-1930) 205 f. 160 See Note 85 for the pertinent references. 161 Mavrogordato, op. cit., LIII. 15.

V 228

chieftain of the fortress of Locana which he turned over to the empire following the destruction of Tephrike in 872 and, together with his Armenian followers, entered the services of the empire. It was this Kourtikes,

no doubt, who as one of the commanders of the Byzantine troops sent against the Bulgarian Symeon in 894 lost his life.162 But he had already Established his family in the political and military life of the empire. For a Kourtikes, probably the son of the chieftain of Locana, was, as has already been observed, a partisan of Constantine Ducas and died in his attempt so seize power in 913.163 A Manuel Kourtikes helped to dethrone Romanus Lecapenus in 944 and was later made patrician and Drungartus of the Watch by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.164 Some years later a Michael Kourtikes was a naval commander and sided with Bardas Skleros in his revolt against Basil 11.165 Thus, throughout the tenth century the

Kourtikes family played a role of some importance in the political and military life of the empire. This role continued into the eleventh century. A high water mark of the Byzantine offensive on the eastern front in the second half of the tenth century was the capture of Antioch in 969. The commander of the Byzantine troops which took this famous Syrian city was Michael Bourtzes.166 Bourtzes was an Armenian. In 976 he was named Duke of Antioch, but soon after joined the rebellous forces of Bardas Skleros, bringing along with him a contingent of Armenians. But by 992

we find him Duke of Antioch again. Meanwhile he had established his family in the political and military life of the empire. His elder son was already, as early as 976, active as military commander. The Bourtzes family remained prominent in the political and military life of the empire throughout the eleventh century. They seem to have been particularly active during the reign of Alexius Comnenus.167 Another Armenian family active in the military life of the empire in the

late tenth and eleventh century, was that of Theodorokanos. The first known member of this family was the patrician Theodorokanos who served as general in the Bulgarian wars of Basil II. When he retired from active

life in 1000-1001 because of old age, he was governor of Philippopolis. The last known member of the family, probably the grandson of the patrician Theodorokanos, was Constantine who died shortly after 1077. He had 162 Theoph. Continuatus, 358; Cedrenus, 2, 254. On this encounter with Symeon, Cf. S. Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire. London, 1930, 144 ff. 163 Cedrenus, 2, 260; Theoph. Continuatus, 383. 164 Theoph. Continuatus, 435, 436; Cedrenus, 2, 327. 165 Cedrenus, 2, 424, 427; Nicephorus Bryennius Commentarii, ed. A. Meineke, Bonn, 1836, 154, where a Basil Kourtikes is mentioned. 166 Ibid., 365-367. Cf. Adontz, Notes Armeno-byzantines. Byzantion 10 (1935) 184; W. H. Buckler, Two Gateway Inscriptions, Byz. Zeitschr. 30 (1929-30) 647-648. 167 Nicephorus Bryennius, 117; Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, ed. B. Leib, 1. Paris, 1937, 131; 3. Paris, 1945, 200 ff. The Bourtzes family used the Armenian name of Bardas: Anna Comnena, op. cit., 3, 200.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

229

opposed Nicephorus Bryennios in his attempt to become emperor, was captured by him and was sent into exile where he died. The other two members of the family known, George and Basil, were no doubt sons of the patrician. They both held important commands.169 The Dalassenoi, one of the more prominent Byzantine families In the eleventh century, may also have been of Armenian origin. The first known member of this family was Damlanos whom we find Duke of Antioch in 995. He was killed in 998 fighting the Saracens. His four sons occupied Important positions in the military and administrative organization of the empire. One of them, Constantine, apparently a popular figure, was twice considered for the throne, once in 1028 at the time of the death of Constantine VIII and again in 1042 following the overthrow of Michael V. His

daughter became the wife of Constantine Ducas, the future Emperor. Another female member of the family, a descendant of Theophylact, a son of Damianos, became the mother of Alexius Comnenus. The family originally came from Dalassa, a place which, according to Adontz who has written the history of the family, was an Armenian center located in the montainous region to the east of Melitene known as Claudia. It is on this ground that he gives to the family an Armenian origin. His argument, if not entirely convincing, is, nevertheless, impressive.

Adontz has written the history of another Byzantine family, this one certainly of Armenian origin.170 The Armenian district of Taron, it will be recalled, was ceded to the empire by the brothers Gregory and Pancratios

(Bagrat) who were given other lands located elsewhere in the empire. Discontented with this arrangement at first, the Taronite brothers joined Bardas Skleros in his rebellion, but were subsequently reconciled with Basil II, were entrusted with important commands, and established themselves in the military and administrative life of the empire. The family of Gregory particularly prospered. His son Ashot was married to the daughter of the Bulgarian King Samuel. Ashot's descendants Intermarried with the Melissenoi and the Comneni, two of the most prominent Byzantine families of the eleventh century.171 They are known to have held important positions down to the middle of the twelfth century.

A branch of the Toronites, the Tornikios family, survived still longer, ' On this family, see Adontz, Notes Armeno-byzantines, Byzantion 10 (1935) 161-170. Iss Ibid., 171-185. 170 Adontz, Les Taronites en Armdnte et d Byzance, Byzantion Q (1934) 715-73B.10 (1935) 531-551; 11 (1936) 21-42. Also, his Observations sur la genealogte des Taronites, Byzantion 14 (1939) 407-413. 171 Nicephorus, Melissenos, according to the French translation of Bryennius by H.

Gregoire, is said to have been related to the Bourtzes family on his father's side. This would indicate, that the Melissenol were also of Armenian origin: H. Gragoire, Ntcilphore Bryennios: Les quatre livres des histoires. Byzantion 23 (1953-1954) 480. It should be pointed out, however, that the Bonn edition of Bryennius (p. 24) has Moetiov5 not Bourtzes.

V 230

holding important military and administrative positions down to the beginning of the fourteenth century. We first meet with members of this family in 945 when a Nicolas and Leo Tornikios helped Constantine Porphyrogenitus to eliminate the Lecapeni from the throne. It is not until the eleventh century, however, that we find members of this family occupying important military posts. In 1047 one of them, Leo Tornikios, attempted to seize the throne. His failure was less heroic than that of another Armenian, George Maniakes, the famous general, who had attempted the same thing several years earlier (1042).172 The John Tornikios who aided the imperial forces at the time of the rebellion of Bardas Skleros belonged to the Georgian branch of the family, in its origins also Armenian.173 Among those who supported Bardas Skleros at the time of his rebellion there was a certain Sachakios Vrachamios. Vrachamios was at the time, according to one source, an army general, according to another, the head of an important bureau. In any case, he was an important personage, already active during the reign of John Tzimiskes. A number of other persons, belonging to the same family and occupying positions of some importance, are known, but as all the information at our disposal is derived from seals, not much can be said about them. There is one, however who figures prominently in the literary sources. This is Philaretus who, following the Byzantine disaster at Mentzikert in 1071, carved out a principality for himself in the Taurus mountains which was eventually extended to include the cities of Melitene, Antioch and Edessa. His forces consisted almost entirely of Armenians. The Vrachamios family was, of course Armenian in origin.174

In this analysis of the Armenian element in the leadership of the empire for the period under consideration a number of other personages of Armenian origin might have been mentioned. For instance, the Machitars who

appear in the service of the empire during the last quarter of the tenth century - the first Machitar seems to have been governor of Lycandos sometime after 973 - and continued until the end of the eleventh century,175 or, the Kekaumenoi who produced two important personages In the

eleventh century, Katakalon, one of the ablest Byzantine generals of the period, and the author Kekaumenos, the able and wise provincial administrator, whose work is no doubt the most original political treatise in the 172 Adontz, Les Taronites d Byzance. Byzantion 11 (1936) 30-42. 173 Paul Peeters, Un Colophone georgien de Thornik le moine. Anal. Boll. 50 (1932) 370-371; A. Adontz, Tornik le molne. Byzantion 13 (1938) 143-164. But cf. M. Tarchni4vili, Die Anjange der schriftstellerischen Tatigkeit des hl. Euthymius and der Aujstand von Bardas Skleros. Oriens Christianus 38 (1954) 117. See also R. P. Blake, Some Byzantine Accounting Practices. Harvard Studies iti Classical Philology 51 (1940) 14-16. 174 Adontz, Notes Armeno-byzantines. Byzantion 9 (1934) 377-382. 175 Ibid., 367-371.

The Armenians In the Byzantine Empire

V 231

literature of Byzantium.176 One might mention also the Georgian-Armenian families of Apocapes and Pacurianus, members of both of which are known

to have held important positions in the eleventh century.177 Enough has been said, however, to show how important the Armenian element was among those who directed the destiny of the empire during what was the most brilliant period in Its history. In their relations with Armenian chieftains the Byzantines developed the practice of having them yield their possessions to the empire in return for lands located elsewhere in the empire and also for titles and offices. It was an effective way, at least in some instances, of extending the frontier eastward and at the same time integrating recalcitrant elements into the military and political life of the empire. The practice may already be noted under Basil I when, it will be recalled, the Armenian Kourtikios, who turned Locana over to the empire, was given a place in the military organization of the empire. It may be noted under Leo VI when another Armenian chieftain, Manuel, ceded Tekis to the,empire Manuel, it will be recalled, moved to Constantinople where he was showered with honors while two of his sons were given new holdings in the region of Trebizond and the other two, important military commands. It was in this way too that the district of Taron had been definitely annexed to the empire in 966. The dispossessed princes were not always happy with the new arrange-

ment but they usually ended, as it has been pointed out above in connection with the Taronites, by Integrating themselves into the military and political life of the empire. This practice was applied on a large scale during the reign of Basil II and resulted in the annexation by the empire of virtually all Armenia. In most instances, the cessions were induced under pressure and not infrequently force was required to bring about actual annexation. The first important annexation thus made was the domain of the Curopolates David, a Georgian potentate of Armenian origin. The region known i7s M. Gy6rii, L'a?uvre de Kekaumenos, sources de l'histoire romaine, Rev. d'Hist.

Comparee, nouvelle serie, 3 (1945) 109-125. The relationship between Katakalon and the author Kekaumenos is not quite clear. See Gyoni's (op. cit., 126-128) review of the question. Concerning the Armenian origin of the Kekaumenoi see further Paul Lemerle, Prolegomdnes a une edition critique et commentee des s Conseils et REcits a de Kekaumenos (= Acad. Royale de Belgique. Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, M6moires, 56). Brussels, 1960, 20 if. 177 On membres of the family of Apocapes, Vryonis, The will of a Provincial Magnate, Eustathius Bollas (1059), Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 11 (1957) 274 f. The most distinguished

member of the family of Pacurianus was Gregory (d. 1086) who held very important positions and whose extensive properties are known in detail. Lous Petit, Typikon de Gregoire Pacourianos pour le monastere de Petritzos (Bat:kovo) en Bulgarle, BH3. BpeM. 11 (Supplement 1) (1904). On the origins and career of Gregory: p. VI If. Though he served the Byzantine empire and served it well, Pacourlanus never forgot his GeorgianArmenian origins. The monastery of Petzitzos which he founded was to house only Georgian monks. Greeks were specifically forbidden to become members of it. Ibid., 44.

V 232

as the Taik constituted the core of his territories, but the latter extended from Manzikert, north of Lake Van, to Erzerum on the upper Euphrates

and northward to the district of Kola and Artans, northwest of Kars. David had aided Basil II at the time of the revolt of Bardas Skleros, but some years later he sided with Bardas Phocas when the latter rose in revolt against the same Emperor (987). It was no doubt in order to escape the vengeance of the victorious Emperor that David made him his heir so that when he died in 1000, apparently the victim of poison, administered perhaps at the instigation of the Emperor, his realm was annexed to the empire and became the theme of Iberia.tlt The annexation of Taik was followed some years later (1022) by that of Vaspurakan. Vaspurakan, which extended from Lake Van to the Araxes and to the chain of mountains which today separates Turkey from Iran, was ceded to the empire apparently because its king, Senacherim, was no longer able to withstand the various foreign and internal pressures, especially the invasion of the Seljuk Turks. The newly annexed country was organized into a catepanate, I. e., a frontier province.179 The annexation of Vaspurakan had hardly been completed when Basil li received a bequest which resulted eventually in the acquisition of another

Important Armenian territory. The bequest same from Sempad (Smbat) cf Ani, King of Greater Armenia who, having sided with Georgi, the King of the nascent Georgian feudal monarchy, against Basil, had become rather uneasy concerning the intentions of the Byzantine Emperor. Its substance

was that while Sempad would continue to rule his realm until his death, the Byzantine emperor was to be his successor. When Sempad died in 1041, however, he was succeeded by his nephew Gagik who, while ready to acknowledge the suzerainty of the emperor, refused to turn his kingdom over to the empire. But the pressures which were brought to bear against him were in the end too strong and he was forced to abdicate. Thus, Ani and the Kingdom of Greater Armenia were annexed to the empire in 1045.180 About the same time Gregory Pahlavuni, a learned Armenian better known as Gregory the Magister, yielded to the empire the stronghold of Bgni, located some distance to the east of Ani on the 178 Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Reiches, 155 ff.; R. Grousset, Histoire

de I'Armgnie, 529-535; Schlumberger, L'epopee Byzantine, 2. Paris, 1900, 159-165. But

see Z. Avalichvili who denies that either Basil II or the pro-Byzantine faction in the

entourage of David had anything to do with, the death of David. La succession du Curopalate David d'Iberie, dynaste de Tao. Byzantion 8 (1933) 190 ff. 178 Continuator of Thomas Ardzrouni, Histoire des Ardzrounl, tr. by M. Brosset, Collection d'Historiens Armeniens, 1. St. Petersburg, 1874, 248; Samuel of Ani, Table Chronologique, tr. by Brosset, Collection ..., 2, 1876, 443; Cedrenus, 2: 464; Grousset, op. cit., 553 ff.; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 168 ff.; Schlumberger, Epopee ... 2: 500 ff. 180 Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 78. Aristakes of Lastivert, Histoire d'Armenie, tr. by E. Prud'homme. Paris, 1864, 69-70; Continuator of Thomas Ardzrouni, op. cit., 248; Cedrenus, 2, 559; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze ..., 175, n. 3; Grousset, op. cit., 556 ff., 577 ft.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

233

Churastan (Hurastan) river.181 And in 1064 Gagik, prince of Kars, also ceded his possessions to Byzantium.182 Thus virtually all Armenia had now become an integral part of the Byzantine empire. The newly acquired land was, of course, inhabited predominantly by Armenians. There were also some Georgians and perhaps elements of other nationalities, but there were no Greeks. This at least, is the impression given by the statement of a native of the theme of Cappadocia, obviously Greek-speaking, who had migrated to Taik about the middle of the eleventh century. "I became an emigrant," he writes, "and

I went a distance of one and one-half weeks from my fatherland. And I settled among alien nations with strange religion and tongue." Among the "alien nations" to which he alludes, he mentions only the Armenians.183

The Armenian princes whose territories were annexed were settled and given lands elsewhere in the empire. Thus Senacherim, the former king of Vaspurakan, together with his three sons, was settled in Sebasteia where he was given extensive possessions. Other lands located in Larissa on the upper Tochma-su, Abara or Amara, placed by Honigmann on the road from Sebasteia to Melitene, somewhat to the northeast of the latter, and Gabadonia, today Develi, south of Caesarea, were also given to him.184 Gagik, the former king of Ani, was given extensive new possessions in the themes of Cappadocia, Charsianon and Lycandos.18 Gregori Pahlavuni and Gagik

of Kars were also similarly rewarded. The new lands given to Gregory were located in the theme of Mesopotamia,186 while those of Gagik of Kars

were scattered in various places, some located at Tzamandos, others at Larissa and still others at Amasia and Comana. Gagik fixed his residence at Tzamandos.187 The Armenian princes were also honored with important titles. Senacherim was named patrician,188 Gagik of Ani, magister,189 Gre-

gory Pahlavuni magister and dux of Mesopotamia and in addition was entrusted with the administration of a part of Taron, Sasun and Vaspurakan.190

The displaced Armenian princes took along with them to their new 181 Aristakes of Lastivert, op. cit., 67-68; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 175. 182 Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 126; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze ... 188, n. S. 183 Vryonis, The will of a Provincial Magnate..., 264, 265. The existence of Greek dedicatory inscription in the regions to which this text refers does no alter meaningfully the ethnic situation which it indicates. Cf. Lemerle, op. cit., 29 ff. 184 Cedrenus, 2, 464; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 173, n. 4. 185 Cedrenus, 2, 559; Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 78; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze ..., 175, n. 3. 186 Aristakes of Lastivert, op. cit., 67-68; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 175. 187 Matthew

of Edessa, op. cit., 126; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 188, n. 6.

188 Cedrenus, 2, 464; Aristakes of Lastivert, op. cit., 31, n. 4. 169 Cedrenus, 2, 559.

190 Aristakes of Lastivert, op. cit., 67-68; Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze..., 175.

V 234

domicile, besides their families, a numerous retinue consisting primarily of their nobility and the latter's following. So numerous indeed was the nobility that followed their princes that their going is said to have emptied Armenia of the most valiant elements of its population. The Greeks, wrote Matthew of Edessa, "Dispersed the most courageous children of Armenia."191 "Their most constant care was to scatter from the orient all that there was of courageous men and valiant generals of Armenian origin."192 Of the actual number involved in this displacement no figure can be given. The national Armenian historian Tchamtchian puts those who followed Senacherim to his new domicile at 400,000193 and this figure has been repeated by others,194 but there is nothing in the existing sources which bears this figure out. All that we have is the figure of a medieval Armenian historian who says that Senacherim was followed by 18,000 of his compatriots, not counting the women and children.195 But whatever the final figure, there can be little doubt that the number of Armenians who left

their homes and settled elsewhere in the empire was a large one. The repeated raids of the Seljuk Turks which began in earnest about this time increased this number still more, and gave to the movement of the Armenians away from their native homes the aspect of a mass migration. The chroniclers who report this movement no doubt exaggerate in their descriptions,196 but their accounts, after allowance has been made for this exaggeration, remain nevertheless impressive. Armenians by the thousands left their homeland and went to settle in northern Syria, in Cappadocia, and in Cilicla where they laid the basis for the foundation later in the eleventh century of new Armenian principalities and, toward the end of the twelfth century, of the feudal kingdom of Little Armenia.

When the Armenians began to move into Cappadocia, Cilicia, and northern Syria sometime after the middle of the tenth century, they were, no doubt, as we have already observed, encouraged by the imperial author-

ities, anxious to repeople the various towns newly captured from the Saracens, particularly in Cilicia and northern Syria, which had suffered considerable losses in population as the result of the departure of most of the Moslems. Their displacement in the eleventh century served a similar purpose, but its primary objective was to assure the peaceful control of the newly acquired Armenian lands by removing the various elements that might be a source of trouble. This was traditional Byzantine 191 Matthew of Edessa, op. Lit., 113. 192 Ibid., 114.

193 Michael Tchamtchian, History of Armenia (In Armenian) 2. Venice, 1785, 903: I consulted Tchamtchian's work with the help of Professor Sirarple der Nersessian. 194 M. Brosset in Lebeau-Saint-Martin, Histoire du Bas-empire 14. Paris, 1838, 211. Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de L'Armenie, 124. 195 Continuator of Thomas Ardzrouni, op. cit., 248. 196 For Instance Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 182.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

235

policy which had often worked. This time, however, it proved to be one of the major factors in the breakdown of Byzantine authority in Asia Minor. For the displacement of the Armenians coming as it did at a time when their homeland was being subjected to the repeated raids of the Seljuks had removed the element which, fighting for its native land, might have checked these raids. But more important, the displacement of the Armenians weakened the position of the empire in the regions in which they were settled. For, in some of these regions as, for instance, in Cappadocia, their settlement disturbed the social and ethnic complexion and so created serious tensions, while in others, as for instance, Cilicia and northern Syria, the new settlers were ready to start separatist movements the moment the opportunity presented itself. What particularly contributed to the development of tension between the Armenian element and the rest of the population were the ecclesiastical problems which the annexation of the Armenian lands and the consequent dispersion of the Armenians had created. There had always been heretical groups in the empire, but orthodoxy, as it finally crystalized, had come to prevail as one of the unifying forces of the empire-the Greek language and the imperial tra-

dition were the other two-but now for the first time since the loss of Egypt and Syria in the seventh century there was a powerful religious minority, dominant in certain regions of the empire, very strong in others. Both church and state were very much concerned about this situation and, as a consequence, brought pressure to bear upon the Armenians to accept the orthodox point of view. But the Armenians, whose cultural and national development was strongly associated with their religious beliefs and

practices, resisted stubbornly. As a result, the efforts of the Byzantine church to bring them in line made of them dubious subjects.198 The Arme-

nian element in the Byzantine army was as dominant as ever, but one could no longer be sure of its loyalty.199 Equally questionable was the loyalty of the civil population.200 Still the number of Armenians holding important military commands in the eleventh is as impressive as that of 197 On the expansion of the Armenians: Attaliates, 96-97, 137; Cedrenus, 2, 826; Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 182; Michael Syrus, 3, 133, 173, 187, 198; St. Narses of Lampron in Recueil des Historians des Croisades: Documents Armr niens 1. Paris, 1869, 576. 198 On the religious tension between Greeks and Armenians see now; Speros Vryonis,

Byzantlnum: The Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 2 (1959) 169 ff. It must be pointed out, however, that there were Armenians even in the eastern regions of the empire, the so-called Tzatoi, who accepted Orthodoxy as defined by Constantinople: Ibid., p. 169, n. 21; I. Doens, Nicon de la Montagne Noire, Byzantion 24 (1954) 134; P. Peeters, Orient et Byzance. Le Trd/onds Oriental de l'hagiographie Byzantine. Brussels, 1950, 163.

199 At Mentzikert the Armenian contingents in the Byzantine army deserted the Byzantine cause: Michael Syrus, op. cit., 3, 169; cf. Attaliates, 113. 200 Romanus IV Diogenes took special measures to protect his troops from the attacks of the Armenians; Attaliates, 135.

V 236

any other century.201 And if many of them did not integrate themselves definitely into the social, political, and military life of the empire as in the past it was largely because of the changed political conditions in Asia Minor.

The defeat of the Byzantine army by the Seljuks at the battle of Mentzikert in 1071 coupled with the civil wars which followed in Byzantium resulted In the definite loss by the empire of eastern and central Asia Minor. This loss included, of course, the regions inhabited by the Armenians. To be sure a territory of considerable extent, stretching from Tarsus in Cilicia to the mountainous country of the upper Pyramus (Gaihan) around Albistan and Marag. (Germaniceia) and thence eastward to take in the Mesopotamian regions of the empire around Melitene, Rumanopolis and Edessa and also into Syria to include Antioch, remained for a while, at least nominally, under the jurisdiction of the empire. It was in this territory, it will be recalled, that the Armenians, who had left their homes in connection with the great migration of the late tenth and the eleventh century, had settled. The territory had been salvaged by the Armenian Philaretus who at the time of the battle of Mentzikert was in the service of the empire and bore the title of Great Domestic. Philaretus acted at first as an independent ruler, but, beginning with 1078, he seems to have acknowledged the suzerainty of the Byzantine emperor and was given in return the title of curopalates.202 It was not long, however, before his domain disintegrated. Antioch fell to the Turks in 1084; Edessa and Melitene continued for some time longer to be ruled by Armenian potentates who bore Byzantine titles but who in reality had no effective connections with the empire. But these too were finally lost. Edessa fell to the Crusaders under Baldwin in 1098;203 Melitene to the Danishmend Turks in 1101.204 Only in Cilicia, where other Armenian chieftains had established themselves, were the Byzantines under the Comneni in the twelfth century able to reassert their authority, but even here, though Armenian barons might fight in their armies and Armenians might refer to their emperors as "our emperors",206 their hold on the Armenian population was always precarious. 201 Cf. J. Laurent, Byzance et les Turcs Seld/oucides daps l'Asle occidentale Jusqu'en 1081. Nancy, 1913, 38 ff. 202 On Philaretus: J. Laurent, Byzance et Antioche sous le curopalate Philarete, Rev.

des Et. Armdniennes 9 (1929) 61-72.

203 J. Laurent, Des Grecs aux Crosses. Etude sur l'histolre d'Edesse entre 1071 et 1098, Byzantion 1 (1924) 367-449.

204 Honigmann, Malatya, The Encyclopaedia of Islam 3 (1936) 195. 205 Sempad, Chronfque de royaume de la Petite Armdnie, tr. E. Dulaurier, Recuell des Historiens des Croisades: Documents Armeniens 1. Paris, 1869, 619. 206 Gregory the Priest, Chronfque, tr. Dulaurier, Ibid., 154. Also note 2 on same page

for other references to sources to the effect that the Armenians of Cilicia recognized the suzerainty of the empire.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

237

It may be said, therefore, that the battle of Mentzikert and the subsequent loss by the empire of eastern and central Asia Minor brought to an end the great role which, beginning with the end of the sixth century, the Armenians had played in the political and military life of the empire. But Armenians continued to live in the empire down to its very end. Two colonies of them, for instance, are known to have existed in western Asia Minor in the thirteenth century. One of them was located near Smyrna, the other around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander.207 About the origin of these two colonies nothing definite can be said. The one near Smyrna may have been old, going back perhaps to the Armenian settlement in the neighborhood of Priene which is known to have existed in the tenth century. That around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander, judging from its bitter hostility to the Greeks, may have been more recent, the result

perhaps of the transfer of Armenians from another region, as that, for instance, which was effected by John II Comnenus when he took Anazarbus in 1138.208 When after the fall of Constantinople in 1204 Henry of Flanders crossed over into Asia Minor in an attempt to conquer this region for the Latin empire, the Armenians of this colony flocked to his standards and helped him take Abydus which he entrusted to an Armenian garrison. When, however, shortly afterwards, Henry crossed back over into Europe, the Armenians who had taken his side went there also. They followed him because they feared the vengeance of the Greeks, but in the end they did

not escape this vengeance. Settled in Thrace, they were attacked and destroyed by the Greeks in that region. We are told that the Armenians who had followed Henry into Europe numbered 20,000 and that they took along

with them their wives and children. Though this figure is, no doubt, an exaggeration, it does serve to indicate that the Armenian colony around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander was a numerous one.209 Armenian colonies continued to exist also in the European provinces of the empire. The Armenians had come there for trade and other purposes,

but primarily through the policy of forced transfers, a policy to which the Byzantines, as the reader already knows, resorted very frequently. Byzantine historians of the twelfth century often refer to Armenians inhabiting the country around Philippopolis, especially in order to emphasize their disloyalty to the empire. Though what these historians had in mind were the Paulicians of this region, many of whom at this time, were racially not Armenian in origin, there can be no doubt that the population of Philippopolis and the surrounding country included also Armenians.210 207 P. Charanis, On the Ethfe Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor In the Thirteenth Century, llpoo(popd et5 Ertl,lwva H. KUQLOX 8T1v. Thessalonica, 1953, 142 ff. 201 Gregory the Priest, op. cit., 152 f.

209 P. Charanis, On the Ethnic Composition of Byzantine Asia Minor..., 144. z10 Anna Comnena (Bonn) 2, 298 f.; Nicetas Choniates, Historta. Bonn, 1835, 527, 534;

V 238

There were Armenians in most of the large towns of the empire. They were particularly numerous in Constantinople211 and also in Thessalonica where they are known to have possessed in the thirteenth century a church of their own.212 But besides the Armenians who lived in Thessalonia there

were others who dwelt in villages nearby. Armenian villages situated elsewhere in the European regions of the empire are known to have existed at least as late as the end of the twelfth century. An Armenian village was located in the Rila mountains not far south from Dupnirca and Samokov in Bulgaria; another near Bitolj in the southwestern corner of what is now Serbian Macedonia; and there were Armenians in the towns of Stromitza and Moglena and along the river Pcinja.213 Though nothing definite can be said about the origin of these Armenian villages, it is quite possible that

they went back to the period of Basil II, who, it will be recalled, had settled numerous Armenians in Macedonia, some of whom deserted to the Bulgars.

The hostility to the Greeks shown by the Armenians of Abydus at the time when Henry of Flanders tried to conquer that region was not peculiar to that particular group, but reflects the attitude of the Armenians of the empire in general. Known instances of the expression of this attitude are

very numerous. This has been noted and commented upon by modern scholars. "The Armenian", writes J. Laurent, "was never able to fraternize

completely with the Greeks. However high he may have risen in the empire, however great his fortunes may have been, however devoted the services which he may have rendered in the army and in the administration, the Armenian never became a Byzantine like others. He kept at least for himself and his private life, his language, his habits, his customs and his national religion; grouped with him were other Armenians, immigrants like him; instead of hellenizing himself in Greece, he armenized the Greek

territories where he settled; he remained in the Byzantine empire an unassimilated foreign element, which on occasions became dangerous."214 And elsewhere in the same paper: "There it is how at the hour of danger, Geoffrol de Ville-Hardouin, La Conqutte de Constantinople, edited and translated into modern French by M. Natalis de Wailly. Paris, 1872, 239. 211 For Armenians in Constantinople: Michael Syrus, op. cit., 3, 185, 186. 212 Fr. Miklosich et J. Miller, Acta et Dlplomata Graeca, 3. Vienna, 1865, B9; cf. Charanis, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire under the First Palaeologi, Speculum, 22 (1947) 76 f. 213 C. Jiredek, Geschichte der Bulgaren. Prague 1876, 222. The presence of Armenians

in the region of Moglena at least during the reign of Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180) is known from the Vita of St. Hilarios, bishop of Moglena, which was composed In the fourteenth century by Euphemius, the Bulgarian patriarch of Trnovo. It Is stated there that Hilarios launched a violent persecution against numerous heretics, Manichaeans, Bogomiles and Armenians: Jire6ek, Review of G. WeigELnd's, Vlacho-Meglen, Eine ethnographisch-philologische ilntersuchung, in Archiv f. sl. Philol. 15 (1893) 98. 214 J. Laurent, Les or!gines medieuales de la question Armdntenne, Rev. des Et. Armbniennes 1 (1920) 47.

V The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire

239

when the Seljuk Turks were depriving the Byzantine empire of Asia Minor,

Byzantium, instead of finding defenders in the Armenians whom it had established in its territories, saw them stand against It and contribute to the success of its ferocious adversaries."215

Another scholar who himself points out the distrust and dislike of the Armenians for the Byzantine empire has called this statement "fantastic nonsense". 216 Runciman touches upon the Armenians only incidentally and as a consequence, his studies concerning them are less exhaustive than those of Laurent, but his judgment in that matter is certainly closer to the truth. There is no doubt at all that Greeks and Armenians disliked each other and that at times this dislike turned into bitter hostility and found expression in atrocious deeds as, for instance, that of Gagik, the dispossessed king of Ani, who had the Greek bishop of Caesaria seized and put into a sack together with his large dog and then had his men beat bishop and dog until the maddened animal tore his master to shreds 217 There is no doubt either, as the reader already knows and later generations among the Armenians acknowledged,218 that this hostility between Greeks and Armenians was an important factor in the conquest of Asia Minor by the Seljuk Turks. But to say that "however high he may have risen in the empire, however great his fortunes may have been, however devoted the services which he may have rendered in the army and in the administration, the Armenian never became a Byzantine like others" is indeed to talk nonsense, as any one who knows something about the role of the Armenians in Byzantine society can readily see. For something like five hundred years, Armenians played an important role

in the political, military and administrative life of the Byzantine empire. They served as soldiers and officers, as administrators and emperors. In the early part of this period during the seventh and eight centuries, when the empire was figthing for its very existence, they contributed greatly in turning back its enemies. But particularly great was their role in the ninth and tenth centuries when as soldiers and officers, administrators and emperors they dominated the social, military and political life of the empire and were largely responsible for its greatness. So dominant indeed was their role during this period that one may refer to the Byzantine empire of these two centuries as Graeco-Armenian; 'Graeco', be215 Ibid., 49.

216 Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus..., p. 165, n. 2. 217 Matthew of Edessa, op. cit., 152-154. For a poem of the ninth century expressing the hatred of the Greeks against the Armenians: Vryonis, Byzantium: The Social Basis Of Decline in the Eleventh Century, 173. 218 F. Macler, Erzeroum ou topographie de la haute Armdnie, Journ. Aslatique, 11th series 13 (1919) 223. Macler quotes an Armenian writer of the seventeenth century who

says in effect: The Armenians hated the Greek, the Greeks hated the Armenians and so God sent the Turks.

V 240

cause as always, its civilization was Greek, 'Armenian' because the element which directed its destinies and provided the greater part of the forces for its defense was largely Armenian or of Armenian origin. It was a role, moreover, of world wide historical significance for it was during this period that the empire achieved its greatest success, when its armies triumphed everywhere, its missionaries spread the gospel and with It civilization among the southeastern Slavs, and its scholars resurrected Greek antiquity, thus making possibly the preservation of this literature. Herein lies perhaps the most important part of the legacy of the Armenians to civilization. But while all this may be true, the -point should be made and made with

emphasis that the Armenians in Byzantium who furnished it with its leadership were thoroughly integrated into its political and military life, identified themselves with its interest and adopted the principal features of its culture. In brief, like many other elements of different racial origins, as, for instance, Saracens, Slavs and Turks, who had a similar experience, they became Byzantines.

V1

A NOTE ON THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF THE EMPEROR MAURICE

Nicholai Adontz was no doubt the foremost scholar in the study of the role of the Armenian element in the Byzantine empire. Time and time again by the most meticulous examination of the sources, both Greek and Armenian, he tried to

show that many of the great personalities in the political and military life of the empire were in reality Armenian or of Armenian descent (1). Some of his conclusions have been

definitely accepted ; some are still in a state of controversy. To this latter category belongs his view that among the great personalities of Armenian origin who served the empire we must also include the emperor Maurice (2). This view had been expressed before, but it was Adontz who called it to the attention of the scholarly world. He was,

of course, aware of the literary tradition, both Greek and Armenian, which held Maurice to have been Armenian, but he chose to concentrate his study on the place of origin of the Byzantine emperor. On the place of origin of Maurice there are conflicting tra-

ditions. A whole array of sources, Greek, Latin, Oriental, make Arabissus in Cappadocia his home ; on the other hand there is an Armenian tradition which has him come from Ta-

ron, while another makes him a native of O§akan, near Ejmiacin, roughly about fifteen miles to the west of Lake (1) For a partial listing of Adontz's studies on the role of the Armenians in the Byzantine empire see P. CHAAANIS, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963), 62. (2) N. ADONTZ, Les legendes de Maurice el de Conslanlin V, empereurs de Byzance, Annuaire de l'Institul de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales de l'Universild Libre de Bruxelles, II (= Melanges Bidez, 1), (1934), 2-12.

VI THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF THE EMPEROR MAURICE

413

Sevan in the province of Ararat. The Taron tradition, according to Adontz, may very well be a confusion with that relating to the origin of Basil I, but that about O§akan is much more serious. On the other hand Arabissus as the original home of Maurice has too much backing by the sources to be entirely rejected. Adontz, therefore, comes to the conclusion that the family of Maurice originally came from O§akan and that at some time they moved to Arabissus where Maurice was born. Coming from Osakan, Armenian country, they were, of course, Armenians, but it is quite possible that at Arabissus they may have intermarried with other elements. Adontz, indeed, concedes this possibility, but insists on the Armenian origin of Maurice's father. Accordingly, Maurice was at least half-Armenian, but half-Armenian on his father's side. Henri Gregoire, who in matters pertaining to Armenians in the Byzantine empire usually followed his distinguished colleague, accepted this conclusion (1).

It was not long, however, before the view of Adontz was seriously challenged. In a long article, which may be described as a monograph, P. Goubert, who may now be described as the special historian of the reign of Maurice, offered several

arguments why the view of Adontz cannot be accepted (2). In the first place he refers to and analyzes a whole array of sources which make Arabissus the original home of Maurice and concludes that the testimony of these sources cannot be lightly rejected. He cites the passage in Paul the Deacon which

states that Maurice was the first emperor of Greek origin to ascend the throne. Paul the Deacon, who was a contemporary of Charlemagne, may have considered Maurice a Greek simply because he was born in Asia Minor and followed on the throne

a series of emperors who came originally from the Latin re(1) H. GRAGOIRE, Sainte Euphemie el l'empereur Maurice, Le Museon, 59 (1949) (= Melanges L. Th. Lefort), 2. (2) P. GOUBEAT, S.J., Maurice et l'Armenie. Note sur le lieu d'origine et la famille de l'Empereur Maurice, Echos d'Orient, 39 (1940), 383-413.

See also by the same author, Byzance avant l'Islam, I

(Paris, 1951), 34-41. I shall dispense with the necessity of giving

all the references to the sources. They may be found in the work of Goubert.

VI 414

gions of the Balkan peninsula. For this reason Goubert does

not insist too much on the significance of his statement. Still, he admits the possibility of a Latin father and a Greek mother. Continuing his examination, Goubert next analyzes the names borne by the various members of the family of Maurice and finds that none of them was of Armenian origin. He refers to the distrust and hostility which Maurice bore

towards the Armenians and points out that the important Armenian historian, Sebeos, who was almost a contemporary,

nowhere says that Maurice was Armenian in origin. On the

other hand, another contemporary closer to the reign of Maurice, the ecclesiastical historian Evagrius, who wrote, of course, in Greek, states that Maurice derived his name and origin from old Rome (1). Goubert considers the statement

of Evagrius decisive and concludes that there was nothing Armenian about Maurice, that he was of Latin origin with the possibility that his mother may have been a Greek. When I wrote my study on the Armenians in the Byzantine empire, I tended to follow Goubert and consequently rejected

Adontz's view that Maurice was Armenian in origin (2). Having re-studied the problem, I no longer hold this view. Goubert's arguments are by no means conclusive. That Maurice was a native of Arabissus there can be, I think, no doubt, but in the sixth century one could be a native of Arabissus and still be of Armenian origins for, as Goubert himself admits, there was by then a considerable number of Armenians

in the region where Arabissus was located. The silence of Sebeos is of no great significance, for the same writer fails to notice the fact that Heraclius was of Armenian origins. Nor is the fact that everyone in the family of Maurice bore a Greek or Roman name an indication of the ethnic origin of the family for, as I have pointed out elsewhere, in the Graeco-Roman east a Greek or Roman name was by no means an (1) The exact text of Evagrius: Xereorovel 6i Tjc Eciac oreart)ydv Maueixrov, lAmov'ra ,aiv yhos gal Toivopa 99

Tflc

'P(L)/4115, ig 6i True neoaaxruv naTiemv 'Aeal4raa6v ,rarei8a 1nu7Pag6µ6vov

rov Kairaraboxruv t9vovc. EvAGRIus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. BIDEZ and L. PARMENTIER, (London, 1898), 214. (2) Op. cit., 14.

VI THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF THE EMPEROR MAURICE

415

indication of the ethnic origin of the person who bore it (1). There is no doubt that Maurice distrusted the Armenians,

but at the same time he admired their war-like qualities. This only means that he had some knowledge of their defects and qualities and he may have had this knowledge because he was one of them. In any case, it does not necessarily follow, as Goubert would like to have us believe, that Maurice's distrust of, and hostility toward, the Armenians is evidence to the effect that he himself was not Armenian. There is, of course, the passage in Evagrius which on the face of things appears decisive, but this decisiveness may be more apparent than real. In Byzantium, where the prestige of Rome was high, many a family which had achieved some

distinction may have tried to show that by origin it was connected with the old city. There is some evidence for this, although this evidence belongs to later centuries. As an example, we may give the tradition concerning the origin of the great family of the Phocades (2). According to this tradition, the Phocades of the tenth century were an old family, descendants of the great house of the Fabii, who, it was said, had originally been brought to Constantinople, along with other distinguished families, by Constantine the Great. Legends such as this must have begun early, fostered by families which achieved distinction, but which, like the Phocades of the tenth century, were of obscure origin. It is very probable indeed that the passage in Evagrius concerning the ethnic origin of

Maurice may reflect the existence of such a legend. Maurice's family may not have been by origin entirely obscure - his mother had a brother who served ask bishop of Arabissus - but what gave it distinction was the career of Maurice himself. Since the foundation of Constantinople, Maurice, with the exception of Zeno - and Zeno was not particularly distinguished - was the only emperor who came from Asia (1) Ibid., 38. (2) ATTALIATES, Historia (Bonn, 1853), 217 ff. Cf. CHARANIS, op. cit., 39: For other examples see F. DOLGER, Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner, Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, 56 (1937),

P. 9, n. 16. This article is reprinted in F. Do GER, Byzanz and die europaische Staatenwelt (1953), 70-115.

VI 416

Minor. All the others had originally come from the Latinized regions of the Balkan peninsula, Pannonia, and Spain. This

is something that may have bothered Maurice's immediate family and so led them to propagate the notion that they were originally from Rome. Goubert's argument that the latinizing tendencies of Maurice's immediate family offers another indication that they were originally from Rome may indeed prove the opposite. But more decisive than the arguments offered here against the Roman origin of Maurice is the existence of the Greek tradition to the effect that he was Armenian. To the texts cited by Goubert, I may add another, the anonymous Chronicle published by Franz Cumont in 1894 and made famous by the fact that it gives the precise date of the first Russian attacks against Constantinople (1). The Greek texts which report this tradition are, of course, late, removed by several centuries from the reign of Maurice ;

but they must derive from an earlier source, no longer extant. In any case, whatever the source, the origin of this tradition needs to be explained. Goubert has indeed attempted to explain it, but his explanation appears to me unsatisfactory. What he says in effect is this : Maurice was a native

of Arabissus ; Arabissus was located in that part of Cappadocia which during the sixth century was a part of the province known as Armenia II and then during the reign of Maurice as Armenia I. And so Maurice, a native of Armenia I, an artificially created administrative unit, could be called Armenian. The explanation is too superficial. Byzantine chroniclers often erred, often confused their material, and often used archaic ethnic appellations. They refer to Cappadocians, Phrygians, Mysians, etc., long after these peoples ceased to be identifiable ethnic entities. But with the Armenians it was much different. They were a vital, living ethnic group, very much in evidence with whom Byzantium had important relations both externally and internally. And so

(1) Franz GUMONT, Anecdota Bruxellensia. I. Chroniques byzantines du manuscrit 11376 (Gand, 1894), 29: Mavetxtoc ... zip yeves 'Ae i vcoc.

VI THE ETHNIC ORIGIN OF THE EMPEROR MAURICE

417

when Byzantine chroniclers refer to someone as Armenian,

it is a matter that cannot be dismissed lightly, especially when it finds some corroboration in the Armenian literary tradition. This is, of course, the case in the matter of the ethnic origin of Maurice. Goubert, in rejecting the texts, both Greek and Armenian, which give to Maurice an Armenian origin, gives what he considers solid evidence why he does so. But this evidence may be given as it has been given here, an interpretation which does not support his view. In other words it is not decisive as against the testimony of the texts which he rejects. Maurice must be accepted, therefore, as the first Byzantine emperor of a series of emperors, some of whom gave lustre

to the political and military life of the empire, to have been of Armenian origin. But while accepting this, one should never forget that in Byzantium the ethnic origins of a person was of no significance, provided he integrated himself into its cultural life. In other words, provided he had become a

Greek - not a Greek, of course, as of the classical period but a Greek nevertheless, one who had come to share Greek culture as that culture had evolved through the centuries (1). Isn't this in the final analysis how Isocrates defined a Greek?

(1) Cf. CRARANIS, op. cit., 57.

VII

THE SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR IN THE THllITEENHT CENTURY

The Byzantine empire was never in its long history a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. The conquests of the Arabs in the seventh century deprived the empire of huge blocks of non Greek-speaking elements and gave to it an aspect which was more Greek than ever before. But the incursions of the Slavs in the European possessions of the empire in the same century introduced new racial elements and lessened what homogeneity may have existed there. In Asia Minor also there were important ethnic groups which were hardly touched by Hellenism.

The situation was further complicated by the settlement through the action of the government of foreign elements in different parts of the empire and the transfer of the inhabitants from one part to another. Indeed, only during the last years of the empire when it was restricted to Constantinople, Thessalonica, Mistra and a few islands of the Aegean was the empire ethnically completely Greek (1). To the Byzantine empire of the thirteenth century belonged that part of Asia Minor which had been occupied in ancient times by the Greeks on the coast and by Thracians, Mysians, Bithynians, Lydians, Phrygians in the interior. But already by the time of Strabo it was difficult to identify these peoples, for the process of hellenization had gone very far (1). Yet in the rural communities of the interior there remained many elements which were only superficially touched by Hellenism (1) On the ethnic composition of the empire during the tenth century, see A. RAMBAUD, L'empire grec au dixieme siecle (Paris,

1870), 209-253. (2) STRAao, XIV, 5, ?r3.

VII 70

as the various heresies during the early centuries of Christian-

ity indicate (1). The triumph of Orthodoxy doubtless aided the hellenizing process, but the ethnic situation was again complicated by the settlement of new peoples during the early Middle Ages.

The most important of these settlements were those of the Slavs. The first Slavs were settled in Bithynia sometime

during the first half of the seventh century, during or before the reign of Constans II (642-668). This is known from a lead seal (2) which has been dated as of 650 and the statement of Theophanes that five thousand Slavs deserted to the Saracens in 665, when the latter made an incursion in Asia Minor, and were settled by them in Syria (3). More important were the Slavonic settlements in Bithynia which were established by Justinian II following his successful expedition against the Slavs in Macedonia in 688 (4). The Slavs involved were numerous, « multitudes », says Theophanes, and a modern (1) W. M. CALDER, ((The epigraphy of the Anatolian heresies n, Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester, 1923), 64. (2) B. A. PANCHENKO, a Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii VII. v., n Bulletin de l'Institut Archdologique a Constantinople, 8 (Sofia, 1903), 1ff ; the legend reads (Ibid., 25) r6v avdea; advtwv cxdafldwv BiOvvav Enae%lac.. Schlumberger reads the legend as follows : ruiv dvaeandaruv T6 V oxlafldwv

BtOvvruv e'naeX(ac,

and translates:

(sceau) des esclaces (mercenaires) slaves de l'dparchie de Bithynie. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 12 (1903), 277. Panchenko with good reasons dates the seal as of 650, p. 27. G. OSTROGORSKY (C'eschichte des

byzantinischen Staates, p. 85, n. 3) dates the seal as of 694/95 and H. Grtgoire follows him : Grdgoire, aUn edit de 1'empereur JustinienII*, Byzantion, 17 (1944-45), 123. But as 20,000 of the Slavs settled in

Bithnynia in 688 or shortly after deserted to the Arabs in 692 and

the bulk of the remaining were slaughtered by Justinian II the date given by Ostrogorsky for the seal may be questioned. (3) THEOPHANES, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor., 1 : 348.

From this reference in Theophanes it cannot be known whether the Slavs in question had been settled in Bithynia. All that 'rheophanes says is that the Sarecens made an expedition in 'Pw,uavia and the

Slavs deserted to them. But as the expedition was obviously by land, by `Pw,uavia Theophanes obviously means Asia Minor. (4) Ibid., 364 ; Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica, edited by C. deBoor (Leipzig, 1880), 36,

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN 13YZANTINE ASIA MINOR

71

Russian scholar has estimated them at no less than 80,000 men (1), and another at 250,000, including men, women and children (2). All that can be said, however, is that these Slavs were sufficiently numerous to enable Justinian II, shortly after he had settled them in Bithynia, to raise an army of 30,000 among them. At least that is what Theophanes says (3). About seventy years later, during the reign of Constantin V (741-775), another mass of Slavs, 208,000 according

to one chronicler (4), were settled in Asia Minor about the Artanas river, a little stream which flows into the Black sea west of the Sangarius and not far from the Bosphorus. In 1129 or 1130 additional Slavs were transplanted to Asia Minor.

They were Serbian prisoners whom John II settled in the neighbourhood of Nicomedia, assigned them land, enrolled those who could bear arms in the army, and subjected the others to taxation (11). These Serbes were doubtless the inhabitants of the servochoria which are mentioned in the Partitio regni graeci at the beginning of the thirteenth centtury (6).

Russian scholars have attributed to the Slavs a role of major importance in the history and development of the in-

stitutions of the Byzantine empire. A theory particularly developed by them is that the free village community which

was the characteristic feature of the rural structure of the Byzantine empire from the seventh century onward was a Slavic institution adopted by the Byzantines at the time of the establishment of the Slavic settlements in the empire ('). (1) V. J. LAMANSKY, 0 Slavianakh v Maloi Azii v Afrikie i v Ispanii in Uchenyia Zapiski II old. Imp. Akademii Nauk, 5 (St.

Petersbourg, 1859), 3.

(2) Th. N. IJSPENSKY, o K istorii krest'ianskago zemlevladieniia v. Vizantii ), in Zhurnal Ministerstva Prosvieshcheniia, 225 (St.

Petersbourg, 1883), 319. (3) THEOPHANES, op. cit., 1: 366. (4) NICEPHORUS, op. cit. 68 f. (5) Nicetas CHONIATES, Historia (Bonn, 1835), 23.

(6) G. L. Fra. TAFEL and G. M. THOMAS, Urkunden zur dlteren Handels- and Staatsgeschichle der Republik Venedig, 1 (Vienna, 1856), 475. (7) V. G. VASILIEVSKIJ, x Materialy k vnptrennej istorii viZantijs-

VII 72

The important element of this theory is that the composition of each community was predominatedly Slavic with communal

rather than private ownership of property. This theory is no longer accepted, for it is now known that the village community was a territorial circumscription designed to facilitate the imposition and collection of taxes, that the property in it was private and not communal, that in its origins it is much older than the appearance of the Slavs, and consequently the establishment of it had nothing to do with them (1). Nevertheless some of the Russian scholars who developed this theory ac-

cepted it as a fact and offered it as proof that the Slavs in Asia Minor maintained their national entity throughout the history of the empire, were still there as a racial unit in the thirteenth century and constituted the core of the akritai, the frontier soldiers, under the Lascarids and Michael Paleologus (2). Lamansky even went furher.

He believed that there

was still in the population of Bithynia in the nineteenth century many concrete traces, indicating the survival of the Slavs long after the fall of the empire. (( It has to be supposed, he wrote, that there are at present in Asia Minor, though

the Slavic element has not been preserved in its purity, many Slavic traces in the customs, language, songs, melodies. finally even in the physical peculiarities of the inhabitants of some parts of Asia Minor )) (3). That by « some parts of Asia

Minor)) Lamansky had in mind Bithynia follows from the discussions in his work which precedes this statement. The opinion of Lamansky and the other Russian scholars who shared his views was conditioned no doubt by a pro-Slav

kago gosudarstva s>, in Zhurnal Ministerstea Pros viesheheniia, 202 (1879), 160, 161. ; USPENSKY, op. cit., 307, 309, 310.

(1) The credit for exploding the theory of the Slavic origin of the village community in the Byzantine empire belongs to Panchenko. See his fundamental work, (( Krestjanskaja sobstvennost v Vizantii )s in Izuiestiya Russkago Arkheologicheskago Instituta v Konstanti-

nopole, 9 (Sofia, 1904), 1-234. See also Charanis, x On the social structure of the later Roman empire, s> Byzantion, 17 (Boston, 1946), note 34 a. (2) USPENSKY, op. cit., 322-326, 340-341. (3) LAMANSKY, op. Cit., 18.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

73

approach to the history of the Slavs. But the question of the survival of the Slavic element in Bithynia down to the thir-

teenth century and beyond is one that should be decided solely by the data found in the sources. The question of the survival of the Slavs in Bithynia depends to a considerable extent upon the magnitude and fate of the Slavic settlements established there during the seventh and eighth centuries. There is some evidence, indeed, that additional Slavs settled or were settled in Asia Minor after the eighth century, but this evidence is general and contains no indication that these Slavs were very numerous. In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian in the reign of Michael II, Theophanes Continuatus says of the Slavs that they # often took root in Asia Minor » (1). Uspensky seized upon this statement and inferred from it that there was an almost continuous stream of Slavs settling in Asia Minor (2).

What led Uspensky to draw this inference was doubtless the use of the term « often », but it is by no means certain that by the use of this term the Continuatus had in mind anything more than the settlements of the seventh and eighth centuries. Three transfers of Slavs to Asia Minor carried out at different times by three different emperors certainly justified the use of the term c( often. * There is only one more reference, besides the one already noted, that concerning the settlement of Serbs in Asia Minor during the reign of John II,

which may indicate that Slavs were settled in Asia Minor after the eighth century. This concerns the Bulgarians who fled to Michael I (811-813) and were settled by him in different parts of the empire (3). Some of these Bulgarians may have been settled in Asia Minor, but this can only be a conjecture, for the source says nothing about it. Besides, they do not appear to have been very numerous. (1) Theophanes CONTINUATUS, Chronographia .Bonn, 1838), 50, tcuv ExAafloyevcuv, tGly noARdxtg eyxtaaevOevttuv rata to 'Avarod4v. (, 2) USPENSKY, op. cit., 315, where Uspensky quotes from Lamansky

with approval.

(3) Georgius CEDRENUS, Historiarum Compendium, 2 (Bonn, 1839), 52. Bovdyaeol ttvcS of 486v dvaatdvreS r7r mateoiaty `Pcoyaiwv xaradaµ,9dvovat nayyevel, mat napd roi #aocl.eutc npoaleXOtvtec MtXarA ev Stapdeots i?yxaTouiiZovsac xoieauc.

VII 74

Now to analyze the data given by the sources concerning the settlement of the Slavs in Asia Minor during the seventh and eighth centuries. Of the Slavs settled during or before the reign of Constans II, not much can be said. It must be noted, however, that, unless the settlement was very large, the desertion of 5,000 of its members to the Saracens in 665 must have crippled it very seriously. More is known concerning the Slavs settled by Justinian II. Following is the account of Theophanes (') : « In this year (6180 - 688 A.D.), Justinian made an expedition against Sclavinia and Bulgaria... and, sallying as far as Thessalonica, seized many multitudes of Slavs, some by war, others by consent... and settled them in the region of the Opsikion theme. » But by 692 all these

Slavs had disappeared from the Opsikion theme. To give again the account of Theophanes. In the year (6184- 692 A.D.) Justinian selected 30,000 from the Slavs whom he had trans-

planted, armed them, and named a certain Neboulus as their leader. He then led them against the Arabs. Neboulus, however, was bribed by the Arabs and deserted over to them with 20,000 of his followers. This desertion, which was responsible for the rout of the Roman army, angered Justinian who « then destroyed what remained of the [Slavs] with the women and children at a place called Leucate, a place which was precipitous and close to the sea in the gulf of

Justinian's horrible dead against the Slavs is recorded only by Theophanes. The patriarch Nicephorus says nothing about it, but his account implies that all the Slavs whom Justinian

had conscripted deserted to the enemy (3). That Justinian (1) THEOPHANES, op. cit., 364. TovrV rui Fret (6180) insarpdrevaev 'Iovartvtav6q xard ExAavtvlas xai Bov1yaelag ... µixpt 6i ®eaaaRov(x?)5 ixheaµaiv, noRRd nA40ti rwv Ex1aflaty rd µiv noAiµtn, rd 69 neoaevivra naeaAafltiw els rd roi 'Otytxlov 6td roc 'A48ti6ov needaas xariar17ae µipq.

(2) Ibid. 366: inopaRty 69 Movdµe6 rah ovtµaxov-vrt 'PotµaloLS arparriycu r@v Er.2.dflwv, niltnet atiruw rovxovpov yiµov voµtaµdrowv ...

ne(Oet npoaTvyeiv neon atir" µerd x' xiAtd6aw ExRdflaty ... rote 'Iovartvtavds dveiRe rd rovrwv 1yxardAetltlta aOv yvvatEi rai riuvotg naps rt Reyoµiv(Z Aevxarn rdnup xe, v(n6et mat naeaOa&aaal(p xard rdv Ntxoµt,6etdatov rdxnov xetµivai. (3) NicEPHOaus, op. cit., 37, xai 6 x)gOeis neetovatos riov 'EmAd-

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

75

actually committed the horrible deed attributed to him by Theophanes has been denied by Lamansky and others (I). The deed was too cruel, it is not mentioned by the patriarch Nicephorus, and Justinian's relations with the Slavs were on the whole friendly. None of these arguments, however, justify the rejection of Theophanes' testimony. The deed was cruel indeed, but Justinian II, when angered, was capable

of the greatest cruelty. Was it not he who ordered and dis-

patched a fleet to destroy the well to do inhabitants of Cherson? The Chronicle of the patriarch Nicephorus is brief

and does not contain everything that Theophanes relates, and, while Justinian was friendly with the Bulgarian king Terbel, he had previously taken arms against both the Bulgarians, and the Slavs of Macedonia. In the edict, issued in 688, by which he granted to the church of St. Demetrius of Thessasalonica a salina, Justinian calls the enemies, i.e. the Slavs, of St. Demetrius, his own (2). It is not improbable also that the number of Slavs settled in Opsikion by Justinian II was largely exaggerated by Theophanes. This is indicated by a reference in an Armenian his-

torian which says that the Slavs who deserted to the Arabs numbered 7000 horse (3), almost two-thirds less than the number given by Theophanes. The number given by the Armenian historian, if correct, would indicate that the entire Slav army which Justinian led against the Arabs numbered considerably less than 30,000. But, whatever the size of the

original settlement may have been, that settlement was virtually liquidated by the desertion to the Arabs and the subsequent cruel deed of Justinian. If some Slavs succeeded in surviving they were doubtless not many. Holy AaoS rots Eaeaxrlvois neocxt6erae, xal aJv avroic `Prvµaiovc dvpeovv.

(1) LAMANSKY, op. cit., 3; USPENSKY, op. cit., 319; PANCHENKO,

Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii, » 33. (2) A. VASILIEV, a An edict of the emperor Justinian II, September, 688 ,>, Speculum, 18 (Cambridge, 1934), 5. neieav avppaXov CIAq-

9dr(Ov 4j Uiv rov dylov peyaloyderveoc dr1µl7relov ?v roil nae' ljaiv neaX9eiaiv naed rCov avrov re ,eai rjltiov noAcglowv dca.deoic noAEµocs.

(3) J. B. BURY, A History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1889), p. 322, note 3.

VII 76

The Slavic settlement established by Constantine V about the river Artanas (1) proved more durable. At least there are no indications anywhere that it was ever destroyed. It is doubtful, however, if it were as large as it has been supposed by certain scholars. Here again it is important to reproduce the sources. In the year 6254 (762 A.D.), says Theophanes,

the Bulgarians revolted and raised to the throne Teletz. ((And many Slavs, having fled, went over to the emperor, who settled them about the Artanas (2). More explicit is the statement of the patriarch Nicephorus. a Tribes of Slavs 6, he writes, x abandoned their land as fugitives and crossed the Euxine. Their multitude reached the number of 208,000. They were settled about the river which is called Artanas » (9). The two important elements of information given by Nicephorus are that the Slavs in question reached the Artanas by

sea, and that they numbered 208,000. Panehenko, the most judicious among the Russian scholars who have dealt with the question of the Slavic settlement in Asia Minor, interprets the figure given by Nicephorus to refer to the number of men capable of bearing arms, and, accordingly, fixes the total number of Slavs involved in the settlement at about 750,000 (4)

It is doubtful, however, if the passage of Nicephorus lends itself to such an interpretation. Nicephorus speaks of tribes of Slavs (yev?? ExAaf?Jvwv) and the multitude

of these

Slavs. Multitude here means mass, total number, and the figure that Nicephorus gives must refer not to the men alone, but to the total number of the Slavs involved, men, women and children. (1) The Artanas is a little stream flowing in the Black sea, not far from the Bosphorus. W. Tomaschek, a Zur historischen Topographie von Kleinasien im Mittelalter » Sifzungsberichte der kais. Akademie der Wissenscha/ten in Wien : Phi losophisch-his torische Classe, 124 (Vienna, 1891), 74. (2) THEOPHANES, Op. Cit., 1, 432: Er.Adfw v Ss nollty exq,vydvra0 neoaeePti7aav rw flaacAei, o0S eni toy 'Aerdvav. (3) NICEPHORUS, op. cit., 68 f. Zxlafrlvwv ysvij rns av-aiv ucravaardvra y± c wvydaec btaneecoat rov Eiil:etvov. Se' avran

to nA70oc dxec rai els detOµov drub mat btaxoalac xtAidSac xai nQ69

toy noraµov Sc 'Aerdvas xa2eirat avrol xarocxilovrat. (4) PANCHENKO a Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii r 35.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

77

But even the figure of Nicephorus, as interpreted here, cannot be accepted without some reservations. Figures given by medieval chroniclers are generally of doubtful accuracy,

and in this case the doubt is increased by the fact that the Slavs in question reached the Artanas by sea. To have transported by sea a crowd of 208,000 with at least some of their personal and householdffects was a tremendous undertaking, requiring a tremendous amount of shipping, and it is question-

able if this shipping was available or at the disposal of the Slavs. It is known, indeed, that Constantine V, in order to fight the Bulgars, built a fleet of 800 vessels, each vessel capable of carrying twelve horses, but this fleet was constructed after the settlement of the Slavs in the region of the Artanas (I). Besides, there is nothing in the sources which indicates that the Slavs were transported to Bithynia under the supervision of the imperial government. They came by themselves, with their own means, in such ships as they could

find. They must have been considerably less than 208,000 if they all found shipping and succeeded in reaching Bithynia.

What it meant to transport a large number of men in the eighth century is shown by the expedition which Justinian II sent against Cherson in the Crimea in 710. The men involved in this expedition are said to have numbered 100,000 and to have them transported Justinian imposed a special charge on the people of Constantinople and utilized every ship available, including fishing smacks and very small boats (2). An

effort considerably greater than this would have been required to transport a multitude 208,000 from Bulgaria to Bithynia, but there is no indication anywhere that any special effort was made in connection with the settlement of the Slavs about the Artanas region. But, while rejecting the figure of Nicephorus, one cannot (1) NICEPHORUS, Op. Cit., 0; TIIEOPIIANES, Op. Cit., 1 : 432 f. On

the chronology see S. RUNCIMAN, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London, 1930), p. 38, note 1. (2) THEOPHANES, Op. Cit., 1. 377. naaav vauv 8eoluuvwv rs Peal Te471ethv xai axapmv µveiay(0ymv Peal ddiddwv mat dews xsAav61wv, dno 6&Qvopnc rmv olxovvrwv rIjv n6;Lcv avy,dAs/T4xiov we mat £gyaarttgia x(vv gal 6s1µoTC5v Peal navr6g dggcxlov. NICEI'uonus, op. cit., 44.

VII 78

deny that the number of Slavs involved in the settlement about the Artanas was considerable, perhaps several tens of thousands. The question now is to determine to what extent these Slavs were conscious of their national origin and tried to keep their racial unity. The question cannot ue answered definitely, but there are a number of observatio s that can be made. When these Slavs came to Asia Minor they were still to some extent barbarians and, of course, pagans. But not long after their arrival they must have been converted to Christianity and put under the jurisdiction of Greek bishoprics (1). There is no reason to assume that the services in their churches were conducted in any other language than Greek. Greeks were doubtless the first priests appointed

over them, and the Slavs who subsequently took holy orders must have learned at least how to read the scriptures in Greek. Whatever instruction there may have been. among them, it must have been in Greek, for there was no Slavonic alphabet as yet. Christianization was thus a powerful force making for the absorption of these Slavs (2). But there were other forces. These Slavs were settled in a region that had long

felt the impact of hellenism and over which the imperial government kept a strong hold. They were isolated from the vast body of Slavs in Europe. The official business with the government involved Greek, and Greek was essential for a career in the army and the administration. It is difficult (1) NobishopricsinBithyniawith Slavonic names are known for certain, for the Slavic origins of Gordoserva and Modrina are doubtful. The etymology of Modrina is considered by M. Niederle as non Slavic (as cited by F. DVORNIK, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IXB sidele,

Paris, 1926, p. 103) and Gordoserba which is first mentioned for certain in 692 (MANSI, XI, col. 996 E) and perhaps as early as the reign of Heraclius (Notitia Epiphanii, edited by H. GELZER, Abh. der I Kl. der k. Ad. der Wiss. Munchen, vol. 21, Munich, 1901, p. 538, no 187) contrary to what is thought (DVORNIK, op. cit., 103), may

have nothing to do with the Serbs. It has been recently questioned whether there was such a Slavic tribe as the Serbs, and it is suggested that the name may derive from Servus. See H. GREGOIRE, a L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes », Byzantion, 17 (Boston, 1946), 117.

(2) In discussing the conversion of the Slavs of Asia Minor Dvornik (op. cit., 103) remarks : e la conversion ne fut ici que la premiere etape de l'hellenisation.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

79

to see, in view of these observations, how the Slavs who came to Asia Minor in a state of comparative barbarism could have

remained for centuries impervious to the powerful hellenizing forces all round them and kept their racial identity. In

the Byzantine empire there was no racial distinction ; differences in religion was what marked certain elements of the popu-

lation from another, but there is no evidence that the Slavs of Asia Minor developed heretical views ; they were doubtless

attached to the official church, a fact which made their absorption much easier. There is some evidence, however, which

shows that the process of Byzantination was slow and that for many years the Slavs of Asia Minor kept, at least in part, their Slavonic character. A part of this evidence concerns the revolt of Thomas, known as Thomas the Slavonian (1). The revolt of Thomas, in which many ethnic elements of Asia Minor participated, broke out in 821, about sixty years later than the settlement of the Slavs in the Artanas region. In 821 many Slavs among

the original settlers no doubt were still alive, and it is probable that the hellenizing process had not yet touched deeply

even those who were born and raised in Bithynia. But is it true, as it is contended, that they were conscious of their nationality, and for that reason rushed to the standards of Thomas in whom they saw a leader who might lead them to independence (2)? Thomas, although the evidence is not without contradictions, seems to have been of Slavic origins (3),

(1) The fullest account of the revolt of Thomas is that given by A. VASILIEV, Byzance et les Arabes, translated from the Russian and revised by H. Grdgoire et al., 1 (Brussels, 1935), 22-49. (2) Uspensky as cited by VASILIEV, Byzance et les Arabes, p. 24, note 4. (3) J. B. Bully, x The identity of Thomas the Slavonian. » Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1 (Leipzig, 1892), 55-60 ; A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London, 1912), 11. In the French version of Vasiliev's Byzance et les Arabes, p.24, Thomas is said to have been an

Armenian, whereas in the Russian version he was said to be a Slav. [G@nbsius, p. 8, dit tres prbcisbment que Thomas nb a Gazioura dans le Pont, etait de souche arrnenienne. Ce temoignage doit etre pr(f(re (cf.Concelui, plus vague, de la page 32, oil Thomas est dit tinuateur de Theophane, p. 50, c. 10 qui l'appelle Ex2a floylvpc). H.G.]

VII 80

but he had occupied important posts in Byzantium, and had become, or, at least sought to have himself pass as, a Byzantine, as is shown by the fact that he posed as Constan-

tine VI. In his attempt to seize the throne he was backed by many elements which were discontented with the administration of Michael II. The revolution headed by Thomas, as the ever judicious Panchenko remarks, was a social movement, complicated by religious and political factors (1). Among the followers of Thomas there were some Slavs, (2) but to assume

that this fact gave to his revolt the caracter of a Slavic national movement is pure nonsense. No better proof for this can be offered than the fact that the Opsikion theme, the theme where most of the Slavic settlements were located, was one of the two themes in Asia Minor which failed to support

Thomas (3). The references to the revolt of Thomas, however, do show that during the first quarter of the ninth century

there were Slavs in Asia Minor who had not yet lost their identity as Slavs. Not until the tenth century are there. any more references to the Slavs of Opsikion, but these are no longer known as Slavs but as Slavesinians (IxAaj4T1atdvot). These Slavesinians

were enrolled soldiers and appear in the sources in connection with military expeditions. The new name seemingly was used in order to distinguish these Slavs from the rest of the Slavs, but on what ground was this distinction made? Doubtless because they lived in a region known as Sclavisia,

a region which must have been located in the Opsikion (1) PANCIIENICO, v Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii, # 37.

(2) But besides Slavs there were numerous other peoples who supported Thomas. Here is the list as given by Genesius, Historiae. (Bonn, 1834), 33. elra per' 'Ayapgvc"ov 'Ivtwv AlyvaTiwv 'Aaavetwv, M6&ov'Aj3aalwvZggthv 'Ij94ewv E'aflelewv ZxAdflwv Odvvwv Bavd4Awv retivv mat liaot rtjg MdvevTog f 6s2velag pEreizov, AaCti,v Te mat 'A2avwv Xd,, wv Te mat 'AQµevla)v xai eTeewv navrola)v !Ovwv. On the iden-

tity of these peoples see VASILIEV, Byzance et les Arabes, p. 31, note 2. (3) Ibid., 32-33. 'O2fltavo16 µdvov, TO rwv'AQpevtaxwv aTQaTSjyovvTog, rotTovg neeivolatg EntnetOeic dyovrog cal Kardcv2a Tov 'Orptxlov Tip paat2El Mtxa, 2 ye neooxetjsevwv. THEOPHANES CONTINIJATUS, Op.

oil., 53.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

81

theme (1), since the Slavesinians were enrolled in the army of the Opsikion theme (2). The name, therefore, throws no light upon the degree of hellenization of these Slavs, probably

descendants of the Slavs who were settled in Bithynia in the eighth century, but there are other indications that some

of them had become highly hellenized, while others had remained essentially Slavic. Basilitzes whom at one time the emperor Alexander had thought of raising to the throne was doubtless a highly hellenized Slav (3), but the Slavesinians who, during the reign of Romanus Lacapenus, had landed in the Peloponnesus must have been essentially Slavic. For the statement of Constantine Porphyrogennitus (4) that Romanus Lacapenus was disturbed lest these Slavesinians join the Ezeritae and Milengi, Slavic tribes of the Taygetus chain, and consequently granted to the latter better terms of submission to the imperial authority than they enjoyed before, can mean only one thing ; that these Slavesinians spoke Slavic

and could recognize the Ezeritae and the Milengi as people of the same stock as themselves. By the middle of the tenth century, therefore, there were

still Slavs in the Opsikion theme, who doubtless had adjusted themselves to Byzantine civilization, but who still retained, at least to some extent, their Slavic character. In the next three hundred years their number must have been reduced by the inroads of the process of hellenization, just as the same process had led to the absorption of many of them in the previous three centuries. In any event Slavs in Opsikion are not mentioned by the sources after the tenth century, a silence which may mean two things : either that (1) Theophanes CONTINUATUS, op. cit., 379: Baa&AITCgv sov dno X%Aafltalav.

(2) Constantine PORPHYROGENNITUS, De Cerimoniis, 1 (Bonn, 1829), 662: of E62a1siaidvot of xaOtaOivse6 eis so otpixtov ; 666: dno T6v EB.laflsiatdvwv vwv xaOtiitivmv eis so d,plxtov.

(3) Theophanes CONTINUATUS, op. cit., 379 f. (4) Constantine PORPHYROGENNITUS, De Administrando Imperio Bonn, 1840), 223. inei Se` ... eiaiiA6ov of ExAa/gatavoi & tip Biµait Ile20novv1iaov, SeStuls 6 Saat2evs tva pti mat avxoi neoaseOivses zois E'Zdflots navTeA# i o2,6Oeevaty tov avtoi Oipaso5 ieYdaawcat, inoifiaev ai Toic xevaoIoiA LOV ... BYZANZION. XVIII.

- 6.

VII 82

the Slavs of Opsikion completely disappeared, or that there, was no occasion for the sources to take account of them. Of these two alternatives the latter seems the more plausible. The Slavesinians of the tenth century were enrolled soldiers and it is as enrolled soldiers that they are mentioned by the sources of the century. But the institution of the enrolled soldiers as it was known in the tenth century virtually ceased' to exist after the eleventh century. It is more than likely therefore, that the descendants of the Slavesinians of the tenth century had lost their status as soldiers and were re-

duced to the status of tenant peasants. As poor peasants there was no reason why they should have been particularly noted by the sources (1). It is quite posssible, therefore, that in the thirteenth century

there were still some remnants of the descendants of the Slavs who had been settled in Bithynia in the eighth century. To these should be added the descendants of the Serbs whom John II settled near Nicomedia. It is doubtful, however, if these remnants were very numerous. That the Akritai of the thirteenth century were Slavs is an opinion by no means well founded (2). It is expressly stated by Pachymeres that in

reconstituting the Akritai, the Lascarids drew from every part of the empire (rcavraxdBsv) (3). The same writer refers to the Akritai as mountaineers(4), doubtless because they were

stationed along the mountains, and when he uses ethnic terms in connection with the army of Asia Minor, they are terms of classical Asia Minor or of the early Byzantine period (5). Nowhere

- Boucellarii, Maryandeni, Paphlagonians

(1) Panchenko remarks that the Slavs other than the soldiers disappeared and left no traces. « Pamiatnik Slavian v Vifinii r 51. (2) PANCHENKO (Ibid., 57) already remarked that there is nothing in the information given by the sources concerning the Akritai which indicates that they were Slavs. (3) PACHYMERES, Op. Cit. 1, 16. elsa viusa arphpavsec 'axdvrai dxdvtwv HeeaJv soic dpeaiv ansf da,ovro, avxvolg 89 sois navsaxdOsv Inolxotc xal laxvpoic xaiaagaAcadµevoc I vuva se1zei xal olov 8vas u xece rove 9payxotls Tfi `Pw saMi savsa xasaasnaav.

(4) Ibid., 1, 193. of xasd rfis ffixalaS rdxpa xo.pisai dypdrat µa+' dvss9 xal ysmeylg npooaxovTe . (5) Ibid., 1, 221.

VII SLAVIC ELEMENT IN BYZANTINE ASIA MINOR

83

does he refer to the Akritai or other soldiers of Asia Minor as TetPaAAot or Mvaot, terms which he applied to the Serbs and Bulgarians respectively when he used classical terminology. The Akritai were doubtless composed of different ethnic groups, with a culture typical of the frontier (1). Slavs may have been included among them, but to see in them only Slavs is to ignore the sources with contempt.

(1) The Akritai apparently did not feel themselves very different in culture from those on the opposite side of the frontier, to whom they deserted frequently if for any reason they were displeased with the Byzantine administration. Ibid., 1, 222. of tats axpatc neoaxaO,µevot, zm to ndaxecv ivOevde xai tw BAn1Csty ixeiOev rd Atova, Et I&dvov

npoaxmpoiev ix6vtec, npoaxweeiv gyva,aav xal oatipipat npovetiOevto I7Cpaacs.

VIII

ON THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF BYZANTINE

ASIA MINOR IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY The Byzantine possessions in Asia Minor when Michael Palaeologus became emperor included the entire coast from the river Indus (Dalaman-cai ) to and including Amastris onthe Black sea. As for the interior the frontier line began on the Aegean and, leaving the towns of Melanudion ( Mendelia ) and Mylassa (Milas ) within the empire, extended to the northeast to take in Antioch and then moved toward Sublaeon, a town which does not seem to have belonged to the empire. The line then most probably ran west of Kutahia, the region of the stream of Bathys and Claudiopolis (Bolu ) and reached the Black Sea at Amastris. 1

This is the part of Asia Minor which had been occupied in ancient times by the Greeks on the coast and by Thracians, Mysians, Bithynians, Lydians, Phrygians in the interior. But already by the time of Strabo 2 it was difficult to identify these peoples, for the process of hellenization had gone very far. Yet in

the rural communities of the interior there remained many elements which were only superficially touched by Hellenism as the various heresies during the early centuries of Christianity indicate.3 The triumph of Orthodoxy doubtless aided the hellenizing process, but the ethnic situation was again complicated by the settlement of new peoples during the early Middle Ages. 1. For the justification of this frontier line which differs from that given by virtually every historical atlas, see P. Charanis, On the Asiatic Frontiers of the Empire of Nicaea. Miscellanea Guillaume de Jerphanion, 1 ( Orientalia christiana Periodica, vol. 13 (Rome, 1947) 58 - 62.

2. Strabo 14, 5, 23. 3. W. Al. Calder, The epigraphy of the Anatolian heresies. Anatoli-

an Studies presented to sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester, 1923) 64.

VIII On the ethnic composition of byzantine Asia Minor

141

Some time during the early centuries of the empire Goths were settled in Bithynia, in the territory which later formed the Opti-

mate theme. They were still there at the beginning of the eighth century, but they seem to have been at least semi-hellenized, for they are known as Graeco-goths ( ro-rOoypa%xoL ).4 What happened to them after this time is not known. They are referred to for the last time in a hagiographical document concerning three saints who lived at the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the ninth. The reference there is to a Gothograecia ( PorOoypatxia ), which was reached after a two days voyage from Lesbos in stormy seas. 5 This Gothograecia was obviously located in Asia Minor and the opinion of Koulakovsky that it was identical with the Optimate theme seems entirely sound. 6 But as the Optimate theme was located opposite Constantinople, the Graeco-goths must have eventually become completely hellenized and absorbed, which would explain the reason why they are not mentioned by the sources after the beginning of the ninth century. More important than the Gothic settlements in Asia Minor were those of the Slavs. There is some reason in believing that Slavs were settled in Asia Minor during the first half of the se-

venth century. But the first extensive Slavonic settlements in Bithynia were those which had been established by Justinian II following his successful expedition against the Slavs in Macedonia in 688. About seventy years later, during the reign of 4. Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor ( Leipzig, 1883 1, 385.

5. Acta Graeca SS. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii. Analecta Bollandiana 18 ( Brussels, 1899 ) 256. (ULaou yoip rtvo; kv ToES roOoypotx(MS )6ey0uiV715, 67rapXovroS LEpECL VoOT)(lcTL SetwoTiT(J riEp LriEC6VTOS xai TOtS tMTpotS arayopeV0kVTrc xai Tip ayLw xaroxv5 i 7rapea6eiv E(S a676v txetuco ataµii-

VUaaµt(VOU, ri Oaugaa(a xaL owroS praaVOpw7rcra.r, 4uX (.L TE rrp6q TO TO'J xcLpOU yep. pLOV &7LSWV

7

xxi 7rp6q E6epycaLac &TO(a

Th Tr; (Jpay 64i, T(JV Te Ck

cinaymyrv &),06vTwv MdTOU xai Twv pLAoci c a6Tav wvoaeSCat k7ri Tfl TOU 6CT05 xai ,Et(1 o c'JVOyr VEyaacS SELaaVSp(acVTwv, &vap.ELvay a6yot; Te To6TOty, rapa0app6vcc, au&iv tVµ pcwz xai k7ri ro c&raL5 vuliv 6ETOU

zv oaf

pMy3MLOTQTOU &QTPMricV TE xai (3pOVrwV XMl xEpMUVwV xaTafpEpoVvcV

ri reptyeE(p T9;

&yyeaou, ravrwv 6p6vrwv, a6r6v -cc xai roc C6v

M6-Cf.) i7rLpcLVOtL& OU xai 7repLCY,EroVTo;, TYjv in t T6 pEXov &6xvoc...OfltatQEV...

6. J. Kulakovskij, Istorija Vizantii 3 ( Kiev, 1915 ) 415 f.

VIII 142

Constantine V ( 741-775 ), another mass of Slavs, 208.000 accor-

ding to one chronicler, were settled in Asia Minor about the Artanas River, a little stream which flows into the Black Sea west of the Sangarius and not far from the Bosphorus. In 1129 or 1130 additional Slavs were transplanted to Asia Minor. They were Serbian prisoners whom John II settled in the neighbourhood of Nicomedia, assigned them land, enrolled those who could bear arms in the army, and subjected the others to taxation. These Serbs were doubtless the inhabitants of the servo-

choria which are mentioned in the Partitio regni graeci at the beginning of the thirteenth century. There can be no doubt that the Slavs involved in the Bithynian settlements were numerous, but few, if any, had survived by the thirteenth century. Those settled by Justinian II had been

destroyed, while the descendants of those displaced by Constantine V had long been hellenized. It is quite probable, however, that the descendants of the Serbs whom John II settled near Nicomedia still retained their identity. Some Slavs may have also been included among the a k rit ai, but that opinion that the akritai were mainly Slavs is without foundation.? In the population of Byzantine Asia Minor in the thirteenth century was a considerable element of Armenians. It is well known that many Armenians were enrolled in the Byzantine army of the earlier periods, but their settlements were located chiefly along the eastern frontiers of the empire. In the opinion of Rambeau only two Armenian military settlements were located in western Asia Minor by the tenth century. Rambeau had in mind the settlements at Prine and Platanion which, according to Constantine Porphyrogennitus, furnished a number of Armenian troops in the expedition against Crete during the reign of Leo VI.B Tomaschek, rejecting the opinion of Rambeau, 7. For the evidence and essential bibliography concerning the Slavs in

Asia Minor, see P. Charanis, The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia

Minor in the Thirteenth Century, Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948) 69-83. See further the review of this article by George S oules in 'Ere7pl; :nc 'FTMLpeia; Bu;xv-rwwv 17roUSWV 19

( 1949 ) 337-340.

8. Rambeau, L' Empire Grec au Dixieme Siecle. Constantin Porphyrogenete ( Paris, 1870) 251.

VIII On the ethnic composition of byzantine Asia Minor

143

has identified Prine with the Modern Giraprino, situated on the coast of the Black Sea between Kerazund and Tireboly, not far from Trebizond, and Platanion with the modern Pulad-Khane, located to the east of Giraprino and to the west of Trebizond.9 Both these identifications, however, must be wrong, for in another passage and in connection with the same expedition Constantine Porphyrogennitus places Platanion in the Anatolikon theme, 10 which, as is well known, did not extend to the Black Sea.

As for Prine it is probably the same as Priene. This is indicated by another passage of the De Ceremonies where it is stated that Armenians were stationed on the coast of the Thracesian theme in order to guard it. Some of these Armenians participated in the expedition against Crete of 948.11 The probability is that the Armenian settlement of this passage and that of Prine mentioned in connection with the expedition against Crete during the reign of Leo VI are the same and consequently Prine is probably Priene. 12 In the sources of the thirteenth century there is no mention of the Armenians of Priene, but Armenians are known to have lived near the village of Panaretos, 13 not far from Smyrna. It is 9. W. T o m a s c h e k, Zur historisciten Topographie v on Kleinasien in Mittelalter. Sitzungsberichle der kais. Akadernie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch - historische Klasse 124 ( Vienna, 1891) 80-81. 10. Constantine Porphyrogennitus, Dc Ceremonies ( Bonn ) 657 : alsc).96v etc 'Avaro),txouc ;cat xaraypa aaOat Touc II).x-tvt&Tac... 11. Ibid. 667: dead -&v '_1p!.cevuav To3 mUToU 061=Toc Twv Opxrraic,v r (pu),aea6VT(ilv

v

rile rapaaiav To:i

12. The spelling of Ilpivr instead of ffptr' i is no obstacle in the identification of the one with the other. The error was often made. See Mansi 11, col. 993C, where we have Ilptvtc,c rbacm;. Ilepivr as a variant of Ilptrlvr appears in the acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431. Corpus Notitiarum Episcopatttum. Volume 1. Les Listes Conciliaires, edited by E, Gerland and V. La u r e n t (Kadikoy, 1936) p.68, no.77. See also G. P a r t h e y, Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiae Graecae Episcopal.uum ( Berlin, 1866 ) p. 17, no. 6593, where IIpive, Ilpivec are given as variants of Hptljvr. Cf. E r n e s t I1 on i g m a n n, Le Synecdemos d' Jlierokles et 1' Opuscule Geographique de Georges de Chypres (Brussels, 1939 ) p. 21, no. 659. 13. Fr. Miklosich et J. Miiller, Acta et Diplomata Graeca 4 ( Vienna, 1871) 79: xai r,arataarac 1;tovra xrU utty avarOar`,c Touc 'Apiaeviouc xal d7r6 8'iaeo>S Touc aUTOUc 'ApµeviOo;.

VIII 144

quite possible that they were the descendants of those who composed the old Armenian colony of Priene or others on the neighbourhood. In the thirteenth century, however, the Armenians were more numerous in the northwestern corner of Asia Minor,

around Abydus and in the valley of the Scamander. It is difficult to determine at what time the Armenians settled in this part of Asia Minor, but it is not unlikely that they came following the disruption of the eastern frontiers of the empire in the eleventh century. As a group they had remained faithful to their own traditions and resisted the process of Byzantinization. They hated the Greeks. When after the fall of Constantinople in 1204 Henry of Flanders crossed over into Asia Minor in an attempt to conquer this region for the Latin empire, the Armenians of the Troad flocked to his standard. It was with their help that Henry took Abydus which he trusted to an Armenian garrison. 14 Not long afterwards, however, Henry returned to Europe and lie was followed by the Armenians of Abydus and the environment because they did not dare remain behind. According to Villehardouin the Armenians who followed Henry into Europe numbered 20.000 and they brought with them their wives and children. In Thrace these Armenians, all of them, according to Villehardouin, were captured and put to death by the Greeks. 15 But doubtless not all the Armenians of the Troad region followed Henry to be

exterminated in Thrace. Many must have stayed behind in Asia Minor.

Included among the population of Asia Minor were also some Cumans. These Cumans had been settled in the Meander regions 1'l. Geoffroi de Ville - Hardouin, La Conquete de Constantinople, edited and translated into modern French by M. Natalis de Wailly ( Paris, 1872) 185. Et les 1:Iermins du pays, dont it y await beaucoup, commencerent a tourner de son cote ; car ils haissaient beaucoup les Grecs ; Nicetas Choniates, Ilistoria ( Bonn, 1835 ) 796, 814 ; Theodore Scutarioles, Additamenta ad Georgii Acropolitae Historiam in Acropolites, Opera, edited by A. Heisenberg ( Berlin, 1903 ) 277.

15. Villehardouin, op. cit., 227. Et aver lui avaient passe les Hermins du pays, qui 1' avaient aide contre les Grecs, hien vingt mille avec leurs femmes et leurs enfants ; car ils n' osaient rester au pays ; Ibid., 229. Et alors advint une mesaventure aux Hermins qui venaient apres Henri... car les gens du pays s' assemblerent et deconfirent les Hermins ; et ils furent tous pris of. tues on perdus.

VIII On the ethnic composition of byzantine Asia Minor

145

of the empire in the thirteenth century, during the reign of John Vatatzes. Gregoras relates that 10.000 Cumans, driven away from their homes by the Tartars, crossed the Danube and began to wander in Thrace. They were picked up by John Vatatzes and were settled by him as soldiers in Thrace, Macedonia, and the Meander and Phrygian regions of Asia Minor. is Of the Cumans settled in Asia Minor something more is known from a monastic document of the thirteenth century which relates to a dispute over a piece of land. This land had been sold to a certain Koutoules by a peasant tenant of the monastery of Lemvo, located not far from Smvrna. The land was fertile and had attracted the covetous eyes of a local functionary, Keramanes by name who, after failing to have the original sale cancelled in order that he might buy the property himself, drove out Koutoules and seized the property. Koutoules fled to the Cumans who lived nearby 17 and with their help he seized another property which belonged to Keramanes. But Keramanes had money and wine. Money he gave

to Koutoules and wine to the Cumans ( they had a special weakness for wine ) and was thus able not only to keep the property which he had illegally seized, but to recover the one which Koutoules, aided by the Cumans, had taken way from him. The incident shows that the Cumans were settled in separate communities and that they exercised considerable influence in the neighbourhood. Some Cumans enrolled in the Byzantine army at the

time Michael Palacologus came to power are known to have spoken Greek well. 11

Michael Palaeologus was on the throne when Turkish tribes began to infiltrate into the Asiatic regions of his empire. They first became masters of all the territory south of the Meander, then crossed the river and began to conquer the regions on its northern bank. As the Turkish tribes advanced the Byzantine subjects were driven out, killed or taken captives. A similar process 16. Oregoras, Hisloria I ( Bonn, 1829 ) 37 : 'O ,3xcrLX6S 'Iol&vvi;... au-7ouS

atp

1 4Lzar, xwpa; DaouS Daoc 8l0fvciµ&uevoc :IS xaroLxrlaav

-oiy p.ev xa-7& Opaixrv xai'_1farc8ovtav, -roi; S' &Y'Aa%gt xar& Mxsav3pov xat Opuyiav.

17. Miklosich et .Muffler, op. cit. 4,167. 18. Acropolites, op. cit., 158 : kirct 8k xat zu ExuNx6v rcovro yEvoS, ou' ovro &),a& xat Eaarlvrxw; -c xat The Scythians of Acropolites here are the Cumans. P'ap(ixprxo; i71".

VIII 146

was taken place in the north, in the region of the Sangarius river. many places which were nominally still within the borders of the

empire were infiltrated with Turcomans and other Turkish tribes.

Thus, the population of Byzantine Asia Minor during the

reign of Michael Palaeologus was composed of people belonging to different races - Greek, hellenized and perhaps nonhellenized elements of the ancient populations, Armenians, Slavs, Cumans, Turks. The mixture was more predominant along the frontiers,

among the frontier soldiers, the akritai. Throughout the history of the Byzantine empire the akritai had always been composed of different ethnic groups. The Byzantines had no racial or natio-

nal tradition except that of Greek Christianity ; they accepted and settled within the borders and along the frontiers of the empire peoples of any race. To these peoples they gave land on con-

dition that they would serve in the army. In the tenth century the enrolled army of the empire in Asia Minor consisted of Greeks,

Armenians, Isaurians, Lycaonians, Persians, Arabs, Slavs, mixtures such as the Mardaite and other elements drawn from the population of Anatolia and elsewhere. ' As the Turks advanced the frontiers shifted, but the elements composing the akritai never came to consist of one racial group. In the thirteenth century

they still consisted of a mixture, but the only definite known ethnic group known among them is that of the Cumans. The akritai were not always faithful, and easily transferred their allegiance to the other side of the frontier from which they did not differ very much in culture. But if the frontiers were inhabited by a mixture of peoples and if some of them were to be found elsewhere well within the frontiers, the large populous places along the coast and elsewhere were peopled predominately by Greeks and Greek was the one general language. Sanudo, who knew the Byzantine empire as well as any one, writing in the

second quarter of the fourteenth century, remarked that the 19. Rambeau, op. cit., 247 ff. See also the list of peoples who, at the beginning of the ninth century, are said to have followed Thomas the Slavonian in his rebellion against Michael H. V a s i 1 i e v - Greg o i r e, Byzance et les Arabes. T. I: La Dymastie d' Amorium (Brussels, 1935) p. 31, n. 2.

VIQ 147

On the ethnic composition of byzantine Asia Minor

greater part of Asia Minor was under the domination of the Turks, but the majority of the population followed the Greek rite and were Greeks.,,*

Ee). 140, at. 3 &vtl onthe yp&qe : on the 141, brroa. 5, as. 3 vi Scaypagn -b x6µµa µe-r& 'rrv :.. 141, urroa. 5, ar. 5 v& &aypai?n tb x6µµa µez& 'riv A. gnAaV0e0ncordsq 141, urroa. 5, at. 6 v& npoare071 x6µ4a µeT& 'rrv A. &Mdoiv 141, urroa. 5, at. 9 vi &aypnpT tb x6µµa µsti. rv A. zotocs

» Ee),.

143, ar. 7 xai urroa. 10, at. 1 &vzi Porphyrogennitus yp&qc Porphyrogenitus 143, at. 10 xai urroa. 10, at. I &vti Ceremonies , p&qs : Ceremoniis 145, at. 13 rrp6a0es x6µµa µeTi 'r v A. name 170 auv& eta Uaoa. 2 at. 12 &vti d8eAo6 yp&¢e: dude

ot6

20. Marino Sanudo Torsello, Istoria del Regno di Romania, ed. by C. Hopf, Chronique greco - romane (Berlin, 1873 ) 1943. La maggior parte (of Asia Minor ) e sottoposta a Turchi, per it piii li popoli seguono it Ritto Greco e sono per it piu Greci. See further, G. G. Arnakis, Captivity of Gregory Palamas by the Turks and related Documents as Historical sources, Speculum 24 (1951) 115.

IX THE JEWS IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE UNDER THE FIRST PALAEOLOGI IN matters of worship the Jews who dwelled in the Byzantine empire, except for an occasional outburst of persecution, were left unmolested by the Byzantine government. Starr has pointed out that between the death of Heraelius (641) and 1204, a period of more than five and a half centuries, the Jews suffered only three

general persecutions which together covered about fifty years.' As the last of these persecutions took place during the reign of John Tzimiskes (969-976), there was a period of almost two and a half centuries during which the Jews were left unmolested to worship as they pleased. If Starr's conclusion errs in any way, it errs most probably in the inclusion as anti-Jewish of certain measures, especially those taken during the reign of Leo 111 (717-741), whose anti-Jewish character is by no means certain. No less an authority than Henri Gregoire has stated that if Starr's conclusion 'is ever revised, it will be in favor of the thesis of absolute

toleration.'2 The problem needs to be further examined. In the meantime we make some observations concerning the status of the Jews during the period of the first Palaeologi, a period which is not covered by Starr's book.

What characterized the position of the Jews during the reigns of Michael Palaeologus and his son, Andronicus II, was the remarkable degree of toleration which they enjoyed. The long period during which the Jews had been left unmolested by the Byzantine government had come to an end following the dissolution of the Byzantine empire as a result of the Fourth Crusade. Persecutions against the Jews broke out in two of the Greek states which rose out of the ruins of the former empire. A Jewish document, a letter of Jacob de Latte to his cousin Pablo Christiani, is the source of this information.' According to this letter the

Jews suffered a persecution under Theodore Ducas Angelus, the despot of Epirus, after he had occupied Thessalonica and had himself crowned emperor (1222-1290), and again under John Vatatzes, the emperor of Nicaea, who wanted the Jews to 'follow his cult and adhere to his faith.' John Vatatzes issued his antiJewish measure in 1258, a year before his death, but it seems to have been con-

tinued by his son and successor, Theodore II Lascaris. Thus when Michael Palaeologus came to the throne, the Jews were being persecuted. Michael Palaeologus put an end to this persecution. De Latte's letter is again the source of this information. De Latte gives no particulars; he states simply J. Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine empire (Athens, 1939), 1-10. ' In his review of Starr's book in Renaissance, Reeve trimeetrielle publiSe par L'Ecde Libre des hautea Etudes de New York. n-m (New York, 1946), 481.

' Jacob Mann, 'line source de l'histoire juive an xme sibcle: La lettre polkmique de Jacob b. Elie A Pablo Christian; Revue do* Etudes Juises, U =n (Paris, 1988), 878-373. Mann's work was called

to acv attention by Joshua Starr. But see also L. Lewin, 'Fine Notis sur Geschichte der Juden im byzantinischen Reiche.' Yonatudhrift far Gesehichte and Wissensehaft des Judentums, x (Brealau. 1870), 117-1228. Also N. Bees, 'Ubersicht fiber die Geachichte des Judentum von Janina (Epirus); Byaant+niach-Neugrieohiseke Jahrbdaher, n (Berlin. 1921), 169-177. 75

IX

76

The Jews in the Byzantine Empire

that Michael called together the leaders of the Jews and promised them religious

toleration. That he actually carried out his promise may be inferred from the Jewish policy of his son and successor, Andronicus II, which doubtless indicates that the latter had grown up in an atmosphere more or less friendly to the Jews. The tolerance which Andronicus showed toward the Jews was indeed remarkable. The information about Andronicus' Jewish policy is derived from two unimpeachable Greek sources, an imperial chrysobull which Andronicus himself issued and a letter of the patriarch Athanasius addressed to Andronicus himself.

Andronicus' chrysobull has been known for a long time and has served as the basis of a learned monograph on the Jews of Janina in Epirus by the Greek, N. Bees' The letter of the patriarch Athanasius has not yet been published, but its contents have become recently known through the analysis of Athanasius' correspondence issued by the Rumanian, N. BAnescu 6

Andronicus' chrysobull is not a document specifically dealing with the Jews. It was issued in favor of the city of Janina, and its principal aim was to define the status and privileges of that important fortress. Included in the document, however, there is a clause which covered the Jews of the town. They were to be free

and unmolested like the rest of the inhabitants.6 The letter of the patriarch Athanasius was drawn in protest of the emperor's tolerance toward the Jews and

other non-Christian or heretical elements which dwelled in Constantinople. Besides the Jews, the patriarch singled out the Armenians and the Turks and charged the emperor with letting them set up their houses of prayer among the Orthodox Christians. In addition, he accused a certain Kokalas who, allowing himself to be bought by presents, gave to the Jews 'great power.' It follows from both the chrysobull and the patriarch's letter that the attitude of Andronicus II toward the Jews was that of absolute toleration.

What apparently had shocked the patriarch and led him to protest to the emperor was the freedom granted to the Jews, Armenians and Turks to circulate

in Constantinople and to erect their houses of prayer wherever they pleased. His protest indicates that this freedom was unusual and raises the question whether Jews and heretics were not usually required to live in special quarters apart from the Orthodox Christians. That special Jewish communities existed in Constantinople, Thessalonica and elsewhere there is no doubt, but the question is whether this segregation was obligatory or voluntary. Starr raised this question, but offered no satisfactory answer.' Starr seems to have overlooked an important document, which actually gives the answer. This is the reply given by John, bishop of Citrus, toward the end of the twelfth century to Constantine ' Bees, op. cit. N. Blinescu. 'Le patriarche Athanase I- et Andronic II Paleologue. -Etat religieux, politique et social de l'empire; Aoademie Romaine. Bulletin de la section hutorique, err, I. (Bucharest, 1944), 86-86. The letters of the patriarch Athanasius were also studied on the basis of different manuscripts from the one used by Bdnescu by R. Guilland, but the letter concerning the dews was not included. A. Guilland, 'La correspondance inEdite d'Athanase, patriarche de Constantinople (1489-1499; 1904-1810); Melange. Ch. Diehl, i (Paris, 1980),191-140. s F. Mikosich and J. Minter, Aela at Diplomats, v (Vienna, 1887). 83. I Starr, op. cit.. 49.

IX

The Jews in the Byzantine Empire

77

Cabasilas, archbishop of Durazzo, who asked whether it was permissible for the

Armenians to build churches of their own in the cities where they resided. 'People of alien tongues and alien beliefs,' wrote John, 'such as Jews, Armenians,

Ismaelites, Hagarites, and others such as these were permitted from of old to dwell in Christian countries and cities, except that they had to live separately and not together with the Christians. For this reason quarters located either within or without the cities are set apart for each one of these groups that they may be restricted to these quarters and may not extend their residence beyond them.'s It must be noted, however, that obligatory confinement to a special quarter was not a restriction imposed only upon the Jews. It was applied to all foreigners, especially to those of alien or heretical beliefs.

Whether the Jews in Byzantium were as Jews subject to a special tax is a question on which there has been no general agreement. The references are very few and by no means entirely clear and their interpretation depends to a considerable extent upon what is specifically known, and this is not much, about Byzantine taxation. The problem of a special Jewish tax has been thoroughly discussed by Andreades, D61ger and Starr.9 Andreades and Dblger, after an initial disagreement, ended by agreeing in favor of a tax, while Starr, referring essen-

tially to the same texts, expressed a contrary view. Notwithstanding this disagreement it seems probable, at least for the period of the early Palaeologi, that the Jews of the empire were, as Jews, subject to a special tax. The source for this

opinion is a chrysobull, dated 1333, according to which the sum of twenty hyperpera was collected annually from the Jews of the town of Zihna, located not far from Serres, as a tax.10 There is, indeed, nothing in this text which proves that

this tax was paid by the Jews as Jews, but the document does show that an account of the tax paid by the Jews of Zihna was kept by the treasury, a fact which indicates that this tax was perhaps different from the taxes paid by the Christians.

' G. A. Relic and M. Potle, Syntogma ton theion kai heiren kanonon, v (Athens, 1855), 415.

' A. Andreades, 'Les Juifs et le fise dens l'empire byzantin.' This article was first published in Mianges Diehl (Paris, 1930), 1: 7-29. It was reprinted in Oeuvres, i (Athens, 1938) 629-859; 'The Jews in the Byzantine empire,' Economic fliatory, nl (1934), 1-45. F. Dolger, Beitrage zur Geaehichte der Byzantinitchen FinananenaaUung besonders des 10. and 11. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1927), 501; 'Die Frage der Judensteuer in Byzanz,' Vierteljahrschrift far Social- and Wirtachaftapeaehichfe, xxv[ (1999), 1-24. Starr, op. cit., 11-17. See also the review of Starr's book by DSlger, Byzantiniuche Zeiteehrift, XL (1940), 291 f., and Gr6goire's review of the same book in Renaissance, op. cit., rn-iv (New York, 1945), 481. Grhgoire accepts Starr's conclusion on the question of a special Jewish tax. l' Miklosich and MU ler, op. eit., v, 106.

X THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA AND THE QUESTION OF THE SLAVONIC SETTLEMENTS IN GREECE

X

MONG the short Byzantine chronicles, that concerning the Foundation of Monemvasia is perhaps the most curious and interesting. The most curious because, despite the importance of its contents, neither its author nor the date of its composition is known; the most interesting because of the notices which it contains concerning the establishment of Slavonic settlements in Greece, especially in the Peloponnesus, during the Middle Ages. Those who have dealt with the problem of these settlements have used it, either discounting its importance or emphasizing it unduly, their attitude depending upon their view concerning the magnitude, chronology, and significance of these settlements.' Notwithstanding its brevity, it has been the subject of two rather lengthy monographs wherein the attempt was made to determine its sources, the trustworthiness of its information, its author, and the date of its composition,' but the results have not been entirely

conclusive. It is the object of this paper to reexamine the question of the trustworthiness and the date of the composition of this chronicle.

The chronicle was first published in 1749 by Joseph Pasinus and his collaborators in their catalogue of the manuscripts of the royal library of Turin, from a manuscript written in the sixteenth century.' Pasinus' edition was the only edition available until 1884 when S. P. Lampros reissued it, together with two other versions which he found in two manuscripts, the one

belonging to the monastery of Koutloumousion, the other to that of the Iberikon, both monasteries of Mount Athns.' According to Lampros, the manuscript of the Iberikon was written in the sixteenth century, that of Koutloumousion probably in the sixteenth, although there are some indications which point to the seventeenth.' In 1909 these three versions were re' Fallmerayer was the first to call attention to this chronicle and used it to bolster his fantastic theory that the ancient Greek race disappeared completely. Jacob Ph. Fallmerayer, Fragmente aus den Orient, 2nd edition by Georg M. Thomas (Stuttgart, 1877), p. 508, note 2. Opponents of the theory of Fallmerayer tried to discount the importance of this chronicle. See, for instance, K. Hopf, "Geschichte Griechenlands vom Begins des Mittelalters his auf unsere Zeit," in Ersch and Cruber, Allgemeine Encyclopedia der Wissenschaften and Kiinste,

85 (Leipzig, 1867), 106ff.; and K. Paparrhegopoulo, Aavleai Fv rats `EAA+ivacais xipacs brotK7fae1c, in 'Ioropucai Hpaypard (Athens, 1858), p. 247, note 25. Others have looked at it more impartially. See A. A. Vasiliev, "The Slavs in Greece" (in Russian), Vizantiiskii Vremenrrik, 5 (St. Petersburg, 1898), 411, 655ff. Vasiliev's work, although written fiftytwo years ago, is still fundamental on the question of the Slavs in Greece. I read it with the aid of Mrs. Nathalie Scheffer. ' S. P. Lampros, T. AEp! KTLOU)q MOVepflailav xpov a iv, in his 'IaTOpuca MEAET44uaTa (Athens,

1884), pp. 97-128. N. A. Bees, To "'rcpt Tits KTtacws Tic Movepffaoias" xpovurov, in BvCavTis,

1 (Athens, 1909), 37-105. 'Codices manuscripti bibliothecae regii Taurinensis Athenaei, I (Turin, 1749), 417f. ' Lampros, op. cit., pp. 98-109. ' Lambros (Lampros), Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos (Cambridge, 1895-1900), 1:301; 2:86.

x 142 printed by N. A. Bees with some corrections,' and three years later a foUJ1:h version, found in a manuscript belonging to the Collegio Greco in Rome, was published by Lampros! Among these various versions there are substantial diHerences. The Iberikon deals primarily with the Avar and Slavic invasions of the Balkan peninsula, including Greece, in the sixth century; the settlement of the Slavs in the Peloponnesus, and their subjugation to the authority of the emperor during the reign of Nicephorus I. There is no mention of any event beyond the reign of Nicephorus I. The KoutIoumousion and Turin versions on the other hand include, besides the main contents of the Iberikon, a number of other notices which deal primarily with events and persons connected with the metropolitan sees of Monemvasia and Lacedaemon, especially the latter. Chronologically these later notices cover the period from 1083 to about the middle of the fourteenth century, but most of them refer to the second half of the thirteenth century and the first half of the fourteenth. The Roman version consists of these later notices and includes none of the contents of the Iberikon. Between the Iberikon version on the one hand and the Koutloumousion and Turin versions on the other there are a number of other diHerences, but these are of minor significance. The diHerence in contents between the Iberikon on the One hand and the Turin and Koutloumousion versions on the other was the principal argument used by Lampros in support of his opinion that these versions represent two diHerent traditions of which the Iberikon was the original and the earliest, while the other, represented by the Turin and Koutloumousion manuscripts, was a reproduction of the Iberikon version with additional notices added by a later scribe. And, since the Iberikon version ends with the subjugation of the Slavs in the region of Patras during the reign of Nicephorus I when Tarasius. who died in 806, was still patriarch, while of the later notices found in the Turin and the Koutloumousion versions and missing in that of the Iberikon the earliest refers to the raising of the see of Lacedaemon to the status of a metropolis in 1083, Lampros came to the conclusion that the original version - the Iberikon - must have been written sometime between 806 and 1083.' As for the Turin and Koutloumousion versions, Lampros thought that they must have been written toward the end of the thirteenth century.' The conclusions of Lampros were rejected by N. A. Bees, who re• Bees. cp. elt.• pp. 61-73. 'LamproJ. Ni... «.. S~ TOV )(po,,«o;, Mov.p.fJa.~;Q'. in

N'..

245 ff. • Lampro5, 1I'tPL Ilf'LUEWC; MOYfp.{jan{a,r;; XPOf!&lf:o". p. 118. • Ibid., pp. 119. 128.

To

'E.u.~yop.V>jp.wv, 9 (Athens. 1912).

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

143

examined the problem in detail. Bees rightly observed that it is impossible to accept the view of Lampros that the original version was written before 1083 simply because the additions found in the other versions begin with that year.10 Nor is Lampros' view that these additions were appended to the original toward the end of the thirteenth century any more acceptable, for among them there are chronological notices that refer to the fourteenth century." Indeed, Bees rejects the notion that the Iberikon is the original and earliest version, thinks that it is a simple variation of the other two, and considers the differences among them as accidental. He believes that the whole chronicle was composed sometime between 1340 and the sixteenth century, because one of the notices refers to the year 1340 while the manu-

scripts in which the chronicle has been found belong to the sixteenth century." When Bees published his study, the Roman version was not yet known. The peculiarity of this version is that it includes none of the contents of the Iberikon. In other words, it contains only the later notices which are found only in the Turin and Koutloumousion versions - notices which, according to Lampros, had been appended to the original chronicle later. In publishing the Roman version, Lampros remarked that its peculiarity confirmed his earlier view that the later notices of the Turin and Koutloumousion versions form a section independent of the part which constitutes the Iberikon version.13 Indeed, the existence of two manuscripts - the one containing the part with the earlier notices, the other, that with the later notices - lends support to the argument of Lampros that these two parts were originally independent and that later someone put them together, producing thus the version represented by the Turin and the Koutloumousion manuscripts. And since the Iberikon is much more precise and complete in its notices, it is

quite probable that it represents the original redaction of the chronicle, while the Turin and Koutloumousion versions are imperfect copies of it with the later notices added. On determining the date of the composition of the original chronicle, that is, the Iberikon version, Lampros failed to notice one important detail. In his account of the subjugation of the Slavs near Patras during the reign of Nicephorus I, the author of the chronicle refers to that emperor as "the Old, who had Staurakios as son." 1' This detail is of chronological importance Bees, op. cit., p. 75. Ibid.. p. 98. pp. 98-99. Lampros, Nioc xate rov Xpovmvi; Movap#aoiac, p. 250. Lampros says that this is a manuscript of the thirteenth century, but surely there must be a mistake, for certain notices of the chronicle definitely refer to the fourteenth century. "Bees' edition, p. 68: Nuoopov rou sa ,nou rov IXovroc (vine) 1iravpaxr.ov.

x 144 because it places the composition of the chronicle after the reign of Ni· cephorus Phocas (963--969). This was pOinted out by S. Kougeas,U who called attention to another expression of the chronicle which also helps to detennine the date of its composition. This is the reference to the Tzacones, where it is said that this name had been lately given to them/ 8 and as is well known the first mention of the Tzacones is made by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. 17 These observations led Kougeas to conclude that that part of the chronicle which constitutes the Iberikon version was composed during or not much after the reign of Nicephorus phocas.'" There is another expression in the chronicle which lends support to the view of Kougeas. In describing the depredations of the Avars and Slavs in the Peloponnesus in 584, the author of the chronicle writes that many of the Greeks fled and found refuge in Calabria and Sicily. Those who went to Calabria came from Patras and settled in the region of Rhegium; those who went to Sicily came from Lacedaemon, where, says the chronicle "they still live in a place called Demena, are called Demenitae instead of Lacedaemonitae, and preserve their own Laconian dialect." It Since the publication of Amari's work, Storia dei Musull1umi di Sicilia, Demena as the name of a region in the northeastern part of Sicily and that of a town located in that region is well known;" but all of the references to the town belong to the ninth and tenth centuries. This fact has led Amari to declare that the town Demena existed until the tenth century, possibly until the eleventh, although that is doubtful." But if the Lacedaemonians who had fled to Sicily still lived in Demena at the time of the composition of the chronicle, it means that Demena still existed, and this would place the composition of the chronicle not later than the end of the tenth century or the beginning of the eleventh. The date of the composition of a document is, of course, of great importance, but more important still is the nature of its sources and the credibility lIS S. Kougeas, "E".t TDU KaAoHp.i"ou XpOYtKOV "ll
X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

145

of its contents. The contents of the chronicle of Monemvasia have been carefully analyzed by both Lampros and Bees. The latter, while making some

additions to what Lampros had said concerning the sources of the Iberikon version, devoted his attention primarily to the second part of the chronicle, and of this part there will be no question here. Suffice it to say that Bees has come to the conclusion that it is worthy of trust and "valuable for the history of the Peloponnesus and indeed of Lacedaemon, especially of the fourteenth century, since it preserves some names and notices of things absolutely unknown from other sources." 22 But, however valuable this part of the chronicle may be for the history of the Peloponnesus in the fourteenth century, its contributions are of less general import than those of the first part, that is, the part which constitutes the Iberikon version. For the latter deals with no less a problem than the fate of the Greek people, particularly those inhabiting the Peloponnesus, during the early Middle Ages. Lampros scrutinized the Iberikon version very carefully and was able to establish most of its sources. On the basis of the works of the Byzantine writers available to him which relate the same events related by the chronicle, he came to the conclusion, a conclusion which was then sound, that the author of the chronicle drew his information primarily from Menander, Evagrius, Theophylact Simocatta, and Theophanes.29 But there are a number of notices for which Lampros was not able to find the source. He ob-

served, for instance, that the name of the first metropolitan of Patras, Athanasius, who according to the chronicle was appointed and raised to the status of metropolitan during the reign of Nicephorus I, following the liberation of Patras from the Slavs, is found nowhere else. He made the same observation with respect to the statement of the chronicle that the Byzantine commander who liberated Patras from the Slavs was named Skleros and belonged to an Armenian family. These two problems, however, were solved by Bees, who offered evidence, independent of the chronicle, that both of these personages existed and had served in the capacities mentioned by the chronicle.24 Lampros also observed that nowhere else was he able to find the etymology of Maniatae.26 This statement is puzzling, for nowhere in the chronicle 'Bees, op. cit., p. 104 f. ° Lampros, TO acpi ariocon Moveppaatas xpovuov, p. 109 if.

° Bees, op. cit., p. 78. Bees' reference about Skleros is to Scriptor incertus de Leone I;ardae F, where it is said (Bonn, p. 336) that Leo Skleros was appointed strategus of the Peloponnesus by Michael I. It is not improbable, as Bees remarks, that Skleros had previous experience with the Peloponnesus and that was the reason for his appointment by Michael I. It must be pointed out, however, that this reference had already been cited by Vasiliev in the same connection. Vasiliev, op. cit., p. 422. ° Lampros, To acpi aricws Movc r aaias xpovurov, p. 117: oMaµoii yiveras )n'yos aepi rou C'ruµou rwv Mavuarinv.

X 146

is there any question of the Maniatae. Apparently Lampros, as did also Hopf,2° understood Maniatae by the Demenitae of the chronicle, probably because neither he nor Hopf knew anything about the Sicilian town of Demena. But Demena, as has been pointed out above, was a Sicilian town well known in the tenth century. How it got its name is not absolutely clear. Amari thinks that it was named after the inhabitants and supposes that the name was applied to the region and to the town at about the same time." If

this opinion is correct, then the name Demena may have been derived from Demenitae, the name by which, according to the chronicle, the Lacedaemonians who settled in Sicily came to be known. The chronicle says: "Some sailed to the island of Sicily and they are still there in a place called Demena and are called Demenitae instead of Lacedaemonitae." 29 A writer of the early fifteenth century understood Demenitae to be a barbarous form of Lacedaemonians. After speaking of those elements among the Laconians who settled in the mountains of Cynuria in the Peloponnesus and in the course of time barbarized their name into Tzacones, a corruption of Lacones, this writer then mentions the settlement of other Spartans in Sicily, and adds that they, too, as time went on, barbarized their name and came to be known as Demenitae.29 It is quite probable that to this writer Demenitae Hopf, op. cit., 85:108.

"Amari, op. cit., 1:808 f.: Quanto al Val Demone, 1'etimologia si 6 riferita ai boscbi (Vallis Nemorum); si 6 riferita ai demonii dell' Etna, tenuto spiraglio d'inferno (Vallis Doemonum); altri piu saviamente i'ha tratto da un forte castello, ricordato nelle memorie del nono secolo e abbandonato di certo net duodecimo. Sembrami piu probabile the i nomi delta provincia a del castello fossero nati insieme dall' appellazione presa per avventura dagli abitatori

di tutta quella regione: Perduranti, cioa, o Permanenti, nella fede, si aggiunga dell' impero bizantino. Perocchb un cronista greco del mono secolo, trattando delle citti di Puglia rimase sotto il dominio di Constantinopoli, adopera il verbo analogo a cosi fatta voce (Teofane con-

tinuato, lib. V., cap. LVIII. p. 297: Kai ro air; rovrou &4u,vav swroi $a&.' roo4rw ,&ryovµcvo& aaorpwv); e una delle varianti con the questa ci a pervenuta a appunto Tondemenon the si riferisce, seuza dubbio, non al territorio ma agli abitatori. On page 810, note 2, Amari explains: il participio presente del verbo &aµlvv, (permaneo, perduro) al genitivo plurale farebbe riav Swµcvovru,v, the I'uso volgare par abbia contralto in Ton Demenon. To us this etymology seems very improbable. Theophanes Continuatus used &aµivw because it

was precisely the verb which he needed; no particular significance should be attached to it Had he said that because the inhabitants of these cities remained faithful they came to be known as Swµfvovres, then the theory of Amari might be plausible, but he did not say that. See note 19 for the Greek text. Lampros, Avo uva,opai µrirporroXirou Movcµflaoiae spas rov varpwp v, in Nies 'E,1,lpvoµvii1mv, 12 (Athens, 1915), 288: IIpoooadaavres Si ds Mroorivpv, warpav ucioc aai Acµevirac avrovs 6 µaxpoe e1rrc Xpovos, 9apPapioavrac aal avrove roiwoµa. We shall speak more

of this document later. As for the etymology of Tzacones it is now generally accepted that it is derived from the phrase ctw Aacu,vrc. See C. Amantos, ToaRwvw.-Sclavonia, in 'A¢a?pagra cie r.N.Xar{sSaapv (Athens, 1921), pp. 130-134. On page 132 of his article, Amantos includes A. Vasiliev among those who derive the term Tzacones from the Slavic zakon and accordingly consider the Tzacones as Slavs. His reference is to Vasiliev's important article on the Slavs in Greece which we have already cited (above, note 1). I have carefully checked, with the

aid of Vasiliev himself, this article (p. 422, n. 5) and I have found no statement such as

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

147

appeared to be a corruption of Lacedaemonitae, a term actually used by the chronicle instead of the classical Lacedaerlionians. What he thought happened was the dropping of the first two syllables from Lacedaemonitae and the simplification of the spelling of what remained - Demenitae instead of Daemonitae. The form Demona instead of Demena occurs several times in the sources. But on this popular etymology of Demenitae from Lacedemonitae, and consequently Demena from Lacedaemon, we do not insist.

Among the several other notices of the chronicle for which neither

Lampros nor Bees was able to find another source, there are two which are

of capital importance for the history of Greece, Sicily, and southern Italy during the Middle Ages. Following is the passage where the first of these notices is found." The whole passage is reproduced because it is necessary as a reference in the discussion of its source: 'Ey irfpy Be

p

iXnpwvaro Twray rp' ©!aa¢ALav Kai TTiv 'EAA6S' ,rauav i-, v Tf TaAaL6v

'HTnpov Kat 'A77LKjV Kai Evflocav. Oi Srf Kai iV IIEAo,rovv>;uw i0OpujOav7ES TOAfpw rav nv clXOV Kai iK#QIWVTfs Ta c y'Yri Kal fAATiVLKa 2Ovri Kai KaTaOOdpaVTES eaTtiLKTiaav a'ro iV a>T-. 01 Si TQs

uai¢ovous avrev Xfipas SuviOivrfs ik vyciv, LIAAos &

Xj SLcmrdprivav. Kai s) piv rmv IIa7piav

TOALS pErwxhrO'7 iv Tp rwv Ka 1a.#pwv XwM Tov `PTryiou, of Si 'ApycioL 6 TO Pimp Tp KaAouµivti 'Opof?1,

of Si Kopiv8iot iv Tn viiut1L TD eaAOVpiiIj Alylvil IaTta, 7av. TOTE S;/ cal of AQflwvcc To OL Kw at i7L Eluly iv dvrD

TarpttlOV e8a/boc Ka7aALT6vrcc of pcv fv Tli ,Halo yuc Alas E4fzANaav,

y TO,rw KaAo,,dvta Aipfva Kai Alp.cvirm LLYTL Aacc8wpoYLTWV KaTOVOp4OµlVOL Kai T'tiv LLO.v TWV

Aac,vay SL>Aci7ov Suw

OYTfC. 01 Si SVa8aTOV TOTOV Taco 74 T1is 8cAiao,7S aLyLaAby EVpivres Kai

,rAiv OXup6v OLKOSop1aaycc gal MovEpflaclav TasiTp' Ovopaaavrfs Sta TO tdav (XELv Till, iv alrgt ELa7ropfvo sevwv r v auoSOV iv a!-r6 T(i TOAa caTlt'Iflriaav 1E7&. cal TOU ISwOV a77WV iTLO'KOTOV. 01 8(

Opfpµd7wv voµlis Kw aypOLKLKOL Ka7LilKLoOfiaav IV TOLS TapaxaAiVOLS lcnas TpaXLVOLS 70TOLS, of Kw ET' iux,iTWy TCacWYLw i7ovopaaO,uav. Olrws oL 'Apapos Tlp IIEAOTOVVrioov carerydvrc' flat Twy

KaTOLK7juaV7fS lV avrp SLiipccaar iTl XpOVOLS SlaxoutotS Ofl7wcai8cKa p,c Tql 741, 'Pwµalwv flau{AEL

pj,c i7Epa faro dpcVOL, i7yo55 ,T0 7OV , cll;' (TOYS TTiS TOV KOapOV KaTO.LTKCV'!)s OTfp a3v (KTOY ETOS S'>" f, rps AaoLAELaS Mavputiov, Kai piXpL 706 !TOYS, OTEp iv rirap7ol (TOS TTis PaoB aas NLK,r/ dpov

TO; TaAatav Tov (Xovroc (v7nv) $ravpi,Lov. Movou Si roil dvaroALKOU pipovs 7iis ovs Siu ro TpaXl Kai Svoparov

IIcAoaovviiaou.&TO Kopir6ov Kai piXpc MaAiov Toil FtOXa#>ivo8 (

Katapv6ov-T S, arpa1Try4s IIEAowovYit ov & alYrgl TQl pipe 1rWO T01) 'Pwpa wv 6aw&Afww carariAvero. EELS

Si rWY TOLOVTWV orparvywy Opptup'VOS p!v a 'TO riis

pcKpas 'Appc,Las,

.a7pLav

SE

Troy

'TOVOpa opiyWV YKATipWV avµftaANV 'r l YOAai4TiVlp (Ova TOAEpcKUIS dAf T! Kai , dywwc ft's 7iAoc cal

701S ' pX.iio,, OlJa70puc a'TOKaTaOT)VaL ra olccIa 'KapEOXcr. TOVTO paOWv O Tpoap,ipiroc #aa'AEVs

would justify Amantos' opinion. Indeed, while Vasiliev makes here no categorical statement on the problem, restricting himself to a summary of the conclusions of other scholars, I know, from several conversations that I have had with this distinguished Russian-American scholar, that he considers the term Tzacones to be certainly related to that of Lacones. On Tzacones see further C. N. Hatzidakes, Todcwvcc, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 27 (Leipzig, 1927), 321-324; Dolger, Byz. Zeitschrift, 26:107. For a different etymology, see Ph. Koukoules, Ti o,vla Kal Tudgwvls, in Byz. Zeftschrift, 26:317-327. For the Tzaconian dialect see H. Pernot, Introduction a Petude du dialect Tsakonien (Paris, 1934). Bees' edition, pp. 65-70. The Iberikon version.

x 148

ea

N~optX 1f4' XapO.i "A']U8Ek sw. ~poVf'i8o~ (8(1'0 TO .,u Tc..~ Ut'Ut. ...oAUi ci.,IIJUU",ltf(Ji «Got •• {Jo.{JOP'" .O~""gO. u..)"TJ{Jepo.. Xp.UTIOVO;" "''''.joa&. 610 «w a.va.JUl8wv ~V JUTol."u{av 06 8unptf3ovuw oi lla:Tpfii l'fAaJO'fL a.VTOU "O~TO~ T~ ~ Gpx;.

i8a<j.u

47rfMt1TEOTTJUl p.t.Ta lfQ.t TOU

p.vrpmro).,f.fU';

8lJr.o.UJ.

tStou

4{rT«~V "'OlP.EVO~, O~ ~v

1'0 T7JVLK4VT4 ·AfJ4V~0'1.0i TO~VO,t&4. aa1 frpO 1'06'1ou XP'1p.aT~OUa-rr-. 'A~o&­ '14< TOO 0.0. "yio~ lKK),,'1uia~, 1I'OTPIO/'X0UvrO< I",

'fGii DaTpal~ rap£uX,fTo, cipx'(7T1O'1(~

u.

l'TJ
am... .'"

Here is a translation: In another invasion they Ithe Avars I subjugated all of Thessaly and Greece, Old Epirus, Attica and Euboea. They made an incursion also in the Peloponnesus. COnquered it by war, and, destroying and driVing out the noble and Hellenic nations. they settled in it themselves. Those among the former [the Greeks) who succeeded in escaping from their blood-stained hands dispersed themselves here and there. Thll city of Patras emigrated to the territory of Rhegium in Calabria; the Argives to the island called Orobe; and the Corinthians to the island called Aegina. The Lacones too . abandoned their native soil at that time. Some sailed to the island of Sicily and they are still there in a place called Demena, call themselves Demenitae instead of Lacedaemonitae, and preserve their own Laconian dialect. Others found an inaccessible place by the seashore, built there a strong city which they called Monemvasia because there was only one way for those entering, and settled in it with their own bishop. Those who belonged to the tenders of herds and to the rustics of the country settled in the rugged places located along there and have been lately called Tzaconiae. Having thus conquered and settled the Peloponnesus, the Avars have held it for two hundred and eighteen years, that is, from the year 6096 [A.D. 587) from the creation of the world, which was the sixth year of the reign of Maurice, to the year 6313 [A.D. 805J, which was the fourth year of the reign of Nicephorus the Old who had Staurakios as son. They were subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anyone else. And only the eastern part of the Peloponnesus, from Corinth to Malea, because of its ruggedness and inaccessibility remained free from the Slavs and to that part a strategus [governor] of the Peloponnesus continued to be sent by the emperor of the Romans. One of these governors, a native of Lesser Armenia, and a member of the family called SlcIeroi came into hostile blows with the Slavic tribes, conquered and obliterated them completely, and enabled the ancient inhabitants to recover their own. When the afore~ mentioned emperor Nicephorus heard these things he was filled with joy and became anxious to renew the cities there, to rebuild the churches that the barbarians had destroyed, and to Christianize the barbarians themselves. And for this reason, having inquired about the colony where the people of Patras lived, he had them reestablished by his order together with their own shepherd [bishop J, whose name at that time was Athanasius, On their ancient soil. He also granted to Patras. which was a bishopric before this, the prerogatives of a metropolis. And he rebuilt their city [Patras 1 and the holy churches of God from the foundations when Tarasius was still patriarch.

Now to examine the sources of this all-important passage. At first glance the notice concerning the invasion of Greece seems to have been taken

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

149

from Evagrius, who is mentioned in the chronicle as one of its sources .3'

This was the view adopted by Paparrhegopoulo,92 but, as the chronicle names the various regions of Greece invaded by the Avars and Slavs, while Evagrius simply says "all Greece," a' both Lampros and Bees refrained from expressing an opinion on this point. Indeed nowhere else among the known sources is there any mention of the exact region of Greece invaded by the Avars and Slavs. Menander speaks of an invasion of Greece during the reign of Tiberius but, like Evagrius, he does not name the exact regions that were

invaded g' Nor does the account of John of Ephesus add very much more " It can either be that the author of the chronicle took Evagrius' expression

"all Greece" and broke it up on the basis of some local tradition, as Paparrhegopoulo supposes, or that he had before his eyes a source, now lost, which gave an account of the exact regions of Greece invaded by the Avars and the Slavs.H" That the latter was the case will be presently demonstrated. The statement of the chronicle that the Avars held the Peloponnesus for two hundred eighteen years - that is, from 587 to 805 - is known also from another source, the synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas (1084-1111) to the emperor Alexius Comnenus 97 As most commentators of the chronicle considered it to be a product of a late period they showed no hesitation in Ibid., 61: Ovrot (ot 'Apapot), Oat 5 o Evuyptos Ai?.nn iKRA, uu wTLKii4 WOTOpiaS .

.

iv

rq"i

riparup avrou ALiyw Tile

.

Paparrhegopoulo, op. cit., p. 247, note 25. Evagrius, edited by Bidez and Parmentier, VI, 10: of 'A/lapctc Sic µi7ipt roZ Ra Aovpivoa paopou Teixauc iAtioa"ec, 1tyylj&va 'AyxiaA4v re jcui s4 v 'EAALi8a aaaav rai iripae roAuc Te cal 40pocpta iefooALOpKpaav aai ,,v8pairo81cravro, dsoAAuvr4s erparevpdTWV ear& s4,V 'Ejav 6,&ta7pt,66vrwr.

cai 7rvpaoAovvres, rczv aoAAc v

"C. Muller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, 4 (Paris, 1851), 252 (frag. 48): ort acpeaigopivgs rijs 'EAAaSoc vco Y,jcAaflpvwv xai aravraxooe tiAAcaaAA,Awv aurp rrtTiprpp.cvwv Tiav [LVOUVWV, O TLBipL05

.

.

.

rpecpcveTat WC BaiavoV.

John, Bishop of Ephesus, The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of of Ephesus, is, by R. Payne Smith (Oxford, 1860), p. 432: "That same year, being the third after the death of king Justin, was famous also for the invasion of an accursed people, called Slavonians, who overran the whole of Greece, and the country of the Thessalonians. and all

Thrace, and ,captured the cities, and took numerous forts, and devastated and burnt, and reduced the people to slavery, and made themselves masters of the whole country, and settled in it by main force, and dwelt in it as though it had been their own without fear," John of Biclar who was in Constantinople from 558 to 575 says in his chronicle that the Slavs devastated parts of Greece, but does not mention any of these parts. The chronicle of

John was published by Mommsen in Mon. Germ. Hist., Chronica Minora (1893), vol. II. Here is his text as cited by Vasiliev, op. cit., p. 410, note 5: "Sclavini in Thracia multas urbes Romanorum pervadunt, quas depopulates vacuas reliquere; Avares Thracias vastant et regiam urbem a muro longo obsident; Avares a finibus Thraciae pelluntur et partes Graeciae atque

Pannoniae occupant" These invasions are placed by John during the reigns of Justin and

Tiberius.

J. Leunclavius, Juris Graeco-Roman!, tam canonici quam civilis, tomi duo ... ex varies

Europae Asiaeque bibliothecis eruti (Frankfurt, 1598), p. 278 f.: ruv 'A$apocv ... eri &"00,1O4c Siaa &Krw xptivotc oAotc caraOxOVTWV 7riv IIcAocrovvrpov, Rai ris 'Pwptrucitc aP7titc dwarCFaplvgv, sic µrt8i Waa PaAeiv okwe SSvaaaaL iv ai'i 'Pwpaiov avSpa.

150

accepting the letter of the patriarch as the source of the chronicle. Lamprol,

himself was somewhat puzzled, for if the patriarchal letter served as *. source in the composition of the chronicle, then the chronicle was composed

either during or after the patriarchate of Nicholas, but he had already expressed the view that the composition of the chronicle must be placed in the period between 806 and 1083. Accordingly he dismissed the question; saying that he thought it superfluous to deal with it, since Paparrhegopoulo had already dealt with it at length."' But Paparrhegopoulo entertained no doubts at all that what the chronicle says about the length of time that the Avars and the Slavs held the Peloponnesus was taken from the letter of the patriarch." Actually, however, as it will be presently seen, the author of the chronicle drew his information from an entirely different source. The notice concerning the subjugation of the Slavs in the territory of Patras and the recovery of that city by the Byzantines as well as its promotion to the status of a metropolis during the reign of Nicephorus I has been thought to be derived either from the letter of the patriarch or from the De administrando imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.10 But neither in the patriarchal letter nor in the account of Porphyrogenitus 41 is there question concerning the rebuilding of the city of Patras by Nicephorus and its resettlement with the descendants of those who had emigrated to the territory of Rbegium in Calabria at the time of the invasion of the Avars and Slavs. Besides, between the account of the chronicle and that of Porphyrogenitus there are some other important differences. Porphyrogenitus does not give the name of the Byzantine general who subdued the Slavs; he repre-

sents the city of Patras and the surrounding territory as being already in the hands of the Greeks; and he says that in this conflict the Slavs were aided by Africans and Saracens. In view of these important differences, it is absolutely clear that the account of the chronicle is independent of that of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. It remains now to consider what is perhaps the most important notice

of the entire passage - that concerning the invasion of the Peloponnesus by the Avars and the dispersion of the ancient inhabitants of the peninsula, "the noble and Hellenic nations," as the chronicle puts it. That Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus is, of course, a well-known fact, but it is still disputed whether they settled there in the sixth century, during the reign of Maurice, ' Lampros, To ,upi wriocros Movcµ,8aoias Xpovucov, p. 117.

' Paparrhegopoulo, op. cit., p. 247, note 25. Bees, too (op. cit., p. 82), accepts the letter of patriarch Nicholas as the source of the chronicle. Bees, op. cit., p. 83.

"Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De odministrando imperio (Bonn, 1840), p. 217 if. In this account Constantine seems to describe an attack of the Slavs against Patras after that city had been resettled with Greeks. See below, note 53.

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

151

or at a later epoch. The question remains open because the reference in the chronicle finds no definite confirmation in the known sources, except the synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas, but, since that letter, so far as the settlement of the Slavs in the Peloponnesus is concerned, is considered by those who belittle the value of the chronicle to be the source of the chronicle, it carries little weight as a confirmation of the chronicle. The three important sources of the Avar and Slavonic invasions of the last quarter of the sixth century - the works of Evagrius, Menander, and John of Ephesus - say simply that the Avars devastated all Hellas. But "Hellas" has been interpreted by those who do not accept the authority of the chronicle to refer not to Greece proper, but to Illyricum as a whole, that is, the Byzantine possessions in the Balkan peninsula." As late as 1939, the Greek scholar Amantos wrote, "By Hellas the archaist Menander means the Byzantine regions up to the Danube, including modem Bulgaria." It is thus also that he explained the passage in Evagrius and referred to Theophanes, who, writing about the same incident, uses the term "Illyricum" where Menander and Evagrius have used "Greece," in support of his view.cs Accordingly, the works of Evagrius, Menander, and John of Ephesus cannot be cited as confirming the statement of the chronicle that Avars and Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus in the sixth century, and consequently that statement remains without any confirmation. That there is confirmation, however, will be seen in what follows.

The statement of the chronicle concerning the invasion of the Pelopon-

nesus by the Avars and the Slavs could be said to have the support of Evagrius, Menander, and John of Ephesus if "Hellas," as they use it, is taken, as it should, to refer to Greece proper. But neither Evagrius, nor Menander, nor John of Ephesus nor any other known source that treats of the Avar and Slavonic invasions of the Balkan peninsula during the sixth and seventh centuries makes the slightest allusion to the dispersion of the Peloponnesians and the emigration of some of them to Sicily, Italy, and elsewhere as a result of the Avar invasion. Accordingly this notice in the chronicle has been treated with caution or rejected outright. With the ex" Paparrhegopoulo, 'IoTOpia To; 'EAApvucou 'EBvovs, edited by P. Karolides (Athens, 1925),

III, 155, 158 f. Hopf (op. cit., p. 91) interpreted the passage of Evagrius as follows: "Nur unkenntniss der Ceographie konnte den Syrer Evagrios verandassen nachst den bekannten Stadten Singidon and Anchialos noch, 'von ganz Hellas and andern StRilten and Burgen zu reden;' entweder dachte er sich unter Hellas eine Stadt oder Burg, was am wahrscheinlichsten, Oder er ubertrug den antiken Namen des eigenttichen Griechenlands auch auf die thrakischmakedonischen Provinzen des Rdmerreichs." "Constantine I. Amantos, 'Ioropia rov BvCuvrivov Kparovs, I (Athens, 1939), 281 if. See also Charanis' review of this book in Byzantion, 15: 472. In a more recent study Amantos has sought to reinforce his interpretations of the term Hellas. Amantos, Ot %Aagoc cts rqv 'EAAa8a, in Byzantinisch-Neugriechische lahrbiicher, 17 (Athens, 1944), 215, especially note 2.

x 152 ception of FalImerayer, none of the scholars who have treated the quest1aa of the Slavonic settlements in Greece have put much reliance upon it." Nor is it cited hy any of the scholars, as far as the present writer has been able to ascertain, who have dealt with the prohlem of the Hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy during the early Middle Ages..• Contrary to the general impression, however, not only this notice but a numher of other elements of the passage that we have translated ahove ill worthy of the greatest trust, for it is confirmed hy no less an authority than Arethas of Caesarea. This fact was made known by S. Kougeas in a note puhlished in 1912, in which was included a scholium written hy Arethu himself in the margin of the Dresden manuscript which contains the brief chronicle of patriarch Nicephorus (806-815), a manuscript which was written in 932. Following is Arethas' text..e T~ TlTBpTCf i1'U T~~ {3o.UlA,({Cli OlrrOV ~ naTpwII

0".0 T~~

Tfr; ntA07rOvVtjerou .,.~ 1I"aTpl8oli ~p.iJv P.tTOUCu.

KaAau,wll 1r'OA.(WlI -rov IPvy:OU 1U'(l(o}J1."OTj (:~ TO apxaiov ?,OAHTJ,14 TWV llaTpwv. ·E~try~tJ..,

yQ.p qyow 1'r:T~{(fDr, W6 TOU ~,.;A4"'1Yw" ;8vOIX 1ro),JP1' repop}J-7jUaVTWY 0tUqaA~ Tj 1rptflTTJ .01 8nrripq. Kat 7rp()(f(TL Ail/taut Tt Kat AOK.pot'i Q.P.t/JOTf.pOLfi ·E"'"I(VT}jJ.tS{OL,. Tt: «a.' 'OCoAaLC; Kal 8~ «at TV 1'1"~ 'H1Tftp..OVTWV j£f:V Ta fyyf.v? lXA1J),&a~ i8V1J KcU KOTat/J0ttpO.VTWY, Ko,TOlJ(lUO(I'TWV 8( aVrwv 01rO {JQ.(ftAtLaS Maupuc{ou {TOIX S }Jof.xpt. TfTapTOU (TOW NU(~opou. (CP' ot Toii aVClTohKOii P.ipOlX llt:A01I'ovVJ]q01J 011"0 Koptv8ou KcU I4fXPt Ma44~ ToU ].,.;Aal!11Yov KalJC1(JcVOYTo.., d~ CTTp4T1JYWV

'f'.f

0 1(414 CTTp4TTft6f;

an ~IO jUJ(pa~ OppoWP.fVCX )App.EJI;a.~,

KOTnrlp.TrfTO

TfJ

n£A01rOVV1}cr~.

'EK

TOWWV T.dV

t/JaTpLO
crop.PIlAWI'

f.t\lv Tf. Kat WaVUTf.V (~~ 'f'(Ao~ Kat TOLf t1p)(~8(y OU<7JrOpe7W a1To.:aTUO"rijJla.L Ta o~ii4 1TapfUXf.V. BaatAM yap;' (ip1Jpil'OlO t1l1ap.a.(J~v T1jv IUTouc.;av O~ &aTpifJtiJI l(£AcVau a.t,.,aV TOV Tf. AaOV T';' U apX~i iSclepEt ci7roICOT'UT1)O"fY «0.4 P.vrPO"lf'U>"f~ 81KQU1 TcUi nciTpeu~ ].KMl!11Vtiw ;8v((,

1ToAf./UKWt;

1fap
Here is a translation: In the fourth year of his reign [reign of Nicephorus] toole place the transfez of Patras of the Peloponnesus, our country, from the Calabrian city of Rhegium to the ancient city of Patras. For it had been driven away or rather forced to migrate by the .. Vasiliev (op. cit., pp. 411, 412) uses it, but without much emphasis. .. See, for instance, Lynn White, "The Byzantinizalion of Sicily," in American HlstorlciJl Review, 42 (1936), 1 If. This article in a somewhat compressed fonn was reprinted in White's Lotin Monasticism in N<mnan Sicily (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1938). chapter S. In 8ll article which I devoted to the problem of the Hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy during the early Middle Ages I have made use of the material found in the chronide 01 Monemvasia. See Charanis, "On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and SoutheJn Italy during the Middle Ages," The American Historical Review, 52 (1946), pp. 74-M. .. ICougeas, op. cif., p. 474 f. On the historical accuracy of the scholia of Arethas sec further N. A. Bees, Ai '1f'Spo"", .,..;,. BOVAydp.,. v".o TO. T~dpo. ~VI'«':' • ..... TB trxia, 4 (Athens, 1913/14), 236-269. The most complete work on Arethas is by ICougeas,'O KC1U1ap
X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

153

nation of the Slavs when they invaded the First and Second Thessaly and in addition the country of the Aeniantes and that of the Locrians, both the Epiknemidian and Ozolians, and also ancient Epirus, Attica and Euboea and the Peloponnesus, driving away and destroying the noble Hellenic nations. They [the Slavs] dwelt there from the sixth year of the reign of Maurice to the fourth year of that of Nicephorus at whose time the governor for the Peloponnesus was sent to the eastern part of the Peloponnesus, from Corinth to Malea, because that part was free of Slavs. One of these governors, a native of Lesser Armenia, and a member of the family called Skleroi, clashing with the Slavic tribes, conquered them in war and obliterated them completely and enabled the ancient inhabitants to recover their own. For the mentioned emperor, having inquired where the colony was, reestablished the people on the ancient soil

and granted to Patras, which was a bishopric before this, the prerogatives of a metropolis.

It takes only a superficial comparison of Arethas' scholium with the passage of the chronicle cited and translated above to see the close relationship between the two. In some instances the one repeats the other verbatim. Arethas focuses his attention on his native city of Patras and consequently his scholium is much compressed, leaving out a number of notices included in the chronicle. This fact is important for it shows that the author of the chronicle did not draw his information from Arethas' scholium. Nor could Arethas draw his information from the chronicle, for when he wrote his scholium the chronicle did not yet exist. These observations lead but to one conclusion: both Arethas and the chronicle drew their information from the same source, now lost - a source which was written sometime between 805, the year during which Patras was rebuilt and raised to the status of a metropolis, and 932, the year during which Arethas wrote his scholium.

If, as seems probable, this source was a chronicle whose author had drawn his information from Menander, Evagrius, Theophylact Simocatta, and some other source which is now lost, the reason why some of the notices of the chronicle of Monemvasia are easily traceable to Evagrius, Menander,

and Theophylact Simocatta " would be explained. It seems improbable that the author of the chronicle of Monemvasia referred to these various works separately, drawing this notice from one, and that from another. Most probably he had before his eyes one work, and from that one work he compiled his own notices. There is some evidence that a historical work covering the period from

at least the middle of the sixth century to the second decade of the ninth century existed. In 1936 the Bulgarian scholar Dujcev published a fragment "Certain notices of the chronicle can be traced to Theophanes (see Lampros To acpi KTiocmq Mov(43avias xpoviKdv, pp. 111-113; Bees, op. cit., p. 81) but this may mean simply that Theophanes drew his information from the same source as the chronicle.

154 which deals with the last expedition of Nicephorus I in Bulgaria. This frag. ment was immediately studied by Henri Gregoire, who came to the conclusion that it is an extract of a contemporary work whose author was a historian of the first order, the same who wrote the fragment of the Scriptor

Incertus de Leone Armenio, and that this work was a "continuation" of another "of the type and in the style of a Malalas," which went as far as Leo the Armenian.4B It is not impossible that this work was the source of the chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas. It is significant that the only other place, besides the chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas, where a Skleros is mentioned as governor of the Peloponnesus

at the beginning of the ninth century is the Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio.40

This lost historical work, whatever its nature, was doubtless also the source from which the author of the chronicle of Monemvasia, the Iberikon version, drew the other important notice for which neither Lampros nor Bees was able to find another source. The notice concerns the reconstruction of the city of Lacedaemon by Nicephorus I and its settlement with a mixed` population, brought from other parts of the empire. Here is the text: T7fv SE AaKESal}wva 1r0Aty EK fa9pwV Kai ai"'P K6i EvotKivas Ev airrpi Xaov (TVILF KTOV Ka(Hpovs Te Kai Hpgtin 0* ovs Kai 'Apjeviovc Kai Xotlrovs dlro Stal6Opwv rolrwv TE Kai 1rAAEwv EatovvaX9EVras E1rto'KOTr71v Kai ai 9tS Tairrgv KaTEcrrgoe Kai vsroKao-Oa& Tb r&v IIaTp iv EBEO'1rttTEV. To translate:

"And he also built from the foundations the city of Lacedaemon, settled it with a mixed people, Caferoe,6° Thracesians,5' Armenians and others whom " Henri Grigoire, "Un Nouveau Fragment du 'Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio,"' in Byzantion, 11 (Brussels, 1936), 417 if. Grigoire shows also (ibid., p. 417) that Theophanes used this source. " Scriptor Incertus de Leone Bardae F., published together with the chronicle of Leo Grammaticus (Bonn, 1842), p. 336: Aiovra *uv trJ cyoptvov rot K)171pot, xai rroirpty avror trrparriyov tis Htaorovvrpov. Lampros (To Ytpi. Kriatwc MovtµjQaatac xpovuniv, p. 113, note 1) was not able to identify

the Caferoe and raised the question whether they were not the same as the Cabeiroe. The same suggestion is made by Vasiliev (op. cit., p. 857, note 2), but who were the Cabeiroe? Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn, p. 55) mentions the Cabeiroe among the troops of Thomas the Slavonian at the time of his revolt against Michael II, but Genesius (Bonn, p. 33) has Saberoe (Saberoe is the reading of the manuscript, but for some unexplained reason the editor changed it to Cabeiroe) and as Cenesius generally represented the better tradition one should read Saberoe in Theophanes Continuatus. Nicephorus Bryennius (Bonn, p. 29) mentions the Cabeiroe as among the troops of Mahmud of Ghazna (eleventh century), but the Cabeiroe of Bryennius are people of the Orus regions and by no means Christians. According to Theophanes, the people settled in Sclavina by Nicephorus were Christians. William

of Tyr (Hilt. Rerum Transmarin., Migne, P.L. 201: 221) calls the Oxus "Cobar," a name which may give the clue to the identification of the Cabeiroe, i.e., people of the region of Cobar, the inhabitants of Khwarizin. It is also possible, as suggested by both Lampros and Vasiliev, that the Cabeiroe were remnants of the Cabaroe, mentioned by Constantine Porphy-

rogenitus (De administrando imperio, p. 171 ff). In any case these Cabeiroe have nothing

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

155

he brought together from various places and cities, made it again a bishopric and put it under the jurisdiction of the metropolis of Patras" No source known says anywhere anything about the reconstruction and the repeopling of Lacedaemon by Nicephorus I, not even the Turin and the Koutloumousion versions of the chronicle of Monemvasia. And Arethas, of course, is silent on this point -a silence which is not hard to understand because Arethas restricted his remarks to his native city of Patras, its emigration during the reign of Maurice and its reconstruction during the reign of Nicephorus I. But the silence of the other sources by no means lessens the trustworthiness of this passage. It doubtless came from the work whence the author of the chronicle drew all his information, and that work is now

lost. Besides, there is nothing in this passage which is inconsistent with Byzantine practices. The transplanting of peoples from one region to another for reasons of state was frequently resorted to in Byzantium before and after the reign of Nicephorus I.62 Nicephorus himself repeopled Patras with Greeks whom he had brought from Calabria. About this action there can be no doubt, in view of the testimony of both Arethas and the chronicle. If Nicephorus rebuilt Patras there is no reason to doubt the other statement

of the chronicle that he also rebuilt Lacedaemon. The rebuilding of both Patras and Lacedaemon were measures doubtless taken by Nicephorus in order to keep the Slavonic tribes that still remained in the Peloponnesus in check. That Nicephorus sought to break the power of the Slavs by transplanting to their midst peoples from other regions of the empire is confirmed by Theophanes, who states that in 810 Nicephorus ordered the settlement of Christians from every province of the empire in the regions known as Sclavinias. Where these Sclavinians were located cannot be definitely determined, but in the light of what the chronicle of Monemvasia to do with the Caferoe of the Chronicle of Monemuasia- Caferoe is doubtless the result of a confusion, and it is not unlikely that the Kibyraeotae are meant. The author of the chronicle may have had-before him an abbreviated form of Kibyraeotae (Ki,6vpp or Kotpatp.) which he did not understand. For K$vpp. as an abbreviation for Kipvparirrat see V. Bene§evic, "Die byzantinischen Ranglisten," in Byzantinisch-neugriechische lahrbiicher, 5 (Athens, 1926/ 1927), 120. On the Cabeiroe see further C. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica. II. Sprachreste der Turkvolker in den Byzantinischen Quellen (Budapest, 1943), p. 132. ' The Thracesians were so called because they dwelled in the Thracesian theme. Consequently it is impossible to determine the racial origin of those who were transferred to Lacedaemon. But the Thracesian theme was deeply Hellenized, indeed almost Creek, and the people involved in the transfer, if not Creeks, were certainly Hellenized. There may also be a confusion in the case of the Armenian in that Armeniacs, i.e., people of the Armeniac theme, may be meant. In that case they may have been Creeks, for the Armeniac theme contained an important Creek element. But even if they were Armenians, they doubtless belonged to the Hellenized element of that very important people. For examples of such transfers of population see Charanis' review of Amantos' 'Ioropla rov Bvtavnvoo Kpdrovs, in Byzantion, 15: 471 f.

X 156

says it may very well be that one of them was in western and central Peloponnesus.°B

It would be interesting to know how and when the original source used by the chronicle and Arethas disappeared. It was known in 932, the yearduring which Arethas wrote his scholium, and, if the opinion put forward in this study about the date of the composition of the Iberikon version of the chronicle of Monemvasia is correct, it was known also at the end of the, tenth century or the beginning of the eleventh. It is not impossible that it served also as a source for the synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas to Alexius I. The statement of the patriarch that the Avars held the Peloponnesus for two hundred and eighteen years until they were defeated at the time of Nicephorus I appears also in the chronicle, and this number of years could be computed also from Arethas' scholium. Therefore, this number must have been in the original source whence the patriarch also took it. But, as the synodical letter of the patriarch was written later than either Arethas' scholium or the chronicle, it is not impossible that the patriarch drew his information from either the one or the other. Still he must have used another source too, for his story, related also by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, of how St. Andrew routed the Slavs, appears neither in the chronicle nor in Arethas' scholium. It is quite possible, of course, that all this was in the introduction of the chrysobull which Nicephorus I granted to the metropolitan of Patras when he raised the see of Patras to the status of a metropolis, Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), 1: 486: Tu& rp fro, (A.M., 6302, Alexandrian era), Nucjoopos . .. Xpwriavovs daoLK as ix aavros Biparoc iai ras YaAauvias ysvioOat npooira.sv. Vasiliev (op. cit., 422) interprets Sclavinia here to refer to Greece, but more especially to the Peloponnesus; and Hopf concedes (op. cit., 98-99) that Peloponnesus may have been included among the regions in which the new settlements were established. According to Arethas' scholium, Patras was rebuilt and settled with Greeks in 805, a date also confirmed by the chronicle of Monemvasia, for it says that Patras was rebuilt when Tarasius was still patriarch. Tarasius died in 806. No date is given about the rebuilding of Lacedaemon, but if the Sclavinia of Theophanes is taken to refer to Greece, the rebuilding of Lacedaemon must have taken place in 810. Hopf suggests that the siege of Patras by the Slavs as described by Porphyrogenitus (De administrardo imperic, 217 ff.) may have been caused by an attempt to establish Creek colonies in their midst and refers to the quoted passage from Theophanes in support of his suggestion. Hopf also places the siege of Patras by the Slavs in 807 or not long after. This would mean that the Slavs, following their first defeat and the resettlement of Patras by Creeks, made an effort to regain the city and called the Arabs to their aid, as is related by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. A siege of Patras by the Slavs after that city had been resettled by Greeks would explain the statement of Porphyrogenitus that at the time of this siege Palms was inhabited by Greeks. Moreover, the attack of the Slavs against the newly built city of Patras must have convinced Nicephorus that the Hellenic element in the Peloponnesus needed reinforcement, hence his order to settle there Christians brought from the other parts of the empire.

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

157

and the patriarch Nicholas, who was acquainted with that chrysobull, may have drawn his information from it." Not until the first half of the fifteenth century is there another trace which seems to indicate that the source, or at least a corrupted form of it, used by Arethas for his scholium and by the author of the Iberikon version of the chronicle of Monemvasia, still existed. This was a petition addressed to patriarch Joseph II in 1429 by the metropolitan of Monemvasia, Cyril,

and written by no other than Isidore of Kiev, who, after the council of Florence, remained faithful to the union and became a cardinal." The petition was occasioned by a dispute between the metropolitan of Monemvasia and the metropolitan of Corinth concerning the jurisdiction over certain episcopal sees in the Peloponnesus, namely Maine and Zemena.6e The question was raised concerning the circumstance under which these bishoprics had come under the jurisdiction of Monemvasia and whether these circumstances still justified their retention by Monemvasia or whether they should not be returned to Corinth, to which they originally belonged. In writing this petition Isidore made full use of official and unofficial documents, in"According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De administrando imperio, p. 219) Nicephorus granted to the church of St. Andrew of Patras the defeated Slavs together with their families and property, apparently in the capacity of serfs, and confirmed the grant by a sigillum. It is not unlikely that in the introduction of the document there was a brief summary of the history of Patras and its relation to the Slavs down to the ressettlement of the city by Creeks. In the later period, brief historical summaries were often included in imperial chrysobulls granted to cities. See for instance the chrysobull that Andronius II granted to the metropolis of Monemvasia in 1301. This cluysobull has been recently reedited by St. Binon, "L'Histofre et ]a legende de deux chrysobulles d'Andronic II en faveur de Monembasie," Echos d'Orient, 37 (Paris, 1938), 310 if. The one published by Miklosich and Muller (Acta et diplomata greece, 5: 161) is not genuine. This document was published by Lampros in 1915 without indicating the author, (Avo &va4opal µrirporro)frov Moveµ/3ao(ac rrpnc rov aarpsipxriv, in Neos 'E,Llrivo sv, av, 12: 272318). Larnpros recognized the value of the document and promised an exhaustive commentary, but never carried out his promise. C. Mercati identified the author of this document as Isidore of Kiev and showed that it was composed in 1429: G. Mercati, Scritti d'Isidoro iI Cardinale Ruteno et codici a lui appartenuti the si conservano nella biblioteca Apostolica Vatican (Studi e Testi, 46; Rome, 1926), p. 8. Since then the value of this document has been generally recognized. See V. Laurent, "La Liste episcopale du synodicon de Monembasie,"

Pchos d'Orient, vol. 33 (Paris, 1933), p. 152, note 1. Binot (op. cit., 287) writes concerning the document: "La seconde, de 1429, meriterait un commentaire approfondi. S'il est vrai

que la prudence doit presider a ]'interpretation de cette lettre, qui est un plaidoyer plus qu'une page d'histoire, elle constitue un document historique de premiere qualite. Son auteur, disert et habile, a pulse aux meilleures sources: it cite pole-mdle et sans ordre apparent, chrysobulles, prostagmata et sigilha patriarcaux; ... it recount A d'anciens manuscrits, I des histoires et meme a des lettres de Guillaume de Villehardouin. La valeur demonstrative de ]a

requete est indfniable." The editors of Byzantinische Zeitschrift (24: 269) announced the publication of this text with the following remark: "Ediert aus Cod. Vatic. Palat. 226 die fur die Geschichte des Peloponnes Zeitalter der Palaiologen wichtigen Texte." As for the metropolitan of Monemvasia for whom this document was written, see Laurent, op. cit., p. 151 f. "Concerning this dispute between Corinth and Monemvasia see Binot, op. cit., p. 286 f.

158

cluding histories and letters. He was particularly anxious to prove that the capture of Corinth first by the Avars during the reign of Maurice and then by the Latins as a result of the fourth crusade had no relation to the elevation of Monemvasia to the status of a metropolis. Here is his text concerning the capture of Corinth by the Avars and the foundation of Monemvasia: AvoLV Tolvin O cipovµev(ov d)u ucwY Tr1S KOpLVOOU µ(7a Tr)v TO1V 'Pw LaL-V E7ruKparUiV T1p

IIEAo7rowi oav, µtas ph' Irt rmv ilµfpwv 'Iouartvtavoli rou µeydAoi, os & airra Kai rov ire-Lie icOµdr varfpov ETCLxLae- KaT' auTOY yap TptrOV fKUBLKU)V )' I(JV 7'6v 'IaTpoV aLaTEpaacvr w, KoTrL)'dpoUc,

O rrrtyipovc Kai OuvtydpovS Tourovc (itvdpa.Cov, To µev iv rourrov yevos Muaiav ri v avw Kai Havvoriar 80V KaTESpaµEV, OVr7LyapOL SE 84-V XEppov1 crov Kai. r¢ 47?S "Eftpov Tdvru µEXpt rmv r;)S KWVfTavrtwov

Kai Aa.Aµarlav Kat TA µeXpcs ES 'Iivtov KOA7rOV EK µ(4s Ei 7raaav Kai rrly iv 'EAA71S7i'ii'r

7rpoairrdcw, o ,c 8,, Kai U.VEXatTlae BfAtadptos, KaraarpaTT7y7)edp.Evos Kai

aurovs, Owiyapei

& MaKESoviav oral O" ci raALav Kai 'EAAaSa Kai TO i&ro®©Epµo7ruAmv A7lt17dµEV0L 7raVra Kai JdXpi KoptvOov 4 O c7avres, et)!ov 7rapaxpi)pa T71V 7riALv scat ai Tofloe. 7raprtarmv Se To )GEV Oaov p

Kal ayEAatov A v EcdvotS Kolvbv &KOVaavrec aALUity, TOLS Eµ7rfplE0L,1µ . vole rj AaREO011ROVL Ral f7ravewr7)KdaLV aurdpKms irpos4vyovres ap(OL, rotro S'6V EL71 uiU ov TO IIap6CVlov f/pos, Talc lKelvoo pp

p

XapdSPats KOi 701S aT7?A0.GOLS K0.L TOLS flapaBpols EYK0.TaOfSUKOTES, 0.VTO4 TYKE ELpUa0.V iKCLVOY

roU flapfaptxoi pcliµaTOS, Kai, acLtoVrES ETL TO 7raAalov EKEtvo rmv AaKc vwv ovopa, TtdKCOVas drri AaKOivoiv iaurous inrofap$ap'C ovres AEyouoty. Ot S' av iruyXavov iµiropMov ayovrES iTl, &vpa, 4I0aaaVTES irapa TO

E7rLVELOV Si' T(W 1TapTuLTwV 1KEivO yvvaL iv a'.µa Kat rEKvo c, TA71Puwarrer

Tas oO )Y avri v vans, Tapa YLKeXtav Mew 7rpOSOKELAaV7fs SE fig MEaarjvr)v, (n.71Qav iKClat, Ral DEy.EVTaS aUro;s O µaKpos ef7re Xp,Dvooc, $ap,Qapioavras Kai aurous rovvopa of Se c6y(VELTTCpOL ToVT01r

no! 77)s Aap7rpas riX,)s Kal TNV CiMU0V(,WV, pa96VTES Ta Tfi1Y Koplv8i uv EKELVa S71 Ta 7raYXCAETa Rai

aVToi &LaavrCS µii Td oµoLa K&lrL ao%aly avrois yivirral, Tpos Movfµfaaiav (is EZXov iXri,povv e686 OAc, TOOL, V7)aiov ETLKELµEVov TJ AaKO)VLK7f, vi uiov UAAov K(l ETtµr)KES Kai a7rrTOµaw ELUTES Tily, p

Kai Tis ©0Aa.Trgs LKaY

6CPKeiµEVOV Kai qSLAOVEGKOLIV rils TpOS rov cL OE pa 7rposapaAAaa0o1 Rai

rapaiFtaiew avrov p4AAov $oKECV Kai TavTaXOOBEV 7EPLELA7)µp.EV0V Kp7)pVOLS 6p9IOLS Rat aaaTOLS Rat

ram OxESaV TOLS UT' OUpaYOV aftaTOV 7E KO.L (60FLXflp7)Tov, TLUV 7rpox0.7-ci.Xi7Aortiv Kai JOYWV area

T1ryXdVOV, TO pEXPC TOTE µ,1SEp1av iaX1)KOS OLK71aLV, &)X o S[ Tou Tl)S MOVfµ)Qaai:as µcTaAaXt V

ovoµaros. T10

rOLYUV i'EXcopfl, OvyaSas Kai AalcfSaLµovious Qµa Ovydcr KW Kopu'9 ots Tpoeevovs

yiyvwOaL Kal TOUTIOy U7r080XSZS

7)

TOP iTLaKOTOv cr4 i)v £ retrouS EyKaTOLKLtftV auTf TOP TAaMT0.

TAdv77TaS;

Following is a translation: Of the two known captures of Corinth after the Roman domination of the Peloponnesus, one took place during the reign of Justinian the Great, who, on account of it, afterwards fortified the isthmus there. For in his time three Scythian tribes, called Cotrigurs, Utigurs, and Unigurs, crossed the Danube. One of these tribes overran by one attack upper Mysia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia as far as the Ionian sea, while the Utigurs invaded all of Thrace and the Chersonese on the Hellespont and all the territory within the Hebrus as far as the suburbs of Constantinople. However, Belisarius, deceiving them by a stratagem, checked and cut them to pieces. But the Unigurs, ravaging Macedonia and Thessaly and Greece and the territory beyond Thermopylae, arrived as far as Corinth and straightway and with one blow captured the city. When the lower and common element among the Spartans heard of this conquest, a conquest which

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

159

was common [i.e., important] to them, they fled in sufficient numbers into the high mountains which envelop Lacedaemon, especially mount Parthenion, and crept into its gullies, caves, and hollows and thus drew themselves away from the barbarous flood.

And they still preserve that ancient name of Lacones, but speaking barbarously they call themselves Tzacones instead of Lacones. Those on the other hand who were engaged in commerce went to Gytheion - that was the seaport of the Spartans - with their wives and children and, boarding their ships, speeded towards Sicily, and disembarking in Messene, settled in the neighborhood and in the course of time they too barbarized their name and came to be called Demenitae. But the nobler, the brilliantly fortunate, and the more prosperous among the Spartans, having learned of the great difficulties of the Corinthians and fearing lest the same thing might happen to them, straightway, as they were, proceeded with all haste to Monemvasia, a small peninsula located in Laconia. For they saw that this peninsula was high and long and cut off from every side and situated well above the sea, rivaling the sky in height and seeming to touch it. It was surrounded by steep and impassable cliffs which made it inaccessible to, and unassailable by, any being under the sun with the exception of those only who happened to occupy it first. It was neither inhabited until then, nor did it have the name of Monemvasia. How was it possible then for the Lacedaemonians who were

themselves refugees at the same time as the Corinthians to be the succorers and receivers of the latter or for their bishop to settle them in it [the Peloponnesus], a wanderer, as it were, settling wanderers?

A comparison of the text of Isidore with that of the Iberikon version of the chronicle of Monemvasia reveals certain important differences between the two. There are a number of elements which are in the chronicle, as for instance the emigration of the people of Patras to Calabria, the settlement of the Corinthians in the island of Aegina, the emigration of the Argives to Orobe, and others which do not appear in: the text of Isidore. On the other hand, while the story of the emigration of the Laconians is substantially the same as that of the chronicle, the text of Isidore has a number of new elements. The Spartans who went to Sicily were principally merchants; they disembarked at Messene. Parthenion is named as one of the mountains into which the peasants among the Spartans fled." But where the two texts differ

most radically is in the date of, and the circumstance under which, the events which they both relate took place. And this raises the question whether Isidore did not use a different and a less accurate source than the one used by Arethas and the author of the chronicle. Isidore puts the invasion of Greece and the consequent dispersion of ° One is tempted to wonder whether Gytheion, mentioned by Isidore as the port whence the Spartans left for Sicily, was actually in his source or whether he did not add it himself in order to display his learning. His wording, ivivaov Se rwv laapnastirv &Jvo (r6Bauv), differs Very little from the wording of Strabo, (8.3,12) in speaking of the same port: rvBlov, Too rr7 1nap*'Is 1,nvyim ,. Isidore is known to have possessed a codex of Strabo. See Remigio

Sabbadini, "La traduzione guariniana di Strabone," in 11 libro e la Stampa, n.s., 3 (1909), 14. 1 we this information to my friend Milton Anastos.

X 160

the Peloponnesians in the reign of Justinian. The invasion which he describes has certain elements in common with that undertaken by the Cotrigur chief Zabergan in 558 as related by Agathias.°B But between Agathias' account and that of Isidore there are a number of very important differences. According to Agathias, Zabergan divided his forces into two groups; one of these groups he sent against Greece; the other he directed against the Thracian Chersonese. The latter group, however, was in turn also divided, with one section charged with the capture of the Chersonese, while the other was led against Constantinople by Zabergan himself. The three groups were separately defeated, that under Zabergan by Belisarius, who used a clever stratagem, that at the Chersonese by Germanus, and that which had been sent against Greece by the garrison at Thermopylae. The statements of Isidore that one of the three groups into which the Cotrigurs were divided overran Mysia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia as far as the Ionian sea, and that as a consequence of this invasion Justinian fortified the Isthmus of Corinth finds no confirmation in Agathias. And as for Greece the two texts are contradictory. Agathias definitely states that the Cotrigurs were stopped at Thermopylae and were not able to penetrate into Greece," but, according to Isidore's account, they swarmed over Greece and captured the city of Corinth. Obviously Agathias was not directly Isidore's source, for the invasion which the latter describes is made up of elements drawn not only from different sources, but belonging to different invasions.

Certainly there are elements in the account of Isidore which seem to refer to the great invasion of 539 as related by Procopius.80 Procopius calls the barbarians who were responsible for that invasion Huns; other Byzantine writers refer to them as Bulgars.61 Breaking into the Balkan peninsula, they plundered Illyricum from the Ionian sea to the suburbs of Constantinople; stormed the Thracian Chersonese; and, invading Greece, bypassed Thermopylae, overran the country, and "destroyed," says Procopius, "almost all the Greeks except the Peloponnesians." The three regions where, according to Procopius, the barbarians operated in this invasion were Illyricum to the Ionian sea; Thrace, including the Chersonese; and Greece. These are precisely the regions which, according to Isidore, were devastated by the ®Agathias, History (Bonn, 1828), p. 301 ff.; J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1923), 2: 304 if. 6° Agathias, op. cit., p. 330. of Be ova Av 'EA.,ldSa aptirepov EoraApivot, oLSiv TL 64taMiy rov Sta rrty 4ipaopdv rwv iKeioe iSpvo8at reraypivwv Pwpaiwv.

ilpaoav, pijre rw 'IaOp;a apoo/altivres, µ,7i ye ri7v apyv Fas 0epµoa1Aas

. Procopius, De bello persico, II.4; cf. De bello gothico III.14; 111.40 where invasions of the Slavs are recorded. Theophanes, op. cit., p. 217. Malalas (p. 437), like Procopius, calls them Huns. Vasiliev (op. cit., p. 408) calls them Bulgars.

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

161

Cotrigurs, Utigurs, and Unigurs. However, Procopius does not say in this

passage that the barbarians took Corinth or that Justinian fortified the isthmus as a result of this invasion. And neither Agathias nor Procopius mentions the Unigurs in connection with the invasions which both of them describe. There seems to be little doubt that Isidore confused three different invasions, that of the Bulgars`of 539, that of the Cotrigurs of 558, and that of the Avars during the reign of Maurice.

How is Isidore's confusion to be explained? It is quite possible that Isidore, for some motive, wanted to place the foundation of Monemvasia in the reign of Justinian, hence the invasion as a result of which Moncmvasia

was founded had to be in the reign of Justinian. It must be remembered that the text in which this account of Isidore occurs was a petition addressed to the patriarch in defense of the rights of the see of Monemvasia, a petition in which every effort was made to glorify Monemvasia. The text is based on good sources and is on the whole accurate, but it is not entirely free from errors. Besides the confusion of the invasions there is another serious error: it is the attribution of the liberation of Monemvasia from the Franks and its

promotion to the status of a metropolis to Andronicus II.82 It is hard to believe that Isidore, who in the whole text displays exceptional knowledge of documents, histories, and letters that relate to Monemvasia, did not know that the liberator of Monemvasia was not Andronicus II, but Michael VIII. It seems rather that he willfully committed the error because he wanted to dissociate the promotion of Monemvasia to the rank of a metropo-

lis from Michael VIII, who from the point of view of the church was not quite acceptable, and to associate it with Andronicus II, whose piety and subservience to the church were well known. Similarly, the motive for placing the invasion as a result of which Monemvasia was founded in the reign of Justinian was that Isidore wanted to associate the foundation of Monemvasia with the reign of Justinian the Great. This explanation would account for the error in the date of the foundation of Monemvasia but not for the confusion of the different invasions of the sixth century. Did Isidore read Procopius, Agathias, and a history of the Avar invasion and then drew a composite account of the invasion as a result of which Monemvasia was founded? Not likely. More likely he drew his information from one source, a source where the confusion of the invasions and the wrong date of the foundation of Monemvasia already existed. That he used a source other than Agathias and Procopius is shown by his state0 Lampros, Avo Liva.opai n rpanoAirou MovcµQaoias rpoc r4 orarp,apxgv (p. 290) : 'AAA. X00-4 7/V -j, 1* A6TLvun)s s,raAAL'eavrt T1iV Mov /auh6v 8ovActac Es p17TpOAOALV TETL'L,7QBaL. Kai Tis ot'Tos ir: 'O advr' c c Kai OTCppos TWV SOyparmv ucaAriviac [inr ppaxocJ, o SccTepoc TLUc IIaAatoAoywv, o rzirp 'Av8povuoc.

X 162

ment that Justinian fortified the isthmus of Corinth as the result of the capture of Corinth, and by his attribution of the invasion of Greece to the Unigurs. That the isthmus of Corinth was fortified by Justinian is known from another work of Procopius," but there is nothing in that account that would explain Isidore's statement that the isthmus was fortified after the capture of Corinth by the barbarians. Indeed nowhere does Procopius say that Corinth was taken by the barbarians. Nor does Agathias or Procopius attribute the invasion of Greece to the Unigurs.84 Agathias has Cotrigurs, and Procopius has Huns. It seems quite probable, therefore, that Isidore used a source which had already deviated from the true tradition in so far as the chronology and the order of the events were concerned but which contained elements of whose historical accuracy there can be no doubt. To these elements belongs Isidore's account of the dispersion of the Peloponnesians, an account which must have been originally drawn from the same source that Arethas and the author of the chronicle used. Isidore's account, therefore, goes back indirectly to the source of Arethas and the author of the chronicle, but whether that source still existed at the time Isidore wrote cannot be determined. Isidore's account does prove, however, that the tradition of the dispersion of the Peloponnesians and the emigration of some to Italy as a result of the invasions of the barbarians in the sixth century was known in the fifteenth century and was accepted as a fact by the educated.

Before the publication of Arethas' scholium and Isidore's text, the chronicle of Monemvasia was the only source known which said definitely that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus in the sixth century; that, in settling there, they exterminated many of the ancient inhabitants; and that many among the latter fled and settled elsewhere. This fact may have justified to some extent the skepticism with which this chronicle was regarded by most

scholars. But with the publication of Arethas' scholium and Isidore's text this skepticism has no longer any foundation, for virtually every °Procopius, De aedificiis, IV.2. It is likely that Justinian fortified the Isthmus not long after the invasion of 539, but Procopius does not say so. See J. B. Bury, op. cit., vol. II, p. 308, note 4. On these fortifications see H. Megaw, "On the Date of the Fortifications of Corinth," The Annual of the British School of Athens, 32 (1931/32), 69-79. Megaw gives no exact date. The Unigurs (ovviyapot, ovviyoipot, ovvvovyoipob ovoyoopos) were known to the Byzantines

in the fifth and sixth centuries, but no known source speaks of an invasion of the empire by them in the sixth century. It is not unlikely, however, that elements of this people joined the Cotrigurs in their great invasion of 558. Menander (op. cit., p. 202) calls the followers of Zabergan "Huns." More probably they are the Huns of Procopius who invaded the empire in 539, called also Bulgarians by other sources. In a text of the early eighth century we read iOvovc rrv Ouvvoyodpwv fouAydpaw. In other words, there were certain Bulgars who were also called ovvvovyovpo,. Julius Moravcsik, 'Zur Geschichte der Onoguren," in Ungarische Jahr-

biicher, 10 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1930), 67. Moravcsik considers this people as the ancestors of the later Hungarians. See also Moravcsik, "Les Sources byzantines de 1'histoire hongroise," Byzantion, 9 (Brussels, 1934), 666-673. Also Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II: 189.

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

163

notice contained in the chronicle is confirmed by another source. Lampros,

writing in 1884, said that "the basis of the chronicle ... is historical and old," but at some later date, perhaps at the time the Turin and Koutlou-

mousion versions were written, there were introduced into the original

version "mythical accounts about the emigration and return of the Peloponnesians." 05 Years later virtually the same view was expressed by Bees.°5 That was because neither Lampros nor Bees was able to find an-

other source that confirmed the chronicle. The discovery of Arethas' scholium rendered the opinion of both Lampros and Bees obsolete. Kougeas,

in publishing Arethas' scholium, remarked that the scholium of Arethas refutes the view of Lampros "according to which what is said in the chronicle about the emigration and dispersion of the Peloponnesians at the time of Maurice and their return at the time of Nicephorus was considered to be tales and made up additions" of later writers."T With the objections of Lampros disposed of there remains virtually nothing in the chronicle that cannot be confirmed by other sources, and it can now be affirmed in unmistakable and unambiguous terms that the chronicle of Monemvasia is absolutely trustworthy and constitutes one of the most precious sources on the Avar and Slav penetration of Greece during the reign of Maurice. From this observation there follow certain inescapable conclusions. It can no longer be doubted that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus during the reign of Maurice; that, in settling, they exterminated part of the ancient population and forced others to disperse and emigrate. It is no longer possible either to interpret the term "Greece" as used by Evagrius and Menander to mean anything else than Greece proper, or to discuss the question of the hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy in the seventh century without some reference to the Greek settlements which the Peloponnesians who fled before the Avars and Slavs established there. But it by no means follows that the Greek element completely disappeared from the Peloponnesus and that the modern Greeks are Christians of Slavonic descent in whose veins flows "not a single drop of real pure Hellenic blood." °B For the source, on whose authority it must be said that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus in the "Lampros, To srcpi ,crlocwc Movcµflaoias xpovaov, p. 128. Hopf (op. cit., 85; 107-108) had already called the account of the chronicle concerning the emigration of the Peloponnesians a myth, a confusion with the Creek colonizations of Sicily and Italy in ancient times or

possibly with the Albanian migration of the fourteenth century. HopE thought that the chronicle had been written in the sixteenth century. " Bees, op. cit., p. 104. " Kougeas, op. cit., p. 478.

" Fallmerayer, Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea wahrend des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, 1830), I, iii-xiv, as quoted by A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, I (Madison, Wisconsin, 1928), 213-214.

X 164

sixth century, says also that they did not penetrate the eastern part of it, which was settled and remained settled by Greeks. But this is not all. When

under Irene, but more especially under Nicephorus, the authority of the imperial government was reestablished in the Peloponnesus as a whole, the Hellenic element which had remained there was powerfully reinforced and the Slavonic influence began gradually to decline. The most important step

in the realization of this end was the resettlement of certain parts of the Peloponnesus, such as Patras and Lacedaemon, with new elements brought from other parts of the empire - elements some of which were pure Greek, like those who were brought from Calabria, others less pure, but doubtless hellenized. Constantinople saved the Greek race in Greece itself, and among the emperors who contributed most in the accomplishment of this end Nicephorus I must henceforth be given first place.

POST SCRIPTUM

When this work was composed I did not have access to a number of publications which had appeared in Europe during the war or immediately after. Additional publications have appeared since. Among these publications the work by Max Vasmer is no doubt the most significant.' A book of 350 pages, it is devoted primarily to the examination of the etymology of toponyms in Greece in an effort to determine the distribution and extent of the Slavonic settlements. There is one chapter dealing with the literary sources, but no mention is made of the chronicle of Monemvasia or of the scholium of Arethas; the latter, of course, gives the former its significance. Very interesting, however, is the distribution of the toponyms in the Peloponnesus which Vasmer considers as Slavic. This distribution is as follows: ' Corinth 24, Argolis 18, Achaia 95, Elis 35, Triphylia 44, Arcadia 94, Missenia 43, Laconia 81. These figures confirm what the chronicle of Monemvasia says, that the eastern part of the Peloponnesus was least affected by the Slavonic penetration. Vasmer accepts the view that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus as early as the sixth centurya Shortly after the publication of Vasmer's work two studies dealing with the same general subject appeared in Greece. The one was by C. Amantos; the other by Dion. Zakythinos.' The work of Amantos is actually a review of Vasmer's book, where the reviewer makes some contributions of his own. 'Max Vasmer, Die Slaven in Criechenland (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jahrgang 1941. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 12) (Berlin, 1941). ' Ibid., 317. Ibid., 14 f. C. Amantos, Oi FAdfloi cis rity 'EAAd8a, in Bywantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbucher, 17 (1944), 210-221. 'Dion. Zakythinos, Ot Ua/3ot iv'EAAd& (Athens, 1945).

X

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA

185

These contributions are almost wholly philological in character and do not affect our study here. It may be noted, however, that Amantos still holds to the theory that when Evagrius and Menander speak of the devastation of Greece by the Avars and Slavs toward the end of the sixth century, by Greece they mean not Greece proper, but the possessions of the empire in the Balkan peninsula. Accordingly, as against Vasmer, he denies that Slavs settled in Greece toward the end of the sixth century. Of the work of Zakythinos I have written at length elsewhere." It is a good book, based upon the sources and the most scholarly of modern works. To both the chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas Zakythinos devotes considerable discussion and comes to the conclusion that they were drawn from the same source, a source, however, whose "original core must be sought, far from the written tradition, in the oral richness of the Peloponnesian people," and consequently "the information according to which the Peloponnesus was subjected definitely by the Slavs in the year 588, lacks any significance." In the long review which I devoted to this book I tried to show why these conclusions are not acceptable. Zakythinos himself seems to have changed his views in another study which he has published more recently. He writes: "Nevertheless, if we have some diffi-

culty in admitting that the chronicle of Monemvasia 'constitutes one of the most precious sources of the history of the Byzantine empire,' we are, on the other hand, disposed to acknowledge a historical value in certain of its parts. Despite its legendary presentation, the information concerning the emigration en masse and the internal movement of the population, constitute a solid historical core." T

The chronicle of Monemvasia was the subject of a dissertation submitted for the doctorate to the Faculty of Philology of the University of Athens and published in 1947.8 This book consists of two parts. The one is a study of the chronicle of Monemvasia, its various versions, its sources, nature, date of its composition, and its meaning. The other, and by far the longer, deals with the problem of the etymology of the term Tsacones. For a detailed and critical account of this book I refer the reader to the long review which I devoted to it.8 The question of the Slavonic settlements in the Peloponnesus was also treated by the well-known Greek scholar, S. P. Kyriakides.'° The study of ' See the post scriptum to my article, "Nicephorus I. the Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.D.)," Byzantina-Metabyzantina, 1 (1946), 88-92. See also Byzantinoslavica, 10 (1949), 94-96.

' Dion. Zakythinos, "La population de la moree byzantin," L'Hellenisme Contemporain, 28me s6rie, 38.e Annee (Athens, 1949), 23 f. ' Sp. A. Pagoulatos, 01 Taaxwyec e,, , , AEpt,n-,'g WS Tic M°Vf/tftdalaC xpovuov (Athens, 1947).

' Byzantinoslavica, 10 (1949), 92-94. "S. P. Kyrialddes, BeKav7Wai McA&w. Ol VAufiot ev II Aonovv+pft (Salonica, 1947).

X 166

Kyriakides is, to a considerable extent, a study of the sources. On two of these sources the author lays particular stress; (1) the passage in the De Administrando of Constantine Porpltyrogenitus concerning the revolt of the Slavs and their attack upon Patras during the reign of Nicephorus 1; and (2) the famous synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas (1084-1111) to the emperor Alexius Comnenus. On the basis of these two sources he builds an extremely ingenious hypothesis by means of which he seeks to invalidate as historical sources both the chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas. To this book of Kyriakides I have devoted a special study. I show there that the arguments he uses to bolster his conclusions have no validity." Four other works on the subject of the Slavonic settlements in Greece need to be mentioned: A book by Alexander N. Diomedes, the well-known Greek financier and politician who in recent years has shown considerable interest in the history of Byzantium and has made some important contributions; this book, which came out in 1946, is a useful summary of the question as that question is treated in Greece.12 A study by D. Georgakas in which the author takes issue with Vasmer on the etymology of certain toponyms.18 The essay on the history of the Peloponnesus which Georg Stadtmiiller contributed to a general work dealing with that peninsula which was published in Athens during the war, for the German soldiers." Stadtmiiller accepts the view that Slavonic settlements were established in the Peloponnesus during the reign of Maurice and that the power of the Slavs there was not broken until the beginning of the ninth century. And finally the capital work on Philippi and eastern Macedonia published by Paul Lemerle. Lemerle's discussion of the question of Slavonic settlements in Greece is relegated to a long footnote and his treatment is not systematic. He contents himself with posing the problem, citing some of the sources and discussing the position of modern Greek scholars!' That Slavs established themselves in the Peloponnesus he does not doubt, but expresses no

definite view as to the date of their coming. He mentions neither the chronicle of Monemvasia nor the scholium of Arethas. "Byzantinoslavica, X (1949), 254-259.

" A. N. Diomedes, Buravnvai MrAiraa. W. Al Ua$ aai ,rSpopai cis ri v 'EAA6Ea Kal 4 WO u ucj rob Bvjavriou (Athens, 1946).

" D. Georgakas, "Beitrage zur Deutung als Slavisch Erldarter Ortsnamen,° Byzant. Zeitschrift, 41 (1942), 351-381. " Der Peloponnes. Landschaft. Geschichte. Kiinststiitten. Von Soldaten fiir Soldaten. Herausgegeben von einem Generalkommando (Athens. 1944), 42-159. " Paul Lemerle, Philippes et la Macedoine orientale d tepoque chri tienne et byzantine (Paris, 1945), p. 116, n. S.

XI ON THE QUESTION OF THE SLAVONIC SETTLEMENTS IN GREECE DURING THE MIDDLE AGES he question of the Slavonic settlements in Greece has become once more the subject of considerable discussion, especially in Greece. Post war conditions no doubt have been, to some extent, responsible for the revival of interest in this subject, but the publication of several studies in no way related to the international scene, but motivated by purely scientific intentions has also contributed.

T

Thus an article by C. Amantos' was provoked by the publication of Vasmer's monumental work.2 The same work occasioned a study by Georgakas,1 while Zakythinos' excellent book,4 if samewhat permeated by national sentiments intensified by the post war conditions had its incentive, at least in part, in the publications of other scholars. The same is true of the monograph with the well known Greek scholar, S. P. Kyriakides, devoted to the question of the Slavonic settlements in the Peloponnesus.b Kyriakides published his work in response to a study by me, and for this reason I shall make his book the subject of this brief dissertation.

The study to which Kyriakides objected and as a result of which composed his own work, was published by me in 19466 and was based on another, more fundamental study, which unfortunately has not yet appeared, but which should appear shortly.' The earlier and still unpublished, but basic, study deals with the Chronicle of Monemvasia which is shown to be one of the most valuable sources of the history of Greece proper during the early Middle Ages. The study was made on the basis of all literary material available among which the most precious is a scholium of Arethas which, although published by Kougeas in 1912, remained buried among the miscellaneous notes of the Neos Hellenomnemone and, as a consequence, had not yet been fully utilized. r C. Asnantos, Oi. EXdPOi Els ti)v 'EU.d&a. Byz.-Neugr. Jahrbiicher 17 (1944) 210-221. 2 M. Wasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland. Abb. der Preussischen Akad. der Wissensch. Jahrg. 1941, Phil: hiss. Masse, Nr. 12. 8 D. Georgakas, Beitrige zur Deutung alt Slavisch erl:ldrter Ortsnamen. Byz. Zeitschr. 41 (1942)

351-381. 4 D. Zakythinos, Ot E)xI ai kv `E1JLd8r. Athens, 1945. 6 Sp. P. Kyriakides, Bu ovnvai MEAEtat: Oi IMP 1 ev rlckonoyY' oo . Salonica, 1947. a P. Charahis, Nicephorus 1, the Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A. D.). Byzantina-Metabyzantina 1 (1946) 86-92. It is to appear in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5. a S. Kougeas, 'Eat zoO xaAou you xQovmo0 'I1e(A TICS xrCovuC Tiffs MoveJLAaaiuc,'." NEoc 'Ek)Lgvo1tv, cow 9 (Athens, 1912) 413-80.

XI Slavonic Settlements in Greece

255

Drawing upon the results of my study of the Chronicle of Monemvasia, I published two articles. In the one, I pointed out that the strengthening of the Greek element in Sicily and southern Italy, a development which manifested itself in the course of the seventh century, was brought about by the influx of Greek speaking refugees, but not from the East at the time of the Persian and Arabic conquests, as is generally believed, but from Greece, particularly from the Peloponnesus, during, and as a result of, the great Avar and Slav invasions of the late sixth century.° In the other, I expressed the view, which I consider to be a fact, that the defeat of the Slavs in the western Peloponnesus during the reign of Nicephorus I was immediately followed by a forced and systematic settlement there of Greeks drawn from southern Italy and other parts of the empire in order to strengthen the Greek element which had survived the Slav invasion and thus bring about the absorption of the Slavs.10'It was the second of these articles - he did not know the first - which aroused Kyriakides to write his book. Most politely he praises the method and skill with which I composed that article, but makes important reservations concerning the significance which I attributed to the various texts I used. His book is the result of his attempt to substantiate these reservations and thus invalidate my conclusions. The task which Professor Kyriakides set for himself was largely philological, for what he has tried to do was to discredit the testimony of the Chronicle of Monemvaria and the scholium of Arethas by showing the spuriousness of their source. His study, therefore, is, to a considerable extend, a study of the sources. On two of these sources he lays particular stress: (1) the passages in the De administrando of Constantine Porphyrogennitus concerning the revolt of the Slavs and their attack upon Patras during the reign of Nicephorus I;11 and (2) the famous synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas (1084-1111) to the Emperor Alexius Comnenus.12 On the basis of these two sources he builds an extremely ingenious hypothesis the effect of which is to invalidate both the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas as historical sources. His argument runs as follows: The contents of the synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas derive from the imperial chrysobulls issued to the metropolitan of Patras by emperors of the tenth and eleventh centuries. These chrysobulls ultimately go back to the one which was issued to the metropolitan of the same &urch by Leo VI. The chrysobull of Leo was in turn based on another chrysobull, supposedly issued by Nicephorus I, but in reality composed by the metropolitan of Patras in order to support the rights and privileges which he claimed for his see. This pious forgery must have included also the legend, reported by Porphyrogennitus, of how Saint Andrew, the patron saint of the metro" P. Charanis, On the Question of she Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages. The American Hist. Rev. 52 (1946) 74-87. 1O Charanis, Nicephorus 1. sl Constantine Porphyrogennitus, De administrando imperio. Bonn, 1840, 217 ff.

tam canonici quam civilis, tomi duo.... ex varii. Europae 12 J. Leunclavius Juris Asiaeque bibliothecis eruti. Frankfort, 1596, 278 f.

XI 256

polis of Patras, brought about the defeat of the Slavs around Patras during the reign of Nicephorus I and perhaps also the story concerning the emigration of

the Lacedaemonians and the people of Patras as well as the rebuilding of Sparta. With this as a nucleus some resident of Patras composed a brief histor-

ical treatise to which he added, as an introduction, the story, drawn from Evagrius and others, about the invasion of the Peloponnesus by the Avaro-Slavs during the reign of Maurice. This brief historical treatise was the source of both the scholium of Arethas and the Chronicle of Monemvatra. Accordingly, as both ultimately derive from a forgery, their testimony has no validity. The argument of Kyriakides, however, does not stand careful examination. It is built on pure hypothesis with no foundation in fact. For there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that the chrysobull reported to have been granted to the church of Patras by Nicepliorus I was a forgery. Indeed there can be no question

of a forgery, for the chrysobull has not survived and consequently cannot be studied with the view of determining its authenticity. One may doubt the veracity of the report that such a chrysobull was issued, that is all. There are two sources for that report: Constantine Porphyrogennitus and the source whence derive the scholium of Arethas and the Chronicle of Monemvatra. These two sources are independent of each other and the fact that they both mention the chrysobull of Nicephorus I is a strong presumption that such a chrysobull was actually issued. That a chrysobull supposedly issued by Nicephorus I did exist Kyriakides himself accepts; what he denies is its authenticity. But how can he know that it was not authentic? But even if the chrysobull in question were a forgery, it would by no means follow that its author or the author of the brief historical treatise which, accord-

ing to Kyriakides, derived from it and served as the source for the Chronicle of Monemvasia, invented the information about the Avaro-Slavic penetration of the Peloponnesus. They had no particular purpose to serve by this invention. The aim of the forgery, Kyriakides alleges, was to win or confirm certain privileges for the church of Patras. That aim was well served by the legend according to which the victory, which admittedly saved Patras from the Slavs during the reign of Nicephorus I, was the work of St. Andrew, the patron saint of Patras. If the author of the alleged forgery invented anything, he may have invented this legend, but if his work or its derivative was indeed the source of the information concerning the Avaro-Slavic penetration of the Peloponnesus given by the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas, that information must have been obtained from another source, no doubt a written one, which has since disappeared. Thus the hypothesis that the chrysobull of Nicephorus I may have been a forgery, does not necessarily discredit the information, so precise in its details, according to which Slavs settled in the northwestern part of the Peloponnesus during the reign of Maurice, and were not completely subjugated until the reign of Nicephorus I. That there was a break in the Byzantine administration of the western Peloponnesus for some time is also indicated by archaeological evidence. Systematic

XI Slavonic Settlements in Greece

257

excavations for the unearthing of Byzantine archaelogical remains in Greece are still in their infancy, but some finds have been made incidentally to the search for classical remains. The finds made at Corinth are particularly important for the question of the Avaro-Slavic penetration of the western Peloponnesus, for

they confirm the information given by the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas.

In a square tower not far below the fortified west entrance of Acrocorinth excavators have found a number of graves. Among these graves there are two of particular significance to us here. In one of them there were six bodies; in the other two. But there were also numerous objects, chiefly buckles and weapons. These objects are not Byzantine. They are similar to like objects found on the shores of Lake Balaton and elsewhere in Hungary, dating from the early seventh century.13 The persons buried in these graves were obviously warriors, people who belonged to the same race that had occupied Hungary about the same time. They were Avars. They no doubt came to Corinth before 626, for the defeat which the Avars had suffered in that year under the walls of Constantinople had forced them to turn away from the Balkan peninsula. How early before 626 cannot be absolutely determined, but all the literary evidence points to the reign of Maurice. Besides buckles and weapons the excavations have revealed considerable jewelry "whose motives if not provenience are distinctly "northern".14 These jewelry finds indicate that the invaders stayed in Corinth for some time. The pottery and coin finds lead to the same conclusion. Coins belonging to the reign of Justinian and Justin II are fairly numerous; with Maurice they begin to decline and for the next two hundred years they become virtually non-existent.''' The same is true of pottery.1° These finds confirm the Chronicle of Monemvaria; they show that it is based on fact and not on myth as Kyriakides would like to have us believe. Thus the conclusion that Slavs permanently settled in the Peloponnesus at the end of the sixth century becomes inescapable. But it by no means follows that the Greek element completely disappeared from the Peloponnesus and that the modern Greeks are Christians of Slavonic descent in whose veins there is "not a single drop of real pure Hellenic blood". For the.eastern part of the Peloponnesus from Corinth to Malea remained in Greek hands, and when, beginning with the ninth century, the Slavs of the Peloponnesus were subdued, parts of the country were settled with new Greek-speaking elements,. some of which Is G. R. Davidson-Tibor Horvath, The Avar Invasion of Corinth, Hesperia 6 (1937) 227-240. 14 Ibid. 238. 15 K. M. Edwards, Corinth VI, p. 165; K. M. Edwards, Report on the coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1930-1935. Hesperia 6 (1937) 241-256; J. M. Harris, Coins found

at Corinth: 1. Report on the coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936-1939. Hesperia 10 (1941) 143-162. - See also John H. Finley, Jr., Corinth in the Middle Ages. Speculum 7 (1932) 499. 10 C. H. Morgan, The Byzantine Pottery. Volume XI of Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Cambridge, Mass., 1942; also review of this book by N. Toll, American Journal of Archaeology 47 (1943) 510.

XI 258

were pure Greek, others. not so pure, but doubtless Hellenized. Slavonic tribes continued to exist; some of them were still there in the fourteenth century, but their strength had declirwd at the beginning of the ninth when they were defeated at Patras and that city was again resettled with Greeks, descendants of those who had emigrated to Calabria in the sixth century.17 The Slavs indeed continued to resist, but their long domination of the western Peloponnesus was over; eventually they succumbed and became completely absorbed by the Greek race. They left behind them some Slavonic place names, but their long domination failed to affect materially Greek culture or the Greek language.

17 firms, On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily etc., 85 t

XII THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COINS AS EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORY OF ATHENS AND CORINTH IN THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES The literary sources concerning the history of the Peloponnesus during the early Middle Ages are so fragmentary that the study of them has raised more problems than it has solved. For this reason scholars have turned their attention to examining other sources of information. They have looked for evidence in archaeology, in such materials as seals and inscriptions, and in coins. Among these sources, seals and inscriptions have yielded no positive evidence". Archaeology has done better, but its finds have been so variously interpreted that nothing certain can be inferred from theme. More positive is the information yielded by coins, though the inferences that have been drawn also vary. Coin finds have been made in several places in the Peloponnesus. Coins have been found at Gortys in Arcadia; none of them, however, is dated later than the middle of the fifth century. Orchomenos, also in Arcadia, has yielded

coins belonging to Justinian and Justin II, and some to the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (tenth century), but none to the period in between. Byzantine coins belonging to different emperors from Constantine to the end of the sixth century have been also found at Olympia. These coins become less

numerous toward 6oo, the most recent belonging to the reign of Phocas (6o2-6io). Sparta has yielded no coins earlier than the reign of Basil 13. It is at Corinth, however, where the coin finds have been most numerous. The coins belonging to the reigns of Justinian and Justin II are fairly numerous; they decline in the reign of Tiberius and Maurice and become rarer in the lower town beginning with the reign of Heraclius, but remain numerous enough on

the Acrocorinth until the reign of Constans II (641-668). After Constans II, however, they become very rare, and they do not begin to increase appreciably until the reign of Theophilus in the ninth century. Scholars, noting the rarity of coins belonging to the immediate successors of Constans II, have come to the conclusion that this rarity indicates a break in the relations of Corinth with Byzantium and that, as this rarity holds true also for the eighth century, the break must have continued throughout that 1 See, for instance, A. Bon, Le Peloponnese Byzantin jusqu'en 1204 (Paris, 1951), 49F S Peter Charanis, "On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and its recapture by the Byzantines" Speculum, 27 (1952), 345, where the principal references are given. Further, Bon, op. cit., 49ff. 3 Bon, op. cit., 51.

XII 164

century alsol. As against this view, it has been ooserved that the coin finds in Corinth by themselves offer no proof that Corinth did not belong to the Byzantines. Corinth was certainly a Byzantine possession during the reigns of Nicephorus I and of his immediate successors, yet the coins of these reigns which

have been found at Corinth are hardly any more numerous than the coins belonging to some of the reigns of the seventh or eighth centuries. For instance, the ratio of the coins of Leo IV (3) to the years of his reign (5) is o.6o. This is much higher than the 0.33 which is the ratio of the coins of Nicephorus I (3) to the length of his reign (9). And the ratio of the coins of Constantine IV (5) to the length of his reign (i7) is o.3o as compared to the 0.56 which is the ratio of the coins of Michael II to the length of his reign (9)2.

The publication of the Byzantine coins found in the Agora of Athens3 offers us now a standard against which we may compare the significance as historical evidence of the coin finds of Corinth. The literary sources for the history of Athens during the early Middle Ages are almost as fragmentary as those for the Peloponnesus, but they do throw a little more light. We know, for instance, that central Greece was organized into a theme, the theme of Hellas, at least as early as 6954. The territorial extent of this theme is not known precisely, but there is no doubt that it included Attica'. We know also that Constans II spent the winter of 662-63 in Athens with a considerable army°. This is important because it no doubt explains the large number of coins belonging to the reign of Constans II which have been found in Athens. 1 K. M. Setton, "The Bulgars in the Balkans and the occupation of Corinth in the seventh century," Speculum, 25 (1950), 522; "The emperor Constans II and the capture of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars," Speculum, 27 (1952), 553f.; Bon, op. cit., 54. 1 Peter Charanis, "On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 46 (1953). 98. Margaret Thompson, The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Volume H. Coins from the Roman Through

the Venetian Period (Princeton, New Jersey, 1954), 67-76. 4 The theme of Hellas, it is generally agreed, was created sometime after 687 but not later than 695. After 687 because it does not appear in the list of commands contained in the communication which Justinian H addressed to Pope Conon in that year (Mansi, XI, 737); not later than 695 because a military governor of Hellas is known to have been appointed in that year. Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor, i (Leipzig, 1883), 368; Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica, edited by C. de Boor (Leipzig, r88o), 37-38.

5 G. Ostrogorsky, "Postanak Tema Helada i Peloponez," Iz Zhornike Radova XXI, Vizantolobkog Instituta San Knj. 1 (Belgrade, 1952), 68ff.; Bon, op. cit., 38l.; A. Pertusi, Coustantino Porfirogenito. De Thematibus (Studi e Testi, 16o) (Vatican, 1952). 171. 1 consulted Ostrogorsky's study with the help of M. Petrovich. Peter Charanis, "Hellas in the Greek sources of the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries," Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton, 1955), 173-74. 4 Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum, edited by L. Bethmann and G. Waitz in Mon. Germ. hist. scr. rer. Langob. (Hannover, 1878), 146. Cf. J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1889), II, 300.

XII The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History

165

We know further that the inhabitants of the theme Hellas, rebelling against the iconoclastic policy of Leo III, proclaimed a certain Cosmas their emperor'. We read also that Constantine V, in order to repeople Constantinople, which had suffered grievously by the plague, had people brought there from the islands and the theme of Hellas and "the lower regions2." The same emperor, we are told elsewhere, brought 500 tile-makers from Hellas and the islands to Constantinople in order to repair the aqueduct of Valens'. Finally there is the reference to Irene who was brought from Athens to Constantinople by Constantine V to be married to his son Leo, the future Leo IV.4. These references certainly do not tell us much about the Athens of the seventh and eighth

centuries; they leave no doubt, however, that it was under the effective administration of Byzantium. Now to turn to the coins which have been found in the Agora of Athens. The following table gives the coin distribution according to the different reigns, beginning with that of Justin II and ending with that of Theophilusb. THE COINS FOUND IN ATHENS

Emperor

Justin II Tiberius II Maurice Phocas Heraclius

Constans II Constantine IV Justinian II (1st) Leontius Tiberius III Justinian II (2nd) Philippicus Anastasius II Theodosius III

Length of Reign

No. of Coins

Ratio of Coins to Length of Reign

565-578

172

13.20

578-582 582-602

20

5.00

25

1.45

602-610

48

6.oo

61o-641

232

7.48

641-668

817

668-685

30

30.25 1.76

0.10 0.00 0.14

685-695

1

695-698

0

698-705

I

705-711

6

1.00

711-713 713-715

61

30.50

4

715-717

Leo III

717-741

0 23

Constantine V Leo IV

741-775

2

2.00 0.00 0.95 o.o6

775-780

I

0.20

' Nicephorus, op. cit., 57; Theophanes, op. cit., x, 405. The reference in Theophanes is to the Helladikoi, but they are the troops of the theme Hellas. On the Helladikoi see P. Charanis, "The term Helladikoi in the Byzantine texts of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries," 'E7rcT7Jpl6 T5N 'ETarpe(ac Butav'rvfsv Earau8 v, 23 4953). 615-620. ° Ibid., 440. Theophanes, O. Cit., 429.

Ibid., 444; Nicephorus, op. cit., 77; 105.

' Thompson, op. cit., 68-72.

XII 166

Emperor

Length of Reign

No. of Coins

Ratio of Coins to

Length of Reign Constantine VI

780-797

1

o.o6

Irene

797-802

I

0.20

Nicephorus I

802-811

o

0.00

Staurakios

811

o

0.00

MichaelI

811-813

0

0.00

Leon V

813-82o

1

0.14

Michael II Theophilus

820-829 829-842

2

0.22 0.30

4

For purposes of comparison we give also a table of the coins found in Corinth distributed according to the same reigns'. Emperors

Justin II Tiberius II Maurice Phocas Heraclius

Constans II Constantine IV

No. of Coins

Ratio of Coins to Length of Reign

255

19.6r

38 52

9.50 2.60

61

7.6z

34

1.10

79

2.92

5

3

0.30 0.13 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 o.6o

Justinian II

2

Leontius Tiberius Philippicus Anastasius II Theodosius III

o

0

Leo III

o

Constantine V Leo IV Constantine VI

5

I

o. o6

Irene

0

0.00

Nicephorus

3

Staurakios

0

0.33 0.00 1.50

Michael I Leon V Michael II Theophilus

1

o

0

3

Io 5

1.43 0.56

152

11.70

' This table was compiled on the basis of the following publications: John H. Finley, Jr., "Corinth in the Middle Ages," Speculum, 7 (1932), 499 (Where coin finds in Corinth to 1929

are listed) ; K. M. Edwards, "Reports on the coins in the excavations at Corinth during

XII The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History

167

First, let us look at the coins found in Athens. They present several points of interest. There is first the decline which is shown during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice, and the increase which begins with the reign of Phocas and reaches a very high point with the reign of Constans II. After Constans II there is a precipitous decline broken only by the reign of Philippicus which shows a steep rise. After Philippicus, there is another precipitous decline which, increasing steadily with some variations, extends to the reign of Theophilus. With the aid of the texts we may now explain some of these points. The decline which is shown during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice may be indicative of the Avaro-Slavic invasions of the years 579-584 which are reported by several contemporary sources". There is no literary reference to Athens in connection with the reigns of Phocas and Heraclius, but the increase in the coins shown by these reigns may reflect the reestablishment of order which a passage in the Miracula S. Demefrii referring to events of either 586 or 579 seems to indicate. According to this passage, troops from Thessalonica headed by the prefect of Illyricum were active in Greece. This activity is perhaps not unrelated to the fact that nine coins of Maurice minted in Thessalonica after 584 have been found in Athensa. Constans II is known to have spent the winter of 662-63 in Athens with his troops'. This fact offers the most reasonable explanation for the steep rise in the number of coins which is shown by the reign of Constans H. This explanation is strengthened by the fact that of the 817 coins shown by the reign of Constans II only five, according to the tables presented by the cataloguer, may be said to have been definitely minted after 6636 Constans' stay in Athens may also explain in part the comparatively high

rise shown by the reign of Heraclius. Constans II came on the throne not without some violence, and he was careful to proclaim that his father had reigned jointly with his grandfather, hence the legitimacy of his own accession6. Coins bearing the figures of Heraclius and Constantine, grandfather and father of Constans II, had been struck by Heraclius7 and these coins, some of which the years 1930-1935," Hesperia, 6 (1939), 241-256; J. M. Harris, "Coins found at Corinth.i.

"Report on the coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936-1939." Hesperia, 10 (1941), 143-162. I On these sources see Bon, op. cit., 31 ff.; H. Gregoire "L'origin et le nom des Croates et des Serbes," Byzantion 17 (1944-1945), ro8ff.; D. Zakythinos, OZ E &43ot &v `E)J,dc8t (Athens, 1945), 9ff.; 18ff.; 36ff. 8 L'Abbe A. Tougard, De 1'histoire profane dans les actes grecs des Bollandistes (Paris, 1874), 98. The chronological information given is as follows: Sunday, 22 September, when Maurice was emperor. This was either in 586 or 597, for these are the only two years during the reign of Maurice that 2z September fell on a Sunday. ° See p. 164, n. 6. Thompson, op. cit., 6g. 6 Thompson, op. cit., 70-71. ° Theophanes, op. cit., 342. 7 W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine Coins in the British Museum (London, 1908), I, XXIV; 186ff.

XII 168

have been found in Athens', in view of the official emphasis which Constans II

put upon the joint reign of his father and grandfather, may have been purposely kept in circulation by him. Constans II modeled his own coinage closely

on that of his grandfather'. We come now to the reign of Philippicus and the eighth century. The reign of Philippicus in comparison to its length shows more coins in the finds made in Athens than any other reign of the seventh and eighth centuries. There is nothing in the sources which connects this emperor in any definite way with Athens, but an incident associated with the fate of Justinian II may offer an explanation. Justinian II, we are told, was decapitated and the spatharius Helias was sent to the western provinces to display his head. Helias went as far as Italy and Rome', but on his way there he may have also stopped at Athens where, besides displaying the head of Justinian II, he may have also put into circulation, as evidence of the new reign, coins which the new emperor no doubt had hastened to strike in order to replace those of the fallen tyrant. But whatever the circumstances which may account for the large number of coins of Philippicus in Athens, it must have been a special one. This can be regarded as certain for the paucity of coins before and after his reign permits no other interpretation. It can be regarded as certain also that whatever the circumstances which brought more coins to Athens during the reign of Philippicus, it did not fundamentally effect her political and economic status. The serious decline in the circulation of money which, as indicated by the coin finds, began with the first reign of Justinian continued with some variations throughout the eighth century and beyond. After Philippicus the only important reign which shows a noticeable number of coins is that of Leo III. This showing can be best accounted for by the changes that Leo III must have introduced in the

administrative and military personnel of the theme of Hellas following the unsuccessful revolt against his authority which had broken out theres. But nothing really significant can be inferred from the number of these coins, for it is too small in relation to the length of the reign to indicate anything unusual. The reigns which follow that of Leo III are virtually barren in coin finds. The period from the beginning of the reign of Constantine V to the end of the reign of Nicephorus I, a period of seventy years, has yielded only five coins for a ratio of 0.071. If this period is extended to the end of the reign of Theophilus this yield increases to twelve coins for a ratio of 0.12, hardly an improvement. One may conclude then, on the basis of the finds, that there was a scarcity of coins in Athens in the seventh and eighth centuries. This scarcity began in a most 1 This we gather from the description given by the cataloguer and her references to W. Wroth where coins bearing the figures of Heraclius and his son Constantine are described Thompson, op. Cit., p. 70, nos. i8o8, i8og, IB11, Cf. Wroth, 1, pp. 212f., nos. 213-218.

Wroth, op. cit., I, xxviii. Theophanes, op. cit., 381; Nicephorus, op. Cit., 47.

' See p. 169, n. I.

XII The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History

169

serious way with the first reign of Justinian II and, with the exception of the reign of Philippicus, an exception which must be explained by some special circumstance, continued throughout the eighth century and beyond. What does this rarity of coins, we may now ask, signify' in the history of Athens in the seventh and eighth centuries? It no doubt indicates a deterioration in her economic position and as a consequence a decline in her importance

as an urban center. This deterioration seems to have begun in the reign of Constantine IV and to have become serious in the first reign of Justinian II. That it continued throughout the eighth century may be reasonably inferred from the rarity of coins. It is extremely doubtful, however, if one can infer more. Certainly the rarity of coins does not mean that Athens was lost to the Byzantines. On this point the texts are quite clear. For instance, one might suppose on the basis of the coin finds that a break in the Byzantine administration of Athens took place during the first reign of Justinian II, a reign which shows only one coin for a ratio of o.io. But this would not be true, for we know that Hellas, of which Athens was definitely a part, was certainly a Byzantine theme at this time. The same observation might be made concerning the reign of Constantine V. The reign of this emperor shows only two coins for a ratio of less than o.o6 and yet no imperial administration in the eighth

century was more active in Hellas than that of Constantine V. It was this emperor who removed a part of the population of Hellas in order to repeople Constantinople which had been decimated by the plague of 747. In 767 the same emperor brought 5oo tile-makers from Hellas and the islands to Con-

stantinople in order to repair the aqueduct of Valens and some time later he brought Irene from Athens to become the bride of his son Leo'. Athens obviously was under Byzantine administration during his reign. Nor can there

be any doubt of the Byzantine status of Athens during the reigns of Constantine VI, Irene and Nicephorus I', though these reigns together show only two coins for a ratio of o.o6. Thus, the coin finds made in Athens offer by themselves no evidence con-

cerning her political and administrative status in the seventh and eighth centuries. But the deterioration in her economic life which they indicate no doubt reflects the unsettled conditions of these two centuries. It has been suggested above that the scarcity in the number of coins of the reign of Tiberius and Maurice may be indicative of the Avaro-Slavic invasions of Greece of the

years 579-584, while the increase shown by the reigns of Phocas, Heraclius,

and Constans II, -may reflect the reestablishment of order indicated by a passage in the Miracula S. Demetrii4. In the first half of the seventh century 4 For the reference to Constantine V and Hellas see p. 165, n. 2-3. ' Theophanes, op. cit., 456, 473. 4 We do not mean to imply, of course, that there were no disorders at all in Greece during the reigns of Phocas and Heraclius. We know from the Miracula S. Demetrii (Migne, 1 See p. 164, n. 4.

XII 170

Athens was still a city of some importance where educational opportunities were still available'. Its decline, as reflected by the coin finds, seems to have set in during the second half of the seventh century. It is quite possible that the causes of this may have been new Slavonic invasions2. Most probably, however, it was brought about by the Arab domination of the seas. The sea was the avenue of communications between Athens, Thessalonica, Constantinople, and other centers of the empire3. This avenue was now seriously breached by

the Arab domination. It is not without significance that the beginning of the serious decline in the number of coins in Athens corresponds in time to the rise of

the Arab naval power. In contrast to this the repeated invasions of the Balkan peninsula by the Avars and Slavs during the first half of the seventh century do not seem to have affected adversally the number of coins in circulation in Athens.

Arab sea power by breaking the avenues of communication no doubt brought to an end what commerce there still was between Athens and the outside world. Athens then reverted to a more primitive economy, deterioration in her general economic life ensued, and the city declined. At no time during this period, however, did Athens cease to be a Byzantine possession. PG, 116, 1325) that the Slavs devastated Greece, Thessaly and the regions around Thessalonica. These devastations took place in 615-16 and it is to them no doubt that Isidore of Seville refers (Chronicon, Migne, PL, 83, 1056) when he writes, not without exaggeration, that in the fifth year of the reign of Heraclius "the Slavs took Greece from the Romans," Sclavi Graeciam Romanis tulerunt. (Cf. F. Bari§id, Miracles de St. Demetrius comme source historique. Academie Serbe de Sciences. Monographies CCXIX. Institut d'Etudes Byzantines, no. 2. Belgrade, 1953, P. 149. BariW, wrote his book in Serbian but he gives also a long in French). Later, also during the reign of Heraclius, there were other devastations, especially of the regions of Thessalonica (Bari§i&, op. cit., 149). But these devastations evidently did not seriously affect the important urban centers in Greece. There is this difference, insofar as Greece proper is concerned, between the devastations which took place during the reign of Heraclius and the invasions of 579-84. In the first case the Slavs

devasted as pirates; in the second case they came as invaders, drove out some of the natives and settled there themselves. The displacement of the natives and the settlement of the Slavs at the time of the invasions of 579-84 no doubt had the effect of disorganizing the economy of the country.

1 Theodore of Tarsus who was born in 602 is said to have studied in Athens. Cf. i. Amann, "Theodore de Cantorbery," Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, 15 (Paris, 1940), 229. See further Gregorovius-Lampros, `Iarop(a ri15 7r6)xtes 'AO, vmv xa-ri 'roic IL4 oug 'Atcvn; (Athens, 1904), I, 165. 2 This is indeed no more than a possibility, for in the second half of the seventh century the Slavs of Macedonia and Thessaly were on the whole peaceful though at times they had to be chastized by the emperors. Cf. Paul Lemerle, "La Composition et la Chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S. Demetrii," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 46 (1953). 357; also, "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de 1'6poque romaine jusqu'en VIIIe siecle," Revue historique, err (x954), 303. 1 We are told, for instance, that the great pestilence which broke out in Constantinople during the reign of Constantine V came by way of Sicily, Calabria, Monemvasia, Hellas, and the nearby islands. See Theophanes, op. cit., 422.

XII The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History

171

To return now to the coin finds made at Corinth. They follow roughly the same pattern as those of Athens though the coins themselves are not as numerous. In Corinth as in Athens the finds show a decline for the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice and an increase for the reign of Phocas. But whereas in Athens the

reign of Heraclius and Constans II also show an increase - a big one in the case of Constans II - in Corinth they both show a decline. To be sure the reign of Constans II shows more coins than any other reign since that of Justin II, but its ratio of 2.92 is considerably less than the ratio of 7.62 shown by the reign of Phocas and only slightly better than the ratio of 2.6o shown by the reign of Maurice.

Despite the divergence between the finds of Corinth and those of Athens insofar as the reigns of Heraclius and Constans II are concerned, we need not look for an explanation of the former different from that we offered for the latter. The decline shown by the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice also may be

indicative, as in the case of Athens, of the Avaro-Slavic invasions of the years 579-584. We know indeed that Corinth was plundered by the Avars and Slavs during the reign of Maurice, probably before 5851. The reestablish-

ment of order which we noted in connection with Athens extended most probably as far as Corinth and this would explain the rise in coins shown by the reign of Phocas. Corinth, however, seems to have been so severely damaged

by the Avars that virtually all activity was transferred to the Acrocorinth. This is indicated by the fact that most of the coins shown by the reigns of Heraclius and Constans II were found on the Acrocorinth and not in the lower town. But the real decay of Corinth, as the real decay of Athens, began after the reign of Constans II. This is at least what the coin finds of the two cities

indicate. It was shown in the case of Athens, however, that the paucity of coins cannot be interpreted to mean that Athens ceased to be a Byzantine possession. Such an interpretation is contrary to what the texts tell us. Now, if this were true in the case of Athens there is no good reason why it should not

also be true in the case of Corinth, though here the contemporary texts are silent. Yet there is the Chronicle of Monemvasia which says that Corinth was in Byzantine hands throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. The paucity of coins offers no justification for rejecting this testimony3. I Chronique de Michel le Syrien, edited and translated by J. B. Chabot, II (Paris, i go r,),

36x. On the source and significance of this passage, L. Niederle, Slov. Starozitnosti, 2 (Prague, r9o6), 223. I consulted Niederle with the help of M. Petrovich. Cf. Charanis, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 46, 202. Bon, op. cit., 52. Concerning the Chronicle of Monemvasia, its different versions, its relation to other texts, its sources and the trustworthiness of its contents, see Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the question of the Slavonic settlements in Greece," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (2950), 242-266. Ostrogorsky (op. Cit., 7r) has accepted the conclusions which I

reached in this study.

XII 172

We may now summarize our conclusions. The paucity of Byzantine coins belonging to the seventh and eighth centuries which excavations in Corinth and Athens have revealed indicate no doubt a state of economic decline in both these cities. This decline is not surprising in view of the difficult and unsettled conditions on land and the general menace of the Arabs on the sea, a menace which became very serious in the course of the second half of the seventh century. Besides, this decline was general for the empire as a whole. It does not follow, however, that because few coins have been found in Corinth and Athens these cities ceased to belong to the Byzantium. Athens certainly did not cease to be Byzantine, and there is no good reason to believe that the case was different with Corinth.

XIII NICEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE FROM THE SLAVS (810 A.D.) The fame of Nicephorus I, writes J. B. Bury, "has suffered, because he had neither a fail historian to do him justice, nor apologists to countervail the coloured statements of opponents. He is described as an unblushing hypocrite, avaricious, cruel, irreligious, unchaste, a perjured slave, a wicked revolutionary. His every act is painted as a crime or a weakness, or as prompted by a sinister motive."' In this brief statement Bury has summarized admirably the low position which for a long time it was the lot of Nicephorus to occupy in the history of the Byzantine Empire. It all goes back to Theophanes the Confessor, whose chronicle is virtually the only contemporary source for the reign of Nicephorus. Theophanes, who saw his beloved Irene dethronedby Nicephorus, who detested the religious tolerance of the latter and could not forgive him for imposition of taxes on church and monastic properties, drew a truly libelous picture of Nicephorus, both of his character and of his reign, a picture which became embedded as truth in Byzantine historiography and until recently has been almost generally accepted by modern historians. "Many tyrants have reigned," writes Gibbon, "undoubtedly more criminal than Nicephorus, but none perhaps have more deeply incurred the universal abhorrence of their people. His character was stained with the three odious vices of hypocrisy, ingratitude, and avarice; his want of virtue was not redeemed by any superior talents, nor his want of talents by any pleasing qualifications."2 The judgment of later scholars, such as GTrorera and Monnier,4 was less severe, but still unfavorable. For them as for Gibbon, Nicephorus was a tyrant with very few qualities to his credit. 1 J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London, 1912), 8. 2 Ed. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited by J. B. Bury (London, 1898), V, 192. A. Gfrorer, Byzantinische Geschichten (Graz, 1873), II, ,408.

4H. Monnier, "Etudes de droit byzantin," in Nouvelle revue historique de droit Frangais ei Jtranger, XIX (Paris, 1895), 57 if. 75

XIII 70

This judgment has now been generally abandoned and the work and the policies of Nicephorus are much better appreciated .5 "One must have a high idea of the Emperor Nicephorus," writes lorga,

"because he himself had a high idea of his power."0 And in the opinion of Bury "the history of his reign shows him a strong and masterful man, who was fully alive to the difficulties of the task of governing, and was prepared to incur unpopularity in discharging his duty as guardian of the state."7 Nicephorus' fundamental aim was to protect the frontiers of the Empire both against Arabs and Bulgars, and to rehabilitate the state which was on the verge of collapse as a result of the long and inefficient rule of Irene.

The financial measures of Nicephorus form the basis of the opinion of both his critics and apologists .8 These measures were summarized by Theophanes° who branded them oppressive, and the modern critics of Nicephorus have followed Theophanes, seeing

in these measures nothing but the efforts of a tyrant to exact all he could from his subjects. His apologists on the other hand, reviewing his reign with more objectivity, have explained these meas-

ures by attributing to Nicephorus no other aim than that of safeguarding the interests of the state and rehabilitating its finances.10 C Already Paparrigopoulo expressed an opinion favorable to Nicephorus. t'Iaropfa tou 'E)L).T1vtxo0 "E$vov;a, edited by P. Karolides (Athens, 1925), IIIb, 152 if. ° N. Iorga, His Loire de to vie byzantine (Bucarest, 1934), II, 44.

7 Bury, op. cit., 8.

° lorga (op. cit., II, 44 f.) writes about Nicephorus: "It faut avoir une

haute We de l'empereur Nicephore, puisqu' it avait Iui-mime une haute We de son pouvoir, qu'il declarait ne vouloir subordonner a personne, tant que le bien de 1'Empire serait son but. It reforma le fist, ordonna. une nouvelle conscription, annuls lea exemptions, soumit au tribut dit "kapnikon" mime lea biens du clerge, qu'iI admini_trs quelquefois Iui-mime; it controla attentivement le mouvement de Is richesse publique, poursuivit lea detenteurs des tresors decouverts, fit partager a jours fixes lea terres non habitees pour accroitre Ie nombre des agriculteurs, fournit des avances aux matelots pour reparer leurs bateaux et defendit l'usure." It is clear that the reason lorga thinks that "one must have a high idea of the Emperor Nicephorus" is because of the financial measures of the latter, which Iorga summarizes here with an interpretation not entirely accurate.

° Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1853), I, 486 f.

10 The most extended study of the financial policy of Nicephorus is given by G. I. Bratianu, Eludes byzantines d'histoire economique et sociale (Paris,

XIII N1CEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE

77

The wars with Krum which finally cost Nicephorus his life occupy,

of course, an important place in the history of the reign of Nicephorus, but virtually every discussion of that reign is centered chiefly upon the financial policy of the Emperor, and the fame of Nicephorus falls or rises as that policy is interpreted one way or another. The general tendency at present is to consider that policy wise or at least justified by the state of the finances of the Empire, with the consequence that Nicephorus is regarded as an able statesman and administrator and his reign as an important chapter of the history of Byzantium. But perhaps more important, at least from the point of view of Greece, was another policy of Nicephorus the discussion of which is the purpose of this paper.

The first among the oppressive measures which according to Theophanes were taken by Nicephorus was an order to have Christians from every province of the Empire transplanted to Sclavinia. Theophanes considers this forced emigration worse than imprison-

ment. Some of those involved, he says, wept over the graves of their fathers and considered the dead more blessed that the living. Others preferred to hang themselves rather than abandon the soil of their birth. The order, however, was carried out and its execution required about six months, from September to Easter, which in that year (810) fell in March."' Doubtless, in view of the short period during which this emigration was carried out, those who were involved had to undergo considerable suffering. Besides, the idea of being forced away from one's home in order to be settled elsewhere among strange and com1938), 186-216. See also Bury, op. cit., 212 if., and G. Ca'imatis, "La dixieme

'vexation' de l'empereur Nicephore," in Byzantion, VIII (Brussels, 1932), 149-160.

11 Theophanes, op. cit., 496: iUtEtE).EUaEL;

Tet

Tots-r aTQaTEUµaTa 796LVTn

ttjl EtEL Ntxtl(rtiQo; tLEta tti; abdou; TO.ZELVawOL

XQIatLQVO&;

dnotxiaa; lx navto; Odµato; ird td; ExAcu tvia; yEvia&cu nQooEta;EV, ui; bi toVtwv owataact} M QaaxEw$aL. xai f1v aiXµur.woLa; o& E).aTTOV TO XQaYIuz, 6t noulrov 1 dvoia; PkaaWpovvtunv xai IXOQmv t aobou; neQl tOV; yovtxoic tdgou; $Q-qvo6vTtJV xai toi'; dto0aVt ''ta; FLaxaQLt6VTNVElai 81 of xal dyX6vw; 1XQAaavto TQo; QTa).).ayi)v T&V SELVtUV. -td TE ytiQ nQoo0vrl 8ua7CLVtJta a r QEa&aL h811VatoLN Y.al tiJV dx yavtY.tuv stivtuv xTneeiaav utnQyty 6)LXvAevrv 16Q(A)V- xai tdaa Toi'; nivra; FIXEV dµllXavia, TCOV ply nevgttorv 1`v toUtoL; xai toi; 1:i; 6n67ioouevot;, ttilv Oi L:tEQEXpvttov au4aaaX6vrwv avroi; xai $Ah SUVaµdvwv 0o,iO ioai atEX8EX0tLEV0)V tE PaQLTdQa; au)LcoQd;. TQVta AQX6q pEV a.-ED Too Ze TTEµ6Qt0U s-nvo;, TQO; St t6 &yLOV

7p axa nEntQaatw.

XIII 78

paratively barbaric peoples was not one which could be welcome to many people. But there was nothing strange or unusual about this order of Nicephorus. The transplanting of peoples from one region to another for reasons of state was frequently resorted to in Byzantium before and after the reign of Nicephorus I. Justinian II removed numerous Slavs from Macedonia and settled them in Asia Minor; he also settled some Cypriotes in Thrace about the Hellespont. The same Emperor removed the Mardaites from the Taurus regions to the interior of Asia Minor, a disastrous act, for it left the frontiers open to the razzias of the Arabs. In 751 Constantine V settled numerous Armenians in Thrace along' the Bulgarian frontiers, as a bulwark against the Bulgarians. The same Emperor moved many Greeks to Constantinople whose population had been depleted by the terrible plague of 747. He also transferred to Bithynia many Slavs, estimated by the Byzantine chronicler. Nicephorus, perhaps not without exaggeration, at 208,000. Nicephorus' measure, therefore, was well within the scope of a longestablished Byzantine practice,12 and its object was no different from the object of similar measures taken by his predecessors. Of particular interest in the measure of Nicephorus is the meaning of Sclavinia and the ethnic consequences of the settlement there of Christians brought from other parts of the Empire.

Sclavinia means, of course, the land of the Slavs, but, in this case, land under the direct jurisdiction of the Empire. One immediately thinks of Thrace and Macedonia: numerous Slavonic tribes had settled there and their presence, especially near the borders of Bulgaria, was always a source of trouble. As Nicephorus' reign from the beginning to the end was troubled by wars with the Bulgars, there has been almost a universal tendency to locate the Sclavinia of this passage of Theophanes in Macedonia or Thrace, along the frontiers of the regions especially menaced by the Bulgars.13 But the passage of Theophanes as it stands gives no clue whatsoever to the location of Sclavinia, and that location can be determined definitely only with the aid of other information. The information needed exists. Indeed some of it has been available since 1749, more was made public in 1884. The references are to the Turin version of the Chronicle of Monemvasia pub12 See Charanis' review of Amantos t'I nogia zoo Butavuvoo xQazooss in Byzantion, XV (Boston, 1941), 471 f. Is See, for instance, Bratianu, op. cit., 196.

XIII NICEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE

79

lished in 1749 by Joseph Pasinus and his collaborators, and to the version of the same chronicle which Lampros discovered in a manuscript belonging to the Athonian monastery called Iberikon and published in 1884, together with the Turin version and still another version which he .found in the monastery of Koutloumousion, also of Mount Athos.14 The Turin and the Koutloumousion versions are almost alike, but the Iberikon differs from them considerably. It contains no notices beyond the reign of Nicephorus I, and where the other two versions cover the same period as the Iberikon, the latter offers more information. This information has been generally discarded1s and with few exceptions it has not been used by those who have treated the reign of Nieephorus.1e This was because the Chronicle of Monemvasia was thought to have been written in the sixteenth century, hence

centuries after the events which it describes, and if some of its notices could be confirmed by contemporary reference, there were

others, those precisely that related to the reign of Nicephorus, 14 Joseph Pasinus et al., Codices manuacripti bibliothecae regii Taurinensis

Athenaei, I (Turin, 1749), 417 f.; S. P. Lampros, t'Ia-roQixa MO_esijµaraa (Athens, 1884), 97-128. The edition of Lampros was reprinted in 1909 by N. A. Bees with some corrections: tTb rrepl i zrioew; Moveµ6aa(as yQovtx6vs, in tBulavriss, I (Athens, 1909), 37-105. Both Lampros and Bees devoted a lengthy study to the chronicle, and although they conclude that it is of some value, they discard as mythical the information concerning which there is question here.

15 Fallmerayer was the first to call attention to this chronicle and used it to bolster his phantastic theory that the ancient Greek race disappeared completely. Jacob Ph. Fallmerayer, Fragments aus dem Orient (2nd edition by George M. Thomas, Stuttgart, 1877), 508, note 2. Opponents of the theory of Fallmerayer tried to discount the importance of this chronicle. See, for instance, C. Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlande vom Beginn der Mittelalters bis auJ unsere Zeit, in Ersch and Gruber, Ailgemeine Encycloptddie der wissenr scha/ten and Kiinste, LXXXV (Leipzig, 1867), 106 if., and K. Paparrigopoulo, t'IosoQLxal xQayp zteims (Athens, 1858), 247, note 25. Others have looked at it more impartially. See A. A. Vasiliev, "The Slavs in Greece" (in Russian), Vizantiiakij Vremennik, V (St. Petersburg, 1898), 411, 6,55 if. Vasiliev'a work,

although written forty-eight years ago, is still fundamental on the question of the Slavs in Greece. I read it with the aid of Mrs. Ntithalie Scheffer. 16 Hopf (op. cit., 106-08) accepts what the chronicle says about the defeat of the Slavs at Patras, but rejects everything else as mythical. Amantos accepts the statement of the chronicle that the eastern part of the Peloponnesus was never conquered or settled by Slavs, but rejects everything else.

C. Amantos, "TaaxthviaSdavonia" in (Athens, 1921), 130-34.

et; I. N. XatSLbaxgv

XIl to

which could find no such confirmation. Before 1912 this considera-

tion was valid and justified the exercise of caution in the use of this chronicle, but after 1912, it lost all its validity. This was because in that year S. Kougeas published a short notice, unfortunately buried among the miscellaneous notes of the Neos Hellenomne-

mon, in which he showed that the Chronicle of 1tlonemvasia was actually written toward the end of the tenth century or the beginning of the eleventh, and that its author drew his information from a first rate historical source, now lost, which was written before

932. He reached this conclusion on the basis of a scholium of Arethas of Caesarea, an outstanding Byzantine scholar of the late ninth and early tenth centuries, a pupil of the great Photios, written in 932, which confirms, as far as it goes, almost word for word what the chronicle has to say.17 Since the publication of Arethas' scholium there remains virtually nothing in the chronicle that cannot be confirmed by other sources. Therefore, it can now be affirmed in unmistakable and unambigious terms that the Chronicle of Monemvasia is absolutely trustworthy and constitutes one of the most precious sources of the history of the Byzantine Empire.

The major part of this chronicle, the Iberikon version, deals with the Avar and Slav penetration of Greece and the Peloponnesus. After they overran central Greece, they entered the Peloponnesus, conquered the major part of it and settled in it. Those among the Peloponnesians who managed to escape dispersed them-

selves here and there. The inhabitants of Patras fled to Italy and settled in Calabria in the territory of Rhegium; the Corinthians found refuge in Aegina, and the Argives fled to the island of Orobe.

The Spartans too abandoned their homes. Some sought safety in the mountains of Cynuria, others fled to the coast where they founded the city of Monemvasia, and still others fled to Sicily where they settled in 'a place which the chronicle calls Demena.18 Only the eastern part of the Peloponnesus, from Corinth to Malea ITS. Kougeas, 4'En1 rov xaXou L you xQovtxou '.II eQi r ; xtiaem; rig Mo-

veµ6aaiac'3,, in Neo; 'E? clvopv' pwv, IX (Athens, 1912), 473-480.

18 Tbis information is of great importance concerning the hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy during the Middle Ages. None of those who have dealt with this question have utilized it; not even the possibility that the element responsible for the hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy might have come from the Balkan peninsula, especially Greece, occurred to them. See, for instance, Lynn White, "The Byzantinization of Sicily," in the American Historical Review, XLII (1936), 1-21. I have treated this question in another study which will appear in the American Historical Review.

XIII NICEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE

81

remained in the hands of the Byzantines and there a governor continued to be sent. The Slavs were masters of the rest of the peninsula, recognizing neither the authority of the emperor nor that of anyone else. They remained masters for two hundred and eighteen

years, i.e. from 587 to 805, from the sixth year of the reign of Maurice to the fourth year of the reign of Nicephorus, when they were defeated and subdued. Now to quote the chronicle itself :10

"And only the eastern part of the Peloponnesus, because of its ruggedness and inaccessibility remained free from the Slavs and to that part a strategus of the Peloponnesus continued to be sent by the emperor of the Romans. One of these governors, a native of Lesser Armenia, and a member of the family called Skleroi, came to hostile blows with the Slavic tribes, conquered and obliterated them completely and enabled the ancient inhabitants to recover their own. When the aforementioned Emperor Nicephorus heard 1E The Chronicle of Monemvasia, Bees' edition, 68 if (the Iberikon version) : M6vou 81` toe dvatoXtxov p. Qou; tij; II eaonovvitaou &tt Kopivflou xai u&XQL McL? ou tov Z*AaPgvou e0'vou; 8ta to EQaXu xai suoPatov xaOaQEVOvto;, trrQatgyo; IIe)wtOVVijaou IV a$Tci) Ti tu&QEL vto to-u 'Pwua(orv 0aatl.&t1);

xaten&juceto. Ei; 8e twv tOtoutaty atQatgyaw 6Q sEvo; uEV &6 tfj; utnd; 'AQpavia;, (patQia; Oi t41v &novoualou&vwv IXATZQtuV avLPa).wv t/p FO).afigv(

bbvEI co sitxco; EU.& to xai ijq,dvloE eI; rho; xai ta; dQXi}$ev olxitOQot tvroxatactijval to oixeia rao9axev. Toro uaOii v 6 rQoeLQguivo; fitwJtEU; NLXTl-

94O; xai XaQd; n)galad; 8ta ¢QOVtiso; 8eto to xai c&; &xrIOE :ro).el; dvaXCLLViaru xai &; of fidQPaQOt xatg8&¢toay &xxXgaia; &votxo8oui;ocL rai aimov; tov; PuQ fi&Qou; XQtattavou; noLgaaL. Oto xai dva sd& v tijV uetaxEoiav ov

BLatpifiouaLV of IIaTQEI; xE).Ellaet a' or) toutou; t(p &5 &exi; MigEL dzeva-

t&atgae uet& xai tou i5t:ou avttov notuivo;, 8; Ijv to tgvtxauta 'Adav&oto;

toiGvoj a.... 'Avtuxo8oµga& to Ix of&Qwv xai tijv holly aL'tG v xai ta; tou eeou &yia; &xx)ajaia;, zatQLaQXOt-Yto; Itt TaQaoiou.... Tijv 8e Aaxrhatuova troltty &x fiaOQtuv rai avrijv dveyeiQa; rai Ivotxiaa; iv ai-rn Xaov auuutxtov Ka¢ijQov; tE xai OQar_TioLou; xai 'AQttEviot!; xai Anttou; tizo 8tatp6QtoV TOJOV to xai n6?.Eu)v buamaxOgvta; I noxo ci v xai ai8t; ta&rTjv xat&-

to true IIatQrrv uTjtpozo).EL &9ianoev. The text of LL Arethas (Kougeas, op. cit., 474-475) is almost identical with the above, alotTpe xai unOxEtO

though the passage on Lacedaemon is lacking: T(j) ¶EtuQuu ETEL ttj; antou [Nttxn¢SQovl ij IIaTQWV ti); IIE).OTOVV'rjaou til; TaTQt6o; h}ttuv.Etotxia dao tij; K&avQrov r6).EUr; too 'Pgytov dvExojtio$g ei; to uQXtuov' zo).taua tarv II atQtov. . . . 'Ex to&r l v tluv atQatrjyurv &6 tij; utr.Qu; OQjuuuevo; _%).fQtity, Quu6OJ.tuV ttjl !iAaug'AQpsvia;, be twv vtuv OVEL, 1TOXE txtu; eD.EV to xai ijgavtOEV Ei; WEko; xai tot; dQXi;OEV oixij-

TOQOIV a .xataatijvat to oix..Ela naQiOXEV. BamXEU; yap o eiQguivo; tivauaO&V AV uztotxiav ou btaTQi5ELV V..E).EiOEI ai'roV T6v to 7 Q6V ttt i; tiQXij; &sa*L dnoxat&at)OEV rai ugtQotO).Etu; 8ixoaa tai; IlatQat; Ta.QEOXETO, dQXtETaaxom'j; nQo toutou XQTjuatttoVog;.

XIII 82

these things he was filled with joy and became anxious to renew the cities there, rebuild the churches that the barbarians had destroyed and to christianize the barbarians themselves. And for this reason, having inquired about the colony where the people of Patras lived, he had them reestablished by his order, together with their own shepherd (bishop) whose name at that time was Athanasius, on their ancient soil. . . . And he rebuilt their city and the holy churches of God from the foundations when Tarasius was still

patriarch.... And he also built from the foundations the city of Lacedaemon, settled it with a mixed people, Kapheroi, Thracesians, Armenians and others whom he brought together fom various places and cities, made it a bishopric and put it under the jurisdiction of the metropolis of Patras."

If this passage is now compared to that of Theophanes it will be seen that the two have certain elements in common. According to Theophanes Christians drawn from every province of the Empire were settled in a region which he calls Sclavinia. Obviously this is an abbreviation of a longer and more detailed account where the provinces whence these Christians were drawn and the places where they were settled were probably given. Theophanes is known often to have abbreviated his sources to such an extent as to make them unintelligible 20 But when this passage is taken together with that of the Chronicle of Monemvasia everything becomes clear.: The Christians who were settled in the Sclavinia of Theophanes were drawn from Calabria, the Thracesian, Armeniac and other themes of the Empire and the Sclavinia where they were settled was no other than the Peloponnesus.21 Obviously both the author of the Chronicle and Theophanes drew their information from the same source.22 This is further shown by the fact that ac-

cording to the Chronicle of Monemvasia one of the objects of Nicephorus in the transfer of the people from other parts of the Empire to the Peloponnesus was the christianization of the bar211 See, for instance, H. Gregoire, "Un nouveau fragment du `Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio'," in Byzantion, XI (Brussels, 1936), 417.

21 Hopf (op. cit., 98-99), Paparregopoulo ('IatoQia tov 'M).TJvlrou "E-

tvour 3b, 167) and Vasiliev (op. cit., 422) interpreted tus Fx).a$IVias of Theophanes to include the Peloponessus. Most probably it is only the Peloponnesus that is meant. 22 Possibly a chronicle, a kind of Malalas, to which also belonged the frag-

ment known as the Scriptor Incertus de Leone Bardae F. See Gregoire, op. at., 417 if.

XIII NICEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE

83

barians. Now Theophanes does not say this; doubtless he did not want to attribute such a high motive to Nicephorus whose every measure he branded as impious; but he gives an inkling of the real reason of Nicephorus for ordering the transfer by his use of the term Christians, and he means, of course, Orthodox Christians. Nicephorus settled the Slavonic parts of the Peloponnesus with Christians for the simple reason that that was the most effective way of assimilating the Slavs. Between the Chronicle of Monemvasia and Arethas on the one hand and Theophanes on the other there is a difference in chronology. According to Arethas, Patras was refounded and resettled with the descendants of the ancient people of Patras, who had fled to Calabria toward the end of the sixth century, during the fourth year of the reign of Nicephorus, i.e., in 805. The Chronicle of Monemvasia confirms this date by saying that Patras was refounded while Tarasius was still patriarch. Tarasius died in February, 806. But according to Theophanes the transfer of peoples which Nicephorus ordered took place in 809-810. The Chronicle of Monemvasia does not give the date of the resettlement of Laccdaemon, but

this resettlement was doubtless carried out after that of Patras and this may give the clue to the solution of the problem. Before the publication of the scholium of Arethas, and since the Chronicle of Monemvasia lacked confirmation and for that reason was generally rejected, the principal source available concerning the subjugation of the Slavs in the neighborhood of Patras was the account given by Constantine Porphyrogennitus in his De administrando imperio.23 According to this account Patras and its suburbs were inhabited by Greeks, when the Slavs of the environment, aided

by Saracens and Africans, laid siege to it in an effort to take it. The citizens of Patras sent a messenger to the Byzantine governor of the Peloponnesus, located then at Corinth, for help, but this help was slow in coming. However, by a happy accident, the besieged made a determined sortie and succeeded in dispersing the barbarians. This victory was attributed to the miraculous intervention 2SConstantine

Porphyrogennitus,

De

administrando

imperio

(Bonn,

1840), 217 if. The patriarch Nicholas in a letter to Alexius I Comnenus also refers to the miracle of St. Andrew, and says that it took place two hundred and eighteen years after the occupation of the Peloponnesus by the Slavs, i.e., in 805. J. Leunclavius, Juris Graeco-Romani, tam canonici quam civilia, torn duo, ... ex variis Eurovae Asiaeque bibliotheeis eruti (Frankfort, 1596), 278f.

XIII 84

of St. Andrew, whose church at Patras, for this reason, was raised to the status of a metropolis while the defeated Slavs together with their families and property were assigned to it as serfs. Porphyrogennitus gives no exact date for this event. He simply says that it took place during the reign of Nicephorus.

Were it not for the fact that, according to Arethas and the Chronicle of Monemvasia, Patras was refounded and repeopled by Greeks only after the defeat of the Slavs by Skleros, the account of Constantine could be considered as another version of the same event, taken perhaps from a life of St. Andrew. But Constantine

says that Patras was already inhabited by Greeks, and consequently he either describes another event or is guilty of a confusion, a charge which is not without foundation when applied to the writings of Constantine Porphyrogennitus. The date here is of some importance. On the basis of the fact that a Moslem fleet was present in Greek waters in 807, and as Constantine says that the Sanaens helped the Slavs in their attack upon Patras, Hopf has supposed that the attack took place in 807 or thereabouts?' If his hypothesis is correct then the event described by Constantine took place after the refoundation of Patras in 805, when the Slavs made an effort to recover the position which they had lost as a result of their defeat by Skleros. This attack of the Slavs must have convinced Nicephorus that their complete subjugation was impossible unless they were christianized and assimilated and he thought of no better method for doing this than the traditional Byzantine practice of settling in their midst Byzantine subjects drawn from other parts of the Empire, hence the general order which is mentioned by Theophanes. Besides Patras and Lacedaemon, Nicephorus must have also recovered and resettled with hellenized elements the towns of Corone and Methone, for according to the chronicle these two towns were put under the jurisdiction of the metropolis of Patras. The measures taken by Nicephorus had the effect of bringing within the Christian fold many of the Slavonic tribes in the Peloponnesus which up to then had remained pagan. The credit, therefore, for the recovery of the Peloponnesus from the Slavs belongs to Nicephorus I. For his settlement of the Peloponnesus with elements brought from other parts of the Empire not only enabled the Greeks who had remained there to reassert themselves, but proved a most effective way of absorbing and he]24 Hopf, op. cit., 99.

XIII NICEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE

85

lenizing the Slavs. The new settlers must have been Greek speaking. Some of them were pure Greeks, as the Calabrians who were settled in Patras; others not so pure, but doubtless hellenized. For the Thracesian theme whence some of them came was deeply hellenized, indeed almost Greek, and the Armenians (if indeed they were Armenians, for it is possible that Armeniacs are meant, in which case they might have been Greeks, for the Armeniac theme, in which were located the cities of Sinope and Amaseia, contained many Greeks) must have belonged to that group of Armenians which had been hellenized. Who the "Kapheroi" were is not known, but it is not impossible that this name was the result of a confusion and may refer to some hellenized people of Asia Minor. In any case their identification with the Kabeiroi is inadmissible 25 Indeed it is not improbable that the Kibyraeotae are meant, for the author of the chronicle may have had before him an abbrewhich he failed to viated form of that term (xtfvQQ, or understand. As the whole transfer was carried out in six months, it is not unreasonable to suppose that all the people involved came from the maritime provinces of the Empire. If Thracesians were included in the transfer, it is quite probable that Kibyraeotae were also included.27 In any event it seems certain that the names of 25 Lampros (op. cit., p. 113, note 1) was not able to identify the Kd Qoi and raised the question whether they are not the same as the KQELQoL. The ame suggestion is made by Vasiliev (op. cit., p. 657, note 2). But who were the K6PcIQoL? Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn, 55) mentions the KdSeucot as among the troops of Thomas the Slavonian at the time of his revolt against (E4eLQot is the reading Michael II, but Genesius (Bonn, 33) has of the manuscript, but for some unexplained reason the editor changed it to KdoeiQoa) and as Genesius generally represents the better tradition one should read 5:d$e1Qo in Theophanes Continuatus. Nicephorus Bryennius (Bonn, 29) mentions the KdPELQa as among the troops of Mahmud of Ghazna (eleventh century), but these are people of the Oxus and by no means Christians. William of Tyr calls the Oxus Cobar (Hilt. rerum Transmarin., Migne,

PL, CCI: 221), a name which may give a clue to the identification of the KdOELQoL, i.e., people of the region of Cobar, the inhabitants of Khwarizm. It is also possible, as suggested by both Lampros and Vasiliev, that they were remnants of the KaoaQot who are mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogennitus (De administrando imperio, 171 ff). In any case these KaSetQot have nothing to do with the KIQTjQoa of the Chronicle of Monemuasia. 2e For KLOUQQ as an abbreviated form of Kt5UQaLWrwv see V. Bene-Zevic,

"Die byzantinischen Ranglisten," in Byzantinisch-neugricchische Jahrbiicher, V (Athens, 1926/27), 120, no. 32. 27 Or, perhaps the KiqnQoL of the Chronicle are identical with the Ka?lavQof, or Calabrians, of the Scholium of Arethas.

XIII 86

the peoples involved were derived from those of the themes in which they dwelled. That is the meaning of the adjective "mixed" which the author of the chronicle used to describe the peoples who were settled in Lacedaemon. This is clear from Theophanes who makes these peoples come from every theme of the Empire.

Nicephorus I gave to the Slavs of the Peloponnesus a mortal blow. Slavonic tribes continued to exist in the Peloponnesus after his reign; some of them were still there in the fourteenth century, but their backbone had been broken at the beginning of the ninth century when they were defeated at Patras and that city as well as other points in the Peloponnesus were again settled with Greek and hellenized elements. The Slavs, indeed, continued to resist, but their long domination of the western Peloponnesus was over; eventually they succumbed and became completely absorbed by the Greek race. They left behind them some Slavonic place names,

but their long domination failed to affect materially the Greek language. Nicephorus I saved Greece from becoming slavonicized.

POST SCRIPTUM

Since the above article was sent to the press the author learned of the appearance in Europe during and soon after the war of three works which deal with the question of the Slavonic settlements in Greece during the Middle Ages. They are in the order of their appearance: (1) Max Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland, published in 1941, in the Proceedings of the Prussian Academy; (2) C. Amantoe, t0l E1d6ot sic ri v 'EUO", By2antinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbucher, 17 (1944), 210-221; and (3) Dion. Zakythinos, tOl XXd6oi. &v'E7lkd8m (Athens, 1945).

The most significant of these three studies is that by Vasmer, a book of 350 pages, devoted principally to the examination of various toponyms in Greece in an effort to determine the distribution and extent of the Slavonic settlements. Unfortunately it has proved impossibe to get access to this book, and what is said here about it is derived wholly from the works of Amantos and Zakythinos. Indeed the work of Amantos is actually a review of Vasmer's book, where the reviewer makes some contributions of his own. These contributions are almost wholly philological in character and do not affect the study printed immediately above. It may be noted, however, that Amantos still holds to the theory that when Evagrius and Menander speak of the devastations of Greece by the Avars

XIII NICEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE

87

and Slavs toward the end of the sixth century, by Greece they mean not Greece proper but the possessions of the empire in the Balkan peninsula. Accordingly, as against Vasmer, he denies that Slavs settled in Greece toward the end of the sixth century.

Longer and more fundamental is the work of Zakythinos. Since the appearance of his Le despotat grec de Moree Zakythinos has shown himself one of the ablest and outstanding Greek scholars. His knowledge of the history of the Peloponnesus is especially profound. His present book is the most significant study on the Slavs in Greece which has appeared in Greece since Paparrhegopoulo. It numbers one hundred pages and consists of five chapters. In the first chapter the author treats the early history of the Slavs and associates their first incursions into the Balkan regions south of the Danube with the reign of Justinian. The Slavonic settlements in the Balkan peninsula is the subject of the second chapter. Here are discussed the important passages of Evagrius and John of Ephesus. Zakythinos follows Hopf and Amantos in iterpreting Hellas as used by Evagrius to refer to the regions of the northern Balkans, the country between Singidunum and Anchialus28 and as for John of Ephesus he confines his remark to this, that athough John speaks of Slavonic settlements, he died in 585 and therefore his story is incomplete but a comparison of it with the relevant passages of Michael the Syrian leads to the inference that these Slavonic settlements were subsequently destroyed. The Slavs of the Peloponnesus is the subject of the third chapter, while the fourth is devoted to a discussion of the philological and other remains of the Slavonic

settlements in Greece. In the fifth and last chapter the author discusses the question of the absorption of the Slavs.

Throughout his study Zakythinos reveals a remarkable knowledge of the sources and the works of modern scholars on the subject. There is nothing in his book which leaves him open to the charge that he was ignorant of certain sources or that he wilfully refrained from citing them. He is open to criticism, however, in the manner in which he uses these sources. This is particularly true of his treatment of the Chronicle of Mtilonemvasia and the scholium of Arethas.

Zakythinos is, of course, well acquainted with the Chronicle of 28p. 19. 'O GQos 'E?.?a; IXEL ivsai3ba (in Evagriu,) oTEYoTEQav O1fl aataV

xal hJlai snv 06Qe1ov Baaxavtxnv, sire µesa5, ELyy gbovo; xai 'AyxtdXou ZOiQav.

XIII 88

Monemvasia and the various studies which have been devoted to it. He also knows the scholium of Arethas. To both the chronicle and the scholium of Arethas he devotes considerable discussion and comes to the conclusion that they were drawn from the same source.

But what was the nature of this source? Zakythinos writes in answer to this question: "The original core [of these sources] must be sought, far from the written tradition, in the oral richness of the Peloponnesian people." And consequently "the information according to which the Peloponnesus was subjected definitely by the Slavs in the year 588, lacks any significance."29 Accordingly he rejects the idea that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus in the sixth century, and places the Slavonic settlements there after 746.

With these conclusions it is impossible to agree. In the first place it does not necessarily follow that information drawn from the oral tradition lacks significance. Oral traditions are not figments of the imagination; they are usually based on facts. But it is extremely improbable that the Chronicle of Mon.emvasia and the scholium of Arethas are derived from the oral tradition. The chronological data which the Chronicle of Monemvasia gives agree with what is known from other sources; its phraseology is virtually the

same as these sources; there is absolute harmony between the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas; their wording is almost identical. Such similarities would have been impossible unless the common source was in writing. The oral tradition is usually distorted as it passes from one generation to another and no two persons who draw from it report it in the same wording. If the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas are derived from the same source, and there is little doubt that they are,

that source must have been a written one. It was probably a chronicle, written sometime between 805, the year during which Patras was rebuilt and raised to the status of a metropolis, and 932, the year during which Arethas wrote his scholium, whose author had drawn his information from Menander, Evagrius, Theophylact 29 P. 41: 'O dQXLx6g ou'tos wQily 2QEEL va ,gt,rDt µaxpav tfj; yQantfjc aaQabSaELuy EL; tav 1tQocoQLxav nkoi,tov TOO nckOtovvgotaxov Xuoo. P. 43: 'H

till II EAOrwvvilOOu VOELLtOLEV, SSL to xEt LEVa SQUta JLQEt£L xuta

VL7LOXOyLxn xQLtL d1 tPuv et; ta; & a6Lxa; &Vacp£QOILEVODV XELILEVLDY

to nAElOSOV Va cVaX-aOVV EL; ILLQV xaL t- v a&riiV ,nyyl v. fi BsoLu d.u xEt bnt0niouc raQQS00ELS, JaaLOlf1)6ELaa; ftQaSin£Qov XQOVOXOyLxPoc W Tfi SdaEL doQLOtWUV xaL doa v ULQTUQLlirv, 6); n toO EvayQLou.

Was tolaStac ovvM'..a;, iI zrAr QOq oQia, xa8' ijv it II EXat6vvjaos unEtdy11 6QLOtLxN; EL;; tot,; IXd60VS xata t0 ITO; 588, OtEQELtaL OTIPaaLa;.

XIII NICEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE

89

Simocatta and some other source which is now lost. This would explain the reason why some of the notices of the Chronicle of _lIo-

nemvasia are easily traceable to Evagrius, 'Menander and Theophylact Simocatta. It seems improbable that whoever wrote the Chronicle of Monemvasia referred to these various works separately, drawing this notice from one, and that from another. Most probably he had before his eyes one work and from that one work he compiled his own notices 30

But while it is permissible for a scholar to have his own interpretation of certain data, he should at least be consistent in the use of these data. It is in this matter that Zakythinos is wide open to criticism. One of the most important notices given both by the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas is that, following the invasion of the Peloponnesus by the Slavs during the reign of Maurice, many of the Peloponnesians fled and settled in Sicily and southern Italy. Now if the statement concerning the invasion of the Peloponnesus lacks significance, i.e., is inaccurate, then the statement that the Peloponnesians migrated to Sicily and southern Italy must also be inaccurate. But while rejecting the first statement, Zakythinos accepts the second as most probably accurate.'L Another important statement of the Chronicle of Monemvasia is that concerning the refoundation of Patras and Lacedae-

mon by Nicephorus I. That statement too is accepted by Zakythinos as accurate.92 And again in his discussion of the topony-ms 30 1 have myself studied the Chronicle of Monemvasia in the light of the echolium of Arethas and the petition drawn in 1429 by Isidore of Kiev on behalf of the metropolitan of Monemvasia. My result, will be published in the Dumbarton Oaks Papers, volume 5. u p. 42. Al naQa56aELs (concerning the migration of some of the Peloponaemans to Sicily and southern Italy) awbeovttu uOavt rata TQo; latoQLxd yerov' ta, 01 YXQova f xat VCtTEQa Ttuv &Aa6tx6Jv &yxataatdoEwr ...

s, p. 51. 'OTL Spin; &d NLxT1t,6Qov Toii A' xai m$avtutata L ii tij; cQXR; TOO oTQ¢Tgyou XXX1JQo0 xate6Xt * nQoond$Eta dva8TjµtovQyia; xai EvtoX6ae0)s Turv 1UTj'LxwV nAT)$voµtuv, 'E[vaL dye to6ijrr Tov. II Q iyµaTL n LL6nQL-

nxd aaQaX

'(i (i.e. the iberikon version of the Chronicle of tilonemvasia)

SLETrjQTICE Tijv dVdlµvrjoLV 6XX(UV, a r{µavstxwTeQwv, yEyovos(DV. 'O airroxQdTttQa EµEQljl.VrIOE LEQI tn; dvotxobo1t,jaEu; tOV n6).ECOV, naVigeQe -rob; &xtatQto14ivTa; IIEXOTOVVTmaiov; El; Ta; ibis; ak6v xuTOLxla;, el; b`e Tijv Aaxebai ova EyxarEOTljoE e).a6V ol.ULLlyT(,v, Kag jQov; TE xal OQaXTjOLOV; xaL 'AQjLsviou; (VOEL: xatayoµevot.; b. ToV OEµaTO; TWV 'AQpevLaxrav) xtil Xolto,; dt6 btaryaoQtov T6T()V TE xaLL .640v 1naLvaX,0ivTaf,). 'E&v bE 716olµEv Un' STjlly 6aa 6 &Eopdvij; aiYEL tEAL til; LETalgoQd;

ILaQTVQei 6 dvwvl!µo; trvyyQaq Eli;,

XQLOTL6voXOV JaTjt)tlci&OV El; Td; BxXa61Qvla;, bd RELODOIEV STL 6 iTOlxtopb;

XIII 90

in the Peloponnesus adduced by Vasmer as Slavic he notices that they are least numerous on the eastern coast of that peninsula and then remarks: "This observation is accurate and agrees with the definite testimony of the sources." And what are the sources to which he refers? The scholium of Arethas and the Chronicle of Monemvasia.39 Thus Zakythinos accepts every statement of the Chronicle of Monemvasia except one, that the Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus in the sixth century, during the reign of Maurice.

But if the statements of the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas that some of the Peloponnesians emigrated as the Slavs came in and that only the eastern part of the Peloponnesus remained free of the Slavs are historically accurate, then the statement that the Slavs came must be accurate also. There is one more observation. The account concerning the dispersion of the Peloponnesians is found also in an important document of the fifteenth century. This is a petition addressed to the patriarch of Constantinople by a metropolitan of Monemvasia. The petition was occasioned by a dispute between the metropolitan of Monemvasia and, the metropolitan of Corinth concerning the jurisdiction over certain episcopal sees in the Peloponnesus, namely, Maine and Zemena. The question had been raised concerning the circumstance under which these bishoprics had come under the jurisdiction of Monemvasia and whether these circumstances still justified their retention by Monemvasia or whether they should not be returned to Corinth where they originally belonged. The writer of this petition was particularly anxious to prove that the capture of Corinth, first by the Avars (the writer wrongly attributes the capture to the Unigurs) during the reign of Maurice (the writer wrongly places this capture in the reign of Justinian) and then by the Latins in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, had no relation to the elevation of Monemvasia to the status of a metropolis. In

connection with the capture of Corinth by the Avars the writer sfir. AaxeWpovo; µeQOc tii; eirQutdtn; noltnxq;, thv 6 oiav 1qQµoaev 6 NIxtl4p6Qo; 6 A' xal rfv bno(av xa$tepuwe, xara tou; veondiov; XQ6vows, 6 oa& touoa Pe6ainc d; Sa?ous oxonou;, n auvOixti tq; AoDt;avq;.

u p. 82, note 1. 'H t 64ti elvam 6Q9h xal ovIIaovei JQ6; ra; Qqras µaQruQ(as r@v xi yOv, rou aXo) Lou 64l48h rqs KataaQe(as t... TOO avatolUCOV µiQous 11 Eloaovv1'aou dna KoQivOou P. XQt MaUa; -coo

2x)laviTvov xaLaQeuovwo; ...s xul too XQonr.ou tii; MovEp6aoia;: aµovov 6t rov divatolucou piQou; tn; II elo:eovviioou &a6 KoQivOov xai lI XQt 116.eov tov

E41a6trvou $vov; bia t6 tQaxv rai bua6atov xaDaQevovto; ...s.

NICEPHORUS I, THE SAVIOR OF GREECE

91

gives an account of the dispersion of the Peloponnesians which is virtually the same as that given by the Chronicle of Monemvasia. Zakythinos not only knows this document but is conscious of its

great value, for he calls it precious. However, in his analysis of the document he confuses the capture of Corinth by the Latins with the capture of the same city by the Avars in the sixth century. For the capture of Corinth to which he refers34 as a result of which the Corinthians were dispersed and some of them were settled by the metropolitan of Monemvasia elsewhere in the Peloponnesus is the capture of Corinth affected by the Latins and not that which

took place in the sixth century as a result of the Avar attack. It should also be pointed out that the author of the document is no longer unknown. The author was no other than Isidore of Kiev and the metropolitan of Monemvasia in whose name the document was drawn was probably Cyril. The document seems to have been written in 1429.35

It was thought necessary to dwell at length on these aspects of Zakythinos' book because they affect the study printed immediately above. That study is fundamentally based upon the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas, and if neither the one nor the other is significant, as Zakythinos would have it, then it has no basis at all. But there is little doubt that both the Chronicle 34 On page 39 Zakythinos writes: XQ1otµata8v aaAaa&teQa awocxeia xal b i tbv aalwbv xcubwa Tf µnrQoJAecas, 6 d o; avyYQagev; A&Yei 6rt rfi; µtIwQas6J.E0)5 Koe(v$ov CroXLoQ,(¢ sQureaoltan; xal wiuv ttolxuw u tfiy aavtax6ae 6 t&re &a(axono; Moveµ6aoia; 6te8ExOq fov; aQ6acpvya; ecal xat ixwev avrovs iv t$ IIEhanoyvil0c9, d7Ula xal no) Aou; 6AAou; uuv ae-

Qw(xwv µewaxalleadµevo;, 1yxasiaa5LQs tavrn, ,c4 o tco; a66 ; v\v IIeXca6vvq aov xawgv.Laatos. But this passage of the document refers to the capture of

Corinth by the Latins and has nothing to do with the Slavic invasion of the sixth century.

35G. Mercati, Scritti d'Isidoro it Cardinale Ruteno et codici a lui appartenuti the si conaervano nella biblioteca Apostolica "aticana. (Studi e Testi, 46, Rome,,1926), 8. As for the metropolitan of ;\Ionemvvasia for whom this document was written see V. Laurent, "La liste episcopcile du synodicon de Monembasie," Echoa d'Orient, 33 (Paris, 1933), 151 f.

XIII 92

of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas are very significant and their accuracy certain, as Zakythinos himself shows, by accepting their testimony in every instance but one. And in refusing to accept this one too he is wrong. The criticisms directed against Zakythinos' book, however, must not be construed to affect its central thesis. That thesis is the continuity of the Greek people throughout the Middle Ages. Zakythinos amply demonstrates this continuity and his book as a whole makes a significant contribution to the history of the Greek people during the Middle Ages. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J.

xlv On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages IN the Middle Ages, at least to the end of the eleventh century, important regions of Sicily and southern Italy, notably the eastern portions of the former

and the territories known as Calabria and terra d'Otranto of the latter, were Greek in language. In southern Italy, indeed, Greek survived the Middle Ages, and there are even now, both in Calabria and the terra d'Otranto, a number of communities where Greek is the language of the population.' When and under what circumstances did Sicily and southern Italy become Greek in language? The earliest answer given to this question was that the prevalence of Greek in Sicily and southern Italy during the Middle Ages was a linguistic survival of Magna Grecia. This view prevailed down to and beyond the middle of the last century when it was challenged by the Italian philologist G. Morosi. Morosi was the first to study systematically and scientifically the

Greek in southern Italy in the nineteenth century. He studied both the Greek spoken in terra d'Otranto and that spoken in Calabria. With regard to the former he came to the conclusion that it was the popular idiom of the tenth century, and, accordingly, he placed the origin of the Greek colonies in the terra d'Otranto at the end of the ninth century, during the reign of Basil I or that of Leo VI s The origin of the Calabrian colonies, however, he placed later

than the ninth century, in the period between the middle of the eleventh century and the end of the twelfth. The reason for this was that in the Greek dialect spoken in Calabria he thought he had found many Arabic and Turkish influences.' Morosi, therefore, rejected the earlier view which considered the prevalence of Greek in Sicily and southern Italy during the Middle Ages as a linguistic survival of Magna Grecia. The ideas developed by Morosi became generally accepted and remained unchallenged for a considerable time.` In the meantime, however, the accumulation of archaeological and epigraphical evidence tended to show that the ancient Greek element in Sicily and southern Italy had not been completely 1 M. A. Triantaphyllides, NgoeAnvucfi rQaµµazixfi, i (Athens, 1938), 296. 2 G. Morosi, Studi sui dialetti greci dells Terra d'Otranto (I.ecce, 187o), p. 189.

s'71 dialetto romaico di Bova di Calabria," Archivio Glottologico ltaliano, IV (Torino, 1878). 72 if. 4 See, for instance, H. F. Tozer, "The Greek-speaking Population of Southern Italy," Journal of Hellenic Studies, X (London, 1889), 11-42.

74

XIV

The Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy

75

Latinized by the long Roman domination. This evidence was finally sifted and studied systematically by G. Rohlfs, who offered his results in a doctoral dissertation, which he later revised and enlarged." Rohlfs' book marks a reaction to the ideas which had been developed by Morosi, for Rohlfs returned to the view which had prevailed before the publication of Morosi's works. The conclusion which he reached was that the basic element of the population of east-

ern Sicily was not Latinized but remained Greek-speaking throughout the Roman domination; there was, therefore, no break in the Greek tradition in Sicily and southern Italy.' Rohlfs' opinions have found favor among many scholars.'

Rohlfs himself, however, was careful to point out that the position of Greek in Sicily had greatly deteriorated under the Roman Empire and had it not been stimulated by an outside influence it would have died out.' Thus the difference between the ideas of Moroni and Rohlfs is a difference in degree. Morosi held that the Greek of Magna Grecia had completely disappeared; according to Rohlfs it had not disappeared, but its position had greatly deteriorated. In either case its revival in the Middle Ages needed an outside stimulus.

The problem, therefore, of determining the nature of this influence still remains.

In the meantime, between the publication of the works by Morosi and that of Rohlfs, when Morosi's idea that the Greek of Magna Grecia had completely died out during the Roman domination was generally accepted, several attempts were made to determine the factors which were responsible for the revival of Greek in Sicily and southern Italy during the early Middle Ages. The explanation generally accepted was that this revival was the result of an influx into Sicily and southern Italy of a considerable Greek-speaking element, but the real problem was to determine the date and the place of origin of this migration and the circumstances under which it was brought about. Morosi's

opinion that the earliest Greek colonies in southern Italy were established toward the end of the ninth century was not found satisfactory. For besides the fact that the evidence for the establishment of Greek colonies in southern Italy at the end of the ninth century is very slight,' it was well known that s G. Rohlfs, Scavi linguittid ndla Magma Grecia (Rome, 1933). s Ibid., PP. 129-131. r 1. Vcndryes' review of Rohlfs' book in Revue des Etudes grecques, XLVIII (Paris, 1935). 185 if. 9 Rohlfs, pp. 134 if.

9 There are two references in the Byzantine writers concerning the establishment of Greek colonists in Italy toward the end of the ninth century. According to a note found in the manuscript C'of the chronicle of Cedrenus (Bonn, 2:225C) the city of Gallipopoli was reconstructed and settled during the reign of Basil I with colonists brought from Heracla Pontica. The second reference coma from Theophana Continuatus (Bonn, 321) who says that Bail settled in the theme of Lonpobardia three thousand former slaves from the Peloponnesus.

XIV 76

Sicily and southern Italy had become Hellenized long before the reign of Basil I.

Not long after the appearance of Morosi's work, Francois Lenormant published his history of Magna Grecia in which he offered another explanation of the Hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy. This explanation had already

been suggested by others, but Lenormant gave it force and expression and made it his owq. Lenormant's explanation consisted of this, that in the eighth century, during the iconoclastic controversy, many Greek-speaking monks fled to Sicily and Italy in order to escape the persecutions of the iconoclastic emperors and that these monks were responsible for the Hellenization of these regions.' This explanation sounded plausible and won some acceptance," but .further investigation showed that it was open to serious objections. The document upon which Lenormant had based his contention that the number of monks who fled to Italy was large was shown to be a forgery of the eighteenth century." This was a serious objection, but still more serious was the fact that by the beginning of the iconoclastic controversy the Hellenization of Sicily was complete. Lynn White has shown that whereas about 6oo A.D. Sicily "contained a considerable Latin element," by 650 it "had become completely Greek in language, rite and culture."" Besides, as Batiffol remarked, "a country could not be peopled by monks, gees aeterna in qua nemo nascitur."" Lenormant's explanation is no longer seriously held. Those who have studied the history of Rome and of Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries have been struck by the fact that out of the thirteen popes who from 678 to 752 occupied the pontifical throne eleven were orientals, i.e., Greek speaking. This fact called for an explanation. Several explanations have been offered and they Ore all related to the question of the growth of Hellenism in Italy. Charles Diehl in his remarkable study on the exarchate of Ravenna attributed the predominance of oriental popes in the period from 678 to 752 to the policy of the imperial government. His contention is that during and after the reign of Justinian the imperial government made it a point to fill the important administrative positions in Italy with orientals because it was believed that they would more faithfully carry out its policies. Hence it promoted them to important. positions, particularly in the church, and by applying pressure succeeded in vesting them with the papal dignity itself. These oriental admin10 F. Lenormant, La Grande-Wee (Paris. i88r), II, 38o if. 11 For example, Tozer, loc. cit., X, 38. 12 P. Batiffol, L'abbaye de Rouano (Paris, 1891), p. V. IS Lynn White, Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, Mass., 1938), p. 17. The third chapter of this book, which is entitled "The Byzantinization of Sicily," appeared in a more extensive form under the same title in the American Historical Review, XLII (1936), 1-2114 Batiflol, p. v.

XIV 77

The Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy

istrative officials and ecclesiastics, aided by oriental merchants who were in Italy, became the agents for the Hellenization of Italy, which was one of the objectives of the imperial government."

The influence of the oriental merchants in the Hellenization of Italy, which was only touched upon by Diehl, was developed and elaborated upon by. Louis Brehier." Brehier was also struck by the predominance of orientals among the popes of the seventh and eighth centuries. He agreed with Diehl that there was a political reason for the elevation of so many orientals to the papal see, but he felt that this explanation was not enough. Brehier argues that the election of so many orientals to the pontifical see could have been

made possible only if there existed among the Roman clergy an "elite of orientals capable of accepting the burden of the pontifical power" and the "fact that it was made possible is proof of the existence of such an elite of oriental clergy."" The existence of this elite of oriental clergy "is one of the principal indications of the social influence that the Greeks and the orientals exercised" in Rome. These Greeks and Syrians came to Italy as pilgrims and exiles, but primarily as merchants. That there were many oriental merchants in Italy throughout the sixth century was shown by Brehier to be a fact'" Thus both Diehl and Brehier place the beginnings of the spread of Hellen ism in Italy in the sixth century and attribute it to the influence of the orientals who settled in Italy as administrative officials, both lay and ecclesiastic, and as merchants." Diehl, however, is careful to warn against any exaggeration." "Despite the large place," he writes, "that the oriental element held in the Roman society, and although Rome may have been in the seventh century, according to a statement of M. di Rossi, a city half Byzantine, the Latin tradition and language kept so great a force that many among the newly arrived foreigners became fused with the indigenous population." This statement of caution casts doubts upon the entire theory that the spread of Hellenism in Italy was the work of administrative officials and merchants. For if in Rome where these officials and merchants were strong and doubtless constituted the

upper stratum of Roman society, their influence, as a Hellenizing agent, remained superficial and hardly touched the core of Roman society, in the provinces where they were much less strong their influence must have been considerably less, no doubt without the power to change the language and cultural tradition of a whole region. But, as the language and cultural tradition 15 Ch. Diehl, Etades far I'adminiulration byzaniine dam Cexarchat de Raaenne (568.- z) (Paris, 1888), pp. 241-88. 1" Louis Brihier, "L.es colonies d'orientau2 au commencement du Moycn-Age," Byzantinische

Zeitrhrift, XII (Leipzig. 1903). 1-39. 17 Ibid., XII, 4. 18 Ibid., XII, 5 ff. 10 But see also Paolo Orsi, "Byzantina Sidliae, " ibid., XIX (1910), 475. so Diehl, P. 283.

XIV 7b of Sicily and parts of southern Italy were seriously affected, the agent that did

this must have been other than the influence of the oriental officials and merchants. But besides this general observation, it must be noted that Diehl really did not produce any concrete evidence in support of his thesis. His contention that the oriental popes of the seventh and eighth centuries were elevated to the pontifical throne through pressure exerted by the imperial government is by no means well founded. Gay has found no evidences of such

pressure, and has further pointed out that these popes were not particularly subservient to the imperial wishes. Gay himself accounts for the predominance

of the orientals among the popes of the seventh and eighth centuries on the ground that they were essential, in view of the Monotheletic controversy and the troubles caused by the Arabic invasions, because they were well versed in the traditions of the East."' Besides, the most important regions under the jurisdiction of the papacy in the seventh century and the first part of the eighth-southern Italy, Sicily, Greece, including Thessalonica and Cretewere Greek speaking. Gay, therefore, rejected the view that the Hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy was brought about by the increasing influence of the Byzantine administration and of the Greek element that was already there. In his opinion what brought about the Hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy was the influx of a considerable number of Greek-speaking elements from the East as a result of the Arabic conquests.22 The explanation offered by Gay is now generally accepted. It did not, of course, originate with him, nor was it developed by him at length. Batiffol,a writing in 18gi, offered the same explanation, and twelve years later K. Lake2' expressed the same view. In recent years Lynn White has become its outspoken exponent.

But the evidence in support of this explanation is very meager. Already before the publication of White's study Rohlfs rejected this explanation on the ground of insufficient evidence.22 White himself is very much aware of this insufficiency. "The documentation of these westward movements," he writes, "is as yet most inadequate and the chances of error regarding them are great."" 21 J.

Gay, "Quelqus remarques sur les papes grecs et syriens avant la querelles des

Iconoclastes," Melanges oflerts a M. Gustave Schlumberger (Paris, 1924), I, 40-54. 22 Gay, "Notes sur la crise du monde chrEtien apris is Conquites Arabs," Ecole franfaise de Rome: Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire, XLV (Paris, 1928), 2. 2e Batiffol, pp. vi If.

24 K. Lake, "The Greek Monasteries in South Italy," Journal of Theological Studies, IV (1903), 350. Lake attributes the Hellenization of Sicily to two causes: (1) "to the expedition of Constans II and the occupation by Greek soldiers and settlers to which it gave rise, and (2) to the immigration of Greeks, lay and monastic alike, who fled from the troubles which were depopulating the Levant generally." See also A. Vaccari, "La Grecia nell' Italia meridionale," Orientalia Christian, III (Rome, 1925), 274-75. To the expedition of Constans II was attributed by Lancia di Brolo the introduction of the Greek rite in Sicily. Lancia di Brolo, Storia della chiesa in Sicilia nei priori dieci secoli dcl Christianesimo, II (Palermo, 1884), 21 f. 26 White, in Am. Hist. Rev., XUI, 4. 28 god, pp. 146-47

XLV

79

The Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy

Indeed, as Rohlfs remarked, this documentation reduces itself to a few isolated instances of persons of oriental origin finding themselves in North Africa and

Sicily during the period of the Persian and Arabic invasions. Of the alleged immigration of orientals to the Occident during the Persian invasion of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt only one person, the monk John Moschus, is cited as having reached Rome " This belief of a mass emigration from the Orient during the Persian invasions is really based on a deduction. Wherever the Persians went they favored the Jacobites and persecuted the Chalcedonians who were composed chiefly of Greek-speaking elements and were vastly in the minority. Therefore, considerable elements of the Greek minority must have emigrated.'s But the fact is that no definite evidence has been produced to show that, as a result of the Persian persecutions, emigrants from the Orient reached Italy in any appreciable numbers. A piece of evidence offered as proof of the existence in Italy of a considerable number of oriental elements toward the end of the first half of the seventh century is the composition of the Roman synod of 649 which condemned Monotheletism. It was observed that this synod was controlled by oriental monks, and from this it was deduced that these monks must have come from the Orient because of the Monotheletic policy of Heraclius. The contention is that Heraclius' policy split the Chalcedonians, many among whom chose to abandon their home rather than accept the religious policy of the emperor." But the fact that some monks fled to Rome in order to fight the religious policy of Constantinople offers no proof of a substantial movement of Greeks from the Orient to the Occident. The arrival of ecclesiastics in Rome in order to combat some particular policy of the emperors of Constantinople was a common occurrence in the early history of the church. In the final analysis, therefore, the argument of the establishment of Greek emigrants from the Orient in Italy as a result of the Persian invasions of the oriental provinces of the empire is based on the instability of conditions in the East, both political and religious. Concrete evidence of such an emigration does not exist. There remains now to be considered the argument adduced in favor of an emigration of Greeks from the Orient and their establishment in Italy as a

result of the Arabic invasions of the seventh century. When Alexandria capitulated to the Arabs in 642, a considerable part of the Greek population departed with their goods. This fact was seized upon by White as evidence in support of his thesis. He writes, "It seems probable that some of them reached 27 [bid., XLII, S.

2E "All this (the persecution of the Chalcedonians by the Persians]," writes White, "would doubtless stimulate emigration by the Greek minority." Ibid., XLII, 9. But the point is to show that a great many of these emigrants went to Sicily or Italy. 29 [bid., XL II, 9 f.

XIV 8o

the west," but he hastens to add that "there is no clear evidence on the point."" Indeed the evidence to which White refers is not only obscure but virtually nonexistent. White cites two references: the frescoes in Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome; and the oldest MS of the Alexandrian Liturgy of St. Mark, which comes from Messina. In the church of Santa Maria Antiqua there are five layers of frescoes, the second of which is Hellenistic in style and was painted sometime

before 650. Myrtilla Avery, who studied this layer, came to the conclusion that its iconography is Alexandrian and this, plus the fact that its style is Hellenistic, led her to the further conclusion that it must have been painted by Alexandrian artists." White seized upon Miss Avery's opinion as constituting an "admirable evidence of the arrival in Rome before 650 of eastern immi.

grants," although, because of the chronology, he does not think it probable that they came as a result of the Arabic invasions a2 Now both these references in reality yield no evidence of an eastern immigration to Italy. The MS of the Alexandrian Liturgy, like other manuscripts, may have been brought to Sicily, as Vaccari suggests, by oriental monks,' but the fact that oriental monks brought books to Sicily does not prove that there was a mass immigration there of Greeks coming from the Orient. The same objection applies to the inference drawn from the frescoes of Santa Maria Antiqua. Besides the point that it is by no means certain that the iconography of these frescoes is Alexandrian-there is indeed considerable doubt whether there was such a thing as a specific Alexandrian iconography or a specific Alexandrian stylea'the mere presence of Alexandrian painters in Rome is no indication of a mass movement of population from Alexandria to Italy. It is known from Greek and Mohammedan sources relating to the conquest of Syria and Palestine by the Arabs that many Greeks abandoned their homes and sought shelter elsewhere. This, too, was seized upon as possible evidence that there was a Greek migration to Sicily during this time. The fact is, however, that nowhere in these sources is it said that those who abandoned their homes went to Sicily or Italy 86 Most likely they all went to Asia Minor. The ao Ibid., XLII, ro.

81 Myrtilla Avery, "The Alexandrian Style at Santa Maria Antique, Rome," Art Bulletin of the College Art Association of America, VII (New York, 1925), 131-49. 82 White, in Am. Hist. Rev., XLII, 10, n. 48. 38 "1 monad greci, the popolarono la Sicilia e poi le Calabrie hell' alto medio evo, ci venivano dalla Palestina e dall' Egitto; portarano seco, qual facto tesoro, le divine Scritture, e allo studio di esse continuarono sempre a consacrarsi con ardore, non solo per la santiftcazione delle anime loro, ma anche per istruzione e utilith dei posteri." Vaccari, loc. cit., III, 303. 84 Ernst Kitzinger, Riimische Malerei vom Beginn des 7. bit seer Mitte des 8. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1934), p. ta. See in addition M. Schapiro's review of C. R. Morey's, Early Christian Art, in Review of Religion, January, 1944, pp. 170, 181-

39 White (Am. Hist. Rev., XLII, Ix, n. 49) refers to Philip Khuri Hitti, Origins of the Islamic State (New York, 19x6). I have checked the references and here is what I have found. "In the year 49 the Greeks left for the sea-coast" (p. 18o). They (the Greeks of Tripoli) "wrote to the king of the Greeks asking for relief through reinforcement or ships on which they might

XIV 81

The Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy

social and military transformation of Asia Minor during the seventh century is usually explained by the settlement of refugees from the oriental provinces and barbarians, chiefly Slavs, from the Balkan peninsula se Some emigrants from Syria, Palestine, and Egypt are known to have lived in North Africa about 641, and a few among them crossed over into Sicily two years later a7 But, to repeat Rohlfs' statement, this is an isolated instance of no great importance, for these orientals were few in number and practically all monks. And what was said by Batiffol in his criticism of Lenormant's thesis, that monks fleeing from the persecutions of the iconoclast, were responsible for the Hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy, applies equally well to this case: "A country could not be peopled by monks, gens aeterna in qua nemo nascitur." These are all the pieces of evidence offered in support of the thesis that an

emigration from the oriental provinces of the Byzantine Empire of considerable proportion took place during the Persian and Arabic invasions and that the Greek-speaking people involved settled in Sicily and southern Italy, a settlement which had the effect of bringing about a metamorphosis in the language, rite, and culture of these regions. It must be admitted that this evidence is meager and in no way does it justify the thesis that has been built upon it. Indeed this thesis seems to have been arrived at by some such reasoning

as this: By the middle of the seventh century Sicily had gone through a linguistic and cultural transformation; this transformation was brought about by an immigration of considerable importance; about the time this transformation took place the East was in the midst of a political and cultural convulsion, the result of the Persian and Arabic conquests; therefore, the people involved in this immigration must have come from the East. "From 614 onward," writes escape and flee to him. Accordingly, the king sent them many ships which they boarded in the night-time and fled away" (p. 594). "He [a certain Greek patrician] made his way together with his followers to the land of the Greeks" (p. 195). "The fact is that when Damascus was taken possession of, a great number of its inhabitants fled to Heraclius who was then at Antioch, leaving many vacant dwellings behind that were later occupied by the Moslems" (p. 189). "At last they [the people and soldiers of Antioch] capitulated, agreeing to pay poll tax or evacuate the place. Some of them did leave; but others remained, and to the latter abu-Ubaidah guaranteed safety,

assessing one dinar and one iarib (of wheat) on every adult" (p. 227). "When the Moslem armies reached these towns [Greek towns in Syria], their inhabitants capitulated, agreeing to pay poll-tax or evacuate the places. Most of them left for the Byzantine empire" (p. 232).

Alexandria; "Some of its Greek inhabitants left to join the Greeks somewhere else" (p. 348). It must be said, however, in fairness to White, that he does not claim that his source actually says that the Greeks who left the Orient went to Italy. The implication of his statement is, however, that he believes that some of these refugees went to Sicily. That some of these refugees may have gone to Sicily is, of course, possible, but the mere possibility that this may have happened does not justify the belief that it did happen. 88 George Ostrogorsky, "Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages," Cambridge Economic History, I (London, 1941), 197; see also my article, "On the Social Structure of the Later Roman Empire," Byzantion, XVII. 3 7 White, in Am. Hist. Rev., XLII, rr f.

XIV 82

White, "the Levant suffered a series of fearful convulsions any one of which would have forced thousands of refugees across the sea."" The same thought forms the basis of Gay's article, "Notes sur la crise du monde chr6tien apriss les congtietes Arabes."a°

The series of convulsions which the Levant suffered during the first half of the seventh century were indeed fearful, and doubtless thousands of refugees were forced across the seas, some of whom may have possibly reached Sicily. But these convulsions were not restricted to the oriental provinces of the empire. The agony that the Balkan peninsula suffered was perhaps more dreadful than anything that happened in the East. Bulgars, Cotrigurs, Avars, Slavs-all these people rivaled each other in their destructiveness. Particularly severe and devastating was the great invasion of the Avars and Slavs during the early years of the reign of Maurice (582-602). Following is a description of this invasion by a contemporary. That same year, being the third after the death of king Justin, was famous also for the invasion of an accursed people, called Slavonians, who overran the whole of

Greece, and the country of the Thessalonians, and all Thrace, and captured the cities, and took numerous forts, and devastated and burnt, and reduced the people to slavery, and made themselves masters of the whole country, and settled in it by main force, and dwelt in it as though it had been their own without fear. And four years have now elapsed, and still, because the king is engaged in the war with the Persians, and has sent all his forces to the East, they live at their ease in the land, and dwell in it, and spread themselves far and wide as far as God permits them, and ravage and burn and take captives. And to such an extent do they carry their ravages, that they have even ridden up to the outer wall of the city, and driven away all the king's herds of horses, many thousands in number, and whatever else they could find. And even to this day, being the year 895 [A.n. 584], they still encamp and dwell there, and live in peace in the Roman territories, free from anxiety and fear, and lead captives and slay and burn 40

This invasion was only one of a series of invasions which left the Balkan peninsula prostrated and changed its ethnic composition, giving rise to problems the solution of which still defies the ability of the world statesmen. These invasions began before the death of Justinian, grew in intensity in the fourth quarter of the sixth century, and continued well into the seventh century. And what was said of the Levant may also be said of the Balkan peninsula, that from 558 onward it "suffered a series of fearful convulsions any one of which would have forced thousands of refugees across the sea." Yet it has occurred to no one among those who have dealt with the question of the Hellenization of ss Ibid., XLII, 7. 86 See note 22 above. 40 John, Bishop of Ephesus, The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Ephesus, tr. from the Syriac by R. Payne Smith (Oxford, 186o), p. 432. The other contemporary

sources are: Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, ed. by Bidez and Parmenticr (London, 1898), p. 228; Menander in C. Miller, Fragmenta Historicvrum Graecorum, IV (Paris, 1851), 252; John of Biclar in Mon. Germ. His.., Chronica Minora (1893), VII, ed. by Mommsem.

XIV 83

The Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy

Sicily and southern Italy that the immigrants responsible for this Hellenization might have come from the Balkan peninsula, particularly Greece. As a matter of fact the impulse, in the form of an immigration, which strengthened the Greek element in Sicily and southern Italy, thereby bringing about the linguistic and cultural transformation of these regions, came from Greece in the eighties of the sixth century and as a result of the devastating invasion of the Avars and Slavs a contemporary description of which was given above. The information about this immigration has been available since 1749, but no one among those who have dealt with the question of the Hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy appears to have known it, while those who have referred to it in connection with the question of the Slavonic settlements in Greece in the sixth century usually discarded it. This was because this information is given by an anonymous chronicle, known as the Chronicle of Monemvasia and thought to have been written in the sixteenth century, hence about a thousand years later than the events which it describes.'[ But recent studies have shown that this chronicle was actually written toward the end of the tenth century or the beginning of the eleventh, and that its author drew his information from a first-rate historical source, now lost, which was written before 932-"' This conclusion was made possible by the publication in 1912 of a scholiurn of Arethas of Caesarea, an outstanding Byzantine scholar of the late ninth and early tenth centuries, a pupil of the great Photios, written in 932, which confirms, as far as it goes, almost word for word what the chronicle has to say." Since the publication of Arethas' scholium there remains virtually nothing in the chronicle that cannot be confirmed by other sources. Therefore, it can now be affirmed in unmistakable and unambiguous terms that the Chronicle of Monemvasia is absolutely trustworthy and constitutes one of the most precious sources of the Avar and Slav penetration of Greece and the dispersion of the Greeks during the early years of the reign of Maurice (582-602).

Here is what the Chronicle of Monemvasia says about the great Avar 41 This chronicle was first published in 1749 by Joseph Pasinus and his collaborators in their

catalogue of the manuscripts of the royal library of Turin from a manuscript written in the sixteenth century: Codicer manuscripts bibliothccae regii Tourinensis Athenaei, I (Turin, 1749), 417 f. Pasinus' edition was the only edition available until 1884 when S. P. Lampros reissued it, together with two other versions which he found in two manuscripts, the one belonging to the monastery of Koudoumousion, the other to that of the Iberikon, both monasteries of Mount Athos. According to Lampros the manuscript of the Iberikon was written in the sixteenth century, that of Koudoumousion probably in the sixteenth, although there are some indications which point to the seventeenth. S. P. Lampros, 'IatoQtxti McAetslpata (Athens, 1884), pp. 97128. In 1909 these three versions were reprinted by N. A. Bees with some corrections: "Tb .415Q! e4j xtlaeto5 MoVEL aaias XQovaxdv,' Bul;avzf5, I (Athens, tgo9), 37-105. ivou XQovtxo0 ,11 c9t tijt; xziaetu5 zi; Movs a42 S. Koufcas, "'Eltl zoti

6aoia;,,," Nios 'EXX vopvrlµrov, IX (Athens, 1912), 473-80. I have studied the Chronicle

of Monemvasia in detail and my results will be published in the fifth volume of the Dumbarton Oaks Papers. "Kougeas, loc. cit., IX, 474-75

XIV

84 invasion of the eighties of the sixth century, the same invasion that is described by the contemporary passage quoted above:

In another invasion they (the Avars] subjugated all of Thessaly and Greece, Old Epirus, Attica and Euboea. They made also an incursion into the Peloponnesus, conquered it by war, and, destroying and driving out the noble and Hellenic nations, they settled in it themselves. Those among the former [the Greeks] who succeeded in escaping from their blobd-stained hands dispersed themselves here and there. The city of Patras emigrated to the territory of Rhegium in Calabria; the Argives to the island called Orobe; and the Corinthians to the island called Aegina. The Lacones too abandoned their native soil at that time. Some sailed to the island of Sicily and they are still there in a place called Demena, call them. selves Demenitae instead of Lacedaemonianc and preserve their own Laconian dialect.

This passage offers unmistakable evidence of an immigration to Sicily and

southern Italy toward the end of the sixth century, but the immigrants involved came not from the oriental provinces of the Byzantine Empire but from Greece itself. And this immigration was of considerable proportion. The entire city of Patras moved to Calabria and the Lacedaemonians who went to Sicily were numerous enough to found a city to which apparently they gave

their name." And although documentation is lacking, it is not improbable that, in view of the general situation, other Greeks besides the people of Patras and the Lacedaemonians, Greeks from Epirus, central Greece, and the western parts of the Peloponnesus in general, went to Sicily or Italy at that time. As the Slavs occupied virtually all the western part of the Peloponnesus, the Peloponnesians who managed to flee could find no nearer haven than Sicily or Italy.

Therefore, it must now be admitted that the outside impulse needed to strengthen the Hellenic element in Sicily and southern Italy and to enable it to

regain its predominant position came from Greece, particularly from the Peloponnesus, during, and as a result of, the great Avar and Slav invasions of the late sixth century. It is, of course, entirely possible that this element was

further strengthened by refugees from the Orient during the Persian and Arabic invasions, but of these refugees nothing definite can be affirmed because

documentation is lacking. It is not impossible either that Greek-speaking "On Demena see Michele Amari, Scoria dei Munrlmani di Sicilia (2d ed.; Catania, 1933), I, 6og ff. Also, Sac. Luigi Vasi, "Notizie Storiche e Geographiche della citta e valle di Demona," Archivio Storico Siciliano, nuova aerie, anno X (Palermo, 1885), 1-15. The etymology of Demena is not cenain. Amari (1, 6og f.) thinks that it was named after the inhabitants. If this opinion is

correct then the name Demena may have been derived from Demenitae, the name by which, according to the Chronicle of Monemvasia, the Lacedaemonians who settled in Sicily came to be known. And the term Demenitae is a corruption of Lacedemonitae as the Chronicle of Monemvasia calls the Lacedacmonians. What probably happened was the dropping of the first two

syllables from Lacedacmonitae and the simplification of the spelling of what remainedDemenitae instead of Daemonstae. The form Demon instead of Demena occur several times in the source.

XIV 85

The Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy

refugees from central Italy settled in Calabria, after the conquest of the exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards, but for this, too, there is no definite documentation." The movement of population from Greece to Sicily and southern Italy toward the end of the sixth century is the only movement for which definite documentation exists. It is to this movement, therefore, that the ultimate Hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy must be attributed. Related to this Greek emigration is the question of the establishment of Slavonic settlements in Greece. That Slavs settled in Greece during the Middle Ages no scholar has ever denied,18 but it has been denied, especially by modern Greek scholars, that they settled there as early as the end of the sixth century. This was because the Chronicle of Monemvasia was ignored, while the contem-

porary accounts of Menander, Evagrius, and John of Ephesus were given an interpretation of such a broadness as to make them inapplicable to Greece." But with the Chronicle of Monemvasia confirmed by the scholium of.Arethas there can no longer be any doubt that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus in the sixth century, during the reign of Maurice, and that, in settling there, they exterminated part of the ancient population and forced another part to disperse and emigrate. But it by no means follows that the Greek element completely disappeared from the Peloponnesus and that the modern Greeks are Christians of Slavonic descent in whose veins there is "not a single drop of real pure Hellenic blood."" For the eastern part of the Peloponnesus from Corinth to Malea remained in Greek hands, and when, beginning with the

ninth century, the Slavs of the Peloponnesus were subdued, parts of the country were settled with new Greek-speaking elements, some of which were pure Greek, others not so pure, but doubtless Hellenized.4° Slavonic tribes 45 C. Cecchelli, "Squardo Generale all' Architettura Bizantina in Italia," Studi Bizentini e Neocllenici, IV (Rome, 1935), 21. 4e On the Slavs in Greece see A. A. Vasiliev, "The Slavs in Greece" (in Russian), Vizentiiskij Vremennik, V (St. Petersburg, 1898), 404-38, 626-70. Vasiliev's work, although written fortyeight years ago, is still fundamental. I read it with the aid of Mrs. Nathalic Scheffer. The German Max Vasmer, a scholar of Slavic philology, published during the war (1941), in the Proceedings

of the Prussian Academy, a long work (35o pages), based principally on the study of place names in Greece, on the question of the Slavic settlements in Greece. This work was not available

to me, but I had access to the long review by C. Amantos, "Ot EbaPot etc vt}v 'EUta86t," Byzantinisch-Neugriechische lahrbikher, XVII (Athens, 1944), 210-21. The question has been more recently treated in an excellent monograph by D. Zakythinm, 01 E7l60ot &v 'EII48t (Athens, 1945). About this book see the port scriptum to my article "Nicephorus I, the Savior of Greece from the Slavs," Byzantina-Metabyzentine, I (New York, 1946). 4r As late as 1939 the Greek scholar Amantos wrote, "By Hellas the archaist Menander means the Byzantine regions up to the Danube, including modern Bulgaria." In the same way

he explained the passage of Evagrius. Constantine I. Amantos, IctoQ(a tov Butavztvou

KQatou,S (Athens, 1939), 1, 281 if. See also my review of this book in Byzantion, XV, 472. 48 Fallmerayer, Geschichte der Halbintel Morea wahrend des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, 1830), I, iii-xiv, as quoted by A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison, 1928), 1, 213-1449 The Chronical of Monemvasia, Bees's edition, pp. 68-69; the scholium of Arethas, in Kougeas, loc. cit., IX, 474-75. See also C. Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlends vom Begins des Minelalters bis auf unscre Zcit, in Ersch and Gruber, Allgemeine Encydopedie der Wissenschaften and Ki nste, LXXXV (Leipzig, 1867), 98-99.

XIV 86

continued to exist; some of them were still there in the fourteenth century, but their strength had declined at the beginning of the ninth century when they were defeated at Patras and that city was again resettled with Greeks, descendants of those who had emigrated to Calabria in the sixth century 60 The Slavs indeed continued to resist, but their long domination of the western peloponnesus was over; eventually they succumbed and became completely absorbed by the Greek race. They left behind them some Slavonic place names,

but their long domination failed to affect materially the Greek language. 30 The Chronicle of Monemvaria, p. 69; the scholium of Arethas, Kougeas, loc. cit., IX, 474

XV ON THE CAPTURE OF CORINTH BY THE ONOGURS AND ITS RECAPTURE BY THE BYZANTINES IN the history of the Byzantine possessions in the Balkan peninsula there is perhaps no period more obscure than that of the seventh century. What can be gleaned from the fragmentary state of the sources is awfully little and that not always dear. This is particularly true of the chronology of the events. Yet, what happened in the seventh century was of such great importance in the subsequent history of the Balkan peninsula that scholars have left no stone unturned in an effort to establish the sequence of events and clarify the numerous problems connected with them. Among the more recent attempts in this direction that made by Professor Setton is perhaps the most elaborate. He seems to have spared no effort and neglected no reference in order to throw new light on events of the seventh century. One is overwhelmed by his documentation.' Professor Setton's study may be divided into three parts. In the first part he gives a useful summary of the state of our knowledge concerning the early history of the Bulgars in their homeland and in the Balkan peninsula; in the second part he discusses, questioning their validity, a group of related sources, including the Chronicle of Monemvaaia, which refer to the Avaro-Slavic penetration of Greece in the eighties of the sixth century; in the third part he makes what appear to be concrete and original contributions. 'Certain historical and archaeological evidence,' he thinks, 'suggest ... the extreme probability of the occupation of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars in the middle of the seventh century,' more precisely, 'some time after 641-644.' But not too long after 641-644, for 'the Onogurs could not have held Corinth much more than fifteen years or so' and Corinth was recovered by Constans II, the Byzantine emperor in 657-658. As these and other conclusions to which Professor Setton arrived in this study are of considerable importance for the history of Greece in the sixth and seventh centuries, a reexamination of the basis on which they were reached is by no means unjustifiable. The historical evidence to which Professor Setton refers as suggesting 'the extreme

probability of the occupation of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars ... sometime after 641-644' is a petition written by Isidore of Kiev and addressed to Patriarch Joseph H in 1449 by Cyril, the metropolitan of Monemvasia. The passage, as quoted by Professor Setton, reads: And now two sacks of Corinth were witnessed during the period of Roman domination over the Peloponnesus, one in the days of Justinian the Great, who on this account later fortified the Isthmus and the other as a consequence of the Fourth Crusade, for in Justinian's time three Scythian tribes, called the Kutrigurs, Utigurs, and Onogurs [Korriryapob OfrrrL' ape rsal Ofwiyapm], having crossed the Danube, one of these tribes ravaged

upper Moesia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia and the regions right up to the Ionian Sea in a single expedition, while the Utigurs ravaged all Thrace and the Hellespontine Chersonese and all the territories on this side of the Hebrus to the very walls of the city of Constantine, and these Belisarius checked, outwitting and crushing them, but the Onogure laying wane Macedonia, Thessaly, Greece, and everything within Thermopylae, and pillaging even as far as Corinth, they straightway took the city without a'eingle blow. Professor Setton ends his quotation at this point. But there is more to the passage from the petition of Isidore of Kiev. This, for some unknown reason, Professor Setton chose to ignore but, since it is significant for the interpretation for the entire passage, we reproduce it here. After saying that the Onogurs took Corinth without a single blow, Isidore adds:'

When the lower and common element among the Spartans heard of this capture ... they fled in sufficient numbers into the high mountains which envelop Lacedaemon,

XV 344

On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs

especially Mount Parthenion, and crept into its gullies, caves, and hollows and thus drew themselves away from the barbarous flood. And they still preserve that ancient name of Lacones, but speaking barbarously they call themselves Tzacones instead of Lacones. Those on the other hand who were engaged in commerce went to Gytheion that was the seaport of the Spartans - with their wives and children and, boarding their ships, speeded towards Sicily, and disembarking in Messene, settled in the neighborhood and in the course of time they too barbarized their name and came to be called Demenitae. But the nobles, the brilliantly fortunate, and the more prosperous among the Spartans, having learned of the great difficulties of the Corinthians, and fearing lest the same thing might happen to them, straightway, as they were, proceeded with all haste to Monemvasia, a small peninsula located in Laconia .... While retaining as a fact the report of Isidore of Kiev concerning the fall of CorinthProfessor Setton rightly rejects the time and circumstances given by that author for this event. There is indeed no doubt that Corinth at one time fell into the hands of barbarians, but this fall did not take place during the reign of Justinian. It took place at some other time. When is a matter that cannot be established on the passage of Isidore of Kiev; there is need of other references. Now, in all the literature of the Middle Ages, Greek, Latin and Oriental, there is not a single known reference which speaks of the capture of Corinth in the seventh century by barbarians, whether Onogurs or others. And yet, though there is no such reference, it is the opinion of Professor Setton that the fall of Corinth, erroneously put by Isidore of Kiev in the reign of Justinian, actually took place not long after 641-642. How he has arrived at this conclusion is most curious and extraordinary. In the Miracula Sancti Demetrii we read that about sixty years after the Avar devastations in the Balkan peninsula described in the Miracula, a revolt, headed by a certain

Kouver, broke out in the camp of the Avars' On the assumption - a fair one - that the Avar devastations referred to in the Miracula are those of the years 578-585 as described by other sources, Henri Gregoire and some others before him have placed the revolt of Kouver sometime between 638 and 645.4 The rank and file of the followers of Kouver was composed of a mixed crowd, descendants of those natives of the Balkan peninsula, who had been carried away by the Avars, and the Avars, Bulgars and other barbarians in the camp of the Khan with whom they had intermarried. This motley crowd Kouver led toward Thessalonica and there entered into an intrigue in order to take the city. But his plot failed and, as some of his followers began to desert him, he moved

westward and settled in the plain of Monastir. It is there that the text of the Miracula leaves him.

Now, according to Gregoire, the Kouver of the Miracula is the same person as the Kouvratos or Krovatos mentioned by other Byzantine texts as the chief of the Onogundur Bulgars' While still a young man this Kouvratos had gone to Constantinople, was there baptized and entered into a life-long friendship with Heraelius, then emperor of Byzantium. In the dynastic struggle which followed the death of Heraclius in 641 Kouvratos supported the interests of Martina and her children as against those of Constans U. To quote the chronicler who reports this: 'Now touching him [Kouvratos] it is said that he

supported the interests of the children of Heraclius, i.e., the children of Martina and opposed those of Constantine. And in consequence of this evil report all the soldiers in Constantinople and the people rose up.'" Professor Setton concludes: 'The Onogur Bulgars were in the plain of Monastir, in continental Greece [Monastir is actually in Yugoslavia], just before the middle of the seventh century. After the death of Heraclius there was every reason for an Onogur attack, from that convenient location, upon what was, presumably, the chief city of the Peloponnesus.'7 'It was some time after 641-642 that a detachment of Onogur Bulgars, whether under, conceivably one of the sons of Kovrat [Kouvratos], or under some other lieutenant, attacked and captured Corinth.'B There is, of course, as the reader can readily see, nothing in the Miracula nor in the other texts which describe the activities of Kouver-

XV On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs

345

Kouvratos, that can give the slightest justification to this conclusion. Indeed, if, as Setton,° following Gregoire,10 believes, Kouver-Kovratos is none other than the Chrovatos, who, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, led the Croats into Dalmatian then the motley crowd which he stationed in the plain of Monastir must have moved, when it did move, in the direction of Dalmatia and not of Greece. There is, however, something more to the argument of Professor Setton. He believes that there is evidence which shows that in 657-658 Corinth was recaptured by the Byzantines and that this event left traces, in the form of certain archaeological objects, indicating that it was from the Onogurs that Corinth was'retaken. And, as Corinth, according to Professor Setton, was not captured by barbarians before the seventh century, the Onogurs expelled in 657-658 must have been the Onogurs who had taken Corinth in 641-642. Now to examine this evidence.

In the ninth-century chronicle of Theophanes Confessor we read that in 657-658, Constans II, then emperor of Byzantium, made an expedition "into Sclavinia, and he took many prisoners and subdued the land."12 Elsewhere and in another connection Theophanes speaks of Sclavinias," presumably regions of the empire inhabited by Slavs. But neither in the one nor in the other case does he give precise indication as to the location of these Sclavinias and, as a consequence, they cannot be located without additional historical evidence. Now, in the case of the Sclavinia conquered by Constans II there is no

such evidence, as Professor Setton himself admits when he writes l1 W. Brehier states, simply and truly, "On ignore dans quelle region eut lieu cette expedition. On suppose qu'elle degagea Thessalonique". 'And yet it is on this passage and on this passage alone of Theophanes that Professor Setton bases his conclusion that Corinth was recaptured by the Byzantines under Constans in 657-658. In his words: 'I believe it to be most likely that one effect of part, at least, of the military preparations of 657-658 was the relief of Corinth, which must have suffered so much from its capture by the Onogurs and its recapture by the Byzantines, that it may have ceased to exist as an inhabited community.'16 Any one can see, of course, that in the passage of Theophanes concerning the expedition of Constans II into Sclavivia there is not the slightest suggestion of a campaign in the Peloponnesus. Professor Setton, however, does not rest his case on the literary sources alone; he relies greatly on archaeological evidence and to this evidence we now turn our attention. In a square tower not far below the fortified west entrance to Acrocorinth excavators have found a number of graves among which two are of particular significance. In the one there were six bodies; in the other two. There were found in addition numerous objects, chiefly buckles and weapons. Archaeologists differ as to the provenience of these objects,16 but they seem to have belonged to some nomadic people from the north. Professor Setton

thinks that it is better to regard the bodies and the objects found in these graves as Onogur, 'since Isidore of Kiev obviously preserves a reminiscence of a Peloponnesian tradition to precisely this effect."' It is impossible, we think, to identify these objects this precisely, but we shall follow Setton in calling them Bulgar, although they were probably common to all the nomads of the north. Among these objects Professor Setton singles out the buckles and calls them 'Bulgaric buckles.' The barbarians, whose bodies, along with the weapons and other objects belonging to them, have been found in Corinth, presumably died in attacking the city or in defending themselves after they became masters of it. Nothing among the objects themselves, however, gives the slightest indication as to when either one of these events may have taken place and if they are to be exactly dated there is need of evidence drawn from other sources. Now, as we have repeatedly pointed out, there is nothing in the Byzantine literary tradition which in any way suggests the conquest of Corinth by barbarians or its recapture

by the Byzantines in the seventh century. Still, despite this lack of evidence, Professor Setton thinks he has been able to give a seventh-century date for these objects and so prove that barbarians, Onogurs in his opinion, took Corinth in the seventh century. He arrives at this date in a most peculiar way.

XV 346

On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs

Evidence drawn from two Greek texts shows that belts called Bulgar and supposedly fitted with 'Bulgaric' buckles were used in the Byzantine army.18 Neither the one nor the other of these texts is dated, but, as Professor Setton himself says, they belong either to the last years of the sixth century or the early years of the seventh. These texts prove, if they prove anything, that about the turn of the sixth century belts called Bulgar were used by the Byzantines, but from which of the various Bulgar tribes they were adopted these texts do not say. Moreover, before the Byzantines came to use them, they must have known them for some time and this brings us in the sixth century when Bulgar and other barbarian tribes roamed in the Balkan peninsula. Professor Setton, however, associates these texts with finds of buckles made in Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Corfu, southern Italy and Sicily and comes to the conclusion that the buckles of these finds belong to the middle of the seventh century. 'Buckles like those in the graves at Corinth,' he writes, 'have been found with suspicious regularity along the entire route of Constans II,' i.e., the route which this emperor took when in 660 he left Constantinople in order to go to Sicily. They are buckles, he intimates, dropped by the troops of Constans and show that these troops were equipped with belts fitted with the kind of buckles found in Corinth. The Corinthian buckles, therefore, belong to the middle of the seventh century. Worn by the Bulgars who had occupied Corinth, they must have been dropped in the course of a violent struggle, the one which resulted in the expulsion of the Bulgars from Corinth. They show, therefore, that the statement of Theophanes to the effect that in 657-658 Constans II made an expedition 'into Sclavinia' must be interpreted to include a campaign which resulted in the capture of Corinth." In all this, of course, there is nothing concrete except the fact that buckles have been found in certain localities in the Balkan peninsula and elsewhere. How they got there is a matter which one may explain in various ways. The most satisfactory and probably the closest to the truth is the explanation suggested by a statement which Professor Setton himself makes elsewhere in his paper. Speaking of the buckles found in southern and northern Italy Professor Setton writes:'Some of the buckles found in South Italian graves, to-

gether with those few found in northern Italy, came into possession of the Lombards through, presumably, the Avars, themselves in close contact with the Bulgars and the Byzantines.'E0 Now the Avars, in whose ranks there were various Bulgar and Slavic tribes, roamed in the Balkan peninsula, around Thessalonica and Greece, especially in the years 57"85.21 It is to them, as G. R. Davidson suggests,22 that the objects found in the graves at Corinth should be traced. As to the coins belonging to the reign of Constans II which one has found in Corinth, they should be associated with the voyage which that emperor made to Sicily during which he is known to have stopped at Athens and probably also at Corinth. It will perhaps be helpful at this point to reduce the evidence produced by Professor Setton to its simplest form. It consists of the following elements: 1. A statement of Isidore of Kiev (fifteenth century) that Onogurs took Corinth during the reign of Justinian. 2. The statement in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii that a certain Kouver camped in the plain of Monastir with a motley crowd of Slavs, Bulgars and possibly Greeks. 3. The probability that Kouver was at Monastir in 641. 4. The probable identity of Kouver with Kouvratos, called Onogundur by one Byzantine source, Run by another?s 5. The intervention of Kouvratos in the dynastic struggle of Byzantine in favor of Martina, the widow of Heraclius, following the death of Heraclius in 641. 6. The statement of Theophanes that in 657-658 Constans II made an expedition in Sclavinia.

7. Certain archaeological objects, bearing no date, but probably belonging to barbarians from the north, found in two graves at Corinth. Among these objects there are a number of buckles.

XV On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs

347

8. Buckles similar to those of Corinth found in Thessalonica, Athens, Corfu, southern Italy and Sicily. 9. Two texts indicating that toward the turn of the sixth century certain belts called Bulgar were used in the Byzantine army. 10. Coins belonging tathe reign of Constans lI found in Corinth.

This is the evidence on which Professor Setton bases his conclusion of the capture of Corinth by the Onogurs not long after 641-642 and its recapture by the Byzantines under Constans II, in 657-658. It suffices to cast but a superficial glance at this evidence to realize how groundless Professor Setton's conclusion is.

Yet Professor Setton is right when he says 'that the weight of the evidence ... is entirely in favor of the fundamental truth of Isidore's statement' concerning the capture

of Corinth. Corinth was in fact taken by barbarians from the north. The event took place during the reign of Maurice (582-602) and is reported by two independent sources. The one is the Syriac chronicle of Michael Syrus, a work composed in the twelfth century, but based on the work of John of Ephesus, a contemporary of the event?' The other is the Greek chronicle, known as the Chronicle of Monemoasia, written not later than the second half of the eleventh century and based on some work composed in 932 or earlier, probably at the beginning of the ninth century." Both Michael Syrus and the Chronicle, of Monemvasia describe the Avaro-Slav invasions of the Balkan peninsula and Greece which took place in the years 578-588. The Slavs, says Michael, took many prisoners and carried away many objects from the churches, as, for example, the ciborium of the church of Corinth which their king used as a throne to sit on. The Chronicle of Monemrasia says that as a result of the invasions of the Peloponnesus by the Avars, many of the Peloponnesians emigrated, the Corinthians going to the island of Aegina, which, of course, is not very far from Corinth. Neither the one nor the other of these reports can be seriously

doubted. Michael Syrus took his information from John of Ephesus who was a contemporary of the event; the Chronicle of Monemvasia has been shown to be based on a good historical tradition. Professor Setton, to be sure, using arguments advanced by Kyriakides, has tried to discredit the validity of the Chronicle of Monemoasia, but none of his arguments has a concrete basis. They are all suppositions which cannot be verified." But if the Avaro-Slavs took Corinth, as indeed they did, they did not keep it very long. We are told by the Chronicle of Monemeasia that 'having taken and settled in the Peloponnesus, the Avars lasted in it for two hundred and eighteen years, from 587 to 805.' But not in Corinth, for Corinth with the eastern part of the Peloponnesus remained in the hands of the Byzantines. And yet, according to the same chronicle, the Avars had also taken Corinth as well as the Argolis" This apparent contradiction can mean only one thing, that Corinth, together with the Argolis, was recovered by the Byzantines and that this recovery took place shortly before 587. Evidence drawn from the Miracula Sancti Demelrii seems to corroborate this. On Sunday, 22 September, when Maurice was emperor, we read in the Miracula, an Avar army, composed of Slavs, Bulgars, and other barbarians, appeared before the city of Thessalonica. The barbarians, we read further, had chosen the most opportune moment for their attack, for the best elements of the troops of the city, together with the prefect, were in Greece on public business" This was either in 586 or 597, for these are the only two years during the reign of Maurice that 22 September fell on a Sunday. Scholars have differed as to which one of these years they should accept, but the weight of the evidence is in favor of 586" Thus, in 586 a good Byzantine army was in Greece. We are not told the exact nature of the public business it had to transact, but, given the situation which then existed in Greece (this is the period of the great Avaro-Slav penetrations), it was doubtless sent there in order to fight. One of the results of this expedition may very well have been the recovery of Corinth and Argolis. Professor Setton has cited certain well known letters of Gregory the Great, one of them addressed to Anastasius, bishop of

Corinth and dated February 591, as proof that Corinth was never taken by the bar-

XV 348

On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs

banana during the reign of Maurice.10 These letters, of course, only prove that in 591 Corinth was in Byzantine hands; they corroborate the Chronicle of Monemoasia that the Avaro-Slavs did not keep Corinth; and lend support to the suggestion that Corinth may have been recovered by the Byzantines in 586. But it was long before Corinth recovered from the blows dealt to her by the Avaro-Slavs. All evidence belonging to the seventh century indicates that the lower town ceased to exist and that all activity was concentrated on the Acrocorinth.u Now to return to Isidore of Kiev. That ecclesiastic quite obviously confused into one three different invasions in the sixth century.° One of these invasions is that of 539 as related by Procopius. Procopius calls the barbarians who were responsible for that invasion Huns; other Byzantine writers refer to them as Bulgars. Breaking into the Balkan peninsula, they plundered Illyricum from the Ionian Sea to the suburbs of Constantinople; stormed the Thracian Chersonese; and, invading Greece, 'destroyed,' says Procopius, 'almost all the Greeks except the Peloponnesians.' Now these are precisely the regions which, according to Isidore, were devastated by the Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Onogurs. The Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Onogurs were, of course, all Bulgars. The second of these invasions is that of the Kutrigur chief Zabergan which took place in 558. Zabergan divided his forces into three groups. One he sent against Greece; another against the Thracian Chersonese; and the third he led in person against Constantinople. All three groups were separately defeated. The one against Greece was stopped at Thermopylae; the one against the Thracian Chersonese was defeated by Germanus; and the group led by Zabergan was turned back by Belisarius who used a clever stratagem. It will be recalled that, in the account of Isidore, it is Belisarius who, by a clever stratagem, scatters the barbarians sent against Constantinople. The third of these invasions is that of the Avars which took place during the reign of Maurice and resulted in the capture of Corinth. Isidore here drew his information from the literary traditions whence derive also the Chronicle of Monemoasia and the Scholium of Arethas. This is clear from his account of the dispersion of the Lacedaemoneans following the fall of Corinth. There is, however, one element in the account of Isidore of Kiev which we do not find

in the accounts describing the invasions of 539, 558 and that of the Avars during the reign of Maurice which resulted in the capture of Corinth. It is Isidore's reference to the Onogurs as the people who captured Corinth. This part, however, is not as significant as Professor Setton thinks. The Onogurs were the first among the Bulgars to have been conquered by the Avars "1 The latter recruited their armies by drawing from the peoples whom they conquered. In these armies the Slavic and Bulgar elements are known to have been considerable" The Byzantine writers hardly ever state to which branch of the Bulgar people the Bulgar element in the Avar armies belonged. It was probably drawn from all. We know, however, that it included Kutrigurst6 and no doubt also Onogurs as can be inferred from the fact that the Onogur Kouver-Kouvratos was a chief of Bulgars in the Avar armies. It is extremely probable, therefore, that the Avar army which took Corinth during the reign of Maurice includes also Onogurs, hence the statement of Isidore of Kiev that Onogurs took Corinth. The issue of Spa=um, in which Professor Setton's study appeared, contained also an article concerning a Byzantine statue base found at Corinth.31 According to the author, the 'base supported a bronze statue approximately two-thirds life size.' The inscription indicates that the statue was dedicated to an 'Augustus Flavius Constan' who is referred

to as 'Victorious.' The 'Constan' is an abbreviation and could stand for Constantine, Constantius, or Constans. The base with the statue could belong either to the fourth or seventh century since both the dynasty of Constantine the Great and that of Heraclius were Flavii. After some hesitation the author of this article decided in favor of the seventh century and identified the 'Constan' of the inscription with Constans I. The history of art is a field in which we have no competence and we would prefer to let those qualified to deal with the problem. We would like to make the observation, however, that the Corinth

xv On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs

349

of the seventh century was too miserable to be able to finance or cast a bronze statue two-thirds life size. It should also be pointed out that the author of this article was swayed by Professor Setton's thesis that Onogurs took Corinth shortly after 641 and that it was recaptured by the Byzantines under Constans II in 657-658. The Onogurs, of course, did not take Corinth shortly after 641 and the Byzantines did not recapture it in 657-658. RUTGER9 UNIVERSITY

Kenneth M. Setton, 'The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century,' SrrcvrUM, xxv (1950), 502-543. 2 For the Greek text with an English translation, see Peter Charanis, 'The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece,' Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. V (1950), 158-159.

1 L'Abb5 A. Tougard, De l'histoire profane dens les actes grecs des Bollandistes (Paris, 1874), pp. 186 if.

Henri Grhgoire, 'L'origin et le nom des Croates et des Serbes,' Byzantion, xvii (1945), 110 f. Ibid., pp. 91, 100 if. ° The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikzu, tr. by R. H. Charles (London, 1916), pp. 197 F. Setton, op. cit., p. M. Ibid., pp. 621 f. Idem. 1O Gr6goire, op. cit., pp. 91, 104 if.

" Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, edited by G. Moravesik and translated into English by R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), pp. 146 if. '2 Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by Carolus de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), r, 347. 11 Ibid., 1, 486. 14 Setton, op. cit., p. 522.

's Idem.

zB G. R. Davidson, 'Archaeological Evidence for a Slavic Invasion of Corinth,' American Journal of Archaeology, XL (1936), 128 f.; and 'he Mar Invasion of Corinth,' Hesperia, iv (1937), 227-240; H. Zeis, 'Avarenfunde in Korinth?' Serta Hoffilleriana (Zagreb, 1940), 95-99. Cf. A. Bon, 'Le ProblPme slave dans le PbloponAse 1 la lumihre de l'archLologie,' Byzantion, xx (1950), 16 if. 'r Setton, op. cit., p. 520. 11 Ibid., pp. 528 f. 1° Ibid., pp. 523-525. 0 Ibid., p. 643, n. 161. Gregoire, op. cit., pp. 108 if.

a See note 16. Concerning the provenience of these objects however, there is still considerable discussion. In a letter addressed to me and dated S0 April 1951. Dr Hans Hintermaier of Krumpenderf, Austria, writes: 'I ... would like to inform you that after the competent opinion of Professor Werner these finds [the finds of Corinthi can not be considered as Avar finds .... I am inclined to the same opinion knowing quite well nearly all European Avar finds by autopsy in the museums. The belt appendices and buckles are of Byzantine form and such Byzantine buckles are very frequent in the Hungarian finds of the Avsr period.' See further H. Zeis as referred to in note 16. n The patriarch Nicephorus (edition Bonn, p. 27) calls him Onogundar; John of Nikiu (op. cit., p. 197) calls him Hun. 14 Chronique do Michel Is Syrien, edited and translated by J. B. Chabot, n (Paris, 1901), $62. On the source and significance of this passage, L. Niederle, Sloe. Starohitnoeti, n (Prague, 1906), 213. I consulted Niederle with the help of M. Petrovich. a On the Chronicle of Nonemnaaia see Charanis, op. cit., pp. 147 if. a Concerning the book of Kyriakidea see Charania, 'On the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece during the Middle Ages,' Byzantinoslavica, x (1949), 255 E. 17 Charanis, 'The Chronicle of Monemvasia ... ; p. 147.

xv 350

On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs

7e Tougard, op. Cit., p. 98. Aa6 wv 5! cal abriov r& v fxJAb n.w vcavuov rou re orparuornco'u, cal v5p lv rW pey(argi orpareaoplaiv spatrarpLQ Spa rQ rrlvscalra rip 1T8pXwv pcrd Xeipas SXOVTL GpXJP, card Tip &AAljwov X4pav 5r/poa4nv Zveca Xpeiov dxo5e5gp,ck.w.

2e St. Stanojevi6, Visantija i Srbi, II (Novi Sad, 1906), 200; K. Jire6ek, Ietorija Srba. tr. into Serbian and enlarged by J. Radonid (Beograd, 1922), r, 04. I consulted these two books in Serbian with the help of M. Petrovich. See also 0. Tafrali, Theesalonique des origins& au X1V siPcle (Paris, 1919), p. 104. 80 Setton, op. cit., pp. 519 and 597, n. 128. P. Jaffb - G. Wattenbach, Regeela Pontifecum Romanorum, i (LeppZ1g, 1885). 145, n. 1096. e1 Bon, op. cit., 17 f. See also his Le Peloponndse Byzantin juequ'en 1204 (Paris, 1951), p. 52. n On the passage of Isidore of Kiev and its possible sources see Charanis,'The Chronicle of Monem-

vasia ... ,' pp. 157-162. a Excerpta de legationibua pentium a Menandro in Excerpta de Leyationibua, ed. C. de Boor (Berlin, 1908), p. 442; Theophylact, Hieloria (Bonn, 1836), p. 284. e4 For Bulgars in the Avar armies: Theophanes, op. cit., pp. 275; 815; Tougard, op. cit., 186 if., 180; George of Pisidia, Bdlum Avaricum (Bonn, 1837), pp. 55, 68. n Exeerpla de legationibue genieum a Menandro, p. 458.

m John H. Kent, 'A Byzantine Statue Base at Corinth,' Srzcuuna, xxv (1950), 544-546.

xvI ON THE SLAVIC SETTLEMENT IN THE PELOPONNESUS

The question of the beginnings of the Slavic settlements in the Peloponnesus during the Middle Ages has been raised once more by two publications which have appeared recently, the one by E. Chrysanthopoulos,l the other, by A. Bon .2 There is also the note just published by Professor Setton3 in response to the critique4 which I wrote of his treatise, "The Bulgars in the Balkans ..." s

The work of Chrysanthopoulos has as its subject the Chronicle of Monemvasia, that interesting and curious short Byzantine chronicle about which so much has been written lately." In this work Mr. Chrysanthopoulos has devoted some space to the discussion of the different versions

of the Chronicle; to its relation to other texts; to its history; and to the various appraisals concerning the authenticity of its contents. In all these he has produced in abbreviated form what has already been said by others.

In tracing the sources of the Chronicle, however, he has produced something new and it is this that makes his work extremely interesting. Mr. Chrysanthopoulos has found that one of the sources used by the author of the Chronicle in describing the Avar invasions which he says took place during the reign of Maurice was Procopius. The Chagan of

the Avars, we read in the Chronicle, "came as far as the suburbs of Bet xai tExpt rwv'rouBui;av'r ou Byzantium devastating everything" Some few of the Avars we read further, npoasretwv r& nivra "having crossed the straits of Abydus and having devastated the countryTN)(; 'Ap6aou side of Asia, returned" ('OAEyot U rtv" aurwv rov stapavrES xai, Ta - -qq 'AcLaC ywp6a XY1La0Cp.EVOt aUt; 06EaTpE47aV). Procopius,

describing the invasion of the Huns of 539, writes:7 " For from the Ionian ' E. Chrysanthopoulos, H pl -rou 'Xpovtxou -rl Moveµ(iaoiaq', 'Erren pl.

`EEr.

But. The. 21 (1951) 238-253.

"A. Bon, Le P6loponnZse Byzantin jusqu'en 1204, Paris 1951.

" K. M. Setton, The Emperor Constans II and the Capture of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars, Speculum 27 (1952) 351-362.

P. Charanis, On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and its Recapture by the Byzantines, Speculum 27 (1952) 343-350.

K. M. Setton, The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century, Speculum 25 (1950) 502-543.

'On the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the literature dealing with it see my

study The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950) 141-166. Procopius, Bell. Pers. 11 4.

XVI 92

Gulf these barbarians plundered everything in order as far as the suburbs of Byzantium" (Ex x6X7rou yap Tou 'Iov(ou of p&ppapot ourot &7raVra Ipek; q Earl(aavro p,EXpL ES r&

7rpoaarELa). Between this statement of

Procopius and that of the Chronicle there is evidently some similarity. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the author of the Chronicle repeats here Procopius, for the phraseology of the two statements is not exactly the same and the event which they report was not unique. Barbarians devastated the suburbs of Constantinople at other times, for instance in 558 when Zabergan lead his cohorts against the capital' and again during the reign of Maurice as we learn from John of Ephesus.2 But Procopius, still referring to the invasion of 539, writes further: "Some few

of them also crossed the straits between Sestus and Abydus, and after plundering the Asiatic country, they returned again to the Chersonesus, and with the rest of the army, and all the booty, betook themselves to their homes" (6))(yoL

ak' TtvEC, xal 8tap&vtr. r6v p.ETak6 Djaro5 TE xal 'ApOou 7ropap.6v, AYlta&p.Evo( 're Ta E7rl i;'A6(aC xwp(a xa6 ac54LC ES XEpp6-

v-gaov &va6'rp6l 0CVTEr, I:,UV Tw &))c

6T part xal 7r&n T'n Ac(a i7r' otxou &7re-

xop.(aNsav). The similarity here between Procopius and the Chronicle is more striking and there is no evidence that the event which they describe

occurred more than once in the sixth century. The barbarians who tried to take Chersonesus in 558 are not known to have crossed the straits and no such an event is mentioned in connection with the reign of Maurice. It is quite possible, of course, since the sources for the reign of Maurice have survived only in fragments, that Avars crossed into Asia at Abydus also during the reign of Maurice and it is that event that the Chronicle records, but in the present state of our documentation the presumption is strong in favor of the opinion of Chrysanthopoulos that the Chronicle

here has drawn from Procopius, placing thus an event in the reign of Maurice when in actual fact it took place during the reign of Justinian. This presumption is strengthened by an examination of the account of Isidore of Kiev concerning the capture of Corinth by "Scythians" and the consequent dispersion of the Peloponnesians.3 Isidore places this event in the reign of Justinian and his "Scythians" are the followers of Zabergan

who invaded the empire in 558, but there are elements in his account which doubtless refer to the great invasion of 539 as related by Procopius. The barbarians, according to Procopius, broke into the Balkan peninsula, plundered Illyricum from the Ionian Sea to the suburbs of Constantinople; stormed the Thracian Chersonese; and, invading Greece and bypassing

Thermopylae, they overran the country and "destroyed almost all the 1 Agathias, Hist. 303 if. Bonn.

2 John, Bishop of Ephesus, The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Ephesus, transl. by R. Payne Smith (Oxford 1860) 432. Latin text of Brooks quoted by H. Gregoire, L'Origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes, Byzantion 17 (1944-1945) io9 n. 21. 5 For details concerning this account of Isidore of Kiev see my study The Chronicle of Monemvasia ... , p. 157 if,

XVI P. Charanis: On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus

93

Greeks except the Peloponnesians". Thus, the three regions where, according to Procopius, the barbarians operated in this invasion were Illyricum to the Ionian Sea, Thrace including the Chersonese, and Greece. These are precisely the regions which, according to Isidore, were devastated by the "Scythians". (Mua(av rily &v(,) xat IIavvov(av xai Daa(aar(av xat ra pEXpLc ES 'IovLOV x6A7rov Ix tu&; Ep68ou AaTEBpap.EV ... Opaixrly 76taav xai riv iv `E?rlais6VTW XEpp6vrlaov xod Ta F'v-cbq "E(3pou zrocvra µUXPL Twv

KWVarayr(VOU zrpoaare(wv.) Isidore's account as a whole is, of course, closely

related to that of the Chronicle and his confusion of the invasion of 539 with that which resulted in the capture of Corinth, a capture of which there is no evidence except for the reign of Maurice, must have been in the source whence both Isidore and the author of the Chronicle drew either directly or indirectly. That source was not Procopius, but it contained elements drawn from Procopius. Continuing his account of the invasion of 539 Procopius writes: "In another invasion they plundered Illyricum and Thessaly and attempted to storm the wall at Thermopylae" (Ev ETEpgc -re ela 3oX -rouS re ' I),aupcouS Xai OEaaaAOUS ]YlLaOLlleiot TELXOllaXE6V

i.Ev EVEXE(p7laaV iv

0EP11.oTR1a0LLS

Mr. Chrysanthopoulos draws attention to the similarity of the expression "in another invasion" (e'v &r&pa rE eta(3oap) here used by Procopius with

that used by the author of the Chronicle in introducing his account of the Avar invasion of Greece which he places in the reign of Maurice. We

read in the Chronicle: "And in another invasion they [the Avars] subjugated all of Thessaly and Greece, Old Epirus, Attica and Euboea" (Ev kTe'pgc 8e' Eia(3o)p E'XELp6aaro zraaav Tiv OEaaaa(av xat rily `E)) cc zraaav rile re rroLaat&v "HircLpov xat 'Arru d v xat E5(3oLav). From this similarity he

draws the inference that here too the Chronicle has drawn from Procopius.

There are in this case, however, strong reasons why the opinion of Chrysanthopoulos cannot be accepted. While the similarity of expression is quite evident, it by no means implies dependence, for the two accounts relate to two different events. This is certain because, according to Procopius, the barbarians who overran Greece did not penetrate the Peloponnesus, while, according to the Chronicle, in addition to overwhelming central Greece, they took Corinth and occupied the western part of

the Peloponnesus. Nor is the Chronicle confusing here events which took place at another time. The capture of Corinth by the Avars during the reign of Maurice is known from another source which ultimately goes back to John of Ephesus, a contemporary who also reports an invasion of Greece in general.' This invasion must be the one which is also reported by Evagrius, the contemporary historian who is mentioned by the author of the Chronicle 1 Chronique de Michel le Syrien, ed. and transl. by J. B. Chabot, II (Paris L90L) 362.

XVI 94

as one of his sources. The testimony of Evagrius, to be sure, has been rejected by a number of scholars on the ground that his Hellas is not Greece proper, but the territory which in the sixth century was known as Illyricum.l There is little in Evagrius, however, which justifies this interpretation. The term Hellas is used by Evagrius six times. (i) In connection with the visit of the Athenian Eudocia to Antioch where speaking to the crowd

she said: "I am proud to be of your race and blood", an allusion, comments Evagrius, "to the colonies which were sent hither from Hellas".2 (2) In connection with an earthquake which took place during the reign of Justin, Evagrius writes: "While Justin directed the reigns of the imperial government, Dyrrachium, formerly called Epidamnus, suffered from an earthquake, as did also Corinth in Hellas." 3 (3) In reporting the deposition of pope Silverius: "the same Procopius writes, that, when the Goths were besieging Rome, Belisarius, suspecting Silverius of a design to betray

to Hellas and appoints Vigilius

the city, transports him

bishop."4 (4) In referring to an earthquake in Greece: "The same writer (Procopius) describes with skill the irruptions of the Goths of the Maeotis into the Roman territory in the time of Justinian and the violent earthquakes all over Hellas, in Boeotia, Achaia and the regions of the Crissaean bay." 6 (5) The fifth passage is a reference to Dexippus, the Athenian historian. It reads: "Dexippus has also written at great length on the same subject, commencing with mythical times and terminating with the reign of Claudius, the successor of Gallienus; and he also included the military

deeds of the Carpi and other barbarian tribes in Hellas, Thrace and Ionia."B (6) Finally, there is the famous passage concerning the Avar invasion during the reign of Maurice: "While the greater part of the forces were engaged in the East, the Avars twice made an incursion as far

as the so-called Long Wall, reduced Anchialus, Singidunum ahd all See for instance C. Amantos, 01 Ea&poL ets Trv'E))&Sa, Byz.-Neugr. Jahrbucher 17 (1944) 215 n. 2; D. A. Zakythinos, Ot Za&poL kV 'Eaa&&, Athens 1945, p. 19; S. A. Pagoulatos, 01 Ta&xcovzq xat r6 7rept T7c wrlazos ri MOVCELp alas xpOVLx6v, Athens 1947, p. 29 n. 1.

2 Evagrius, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. by J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (Lo11don 1898) 29: ' Yµc r pr)S yeveijc se xat aIµa roc etixoµaL elvat, T&S Ix r c'E)),&Sos &&VT(60% araaetaaS &votxtaS atvtTTOL.Lk

.

Ibid., p. 159: EIo TL'IouaTtvou Trv x TOxp&TOpa 8Lt3uvovrOq &pxity, T6 viV µ&`vDupp&xtov, 'E70aµvos S&` n&aat, irknov$ev 67r6 xa6vou t'5c yi;s, c as&Tr;1S S&` xai K6pLV$oc &7rt

Tics'E))&8oc xetpkvi . . 4 Ibid., p. 169-170: '0 aurOS &vayp&peTat IIpox6mos, (44 Tmv r6T&ouv Ti)v 'P6µiJv _

roatopxouvrrly Beata&pto; 5n4tav npoSoatas ek ELapipLov TOv

Tiffs

7r6aeoos &p)Lepka

1ax11xc)C, TOUTOV [AV iC, 'E)).&Sa EI.eTOLcECcL, &pxLEpia Sc` BLytaLOV xaTeaTi crovm.

Ibid., p. 171: Qeta(L06S 're ika crLouS &V& 'E)a&Sa yevka8ei, T' v Te BOLWTtav xat 'Axatav xai r& nept x6anOcV Tav KpLaaLOV xaTaQc iivx1 .. .

Ibid., p. 219: xai 1 eytnn() S`& naelaTa rcpt routaly nen6vr,TaL, &n6 t1u94x6v 1; Trv Kaau&tou Tou .ee r& ra)J.t7ly ev paataeiaV 01; auvavetaJnTaL nept & K&pnoL xai Tepa p&ppapa 9&V7] xaTa Trv 'Eaa&aa xat Op4x7Jv xai 'Ialvtav 8Lanoaeµo5vTe(; IInpa;av.

xai

Xvi P. Charanis: On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus

95

Hellas as well as other cities and fortresses, enslaving the inhabitants and laying everything waste with fire and sword." 1 It becomes quite obvious, when one examines these passages, that Hellas to Evagrius meant Greece proper including the Peloponnesus. This mean-

ing is absolutely clear in three of the passages; it is certain also in the reference to Dexippus, for Dexippus himself took the lead in the defense of his city against the barbarians whose incursions in Greece he recorded.2 Greece proper is also the meaning of Hellas in the passage concerning the deposition of pope Silverius. Silverius was banished to Patara in Lycia, but he must have been first sent to Greece as Procopius states. Evagrius here follows Procopius and Hellas in Procopius means Greece proper.3 Thus, the evidence is overwhelming that Evagrius used the term Hellas in the sense of Greece proper; it is in that sense, therefore, that that term should be understood in the famous passage referring to the Avar invasions during the reign of Maurice. To Evagrius Illyricum and Hellas were two different regions. According to the second passage cited above, Corinth was located in Hellas, Dyrrachium was not. Accordingly when he says that the Avars devasteted all Hellas it is Greece proper, including the Peleponnesus, that he means. Evagrius is referring in fact to the same invasions described by John of

Ephesus' and mentioned also, in their earlier phases, by Menander.6 During these invasions the Avaro-Slavs devastated Greece, stormed Corinth, penetrated the Peloponnesus, and settled, at least some of them, in the western part of the peninsula. These events are the ones reported by

the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Scholium of Arethas.e Of their historical accuracy there cannot be the slightest doubt. Thus, the discovery of Chrysanthopoulos that the C hro n i c l e at least in one particu-

lar drew from Procopius, placing thus an event in the reign of Maurice when in actual fact it took place during the reign of Justinian, does not in any way invalidate what it has to say about the Avaro-Slav invasion of the Peloponnesus during the reign of Maurice. How it came to make this confusion is, of course, impossible to determine. The confusion, however, is one of chronology. The event, though wrongly dated, actually took place.

This is important because it helps to dispose of the argument that the 1Ibid., p.228: of °Apapst; Sis µ6XpL Tou xaaouthvou µaxpou

you

taa(FavrsS,

31yygS6va 'AyXEa)6v -re xai . v 'E)ackSa rr&aav xal &r&pac 7r6AE1c, rc xai ppo?pea kE:erro)A6px1 aav xal v8pa7ro&laavco, a7ro)J.6vTeq uirr(Xvra x(Xl nuplro)wuweq.

2 Gregorovius-Lampros,'Iarop(a TrSII6),ewc'ANvr)v xasa To6S WaousAk vaq, Athens 1904, vol. i p. 8o, 83 if. For the essential bibliography, p. 8o n. 3. a See, for example, the following passages: II 4, 11; III 5, 23; VIII 25, 13 if. Dc aedif. IV 2, 1 ff.; IV 3, 17. Anecdota 26, 33.

SeeP.92,n.2. 5C. Muller, FHG 4 (Paris 1851) 252 (frag. 48). See further Gregoire, op. cit. P.-109 f.

° On the scholium of Arethas and its relation to the Chronicle of Monemvasia see my study on the Chronicle of Monemvasia, pp. 152 if.

XVI 96

Chronicle is reporting myths or forgeries.) Still, the fact that this confusion was made has led Mr. Chrysanthopoulos to think that a confusion is also involved in the passage of the Chronicle which puts the Slavic occupation of the western Peloponnesus in the reign of Maurice. That this is so seems to be borne out, according to Mr. Chrysanthopoulos, by the archaeological and numismatic evidence that have been found in Corinth.

The reference to these archaeological and numismatic evidence leads straight to the book by Bon. Bon's book, written in the best scholary tradition, contains virtually all that is known of the history of the Peloponnesus during the Byzantine period down to 1204. Of its five chapters and three appendices, chapter two will no doubt arouse the greatest interest. This is because in this chapter he deals with the problem of the Avaro-Slav penetration of the Peloponnesus. As the fragmentary and ambiguous nature of the sources have rendered this problem controversial, Bon devotes some space to the discussion of the texts. Citing the well known contemporary texts, viz., the M i r a c u 1 a

Sancti Demetrii, John of Ephesus, Menander, Evagrius, John of Biclar and Michael Syrus (a later writer, but who used John of Ephesus)

Bon states: These texts "attest to devastations and displacements of peoples, which, beginning toward 578-579, reached their culminating point in 584". But he adds: "None of these texts cites expressly the Peloponnesus; they mention only Hellas, which ... may designate only the northern part of the Balkan peninsula or central Greece." 2 Bon here

is wrong, for, as the reader already knows, Michael Syrus mentions Corinth as having been taken by the Avars, and Hellas in Evagrius can only mean Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus. Having disposed thus of the contemporary texts, Bon next examines

the group of related sources to which the Chronicle of Monemvasia also belongs. These texts, he writes, seem to go back to one and the same source, early enough to appear worthy of belief. " It seems, thus, impos-

sible", he continues, "to reject a priori this evidence." But noting the differences among scholars concerning the value of these texts, he adds: "The fact that scholars working with method and conscientiousness have come to so different conclusions leads us to think that the authenticity of these witnesses cannot be proven by a critique of the texts themselves. The contents of these texts cannot be accepted or rejected except insofar as other sources make it possible to judge."3 The other sources which Bon has in mind consist of evidence drawn from archaeology and such materials as seals and inscriptions. This is not the first time that information yielded by archaeology has been brought 1 This, for instance, is the opinion of St. Kyriakides. See my review of his book in Byzantinoslavica 10 (1949) 255 if.

' Bon, op. Cit. 31 f. 3 Ibid. 34.

XVI P. Charanis: On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus

97

to bear upon the problem of the Avaro-Slav penetration of the Peloponnesus,1 but Bon's is the first general treatment. Archaeology can be a valuable source not only because of what it yields, but also because of what it fails to yield. Thus, it is not without significance, Bon observes, that in the Peloponnesus no monuments anterior to the seventh century have survived intact and to our knowledge no monuments seem to have been erected in the seventh and eighth centuries.2 Neither can any seals be indubitably dated in this period nor are any imperial functionaries for

the Peloponnesus attested. Among actual archaeological objects the weapons and buckles found in two graves at Corinth are the most significant, but scholars do not agree as to their identity and meaning and, as a consequence, Bon thinks, nothing certain can be inferred from them. There is, however, the evidence of coins. Bon cites some finds, although these are not very numerous. Coins have been found at Gortys in Arcadia, but none is later than the middle of the fifth century. Orchomenos, also in Arcadia, has yielded coins belonging to Justinian and Justin II, and some to the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (tenth century), but none to the period in between. At Olympia one has found Byzantine coins belonging to different emperors from Constantine to the end of the sixth century, "often gathered in little treasures shut up in caches in the sixth century, proof of the insecurity of the times".3 These coins become less numerous towards boo, the most recent belonging to the reign of Phocas (6o2-61o). Sparta has yielded no coins earlier than the reign of Basil I. It is at Corinth, however, where the coin finds have been most numerous.4

The coins belonging to the reigns of Justinian and Justin II are fairly numerous; they become rarer in the lower town beginning with the reign of Heraclius, but remain numerous enough on the Acrocorinth until the

reign of Constans II (642-668). After the reign of Constans II they become virtually non-existent until the ninth century. Bon concludes: "In

Corinth during the entire seventh century the population, which made use of Byzantine coins, chose to live on the Acrocorinth rather than in the lower town, no doubt because it was there less exposed to the incursions of the barbarians." s Now, when one compares these findings with the texts, the C h r o n i c l e

of Monemvasia in particular, the texts, Bon observes, at least insofar 1 See, for instance, G. R. Davidson-Tibor Horvath, The Avar Invasion of Corinth, Hesperia 6 (1937) 227-240; for the numismatic evidence, John H. Finley, Jr., Corinth in the Middle Ages, Speculum 7 (1932) 477-499; also K. M. Setton, The Bulgars in the Balkans pp. 52o if. r Bon, op. cit. 50. Ibid. 51. 4 Coin finds in Corinth to 1929 have been analyzed by Finley, op. cit. For subsequent finds see K. M. Edwards, Reports on the Coins Found in the Excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930-1935, Hesperia 6 (1937) 241-256; J. M. Harris, Coins Found at Corinth, i. Report on the Coins Found in the Excavations at Corinth During the Years 1936-1939, Hesperia to (1941) 143-162.

Bon, op. cit. 54. 7 Byzant. ZeltschrUt 46 (1953)

XVI 98

as Corinth is concerned, are wrong. It is not quite clear to what Bon refers here. If he means that the Chronicle of Monemvasia is wrong when it states that the Avars took Corinth during the reign of Maurice he is mistaken, for that event is also reported by Michael Syrus, a source

independent of the Chronicle of Monemvasia and deriving from the contemporary John of Ephesus. It seems rather, however, that he is

referring to the other statement of the Chronicle of Monemvasia according to which Corinth and the eastern half of the Peloponnesus remained in the hands of the Byzantines while the western half was overwhelmed by the Slavs. Bon here bases his argument on the coin finds at Corinth. The rarity of coins belonging to the immediate successors of Constans II indicates, he thinks, a break in the relations of Corinth with

Byzantium and as this rarity holds true also for the eighth century, the break must have continued throughout that century also. But of this break and its continuation throughout the eighth century there is no other evidence. And as for the coin finds, they offer by themselves no proof that Corinth did not belong to the Byzantines. Corinth was certainly

a Byzantine possession during the reign of Nicephorus I and of his immediate successors, yet the coins of these reigns which have been found at Corinth are hardly any more numerous than the coins belonging to some of the reigns of the seventh or eighth centuries. For instance, the ratio of the coins of Leo IV (3) to the years of his reign (5) is o.6o. This is much better than the 0.33 which is the ratio of the coins of Nicephorus I (3) to the length of his reign (9). And the ratio of the coins of Constantin IV (5) to the length of his reign (t 7) is o.3o as compared to the o.56 which is the ratio of the coins of Michael II (5) to the length of his reign (9). But the remarkable thing about these coins is not that they are few; it is that they represent virtually every reign throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. This cannot be by chance, for the probability that a spot deserted and abandoned to the barbarians for over a century would still yield coins representing virtually all the emperors during that period is very slight indeed. It is rather because Corinth, however reduced in size and economic activity she may have become, still kept her connections with Byzantium.

The paucity of coins which one notices beginning with the reign of Constantine IV indicates no doubt a deterioration in the economic life of Corinth, but this deterioration is not surprising in view of the general menace of the Arabs on the sea, a menace which became very serious in the course of the second half of the seventh century, and the difficult and unsettled conditions on land. Besides, this deterioration was general for the empire as a whole. It by no means follows, therefore, that Corinth no longer belonged to the Byzantines because only a few coins belonging to the period after the reign of Constans II have been found there. Nor is the fact that Corinth and the Peloponnesus are not mentioned by the literary

texts that deal with the seventh and the eighth centuries of decisive significance. The seventh and the eighth centuries constitute the darkest

XVI P. Charanis: On the Slavic Settlement in the Pelapvnnesus

99

period in the history of the Byzantine empire as a whole as far as our knowledge of it is concerned. There is, however, a piece of evidence which confirms the statement of

the Chronicle of Monemvasia that the eastern part of the Peloponnesus, including Corinthia, was least affected by the Slavic penetration. This evidence is drawn from the distribution of the Slavic toponyms in the Peloponnesus as these toponyms have been determined by Vasmer.1 This distribution is as follows: Corinth 24, Argolis 18, Achaia 95, Elis 35, Triphylia 44, Arcadia 94, Messenia 43, Laconia 81. Bon notes that a relationship obviously exists between this distribution and the statement

of the Chronicle of Monemvasia, but the distribution is no confirmation of the statement. He says that the reconquest by the Byzantines of the center, the west and the south of the Peloponnesus must have been

slower than that of the east and adds: "One may explain thus that the Slavic influence on place names was less strong in the region of Corinth and the Argolis and see there the origin of the affirmation, no doubt too

categoric, of the Chronicle of Monemvasia, according to which the eastern part of the Peloponnesus had never been invaded." 2 Now Bon, who rejects the statement that Byzantium retained control of the eastern Peloponnesus throughout the seventh and eighth centuries, places the Byzantine reconquest of that part of the peninsula during the

reign of Irene when indeed a military expedition is recorded to have penetrated the Peloponnesus.3 But this expedition took place only a few years before the liberation of Patras and the subjugation of the Slavs in Achaia. It is quite improbable that these few years could account for the relatively fewer Slavic toponyms that one has found in Corinthia and Argolis as compared to those in Achaia. The explanation for this must lie

in a much longer Slavic occupation of Achaia than of Corinthia and

Argolis. Now, the Chronicle of Monemvasia does not say that Corinthia and Argolis were not penetrated by the Slavs; it says that these

regions were cleared of the Slavs, presumably very early after their penetration, stating further that their connection with Byzantium was not

disturbed. It is in this early resumption of Byzantine control of the eastern Peloponnesus that lies the explanation why the Slavic influence on

toponyms was not as extensive there as it was in the other parts of the peninsula where the Slavs were not brought under control until after the beginning of the ninth century. Besides, it seems highly improbable that the Byzantines who certainly maintained control of the islands off the Peloponnesus, would have allowed the Aegean coast of the Peloponnesus

to have remained long in the hands of the Slavs. We know for certain,

and this independently of the Chronicle of Monemvasia, that M. Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland, Berlin 1941, p. 317. ' Bon, op. cit. 62f.

7

3 Ibid. 42; Theophanes, 456f. de B.

XVI 100

Monemvasia existed at least as early as the beginning of the eighth century and seems to have been a city of some importance.' There may have been some Slavs in the neighborhood, but the city itself must have been under Byzantine administration. Bon is a cautious scholar working with method and care frequently qualifying his statements with reservations which, in view of the paucity of the sources, are not unjustifiable. But despite his caution in his use of the Chronicle of Monemvasia and his refusal to give full credence to some of its contents, he has drawn a picture of the Peloponnesus of the seventh and eighth centuries which is not very different from that which we envisaged as a result of our studies on the Chronicle of Monemvasia. Bon concedes the possibility that theAvaro-Slav attacks which began in 578 penetrated the Peloponnesus; he holds, however, that it was in the course of the first half of the seventh century that the Slavs overwhelmed the Peloponnesus. He writes: "From the middle of the seventh century and during all of the eighth ... the Peloponnesus has no relations with Byzantium; it does not appear improbable that during this same period, no 'Pop.aioc av^7P, i. e., no functionary coming from the capital, was able

to penetrate there. The province lives by itself, its inhabitants 'obeying neither the emperor of the Romans nor any other person', as says the Chronicle of Monemvasia, until the moment when the expedition of Stavrakios, followed by the creation of the theme and of the resistance at Patras, marks the beginning of a new period." 2 To this statement we would like to make two important modifications which, we think, will make it more accurate: (1) The Avaro-Slav attacks which began in 578 not only penetrated the Peloponnesus, but resulted in the settlement of Slavs there; and (2), as a result of these settlements the western Peloponnesus, including the center, and not the Peloponnesus as a whole,

came to have no relations with Byzantium. The eastern part of the peninsula, including Corinth, resumed relations with Byzantium.

In the critique which I wrote of Professor Setton's treatise, "The Bulgars in the Balkans ...", I expressed the view that this resumption of relations between Corinth and Byzantium must have taken place as early as 586. Professor Setton immediately attacked me for this. In the supercilious note which he published in reply to my critique he writes: "Charanis would have us believe that the Byzantines regained Corinth and the Argolis before they had lost them." This is, of course, a distortion of my argument. The fact is that, although Corinth fell into the hands of the

barbarians during the reign of Maurice, the exact year in which this ' Vita S. Willibaldi ep.: MGH, SS. 15: 93. The earliest known bishop of Monemvasia

lived at the end of the eighth century, and was a suffragan of Corinth: V. Laurent, La liste 6piscopale du Synodicon de Monembasie, tch. d'Or. 32 (1933) 16t. This does not mean, of course, as Bon implies, that it was toward the end of the eighth century that the bishopric of Monemvasia was created. 2 Bon, op. cit. 54-55.

XVI P. Charanis: On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus

101

happened is not known. All one can say, if he refers to the Chronicle of Monemvasia, is that it happened some time between 582 and 587; 582, because that year marks the beginning of the reign of Maurice; 587, because by that year the barbarians had definitely established themselves

in the western Peloponnesus. For note the statement of the Chronicle of Monemvasia: "Having thus ctnquered and settled the Peloponnesus, the Avars have held it for two hundred and eightheen years, that is, from the year 6096 [A. D. 587] from the creation of the world, which was the sixth year of the reign of Maurice, to the year 6313 [A. D. 805]." (Otrr of °ApapoL A v Heao7C6vvviaov xa-raaX6vTec xai xarotxi1aevTeq Ev aij &7 pxeaav e7Ci Xp6VOLS Btaxo6LOtS 6xro xod8exa . . . f'yov a7r6 Toy 9rouf, 67rep V gxrov &oS Trq paatAeiaC Mauptxiou, xal 7C, Tou x6a(.Lou

(LEXpL TOU city' iirouc). Now this statement tells us that by 587 the Avars

had become masters of the Peloponnesus; it does not tell us when the Avars began their invasions and when they took Corinth. We know from John of Ephesus, however, that the Slavs (no doubt led by the Avars) began the invasion during which they overran all of Greece in 581 and that they were still there in 584. We know further that Corinth was one of the cities which they took. The source for this is Michael Syrus, but Michael Syrus obtained his information no doubt from John of Ephesus. Now John of Ephesus died in 586 and as a consequence could not have reported any event taking place after his death. Thus, Corinth must have fallen to the barbarians some time between 582 and 586, but most probably before 586. So much for the fall of Corinth; now for its recovery.

We are told by the Chronicle of Monemvasia that Corinth did not remain in the hands of the barbarians. When it was regained by the Byzantines the Chronicle does not say, but its statement that Corinth did not form a part of the Peloponnesus occupied by the barbarians, an occupation which it dates from 587, implies that it had been already by 587 regained by the Byzantines. Evidence drawn from the M i r a cul a S an c t i

Demetrii seems to confirm this. This evidence indicates that in the late summer of 586 a good Byzantine army was in Greece, sent there no doubt in order to fight.' One of its accomplishments may very well have been

the recovery of Corinth. Professor Setton has cited certain well known letters of Gregory the Great, one of them addressed to Anastasius, bishop of Corinth, and dated February 591, as proof that Corinth was never

taken by the barbarians during the reign of Maurice. He bases his argument on the fact that Gregory in these letters makes no mention of any fall of Corinth. The silence of Gregory proves, of course, nothing. It would have been very surprising indeed if Gregory, writing to the bishop of Corinth in 591, at least five years after the fall of Corinth, had made mention of the event. The letters of Gregory do indicate, however, that in 1 A. Tougard, De l'histoire profane Bans les actes grecs des Bollandistes, Paris 1874, p. 98. Cf. Charanis, On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs ..., p. 34 7

Xvi 102

591 Corinth was in Byzantine hands; they corroborate the Chronicle of

Monemvasia that the Avaro-Slavs did not keep Corinth, and lend support to the suggestion that Corinth was recovered by the Byzantines in 586.

As for Professor Setton's main thesis that Onogurs took Corinth about 641-642, a thesis which he expounded in his "The Bulgars in the Balkans ..."1 and reiterated in his reply to my critique, it has, of course, no basis in fact. It rests in the final analysis on the text of Isidore of Kiev. The archaeological evidence which Professor Setton has invoked is too indefinite to yield any concrete data, especially with reference to precise chronology. There is still, as Bon points out, considerable discussion among the authorities as to the provenience of the objects found at Corinth. Most probably, they were brought there by

the Avars. Professor Setton's contention that the buckles among these objects were "Bulgaric" rests on the belief that special Bulgaric belts existed and were widely used, but the evidence for this belief is very dubious, according to Duj6ev, non-existent.2 His more precise belief that these buckles were Onogur derives from the statement of Isidore of Kiev that Onogurs took Corinth. Now, Isidore of Kiev, however inaccurate he may be in his details, describes events which are known to have taken

place in the sixth century. His statement concerning the. invasion of the Peloponnesus derives, with some difference in detail, from the same

source as the Chronicle of Monemvasia which places the event in the reign of Maurice and is confirmed in this by Michael Syrus. His reference to the Onogurs as the people who took Corinth may be, therefore, appraised in two ways. Isidore is in this, as in other details of his account, guilty of an error attributing the capture of Corinth to Onogurs

when in reality it was the work of the Avars with no Onogurs parti' Concerning this treatise see also the remarks by F. Dolger, in B. Z. 45 (1952) 218.

This issue of B. Z. reached me after I had read page proof of my critique and for that reason I was not able to cite it there. Cf. P. Lemerle, Une Province Byzantine: Le Peloponnese, Byzantion 21 (1951) 345.

' As Duj6ev's article has riot been available to me, I refer the reader to the resume which Prof. Dolger has given in B. Z. 45 (1952) 196f. The evidence adduced for believing in the existence of special Bulgaric belts is a passage in the Tactica of Pseudo Maurice: Z;wv&pta Sk )ar& xai ou [iouayaptx&, aay(a. With this text as an example

Gy. Moravcsik reconstructed a passage of Papyrus No. 2132 of the National Library of Vienna to read: (3ou),yapt[xo5 xapra]axµ(ou, thus producing another text showing the existence of Bulgaric belts (B. Z. 36 [1936] 228f; M o r a v c s i k, Byzantino-

turcica I (1942) 252). But Duj6ev reads the Pseudo-Maurice passage as follows: wv&pta 81 X.r&, xa. ov (iouayaplx& aay(a and equates (3ouayxplx6c with vulgaris (-icus),

thus removing this text as a reference to Bulgaric belts. As the elimination of this text leaves no other reference to Bulgaric belts, DujLev reconstructs the Vienna papyrus to read: BouXyxptx[6t III uldc ...] la iou &[1vi ... Thus, he sees in Bouxyaplx6S as

he did in 1927 (cf. Setton, The Bulgars in the Balkans ..., p. 543 n. 162) a proper name. There are, therefore, according to Duj8ev, no references at all to the existence of any Bulgaric belts. Prof. Dolger's resume of Dujtev's article reached me too late for me to cite it in my critique of Setton's "The Bulgars in the Balkans ..."

XVI P. Charanis: On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus

103

cipating, in which case his testimony should be dismissed; or he is reporting a fact in which case he furnished the text (a late text) till now lacking, which shows that Onogurs were active in the Balkan peninsula as early as the last quarter of the sixth century.' Neither the one nor the other of these appraisals is unreasonable, but to take his text and try to interpret it by means of evidence some of which are dubious and all of which are themselves subject to different interpretations is, I think, contrary to all

the canons of sound scholarship. The Onogurs did not take Corinth in 641-642. It had been taken by the Avaro-Slavs some time before 586, but it was shortly afterwards, probably in 586, recovered by the Byzantines. There is no concrete evidence that Byzantine control of Corinth and the

eastern part of the Peloponnesus was disturbed for any length of time either during the seventh or eighth centuries, although during this period additional Slavs may have penetrated the Peloponnesus. 1 In my critique of Setton's, "The Bulgars in the Balkans ..." I expressed the view that Isidore's reference to the Onogurs is not as significant as Prof. Setton thinks and pointed out that the Avar army which took Corinth during the reign of Maurice very probably included Onogurs. In justifying this I used the following argument: "The Onogurs were the first among the Bulgars to have been captured by the Avars. The latter recruited their armies by drawing from the peoples whom they conquered. In these armies the Slavic and Bulgar elements are known to have been considerable. The Byzantine writers hardly ever state to which branch of the Bulgar people the Bulgar element in the Avar armies belonged. It was probably drawn from all. We know, however, that it included Kutrigurs and no doubt also Onogurs as can be inferred from the fact that the Onogur Kouver-Kouvratos was a chief of Bulgars in the Avar army. It is extremely probable, therefore, that the Avar army which took Corinth during the reign of Maurice included also Onogurs, hence the statement of Isidore of Kiev that "Onogurs took Corinth." Prof. Setton has invoked against this argument the lack of any specific textual reference to Onogurs in connection with the invasions of the empire which took place during the reign of Maurice. But despite the lack of such a text (I was aware, of course, that there is no such a text) and the opinion of Prof. Setton that I would cause Zlatarski, "if he were still living, not irritation, but apoplexy" with my suggestion that Onogurs were active in the territories of the empire as early as the reign of Maurice, I consider my

argument by no means extravagant. For the lack of a specific reference is not as significant as one might think. The Onogurs had not yet become so prominent as to cause the Byzantines to distinguish them from the other Bulgars in the armies of the Avars, armies which included so many barbarians. Kouver-Kouvratos himself is known to have been an Onogur only through relatively late texts written at the time or after the Onogurs had become very important. The only nearly contemporary text which refers to him calls him a Hun. Cf. The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, tr. by R. H. Charles (London 1916), p. 197. For the reference to Koubratos (Kobratos) see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 11 (1943) 144; for the references to theOnogurs, ibid. 189.

XVII

THE TERM HELLADIKOI IN BYZANTINE TEXTS OF THE SIXTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES Theophanes, as is well known, twice uses the term Helladikoi to refer to the inhabitants of what presumably was the theme of Hellas Finlay, commenting on this use of the term remarked : ((At the

beginning of the eighth century we find the native Greeks called Helladikoi by Byzantine writers in order to distinguish them from the

ancient Hellenes and from the Ramaioi or Greeks of the Roman empire. The word was a contemptuous name for them as mere provincialsy, '.

Finlay's statement that Helladikoi was a term used in a contemptuous sense was first challenged by J. B. Bury. He wrote in 1892 ' : «Helladikoi meant the inhabitants of the theme Hellas, which was only a small part of Hellas, either modern or ancient. It did not include the Peloponnesus which constituted another theme ; the Peloponnesians were not Helladikoi. Nor did it include the western part of Greece north of the isthmus which formed the theme of Nicopolis.

The passages in Theophanes do not give the slightest ground for supposing either that the word had a wider signification than the theme of Hellas, or that there was anything contemptuous about it. Helladikoi, formed on the analogy of Armeniakoi and Anatolikoi, had a purely administrative, and not a national meaning. The folk of the

theme of Hellas could not be called Hellenes, because that famous name had acquired a theological meaning ; so they were most fitly

' T h e o p h a n e s, Chronographia, edited by C. d e Boor, i (Leipzig 1883), 405; 474.

' George F i n l a y, A History of Greece, edited by H. F. T o z e r,

i (Oxford 1877), 405. 1 J. B. B u r y, The Helladikoi (The English Historical Review, 17, 1892,

Bury had expressed substantially the same view three years earlier. See his History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (London 8o - 81).

1889), 2. 437 f.

XVII 616

called Helladikoi and thus brought into line with their fellow subjects of the Anatolic and Armeniac themes>>. That Bury was right in denying any contemptuous sense to the term Helladikoi there can be no doubt '. The observation of Bees

that Byzantine writers often referred to the inhabitants of Greece proper with contempt has no bearing on the term Helladikoi, for the texts which he usen to support his opinion employ the term Hellenes and not Helladikoi Z. It can be questioned, however, if Bury was right

in denying that the Peloponnesians were Helladikoi and in maintaining that Helladikoi was formed on the analogy of Armeniakoi and Anatolikoi».

Bees has observed that Helladikoi came to be used to refer to the inhabitants of the theme Hellas and in general to those of the country south of Olympus, especially of the Peloponnesus, because the term Hellenes had become synonymous with the term pagans 1. That this was the real reason for the use of Helladikoi had also been expressed, some years earlier, by N. G. Polites. Polites wrote in 1901 ° : «And it happened during the early years of the prevalence of Christianity in the empire, when the name of the Romans had not yet spread as an ethnic of the subjects of the newly formed Eastern Roman empire, that there returned into common use old and forgotten national names of the Greeks. Henceforth perhaps one called Helladikoi, i.e., by an appelative which we find in the philosopher Xenophanes of the sixth century B. C., the inhabitants of Greece proper. But despite the opinion of these two Greek scholars, it is the view of Bury that has generally prevailed. The Frenchman A. Bon, for instance, has written recently ° : «In our opinion the very use of the term `EAAabwol is cha' But one may still read the following in the Enciclopedia Italiana, 17 (1933), 90o: Negli scrittori bizantini questo popolo, a partire dal sec. VIII, e indicato col nome di Helladikoi per distinguerlo tanto dagli antichi Elleni quanto dai Romaioi (Romei), cive dai Greci dell'impero ; e it nome aveva un senso dispregiativo. N i k o s A. Bees, Helladikoi (Wiener Studien, Zeitschrift fur klassische Philologie, 40, Vienna 1919, 169 - 171). B e e s, 'E?Ja8ixo%, in'E%cv$epovMxrl 'Eyxvx%onaL8. Ael;Lxov, 5 (1929), 292. N. G. P o 1 i t e s, °E)X1ve5 it Pwjwioi, in Aaoypapixa 1 (1920), 124. This article first appeared in 1901. It was called to my attention by George Soules who, in my opinion, is fast becoming a first-rate scholar.

° A. Bon, Le Peloponnese Byzantin jusqu'en 1204 (Paris 38, n. 2.

1951), p.

XVII The Term Helladikoi in Byzantine Texts

617

racteristic: indeed, if it already exists in antiquity..., it appears here in order to avoid confusing the Hellenes in general with'the inhabitants of Hellas taken in its narrow sense ; equivalent, for instance, with 'AO,uevcaxoi or'Avarolixot, it has the value, at least for the sense, of an administrative neologism. In our opinion one has wrongly

explained the use of the term by the desire to distinguish from the true Greeks of former times the new population strongly mixed as the result of the invasions, of by the care to avoid the name of "F1227vec considered as a synonyme of pagans, a use which it may sometimes haven. More recently still Ostrogorsky has written ' : ((Contrary to Finlay, who was of the opinion that this name [Helladikoi] served in the Middle Ages to designate the natives of Greece in order to distinguish them from the ancient Hellenes and the Romaioi of the rest of

the Byzantine Empire and to refer to them with a certain contempt as provincials, Bury demonstrated brillianty not only that it did not even refer to the natives of all of Greece, but that it designated exclusively the inhabitants of the theme of Hellas which, as Bury specifically emphasizes, consists `only of a small part of Greece, whether modern or ancient'. `E?J(abexot is not a national concept but a military and administrative one. Just as the soldiers and later even the inhabitants of the themes Armeniakon and Anatolikon in Asia Minor were called 'Aoµeviaxoi or 'Avaioa.cxoi so the soldiers and later even the inhabitants of the military theme of Hellas were called 'El.,labexoi. All this is undoubtedly very correct ... ))

An examination of the sources, however, shows that Bees and Polites are closer to the truth than either Bury or those who have accepted his views. The term Helladikoi, besides the two references

in Theophanes which have already been cited, is met with six times in the sources of the sixth and seventh centuries : twice in Cosmas Indicopleustes ; three times in Malalas and once in the Chronicon Paschale. The term is also used in the Script ores Originum Constantinopolitanarum in connection with a practice, no doubt legendary, which is said to have begun in the reign of Constantine the Great and to have ended in that of Justin II. ' G. O s t r o g o r s k y, Postanak Tema Helada i Peloponez (Iz Zbornika Radova XXI, Vizantoloskog Instituta San Knj. i, Belgrade 1952, 66 f. I do not read Serbian, but I was able to consult this work in a translation which Michael Petrovich, a brilliant young scholar, now at the University of Wisconsin, made for me.

XVII 618

Now to examine these references. The two in Cosmas are too general and as a consequence yield no precise information. In the one place ' he tells us that the Ionians and the Helladikoi were among the descendants of Japhet ; in the other ', he mentions the Helladikoi among a number of peoples who accepted Christianity. The most that one can infer from these statements is that the Helladikoi were the inhabitants of the Greek lands in general. Malalas is much more precise. RAegealeus)), he writes in one place, was the first king of the Sicyonians who are now called Helladikoi 6)). And elsewhere : ((Pelops,

from whom the Helladikoi came to be called Peloponnesians, ruled for thirty-two years 4)). Finally there is the reference to Athenais, the

future Eudocia and wife of Theodosius II. She is called both Helladike and Hellene : Helladike because she was an inhabitant of Greece 6; Hellene because she was a pagan We find the same preciseness in the Chronicon Paschale. The reference here is also to Athenais. As in Malalas, she is called Helladike because she came from Greece and Hellenis because she was a pagan r. The reference in the Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanaru7n is to Athenian, Theban and Helladikoi philosophers. These philosophers, we are told, used to mount a vaulted portico which Constantine the Great had built and there urged with the Constantinopolitans. Up to the reign of Justin II they were always victorious, but in that reign they were defeated and as a consequence ceased to come B. As the Helladikoi here are distinguished

' Cosm as Indicopleustes, Topographia Christiana, Mig n e, Patrologia Graeca, 88 (Paris 186o), 85, Wins t e d t' s edition, p. 61. Ibid., 169. W i n s t e d t' s edition, p. 119. John M a 1 a 1 a s, Cbronographia (Bonn 1831), 68 : rcnv de 2txvmv1mv rmv vvvi lsyolJ wy 'Elladtxwv c$aoiAevoe npwroc o Aiytalsvs.

4 Ibid., 84: eflatrllsvosv o halo)) !nl l#', eI ov' mat IIelonovvi7oto4 exli7$rloav of 'Elladtxol. 6 Ibid., 353: 'Elladtxv'ly, dvduari 'A$+7va16a, ci7v mat Evdoxlav 7teraxlp6irreav.

Also on p. 354. 8 Ibid., 355: 47 yap 'Ellr7v, mat µsrovoµdoac a7 np.' Evdoxlav, elaftav ai,n7v els yvvarxa.

I Chronicon Paschale (Bonn 1832), 1, 576: 'El1adtxiiv, jr4pau 'A$pvaida. Also on PP- 577 - 578. And on p. 576: xai xpart7aas avriiv esol77oe xptortavl v,

rIv

yap 'Ellr7vls, xai Etsratvd/saosv avrijv Evdoxlav.

A Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, edited by T. P r e g e r, 2 (Leipzig 1907), 229: Toy de ltftava So(piac 6 avros ixrtoey 'Iovartvos etc npdocunov rqs 7vvatxtic avrov Fogrlac. xpo 6e rov xrioat rov Itµiva v ZI eXev oroa xaltaeoetdi7c, J v fxrtoev d L yac Katvoravrtvot, xai dvrjptovro of rpiAriooryot of dvatxoi 9gftaiot ve xal

XVII The Term Helladikoi in Byzantine Texts

619

from the Thebans and the Athenians, they are probably Peloponnesians '.

These are the references on which any interpretation of the term Helladikoi will have to be based. If they indicate anything, they indicate that this term, already known in antiquity?, came back into use in the early centuries of the Later Roman Empire, long before the creation of the theme of Hellas as an appelative for the inhabitants of Greece, including, of course, the Peloponnesus. It came to be so used because the more usual term which served for this purpose, that

of Hellenes, had assumed a theological connotation, it had become synonymous with pagans. This is clearly shown by the references in Malalas and. in the Chronicon Paschale when Athenals is called both Hella like and Hellenis, Helladike because she was an inhabitant of Greece, Hellenis because she was a pagan. It follows, therefore, that the revival of the use of Helladikoi by the Byzantines had nothing to do with the creation of the theme of Hellas and Bury and those who accept his views are wrong when they say that KHelladikoi, formed on the analogy of Armeniakoi and Anatolikoi, had a purely administrative, and not a national meaning*. It had, of course, a national meaning, although with the creation of the theme of Hellas it came to be restricted to the inhabitants of that theme. It should be also noted perhaps that the term Hellenes, despite the theological connotation which it assumed, continued to be used to refer to Greeks in the national sense. Procopius, for instance, uses the term in this sense in several places it was in the source whence derive both the Chronicle of Pfonemuasia and the Scholium of Arethas'; and it appears in the ibliracula Sancti Demetrii 5. The term, ;

'AB?2vator xai 'E1a8tmoi mat 8sr2iyovro i eeioe asra r(Bv Kwvoravr{vOVno1LT iv. xai 81ii'0-

xeae rovro piXOi 'lovarfvov xai navrore ivlxrov of avolxoi. in! ai 'lovorfvov $rr i79Evrec ovaanore avrji9ov E4tX01 rii5 O1,ISeov.

Cf. J u l i u s j u t b n e r, Hellen and Barbaren, Aus der Gescbicbte des Nationalbewusstseins (Leipzig 1923), 114W. D i t t e n b e r g, Ethnika and Verwandes (Hermes, 41, 1906, 209 f.). '

For instance, De bello persico, II, 4, 10 - I I ; De bello gothico, I, 15,

24 ; Anecdota, XXVI, 30 - 31. I used H a u r y ' s edition. P. C h a r a n i s, The chronicle of Monemvasia and the question of the Slavonic settlements in Greece (Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5, 1950, 147, 152).

6 S. Demetrii Martyris Acta, M i g n e, Patrologia Graeca, I16 (Paris 1864), 1293.

XVII 620

however, found its widest use as a synonym of pagans (Evagrius ' calls even the Saracenes Hellenes) and for this reason it became necessary to find other terms to designate the inhabitants of Greece. One of these terms was Helladikoi, another was Grailcoi 2, although the latter was sometimes used in a pejurative sense °.

' E v a g r i u s, Historia Ecclesiastica, edited by Joseph Bid e z and Leon Parmentier (London 1898), 238. 2 Cf. P o 1 i t e s, op. cit., 125. Despite my efforts I was not able to procure the work of B. A. M y s t a k i d e s, At °EAA1ly, rQaLxbS (rQalxvAo5), Ptuµatos (rQaexoQQmµa7to5), Butavtiv65 etc.

(Tiibingen 1920).

For instance, P,r o c o.p i u s, Anecdota, XXIV, 7.

XVIII HELLAS IN THE GREEK SOURCES OF THE SIXTH, SEVENTH, AND EIGHTH CENTURIES HE sources concerning the history of Greece during the early Middle Ages are so

Tfragmentary that the study of them has raised more questions than it has solved. This is particularly true for the period of the Slavonic invasions and the subsequent reorganization of the country by the Byzantines. The obscurity which exists in the history of Greece of this period has been further increased by the different views which have arisen regarding the precise meaning of the term Hellas as used by the sources. Involved in the development of these divergent views is the problem of the Slavic settlements in Greece during the early Middle Ages and the administrative status of the Greek lands for the same period. Hellas, whatever the territory to which this term may have been originally re-

stricted,' came to mean in classical antiquity roughly the country south of the Ambracian gulf and the mouth of the river Peneus, including the Peloponnesus. But by the sixth century of our era this meaning, it is contended, changed. Zinkeisen, I believe, was the first one to express this view. In his history of Greece, which he published in 1832, he states that the term Hellas had come to denote all the European provinces of the Byzantine empire.' Zinkeisen sought thus to explain the passage in Evagrius, the ecclesiastical historian who wrote toward the end of the sixth century, according to which the "Avars seized Singidunum, Anchialus and all Hellas and other towns and fortresses." The Greek historian Paparrhegopoulo, discussing this passage and the passage in Menander, another historian of the end of the sixth century, which states that the emperor Tiberius sent an embassy to the Avars while "Hellas was being plundered by the Sclavenians and successive dangers were hanging over her on every side," comes pretty much to the same conclusion.' Hopf, on the other hand, wrote in his still useful history of Greece: "Only through ignorance of geography could the Syrian Evagrius mention after the known cities of Singidunum and Anchialus all Hellas and other cities and fortresses'; either he understood by Hellas some city or fortress, and this is most probable, or transferred the ancient name of Hellas proper to the Macedonian and Thracian provinces of the Roman empire."` Although Hopf showed a preference for the first of his suggestions, it is the second that has come to have the widest acceptance. It has been repeatedly affirmed by Amantos' and it has Concerning the original meaning and spread of the term Hellas in classical antiquity one may consult J. B. Bury, "History of the names, Hellas, Hellenes," Journal of Hellenic Studies, 15 (1895), st7ff.; A. Chatzis, ""$x11't- E7111at-'ElUtnr;' in 'Errant aonrit Tree pls $111moo,rits Tltoaitt llarerw,asdoo 'ABrlrie. (19351936) pp. 128-161. Y J. W. Zinkeisen, Geschichte Griechenlands, 1, Leipzig 1832. 699. 3 K. Paparrhegopoulo, 'raropla roc 'Ea1lq.teoo 'Eamus, edited by P. Karolides, Athens 1932, w, 155. 158f.

4 C. Hopf, Geschichle Griechenlands worn Begins des Mittelalters his auf unsere Zeit, in Ersch and Gruber, Allgemeine Encyclopddie der Wissenschaften and Kiinste, 85, Leipzig 1867, 91. s K. Amantos, Td Mns.llo.,.&, Athens 1gvo, pp. 6, 86; "IIapar tp4czu r,.ls ds , . Meoaw...*. Fou pagta.," in 'E-'al. Bv(e.r1.u. Prou&a., 1 (1924), 41-44; -01 Etbpo, eh , ,' E11X45 ," Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrhiichee, 17 (1944), zio-22,.

161

XVIII been expressed by other Greek scholars as, for instance, Karolides° and Zakythinos But Greek scholars are not alone in holding this view. Professor Setton, for instance,

has written recently: " 'Hellas' seems clearly to mean the region from Belgrade (Singidunum) to Anchialus and Constantinople,"' and the Frenchman Bon refers with approval to the publications of Amantos where the term Hellas as used in the sixth and seventh centuries is considered to apply to the European possessions of the Byzantine empire' Another view, most recently expressed by Ostrogorsky, holds that Hellas as used by the texts of this period means central Greece only; it includes neither the Peloponnesus nor western Greece.`

The question can only be solved by a careful and thorough investigation of the sources, and as far as we know no such investigation has ever been made." We turn, therefore, to the texts and we begin with Procopius. Procopius employs the term Hellas in twenty-two passages. Nine of these passages are in the Wars; three in the Anecdota; and ten in the Buildings. They are: i. The reference to the invasions of the barbarians in 539.11 The barbarians, writes Procopius, bypassing Thermopylae, "destroyed almost all the Hellenes except the Peloponnesians." The term Hellas actually does not appear in this passage, but the

reference is obviously to the country south of Thermopylae, the country of the Hellenes among whom the Peloponnesians are also included. 2. The reference to the depredations of the Vandal King Gaeseric (467)." Procopius

writes: "He plundered Illyricum and most of the Peloponnesus and of the rest of Hellas and all the islands nearby." 3. The passage concerning the deposition of pope Silverius" Belisarius "sent him [Silverius] immediately to Hellas and a little later appointed another chief priest, Vigilius by name." 4. The reference to the reinforcements sent to Belisarius in Italy under the corn-

tnand of Valerian and Martinus." Here are the words of Procopius: "But they had sailed as far as Hellas, and, as they were not able to force their way farther, they were wintering in the regions of Aetolia and Acarnania." 5. The reference to the appointment of Maximin as Praetorian Prefect of Italy." Procopius writes that "Maximin sailed forth from Byzantium with the whole fleet and In a letter to Amantos which the latter published in his T& Mas,soncd, pp. 86-87. D. Z. Zakythinos. Of Eaulio, L. 'Eaaba,, Athens 1945, P- 19. 9 K. M. Setton, "The Emperor Constans II and the Capture of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars," Speculum, 27 (1952), 361. ' A. Bon, Le Peloponnese Byzantin jusqu'en raoq, Paris 1951, p. 29, n. 2.

10 G. Ostrogorsky, "Postanak Tema Helada i Peloponez," Iz Zbornika Radova XX!, Vizantololkog !nstituta San Kni, 1, Belgrade 1952, 67f. I do not know Serbian, but I was able to consult this work in a translation which Michael Petrovich, a brilliant young scholar, now at the University of Wisconsin, made for me. Ostrogorsky's work reached me when I had virtually completed my own survey. 11 To the references given above we may also add Julius Juthner, Hellenen and Barbaren; aus der Geschichte des Nationalbewussiseins, Leipzig 1923, pp. tt3f. 11 De bello Persico, 11, 4. I have used H. B. Dewing's translation as it appears in the Loeb Classical Library, but in every case I have checked with the original in Haury's edition. ss

De bello Vandalico, 1.5.

11 De bello Gothico, 1.25.

162

1' ibid., 1.24.

16 ibid., 111.6.

XVIII IIELLAS IN GREEK SOURCES OF VI, VII, VIII CENTURIES

reached Epirus in Hellas, where for no good reason he proceeded to settle down and waste precious time." 6. The passage wherein is described the Forum of Peace in Rome." Procopius speaks

here of the statues that were found in this forum and then adds: "for the ancient Romans took great care to make all the finest things of Hellas adornments of Rome."

q. Toula's attack on Greece:` "Totila now manned with Goths as many as three hundred ships of war and ordered them to go to Hellas.... When this Gothic expedition reached Corcyra they plundered it thoroughly . . . then suddenly crossing over to the mainland also they plundered the whole country about Dodona, and particularly Nicopolis and Anchialus." 8. The passage describing the earthquakes of 552." Procopius writes: "It was at this time that extraordinary earthquakes occurred throughout Hellas, both Boeotia and Achaea and the country on the Crisaean Gulf being badly shaken. And countless towns and eight cities were levelled to the ground, among which were Chaeronea and Coronea and Patrae and all of Naupactus, where there was also great loss of life." g. The reference to the efforts of Justinian to relieve Croton, besieged by the Goths (552):'° "the emperor ... sent to Hellas and ordered the garrison of Thermopylae to sail with all speed to Italy and bring to the besieged in Croton all the help in their power." 10. A long passage describing the changes introduced by the Logothete Alexander in the defense of the pass of Thermopylae. Procopius writes:" "Alexander did the following disservice to the Hellenes.

"The outpost at Thermopylae had from early times been under the care of the farmers of that region, and they used to take turns in guarding the wall there, whenever it was expected that some barbarian or other would make a descent upon the Peloponnesus. But Alexander ... pretending that he was acting in the interests of the Peloponnesians, refused to entrust the outpost there to the farmers. So he stationed troops there to the number of two thousand and ordained that their pay should not be provided from the imperial Treasury, but instead he transferred to the Treasury the entire civic funds and the funds for the spectacles of all the cities of Hellas, on the pretext that these soldiers were to be maintained therefrom, and consequently in all Hellas, and not least in Athens itself, no public building was restored nor could any other needful thing be done." 1 1. A reference to the abuses of the agents of the imperial Treasury (the Logothetes) against the soldiers:" "Furthermore, they kept grinding down the soldiers with many forms of penalties ... charging some with being Greeks (rpauxol) as though it were wholly impossible for any man from Hellas to be a decent man."

12-1g. De aedificiis, iv.a. There are eight references to Hellas here. What the meaning of the term is, is clearly indicated by the following three of these eight references: (t) "Beyond the whole of Epirus and Aetolia and Acarnania, as one skirts " ibid., rv.si.

10 ibid., iv.ss. " ibid., rv.25. "" ibid., xxrv.7.

21 Anecdota, xxvi.3i-53.

163

20 ibid., rv.26.

XVIII the coast, one comes to the Crisaean Gulf and the Isthmus and Corinth and the other parts of Hellas." (2) "As one descends from Illyricum into Hellas one is confronted by two mountains which rise very close together for a long distance, forming between them a narrow pass of the sort which they are wont to call cleisura.... At that point it was possible for the barbarians with no difficulty to effect an entrance both against Thermopylae and into that part of Hellas." (g) "He [Justinian] also rendered secure all the cities of Hellas which are inside the walls at Thermopylae.... For they had fallen into ruin long before, at Corinth because of terrible earthquakes which had visited the city; and at Athens and Plataea and the towns of Boeotia they had suffered from the long passage of time." 20. A reference to Euboea." Procopius writes: "But now, in order that no portion of Hellas may be left unmentioned, we must go to the island of Euboea for it stands close to Athens and Marathon. This island of Euboea is thrown out into the sea in front of Hellas."

21. The general reference to the devastations of the Balkan peninsula by the barbarians during the reign of Justinian." It reads: "And Illyricum and Thrace in its entirety, comprising the whole expanse of country from the Ionian [Adriatic] Gulf to the outskirts of Byzantium, including Hellas and the Thracian Chersonnese, was overrun practically every year by Huns, Sclavens and Antae, from the time when Justinian took over the Roman empire." 22. A reference to the building activity of Justinian. Procopius writes:" "All the building that was done by the Emperor Justinian in Dardania, Epirus, Macedonia and the other parts of Illyricum, also in Hellas and along the Ister River, has already been described by me. Next let us go to Thrace." As the reader can readily see of these twenty-two passages there are only four (Nos. g, 6, 11, 21) which, because they lack qualifying information, fail to define Hellas. But in three of these, the failure is only apparent, not real. The Hellas in No. 6 can refer only to classical Greece, for it was from there that came the finest among the adornments of Rome. The term Greeks (rpaucoi) as a term of contempt in No. 11 refers to troops drawn from a particular locality and not from the empire as a whole. Hence Hellas, as used in this passage, must refer to Greece proper. In No. 21, the meaning of Hellas is more evident. The entire territory involved is the region from the Adriatic Sea to Byzantium. But Hellas is not Illyricum, it is not Thrace, it is not the Thracian Chersonnese. It can only be the territory to the south of there, hence Greece proper. Hellas in Procopius, as is shown clearly by No. 22, is a region quite distinct from Illyricum, including Macedonia, and Thrace. Thus, there remains only No. g, the passage concerning the deposition of pope Silverius, where the term Hellas remains indefinite. But to suppose that in this one passage Procopius uses the term in a sense quite different from that in the other passages is hardly possible. To Procopius Hellas

meant the regions of classical Greece, more especially the country south of Thermopylae, including, of course, the Peloponnesus. 28 De aedifciis, 1v.i i.i6-iq.

24 Anecdota, xvui.so.

164

90 De aedijiciis, 1v.viii.l-s.

XVIII HELLAS IN GREEK SOURCES OF VI, VII, VIII CENTURIES

This too is the meaning of Hellas in Agathias, the continuator of Procopius. Agathias uses the term three times, all in connection with the invasion of the Balkan peninsula by the Cotrigur chief Zabergan in 558. Zabergan, we are told, sent a contingent of his forces against Hellas.Re The contingent, however, failed to accomplish much in Hellas. It was stopped at Thermopylae and consequently it did not attack the Isthmus" On its return from Hellas it joined the other forces of Zabergan and returned home :1 Obviously by Hellas Agathias means the territory south of Thermopylae, including, no doubt, the Peloponnesus. In Menander the Protector the term Hellas appears only once. The passage reads: "With Hellas being plundered by the Sclavenians and with successive dangers hanging over her on every side, Tiberius, not having a force worthy to fight even one part of his enemies, sent an embassy to Baian, the leader of the Avars."'1 This is the passage, it will be recalled, that suggested to Paparrhegopoulo and to Amantos also, the idea that Hellas at this time meant the Balkan regions south of the Danube. As there are

no other references to Hellas in Menander this interpretation can be neither confirmed nor refuted on the basis of Menander himself, but it is extremely improbable that the term could mean one thing to him and another to his contemporaries or nearly contemporaries. Now Hellas to the latter, as will be further demonstrated, meant Greece proper. Evagrius uses the term Hellas six times. i. In connection with the visit of the Athenian Eudocia to Antioch where speaking to the crowd she said: "I am proud to be of your race and blood," an allusion, comments Evagrius, "to the colonies which were sent hither from Hellas."D0 2. In connection with an earthquake which took place

during the reign of Justin, Evagrius writes: "While Justin directed the reins of the imperial government, Dyrrhachium, formerly called Epidamnus, suffered from an earthquake, as did also Corinth in Hellas. g. In reporting the deposition of pope Silverius: "The same Procopius writes, that, when the Goths were besieging Rome, Belisarius, suspecting Silverius of a design to betray the city, transports him (perrouctZEa)

to Hellas and appoints Vigilius bishop. 4. In referring to an earthquake in Greece: "The same writer (Procopius) describes with skill the eruptions of the Goths of the Maeotis into the Roman territory in the time of Justinian and the violent earthquakes

all over Hellas, in Boeotia, Achaea and the regions of the Crissaean bay."" 5. The fifth passage is a reference to Dexippus, the Athenian historian. It reads: "Dexippus has also written at great length on the same subject, commencing with mythical times and terminating with the reign of Claudius, the successor of Gallienus; and he also included the military deeds of the Carpi and other barbarian tribes in Hellas, Thrace, and Ionia. 6. Finally, there is the famous passage concerning the Avar invasion during the reign of Maurice: "While the greater part of the forces were engaged in the 27 ibid., ggo. 2s Agathias, History, Bonn 1828, p. got. 29 ibid., 331. zo Menander Protector, Fragmenta, in Historici Graeci Minores, ed, by L. Dindorf, 11, Leipzig 1871, 98. 10 Evagrius, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. by J. Bidez and I_ Parmentier, London t8g8, p. 29. 11 ibid., p. 159. 12 ibid., Pp. 169-170. 11 ibid., p. 171. 11 ibid., p. Rig.

165

XVIII East, the Avars twice made an incursion as far as the so-called Long Wall, reduced Anchialus, Singidunum and all Hellas as well as other cities and fortresses, enslaving the inhabitants and laying everything waste with fire and sword."" It becomes quite obvious, as one examines these passages, that Hellas to Evagrius meant Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus. This meaning is absolutely clear in three of the passages; it is certain also in the reference to Dexippus, for Dexippus himself took the lead in the defense of his city against the barbarians whose incursions in Greece he recorded." Greece proper is also the meaning of Hellas in the passage concerning the deposition of pope Silverius. Silverius was banished to Patara in Lycia, but he must have been first sent to Greece as Procopius states. Evagrius here follows Procopius, and Hellas in Procopius, as the reader already knows, means Greece proper. Thus, as the evidence is overwhelming to the effect that Evagrius used the term Hellas in the sense of Greece proper, there should be no hesitation in attributing that sense also to the term used in the famous passage concerning the Avar invasions during the reign of Maurice. To Evagrius Illyricum and Hellas were two different regions.

According to the second passage cited above, Corinth was located in Hellas, Dyrrhachium was not. There is in the History of Theophylact Simocatta only one use of the term Hellas.

It is a reference to the rivers of Greece. In the winter, writes Theophylact-he summarizes here the opinion of Herodotus-the sun, being over Libya, draws to itself the waters of the Nile and so the Nile is low; but in the summer, as it moves forward, it is the rivers about Hellas that become dryBr As this whole passage is drawn from Diodorus Siculus," Hellas can refer here only to Greece proper. It is a fact, of course, that in the summer the rivers of Greece become extremely low if not completely dry. In Malalas the term Hellas appears frequently as is natural since his chronicle covers also events relating to classical Greece. We have found seventeen references. We are

told in one place" that idol worship was introduced in Hellas by a descendant of Japheth. In another place there is a reference to a certain "Abar, king of the Greeks,

i.e. of Hellas."" Pelops, writes Malalas elsewhere, built a city which he called Peloponnesus and "thenceforth the kingdom of Hellas was called Peloponnesion."'t Paris was bidden by Priam to go to Hellas's to sacrifice to Apollo and so he went to Sparta of Hellas." There are two other references to Sparta of Hellas." Argos is a city of Hellas." When Pylades met Ephigeneia, and the latter asked him whence he came he replied, "From the country of Hellas and the city of Mycene."" Orestes, accompanied by Pylades and Ephigeneia, sailed to Hellas." There are two references to the Pisaeans of the country of Hellas. In the one we are told that during the reign of ss ibid., p. 22B.

s Gregorovius-Iampros, 'roropla rqs 116aem 'A9p.m., Athens 1904, 1: 8o, 83ff. For the essential bibliography, p. 8o, n. 3. sr Theophylacti Simocatae, Historiae, ed. by C. de Boor, Leipzig 1887, 277. se Diodori Bibl. t, 37ff. so John Malalas, Chronographia, Bonn 1831, p. 55 +° ibid., p. 83. s ibid., pp. 84-85. r ibid., p. 93. s ibid., p. 99. ibid., pp. 95, 9646 ibid., p. rob. " ibid., p. 137. r ibid., p. 142.

166

XVIII HELLAS IN GREEK SOURCES OF VI, VU, VIII CENTURIES

Claudius the Antiochenes sought to buy from them the right to the Olympics;" in the other that they did so-'9 Athens, the city of Hellas, was visited by St. Paul during the reign of Nero;"° and Corinth, the metropolis of Hellas, suffered a disaster during the reign of Vespasian." The father of the empress Eudocia was born in Hellas."2 Her brothers, when they heard that she had become empress, fled to Hellas, but she sent for them and brought them from Athens to Constantinople "" The last reference is a reference to Corinth. Corinth of Hellas, we are told, suffered during the reign of Justin, as did also Dyrrhachiurn of the province of New Epirus." Obviously in Malalas the term Hellas is used to refer to Greece proper, especially to the country around Athens and the Peloponnesus. Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus, is also the meaning of the term Hellas in Hierocles where Corinth is referred to as the metropolis of Hellas."° The same is true of the use of the term in one of the novels of Justinian where a reference is made to Arcadia of Hellas.°" But in Cosmas Indicopleustes the term is used vaguely. We

found three references to it in his curious work. One of them is definite enough. Cadmus, we are told, having obtained the letters from Tyre, brought them to Hellas.°' Hellas in this reference means, no doubt, Greece proper, but nothing very definite can be drawn from the other two. One of them reads: "When Alexander was about to die, he divided his kingdom among his four friends; and one of them came to rule over Europe or Hellas."" Hellas here is made synonymous with Europe, but where is Europe? Europe, according to Cosmas, extends to the North and the regions of all the West.O° This is very vague, indeed too vague for this passage to be taken to mean, as Amantos takes it to mean, the regions in the Balkan peninsula south of the Danube. The other passage reads: "And in the time of the sojourn of our Lord Christ many

nations of Hellas, beholding the signs through the apostles, accepted the faith of Christ."" Here too there is no definiteness to the term Hellas. It means, I think, the Greek-speaking lands of the West. There is thus in Cosmas no specific geographical significance to the term Hellas. It means the Greek lands in general. No such vagueness

exists in the meaning of the term as used by the other writers of the sixth century. Hellas to them means Greece proper, especially the country south of Thermopylae, including the Peloponnesus. Now we turn to the works written in the seventh century or deriving from sources, some of which were written in that or the following century. These works are the fragments attributed to John of Antioch; the Chronicon Paschale; the compilation known as the Miracula Sancti Demetrii; the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor; as ibid., P. 248. ss ibid., p. 355.

4° ibid., p. 286. "' ibid., p. 418-

60 ibid., p. 251.

11 ibid., p. 261.

12 ibid., p. 354.

55 E. Honigmann (ed.). Le Synekdlmos d'Hihokles, Brussels 1939. p. 18. no. 646. 7. se Schoell's edition, Berlin 1895, p. 169. "T Cosmas Indicopleustes. Topographia Christian. ed. by E. 0. Winstedt, Cambridge i9og, p. 3sg; Migne, Pat. Gr., 88, Paris 1860, 457. 58 Winstedt, loc. cit., P. 78; Migne, loc. cit., p. log. "" Winstedt, loc. cit., p. 6s; Migne, loc. cit., p. 85. GO Winstedt, loc. cit., p. 331; Migne, loc. cit., p. 460.

167

XVIII that of the patriarch Nicephorus; and the Chronicle of Monemvasia. The period covered by these works together ranges from the creation of the world to the beginning

of the ninth century. We have also consulted the work of George of Pisidia, but we found no references to Hellas there.,, The fragments attributed to John of Antioch are the remnants of a world chronicle, and, as they cover events relating to the classical and Early Christian periods, they contain numerous references to Hellas. We found twelve such references ranging in time from Biblical times to the end of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are

told in one place that idolatry was introduced in Hellas by the descendants of Japheth "° In another place there is a reference to the "Kingdom of Sicyon or of Hellas."-° One passage reads: "In the country of the Hellenes the king Lapathos had two sons, Achaeos and Lacon, and when he was about to die he divided his kingdom between them. Achaeos called his share Achaea, Lacon, Laconia."" The country of .the Hellenes is here clearly the Peloponnesus. Priam, we are told elsewhere, bid Paris to go to Hellas to sacrifice, but he, going to Sparta, abducted Helen.-- Menelaus with

his brother Agamemnon bid the chiefs of the country not to ignore this insult to Hellas." There is a reference to the subjugation of Hellas by Philipp of Macedon," and another to the occupation of Hellas by Mithridates." In one place we are told that Caligula was assassinated as he went out of the theatre to see the youths whom he had summoned from Hellas and Ionia to sing the hymn composed in his honor.There is a reference to the devastations of Hellas and Illyricum by Alaric and another to the arrival of Stilicho in Hellas in order to stop him." As is well known, Stilicho went to Greece twice; once by land and once by sea. In the first instance he went to northern Greece; in the second, he sailed across from Italy, and, landing at Corinth, marched to Elis where he confronted Alaric. As John of Antioch says that Stilicho sailed (Ssevraewe) to Hellas, it must be the second expedition that he has in mind, although he confuses the sequence of events." Hellas in this passage probably means the Peloponnesus. In another passage we read that Pamprepios, a prominent pagan during the reign of the emperor Zeno, spent considerable time in the country of the Hellenes." As Pamprepios is known from elsewhere to have spent some time in Athens,

the country of the Hellenes is the country where Athens was located." Theodoric -1 In K. Sathas, M.,,pela 'EXX,1.gr11, 'lar'plas, Paris 1880, t, xi, n. 2, we read: "Un Brontologion in6dit de Ia

Bibliothbque Nationale de Paris (MS. grec. 2316, f. 381 et 404v) Ecrit fr@quemment 'Eikdsa, 'Eii,t.., i propos de tout 1'empire. Nous apprenons par la pr.ace de ce Brontologion qu'il fur redige pendant le regne de Constant petit-fits d'Heraclius (641-668)." At my request, Professor Paul Lemerle of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes-Etudes had the manuscript examined. In a letter dated February 18, 1953, he writes: "J'ai fait faire i la Bibliotheque Nationale, par mon ellve Madame Constantinidou, la recherche qui vous demandiez. . . . Je crams bien qu'il ne vous deSoive.... Il me parait en effet i pets pros certain que 1'emploi dans ce texte de'EAt-re, et 'EX),ds nest pas i attribuer i l'l:poque que, d'aprl:s Sathas, vous pounce supposer." 62 John of Antioch, Fragmenta, in C. Muller, Fragmenia Historicorum Graecorum, 4, Paris 1851, 546. s- idem. '- ibid., p. 550. '- ibid., P. 547 s, ibid., P 555--ibid., P 549. -- ibid., p. 561.

-- ibid., p. 572. Cf. Dio Cassius, 11x, 29.

"ibid., p. 61o.

71 Cf. J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, London 1931, 1, 1 [R-12o; E. Demougeot, De Lucite d la division de !'empire Romain 395-410, Paris 1951, pp. 151ff. rz ibid., p. 619.

73 E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 2, Brussels 1949, p. 9 and n. 5 for the essential bibliography.

168

XVIII HELLAS IN GREEK SOURCES OF VI, VU, VIII CENTURIES

Strabo (son of Triarius), we are told in another place, set out from Thrace with his son Recitach, his wife and 30,000 followers to go to Hellas." But he was killed on the way at a place called the Stables of Diomedes (481). This place was located on the Via Egnatia in Thrace between Maximianopolis (Komotine) and Topiro." Hellas was beyond this place, since Theodoric died before he got to Hellas. Finally there is the reference to Theodoric, the founder of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. The emperor Zeno, we read, "sent John the Scythian against Theodoric who had rebelled

and was devastating the-empire of the Romans and the regions neighboring on Hellas."r" What these regions were we learn from another source. They were Macedonia and Thessaly" Hellas consequently is the country south of Thessaly. Now to

summarize: In John of Antioch the meaning of Hellas is clear. It means Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus. This too is the meaning of Hellas in the Chronicon Paschale. The term is used five times. The nations of Hellas, including the inhabitants of Athens and Thebes, we are told in one place, were descendants of Japheth." In another place we find Argos called the principal city of Hellas." One passage reads: "The Hellenes have been so called from a certain man Hellen of those who dwelled in Hellas. But, as others say, from the olive tree (i),aia) which sprouted in Athens. "Xerxes, having come to Hellas," we read elsewhere, "took and burned Athens."°' Finally there is the reference to the brothers of the empress Eudocia. "When the brothers of the empress heard that their sister had become empress they became frightened and fled to Hellas." As we know from elsewhere, they fled to Athens whence they were recalled." Hellas in the Chronicon Paschale is Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus. We come now to a capital text of the seventh century. The compilation known as the Miracula Sancti Demetrii is one of the most important sources for the history of the Balkan peninsula in the seventh century. It is important because it contains numerous references, not known from elsewhere, to the activities of the Slavs, particularly in connection with their attempts to take the city of Thessalonica. Unfortunately this text is still waiting for an editor who would clarify the numerous problems connected with it, especially the problem of chronology." Perusing it in the state in which it exists in Migne, we have found four references to Hellas and one to the country of the Hellenes. r' ibid., p. 619. Cf. Bury, op. cit., 1, 421; W. Ensslin, Theoderich der Grosse, Munich 1947, 56. "T. L. F. Yale], De Via Militari Romanorum Egnatia. Pars Orientalis, Tubingen 1842, p. 21. 76 ibid., p. 6zo.

71 Marcellinus, Chronicon, ed. by T. Mommsen, Monuments Germaniae Fiistorica, Auctorum Antiquimimorum, x1, Berlin 1894, 92. Cf. Ensslin, op. cit., p. 57. Se Chronicon Paschale, Bonn 1832, 1:47.

ro ibid., p. 63.

80 ibid., p. 88.

e1 ibid., p. 312.

92 ibid., p. 578.

es For the date of the composition of the Miracula see J. Laurent, "Sur la date des eglises Saint-Demetrius et Sainte-Sophie 'a Thessalonique," Byz. Zeitschrift, 4 (1895), 420-434; A. Pernice, "Sulla data del libro II dei Miracula S. Demetrii Martyris," Bessarione, anno vi, t. it (1901-1902), 181-187. See also H. Delehaye, "Les recueils antiques de Miracles des saints," Analecia Bollandiana, 43 (1925), 57-64. P. Lemerle, "La composition et la chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S. Deretrii," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 46 (1953) 349-361. I have not seen the work of A. Burmov, "The Slavic attacks against Thessalonica in

the Miracula S. Demetrii and their chronology," Godifnih na Philosophsko.istorileskija Fakaltet na Sofijskija Universitet 2, Sofia 1952, 167-215 (in Bulgarian).

169

XVIII A man, we are told in one place, came recently to Thessalonica from Hellas " In another passage we read that an African bishop, Cyprian by name, while on his way to Constantinople, was captured unexpectedly around the regions of Hellas by Slavs and was taken to their country, a slave. The place to which Cyprianus was taken was eight days' journey on foot from Thessalonica.B° The third reference is in connection with the adventures of Kouver and his conspiracy to take Thessalonica. The admiral of the fleet, Sisinnios, we read in this passage, ordered by the emperor to come to Thessalonica, sailed from the regions of Hellas and arrived at the island of Skiathos. But now comes the capital passage." "It happened, therefore, as it has been stated,

that, during the bishopric of John of blessed memory, the nation of the Slavs, a countless multitude, was aroused. This multitude was drawn from the Drogubites, Sagudates, Belegezetes, Bajunetes, Berzetes and others. First to invent ships carved out of single pieces of timber, they launched themselves on the sea armed, and pillaged

all Thessaly and the islands about it and those about Hellas. They pillaged also the Cyclades, all Achaea, Epirus, and the greatest part of Illyricum, and parts of Asia."" Finally there is the reference to the country of the Hellenes: On Sunday, 22 September, when Maurice was emperor, we read in the Miracula, an Avar army, composed of Slavs, Bulgars, and other barbarians appeared before the city of Thessalonica. The barbarians, we read further, had chosen the most opportune moment for their attack, for the best elements of the troops of the city, together with the prefect, were in the country of the Hellenes on public business ea There can be little doubt that Hellas in these passages means the country south of Thessaly. But whether this country included also the Peloponnesus, these passages do not say. Ostrogorsky, in a most recent study, has declared that it did not,ss and the passage concerning the depredations of the Drogubites, Sagudates, and the other Slavic tribes therein enumerated seems to give him justification. But this justification is by no means sure. For the author of the passage, in mentioning the islands off the coast of Hellas, the Cyclades, Achaea-the northwestern corner of the Peloponnesus is meant no doubt-and Epirus, was simply specifying the regions devastated by the Slavs in the piratical expedition which he describes. Moreover, the Cyclades were a well-known group of islands, and to have mentioned them as distinct from the other islands lying

off Greece was only natural. It does not follow, therefore, that the mainland lying west of the Cyclades was not included in the country which the author calls Hellas. These references to Hellas, with the exception of the one given first, are drawn from the second book of the Miracula, written presumably toward the end of the seventh century by an unknown author.B° That is not so with the reference to the "country of the Hellenes." That reference comes from the first book, considered to have been

written sometime during the first third of the seventh century by John, Bishop of sa S. Demetrii Martyris Acta, Migne, Pat. Gr., t,6, Paris 1864, 1265. ss ibid., p. 1380. se ibid., p. 1369. -'ibid., p. 1325. --ibid., p. 1293. w Ostrogursky, op. cit., p. 68.

uc On this see especially Pernice, op. cit., pp. 181-187. According to Pernice the second book of the Miracula was composed not much later than 656. Lemerle (op. cit., p. 359) puts its composition shortly after 677.

170

XVIII HELLAS IN GREEK SOURCES OF VI, VII, VIII CENTURIES

Thessalonica, who was a contemporary of the events which the passage of that reference

describes" Now, besides the Hellenes we meet in this book with four other ethnic groups, excluding, of course, the invading barbarians. These are the "nation of the Illyrians," the Macedonians, the Thessalians, and the Achaeans B' By Macedonians, Thessalians, and Achaeans the author means, of course, the inhabitants of the provinces of Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaea, provinces which still existed since the events in

connection with which the Thessalians, Macedonians, and Achaeans are mentioned took place during the reign of Maurice. Now, the province of Achaea was the country roughly south of Thermopylae, including the Peloponnesus, whose inhabitants Procopius calls Hellenes," a term which was also used with the same significance at the end of the sixth and early seventh centuries as is shown by the fragments attributed to John of Antioch°' and the Chronicle of Monemvasia, whose source in this instance must ultimately go back to this period." Thus, the Hellenes of Procopius, John of Antioch, and the Chronicle of Monemvasia, occupied the same country as the Achaeans

of the Miracula. That this is also the "country of the Hellenes" referred to in the Miracula is hardly possible to doubt. Hellenes and Achaeans, as used by the author of the Miracula, must be understood to refer to the same people and, as a consequence, the country of the Hellenes must have been the same as the province of Achaea, i.e. roughly the regions located south of Thermopylae, including also the Peloponnesus. We come now to the two chroniclers of the beginning of the ninth century whose

works constitute the principal sources for the period covered by the seventh and eighth centuries. In the one of these works, the chronicle of Nicephorus, we found only three references to Hellas. We are told in one place that the inhabitants of Hellas and the Cyclades, rebelling against the iconoclastic policy of Leo III, proclaimed a certain Cosmas their emperor." Justinian II, we read elsewhere, appointed Leontios Strategus of Hellas." Finally there is the reference to Irene, brought from Hellas by Constantine V, to be married to his son Leo" This Irene, we are told elsewhere, was

an Athenian." Thus Hellas in Nicephorus is the country lying not far from the Cyclades and including the region where Athens was located. What other regions this

country included we are not told. In the other chronicle, that of Theophanes Confessor, the term Hellas appears more frequently. We have found nine references. The Goths, reads one of these references, devastated many provinces, Scythia, Mysia, Thrace, Macedonia, Achaea and all Hellas.'°° Marcian, the future emperor, we are told elsewhere, while a simple soldier, went from Hellas in a campaign against the Persians.101 During the reign of Anastasius,

we read further, forty bishops of Illyricum and Hellas broke with the bishop of "St. Demetrii Martyris Acta, pp. 1272, 1292. " John of Antioch, op. cit., p. 6j9. is See note 12 for the reference. 00'9AAgr,,1 ier+t is the phrase used by both the Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Scholium of Arethas in referring to the Peloponnesians in connection with the Slavic invasions which took place during the reign of Maurice. See P. Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (1950), 147, 152. N Nicephorus, Opuscula Historica. edited by C. de Boor, Leipzig 1B8o. P. 57. 91 Laurent, op. cit., PP. 424-431.

29 ibid., p. 77. "ibid., p. 10511 ibid., PP. 37.38. LOO Theophanes, Chronographia, edited by C. de Boor, 1, Leipzig 1883, 65.

171

101 ibid., p. 104.

XVIII

Thessalonica because he accepted the religious policy of the emperor.10' One of these bishops is known from elsewhere to have been from Nicopolis in Epirus.'°' Corinth, the metropolis of Hellas, Theophanes writes in one place, suffered a disaster during the reign of Justin 1, as did also Dyrrhachium, "a city of New Epirus of Illyricum."'°

Leontios, we are told in another place, was appointed strategus of Hellas'°' Then there is the reference to the deadly pestilence which broke out during the reign of Constantine V. "Starting from Sicily and Calabria and spreading like fire," writes Theophanes, "it came to Monemvasia and Hellas and the nearby islands."'" Constantine V, we read elsewhere, in order to repeople the capital, which suffered grievously by the plague, had people brought there from "the islands and Hellas and

the lower regions.""' The same emperor, we are told in another passage, brought 50o tile-makers from Hellas and the islands to Constantinople in order to repair the aqueduct of Valentinian.10B We read finally that in 783 the empress Irene dispatched the logothete Stavrakios against the Slavs. Stavrakios proceeded to Thessalonica and

Hellas and subjugated all the Slaves. He entered also the Peloponnesus and took many prisoners and booty."' There is one obvious conclusion to be drawn from these passages. Hellas in Theophanes is a country located in the general direction of Greece proper, but its precise boundaries cannot be determined. That it included the coastal regions bordering on the Aegean is certain since it is frequently associated with the islands, but whether these coastal regions extended as far south as the Peloponnesus is another matter. The reference to Monemvasia in connection with the pestilence of the eighth century and that to Stavrakios seem to indicate that they did not and this is also the opinion of Ostrogorsky.110 Neither the one nor the other of these references, however, is conclusive. The reference to Monemvasia does not necessarily mean that that place was not a part of Hellas, while the expression used in the reference to Stavrakios was only natural if the author wanted to indicate how far south Stavrakios went, and does not necessarily imply that he did not consider the Peloponnesus to be a part of Hellas. Then there is the passage which refers to Corinth as the metropolis of Hellas. This would put Corinth in Hellas. It must be pointed out, however, that this passage refers to an event which took place in the sixth century and as a consequence its validity as a source for the beginning of the ninth century may be questioned. To conclude: Hellas in Theophanes was a region which includes the eastern parts of the central lands of Greece proper; whether or not it included any parts of the Peloponnesus is a question to which no definite answer can be given."' 002 ibid., p. 162.

'o' P. Chatanis, Church and State in the Later Roman Empire. The Religious Policy of Anastasius 1, 497'518, Madison (Wisc.), 1939, P. 74. 108 Theophanes, op. cit., p. its.

10 ibid., p. 368.

10e ibid., p. 422.

101 ibid., p. 429.

-ibid.. p. 456. 110 Ostrogorsky, op. cit., pp. 67f. ill The term Helladikoi used twice by Theophanes (op. cit., pp. 405, 474), obviously in the sense of inhabitants of Hellas, is of no help in giving us this answer. The Hellas whose inhabitants were called 108 ibid., p. 440.

Helladikoi was no doubt the theme of Hellas, but how extensive was this theme at this time and, as a consequence, who among the Greeks were referred to as Helladikoi? Already in use in classical antiquity (cf. W. Dittenberger, "Ethnika and Verwandtes," Hermes, 41 [igo6], sogf.), it came to mean by the sixth century

172

XVIII HELLAS IN GREEK SOURCES OF VI, VII, VIII CENTURIES

It remains now to consider the Chronicle of Monemvasia. Concerning this curious chronicle, its different versions, its relations to other texts, its sources and the trustworthiness of its contents, we have written at length elsewhere"z It is a source of undoubted historical worth. There is in this chronicle only one reference to Hellas, but this reference is very precise. It reads: In another invasion they [the Avars] subjugated all Thessaly and all Hellas, namely, Old Epirus, Attica and Euboea. They made an incursion also in the Peloponnesus, conquered it by war, and, destroying and driving out the noble and Hellenic nations, they settled in it themselves."' The passage as phrased seems to indicate that the Peloponnesus was not considered a part of Hellas, but the reference to the Peloponnesians as Hellenic nations indicates the opposite. This last view is strengthened by a comparison of this passage with the Scholium of Arethas which is drawn from the same source. Instead of "all Hellas" Arethas has "the country of the Aeniantes and that of the Locrians, both the Epiknemidians and Ozolians, and also Old Epirus, Attica, Euboea and the Peloponnesus."tt We have in this survey brought together all the references to Hellas which we have found in the historical literature of Byzantium for the period covered by the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. Our analysis of these passages shows clearly that the term Hellas as used by these sources referred roughly to the regions south of Thermopylae.t"a These regions included also the Peloponnesus, although in the case of three of our sources, to wit, the second book of the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, the chronicle

of Nicephorus and that of Theophanes, this is open to doubt. It follows, therefore, that there is no basis in fact for the view that the term Hellas had come to denote by the end of the sixth century all the European provinces of the Byzantine empire. Consequently, we can no longer doubt that, when Menander, Evagrius, and John of Ephesus speak of the devastations of Greece by the Avars and Slavs, it is of Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus, that they speak. There is another problem and it concerns the theme of Hellas. This theme, it is generally agreed, was created sometime after 687 but not later than 695. After 687 because it does not appear in the list of commands contained in the communication which Justinian II addressed to Pope Conon in that year;'" not later than 695 because a military governor of Hellas is known to have been appointed in that year.," Still a (t) the inhabitants of the Greek lands in general (Cosmas, op. cit., pp. 85, 16g); (a) the Peloponnesians (Malalas, op. cit., p. 84); (3) the Sicyonians (Malalas, op. cit., p. 68). It replaced the term Hellenes because the latter had come to be used more and more in the sense of pagans. For instance, Athenais, the future Eudocia, as an inhabitant of Greece, is referred to as'EAAaa, ,f; as a pagan she is referred to as 'Eu1t,t,(.. See Chronicon Paschale, p. 576; Malalas, op. cit., pp. 353, 354- In view of the use of the term Helladikoi in the sense of inhabitants of Greece already in the sixth century, one may question the opinion of J. B. Bury that the term was "formed on the analogy of Armeniakoi and Anatolikoi. J. B. Bury, The Helladikoi," The English Historical Review, 7 (t8gs), 8o-8,. G. Finlay's opinion that the term Helladikoi was a contemptuous name for the Greeks as mere provincials has, of course, as Bury has already pointed out, no basis in fact; G. Finlay, A History of Greece, edited by H. F. Tozer, i, Oxford 1877, 405 Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia pp. 141-t66. ibid., p. 197. tt4 ibid., p. 15a. "w Cf. E. Chrysanthopoulos, "Ti B,pA(a Oeuµhrur rob 'Aylou Gp sseptou, rD Xpoe,sde Tit, Mo,.p,8wl.t .al at

...

WXaA'.at iri8pop4l th 7;1r'EAMda," Oeohoyia, 95 (1954), 149.

"' Mansi, Concil., xt, 737.

1"Theophanes, op. cit., p. 368; Nicephorus, op. cit., PP- 37-38-

173

XVIII point of controversy, however, is the territorial extent of this theme since no precise information exists which makes it possible to fix its limits."' It might be supposed on the basis of our survey that the theme of Hellas was conterminous with the country of Hellas, but against this view there are two serious objections. Firstly, what little is known concerning the western regions of the Peloponnesus during the seventh and eighth centuries seems to indicate that these regions were not under the effective control of Byzantium.", Secondly, when the Peloponnesus and Nicopolis (Epirus) were organized into themes their governors came to be ranked higher than the governor of the theme Hellas. This fact, in the opinion of Ostrogorsky, indicates clearly that neither the Peloponnesus nor Epirus was ever a part of the theme Hellas.11 Ostrogorsky's opinion is an inference, drawn from the fact that in every case where a theme is known to have originally belonged to another its governor is found to be ranked lower in the hierarchical scale than the governor of the original theme,12' but it is not unreasonable. In view of these objections, it seems extremely unlikely that the theme of Hellas extended far enough to include the Peloponnesus and the regions which later came to constitute the theme of Nicopolis. It probably included no more than the eastern parts of the central lands of Greece proper. Attica was one of these lands, but greater precision than this, at least for the seventh and eighth centuries, cannot be given. The question now arises as to the administrative status of the Peloponnesus. The Slavic invasions toward the end of the sixth century brought about the disintegration of Byzantine administration and it was not until toward the end of the eighth century that Byzantium began to reassert its authority in an effective way. But this applies only to the western regions of the Peloponnesus. The eastern part of the peninsula from Corinth to the promontory of Malea had remained in Byzantine hands. It is

with reference to this part of the Peloponnesus that the question concerning its administrative status arises. The question, because of the utter lack of precise information, will probably never

be solved. Still, a possible solution may be suggested by the little we know of the administrative system which existed in the Aegean during the seventh and eighth centuries. In the communication which Justinian II addressed to Pope Conon in 687, neither the theme of Hellas nor that of the Kibyraiotai is mentioned.1' The presumption is that neither the one nor the other had yet been created. But in that same communication mention is made of the command of the Carabisiani. ' This was a naval command and existed at least as early as the reign of Heraclius, for when Kouver threatened Thessalonica,'" the strategus who was ordered to come to its aid was the 117 Latest summary of the question: Bon, op. cit., pp. 38ff.; A. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito, De Themaiibus (Studi e Testi. 16o), Vatican 1952, p. 171; Ostrogorsky, op. cit., pp. 65ff. "s Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia ... ," pp. 147. 152; Bon, op_ cit., PP. 54.55. 112 Ostrogorsky, op. cit., pp. 69f. Ostrogorsky is the first one to point out this fact. Cf. V. Beneievie, 'Die byzantinischen Ranglisten," Byz.Neugr. Jahrb., 5 (1847). 120-321. 1e° ibid., pp. 118f.

121 Mansi, op. Cit., xt, 737.

122 As emended by C. Diehl, Etudes Byzantines, Paris 1905, p. 285, n. 2. Diehl's study was first published in 1896 and his emendation was accepted by H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung, Leipzig 1899, p. 29. See also Pertusi, op. cit., p. 149. The text as printed in Mansi has Cabarisiani. 122 Kouver threatened Thessalonica about 641. We follow here Grdgoire with whose chronological views,

174

XVIII HELLAS IN GREEK SOURCES OF V4 VII, VIII CENTURIES

commander of the Carabisiani-the Sisinnios to whom we have already alluded. How extensive this command was we do not know,': but it doubtless included the southwestern coast of Asia Minor, the islands of the Aegean and also the coastal regions of Greece since it was from the coastal region of Greece that Sisinnios sailed with the Carabisiani soldiers whom he commanded (parsi TWV 15r' a.iaov ovrsav scapa$ulu vwv orparwrrruv) in order to go to Thessalonica."° With the creation of the themes of the Kibyraiotai and Hellas sometime after 687 the territorial extent of the Carabisiani was curtailed, but the command continued to exist. Its general for 711 was a certain Theophilos, patricius et stratigos Caravisianorum, who is said to have received Pope Constantine I in the island of Keos with honor and ceremony."' The mention of Keos shows that the command of the Carabisiani continued to include the islands, and it is not unlikely that it extended also over some of the nearby coastal regions. Now the reference in Theophanes to the removal of people by Constantine V in 755

from "the islands and Hellas and the lower regions""' in order to repeople Constantinople which had suffered grievously by the plague implies the existence of strong

authority in these territories. Such authority, we know, existed in Hellas; it existed also in the islands since they formed a part of the Carabisiani; it must have existed also

in the "lower regions." The "lower regions," of course, as the phrase is used in this passage of Theophanes, can refer only to the Peloponnesus, most probably to the regions around Monemvasia. It follows, therefore, that the eastern Peloponnesus was within the administrative system of the empire, either as a unit by itself or as a part of another. If a part of another, this could be only the Carabisiani, for the theme Hellas, the only other administrative unit nearby, does not seem, as we have seen, to have extended beyond the eastern parts of the central lands of Greece proper. That this part of the Peloponnesus may have been, indeed, a part of the Carabisiani is not at all unlikely. Monemvasia, Corinth, and the Argolis afforded harbors too good not to

be utilized by the Byzantine fleet. Then, too, between the Cyclades on the one hand and Monemvasia on the other there seems to have been frequent intercourse as is indicated by the fact that it was from Monemvasia that the pestilence of 746-747 spread to the islands and to Greece. But if the Peloponnesus was ever a part of the Carabisiani, it must have become an independent theme when that command was broken up. This happened sometime before 780, for by that year the command Aegaeon which consisted of the islands was already in existence."' It is a fact, of course, as a result of a very careful examination of the sources, we are in absolute agreement. H. Gregoire, "L'Origine et le Nom des Croates et des Serbes," Byzantion, 17 (1944.1945), looff. See also P. Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations daps les Balkans depuis la fin de l'tpoque romaine jusqu'au VIII- si&cle," Revue historique, text, 2 (1954), 298f. But Grtgoire's identification of Kouver with Kouvrat has been challenged. A. Maricq, "Notes sur les slaves daps le Ptloponntse et en Bithynie et sur 1'emploi de 'slave' comme appellatit," Byrantion, 22 (1952), 345ff.; V. Betevliev, "Zur Deutung and Datierung der protobulgarischen Inschrift vor dem Reiterrelief von Madara, Bulgarien," Byrantinische Zeitschrift, 47 (1954) 12off. But cf. Grtgoire, Byranlion, 22 (1952), 356, and Lemerle, Byzantinische Zeilschriff, 46 (1953), 36o. " CI. Pertusi, op. cit., p. 149. 125 S. Demetrii Martyris Acla, p. 1369. 13° Thereference is given by Gelzer, op. cit., p. 31. Theophanes, op. cit., 429. 4r-7-1 ovµmaµ Xoa & riar ewr sal 'RXXoaas -al riot saea,,0 , µ-p61, °al trolpasl o(siloal rifr ;6X11 ml -nreruvwe-r ainjr,

"' Cf. Pertusi, op. cit., p. 549.

175

XVIII that the Peloponnesus as a theme had existed for some years when Nicephorus I became emperor. Ostrogorsky has noted this, but he thinks that the Peloponnesus was

formed into a theme sometime after 783.12' Why after 783? Because in 783 the logothete Stavrakios made an expedition into the Peloponnesus. But the logothete Stavrakios made an expedition also into Hellas and yet Hellas had been a theme since before 695. And what does Theophanes, who is the source for this, mean by the term Pelopotnesus? Does he use it in the sense of the island of Pelops or does he mean the theme Peloponnesus? We do not know. But we do know that the eastern part of the Peloponnesus was in Byzantine hands throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. If in Byzantine hands, it must have been administered in some way. And this way, we think, must have been something like what we have suggested.

Our survey, throughout which we have tried to stick very close to the texts, has now reached its end. I am happy that it constitutes a part of a volume published to honor Professor Friend. As a colleague and friend Professor Friend has been and is an inspiration to me. I salute him in the language of Hellas: Xaipc ¢LXf Kai SLSoaKUAL RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY 129 Ostrogorsky, op. cit., pp. 72ff.

176

XIX GRAECIA IN ISIDORE OF SEVILLE Writing in 1963 concerning the penetration of Greece by the Slavs towards the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh Romilly Jenkins had this to say:'-

"Whatever the Slav invaders found in their path was mercilessly exterminated. There was little resistance in the countryside, since there were but few to make any. The western districts of Hellas and Peloponnesus were the first to be slavised. There is some evidence to show that in the eastern parts of Greece the invaders lacking siege equipment, and being in search of agricultural and pastural lands, never occupied the citadels of Salonica, or Athens, or Corinth, or Monemvasia, when the Byzantine garrisons, which could be relieved by sea maintained a

tenuous hold. All else was lost. And Isidore of Seville could tersely observe: 'At the beginning of the fifth year of Heraclius (that is A. D. 615) the Slavs took Greece from the Romans'."2 This matter of the penetration of Greece proper by the Slavs has long been and still is a matter of controversy, and Jenkins has very well expressed one side of it. I do not propose to enter here into any lengthy discussion to present the other side. My purpose is much more modest. I just want to raise the question whether in any discussion of the matter of the penetration of Greece proper by the Slavs the reference of Isidore should ever be used. I do this because Graecia in Isidore does not necessarily refer to Greece proper. In the Chronicon where the passage in question appears there are

no other references to Graecia which might give the clue as to what Isidore may have meant by it. But Isidore compiled another work, a miserable one to be sure, but nevertheless important not only because it contains the geographical and other knowledge that Isidore possessed, but also because for centuries it served the West as a source of information. I refer, of course, to Isidore's Etymologies. In the Etymologies Isidore uses the term Graecia several times, offering

in each case additional information to explain what he means by it. The main entry reads as follows :2 1 R. Jenkins, Byzantium and Byzantinism (Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple) (The University of Cincinnati, 1963), 24.

2 Isidore of Seville, Chronicon, Migne, P. L. 83, 1056: Sclavi Graeciam Romanis tulerunt. 3 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum sive originum, edited by W. A. Lindsay (Oxford 1911), XIV, 4.7.

XIX P. Charanis. Graecia in Isidore of Seville

23

"Graecia is named after the Greek king who dwelled in that region as a

kingdom. The provinces of Greece are now seven: the first from the west Dalmatia, then Epirus, Hellas, Thessaly, Macedonia, Achaia, and two in the sea, Crete and the Cyclades. Now Illyricum is generally all Greece (Graecia a Graeco rege vocata, qui cunctam cam regionem regno incoluit. Sunt autem provinciae Graeciae septem: quarum prima ab occidente Dalmatia, inde Epirus, inde Hellas, inde Thessalia, inde Macedonia, inde Achaia, et duae in mari, Creta et Cyclades. Illyricum autem generaliter omnis Graecia est.)". Isidore, however, does not stop here. He goes on to describe the provinces which constituted the Graecia of the above passage, mixing mythology and history and exhibiting a confused state of geographical knowledge. Under Hellas he writes:' "Hellas is named after the king Hellen, son of Deucalion and Pyrrha, from whom the Greeks were first called Hellenes. This land and Attica

were previously called Acte. For a certain Granus (Cranaus) was a native of Greece from whose daughter, Attis by name, the land was called Attica. It lies between Macedonia and Achaia and is joined to the north to Arcadia. This is true Greece where was located the city of Athens, mother of liberal letters and nurse of philosophers, than which Greece had none more famous and noble. In it lies the plain of Marathon ...

The two provinces of Hellas are Boeotia and the Peloponnesus (Hellas dicta a rege Hellene, Deucalionis et Pyrrhae filio a quo et prius

Graeci Hellenes nuncupati sunt. Ipsa est et Attica terra Acte prius dicta. Nam Granus [Cranaus] quidam Graeciae indigena fuit, ex cuius filia Attis nomine Attica terra vocata est. Haec inter Macedoniam et Achaiam media iacet, Arcadiae a septentrionali parte coniuncta. Ipsa est et vera Graecia, ubi fuit Athenae civitas mater liberalium litterarum et philosophorum nutrix, qua nihil habuit Graecia clarius atque nobilius. In ea est et Marathonius campus ... Helladis autem duae sunt provinciae: Boeotia et Peloponnesus)". The confused state of Isidore's geographical knowledge as it related to Hellas is quite evident. It is further exhibited by what he says about the other provinces. Achaia is a peninsula, "for except in the north, where it is joined to Macedonia, it is surrounded by the sea." Thessalonica and Mt. Parnassus he locates in Thessaly; Mt. Olympus in Macedonia.b On the other hand his knowledge of the territorial extent of Illyricum and the regions which it included is on the whole rather accurate. Isidore then knows two regions which were known by the name of Graecia. One was Hellas or more accurately a part of Hellas; the other was Illyricum. To which of these two Graeciae one may now ask does Isidore refer in his Chronicon when he speaks of the advances of the Slavs ? Ibid. XIV, 4.10. s Ibid. XIV, 4.10-15.

XIX 24

Given the terseness of that notice, it is, of course, impossible to say for sure, but if one were permitted to guess he would have no hesitation in choosing. It would, of course, be Illyricum.e It was then most probably Illyricum or at least part of it that the Slavs on the testimony of Isidore took away from the Romans in 615 A. D. Illyricum, of course, included Greece proper and quite possibly the Slavic penetration may have extended into that country, but this is a matter of pure speculation. To be stated as a fact there is need of more specific evidence

than is furnished by the testimony of Isidore. All that one may say on the basis of that testimony is that around 615 there was a serious invasion of the Illyricum regions of the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs, an invasion which may, or may not have penetrated as far south as Greece proper.? For this reason the testimony of Isidore of Seville should never be used as offering concrete evidence of the occupation of Greece proper by the Slavs. One further note and this with reference to the two other western sources

usually cited in connection with the Slavic penetration of Greece proper: John Biclarensis and bishop Willibald. The relevant passage in John's

chronicle, an entry dated during the third year (579?) of the emperor Tiberius reads : "The Avars were driven from the borders of Thrace and occupied parts of Greece and Pannonia (Avare a finibus Thraciae pelluntur et partes Graeciae atque Pannoniae occupant)".8 Further down under the year five (581 ?) of the reign of the same emperor there is this passage: "The people of the Slavs devastated Illyricum and Thrace (Sclavinorum gens Illyricum et Thracias vastat)".9 The two passages are, of course, quite clear, but there is one observation that may be made. The putting together of two regions so far apart as Pannonia and Greece does raise the question whether John in writing Graecia did not mean Illyricum. On the other hand he knows Illyricum as the second passage shows, and if by

partes Graeciae he meant parts of Illyricum in the sense of the upper regions of that territory he might have said so. In any case he adds nothing to what is already known from the Greek and oriental sources concerning the Slavic penetration of Greece proper. Isidore may be the ultimate source for the practice which gradually came into use in the West of referring to the Byzantine empire itself as Graecia. The first such reference that I know is to be found in the Annales Einhardi under the year 744: MGH, Scriptores, 1 : 153. Nam Adalgis, filius eius [id est, Desiderii, regis Langobardorum], in quo Langobardi multum spei habere videbantur, dissperatis patriae rebus, relicta Italia in Greciam, ad Constantinum imperatorem se contulit .. . It is more than probable that Isidore in his Chronicon refers to the loss of the empire of the Dalmatian regions of Illyricum, a loss which took place about this time. Cf. F. Dvor-

nik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IXe Siecle (Paris 1926), 5. Id. in: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio: Commentary, ed. R. Jenkins (London 1962), 107, 113 f.

MGH, Auct. ant. XI, 2 15. e Ibid. z16.

P. Charanis: Graecia in Isidore of Seville

25

Somewhat more speculative may be the interpretation of Willibald's statement. Towards the end of the third decade of the eighth century, Willibald traveled to Palestine and he left an account of his itinerary. The passage of this account of interest here reads :10 "They were there (in

Catania, Sicily) three weeks and then sailing they came to Syracuse, a city in the same region; and then sailing they came beyond the Adriatic sea to the city of Manafasia (Monemvasia) in the Slavic land (illic fuerunt

3 ebdomadas et inde navigantes venerunt Saracusam urbem in ipsa regione; et inde navigantes venerunt ultra mare Adria ad urbem Manafasiam in Slawinia terra)." The easiest way to look at this passage is to take it literally, to accept it as a statement of fact and infer thereof that the part of the Peloponnesus, where Monemvasia is located, had become by the third decade of the eighth century a land of the Slavs. But this is to ignore the geographical vagueness of the passage and the possibility that the author not knowing exactly where Monemvasia was located simply

put it in Sclavinia because most of the regions immediately beyond the Adriatic were indeed inhabited by Slavs. There is thus a strong element of doubt of the accuracy of Willibald's testimony and as a consequence that testimony should not be used unless corroborated by other sources. 10 MGH, Scriptores, XV, 93.

XX

KOUVER, THE CHRONOLOGY OF HIS ACTIVITIES AND THEIR ETHNIC EFFECTS ON THE REGIONS AROUND THESSALONICA The historical significance of the hagiographical texts known as the Miracula Sancti Demetrii is well known.' The following is one of the more important passages.2 I

Translation

Concerning the Civil War Planned Secretly Against the City by the Bulgars Mauros and Kouver As you know, lovers of Christ, we have related in part, in what has proceeded, about the Slavs, the one called Chatzon, and also the Avars:

that having ravaged virtually all Illyricum and its provinces, I moan 1. Among the various studies devoted to the Miracula Sancti Demetrii either directly, or in connection with something else, the following are the most important: V. Laurent "Sur la date des eglises Saint-Demetrius et Saint-Sophie a Thessalonique", Byz. Zeitschrift, 4 (1895), pp. 420-434; A. Pernice, "Sulla data del libro II dei Miracula S. Demetrii Martyris", Bessarione, anno VI, t. IT (1901-1902), pp. 181-187; H. Delehaye, "Les recueils antiques de Miracles des Saints", Analecta Bollandiana, 43 (1925) pp. 57-64; A. Burmov, "Les sieges de Thessalonique par les Slaves dans Miracula Sancti Demetrii Martyris et leur Chronologie", Annuaire de l'Universite de Sofia. Faculte de Philosophie et Histoire. Livre I, histoire, 47 (1952) (in Bulgarian); P. Lemerle,"La composition et la chronologie des deux premiers livres des Miracula S. Demetrii", Byz. Zeitschrift, 46 (1953), pp. 349-361; F. Baritic, Miracles de St. Demetrius comme source historique (Academic Serbe de Sciences) Monographic CCXIX. Institut d'Etudes Byzantines, 2 (Belgrade, 1953); Sp. Chrysanthopoulos, Ta BiSXia ®auµatmv rob 'Ayiou Anµntpiou, (Athens, 1958). Published also in ©eo)ioyla, 24 (1953), 25 (1954), 26 (1955), 27 (1956). In BariliC's book I consulted the French summary and also a Greek translation in typescript made by A.A. Angelopoulos for the Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessalonike, Greece; I did not consult Burmov's study.

2. A new edition of the Miracula has been promised by P. Lemerle; another one is

XX 230

the two Pannonias, as well as the two Dacias, Dardania, Mysia Prevalin, Rhodope, and also Thrace and the regions along the long walls of Byzantium, and having taken the rest of the cities and towns, they lead the

people to a place near the Danube in the direction of Pannonia whose metropolis had been formerly the aforementioned Sirmium.3 It was there, as it is said, that the aforementioned Chagan settled all the people he had captured to be henceforth his subjects. There they intermarried with Bulgars, Avars, and other peoples, had children with them, children

whom they brought up according to the traditions of the Romans, and so through orthodoxy and the holy and life-giving baptism the race of the Christians increased and became numerous as had that of the Hebrews in Egypt under the Pharaoh. And as each related to the other concerning the residence of their ancestors, they fired in each other's heart the desire to return. After some sixty and more years had passed following the devastations which affected their ancestors, another and new people evolved, and in time the greatest number of them became free. Finally the Chagan, considering them to constitute a people with an identity of its own, put, in accordance with the custom of his race, a chieftain over them, a man by the name of Kouver. When Kouver learned from some of his

most intimate associates the desire of the exiled Romans for their ancestral homes, he gave the matter some thought, then took them together with other peoples, i.e. the foreigners who had joined them as it said in the Book of Moses about the Jews at the time of their exodus, with all their baggage and arms. According to what is said, they rebelled and separated themselves from the Chagan. The Chagan, when he learned this, set' himself in pursuit of them, met them in five or six battles and, being defeated in each one by them, took flight and retired to the regions further north. After the victory Kouver, together now in preparation in Thessalonica. Meanwhile we shall have to be content with the old edition of the Bollandists which in many ways is not satisfactory; Acta Sanctorum Oct. IV (Paris-Rome 1866) pp. 187-197 and Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 116 (Paris, 1864), pp. 11741384. This particular passage, however, is included by I'Abb6 A. Tougard in his excerpts of hagiographical texts; it is Tougard's text that I have used: De l'histoire profane dans les Actes grecs de Bollandistes (Paris, 1874), pp. 186-205.

3. Tougard, op. cit., 186: npds IIavvoviav ilattvoc i;napXiac nakat µntpbno?,ic tntgpXEV to 11,EX9Ev EEpµetov. We take this to refer to the time of the events described and not to the time of the composition of the second book of the Miracula Sancti Demetrii where

it appears.

XX Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities

231

with the aforementioned people, crossed the aforementioned river Danube, carne to our regions, and occupied the Keramesion plain. Once there, the people, those in particular who were orthodox, sought their ancestral cities, some, our city of Thessalonica, protected by the martyr,

others, the most prosperous and queen of cities, and still others, the cities in Thrace which still stood. This is what the people wanted. But counsellors of mischievous intent conceived the following evil advice: that no one among the people

achieve what he desired, but that Kouver remain their chieftain and Chagan, mixed as they had come. For if they tried to go to the one who had obtained from God the scepter to rule over us and he received and

dispersed them, Kouver would be thereby deprived of his authority. Accordingly, an embassy was sent to the bearer of the scepter requesting that he [Kouver] be allowed to remain, together with his people, where he was, and that the nation of the Drogubites, situated near us, be ordered to furnish him in sufficient quantity the necessary provisions. And this was done. Accordingly, when most of them went among

the huts (anrlvac) of the Slays in order to provision themselves and when, upon asking, they ascertained that our city was not very far, most of those of Roman origins, with wives and children, began to enter

our city saved by God. The administrative officials immediately sent them by ship to the capital. When Kouver learned this, as he could not reveal the perfidy which lay in his heart, he took counsel with his advisers about his own thought and loss (oixeia anm.Zeia mat yvcoa?;) and came to this secret resolve: that one of his most remarkable and clever chieftains, a man, to speak briefly, replete with the machinations of the devil, who knew our langu-

age, that of the Romans, Slavs, and Bulgars, should feign to have rebelled against Kouver. He should, like the rest, approach our city guarded by God and, pretending to offer himself as the servitor of the emperor,

introduce among us the greatest part of his people, those who shared his evil design. And so in this way through a civil war he would take the city. After its occupation Kouver, with baggage and the rest of his chieftains, would openly establish himself there and then. Having fortified himself, he would attack the surrounding nations, and, having become master of them, he would war against the islands and Asia and even against the emperor himself. Following the consultation and this decision confirmed, it appears, by oath, one of the chieftains, a man by the name of Mauros, found

XX 232

refuge in our city. There, using fine but deceptive words confirmed by oaths, persuaded those in power to bring to the most pious emperor a report about him which was most favorable and worthy of belief. The emperor, the benefactor of all, persuaded by what was reported to him,

sent to them a written act designating Mauros 4 consul as a mark of honor and offering him a standard as gift. He ordered further that all the Keramesians who had fled from Kouver be put under his command. When this order became public and was inserted in the register of matriculation, all the people who had fled here were put under the command

of Mauros and he became their general. However, some among the Romans, knowing that Mauros never kept any faith, but that by his machinations, deceptions, and perjuries he was always evil in his ways and had thus ravaged many places and peoples, advised that one should

have no faith in him. When Mauros learned this-he learned it from charges made by those who were close to him in their ways of thought and manner of acting-he cut off the heads of those who were revealing in secret his terrible design and sold their wives and children wherever and as he pleased. Thus, the rest of the Christians, not daring to reveal the ambuscade being set up against the city, bemoaned their fate and that of the city. No one dared to offer resistance. Moreover, those who were in power then seemed to fear him. For this Mauros had designated as centurions, decurions, and officers at the head of fifty men those persons who shared his evil design; and his armed men, provided for at the public expense, watched day and night wherever there were courageous men. His plan

was this, that, during the night of the great feast of Holy Saturday when the city, with all, would be celebrating the joyous resurrection of the Saviour Christ, he would with his men experienced in war incite civil war, set fires in certain official places, and thus take possession

of the city. But he who had received the power from God by an invisible inspiration and sign, according to what is written, that the heart of the king is in the hand of God, diverting it as water wherever he wishes, consider4. Cf. Ivan Duj6ev, "Un passage obscur des `Miracula' de S. D6metrius de Thessalonique", in Duj6ev,MedioevoByzantino-Stavo, I (Rome, 1965), pp. 46-53. The article was originally published in Byzantion, 13 (1938)pp. 207-216: As against Tougard, who renders (p- 192)

tupatiu va unaiou "manteau de consul", Duj6ev would render it "act" of nomination; in this case, the act nominating Mauros consul.

XX Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities

233

ed it good, without yet knowing of the evil planned against the city, to order Sisinnios, then commander of the ships, a man wise in his words and ways and in all things confiding in God, to come to this city, guarded by the glorious athlete, together with the soldiers of the ships under his command. He was to watch over the aforementioned Mauros and those who had gathered about him, to the end that with such an army as his here present, those about the aforementioned Kouver would be

more eager in seeking refuge in the city. This illustrious Sisinnios, wishing to execute this order, departed from the regions of Greece ,

(Hellas) and reached the island of Skiathos, now for many years uninhabited, on Sunday before Holy Easter, a Sunday which is celebrated in all orthodox cities and is called Palm Sunday. And finding one of the holy churches located there overgrown with shrubs and trees, he ordered his obedient soldiers to have part of it cleared in order to celebrate the holy liturgy. And this was done. On the following day, which was the Holy Monday of the Lord's passion, as the winds were not favorable for sailing towards us, this most virtuous man assembled all his army and said to them that they should not be negligent, that they should clear the rest of the church and the baptistry that was there, aid that they should prepare themselves to hear the words of Christ and celebrate the holiday as was customary. Having heard the speech, they put themselves most willingly, each one urging the other, to the task of clearing the church and the baptis-

trv. Some among them occupied themselves with the preparations for the holiday; others, fished, while still others hunted; in a word, each hoped to contribute what appeared to him best in the preparations for the holiday. Meanwhile, they were all ignorant of what was in the mind

of the aforementioned Kouver, Mauros, and their associates. Now, after the divine liturgy for this Holy Monday was celebrated, after all had dined and according to custom rendered thanks to God, they were ordered by that most praiseworthy man, after he had taken care of everything that pertained to the watch, to rest. As for him, as soon as he fell asleep, there appeared before him not in dream but in reality the one who ever works and cares for unworthy servants and country, who manages all well for our salvation, the glorious martyr of God, Demetrius, and spoke to him thus: "Arise, why do you sleep? Put sail, the wind is favorable." Thereupon Sisinnios,

considering this vision as most real, asked the guardian of the ship what was the wind. And he replied: "it is contrary and more violent

xx 234

than yesterday." He was again about to sleep, when the same saint reappeared and, arousing him quickly and touching his side, said: "Arise I told you, put sail, the wind is favorable." Aroused thus again, he asked those who slept nearby and those in charge of the watch who it was who had spoken to him and had awakened him in order to depart. As every-

one denied having seen anybody or to have heard anything about the matter at all, he asked again if the wind was favorable. Everyone said that it was contrary. Perplexed by what was said and seen, he was, because of his great preoccupations, 5 about to fall asleep again, when the martyr approached him for the third time and, not without some concern and annoyance, said to him: "Do not be negligent, arise, set sail, the wind is favorable; here you are sleeping, while others sail." This admirable man, a true friend of God and the martyr, now got up, realized that such an exhortation to sail was a divine revelation, not a thing imagined, and began, without making any inquiries, to move quickly about the ships, ordering them to set sail towards us. There were some who objected to this, asking why, since the winds were unfavorable and they were busy preparing for the celebration of the holiday, he wished to transport them to another place still more deserted. But he, assured by the third appearance of the martyr, i.e. the vision of the protector of our city, Demetrius,

and his persistent belief that the sailing would be favorable, gave orders to row in order to put to sea. Just then he saw a ship, seeming to come from the regions of Chalcidice, sailing towards them and he recalled what was said to him in the revelation. The ships, propelled by the oars, moved towards the open sea, facing, as we said, the wind, when suddenly the wind, through a sign of God, thanks to the intercession of the saint, began to blow behind them. And so, sailing smoothly and happily, they reached this city, delivered by God thanks to its defender Demetrius, on Holy Wednesday of the Holy Week, at the seventh hour. Thus, the drama of the civil war, cruelly conceived and planned by Mauros and his followers, was avoided. Mauros, frightened and discouraged, was seized by a fever which put him to bed for many days. Indeed, he would have passed away

had not the aforementioned man, the ever praiseworthy general, unaware of what he had meditated, reassured him by words and oaths. As regards to the appearance of the martyr and his urgings on him to set 5. This rendering has been influenced by that of Tougard, op. cit., p. 199.

XX Kouver, the Chronology of his Acititives

235

.sail, all this the general related to most of the citizens, emphasizing the concern and providence which the martyr had for the city. He gave orders finally that Mauros with all the following which had come to him.from Kouver, as well as the army of the ships under his own command, withdraw from the city and encamp in the regions to the west of it in order that the Keramesians, who wished to get away from the Slavs and come here, might do so freely and without fear. Now, after this, when an imperial order and the vessels intended to transport the Keramesians, so often mentioned, had reached the aforementioned God-loving general in c.'targe of the ships referred to, this Mauros, together with those who had fled with him, joined the emperor, crowned by God, and, having been received by him, was named archon. But not even in this did the providence of the saint inspired by

God remain lax, but through the son of the same Mauros he made known to the pious ears the evil project which Mauros and Kouver had formulated against our city, revealing thus to him, (i.e. the emperor) the treachery of the so often mentioned Mauros; and also this, that in the regions of Thrace, he had resolved in his treachery even to turn against his life. That these things appeared to be truly so is shown by this: that, the often mentioned Kouver, observing what had been agreed between him and Mauros, did no harm to any of the men or property of Mauros. Furthermore, not only did h' allow thz wives of Mauros to retain their honors, but had these ho-zors increased. The aforementioned

pious emperor, who puts the affairs of the empire into the hands of God, the source of his power, did not put Mauros, whom God had now abandoned to him, to death, but, stripping him of his honors, deprived him of the command and his army, and confined him in a suburb under the watchful eyes of reliable men. Who will not admire, dear and Christ-loving brothers, the passion, the solicitude and the help of Demetrius of everlasting memory, protector and liberator of our city? We were without concern and in ignorance with regard to the capture of our city and he, through God, put it into the heart of the emperor to send the fleet here for the help and salvation of the city; and, as the day of the planned civil war and our unexpected and inescapable death approached, he aroused the general,

turned the wind from unfavorable to favorable,inducing thereby a smooth and happy sailing and so destroyed the plans and hopes of those who had thought to capture this city, his servant.

XX 236

II

The Historical Setting of the Episodes Described in this Text The ethnic significance of this text is quite obvious. Not so obvious, indeed extremely difficult to determine, is the historical setting to which the episodes described by it belong. The problem is, of course, chronological. The chronological information given by the text is very vague and there are very few other references to which one may turn. For these reasons the episodes have been variously dated. 6 Some put them shortly after the reign of Heraclius, others in the seventies or eighties of the seventh century; and still others sometime during the first half of the eighth century.' There are five references in the text which may be considered to have some chronological significance: the reference that Sirmium had been, long before (icd%at) the removal of the ancestors of the followers of Kouver to the Danubian regions, the metropolis of Pannonia; the description of Skiathos as uninhabited, for some time past; the implied assertion that the Drogubites, at the time of the arrival of Kouver, were under the effective jurisdiction of the

empire; the statement that the rebellion of Kouver against the Avars took place "some sixty and more years" after the removal of the ancestors of his followers from their homeland; and finally, the reference to Hellas. In these five references may lie the clue to the chronology, at least in approximate terms, of the episodes described by the text. Sirmium, now Metrovi6a, on the Save, some thirty-seven miles from the 6. For reference to these various views, see H. Gregoire "L'origine et le nom des Croates et des Serbes, "Byzantion, 17 (1944-1945), pp. 104-116. Gregoire, himself, agreeing with Pernice (op. cit.) and also with L. Niederle (Gregoire, p. 111 fn.27), puts the migration of Kouver at the very end of the reign of Heraclius. H. Gelzer puts it slightly later, about 645, but the basis of his calculations is the same; H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung (Des XVIII. Bandes der Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Classe der KSnige Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, No. 5), 49. Lemerle (op. cit.) agrees with Gregoire: Cf. Lemerle,"Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de I'epoque romaine jusqu'au VIIIc siecle,"Revue historique, 221 (1954),p. 299. On the other hand, Laurent (op. cit. pp. 429-30), puts the events in question sometime between 680-690, Barilic (op. cit. pp. 135-136, 152), between 680 and 685, and Chrysanthopoulos (op. cit. pp. 62-67) distinguishing chronologically between the rebellion of Kouver against the Avars and the plot of Mauros to take Thessalonica,puts the former about 635 and the latter sometime between 680 and 690. 7. For references see Barilic, op.cit., p. 134, fn. 171; Gyula Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 2nd. edition (Berlin, 1958), 2:165: Kotpsp Heerfiihrer der unter avarischer Herrschaft steh-

enden Bulgaren (A. VIII. Jh.)... Er wurde mit Ko(3pdroc identifiziert, doch kann man aus Inser. Bulg. M darauf schliessen, dass er ein Sohn von Ko(ipt.ros war.

XX Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities

237

confluence of that river with the Danube, was an important Roman frontier town. A center of administration, it became also in the course of the fourth century an important ecclesiastical see. a The foundation of Justiniana Prima s by Justinian as an administrative and ecclesiastical center did not much reduce its lustre, but the invasions of the barbarians during the fourth quarter of the sixth century brought, about its decline. Sirmium actually fell to the Avars

in 582. 10 Its last metropolitan was a certain Sebastianus. 11 Now, Sirmium, at the time of the deportation of the Romans to Pannonia by the Avars referred to in our text, was not and had not been for some time past, the metropolis of that former Roman province. It follows, therefore, that the Avar invasions of the Balkan peninsula, which our text associates with that deportation, could not have been those which took place during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice.

Skiathos, at the time when Sisinnios and his fleet reached it, had not been inhabited for some time. Whether this condition was brought about as the result of one single blow or developed gradually over a number of years because of the existence of continued danger of invasion, our text, of course, does not say. It is obvious, however, that the churches, whatever the reason for the desertion of the island may have been, had not been destroyed by a single blow but had just deteriorated; once cleared of the overgrowth, they could still be used for liturgical purposes. There are two possibilities for the desertion of the island. The piratical expeditions launched by the Slavic tribes of the Drogubites, Sagudites, Belegezetes, Bajunetes, Berzetes, and others had resulted, according to another passage of the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, in the pillage of "all Thessaly, and the islands about it and those about Hellas."tz

The date of this event is variously fixed. Some scholars, juxtaposing this text with that of Isidore of Seville, according to which "in the fifth year of the reign of Heraclius, the Slavs took away Greece (Illyricum) from the Romans," put it in615; others put it more generally in the first quarter of the seventh centu8. Fr. Dvornik, Les Slaves Byzance et Rome au JXC Siecle (Paris, 1926) pp. 75 f. 9. B. "Die Griindung des autokephalen Erzbistums von Justiniana Prima durch

Kaiser Justinian I im Jahre 535 n. Chr.," Byzantion, 2 (1925), pp. 123-140. Later bishopric lists put Sirmium as a metropolitan see under the jurisdiction of Justiniana Prima, indicating,

of course, that the metropolitan status of Sirmium was not changed by the foundation of Justiniana Prima: H. Gelzer, "Ungedruckte and wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse der oriental Kirche", Byz. Zeitschrift, I (1892), p. 257. 10. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 5. 11. Ibid. 12. S. Demetrii Marryris Acta, Migne, Pat. Gr., 116:1265.

XX 238

ry, a general dating which does not appear unreasonable. 13 The other possibility is the general danger which came to prevail in the Aegean as the result of the naval depredations of the Arabs following the defeat of the Byzantine fleet off the coast of Lycia in 655. 14 if the second possibility is the one which corresponds to the reality of things, then the rebellion of Kouver must have taken place sometime after 655. That the second possibility does indeed correspond to the reality of things cannot, however, be stated as a fact. In any case, Kouver's rebellion, on the basis of what is said about Skiathos, could not have taken place before 626. The Drogubites were a Slavic tribe which had joined a number of other

tribes in the piratical expedition referred to above and, shortly thereafter, participated in a seige of Thessalonica under the leadership of the Avars. These Slavs eventually settled not far to the west of Thessalonica, 11 where they lived in primitive habitations and eked out their living as cultivators of the soil. Such was their situation when Kouver arrived near them. By that time,

however, they were under the effective jurisdiction of the empire. This is the only interpretation that can be given to the statement in our text to the effect that Kouver requested the emperor to order the Drogubites "to furnish him in sufficient quantity the necessary provisions" and that "this was done." When exactly the Drogubites were subjugated by the emperor is not known, but, on the basis of what is known, this may have been no earlier than 658 when Constans 11 is reported to have attacked the "Sklavinias" where "many were taken prisoner and brought under his control." 16 If this is so, then, the arrival of Kouver in the regions of Thessalonica took place sometime after 658. The term Hellas appears three times in the second book of the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, the book which includes the passage about Kouver. The first of these references is in the text already cited about the piratical expedition. 17 The entire text reads: "It happened, therefore, as it has been stated, that during the bishopric of John of blessed memory, the nation of the Slavs,

a countless multitude, was aroused. This multitude was drawn from the 13. Peter Charanis, "Observations on the History of Greece during the Early Middle Ages," Balkan Studies, 11 (1970), p. 20 fn. 66, 67. 14. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 2nd. English edition (New Brunswick, N.J., 1969), p. 116. 15. Lubor Niederle, Manuel de l'Antiyuite Slave: Tome: L'Histoire (Paris, 1923), p. 106.

The source is the Miracula, the passage on the piratical expeditions of the Slavs (above, note 12) and our text. 16. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed-, C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), p- 347; 17. In note 12.

XX Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities

239

progubites, Sagudites, Belegezetes, Bajunetes, Berzetes, and others. First to invent ships carved out of single pieces of timber, they launched themselves on the sea armed, and pillaged all Thessaly and the islands about it and those about Hellas. They pillaged also the Cyclades, all Achaea, Epirus, and the greatest part of Illyricum and parts of Asia." The source of this text, it is generally agreed, was some written document contemporary with the archbishop John (first quarter of the seventh century), and Hellas, as used here, most pro-

bably refers to the country of Hellas, the Hellas of classical antiquity. Of the other two references, the first is the one which appears in our passage and the other, in connection with the report about the capture of an African bishop, Cyprian by name, by the Slavs. 18 Cyprian, we are told, while on his way to Constantinople, was captured unexpectedly around the regions of Hellas by Slavs and was taken to their country as a slave. Neither in the case of our passage nor in that about Cyprian are there modifiers or explanatory remarks indicating what the author in the two passages may have meant by Hellas. It may be observed, however, that these two passages derive from an oral tradition far removed from the written documents contemporary with archbishop John, and that the second book of the Miracula was written towards the end of the seventh century, perhaps even at the beginning of the eighth. It is quite probable, therefore, that Hellas in these two passages may not refer to the country of Hellas, the Hellas of classical period, but to the theme Hellas, a theme created by Justinian II sometime between 687 and 695. 19 If this is so, then the arrival of Kouver in the region of Thessalonica must be placed at the earliest after 687. But for other reasons this seems very improbable. The one element of some chronological definiteness in our passage is the statement to the effect that "some sixty and more years" had elapsed between the rebellion of Kouver against the Avars and the devastations of the Balkan peninsula by the latter and the consequent removal from their homes of the ancestors of the Christian followers of Kouver. But even this is very vague. The source from whence it derives is oral, and the expression "some sixty and more years" leaves much to be desired. But more serious is the problem of determining which invasion of the Balkan peninsula is meant. On this point there has been a wide difference of opinion. Some have taken the invasions which took place during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice to be meant and, 18. Migne, 1380 (For full reference, above, note 2).

19. On the meaning of Hellas and the creation of the theme Hellas: Peter Charanis, "Hellas in the Greek Sources of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Centuries," Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend,JR.(Princeton, N.J., 1955), pp. 161-176.

XX 240

as a consequence, put the migration of Kouver towards the end of the reign of Heraclius, or, at the latest, the beginning of that of Constans II; others place these invasions some time between 615 and 626 and so push the date of the migrations past the end of the third quarter of the seventh century . 20 Among the chronological elements of our text analyzed above, there are three which bear decisively on the problem: the reference to Sirmium; the status of the Drogubites vis-d-vis the empire; and the statement to the effect that "some sixty and more years" had elapsed between the deportation of the Romans referred to in the text and the revolt of Kouver against the Avars. The reference to Sirmium puts the deportation of the Romans sometime after 582, but, on the basis of what is known about the Avar devastations of the Balkan peninsula, not later than 626; the subject status of the Drogubites visd-vis the empire puts the arrival of Kouver in the Keramesion plain sometime after 658; the statement to the effect that "some sixty and more years" elapsed between the deportation of the Romans and the revolt of their descendants under Kouver, taken in conjuction with 568, confirms what has been inferred from the text on Sirmium that the invasions which led to the deportation in question could not have been those which took place during the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice. Now, turning to our text we read: when Kouver arrived at the Keramesion plain, "the people, those in particular who were orthodox, sought their ancestral cities, some, our city of Thessalonica, protected by the Martyr, others the most prosperous and queen of cities, and still others, the cities in Thrace which still stood." In other words, the ancestors of this people had been, before their deportation by the Avars, inhabitants of the regions of Thessalonica, Thrace, and the immediate surroundings of Constantinople. Juxtaposing this information with that furnished by the chroniclers to the effect that in 619 the Avar khan, having failed to trap Heraclius, ravaged Thrace, including the immediate surroundings of the capital, and deported to the regions of the Danube 270,000 people (men and women),21 we may safely conclude that this deportation is the one referred to by our text of the Miracula. 22 It follows 20. For the invasions during the reign of Tiberius and Maurice: Pernice,Gelzer, Gregoire, Lemerle; for the later period: V. Laurent, Bari1ic, Chrysanthopoulos. For reference to their works see above, note 1. 21. Chronicon Paschale (Bonn, 1832), 2: 712-13; Theophanes, op. cit., 1:301-2; Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constant inople,Opuscula Historica, ed.,C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 12-14.

22. Chrysanthopoulos (op. cit., p. 62) thinks that this is the irlvasioq meant, but puts it in 623.

XX Kouver, the;Chronology of his Activities

241

as a consequence that the migrations of Kouver could not have taken place earlier than 680 or later than 688. it has been suggested, on the basis of a proto-Bulgarian inscription, that the Byzantine emperor referred to in our passage was Justinian II. The text of the inscription is fragmentary, but the most intelligible part of it, as deciphered and translated by its editor,V.Besevliev, reads: 23"Bulgars and ... came to Tervel. My uncles did not believe the emperor with the slit nose in Thessa-

lonica and came to (the villages) Kisin by a treaty the archon Tervel gave to the emperor five thousand and [the emperor with me won a great victory]." The emperor with the slit nose is, of course, Justinian II, and Tervel the ruler of the Bulgaria (702-718), the Bulgar state south of the Danube which his father, Asparuch (681-702), had founded. That part of the inscription which speaks about the troops which Tervel gave to Justinian and the victory which he helped him to win presents no problem at all. It refers, without a doubt, to what the chroniclers also report, 21 that Justinian, in his efforts to regain the throne, turned to Tervel for help and with that help succeeded in realizing his objective. Much more difficult to interpret is the part of the inscription which reads: "My uncles did not believe the emperor with the slit nose in Thessalonica." In Be§evliev's view, the inscription was erected by Tervel. The possessive "my", therefore, refers to him, and as a consequence the "uncles" of the text were his uncles. Who were they? Now, Tervel's father had four brothers, of whom two remained in the Russian regions of their homeland, while the other two moved westward. Neither the one nor the other of the latter is named by the chroniclers, 25 but one of them is said to have gone to Italy, while the other, "going to Pannonia of Avaria, remained subject to the Chagan of the Avars." This latter, according to Begevliev and others before him, must have been the Kouver of the Miracuia Sancti Demetrii, hence an uncle of Tervel, 29 the man 23. V. Betevliev, "Zur Deutung and Datierung der Protobulgarischen Inschrift vor dem Reiterrelief von Madara, Bulgarien", Byz. Zeitschrift, 47 (1954), pp. 117ff.; "Les Inscriptions du relief de Madara", Byzantinoslavica, 16 (1955), pp. 224 ff.; Die Protobulgarischen Inschrir ten (Berlin, 1963), pp. 95 if. 24. Theophanes, op, cit., p. 374; Nicephorus, op. cit., p. 411. 25. Nicephorus, op. cit., pp. 33-34; Theophanes, op. cit., pp. 356-57. 26. This identification has been accepted by G. Moravcsik, but he relies for his support on Betevliev: Byzantinoturcica, 2nd. edition (Berlin, 1958), 2: 165 (entry under KouPep).

It was also the view of V. N. Zlatarski, the national Bulgarian historian. But Sir Steven Runciman, who based his history of the first Bulgarian kingdom on Zlatarski, expressed himself as follows: "But it seems best to attempt no embroidery on the known facts, and to

XX 242

also who, according to the inscription, did not believe Justinian IF in Thessalonica.

Chronologically the interpretation given to the inscription by Begevliev is possible. In 688/89 Justinian It was in Thessalonica 21 and while there he may have entered into negotiations with Kouver, who, in our view, had already been there. But to see things the way BegevIiev sees them is to ignore certain serious difficulties. In the first place, the text of the inscription has "uncles" and not "uncle". To be sure, one may get around this difficulty by giving to the term OeTog (the text has Oiog) a wider meaning to include, besides one's father's or mother's brothers, other close relatives, in this instance the sons of Kouver, if he had any. This is possible. There are, however, other difficulties. According to both texts, that of the inscription and that of the Miracula the Byzantine emperor did indeed enter into negotiations with Bulgars stationed in the region of Thessalonica. In the case of the inscription, however, where the Byzantine emperor is identified as Justinian II, these negotiations were carried on while the emperor was in Thessalonica; in the case of the text of the Miracula whoever the emperor may have been, he was not in Thessalonica when Kouver opened and carried on his negotiations with him. This difficulty is insurmountable. The Bulgars, therefore, who did not believe Justinian in Thessalonica could not have been the Bulgars of Kouver. Who then were they? No doubt the Bulgars of Thrace, whom Justinian on his way to Thessalonica had encountered and pushed back, intending to subjugate them later.29 What probably happened was this: these Bulgars, aroused by Justinian's triumphant march against the Slavs on his way to Thessalonica, decided to come to an understanding with him and so sent ambassadors, possibly brothers of Tervel's mother, to negotiate with him in Thessalonica. These ambassadors, whatever it was that Justinian [I said to them, did not believe him and fled. The attack reported by the chroniclers, which the Bulgars of Thrace launched against Justinian while he was on his way back from Thessalonica, an attack which inflicted considerable losses on the forces ofJustinian and from which he himself barely escaped, 29 was most probably the sequel to this failure of negotiations. Justinian II defeated Bulgars and Slavs and at times was defeated by them. leave Kuber unconnected by relationship to the name of king Kubrat:" A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London, 1930), p. 20. 27. Charanis, "Observations," pp. 11-12 & fn. 39. 28. Theophanes, op. cit., p. 364; Nicephorus, op. cit., p. 36. 29. Theophanes, p. 364.

XX Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities

243

He negotiated with them also. But Kouver and his followers do not seem to have been among them. The light punishment meted out to Mauros after his treacherous intentions had been revealed is so much at variance with the ruthlessness of Justinian's behavior towards his enemies that it alone eliminates him as the emperor with whom Kouver and Mauros dealt. That emperor was no doubt Constantine W. It was he with whom Kouver negotiated, who nominated Mauros consul, who gave orders to Sisinnios to sail to Thessalonica, who made Mauros commander of his Bulgar followers with the title of archon and who later removed him from his command and had him confined in a suburb. The precise year or years when all these things took place cannot be determined; most probably, however, this was sometime between 680 and 685. A Mauros, surnamed Bessus, and a Sisinnios, surnamed Rhendacis or Rhendacios, are mentioned by the chroniclers in connection with the struggle for the imperial throne early in the eighth century. They were both patricians. Mauros, we are told, commanded a fleet sent by Justinian fI to punish Cherson and there joined the conspiracy which led to the proclamation of Bardanes (Philippicus) to the throne. Following the overthrow of Justianian, Mauros was commissioned by the new emperor to destroy Tiberius, the son of Justinian II, and he did so. 3u Nothing more is said about this Mauros by the chroniclers. Sisinnios, according to the account of the same chroniclers, was sent by Leo III to seek the assistance of the Bulgar Tervel in his fight to save the capital from the Arabs. While there, he received word from Anastasius II, the deposed

emperor exiled in Thessalonica, asking him to persuade Tervel to help him recover his throne. Sisinnios did so and soon joined the deposed emperor with a contingent of Bulgars. The two, with their Bulgar force and some boatsthe ones called monoxyla-which they had brought from Thessalonica, went as far as Heraclea, but there they were betrayed by their Bulgar allies. The Bulgar decapitated Sisinnios and sent his head to Leo III; Anastasius they turned over to the same emperor alive, and he had him executed. 31 Now, the Miracula as it ends its account of the episodes involving Sisinnios and Mauros, leaves both of these men alive. Chronologically, therefore, it is quite possible that the Mauros and the Sisinnios of the chroniclers are the same as the Mauros and the Sisinnios of the Miracula. But it is also possible that they are different persons. The Mauros of the chroniclers may well have been the son of the Mauros of the Miracula that son who had exposed his 30. Nicephorus, op. cit., p. 46-47; Theophanes, op. cit., pp. 377, 379, 380. 31. Theophanes, p. 400; Nicephorus, pp. 55-56.

XX 244

father's treachery against the emperor and was no doubt rewarded for it; and Sisinnios is not an unusual name in the annals of Byzantium. 32 But even if the Sisinnios and the Mauros of the chroniclers are the same as the Sisinnios and the Mauros referred to in the Miracula, their activities, as related by the chroniclers, are quite independent of what transpired in Thessalonica as told by the Miracula. No emperor mentioned by the chroniclers can, therefore, be identified with the unnamed emperor of the Miracula. This has, indeed, been tried. The activities in Thessalonica of Kouver, Mauros, and Sisinnios, it is said, related to the efforts of the deposed emperor Anastasius It to regain the throne. 93 This is, of course, impossible; impossible because the emperor with whom Kouver and Mauros negotiated was not in Thessalonica; because the ships sent to transport the Keramesians to Constantinople came from that city; because the Bulgars from whom Anastasius II sought to obtain help were those of Tervel; and finally because Sisinnios, when Anastasius wrote to him, was not with his fleet in the waters of Hellas, but was sojourning among the Bulgars of Tervel. There is a third mention of a Mauros, this time in a document much more official than either the Miracula or the chroniclers. The document is a seal, in the possession apparently of Father V. Laurent, but, as far as I know, not yet published. The legend inscribed on it, however, was communicated by Father Laurent to Professor Helene Ahrweiler who has quoted it in her book, Byzance et la Mer, to bolster her hypothesis, referred to above, that the unnamed emperor in the Miracula was none other than Anastasius IT. Following is the full quotation of Professor Arhweiler's note: "An unedited source furnishes us the confirmation of this hypothesis: this work was in the press when Father V. Laurent called to my attention a `seal dated surely in the eighth century as belonging to Mauros, patrician and archon of the Sermisianoi Bulgars,' the same as the chief of the Keramesianoi of the Miracula S. Demetrii."34 The Mauros of the seal may indeed be the Mauros of the Miracula. This does not, however, confirm Professor Ahrweiler's hypothesis. For that hypothesis presupposes that Mauros was made archon in Thessalonica by an emperor, in this instance Anastasius 11, who at that time was also there. But this is not what the Miracula says. According to that account, Mauros did indeed meet the emperor and the emperor did make him archon, but all this took place in Constantinople. From Constantinople he was sent to Thrace, no doubt 32. In the index of de Boor's edition of Theophanes there are listed six Sisinnioi. 33. H61ene Ahrweiler, Byzance at la Mer (Paris, 1966), p. 27 if. 34. Ibid., p. 29, fn. 7.

XX Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities

245

as the archon of his Bulgars. In Thrace he conspired against the emperor and, as a consequence, lost his command and also his honors. Now, if the Mauros of the seal is indeed the Mauros of the Miracula, then that seal must have been struck when he was still in possession of his command and honors. Its date, therefore, is very important. But, what is that date? It may be inferred from the expression "date surement" used by Professor Ahrweiler that the seal itself bears no date and that the date `eighth century" assigned to it was arrived at on the basis of other factors: the physical appearance of the seal, the forms of the letters inscribed on it; and some external evidence,in this case, the reference of the chroniclers to a Mauros. All these factors, however, can be made to justify equally well an earlier date, on the basis of the Miracula, the general date to which we have assigned the activities of Kouver, Mauros and Sisinnios

in Thessalonica. For, if the "Sermisianoi" of the seal are indeed the "Kermesianoi" of the Miracula, then the seal confirms at least in part the story of the Miracula. Therein lies its historical significance.

III

The Ethnic Effects of the Activities of Kouver on the Regions of Thessalonica

It was a motley crowd that Kouver brought with him to the regions of Thessalonica. It consisted of Bulgars and various other barbarians including perhaps some Slavs, though no such Slavs are specifically mentioned. But the bulk of this crowd was made up of the offspring of mixed marriages, the one party of which had been Roman deportees. Brought up among the Avars according to Roman traditions, including Christianity, the offsprings of these mixed marriages no doubt spoke some kind of Greek or Latin and probably also some other language spoken in their midst. It was in this milieu most probably that Mauros learned to speak, besides Bulgar, which was his native tongue, also Slavic, Greek and Latin. The adherence of this people to the Roman traditions, including Christianity, gave them, while still in the Avar camp, an identity of their own. They became thus a distinct people among other distinct peoples ruled over by the Khan. In consequence they were given, as was the custom among the Avars, a chieftain of their own, the Bulgar Kouver. But what this people wanted most of all was to return to their Roman ancestral homes. This desire was to be the principal factor in Kouver's subsequent career: its exploitation enabled him to revolt successfully against the 17

xx 246

Avars, and made him head towards Thessalonica. His plan was to use this people to carve out a principality of his own. Things, however, did not work out the way Kouver had hoped, because the moment he reached the regions of Thessalonica the Christians among his followers began to desert him, threatening thereby to leave him a chieftain without a people. He tried to stop this and for this reason sent Mauros to Thessalonica. The plan was for Mauros, perhaps with the cooperation of some of the influential citizens of the city, to seize Thessalonica and so give new strength to Kouver and his Bulgar associates. The timely arrival of Sisinnios prevented this. What happened, one may now ask, to the people which Kouver had brought to the region of Thessalonica? On this point our text is quite clear: they were dispersed. Where? That too, to a certain extent, is made clear: they were shipped to Constantinople. Shortly after their arrival at the Keramesion plain, we read in the text of the Miracula, "most of those of Roman origins with wives and children began to enter our city saved by God. The administrative officials immediately sent them by ship to the capital." Sisinnios, we read further, gave orders to the effect that Mauros and his followers,as well as his own troops, should withdraw from the city "in order that Keramesians who wished to get away from the Slavs and come here [i.e. Thessalonica] might do so freely and without fear." Now, not long after this, our text continues, "the vessels intended to transport the Keramesians arrived." As for Mauros and his Bulgar followers, they were eventually transported som;where

in Thrace where some time later Mauros was arrested and confined in a suburb. What happened to Kouver is not known. The suggestion that he succeeded Tervel as the Khan of the Bulgars has no supporting evidence at all. 35 The family name of Kouviares met with among the Bulgars in the ninth century may be related to the name Kouver, but that it is the Kouver of the Miracula remains to be demonstrated. The same thing may be said about such names as I obpep and Fo6[3cp that some Byzantines are known to have borne. 38 Thus, the people whom Kouver had brought to the regions of Thessalonica were shipped away. It is quite possible, of course, that some few may have stayed, but in general Kouver's sojourn in the Keramesion plain affected very little the demography of the regions around Thessalonica. In view of this, it is, to say the least, misleading to state, as has been done by a distinguished French

35. Ibid., p. 30. 36. Moravcsik, op. cit., p. 165, entries Koopcp and KouPpt6Lvr7S.

XX Kouver, the Chronology of his Activities

241

scholar in a recent publication, S' that "a Slav fugitive, Mauros, [was] officially put at the head of the Slavs of Thessalonica, but the emperor [sent] the admiral Sisinnios with a detachment of marines to watch over him. Thessalonica and Macedonia were Slavonized, no doubt, but seem to have remained in the hands of their civil administration thanks perhaps to the admirable cohabitation of the local and Slav notables." ee Mauros and his followers were, of course, Bulgars and not Slavs; and the text, a text of the Miracula, rendered here "local and Slav notables" actually reads dpxovTec, IyXwptot, apxovte; Evot. Xenos, of cource, means stranger, a man from another region or city of the empire, and many such strangers, refugees from cities that had been devastated by the barbarians, had fled and became domiciled in Thessalonica in the course of the seventh century. 39 There is, therefore no justifiable reason at all why in this instance the term should have been rendered "Slavs". Slavs, of course, did settle in the regions around Thessalonica, and many of the inhabitants of the city became in due course bilingual, but to say that Thessalonica was Slavonized is to do serious violence to the texts. At no time during its long history did Thessalonica become Slavic either in language or by the dominance of Slavs in its population. Rutgers University New Brunswick, N. J.

37. Andr6Guillou,Regionalisme et independance daps rempire byzantin auVlle sircle. L' Exemple de 1'exarchat et de la pentapole d'ltalie (Rome, 1969), p. 250 f.No more accurate is Runciman's statement, op. cit., p. 21.: "anyhow, after the long, divinely frustrated siege [of Thessalonica], we hear no more of Kuber. His tribes mingled and were absorbed with their allies, the Slavs, and thus laid the first foundation of the Bulgar claims to Macedonia." 38. Examples, Miracula edition Migne, 1336, 1337. 39. The statement of Michael III which appears in the Slavic life of Methodius to the effect that "all the Salonians speak Slavic well" cannot, of course, be taken to mean that Slavic was the language of Thessalonica: Fr. Dvornik, Les Legendes de Constantin et de Methode vue de Byzance (Prague, 1933), p. 386.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE HISTORY OF GREECE DURING THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES I

HELLAS Hellas, whatever the territory to which this term may have been originally restricted, came to mean in classical antiquity roughly the country south of the Ambracian gulf and the mouth of the riverPeneus, including the Peloponnesus.1

But by the sixth century of the Christian era this meaning, it is contended, changed. Zinkeisen seems to have been the first one to express this view. In his history of Greece, which he published in 1832, he states that the term Hellas had come to denote all the Balkan provinces of the Byzantine empire. 2 Zinkeisen sought thus to explain the passage in Evagrius, the ecclesiastical historian who wrote toward the end of the sixth century, according to which the "Avars seized Singidunum, Anchialus and all Hellas and other towns and fortresses." The Greek historian Paparrhegopoulos, discussing this passage and the passage in Menander, another historian of the end of the sixth century, which 'states

that the emperor Tiberius sent an embassy to the Avars while "Hellas was being plundered by the Sclavenians and successive dangers were hanging over her on every side," comes pretty much to the same conclusion.' Hopf, on the other hand, expressed himself on the matter in his still useful history of Greece as follows: "Only through ignorance of geography could the Syrian Evagrius mention after the known cities of Singidunum and Anchialus `all Hellas and 1. Concerning the original meaning and spread of the term Hellas in classical antiquity one may consult J. B. Bury, "History of the names, Hellas, Hellenes," Journal of Hellenic Studies, 15 (L895), 217 ff.; A. Chatzis, '-EX%7j-'E%X&; 'E%Xijv," in 'Eiu rrjUovuo 'E'nerrjeic d t oaooptxijs ZXo. #jjs Ilaventarrjuiov 'ABrjvwv (1935-1936), pp. 128-161. 2. J. W. Zinkeisen, Geschichte Griechenlands, 1 (Leipzig, 1832), 699.

3. K. Paparrhegopoulos, 'laroeia rov 'EUrjvexo6 "EBvovt edited by P. Karolides (Athens, 1932),3:155,158L

XXI 2

other cities and fortresses'; either he understood by Hellas some city or fortress, and this is most probable, or transferred the ancient name of Hellas proper to

the Macedonian and Thracian provinces of the Roman empire."4 Although Hopf showed a preference for the first of his suggestions, it is the second that has come to have the widest acceptance. It has been repeatedly affirmed by Amantos 5 and it has been expressed by other Greek scholars as, for instance, Karolides 0 and Zakythinos .' But Greek scholars are not alone in holding this view. The American Setton for instance, wrote sometime ago: "Hellas seems clearly to mean the region from Belgrade (Singidunum) to Anchialus and Constantinople" and the Frenchman Bona has referred with approval to the publi-

cations of Amantos, where the term Hellas as used in the sixth and seventh centuries is considered to apply to the European possessions of the Byzantine empire. Another view, expressed by Ostrogorsky, holds that Hellas as used by the texts of this period means Central Greece only; it includes neither the Peloponnesus nor Western Greece. 10 The truth of the matter is quite different. This was demonstrated by a study in which were brought together all the references to Hellas which are found in the historical literature of Byzantium for the period covered by the sixth, seven, and eighth centuries. The analysis of these references showed clear-

ly that the term Hellas as used by these sources refer to the country south of Thermopylae. This country includes also the Peloponnesus, although in the case of three of the sources, to wit, the second book of the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, the chronicle of the patriarch Nicephorus and that of Theophanes, this is open to doubt." It follows, therefore, that there is no basis in fact for 4. C. Hopf, Geschichre Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit, in Ersch and Gruber, Allgemeine Encyclop&dieder Wissensehaften and Kunste, 85 (Leipzig, 1867),91. 5. K. Amantos, Td Maxn3ovtxd (Athens, 1920), 6, 86; "IIaparr7Pilmett: ttves eis rhv Mea'attilvtKliv I'ewypatpiav", in 'Ercerriois 'Eratoeiac By?avrtvwv 1i'7iov&WV 1 (1924) 41-44; "Ot E).a(lot sic zt}v 'Ek?s,6a," Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbi cher 17 (1944), 210-221. 6. In a letter to Amantos which the latter published in his Td Maxe6ovtxd, pp. 86-87.

7. D.A. Zakythinos, 01 .'Zd9ot ev 'EUd8t (Athens, 1945), 19. 8. K.M. Setton, "The Emperor Constans II and the Capture of Corinth by the Onogur Bulgars," Speculum, 27 (1952), 361. 9. A. Bon, Le Peloponnese Byzantinjusqu'en 1204 (Paris, 1951); 29, n. 2. 10. G.Ostrogorsky, "Postanak Tema Heladai Peloponez", in Zbornika RadovaXXI, Vizantoloskog Instituta San Knj, 1 (Belgrade, 1952), 67 f. I do not read Serbian, but I was able to

consult this work in a translation which Michael Petrovich of the University of Wisconsin

made for me. 11. Peter Charanis, "Hellas in the Greek Sources of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Cen-

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

3

the view that the term Hellas had come to denote by the end of the sixth century the Macedonian andThracian provinces of the Byzantine empire. Consequently it can be no longer doubted that when Menander, Evagrius and John of Ephesus speak of the devastation of Greece by Avars and Slavs, and, according to John of Ephesus, the settlement in it of Slavs, it is of Greece proper, including the

Peloponnesus, that they speak.

IT

HELLADIKOI

The term Helladikoi, already known in antiquity, came back into use in the early centuries of the later Roman Empire as an appelative for the inhabitants of Greece, including the Peloponnesus. It came to be so used because the more usual term, that of Hellenes, had assumed a theological connotation: it had become synonymous with pagans. This is clearly shown by a reference in Malalas and another in the Chronicon Paschale where Athenais, the Athenian girl who became the wife of Theodosius If, is called Helladike and Hellenis, Helladike because she was an inhabitant of Greece, Hellenis because she was a pagan. Nevertheless, Bury, and following him, Ostrogorsky are correct in insisting that with the creation of the theme of Hellas, the term assumed a military and administrative sense and was used to refer to "the soldiers and later even to the inhabitants of thu-military theme of Hellas." The Helladikoi then who together with the inhabitants of the Cyclades rebelled against Leo III in 727 when Leo first expressed his hostility to the icons and declared a certain Cosmas emperor were Byzantine soldiers stationed in the theme of Hellas. 12 This is important information because it shows that Hellas in 727 was within the effective administrative system of the empire. The theme of Hellas was a working administrative entity.

tunes," in Kurt Weitzmann, editor, Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, JR. (Princeton, N.J., 1955), 162 if. 12. On the Helladikoi with references to the relevant literature; P. Charanis, "The Term Helladikoi in Byzantine Texts of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Centuries," 'EnerrlPis'EratQElas Bvi;avrtvwv Enov&awv, 23 (1953), 615-620.

XXI 4

III

THE THEME OF HELLAS

The theme of Hellas, it is generally agreed, was created sometime after 687 but not later than 695. After 687 because it does not appear in the list of commands contained in the communication which Justinian II addressed to Pope Conon in that year; not later than 695 because a military governor of Hellas is known to have been appointed in that year. Still a point of controversy, however, is the territorial extent of this theme since no information exists which makes it possible to fix precisely its limits. It has been supposed that the theme included besides eastern-central Greece, Epirus and also the Peloponnesus, but against this view there are two serious objections. Firstly, what little is known concerning the western regions of the Peloponnesus during the seventh

and eighth centuries seems to indicate that these regions were not under the effective control of Byzantium. Secondly, when the Peloponnesus and Nicopolis (Epirus) were organized into themes their governors came to be ranked higher than the governor of the theme Hellas. This fact, in the opinion of Ostrogorsky,

indicates clearly that neither the Peloponnesus nor Epirus was ever a part of the theme Hellas. Ostrogorsky's opinion is an inference, drawn from the fact that in every case where a theme is known to have originally belonged to another,

its governor is found to be ranked lower in the hierarchical scale of the bureaucracy than the governor of the original theme, but it is not unreasonable. is In view of these objections it seems extremely unlikely that the theme of Hellas extended far enough to include the Peloponnesus and the regions which later came to constitute the theme of Nicopolis. This much is certain, however. The theme of Hellas consisted of eastern-central Greece, including of course, Attica, and extended northward to include Thessaly. The inclusion of Thessaly is attested by the fact that Byzantine chronicles put Demetrias in Hellas,14 and also by the reference to Akamir of Belzetia who is said to have been induced the Helladikoi to help them liberate the sons of Constatine V1who were imprisoned in Athens and put one of then on the throne (799). 15 Alamir was a Slavic chieftain in Thessaly and the appeal to him by the Helladikoi can only mean that territorially he was within their jurisdiction. 13. On all this see Charanis, "Hellas...," 173 f. 14. Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn, ), 364; John Cameniates, De Excidio Thessalonicae (Bonn,) 506, Cf. A. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito de Thematibus (=Studi e Testi 160) (Vatican, 1952), 169, 171. 15. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), 1:473.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

5

The fact that Thessaly was included in the theme of Hellas is of some significance in the interpretation of the passage in Theophanes with reference to the expedition of Staurakios against the "nations of the Slavs" in 783. Staurakios, "dispatched by Irene with a large force against the nations of the Slavs,

proceeded toward Thessaloniki and Hellas, subjugated them all and made them tributaries to the Empire." "The" nations of the Slavs" meant are obviously those located in the regions of Thessaloniki and, of course, those in Hellas, but where in Hellas? One, of course, cannot say for sure, but if he were to choose Thessaly, he would be most probably closest to the truth. That the Slavs in Thessaly may have been indeed those of Hellas subjugated and rendered tributaries

to the empire by Staurakios at the command of Irene finds some support in the readiness with which Akamir agreed to cooperate with the Helladikoi in their attempt to overthrow Irene in favor of one of the sons of Constantin V.

IV

TA KATOTIKA MEPH

The expression, Td xaTwTtxd p. pTl, as used in a geographical sense means,

of course, the lower regions, but the problem which arises is to determine as precisely as possible the regions of the empire to which the Byzantines referred when they used it. Theophanes used the expression twice. The empress Irene, he wrote in one place, exiled some of the conspirators who early in 790 were involved in a conspiracy tq dethrone her liti Ta xaTwTtxd gepq 9(0q EtxeXiag, i.e., "to the lower regions as far as Sicily."" The expression as used here may suggest the Peloponnesus, but this is by no means conclusive. The other passage lends itself to greater precision and has been generally taken to refer to the Peloponnesus. The allusion is, of course, to.the reference in Theophanes according to which Constantine V in 755 removed entire families from "the islands and Hellas and the lower regions" in order to repeople Constantinople which had suffered grievously by the pestilence of 746-747. 18 The rhetorical use of the expression or others similar to it by Nicetas Choniates and others has served to create some confusion, 19 but the matter may be considered settled in a decisive manner by a seal of Euthymius, metropolitan of Neae Patrae, published re16. Ibid., 456. 17. Ibid., 465. 18. Ibid., 429. 19. On all this, see Bon, op. cit., 159-60 and the relevant notes.

XXI 6

cently and placed by the editor in the second half of the twelfth century. The legend as deciphered by the editor reads: "Seal of Euthymius, Shepherd of Patrae, the Patrae of the Helladikoi, not the one of the lower regions." E0 The Helladikoi, as has already been said, was a term used in the early centuries of the empire to refer to the inhabitants of Greece in general, but with the creation of the theme Hellas it was applied in a more precise sense to refer to the inhabitants of that theme. It follows, therefore, that the Patrae of which Euthymius was shepherd was the Patrae of Central Greece, the ancient Hypata, better known in the Middle Ages as Neae Patrae. But as this Patrae is distinguished from another Patrae, the Patrae of the "lower regions" and as this other Patrae can be only the Patrae located in the Peloponnesus, the expression "lower regions" must necessarily refer to the Peloponnesus. The establishment of this fact is a matter of considerable importance. It shows that in 790 and before that in 755 there were regions in the Peloponnesus which were within the effective administrative system of the empire. If it were not so, no emperor would have been able to remove peaceably entire families or to send exiles there without

having definite control of their supervision.

V THE THEME OF THE PELOPONNESUS

The reference in Theophanes to the removal of people by Constantin V in 755 from "the islands and Hellas and the lower regions" in order to repeople Constantinople which had suffered grievously by the plague implies the exist-

ence of strong authority in these territories. Such authority, of course, is known to have existed in Hellas since Hellas had been a theme since at least 695. It may be presumed that it existed in the islands and also in the Peloponnesus

at least the eastern region of that peninsula, but this is a matter which needs further investigation. There can be no doubt that there existed, certainly by the second half of the seventh century, if not earlier, a maritime theme.The Carabisiani as a possible

maritime theme has been the subject of a recent monograph, prefaced by a series of remarks on the problem of the themes in general in which the author develops a line of reasoning which leads her to the conclusion that themes as 20. V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de !'empire Byzantine, V and V, 2 (Paris, 1965), No. 763.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

7

administrative circumscriptions, developed early in the seventh century. 21 The same line of reasoning would have lead also to the acceptance of the Carabisiani as a theme in the administrative sense of that term except that what the author considers in this case to be the capital text is the result of a misconception and as a consequence does not apply. In her view, therefore, the Carabisiani cannot be said to have constituted a theme in the administrative sense of the term. They were simply a naval command, comprehending the sea forces

of Byzantium in the second half of the seventh century. This view is held by other scholars 22 including Helene Ahrweiler 23 who has published what is to date the most comprehensive study on Byzantium and the sea, The text in question is the well known letter which Justinian II addressed to the Pope in 687 and in which he enumerated his various armies. Among the armies listed is one called Cabarisiani a meaningless term, and for this reason it has been amended to read Carabisiani, a reading which has been generally accepted. Antoniadis-Bibicou now rejects this reading and proposes in its place that of Calarisiani, a proposal which had been once suggested by H. Gelzer and subsequently abandoned by him. The reading of Calarisiani, she says, is supported by palaeography, the internal structure of the text as a whole and the administrative set up relating to the western provinces of the empire. 24 21. H. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Etudes d'histoire maritime de Byzance. A propos du "theme" des Caravisiens" (Paris, 1966), 63-98. 22. For instance by F. Dolger: Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 51 (1958), 208. DSlger is here reviewing my note: "A Naie on the Origin of the Theme of the Carabisiani," Silloge Bizantina in onore dt Silvio Giuseppe Mercati (Rome, 1957),

72-75. Among other things Dolger wrote: "es bleibt jedoch nach wie vor unerwiesen and unwahrscheinlich dass Herakleios der Schopfer des Themen-System gewesen sei. Einige nach dam Jahre 1953 zu der Frage erschienene Publikationen scheinen Ch. unbekannt geblieben zu sein." I did not intend to make my brief note a bibliographical compendium. 23. H. Arhweiler, Byzance et la Met (Paris, 1966), 25. On the other hand Pertusi (op. cit. 149 f.) seems to believe the Carabasiani existed as a theme in the administrative sense of that term. Elsewhere however, he says that this fact remains to be demonstrated: "La formation des themes Byzantins," Berichte sum XI. internationalen byzantinisten-Kongress Munchen1958 (Munich, 1958), 39, n. 178. In the opinion of Ostrogorsky the Carabasiani from the very beginning constituted a theme in the administrative sense of the term: History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, N.J., 1968), 97, 132, 158. 24. Mansi, Concil., XI, 737: "...adduximus...insuper quosdam de Christo dilectis exercitibus, tam ab a Deo conservando imperiali Obsequio, quamque ab Orientali, Thraciano, similiter et ab Armeniano, etiam ab exercitu Italiae, deinde ex Cabarisianis et Septensianis seu de Sardinia atque Africano exercitu." In changing Cabarislani to Carabasiani Ch. Diehl (Etudes Byzantines, Paris, 1905, p. 285, n. 2: the study in question was originally published in 1896) wrote: "Le texte donne: ex Cabarisianis et Septensianis, seu de Sardinia atque de African

XXI 8

In rejecting the generally accepted reading of Justinian's letter, AntoniadisBibicou has really brought forth no new evidence. Her palaeographical arguments, especially since, adnvtedly she has not seen the manuscript, are by no means conclusive. The arguments she has drawn from the internal structure of the text and the Byzantine administrative set up in Africa and Sardinia were considered by Gelzer when he rejected his own reading and adopted that of Carabisiani. Gelzer summed up the whole matter with the statement that the change from Cabarisiani to Carabisiani is so simple as to admit of no comment.26

But this question, whether in the letter of Justinian II one should read Carabisiani or Calarisiani, in its bearing upon the larger one, whether or not there was a theme of the Carabisiani, is by no means conclusive, certainly not as decisive as Antoniadis-Bibicou seems to think. For even if the letter of Justinian were to be rejected as a reference to the Carabisiani, there are other evidence, attesting not only to the existence of the Carabisiani, but strongly suggesting also that this naval command was not simply a command, but, as in the case of the other military commands, especially in Asia Minor, it was a theme in the administrative sense of that term. These evidence consist of three texts, two of which refer directly to the Carabisiani and the other most probably

exercitu. Gelzer (ed. de Georges de Chypre, p. XLIII) a fort ingdnieusement corrigb Calartsianis. On peut remarquer pourtant que le mot Septensianis pourrait designer a lui seul tout ce qui restait de 1'exarchat d'Afrique (Afrique et Sardaigne), et au lieu de Cabarisiani, on pourrait retablir, au moyen d'une transposition de lettres qui n'est pas rare, Carabisiani. " Gelzer in the publication cited by Diehl apparently took Sardinia to be in opposition to Cabarisianis and African exercitu to be in opposition to Septensianis and accordingly changed Cabarisiani to Calarisianis, from Calaris, a city in Sardinia. Diehl on the other hand in the light of the military and administrative set up in the western provinces of the empire, took Sardinia otque de African exercitu to be in opposition only to Septensianis and so found a place for a reference by Justinian II to his fleet in the letter which after all enumerates his forces. It is to Gelzer's original thinking which Gelzer himself abandoned, that Antoniadis-Bibicou has now returned. 25. H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themanverfassung (Leipzig, 1899), 29: "Diese Emendation ist so leicht and so schlagend, dass eigentlich jedes Wort zu ihrer weitern Begrundung uberflussig and mein fruherer Vorschlag einfach gegenstandlos geworden ist." In my brief note on the origin of the theme of the Carabisiani (see note 22) I said about Justinian's letter (p. 73): "The text from the Exemplar (i.e. Justinian's letter in question), aside from the amendation of Cabarisiani to Carabisianis, an amendation which has been generally accepted, presents no problem." In other words the amendation is a problem. But this is not how Antoniadis-Bibicou has understood my remark. She writes (op. cit. 63, n. 3): "l'auteur affirme meme que "l'amendement" fait a la lettre de Justinien ne presente pas de problems." Scholars may of course differ on interpretations but they should be accurate in the statement of fact.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

9

so. These texts are to be found in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, $e the Liber Pontificalis 89 and the de Thematibus of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. 88 The event referred to in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii and in connection with which there is the mention of the Carabisiani has been variously dated,

from the last years of the reign of Heraclius to about 680. 29 AntoniadisBibicou puts it about the middle of the seventh century and she is probably right. 30 The reference to the Carabisiani is a part of the text of the Miracula which deals with the adventures of Kouver. About sixty years after the Avar devastations in the Balkan peninsula described elsewhere in the Miracula,we read in this text, a revolt, headed by a certain Kouver broke out in the camp of the Avars. The rank and file of the followers of Kouver consisted of a mixed crowd, descendants of those natives of the Balkan peninsula whom the Avars had carried away and the Avars, Bulgars and other barbarians in the camp of the Khagan with whom they had inter-married. This motley crowd Kouver led toward Thessaloniki and there entered into an intrigue with a certain Mauros in order to take the city. The emperor was appraised of the danger on time, however, and he ordered Sisinnios, who was then strategos of the fleet (arpa,c ye tote t(bv icapd(3wv (n dpxovtt) and was stationed in Greece, to proceed to Thessaloniki with the Carabisiani soldiers under his command (µcta tubv tnt' autbv bvtwv tcapa(3tatav8v atpattc)t(bv) in order to succor the city against the barbarians. The reference to the Carabisiani in the Liber Pontificalis is in connection with the voyage of Pope Constantine I in 711. It is said in this text that the Pope, upon his arrival at the island of Keos, was received with honor and ceremony by Theophilus, patricius and 'stratigos Carabisiani.

Finally, there is the reference in the de Thematibus to the theme, t8v most probably, as J.B. Bury suggests, ai the equivalent to the 26. Miracula S. Demetrii, P. G. vol. 116, col. 1369. 27. Liber Pontificalis, edited, L. Duchesne, 2nd edition (Paris 1955) 1:390. On page 394 of this edition the following note which had been composed by Duchesne himself, has been added: "Theophile porte le double titre de patrice et de stratege, tout comme le gouverneur de Sicile mentionne ci-dessus; c'est, je crois, le commandant d'un theme, de celui qui, au temps de Constantin Porphyrogenete, s'appelait le theme de la mer Egee."

28. Edition of Pertusi, op. cit. 81. 29. On this see Charanis, "A Note on the Origin of the Theme of the Carabisiani," 74-75. 30. Antoniadis-Bibicou, op. cit. 80 ff; by the same author, "A propos de la premiere mention dune stratege des Caravisiens," Byzantinoslavica, 27 (1966), 71-91. 31. J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century (London, 1911), 109: "According to Constantine Porphyrogennetos.... Samos was formerly the capital sob

0eparo5 r6v n),tatSopev(ov (which must be equivalent to the 0. tOv xapa0tatlv(ov)."

XXI 10

theme of the Carabisiani. The text reads: "When the empire was divided into themes... they made the island (Samos) the center of the theme Tcbv ttxcotCoµevcav."

In the light of these references the point is clear that a naval command had come into existence at least by the second half of the seventh century. But did this command correspond also to an administrative circumscription? No doubt. No doubt not only because of the reference in the de Thematibus, but more importantly because of the use of the term strategos and the expression Kapa-

(3tatavot atpatt&rat to refer respectively to the commander and the naval forces under his command. These are technical terms used to designate the governor and the military complements of themes. Indeed, they constitute in some instances the only criteria for determining whether certain territories were or were not themes. The Carabisiani then constituted a theme in the administrative sense of that term. As an administrative circumscription the theme doubtless included the south and southwestern coast of Asia Minor, the islands of the Aegean, the coastal regions of Greece-in both instances when the Carabisiani are mentioned

they are found cruising in these regions-possibly Crete and most probably also the eastern regions of the Peloponnesus, regions definitely known to have been under the effective jurisdiction of the empire and where Monemvasia, Corinth and the Argolis afforded harbors too good not to be utilized by the Byzantine naval forces. The headquarters of the theme seems to have been Samos. 98 At this stage of the development of the theme system the old civil provinces did not, of course, immediately disappear. Civil officials continued to exist, but supreme authority was in the hands of the strategos.

The Carabisiani, like the big thematic circumscription of Asia Minor, was eventually broken up into smaller units, but unlike the Asiatic themes, it was completely superseded by its parts and as a unit, bearing the original_name ceased to exist. This partition began towards the end of the seventh century and was completed most probably by the middle of the eighth.Hellas was a theme by 695; by 732 99 the Cibyraeot theme, comprising the southern coast of Asia Minor had also come into being. By 780 the Aegean islands constituted a theme of their own, erected as such most probably when the Cibyraeot theme was created.'*

32. Const. Porph., de Themaribus, ed. Pertusi, 81. 33. The first mention of a strategos of the Cibyraeots: Theoph., op. cit., 410. Cf. Pertusi, Const. Port. de Thematibus, 149. 34. Ibid., 149.

Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

11

Crete had become a theme before 867, probably as early as the reign of Leo III.U It is known, of course, that the Peloponnesus was a theme by 805. But by then

it already had a number of governors, i.e. strategoi. When it was made into a theme is not known, but it is very probable that this was sometime during the first half of the eighth century and in connection with the partition of the theme of the Carabisiani." Before 783 it consisted most probably only of the eastern regions of the peninsula. The expedition of Staurakios in that year may have resulted in its extension north-westward. S' In any case, Patras was within its

jurisdiction by 805.

VI

SCLAVINIAS

There is no difficulty at all in understanding what the Byzantines of the eighth and early part of the ninth centuries meant by Scavinia or rather Sclavinias, for apparently there were several of them. Sclavinias were regions inhabited by Slavs under chieftains over whom the administrative control of the empire was more theoretical than real. The difficulty, if any, arises when one tries to determine the location of these Sclavinias. A perusal of the sources relating to the seventh, eighth and early part of the ninth centuries, has revealed eight passages in which the term Sclavinia appears. The first of these references simply says that in the year 657-658 Constans II made an expedition into Sclavinia, subdued the Slavs and took many prisoners.8 The second relates that Justinian II marched against Bulgaria and Sclavinia and, going as far as Thessaloniki, seized a multitude of Slavs and

35. G. K. Spyridakes, "T6 09pa Kpiltrlc npd ri} icaraxnccrE(K tf of aou tit0 r5v 'Apawv," 'Enerr1ets 'ETateelas BvCavtevr v Enov&1 s, 21 (1951), 59-68. Spyridakes cites a passage in the Life of St. Stephanos the Young (Migne, P.G. vol. 100, col. 1160) where a strategos of Crete is mentioned. Stephanos died in 767. According to Spyridakes (p. 67), Crete as a theme was probably founded by Leo III at the same time that he divided the Carabisiani into the Cibyraeot and Aegean themes. 36. Charanis, "Hellas..." 175. 37. On the expedition of Staurakios, Theophanes, op. cit. 456-57. Theophanes does not say in what part of the Peloponnesus Staurakios conducted his expedition, but, given the fact that the eastern regions of the Peloponnesus was in the hands of the Byzantines, it must have been in the north-western regions of that peninsula. 38. Theophanes, op. cit., 347.

XXI 12

settled them in the Opsikion theme in Asia Minor. 9B It is reported by the third that Constantine V subdued the Sclavinias about Macedonia. 40 The fourth is the well known and oft quoted passage in Theophanes according to which Christians drawn from every province of the empire were settled by order of the emperor Nicephorus I in the Sclavinias (800-810). 41 Two passages drawn from two different texts, texts however, which may be related as to their ultimate source, one referring to the year 811, 42 and the other to that of 814,43 say that the Bulgar Krum while at war with Byzantium enrolled Avars and Slavs, Slavs drawn from the Sclavinias located in the periphery of his realm. 44 Then there is the passage in the Life of Gregory the Decapolite according to which the Saint, while in Thessaloniki early in the ninth century, predicted an uprising of the chief of the Sclavinia, the latter apparently located not far from Thessa-

loniki. 45 Finally,there is the passage in the letter of Michael II to Louis the Pious announcing his victory over Thomas the Slavonian which says that Thomas

had drawn his forces from the regions of Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaloniki and the surrounding Sclavinias. 46 The Sclavinias mentioned in these texts were

obviously located in the regions of Macedonia and Thrace. About this there cannot be the slightest doubt. 47 It is said by the so-called Chronicle of Monemvasia and a related scholium of Arethas of Caesarea that Nicephorus I resettled Patras and Lacedaemon: Patras with Greeks brought from Calabria, descendants of the Patrenses who had fled to Rhegium when the Slavs invaded the Peloponnesus during the reign of Maurice; and Lacedaeron with a mixed crowd - "Caferoe, Thracesians, 39. Ibid., 364. Cf. H. Gregoire, "Un edit de l'empereur Justinien H date de Septembre 688," Byzantion, 17 (1944-45), 119-134a.

40. Theophanes, op. cit., 430. 41. Ibid., 486. 42. Ivan Dujeev, "La chronique byzantine de l'an 811," Travaux et Memoires, 1 (1965), 212.

43. Scriptor Incertus de Leone Bardae F (Bonn, 1842, with Leo Grammaticus), 347. 44. Dujeev (op. cit. 236) says about the location of the Sclavinias mentioned by these two texts: "Ces Slavinies ne sont pas les'villageois slaves des alentours' comme le pensaif Grdgoire, mais les tribus slaves installEes sur le pourtour de 1'Etat bulgare et qui, loin d'etre subjuguees, entretenaient des rapports d'amitie avec le prince bulgare." 45. F. Dvornik, La vie de Saint Gregoire le Decapolite et les Slaves Macedoniens an Me Siecle (Paris, 1926), 61. 46. Mansi, 14:418. For a more recent edition: Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Legum Sectio III. Concilia. T. 2, pt I. Leipzig,, 1900), 477: Thraciae, Macedoniae, Thessaloniae, et Circumiacentibus Sciaviniis. 47. Cf. s. P. Kyriakides, McMrat, 11-V (Thessaloniki, 1937), 136.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

13

Armenians and others... brought together from various places and cities." 48 These texts, put in juxtaposition with the passage in Theophanes according to which Christians drawn from every province of the empire were settled by order of the emperor Nicephorus I in the Sclavinias may lead one to infer, as did the present writer some years ago, that one of the Sclavinias referred to in the passage of Theophanes may have been the western-central regions of the Peloponnesus. This inference, though it most probably corresponds to the reality of things, remains nevertheless an inference and this fact should be plainly stated. 48 Nowhere in the Greek sources is there any direct reference to the Peloponnesus as a Sclavinia. The inference which may be drawn by the juxtaposition of the texts referred to above in no way, of course, can be made to apply to any other region of Greece.

VII THE SLAVS IN GREECE

It is a well known fact that the source material for the study of the history of the Byzantine empire as a whole for the period covered by the seventh and eighth centuries is very fragmentary. It reduces itself to a few chronicles, a few legal texts and records of church councils, some inscriptions and a few Lives of Saints. If this is so for the empire as a whole, it is much more so for the study of what transpired in Greece proper during this period. The texts available 48. Peter Charanis: "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (1950), 147 f, 152. The entire Iberikon version of the Chronicle of Monemvasia has now been re-edited by Paul Lemerle: "La chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: Le contexts historique et legendaire," Revue des EtudesByzantines, 21 (1963), 8-11. Lemerle thinks (p. 22) this chronicle should really be called: The Peloponnesian Chronicle.

49. Peter Charanis, "Nicephorus I, the Savior of Greece from he Slavs," ByzantinaMetabyzantina, vol 1, pt. 1 (1946), 82. Note 21 of his study reads: "Hopf (op. cit., 98-99, Paparregopoulos ('Iaropia Tou' E2.rivtxov'Ebvovc 3b, 167) and Vasiliev (op. cit.,422) interpreted rise EK?aDLviac of Theophanes to include the Peloponnesus. Most probably it is only the Peloponnesus that is meant." The last sentence of this note is not quite correct. Theophanes speaks of Sclavinias and not just a Sclavinia; we know also a definite region, that around the Strymon, where settlers had been brought by Nicephorus 1: Theophanes, op. cit., 496. The work by Vasiliev referred to is his: "The Slavs in Greece," Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 5 (1898) (in Russian). I read the work with the aid of Mrs. Nathalis Scheffer. Cf. Lemerle, op. cit., 29. See also the cogent remarks of S. P. Kyriakides, Ot E'daflos iv Ilelonovviiarp (Thessaloniki, 1947) 11-14.

XXI 14

reduce themselves to a few passages and of these some lack chronological precision while others are by no means clear. Nor have the finds of archaeology been of great help. The numismatic finds in Corinth and Athens are subject to

different interpretations and as a consequence cannot be said to mark some specific event or development.60 Monuments, and that includes archaeological finds, are of course very important in indicating a state of culture, but as evidence for the reconstruction of a historical development, are, unless accompanied by texts, of little definite help. Homer Thompson has recently studied as historical evidence the archaeological finds made in the Agora of Athens. In his opinion they may be interpreted to indicate the following. 61 A destructive raid against Athens which should be associated with the attack of the Heruli in 267; a subsequent retrenchment of the area to be defended, beyond which the city, including the Agora lay deserted; an expansion of this area, probably towards the end of the fourth century, but certainly in the course of the fifth, with some building in the Agora, and finally a second destructive raid, no doubt, in the opinion of Thompson, the work of Slavic invaders in the 80's of the sixth century, followed by a certain degree of recovery. Thompson concludes: "Coins and pottery indicate a certain amount of habitation down into the second half of the seventh century. Then follows a period of well-nigh complete desolation until the area was re-occupied as a residential district in the tenth century. But by this time, to use the words of Archbishop Akominatos, "the glory of Athens had utterly perished; one could see nothing, not even a faint symbol by which to recognize the ancient city." No sane person can, of course, ever pretend that the Athens of the late twelfth century was anything like the Athens of the classical period; but no person either can fail to recognize the exaggerated rhetoric of the learned Archbishop of Athens. After all the Acropolis still stood, a symbol more than faint "by which to recognize the ancient city." The thing however 50. Peter Charanis, "The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History of Athens and Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries "Historia, 4 (1955),163-172; Sp. Vryonis, "An Attic Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins (668-741) from the Thomas Whittemore Collection and the Numismatic Evidence for the Urban History of Byzantium," Recueil de travaux de l'Insritut d'Etudes byzantines (=Melanges G. Ostrogorsky I) (Beograd, 1963), 291-300; D.M. Metcalf, "The Slavonic Threat to Greece Circa 580: Some Evidence from Athens," Hesperia. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 31 (1962), 134-157; Id., Coinage in the Balkans 820-1355 (Chicago, 1966), 1-20; P. Grierson, Byzantine Coinage as Source Material," Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, editors J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, S. Runciman (London, 1967), 317-339. 51. Homer A. Thompson, "Athenian Twilight: A.D. 267-600," The Journal of Roman Studies, 49 (1959), 61-72, especially 70.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

15

to notice in Thompson's statement is that it refers almost entirely to the Agora and that its sketch of the history of Athens from the third century to the twelfth is really based on texts, not all of which were used.6ne may also ask what does the author mean by "desolation." Does he mean a state of complete destructiveness or the lack of material evidence of life? Probably the latter. Indeed the most that can be said about archaeological finds relating to the Greece of the seventh and eighth centuries is that they are virtually non-existant. 52 But this, whatever its historical significance, is true of the Byzantine empire as a whole during this period. In what follows, therefore, the emphasis is put on the texts, however fragmentary, and debatable their interpretations they may be. There can be no doubt at all that Greece was one of the regions devastated and settled by Slavs in the course of the great invasions which began about 578 and continued till about 585. Menander, Evagrius and John of Ephesus are definite on that. ss How far into Greece the barbarians went the Greek authors just mentioned do not say, but John of Ephesus says"all Hellas," specifically mentioning Corinth, if one may judge from a passage in Michael Syrus which no doubt had John as its source. More precise and detailed is the information transmitted by the so-called Chronicle of Monemvasia and the related text of a scholium of Arethas of Caesarea, two texts whose trustworthiness can, of course, no longer be questioned. 66 We read in the Chronicle of Monemvasia: "In another invasion they (the Avars-Slavs) subjugated all Thessaly and Greece, 52. Cf. Bon, op. cit., 49-50, Cf. M.S1F. Hood "An Aspect of the Slavic Invasions of Greece in the Early Byzantine Period," Sbornik Narodniho Muzea v Praze, 20 (1966): "At Olympia in

the northwest of the Peloponnesus a cemetery of Slav cremation burials in handmade clay jars was found during the construction of the new museum near the ancient sanctuary of the Altis... The cremation cemetery at Olympia is therefore as yet the only indisputable trace of the Slav invaders themselves in the archaeological record' n Greece." 53. Menander in C. Muller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, 4 (Paris, 1851), 252 (frag. 48); Evagrius, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. by J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London, 1898), 228; John, Bishop of Ephesus. The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Ephesus, tr. by R. Payne Smith (Oxford, 1860), 432. Latin text of John by Brooks quoted by H. Grdgoire "L'origine et Ie nom des Croates et des Serbes," Byzantion, 17 (1944-45),109 n. 21. Cf. Michael Syrus, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, ed. and trans. by J. B. Chabot, 2 (Paris, 1901), 362. Also John of Biclar, Chronicle, MGH, Aucti. Anti. Xl, 215. Cf. Bon, op. cit. 31-49. 54. On this see Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia...," 141-166; by the same author, "On the Slavic Settlement in the Peloponnesus," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 46 (1953), 91-103. I see no scientific reason whatsoever for Lemerle's reservations (op. cit. 48) concerning the trustworthiness of the part of the Chronicle... which relates the invasion and occupation of part of the Peloponnesus by the Slavs during the reign of Maurice. Everything in his study Points to the trustworthiness of the Chronicle... as a whole.

XXI 16

old Epirus, Attica and Euboea. They made an incursion also in the Peloponnesus, conquered it by war, and, destroying and driving out the noble and Hellenic nations, they settled in it themselves." The Chronicle goes on to say that the inhabitants of Patras fled to Rhegium in Calabria, while some of the Lacedaemonians went to Sicily, others to the coast of southeastern Laconia where they founded the city of Monemvasia, while still others found refuge in the eastern

regions of the Parnon mountains. The Corinthians meanwhile had fled to Aegina while the Argives found refuge in an island which the Chronicle calls Orobe. Neither Corinth nor Argolis, however, long remained in the hands of the Slavs, for the Chronicle goes on to say that the part of the Peloponnesus which extended from Corinth to the cape of Malia, being clear of Slavs, continued to be administered by Byzantium. In the western and central regions of the peninsula however, the situation was different. There the Slavs established themselves in such a way as to remain independent of imperial authority down

to the reign of Nicephorus I when, in 805, they were defeated and forced to recognize the authority of Byzantium. It is not without interest to note at this point that while the Chronicle says specifically that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus, it makes no mention of the establishment of such settlements in the rest of Greece. To return to the defeat of the Slavs in 805. The Chronicle does not specify in what region of the Peloponnesus this defeat of the Slavs took place, but since

immediately after this defeat, the emperor took steps to reconstruct and repeople Patras (before the end of 806), it must have been in the region around that city where it took place.A defeat of the Slavs in the region of Patras is also recorded by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. 65 Whatever the immediate source of the latter may have been,it went back to an oral tradition according to which the Slavs who dwelled in the region of Patras, having rebelled against the provincial authorities, first attacked the dwelling of the nearby Greeks (,rl v yctuivwv oi,xtac; T(bv r'patxthv) and then laid siege to the city of Patras. The Patrenses, reduced to desperation, thought of surrender, but before doing so they decided to send out a scout to see if the governor of the province, (the term theme is used) whose seat was in Corinth and who had been appraised of the intentions of the Slavs, was coming to their help. The governor did come, but Patras had already been saved by the intervention of St. Andrew. Constantine gives no date for the event except to say that it took place when "Nicephorus was hold-

55. Const. Porphy. De administrando imperio (Bonn, 1840), 217 if.; edition by G. Moravcsik and R. Jenkins (Washington D.C. 1967), 229 if.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

17

ing the scepter of the Romans. "Two points of this account need to be emphasized: at the time of the rebellion of the Slavs there were Greeks living in the countryside of Patras; and the city itself was not only inhabited, presumably by Greeks,

but it had its archontes, no doubt landed magnates,' who made the city their residence. One gets the impression as one reads the account of Constantine that the Greek society in Patras and the surrounding country-side at the time of the event described by it was not of recent creation. The historicity of the event described by Constantine, except, of course, the miraculous elements associated with it, has been generally accepted. The problem has been to determine its precise date and for this no decisive evidence has ever been given. 66 It used to be, before the creditability of the Chronicle of Monemvasia had been definitely established, that this event was taken to mark the beginning of the definite subjugation, and eventual absorption, of the Slavs in the Peloponnesus. It is now considered to have taken place sometime after 805, and to be distinct from the event described by the Chronicle of Monemvasia.57

This is largely because in the account of Constantine there is a walled and inhabited Patras, a Patras which could only be the one rebuilt and repeopled by Nicephorus shortly after the defeat of the Slavs and before the end of 806 as is related by the Chronicle. While this view of the matter is very plausible, there are elements in the two accounts which raise questions. be There is first of all the question of the probability of two major defeats of the Slavs, defeats separated in time by at the most six years and taking place under more or less similar circumstances and in the same region. This by itself is, of coy;rse, not impossible, but it does make one wonder. In the case of both accounts, it is the governor of the province coming from Corinth who achieved the victory. In both cases too, it may be presumed, it was the governor of the province who conveyed the good news to the emperor. This is specifically stated in the account of Constantine; in that of the Chronicle it is simply said that the emperor learned about thevictory. Learned from whom? No doubt from the one who achieved it. But more importantly, the emperor, according to both accounts, upon learning of what transpired, proceeded to 56. Hopf (op. cit., 99) whom I followed (Nicephorus I... 84) put the event in 807, but this date has found no general acceptance. Cf. Bon op. cit. 45 f.; R. Jenkins, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, vol. II. Commentary (London, 1962), 183. K. I Amantos puts the event in 805: ' Ioropia tot BvCavrtvov K0dtovs, 2nd ed. (Athens 1953) 1: 381. 57. For instance by me: "Nicephorus I...., " 84.; Lemerle, op. cit. 37. 58. Some of these questions had already been raised by Kyriakides in his critique of my article "Nicephorus I...... St. P. Kyriakides, Ot Z'Aa9ot v Ile2o7rovv4a9, 27.

XXI 18

take measures designed no doubt to consolidate the victory. According to the account of the Chronicle he rebuilt and repeopled Patras; according to that of Constantine he subjugated the defeated Slavs to the metropolis of that city. As both of those actions could have been taken at the same time, it seems therefore that the Chronicle and Constantine are describing the same event. The objections which may be raised against this point of view are by no means decisive. That there were no Greeks at all in the western regions of the Peloponnesus is a matter which no one can prove. To be sure at the time of the invasion of the Peloponnesus the Greeks, we are told by the Chronicle, were either killed or driven away, but this, despite the use of the definite article, cannot be accepted to mean all the Greeks, for to so accept it would mean to ignore the possible. To be sure also the expression dvwKo66µg6E... lic pd0pc v used by the Chronicle with reference to the rebuilding of Patras literally meant "rebuilt or built from the foundations." But this does not necessarily imply that the city thus rebuilt had been for centuries in utter ruins, completely desolate with no inhabitants at all. Rebuilding from the foundations may mean simply repairing, renewing, strengthening in a radical way.

That this may be indeed the appropriate interpretation of the expression used in this case finds some support in the amount of time taken to complete the work. The Slavs were defeated in 805; the city was rebuilt with walls and churches before the end of 806. For the steps required to complete this work, the learning by the emperor of the defeat of the Slavs, his finding out that these were descendants of Patrenses in Rhegium, his sending the order to have them removed to Patras, the gathering of workers for the work of reconstruction, the work itself-the time indicated by the Chronicle is simply too short. To be sure the transfers of people which the same emperor effected in 809-10 are said to have been completed in six months, 60 but it is one thing to transfer peasants from one district to another and another to build from scratch an entire city however modest its dimensions, with fortifications and churches and to have in it, within a few years, a well established class of archontes. In view of all this, it is much more reasonable, therefore, to suppose that what Nicephorus did in Patras was to reinforce in a major way its fortifications

and repair, also in a major way, its principal church and other buildings, rather than rebuild in its entirety a city which for centuries presumably had lain in ruins. It is to be noted in this connection that the Chronicle nowhere says

that the Slavs held the Peloponnesus until 805. What it says is that they maintained themselves independent of the authority of the emperor or that 59. Theophanes, op. cit. 486.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

19

of any one else until 805. That leaves room for the existence of many places, especially along the coast 60 where Greeks must have dominated. Patras most probably was one of these places. There is a tendency among some scholars 61 to minimize the extent of the Slavic settlement established in Greece proper especially in the Peloponnesus, towards the end of the sixth century and to emphasize instead a later date or rather two: the first quarter of the seventh century and the middle of the eighth. But the sources for these later dates are as fragmentary, if not more so, and as difficult to interpret as those which relate to the last two decades of the sixth century. They reduce themselves to three texts: a reference in the Chronicle of Isidore of Seville; a passage in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii, and one in the de Thernatibus of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The text of Isidore of Seville has often been used as decisive evidence show-

ing that Greece proper was overwhelmed by the Slavs. 62 The text reads: "In the fifth year of the reign of Heraclius (615), the Slavs took away Greece from the Romans." 63 This text, however, should not be used, certainly not as a piece of decisive evidence, in connection with the question of Slavic settlements in

Greece proper. It should not be used because, as I have shown in another study which I hope to publish in the near future, by Greece Isidore means Illyricum and not Greece proper. 34 The passage in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii reads: "It happened, there-

fore, as it is said, that during the bishopric of John of Blessed Memory, the nation of Slavs, a countless multitude was aroused. This multitude was drawn from the Dragubites, Sagudites, Belegezetes, Bajunetes, Berzetes and others. First to invent ships carved out of single pieces of timber, they launched themselves armed on the sea and pillaged all Thessaly, and the islands about it and those about Hellas. They pillaged also the Cyclades, all Achaia, Epirus, 60. Some objects found in the islet of Pilos near the Bay of Navarino are considered by Hood (op. cit. 169) to be of Byzantine origin - late sixth, early seventh centuries - and are interpreted by him as probable evidence that Greeks survived the Slavic invasion. 61. For instance, Bon, op. cit., 37. An old view that no Slavs settled in the Balkan peninsula south of the Danube in the sixth century still has some adherents: St. P. Kyriakides, The North-

ern Ethnological Boundaries of Hellenism (Thessaloniki, 1955), 18; Ion Nestor "La p6n6tration des Slaves dans la p6ninsule Balkanique et la Grece continentale," Revue des Etudes Sud-est Europdenne, 1 (1963), 41-67:Cf. L. Hauptmann, "Les rapports des Byzantins avec les Slaves et les Avares pendant la seconde moiti6 du We si6cle," Byzantion, 4 (1927-28), 169. 62. For instance Bon, op. cit., 35-36. 63. Isidore of Seville, Chronicon, Migne, Fatrologia Latina, 83,1056. 64. Scheduled to appear in Byzantinishe Zeitschrift, probably in 1971.

XXI 20

and the greater part of Illyricum and parts of Asia, rendering many cities and provinces uninhabited." 85 There is here in this passage a text of capital importance, but a text which is not without problems. There is first of all the problem of the chronology of the events described. Some scholars, juxtaposing this text with that of Isidore of Seville, place the events described in 615; se others put them more generally in the first quarter of the seventh century, 67 a general dating which, given the fact that there is no precise chronological data concerning the bishopric of John, is not unreasonable. Then there is the element of exaggeration both as to the destructiveness and the number of Slavs involved. The Miracula... is, after all, a hagiographical text in which St. Demetrius is presented as the savior of Thessaloniki. The more numerous and violent the Slavs are made to appear, the more remarkable the miracle of the saint. But more importantly there is the character of the expedition itself. The expedition was by sea with presumably some spot on the Aegean as its starting point. That such an expedition did indeed take place can be accepted without any doubt; that it devastated some of the coastal regions of Thessaly, Hellas, the islands and the Peloponnesus, that too may be beyond doubt. What is very doubtful, however, is that it rendered "cities and provinces uninhabited" and presumably had as a consequence the establishment in Hellas, the Peloponnesus and the islands of Slavic settlements of major significance. For, however numerous, large' and seaworthy the ships involved in the expedition may have been, they could not have 65. S. Demetril Martyris Acta, Migne Pat. Gr. 116 (Paris, 1864), 1265. 66. F. Bari§id, Miracles de St. Demetrius comme source historique (Belgrad, 1953), 149. Bari§id relates to the event described by the Miracula... a passage from the chronicle of John of Nikiu: The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, tr. by. R. H. Charles (London, 1916) 175-76 (ch. 109). The passage reads: ..."The Illyrians devastated Christian cities and carried off their inhabitants captive, and that no city escaped save Thessaloniki only; for itswalls were strong, and through the help of God the nations were unable to get possession of it. But all the province was devastated and depopulated." The Illyrians here are, of course, Slavs, and the province referred to must be Illyricum.John places the event he describes before the overthrow of Phocas. 67. Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de l'bpoque romaine jusqu'au VIlIe.'siecle," Revue historique 211 (1954), 295 f; Cf. Lemerle, "La composition et la chronologie des Miracula S. Demetrii," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 46 (1953) 356 f. E. Chrysanthopoulos, Td fiefAla Bavudrwv rov dyiov d17µs7Tglov, Tb xgovtxdv riis Moveµflaalac xat at £'xaflixai lnl6eO,aai sls Td'lv'ELldBa (Athens, 1954),55: 623 or 624. Chrysanthopoulos bases his chronology on an entry in the Syriac chronicle of Thomas: J.P.N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca (Lugdum Batavorum, 1862), 1:115; "Anno 934 (A.D. 623) Slavi Cretam ceterasque insulas invasere; etque illic pii viri Kenesrinenses comprehensi sunt, quorum fere viginti interfecti."

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

21

carried so many persons as to make possible the establishment or settlements of major importance all along the route which the expedition followed. Nor is it easy to accept, what the text apparently indicates, that the expedition rounded the Peloponnesus and then sailed northward to devastate Epirus and regions farther north. Scholars with this text as a reference and some toponymes,and later texts as the basis have associated the Belegezetes with Thessaly, the Berzetes, Dragubites and Sagudites with western Macedonia, and the Bajunetes with Epirus in that it was in these regions that these Slavic tribes respectively settled.° This is doubtless true. But to associate them or other Slavs with any major settlements in Central Greece and the Peloponnesus and to use as justifying evidence the reference in the Miracula..., is to go much beyond the bounds warranted by that text. The passage in the de Thematibus ofConstantine Porphyrogenitus, reads89 "And the whole country (i.e., the Peloponnesus) was Slavonized and became barbarous when the deadly plague ravaged the universe, when Constantine, the one named after dung (Constantine V) held the scepter of the Romans." There is in this text no chronological problem. The reference to the plague which raged during the reign of Constantine V Copronymus fixes the occurence described in the year 744-747. But there is a problem of interpretation. The key word in the text is, of course, r?6O .aiithO11 which has been rendered here "slavonized." This rendering is the only one reasonable but what does it mean? It certainly does not mean that the entire country became Slavic in language and ways of life. For that, the time given-four years at the most-is of course, much, much too short. The reference is obviously to some specific occurence and as a consequence "Slavonized" must be taken to mean "came under the domination or influence of Slavs." But by what Slavs? The text does not say and there are no other references to which one may turn.There is another word in the text, however, which may help to clarify the matter.That word is naca, i.e. "all." Two inferences may be drawn from the use of this word: that up to this point the Peloponnesus was only in part dominated by the Slavs and it was at this point that it came to be dominated in its entirety; or that up to this point there were no Slavs in the Peloponnesus and it was now that they came and imposed themselves on the entire peninsula. Between these two inferences obviously the first one corresponds to the truth. And since neither Constantine 68. Max Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland (Berlin, 1941), 85 f., 176 ff; 20 ff; Lubor Niederle, Manuel de l'antiquite Slave (Paris, 1923) 104 ff.; G. Ch. Chionides, Iatop(a sits Beeoias, 2 (Thessaloniki, 1970), 9f. 69. Edition Pertusi, op. cit., 91.

XXI 22

nor any other source speaks of new Slavs coming from the north, the most obvious explanation of the extension of the influence of the Slavs to encompass the entire peninsula is to assume that it was done by the Slavs already settled in the Peloponnesus. Because of the plague conditions for such an expansion were favorable, favorable not so much because the plague left

the country absolutely desolate of all inhabitants (plagues are never so thoroughly destructive) as because of the demoralization which the plague no doubt caused in the ranks of the Byzantine authorities. 90 The Byzantine authorities however soon regained their morale and were able in 755 to carry out orders of the emperor to transfer entire families from the Peloponnesus to Constantinople in order to help strengthen the population n of that city which had grievously suffered from the plague. Now to recapitulate: The Slavs in Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus settled there at the time of the great invasions towards the end of the sixth century. If additional Slavs came later, in the course of the seventh ad eighth centuries, they could not have been numerous. Of massive migration and settle-

ment of Slavs in Greece after the end of the sixth century, there is simply no evidence. They are attested to have settled in every region of Greece. 79 Their

settlements were particularly numerous, much more so than elsewhere in Greece,73 in the interior of Thessaly around Trikkala, in the northern regions of 70. Cl. Vasmer, op. cit., 15: "Es darf enter 1v0XaJf°6q naturlich keineswegs v811ige Slavisierung veertanden werden, sondern der Ausduck ist, wie Krumbacher richtig bemerkt hat (BZX 368), ftnlich aufzufassen, wie wean heutejemand von einer deutschen Stadt behauptete, sie sei "ganz verjudet" gewesen." Vasmer further remarks (loc. cit.) that Constantine's statement implies that the Slavs were already there and that the devastations of the plague enabled them to stifle the Greek people. 71. Theophanes, op. cit., 429. 72. C. Mnller, Geographi Graeet Minores, 2 (Paris, 1861) 574: writ vUv SE nraav 'Hnatpov Kat 'E7.hhu a e6dv Kat IIe7lon6vvrlaov Kal Maxs8ovtav EK66at Etd.6.oot v9Aovrat: "And now Scythian Slavs inhabit all Epirus and almost all Greece, the Peloponnesus and Macedonia." So wrote an epitomizer of Strabo sometime in the tenth century. His statement has often been taken to prove the utter elimination of the original Greek inhabitants by the Slav newcomers. It proves, of course, nothing of this sort. It simply says that Slavs, i.e., some Slavs, inhabited the countries mentioned. 73. Slavic toponymes in Boeotia and Attika, are very few (Vasmer, op. cit., 18-23), but Slavs did settle there also. Avars (Slavs ?) are attested (Vasiliev, op. cit., 416) for the region of

Athens in the eighth century, and a registry relating to the country-side of Thebes and Athens of the eleventh century includes a nutnber of families most probably Slavic in origin: N.G. Svoronos, Recherches sur le Cadastre Byzantin et Ia ftscalite aux XIe Silcles: Le cadastre de Thebes (Paris, 1959), 68 IT. This study was published in its entirety also in the Bulletin de Correspond=" Hellintque 83 (1957).

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

23

Epirus, and in the Peloponnesus: in the interior of Achaea in Elis,74 in Arcadia and the mountainous regions of the Taygetos in Laconia. 75 Thus, generally the Slavs settled in mountainous regions away from the sea or where there was difficulty of access by ship. 79 Greater precision than this cannot be given. 77 As invaders when they first came the Slavs devastated, killed or frightened some of the original inhabitants to seek refuge elsewhere. But that they emptied the

country completely and permanently of all its original inhabitants, that is a view which cannot objectively be maintained. This is so not only because there is no decisive evidence which would warrant such a belief, but also because of the general observation that invasions of inhabited lands very seldom, if ever, have that effect. A good example of this and which relates to the invasion and occupation of the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs, leaving the Greeks aside for

the moment, is the survival of Illyrians and Daco-Thracians who emerged later as the nations of the Albanians and the Vlachs. 79

VIII THE FALLMERAYER THESIS

The problem of the Slavonic settlements in Greece was first brought to the attention of the scholarly world by Jacob Fallmerayer. That Slavs had 74. Muller, op. cit., 2: 583: Ncv U o68i dvoµa tout Htaar6v Kai KQUKti)v(ilv Kai Ilu,%iwv 67tavsa rdp saOsa EK60at vt povTat. This is the place perhaps to cite a passage in the Life of Willibald, a western pilgrim who had stopped in Monemvasia towards the end of the third decade of the eighth century, according to which Monemvasia was located in Slawinia terra: MGH, Scriptores, 15:93. This passage has been often quoted as proof that the Peloponnesus was a land of the Slavs. Most probably, however, the region involved was not the Peloponnesus, but the coast at the eastern end of the Adriatic. See my forthcoming study,

as announced in note 62 of this work. 75. Cf. Vasmer, op. cit. 317. "Es is aber trotzdem klar, dass der Osten Griechenlands weniger slavische Einflusse aufweist als der Westen." 76. Ibid., 317. "Wo die kuste fur Landungen geeigneter war, wie in Ostthessalien, da sind vermutlich die Slaven schneller zuruckgedrs ngt worden. An der schwer zugdnglichen epirotischen Kuste konnten sie sich linger halten.Auch in den vom Meere entferntenGebirgsgegenden blieben sie linger, wean es ihnen einmal gelungen war, dort eizudringen. Daher der schwache slavische Einschlag in den von Euboia, Magnesia, Larissa, der besonders auffallt gegenuber Trikkala-Karditsa, daher auch die vielen slavischenNamen in Arkadien and am Taygetos." 77. Cl. F. Dvornik, Les Slaves Byzance et Rome an IXe SiPcle (Paris, 1926), 15. 78. I am aware, of course, of the various problems, which relate to the origin and early history of these peoples, but that they were natives of the Balkan peninsula who survived the Slavic invasion, that is a fact beyond any doubt.

XXI 24

settled in Greece during the Middle Ages had been pointed out before, 70 but it was Fallmerayer who put these settlements into the larger framework of the demography of Greece. In his History of the Peninsula of the Morea, the first volume of which appeared in 1830, and in subsequent writings, he went into this matter in the most meticulous way and also with passion and came out with the conclusion that the massive invasions of the Greek peninsula by the

Slavs and other barbarians transformed its population so thoroughly as to eliminate every vestige of its ancient Greek inhabitants. He wrote in the preface to the first volume of his history of the Morea : 80

"The Hellenic race in Europe is completely exterminated. The physical beauty, the sublimity of spirit, the simplicity of customs, the artistic creativeness, the races, cities and villages, the splendor of columns and temples, even the name of the people itself, have disappeared from the Greek continent. A double layer

of ruins and the mire of two new and different races cover the graves of the ancient Greeks. The immortal works of the spirit of Hellas and some ancient ruins

on native Greek soil are now the only evidence of the fact that long ago there was such a people as the Hellenes. And were it not for these ruins, grave-hills and mausoleums, were it not for the site and the wretched fate of its inhabitants, upon whom the Europeans of our day in an outburst of human emotions have poured all their tenderness, their admiration, their tears, and their eloquence, we would have to say that it was only an empty vision, a lifeless image, a being outside the nature of things that has aroused the innermost depthsof their souls. For not a single drop of real pure Hellenic blood flows in the veins of the Christian population of modern Greece. A terrific hurricane has dispersed throughout the space between the Ister and most distant corner of the Peloponnesus a new tribe akin to the great Slavonic race. The Scythian Slavs, the IIlyrian Arnauts, children of Northern lands, the blood relation of the Serbs, and Bulgars, the Dalmatians and Moscovites-those are the people whom we call Greeks at present and whose genealogy, to their own surprise we have traced back to Pericles and Philopoemen... A population with Slavonic facial features and with bow-shaped eyelashes and sharp features of Albanian mountain shepherds, of course, did not come from the blood of Narcissus, Alcibiades,

79. As for instance, Kopitar aped A.A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire (Madison, Wisconsin, 1952) 179. 80. J. P. Fallmerayer, Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea wdhrend des Mittelalters, 1(Stutt gart, 1830) III - IV, XII. I used the translation of Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 177. On Fallmerayer and his writings see: H.O. Eberl, Jakob Philipp Failmerayers Schriften in ihrer Bedeutung fur die historische Erkenntnis des grdko-slavischen Kulturkreises (Kiel, 1930).

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

25

and Antinous; and only a romantic eager imagination can still dream of a revival in our days of the ancient Hellenes with their Sophocleses and Platos." It suffices to look at the wording of this statement to be struck by its exaggerations. Nevertheless, the thesis which it embodies, that the Slavs totally exter-

minated the ancient inhabitants of Greece and that the modem Greeks are Christian Slavs or Albanians of Greek speech, has served as a great stimulant for the study of medieval Greece. It was no doubt a powerful force in the researches of Carl Hopf, who, in his History of Greece, gave to the question of the Slavs in Greece the most rigorous and detailed analysis. 81 Serious Greek scholars from Paparrhegopoulos 82 to the present, men of the calibre of Amantos, sa Kyriakides, 84 Zakythinose6 and others devoted special efforts to its examin-

ation. The interest of Russian scholars was also aroused. A.A. Vasiliev B6 made what was at the time of its appearance the most searching investigation ever to be published and one which has remained fundamental to this day. The same Vasiliev devoted four pages of his general history of Byzantium where he gives valuable references to views on the matter expressed by other Russian scholars. 87 Indeed the question of the settlement of Slavs in Greece proper and the impact that these Slavs may have had on the formation of the modern Greek people has remained to this day, among students of the Byzantine empire, one of the most vital subjects of discussion. 88 That Slavs had settled in Greece proper during the Middle Ages was accepted in a general way fairly early in the discussion. What remained and still remain vital questions of discussion are the magnitude of these settlements, the date or dates of their establishments and their impact on the formation of the modern Greek people. Falhnerayer had associated the occupation of Greece by the Slavs and the

81. Hopf, op. cit., 89 ff. 82. K. Paparrhegopoulos, "IAnul cai 1v rais 'EA.A.tivtrcats xebpats &oUcgaets" in' Ioro-

tnxal ITeayltardat (Athens, 1858). 83. K. Amantos, "EA Pot ,cat ZXap6ptvot eis i4 'E ;. lvucac xdnpac, ' llea,crexd rill 'AvOeconol. 'Erateelas (1926), 10ff. Iarropla rob BuCavrtvo6 Kp&rous,1: 266; "Of E71, Nt eis d v 'Eb? 8u," 'in Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbucher, 17 (1944), 210-221. See also above, note 5. 84. See above, note 47. 85. See above, note 7. 86. See above, note 47. 87. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine State, 176-179.

88. See for instance the general survey by G.G. Arnakis, "Byzantium and Greece," Balkan Studies, 4 (1963), 391 if.

XXI 26

consequent complete elimination of its original inhabitants with the great Slavic invasions of the Balkan peninsula during the two last decades of the sixth

century. In the controversy which followed, the question whether Slavs had indeed penetrated, and settled, in Greece as early as the last two decades of the sixth century, became the central point of contention. Hopf, whose thorough investigation of the sources made a great impression took the position that no Slavs settled in Greece by the end of the sixth century. Others, who saw something unsound in the Fallmerayer thesis, followed suit.No Greek scholar, writing in Greece has, to my knowledge, ever acknowledged that Slavs settled in Greece

at time during the sixth century. But Greek scholars are not alone in this matter. A. Bon wrote in his work on Byzantine Peloponnesus, a work, by the way, most deserving of the wide acclaim which it has received: "One may admit, therefore, on the basis of the texts as very probable that Slavs are in the Peloponnesus in the seventh century and as certain that their number increased in the eighth century."' And Paul Lemerle in a recent publication: "It is not established that the Peloponnesus was effectively invaded and occupied by the Avaro-Slavs as early as the end of the sixth century."91 The extreme view once expressed by Sathas 92 that no Slavs ever settled in the Peloponnesus during the Middle Ages is shared by none of these scholars; but neither does any one among them accept the Fallmerayer thesis in its exaggerated form. sa Other scholars, however, with the same texts before them, view the question quite differently. This is because they take the testimony of Evagrius and 90. Bon, op. cit. 37. 91. Lemerle, "La chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie.... "48. It must be said, however, that Lemerle hedges to such a degree as to give the impression that Slavs may indeed have settled in Greece before the end of the sixth century. V. T6pkova-Zaimova "Sur quelques aspects de la colonisation slave en Mac6doine et en Grace," Etudes Balkaniques, 1 (1964) 115: "Pourquoi devrions-nous refuser d'admettre avec M. Lemerle que l'etablissement initial des Slaves du Peloponnese aurait commence des la fin du We s., et plus exactement vers 578/8." On the other hand Nestor (op.cit.,65) writes: "Le prods aboutissantau peuplement par lea Slaves de regions 6tendues situees entre la Save, le Danube et lea mers Adriatique, Noire

et Eg6e jusqu'a 1'extr6me sud de Ia Grdce continentale n'a pu d6buter qu'au moment de I' interruption de ('offensive de Maurikios, a cause de cette interruption et non de 1'6chec de sea campagnes. L'offensive a cease a son tour a cause de la crise inteme de l'empire et des con-

vulsion du rbgne de Phokas." 92. C. N. Sathas, Documents inedits relatifs a l'histoi re de la Grece au moyen age, 1 (Paris,

1880), XXVIII: "Il n'y a pas historiquement une question slave, jamais des slaves tels quo 1'ethnologie moderne lea concoit, n'ayant p6nCtr6 dans le Peloponnese." 93. Bon, op. cit., 27 f: "cette th6orie excessive qu'illustra jadis Fallmerayer et suivant Iaquelle'plus une goute de sang grec ne coulerait dans les veins des habitants de la Grb c d' aujourd'hui...' on peut la consid6rer aujourd'hui comme d6finitivement abandonn6e."

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

27

Menander literally (Hellas means Hellas), put greater emphasis on John of Ephesus and take the author of the Chronicle of Monemvasia on his word. " In their view the bulk of the Slavs in Greece settled there before the end of the sixth century. The rest came during the first quarter of the seventh century and again about the middle of the eighth century. Scholars who hold this view tend to exaggerate somewhat the magnitude of the Slavic settlements, but on Fallmerayer's main thesis that the Slav invaders of Greece completely exterminated its

ancient inhabitants, they are not far apart from those who would minimize these settlements-To quote Lubor Niederle on this matter:"' "Despite the establishment of these elements of Slavs in Greece, in certain regions of the north and south, it will not be exact to conclude from this that the modern Greeks are hellenized Slavs. This old theory of Fallmerayer, summed up in the known sentence: `the Hellenic race in Europe is completely exterminated,' is evidently not justified, or at least more than exaggerated. It suffices in order to refute it to observe that as soon as Byzantine domination was restored in Greece, power being restored to the original element, there was produced a rapid denationalization of the Slavs which ended in their complete obliteration... This is because in Greece the original ancient inhabitants apparently remained established in a measure sufficient in magnitude to enable them to impose themselves on the Slavs, which is precisely what they did. One cannot, therefore, in these conditions, speak of the disappearance of the ancient Greek race."Niederle expressed this view in 1923. For the next forty years the matter stood substantially where

Niederle had left it. " In the first edition of his incomparable History of the Byzantine State, where he discusses the question of the Slavic penetration of Greece, Ostrogorsky does not even mention Fallmerayer.94 In the editions which followed he changed somewhat the wording of that discussion, but his 94. For instance Niederle, op. cit., 109; Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome..., 15-16; 41. The Chronicle of Monemvasia was used before its creditability had been established; also the synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas 111 (10841111) to the emperor Alexius; J. Leunclavius, luris Graeco-Romani, tam canonici quam civilis,... (Frankfurt, 1596, 278). With the creditability of the Chronicle of Monemvasia now established the letter of the patriarch Nicholas is, on this point, no longer important. 95. Niederle, op. cit., 111 96. G. StadtmUller in the essay on the history of the Peloponnesus which he contributed

in a book on that peninsula published by the German command during the German occupation of Greece, while exaggerating somewhat the magnitude of the Slavic settlements in Greece, nevertheless does not go as far as to say that the Slav invaders had exterminated all the Greeks: Der Peloponnes: Landschaft, Geschichte, Kunststatten, Herausgegeben von einem General kommando (Athens, 1944), 102 If. 97. G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (Munich, 1940), 55 f.

XXI 28

thoughts on the matter he left substantially the same. Here is how he expresses himself in the second English edition, the last edition of his work to appear : 98 "Throughout the whole region of the Balkans significant ethnic changes took place owing to the Slav migration. The effects of these invasions were felt down to the most southerly point of the peninsula. But even though the Peloponnesus itself was under Slav control for more than two hundred years there was no question of any permanent Slavonization of Greek territory as was maintained by J. P. Fallmerayer. Little by little the Byzantine authorities in Greece and the other coastal regions managed to regain lost ground and to preserve, or in some cases to recover their Greek character for these areas."

Thus matters stood until the Fall of 1962 when Fallmerayer's thesis in all its exaggerations was revived, revived with fury. The man who revived it was the late Romilly Jenkins. "The fact of the matter" he said in the second of the two lectures which he delivered at the University of Cincinnati on November

6, 1962, ° "very plainly is that the Slavs had poured, not only as raiders, but also as settlers, into territories-Epirus, Hellas, Peloponnesus-which were virtually swept if not garnished and that they set up their habitations and became

the repopulators of the land. All the historical testimony of any value points to this conclusion; and, were it not that Romantic prejudice amounting to monomania recoiled from it in the nineteenth century no historian would ever have questioned it for a moment." And elsewhere in the same lecture: "the two dominant racial stocks in the nineteenth-century Greece, along with many other foreign accretions, were Slavs and Albanians." About Fallmerayer himself, Jenkins had this to say: "It is melancholy to record that Fallmerayer's last years were clouded by a quite unjustified conviction of failure. None of his works satisfied him; none, he thought, had met with acceptance. Posterity judges differently." These are sentences picked at random. The lecture has to be read in its entirety to see how full it is with exaggerations. An abandoned view concerning some phase of the past, upon re-examination, may be restored in all its vigor and meet with general acceptance only if the integrity of the texts which furnished the evidence for its restoration has been fully respected. It is here where Jenkins has left himself open to serious criticism. There is virtually nothing in his lecture that may not be challenged, 98. History of the Byzantine State, tr. by Joan Hussey (New Brunswick, N.J., 1969), 94. Italics mine. 99. Romilly Jenkins, Byzantium and Byzantinism (The University of Cincinnti, 1963), 21-42. The principal points made in this lecture were incorporated into another series of lectures which Jenkins gave to undergraduates at Harvard University and later published in book form: Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries (New York, 1966).

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

29

but the remarks which follow are restricted to points controllable by the texts. Incidentally, Jenkins had no more texts available than did his predecessors. "By the time of Heraclius, and by the year 615," Jenkins urges "the Balkan peninsula as a whole was regarded as a Sclavinia or Sclaviniae, an area or areas inhabited and controlled by Slavonian tribes." 100 The definition of the term, is, of course, correct, but its extension to cover the entire Balkan peninsula is met with nowhere in the sources. Jenkins, however, needs this extension in order that he might justify his inclusion of Hellas among the Sclavinias in the Balkan peninsula. But as the reader already knows no reference to Sclavinias in the sources can be interpreted to apply to Hellas. At the most and by inference only the term might be applied by a modern scholar to the western regions of the Peloponnesus by the juxtaposition of the two texts to which reference has been made above. 101 Jenkins makes no such juxtaposition, but gives the impression time and time again that the Byzantine themselves called Hellas, Sclavinia. This is simply not true. As Jenkins views the matter Greece by 615 had been completely occupied by the Slavs and for the next forty odd years no attempt was made by the Byzantines to re-occupy the country. He said in his Cincinnati lecture:102 "An attempt was made at a Roman re-occupation (of Hellas) in the middle of the seventh century by the emperor Constans If, one of the few Byzantine emperors after Justinian whose eyes were turned to the west, but this was without any permanent results." The plain fact is however that nothing of this sort is met with in the sources. Theophanes does indeed report that in the year 6149 (657-658) Constans II made an expedition into Sclavinia and took many prisoners. 10atTheophanes, however, fails to give the exact location of this Sclavinia and there is no way of determining it. The same emperor while on his way to the west in 662 is said to have passed by and stopped for some time in Athens and probably also in Corinth. 104 But there is nothing in the sources which reports this fact that might possibly be construed to mean that Constans stopped in these two Greek cities for the purpose of retrieving them or the surrounding regions from 100. Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries., 45. 101. See above, notes, 46 and 47, especially the latter. 102. Byzantium and Byzantinism, 24.

103. Theophanes, op. cit., 347. 104. Paulus Diaconus, De gestis Langobardorum, MPL, 95, 598; Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Die vitis Roman. Pontificum in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 3:141; Johannes Diaconus, Chronicon Venetum et Gradense, MGH. SS. 7:8. The full texts of these references

are cited by K. Setton, "The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century," Speculum, 25 (1950), 541, note 157.

XXI 30

the Slavs. The sources say nothing indeed about Constans' objectives in stopping in Athens and Corinth.They simply report the fact.The fact itself, however, is an important piece of evidence. It is important because it shows for sure that both Athens and Corinth and presumably also the surrounding regions were in the effective possession of the empire at the time when Constans visited them. This is how scholars, men of the calibre of Bury and Ostrogorsky, 101 have always viewed the matter. They are right. "The theme' of Hellas was founded by Justinian II, no doubt in connection with his policy of Slavonic recruitment. "106 Thus did Jenkins express himself on this important matter. And he was in part right. Justinian II was indeed the founder of the "theme" of Hellas. The information for this, however meagre it may be, seems decisive. Nowhere in the sources, however, is there the slightest allusion as to Justinian's motive. Jenkins of course knows this, buthecovers himself conveniently by the adverbial "no doubt." His insinuation, however, is clear. What he is saying in reality is this: Justinian II had a policy of recruiting his army among Slavs; Greece was a country of Slavs; therefore Justinian's organization of Greece into a theme can be best explained by Justinian's desire to exploit its inhabitants as recruits. Thus the organization of Greece into a theme is made to strengthen rather than weaken the view that Greece in its entirety was inhabited by Slavs. Ingenious reasoning, but with no basis in fact l Reference has already been made to the measures taken by Constantine V (755) to strengthen the population of Constantinople which had suffered grievously by the plague of 744-747. Jenkins' comment about these measures

105. J. B. Bury. A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D) (London, 1889), 300: "On his way to Italy, Constans visited Athens. This mention of Athens as a station of the imperial journey indicates the flourishing condition of the Greek city in the seventh century." Ostrogorsky, History...., 122: "To all appearances Constans was planning to visit the most important centers of his European possessions. He made his first stop in Thessalonica, then had a longer stay in Athens, and it was not until 663 that he arrived at Tarentum." Jenkins himself in Byzantium, The Imperial Centuries, p. 41, gives quite a different interpretation to the possible activities of Constans in Athens. He writes: "Constans' plan in going to Italy "was, no doubt, to set up a stable, central system of defence against an imminent

Saracen invasion of Europe from Africa. If Italy and Hellas were to go the way of Syria and Egypt, while the Saracen fleets at the same time dominated the Aegean, what was likely to be the fate, at no long interval, of Constantinople herself? That he had this in mind seems to be clear from the fact that on his way to Italy he spent nearly a year in Greece,visiting Thessalonica and Athens and probably Corinth, with the obvious intention of pulling the Roman fortresses in a proper state of defence." 106. The Imperial Centuries, 54.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

31

is as follows: 107 "Constantine V, faced with this appalling scourge, applied the same remedy which had been invoked by the house of Heraclius: the wholesale reception of Slav settlers. Many, we are told, came to Constantinople from Hellas." In other words the families which Constantine V had ordered brought to Constantinople from Hellas were Slavs. The best commentary that can be brought to bear on these remarks is to reproduce in full the relevant passage in Theophanes, the only source which reports this transfer.Theophanes wrote: 108

"The emperor Constantine transferred to Thrace the Syrians and Armenians whom he had brought from Theodosioupolis and Melitene. They became the source for the extension of the heresy of the Paulicians. Likewise he brought to the city (i.e., Constantinople), whose population had been lessened by the plague, whole families which he drew from the islands, Hellas, and the lower regions (i.e., the Peloponnesus) and made them settle in it. He thus increased the population of the city." Where are the Slavs who came to Constantinople from Hellas one may ask? There are, of course, none. But to read, that "we are told" when in reality we are not told that many Slavs from Hellas came to Constantinople, is a matter very disturbing, indeed, to honest scholarship.

But this is not all. Speaking about the situation in Greece proper as it obtained according to him, from about the middle of the seventh century Jenkins says:100 "From that time, during more than a century, the terrain was aband-

oned to the invaders. The picture that emerges is one of a loose federation of Slavs under a principal zupan, or chieftain, who, in 799 and in the person of one Akamir of.Thessaly, was powerful enough to liberate the brother of Leo IV imprisoned in the fortress of Athens, and to make him an emperor in opposition to his sister-in-law, Irene." Here again the best commentary on these remarks is to reproduce in full the text on the basis of which they are made. The text reads 110: "In the month of March, the seventh indiction, Akamir, the chief of the Slavs of Belzetia (i.e., in southern Thessaly), pushed by the Helladikoi, wished to liberate the sons of Constantine (i.e., Constantine V) and proclaim one of them emperor. When the empress Irene learned this, she sent to the patrician Constantine Serantapechon his son (i.e., the son of Constantine), Theophylact, a spatharius and a nephew of hers. She blinded all and crushed their plot against her." 107. Ibit., 69. 108. Theophanes, op. cit., 429. 109. Byzantium and Byzantinlsm, 25. 110. Theophanes, 473.

XXI 32

What is one to make of this passage? Certainly not what Jenkins has made out of it. Akamir was simply chieftain of the Slavs of Belzetia; not the chieftain

of a federated group of Slavs occupying all Greece. He did not originate the plot, he was pushed to it by the Helladikoi. The plot was apparently nipped in the bud and those involved were blinded. If indeed the incident proves anything, it proves,the effectiveness of imperial authority in Greece. The emperor Nicephorus took a series of measures which were branded by

Theophanes oppressive. Following are the remarks of Jenkins on two of the measures: 111 "Two are concerned with the re-occupation of Hellas and the coast of Asia Minor, through compulsory purchase of small holdings and forcible transfer of peasantry."One may again turn to the text and see what it says :112

"In the year 6302 (i.e., 809-810) Nicephorus... gave orders that Christians be removed from every theme and brought to the Sclavinias and that their property be sold... He ordered the shipbuilders who dwelled along the coast, especially those of Asia Minor, people who had never lived as farmers, to buy, unwilling though they were, from the estates which he had confiscated at a price fixed by him." The text in relation to Jenkins' statement speaks for itself. No comment is needed.

There is some evidence to the effect that Nicephorus I reconstructed Thebes and presumably, though this is not related by the source, resettled it with colonies brought from elsewhere in the empire. Better known, however, are the colonies which he established in the Peloponnesus. The information for this comes from texts 114 other than Theophanes, but, instead of citing these texts, Jenkins, in speaking about these colonies, chooses to put his argument on a quite different basis. He writes: 116 "It would seem that a sojourn in Hellas was in those days not so popular as it has since become. When Theophanes says that the Byzantine settlers came `from every province he no doubt includes Calabria and Sicily when Saracen incursions were causing a retromigration of Greek speakers to Hellas. Confirmation of this is found in the legend of the miraculous deliverance of Patras from the Slavonic besiegers: for in this legend the Greek speakers are called, not Peloponnesians, or Helladics or Rhomaioi, but Graekoi or Greci, that is Greek speakers from Italy." 111. The Imperial Centuries, 119. 112. Theophanes, 487. 113. Cedrenus, Bonn ed. 2:34. 114. Primarily from the Chronicle of Monemvasia: Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monem-

vasia...," 147 f., 154 f. 115. The Imperial Centuries, 123.

XXI Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages

33

The narrow definition of Graikoi given by Jenkins is, of course, wrong, ue but it served his purpose and this is probably why he used it: it eliminates the text to which he refers as possible evidence that Greeks did indeed survive the Slav invasion. 117

In the paper which I submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine studies, held in Oxford in September 1966, I referred to Jenkins'

revival of Fallmerayer's thesis as unfortunate, "a unfortunate because that thesis had outlived its usefulness and because it had been rejected, certainly in its extreme form, by scholars. But unfortunately also, I may now add, for the scholarly reputation of the man who revived it. For in his writings about the Slavs in Greece, what Jenkins has done is quite clear: He has in fact assumed

that all the original inhabitants of Greece had been exterminated by the Slav invaders and then proceeded to distort xle every text that might possibly furnish 116. See, for instance, Procopius: IV. 27, 38; V 18, 40; V. 29, 11; VII, 9, 12; VII, 21, 4; VII, 21, 12; VII 21, 14; VIII 23, 25; Anecdota, XXIV, 7. In this passage of the Anecdota by Graekoi the inhabitants of Greece proper are meant. Cf. Theophanes, op. cit., 455: I'patxdly yp1 &ata; Cf. N. G. Polites, 'E?,Xrlvec A Pw iutot, in Aaoypaipixa Zvµ,aetxTa, 1, (1920).

B.A. Mystakides, At AEeic "EUnv, reatxac (rpatxvloc), Pwlsaioc (rpaoxopp(apaioc), Bvi;avrivdc (Tubingen, 1920). The term I'paucta was sometimes applied to Greece proper: Paul Speck. "l-paticta und'Appevtu. Das TAtigkeitsfeld eines nicht identifizierten Strategen

im fruhen 9. Jahrhundert," Jahrbuch der 6sterreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft, 16 (1967) 83 f.

117. The text in question is of course, the account of Constantine Pophyrogenetus concerning the siege of Patras by the Slavs during the reign of Nicephorus I: See above, note 53. 118. P. Charanis, "Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire," The Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies edited by J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, S. Runciman (Oxford, 1967), 462. 119. He is guilty of omissions too. Nowhere does he mention, for instance the reference in Theophanes (op. cit., 440) according to which in c. 766 Constantine V brought to Constantinople from Hellas and the islands 500 ostrakarol, i.e., makers of earthenware pipes, in order to repair the acqueduct of Valens. To have cited this reference would have seriouslydamaged his view (The Imperial Centuries..., 92) according to which "the theme of Hellas as a working administrative unit" dates from 783. This was no doubt the reason also for his distortion of the texts of Theophanes and Nicephorus, the Patriarch, according to which the Byzantine forces stationed in Hellas and the islands in 727 rebelled against Leo III, presumably because of his iconoclastic policy. The text in Theophanes(op. cit.,405) reads: "TheHelladikoi and those of the islands rebelled against him (i.e., Leo III)... Agallianos, tumarch of the Helladikoi, commanded the army. There was also a certain Stephanos." The text in Nicephorus the Patriarch (Opuscula Historic, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1880, 57) reads: "Those inhabiting Hellas and the islands rebelled against him.... Agallianos was one of their leaders.... There was also a certain Stephanos." Anyone, reading these texts would conclude that the leadership in the affair was most probably taken by the Helladikoi but this is not how Jenkins views the matter. He writes (The Imperial Centuries.... 66): "The first reaction to its destruction (i.e. the destruca

XXI 34

any evidence to the contrary. He has indeed done more: he turned these texts around in order to support his peculiar view. By so doing he made an advocate of himself and thereby destroyed the scholarly character of his work. Slavs did indeed come into Greece. They did not only come but stayed permanently. Of their numbers there is no precise knowledge, but the impression created by the sources is that they were numerous. Their settlements were denser in the western regions of the country than in those of the east. But what is striking about the historical evolution of these Slavs is that they lost their identity and became Greeks. In the complete hellenization of the Slavs the administration, the church, books even, may have played a role. It is hardly possible however, that these forces by themselves could have brought about the thorough denationalization of the Slavs. If eventually the Slavs in Greece abandoned Slavic and made Greek the language of their speech, became indeed Greeks, that. was primarily because they -found themselves in the midst of Greeks. Rutgers University New Brunswick, N. J.

tion of the "picture of Christ in the porch of the Great Palace known as Chalke") was a revolt, in 727 of the great naval command of the Karavisianoi (Seamen), a command which extended from the southern shores of Asia Minor over the whole of the Aegean Sea. The rebels were joined by the Helladics, or garrison troops of the theme of Hellas." Cf. Byzantium and Byzantinism, 26, where he expresses the same view:

XXII HOW GREEK WAS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

IT HAS long been customary to refer to the Roman Empire, after the transfer of the capital to Constantinople and the subsequent disappearance of the imperial title in the West, both as Byzantine and as Greek. This nomenclature is modern, for the people whom we call Byzantines considered their Empire as Roman

and themselves as Romans. And in this they were right, for as Gibbon assumed and as J. B. Bury made it a point to emphasize, "the same Empire which was founded by Augustus continued to exist and function throughout the Middle Ages."' When Constantine the Great transferred the capital from the West to Constantinople, he was, of course, not founding a new empire; nor was the foundation of a new empire or empires implied when some sixty-five years later Theodosius the Great invested his two sons with the imperial authority, assigning the one to the western and the other to the eastern provinces with Constantinople as his capital. To be sure, the two sections developed important differences in the course of the fifth century and even fought over disputed territory, but the idea that the Empire was a single unit, no

different from what it had been before, was never questioned. This point is well illustrated by the action of Odovacer in 476. Odovacer, in acting as he did, contemplated no break with the continuity of the Roman imperial tradition. This is clearly shown

by the fact that he induced-'pressured' is perhaps a more ac*Read at the Annual Dinner of the Medieval Academy of America in

connection with the Seventy-seventh Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, Chicago, December 28, 1962. 'The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. IV; The Eastern Roman Empire (Cambridge, England, 1927), p. vii. ' The important period between 395 and 410 has been studied in detail by E. Demougeot, De !'unite a la division de !'Empire Romain 395-410; Essai sur le gouvernement imperial (Paris, 1951). For the fifth century as a whole,

see J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565), 2nd ed. (London, 1931), Vol. 1; E. Stein and J. R. Palanque, Histoire du BasEmpire, Vol. I. De l'etat Rmain a l'etat bysantin (Paris, 1959), pp. 219 if. 101

XXII 102

curate term-the Roman Senate to send an embassy to Constantinople in the name of young Romulus, whose deposition was

represented as an abdication, to inform the emperor that there was no need for a separate emperor in Italy and that his sole authority sufficed, and to urge him at the same time to put the administration of Italy into the hands of Odovacer.3 Odovacer, of course, in bringing to an end the imperial office in the West only sought to free himself and his barbarian following from a source of authority that was close at hand in favor of another which was far away and consequently ineffectual. But no Roman Empire was brought to an end by him, for, as Bury observed long ago, "there

was no `Western Empire' to fall. There was only one Roman Empire," and that continued to exist.' The great Justinian in the sixth century, as everybody knows, was inspired by the great Roman tradition in the formulation of both his domestic and his foreign policies. All this is, of course, admitted. It is often urged, however, that

the Empire was so transformed in the course of the seventh and eighth centuries, that in actual fact it became something else, call it Greek or Byzantine. Indeed Byzantinists now often use the expression "late Roman" or "early Byzantine" to refer to the Empire as it was from the reigns of Diocletian-Constantine to the end of the sixth century in contradistinction to that of the later period, which they call Byzantine.' There is no doubt that changes of consequence took place in the Roman Empire during the seventh and eighth centuries, though there is some question as to exactly what these changes were, how profoundly they affected the institutional structure of the Empire,

and when and by whom they were introduced.' For one thing the Empire lost considerable territory both in the East and in the West, particularly in the Balkan peninsula. The eastern provinces ' Malchus, "Fragmenta" in C. Miiller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 4 (Paris, 1851), 119. Cf. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, I, 406 if. ' Ibid., 1, 408.

Notice, for instance, the adjective "friihbyzantinischen" as used by J.

Karayannopulos in Das Finanzwesen des friihbyzantinischen Staates (Munich,

1958). Cf. G. Ostragorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, N. J., 1957), p. 95. For a discussion of this problem with reference to the relevant bibliography, see my paper, "Some Remarks on the Changes in Byzantium in the Seventh Century," which will soon appear in a volume in honor- of G. Ostrogorsky.

XXII

HOW GREEK WAS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

103

lost to the Empire were inhabited predominantly by Orientals, Semites and Egyptians, among whom an anti-imperial spirit and a resurgence of native culture had been taking place for some time. Their loss no doubt contributed to a solution of the religious

problem in favor of orthodoxy-a solution basically Greek in character. The territorial losses in the West, including the Balkan peninsula, eliminated for all practical purposes the Latin-speaking

element from the Empire and made inevitable the adoption of Greek, which now replaced Latin as the official language of the state. At the same time new administrative machinery came into existence, especially in the provinces. This was the "theme system," a new provincial organization, the essential element of which was

that an army corps was permanently stationed in each province and commanded by an officer who served at the same time as governor, exercising both military and civil authority. The theme system, whatever its origin, took definite form in the seventh century. There were important changes also in the social structure

of the Empire. The trend toward the absorption of the small peasantry by the large estates, which had characterized the period before, came to an end. Large estates continued to exist, of course, but there was such a marked increase of the free peasantry that

the latter came to dominate, at least for several centuries, the agrarian landscape of the Empire. City life too was affected some-

what by the developments of the seventh century. Some cities were destroyed; others underwent some decline, but the city as such continued to exist. The changes we have outlined were changes of consequence and they altered the Empire considerably. But they did not destroy its

identity. The substitution of Greek for Latin as the official language of the Empire-which today seems to us highly significant-came about so imperceptibly that the inhabitants probably did not notice it.7 Greek, which since the days of Alexander had become the dominant language in the East, had always been used by the Roman state from the earliest centuries in making its edicts known in these regions of the Empire, though of course the official versions were in Latin. The language of education through'See the remarks of E. Stein, Hirtoire du Bas-Empire, pp. 1, 295 if. Cf. Ostrogorsky, op. cit., p. 52, n. 2, and p. 95; and, in general, H. Zilliacus, Zum Kampf der Weltsprachen im ostromischen Reich (Helsingfors, 1935).

104

out the East, Greek was officially recognized as such at the time of the foundation of the University of Constantinople during the

reign of Theodosius II when it was given a position of predominance as the language of instruction. And while the great codices of Roman law were, of course, compiled in Latin, there were emperors in the fifth century who issued edicts in Greek. The great Justinian himself, so proud of his Latin origin and so imbued with the great Roman imperial tradition, nevertheless issued his novels in Greek. Accustomed thus more and more to know the official acts of the state through Greek, the Empire as a whole most probably did not notice that at some particular moment-there was in reality no such moment, for the development was gradual-Latin ceased to be the language for the transaction of the affairs of the state. The official use of Greek, therefore, could not be regarded as having broken the continuity of the Roman tradition. It had long been a part of that tradition. But to return to the events of the seventh century. Those living during this period were, of course, very much aware of the disasters they were experiencing, but we find no evidence anywhere

of any feeling that the Empire into which they had been born had come to an end, being replaced by another entirely different. Except, of course, for the provinces which had been lost, there had been no break in the continuity of the Empire, and as a consequence, one could not help feeling himself still a Roman. There was even some thought-at least we may so interpret the movements of one of the emperors of the seventh century, Constans II -of moving the capital of the Empire back to Rome. He actually established himself in Syracuse. But this thought of moving the

capital to the West, which at one time was even shared by Heraclius, who played with the idea of establishing himself at least temporarily in Carthage, was not popular in Constantinople.' It has been repeatedly observed that in the course of the seventh

and eighth centuries there took place that estrangement between East and West which was destined to prove permanent. During this period the Empire lost its possessions in Africa, while in Italy it was able to hold only part of southern Italy and Sicily. But more than that, it seems to have lost interest in the West. It has been noted that there are hardly any references to the affairs ° Ostrogorsky, pp. 108, 84.

XXII HOW GREEK WAS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

105

of the West in the historical sources of the Empire which relate to the seventh and eighth centuries. This scarcity has been interpreted to mean that in Constantinople during this period very little was known about the West while people cared perhaps still less? The interpretation may be correct, though the point must be made that there is not much that is reported about the Empire as a whole during this period. Nevertheless, East and West became indeed more estranged during this period than had been the case before, and this estrangement-brought about not so much by

the Arab penetration of the central Mediterranean basin, as Pirenne believed, as by the occupation of the Balkan peninsula by the Slavs-proved permanent.10 But this estrangement did not make the Empire, in the eyes of its people, less Roman than it had been before. To believe otherwise is to assume that what made

the Empire Roman in the eyes of its people was the fact that it held or at least claimed Italy. This, of course, is not true. The Empire was Roman because of the continuity of the Roman imperial tradition. The Germans themselves recognized this. Haens-

sler has shown that up to A.D. 800 they accepted the eastern empire as the Imperium Romanum.11

The revolutionary act of 800 itself is a striking illustration of how deeply embedded the notion was that what we call the eastern

empire was indeed the Imperium Romanum. Who took the initiative in the revival of the imperial title in the West is still a matter of controversy, but there can be no question that the papal court was very deeply involved in the whole affair.12 The position of the Roman church in the eighth century as more than a purely local organization had become very insecure. It had lost jurisdiction " Ostrogorsky, "The Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), 12 if.

10 Cf. P. Charanis, "Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh

Century," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), 43 if. I Fred Haenssler, Byzanz and Byzantiner: Ihr Bild im Spiegel der Oberiieferung der germanischen Reiche im friiheren Mittelalter (Bern, 1960), p. 147.

"The literature on the subject of the coronation of Charlemagne is ex-

tensive. For the views that it was really Charlemagne who took the initiative in bringing about the event, see Louis Halphen, Charlemagne et l'empire carolingien (Paris, 1947), pp. 120-139, especially p. 129. For the view that the whole affair was brought about the papacy, see Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relations of Clerical to Lay Power (London, 1955). The sources themselves are inconclusive, and any conclusion must necessarily be inferential. See further, Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, p. 165 and n. 1.

XXII 106

over southern Italy, Sicily, and that part of Illyricum, including the islands, which was still in imperial hands. Constantinople was unfriendly. North Africa and Spain had come under the sway of the Arabs. Italy was being hard pressed by the Lombards. There was no room where the papacy could rebuild its power except in the northern Germanic world, which was now brought together, however loosely, by Charlemagne into one unit. But more importantly, there could really be no church without an Empire ; such had been the tradition for centuries, and the Empire, the papacy knew, was in the East. Moreover, that Empire was unwilling to offer its protection to a pontiff whose policies it could not accept. To free itself from Constantinople and yet remain within the Roman imperial tradition was the problem which Rome faced. Hence, now that a man powerful enough was available, the attempt

was made to revive the imperial tradition in the West, to make it as much a living force there as it was in the East. Constantinople's reaction was, of course, a hostile one; and when finally it granted recognition to Charlemagne, it was a recognition as emperor and not as emperor of the Romans. The emperor at Constantinople was the emperor of the Rornans.r3 With the coronation of Charlemagne, however, the West-which

up to then had accepted the East as the Imperium Romanumwould reserve this title for the western empire and would refer to the eastern empire and its emperor as Greek. This would anger Constantinople and would make it more assertive in its claims to the Roman imperial tradition. Its reaction to the papal embassy, which had come to urge the emperor to conclude an alliance with Otto I and which referred to him as "the emperor of the Greeks," strikingly illustrates this. "The Greeks," writes Liudprand, "abused the sea, cursed the waves. . . . 'The audacity of it!' They cried 'to call

the universal emperor of the Romans, the one and only

Nicephorus the Great, the august, emperor of the Greeks, and to style a poor barbaric creature emperor of the Romans.' "14 For centuries still Byzantium will cling to this view; indeed, it will never give it up, and for a little while, during the reign of Manuel 'Cf. Ostrogorsky, ibid., p. 176 and n. 3. "Liudprand of Cremona, Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam (Bonn, 1828), with Leo Diaconus, Historiae, p. 363. English translation by F. A. Wright, The Works of Liudprand of Cremona (New York, 1930), p. 263.

XXII HOW GREEK WAS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

107

I in the twelfth century, it will even try to revive its claims to universal rule. Only toward the very end, when the territory of the empire was reduced to Greek lands in the geographic sense of the term and when the revival of Greek antiquity took to some extent the form of a Greek national feeling, would the Byzantines refer to their realm as Greek and to themselves as Hellenes. Professor A. E. Vacalopoulos has placed the beginning of modern Hellenism in the thirteenth century." He is correct. At the same time, however, it should never be forgotten that even after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 the Byzantines did not cease to refer to themselves as Romans. Historically they were indeed

Romans.

But if by continuity, by administrative and legal tradition the eastern empire was indeed Roman in substance, in the form of its civilization-always, of course, within the framework of Christianity-it may be said to have been Greek. The important element here is language. In the regions which eventually constituted the eastern empire Greek had for centuries been the dominant language. Other languages, of course, continued to exist. In Egypt dialects of ancient Egyptian were spoken and were used in writing; in Syria most often native inhabitants spoke and some wrote in

Syriac. In Asia Minor some of the native languages persisted certainly down to the end of the sixth century and perhaps beyond,1e and in the interior of the Balkan peninsula Latin was, of course, the common speech until the end of the sixth century. The prevalent language throughout the Empire, however, was Greek. It was the language of commerce, of education, of culture in general, and eventually of the state. As the language of education and culture, it oriented its speakers towards Greek literature and thought in the form in which they had originally been expressed. This fact is what gave Byzantine secular literature its dominant tone. It has been repeatedly said, most recently by R. J. H. Jenkins, that scholarly versification, rhetoric, literary encyclopedism and

historiography-and these are the main branches of Byzantine secular literature-derived their inspiration from Greek or, more "A. E. Vacalopoulos, History of Modern Hellenism (in Modern Greek), I (Athens, 1961), 43-92. " See my study, "Ethnic Changes ... ," pp. 25-28.

XXII 108

accurately, from Hellenistic sources.17 There are frequent complaints about the obscurantism of Byzantine literature, but this obscurantism is in itself a striking illustration of how heavily the educated in Byzantium depended on Greek classical literature. They read it and imitated it and copied it; hence their service in preserving it for posterity. Everybody knows that with the exception of a small number of literary papyri our manuscripts of the classical Greek authors are Byzantine. These manuscripts date from the ninth century and go back to copies made in Constantinople perhaps in the fourth century.18 Byzantine science and medi-

cine were essentially what the great scientists of the Hellenistic period-whatever their sources of information-had formulated. The use of Greek as the language of education and culture in general also determined the tone of Byzantine religious literature and thought. For when the time came to give Christianity an intellectual content, it was from Greek that its technical terms and phrases were drawn and it was in Greek, of course, that the new thought, replete with Greek ideas, was expressed. This process, begun by the great Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, in the late second and early third centuries, had been virtually completed by the end of the fourth century largely through the work of the great Cappadocians, who in addition, drawing from the traditions of Greek paedia, formulated the intellectual content of that of the Christians and, as a consequence, of Byzantium.1° There still remained some points of doctrine to be defined and the problem of the

images to be settled definitely, but these things too were given an

essentially Greek solution. Byzantine orthodoxy, as it finally crystallized was-allowance being made for its Biblical traditionessentially Greek in inspiration. Christian literary forms too derived from those of Greek antiquity. Even hagiography, perhaps the most original part of Byzantine literature, had its non-Chris"In a paper read at the Symposium on "The Hellenistic Origin of Byzantine Civilization," held at Dumbarton Oaks in May, 1962. This paper will be

published in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 17. Professor Jenkins, whose terminology I have used here, has given me permission to cite his paper.

"Paul Lemerle, "Byzance et la tradition des lettres helleniques," in Academie Serbe des Sciences et des Arts. Conferences, II. Classe des Sciences Sociales, 2 (Beograd, 1962), 1-24.

'See the general remarks of W. Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek

Paideia (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).

XXII HOW GREEK WAS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE'

109

tian Greek antecedents.20 However, in one important domain, where language plays a role, the inspiration seems not to have been Greek; this was in hymnography, the most original part of Byzantine poetry. It was formerly believed that Byzantine chant was an offspring of Greek classical music largely because the melodies were sung to Greek words. This view is now generally rejected. The prevailing one is that Byzantine music and hymnography derived their inspiration from Syria and Palestine .21 On

the whole, however, those elements of civilization which are a function of language in the Eastern Empire, as it evolved during the Middle Ages, were essentially Greek. To this day the Greek language is full of terms and expressions which can be traced back to Byzantine institutions and customs. The late Professor Kukules has published a whole volume of such terms and expressions as they were used or are used in regions once provinces of the Byzantine empire, Cappadocia, the Pontus, the islands, Thrace, Macedonia, and, of course, Greece proper .21

It is this dominance of the Greek language with all its implications which marks the Eastern Empire as Greek. But to call it

just Greek, or for that matter Roman, is to oversimplify the matter. For the empire was a complex organism whose thought,

institutions, religious life, mores were the result of many influences. Byzantium was the heir of the great Hellenistic tradition. This tradition included, of course, many elements which were Oriental in origin. It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyze these elements, although some of them loom so large that they come immediately to mind-Christianity in its primitive form, for instance, or absolutism in government deriving its power from God and surrounded by ceremonial. It may be said, however, that those Oriental elements of civilization which found their way into Byzantine civilization were already parts of an amalgam when they were inherited by Byzantium. Students of Byzantine art, like Charles Diehl and Gabriel Millet, have often explained H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford, 1954), pp. 238 if. It is a question here of martyr literature, but martyrology laid the basis for hagiography. n I follow here Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1961), pp. 42 if. s Ph. Kukules, Vie et civilisation byzantines (in modern Greek), Vol. 5, Supplement (Athens, 1952).

110

certain features of Byzantine art-its abstract character, its flatness, the hieratic pose, its brilliant colors, its elaborate ornaments,

its stiff and encrusted decorations of dress-as coming from the Orient. The tendency among art historians today, however, is to regard these things as features of what one might call late antique art, which develops further in the Byzantine period." Byzantium built its synthesis on cultural elements drawn from the Hellenistic world of which, of course, the Orient was a part, but the Orient in the end would not accept this synthesis. The view

often expressed that Oriental heresies were national or social movements has recently been denied,24 but there can be no denial, I think, that the increased use of Coptic and Syriac which we note in the fifth and sixth centuries was a clear indication that Greek was on the way out in Syria and Egypt, a process that would be completed by the political upheaval of the seventh century. But if the civilization of the Eastern Empire was predominantly Greek, it was not an empire of Greeks. In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian (820-823) against the emperor Michael

II, the Byzantine historian Genesius lists a variety of peoples from whom the armies of the rebels had been drawn: Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals, Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, Armenians, adherents of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and the Athinganoi.23 Some of these peoples are

well known; the identity of others, despite efforts made to determine it, is by no means certain. But in any case their listing by the Byzantine historian illustrates vividly the multi-racial character of the Byzantine empire. This was in the ninth century, but See especially Charles Diehl, Manuel d'art byzantin, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1925), pp. 11-23, 112-152. Cf. Gabriel Millet, "L'Art byzantin," in A. Michel,

Histoire de fart depuis les premiers temps chritiens jusqu'en nos jours, 1 (Paris, 1905), 129-130, 164. The notion of late antique art which develops

further into the Byzantine empire is implied by Cyril Mango in his preface to the English version of D. V. Ainalov, The Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Art (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1961), pp. XIII-XIV. Cf. Ernst Kitzinger, Early Medieval Art in the British Museum (London, 1955), pp. 1-36.

"A. H. M. Jones, "Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?" The Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., 10 (1959), 280-298.

The view that heresies were national movements was given classical expression by E. L. Woodward, Christianity and Nationalism in the Later Roman Empire (London, 1916). See also the recent article by Glanville Downey, "Coptic Culture in the Byzantine World : Nationalism and Religious Independence," Greek and Byzantine Studies, 1 (1958), 119-135.

Genesius, Historia (Bonn, 1834), p. 33.

XXII HOW GREEK WAS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

111

the situation was not different for the period before, and it would not be different for the period after.26

The multi-national character of the Byzantine army reflects the ethnic composition of the Empire and is reflected by it. In its long history the Eastern Empire was never a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. The territorial losses

of the seventh century, it is true, deprived the Empire of huge blocks of non-Greek speaking elements, but these blocks were replaced by others. The Balkan peninsula, including parts of Greece, was overwhelmed by the Slavs.27 These Slavs, including the Bulgarians, eventually came under the effective jurisdiction of

the Empire, but no systematic efforts were made to Hellenize them, except, of course, in ecclesiastical matters. Only in Greece,

where additional Greek-speaking elements were brought from Southern Italy," did they become absorbed, but even there they retained their identity at least down to the fifteenth century.2" Meanwhile, for military and economic reasons-but also for cultural reasons-the imperial authorities settled in the Balkan peninsula a number of other peoples: Armenians in Thrace, Macedonia and Greece ; Monophysitic Syrians in Thrace ; Turks in Macedonia and Thrace; Mardaites in the Peloponnesus, the island of Cephalonia and in Epirus ; and perhaps Persians also, though exactly where we do not know.30 The ethnic situation became more complicated by the appearance (beginning in the eleventh century) of Albanians and Vlachs, descendants of the Latin Illyrians and Daco-Thracians, whom the Slavs had pushed into the mountains when they occupied the Balkan peninsula in the seventh century. The Vlachs were particularly numerous and aggressive. Towards the end of the twelfth century they were responsible for the foun-

dation of the second Bulgarian Kingdom at the expense of the Empire.31 Only along the Aegean coast, in Greece proper, in the Cf. Charanis, "Ethnic Changes," p. 44. On the Slavs in the Balkan peninsula, Ibid., pp. 36 if.

"P. Charanis, "Nicephorus I, The Savior of Greece from the Slavs

(810 A.D.)," Byzantina-Metabyzantina, 1 (1946), 75-92. 9 Vocalopoulos, op. cit., p. 24.

'On these settlements see my study, "The Transfer of Population as a

Policy in the Byzantine Empire," Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3 (1961), 140-154. Cf. N. Banescu, Un Probltme d'histoire medievale: Creation et caractere du second empire bulgare (Bucharest, 1943) ; R. L. Wolff, "The Second Bulgarian Empire: Its Origin and History to 1204," Speculum, 24 (1949), 167-206.

XXII 112

Aegean islands, and the Thracian regions near Constantinople and on the Black Sea coast was the Greek-speaking element predominant. But foreign elements had been settled even in the islands, for instance, Armenians in Crete and Athinganoi in Aegina.

We have no statistics, but everything indicates that in relation to the population as a whole the Greek-speaking element in the Balkan possessions of the Empire must have been a minority. Only towards the end of the Empire, when its territory became restricted to Constantinople, a few Thracian towns, Thessalonica, some islands, and the Morea was its population predominantly Greek-speaking.

The situation in Asia Minor was somewhat different, but not radically so. There the ancient native populations finally lost their identity, though there is evidence that elements of them continued

to persist down to the beginning of the ninth century 32 There were regions in Asia Minor, including Cappadocia,33 where Greek

was the language spoken by the people, however different the racial antecedents of these peoples may have been. But in Asia Minor, too, many new ethnic elements had been introduced. Goths settled there, are known to have existed down to the beginning of

the eighth century, though by then they may have been partly Hellenized.9° The Vandals, mentioned by Genesius in the passage we have quoted, may have been the descendants of the Vandals

settled in Asia Minor by Justinian.35 Toward the end of the seventh century and again about the middle of the eighth, thousands of Slavs were brought into Bithynia. How long these Slavs retained their identity cannot be determined, but elements of them ' Charanis, "Ethnic Changes," p. 28. $ That Greek was the spoken language in Cappadocia can certainly be inferred from the will of the magnate Eustathius Boilas, a native Cappadocian, who refers to the Armenian country where he had immigrated as one inhabited by "alien nations with strange religion and tongue." Eustathius was Greek-speaking. S. Vryonis, Jr., "The Will of a Provincial Magnate, Eustathius Boilas (1059)," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 11 (1957), 264. The growth and spread of popular songs is another indication that Greek was the spoken language in many regions of Asia Minor. Such songs are known to have been sung in the region of Galatia in the ninth century ; see Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn, 1838), p. 72. That by the tenth century these songs had become very common we may infer from a statement of Arethas of Caesarea which mentions "wandering beggars, like the cursed Paphlagonians who now make up songs about the adventures of famous men and sing them for pennies from door to door." Quoted by S. B. Kougeas, Laographia, 4 (1912-13), 239. " Charanis, "Ethnic Changes," p. 28, n. 26. m Idem.

XXII HOW GREEK WAS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

111;

are known to have existed down to the tenth century.3° A Bulgarian settlement near Ephesus is claimed for the eleventh century.37 Farther down in the southwestern corner of Asia Minor there existed in the tenth century a colony inhabited by a people called Mauroe (Blacks) whose rough behavior toward the natives betrayed their alien character and perhaps also the recent origin of their settlement. Who these Mauroe were is not known, but they

may have been, as Rudakov suggests, Arabs from Africa who were settled in this part of Asia Minor in order to serve in the navy.38 Settled in Asia Minor were Mardaites and also thousands of Saracens from the East. Meanwhile, recalcitrant elements, such

as the Athinganoi and the Paulicians, were removed from Asia Minor and settled elsewhere in the Empire, in Thrace, Greece, and southern Italy.31 By far the most numerous non-Greek-speaking element in Asia

Minor consisted of the Armenians.'° There had always been Armenians in the Eastern Empire as it finally crystallized following the advent of the Arabs. Their role in the military and political

life of the Empire throughout the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries was of the utmost importance. But their number increased considerably, and their role in the military and political life of the Empire became greater in the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries. Armenians in considerable numbers began to move in the direction of the Empire towards the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth and were responsible for the integration into its administrative system of certain deserted regions along the eastern frontier, as those, for instance, which came to constitute the theme of Lycandos. During the second half of the tenth century, Armenians were encouraged and perhaps forced to move from their homes in order to repeople the various towns captured from the Arabs such as Melitene, captured in 934; Tarsus, captured in 965; Antioch, captured in 969, and others, which had suffered considerable losses in population as the result '° Charanis, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century," Byzantion, 18 (1946-1948), 69-83. Cf. Charanis, "Ethnic Changes," pp. 42 if. ' Charanis, "The Transfer of Population .. ," p. 149. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 143, 148, 145-146.

On the Armenians in the Byzantine Empire see Charanis, "The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire," Byzantinoslavica, 22 (1961), 196-240.

XXII 114

of the departure of Moslems. We know, for instance, that Armenians and Syrian Jacobites were used by Nicephorus Phocas to repeople Melitene, which had virtually been deserted.

It was the annexation of the Armenian lands, begun towards the end of the ninth century and completed by the middle of the eleventh century, which intensified the movement of the Armenians towards the Empire and gave to it the aspect of a mass migration. For, as the Byzantines annexed the various Armenian territories,

they transferred the Armenian princes elsewhere in the Empire; and these princes took along with them, besides their families, a numerous retinue, consisting primarily of their nobility and the latter's following. So numerous, indeed, was the nobility which followed its princes that its going is said to have emptied Armenia of the most valiant element of its population. The Greeks, wrote Matthew of Edessa, "dispersed the most courageous children of Armenia. . . . Their most constant care was to scatter from the orient all that there was of courageous men and valiant generals of Armenian origin." Of the actual numbers involved in this displacement no figure can be given. The national Armenian historian Tchamtchian puts those who followed Senacherim, one of the displaced Armenian princes, at 400,000, and this figure has been repeated by others ; but I have been able to find nothing in the existing sources to bear this figure out. All that I have found is the figure given by a medieval Armenian historian, who says that Senacherim was followed by 16,000 of his compatriots, not counting the women and children. But whatever the final figure, there can be little doubt that the number of Armenians who left their homes and settled elsewhere in the Empire was large. The repeated raids of the Seljuk Turks, which began in earnest about this time increased the number still more. The chroniclers who report this migration no doubt exaggerate in their descriptions, but their accounts, after allowance has been made for this exaggeration, remain, nevertheless, impressive. Armenians by the thousands left or were forced to leave their homeland and went to settle in Cappadocia, in Cilicia, and in northern Syria. We find some of them also in western Asia Minor. The various peoples-non-Greek-speaking in origin-to which we have referred were not passive subjects of the Empire but were active participants in its life. Their role was particularly

XXII HOW GREEK WAS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE?

115

great in the army. The thematic armies of the Empire, the core of its military organization, were largely made up of these peoples.

This was, indeed, the principal reason why some of them were settled in the Empire, though economic considerations were some-

times taken into account. Individuals of these peoples occupied high posts-at times the throne itself. Known by name are Saracens, Bulgars, Turks, Slavs, Georgians and others who at times occupied important posts in the military, administrative, and ecclesiastical life of the Empire.41 But here again the Armenians were most prominent. For some-

thing like five hundred years the Armenians played a most important role in the political, military, and administrative life of the Empire. They served as soldiers and officers, as administrators and emperors. In the early part of this period, during the seventh

and eighth centuries, when the Empire was fighting for its very existence, they contributed greatly to turning back its enemies. But particularly great was their role in the ninth and tenth centuries, when as soldiers and officers, as administrators and emperors, they dominated the social, military, and political life of the Empire and were largely responsible for its greatness. So dominant, indeed, was their role during this period that one may refer to the Byzantine Empire of these two centuries, as I have done elsewhere, as Graeco-Armenian: "Graeco" because, as always, its civilization was Greek ; "Armenian" because the element which directed its destinies and which provided the greater part

of the forces for, its defense was largely Armenian or of Armenian origin.42 "For instance, the Saracen Samonas, concerning whom see R. Janin, "Up Arabe ministre a Byzance: Samonas," Echos d'Orient, 36 (1935), 307 ff.; R. J. H. Jenkins, "The Flight of Samonas," Speculum, 23 (1948), 217 if. For other Saracens: Theoph. Continuatus, 302 (Nasar) ; Cedrenus, 2:560 (Constantine, a Saracen by race) ; Constantine Porph., De Administrando imperio, ed. by Gy. Moravcsik and tr. by R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), 242 (Chase). Bulgarians: Cedrenus 2:455 (Romanos, son of Peter, the Bulgarian king) ; Ibid., 2:464 if. (Bulgarian nobility enters the service of the Empire). Slavs: Charanis, "Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor," pp. 79 if. (Thomas, the Slavonian) ; Theophanes Continuatus, 234 (Damianos) ; Ibid., 379 (Basilitzes) ; Theoph. ed. de Boor, 2:441 (Nicetas, the patriarch). Turks: Nicetas Choniates, Historic (Bonn, 1835), 14 if., 64, 103 (John Axuchus). As examples of Georgians one may mention the families of Apocapes and Pacurianus, on whom see Vryonis, op. cit., pp. 274 f. and L. Petit, "Typikon de Gregoire Pacourianos pour le monastere de Petritzos (Baekovo) en Bulgarie," Vizaniiiskij Vremennik 19, Supplement 1 (1904). "Charanis, "The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire," pp. 239 if.

XXII 116

In this multi-national state, which was the Eastern Empire, the Greek-speaking element was most probably more numerous than any other single group, but most probably also did not constitute a majority. It should be pointed out, however, that the tendency was towards Hellenization, and as a consequence many non-Greek

elements in time became Greek. This was particularly true of those who participated actively in the military and political life of the Empire, especially those who came to occupy high military and administrative posts. These latter, with few exceptions, integrated themselves thoroughly into the political and military life of the Empire, identified themselves with its interests, and adopted the principal features of its culture. What then shall we call this Empire? We may, of course, call it Roman, as did its subjects themselves; for it was indeed Roman

-Roman by identity and by the continuity of its imperial, administrative, and legal tradition. But we may also call it Greek, for Greek or of Greek inspiration were the dominant features of its civilization, those in particular which are functions of language. We shall do better, perhaps, if we call it Christian, where,

if I may use the words of St. Paul, there was "neither Jew nor Greek," but "all one in Christ Jesus,"" though the official definition given to this oneness "in Christ Jesus" was often a source of trouble. But whether we call it Roman, Greek, or just Christian, it is one of the greatest empires in history. The English historian, F. M. Powicke, has said of Byzantium: "So far from being a moribund society of decadent voluptuaries and halfimbecile theologians, it was the greatest, most active and most enduring political organism that the world has yet seen, giving for centuries that opportunity for living which we associate with the spacious but transitory peace of Augustus or Hadrian."4' Powicke has spoken truly. " Gal. III. 27, 28. "F. M. Powicke, Modern Historians and the Study of History: Essays and Papers (London, 1955), p. 181.

INDEX Aegean, theme of: 1 14; XVIII 175 Ahrweiler, Helene, views on the Carabisiani: XXI 7 Albanians: I 16; 111 150; XXII 111 Adrian the patrician, personage of importance under Romanus 1: V 227 4kiitai, frontier soldiers: VII 82f; VIII 146 Amalicites: see Manuel the Armenian Alexandria, population of: 16f. Alexandrian Liturgy of St. Mark, MS of: XIV 80 Amantos, C., views on Slav penetration of Greece: X 164; XI 254; XIII 86 Amida, population of: 1 7 Amissos, City of: 1 12 Amorium, population of: 1 8 Anastasius, bishop of Corinth: XV 347; XVI 101

Anatolikon, theme of: V 203

Ancyra, City of: 1 12 Andreades, A., views on the population of the empire: 12 Andronicus II, emperor, toleration of Jews: IX 76 Antigonos, son of Ceasar Bardas: V 207 Antioch, City of: recovery by the Byzantines XXII 113; capture by the Turks V 236;

population of I 6f Antoniades - Bibicou, views on the Carabisiani: XXI 6 ff Apocapes, family of: V 231 Arabissus, city in Cappadocia, birthplace of emperor Maurice: VI 412f Arabs, raids of: in Asia Minor 111 Arethas, bishop of Caesarea, scholium of: X 152; XIII 80; XIV 83 Armeniacs, military corps: II 34, 36; V 200 Armeniakon, theme of: 11 36; V 203 Armenians: in the empire in general V 196ff; influx in Asia Minor 1 12, 13, 19; 11 28 ff; III 147; V 215f, 234f; in the Balkan peninsula V 237f; in Lacedaemon X 154; XIII 82, 85; in western Asia Minor V 200, 237; VIII 142ff; in the army of Justinian V 200; of Maurice V 201; in that of the themes V 204f, 216ff; generals in the service of the empire 11 34ff; attitude towards Greeks V 238ff Arsaber, plot of, for the throne: V 206 Arsamosata, city in Mesopotamia: V 214 Ar3'avir, brother-in-law of the empress Theodora: V 208, 211 Artanas, river of: VII 76 Artaseras, Armenian general: V 206 Artashir: see Artaseras Artavasdos, fellow-conspirator of Basil 1: V 210; son-in-law of Leo Ill V 205 Artavazd Mamiconian: V 206 Asia Minor. ancient languages of: II 25; III 141; ancient peoples of VII 69f; VIII 140; Arab raids in 111; Greeks in, their relative numerical strength VIII 146f; population

of, size and trends 1 10, 13, 15, 18

Asmosata: see Arsamosata

Asmosaton, theme of: V 214 Asparuch, founder of Bulgarian Kingdom: XX 241 Asyleon: see Leo the Assyrian Athalaric, illegitimate son of Heraclius: If 34; V 205

Athanasius, metropolitan of Patras: X 145 Athanasius 1, patriarch, hostility towards Jews: IX 76 Athenais, future wife of Theodosius II: XVII 618 Athens: coin funds in XII 165; Constance's 11 stay in XII 164; birthplace of empress Irene XII 165

2

Athinganoi: II 27; 111 145 Ausonius: 1 6

Avars, attacks on Byzantine empire: 1 10; II 36f; XV 348; XVI 91

Babutzikos, Constantine: V 208 Bajunetes, Slavic tribe: XXI 19 Balkan, peninsula of: population, size and trends 1 14, 15; raids in, by Avars, 1 10; II 36f; XV 348; XVI 91 Banu H'abid, Arabic tribe: 111 148 Bardanes, future emperor: 11 29f, 34f; V 197, 205 Bardas, brother of Basil I: V 210 Bardas, brother of Symbatios, the son-in-law of Caesar Bardas: V 210 Bardas, Caesar, brother of the empress Theodora: V 207, 211 Bardas, Phocas: V 222 Bardas Skleros: V 225 Bardas, son of Constantine Lips, role in plot against Romanus II: V 227 Basil I, emperor: V 207, 209, 210, 218 Basil the Rector: V 210 Basil the paracoemomenos: V 226 Basilitzes: VII 81 Belegezdtes, Slavic tribe: XXI 19 Benjamin of Tudela: 1 8 Berzetes, Slavic tribe: XXI 19 Be1'evliev, V., Bulgarian scholar, views on Kouver: XX 241

Bon, A., French scholar, views on penetration of Slavs in the Peloponnesos: XVI 96ff Bourtzes, Michael, recovery of Antioch by: V 228 Brdhier, Louis, French scholar, on the oriental merchants in the West: XIV 77 Bulgarians, transfer of: III 148 Bulgarus, Peter: V 210 Byzantine empire: Roman character of XXII 101ff; changes in IV 71ff; XXII 102f; Greek aspects of XXII 107; official language of: Latin XXII 103; Greek XXII 103f; oriental elements in XXII 109; population of: size and trends 11ff; ethnic composition of 117f; XXII 110ff; role of the Armenians in V 196ff; XXII 113ff Calomaria: see Maria, sister of Theodora

Carabisiani, theme of: XVIII 174f; XX 233; XXI 6ff

Chaldia, theme of: V 203 Chaldos, John, fellow-conspirator of Basil 1: V 210 Charlemagne, significance of coronation of: XXII 105f Charpezikion, theme of: V 214 Charsianon, theme of: V 203 Chatzon, Slavic chieftain: XX 229 Chozanon, theme of: V 214 Christopher, son of emperor Romanus I: V 219f Chrysanthopoulos, Greek scholar, views of, on the Chronicle ofMonemvasia: XVI 91ff Coins, finds of: in Athens XII 165f; in Corinth X11 166; in the Peloponnesus XII 163; significance of, as historical evidence XII 163ff Constans 11, emperor: interest in the West XXII 104; stay in Athens XII 164; XV 343ff Constantine V Copronymus, emperor, transfer of peoples: III 144; VII 76; XXI 5 Constantine Ducas: V 224 Constantine the Philosopher (Cyril the Apostle of the Slavs): V 211 Constantine Lips, family of: V 227 Constantine, son of Romanus I: V 219 Constantinople, population of. 14ff, 13 Constantinople, University of: V 211 Corinth: Avar finds in XI 257; XV 345; coin finds in XII 166; devastation of, by Avars and Slavs XII 171 Cosmas Indicopleutes, Hellas in: XVIII 167 Cotrigurs: see Kotrigurs

Crete, Armenian settlement in: V 200; conquest of, by the Arabs 1 12

3

Cumans, settlements of: 1 19; III 149; VIII 144f Cumont, Franz, Belgian scholar, parishes in the diocese of Cyrrhus, interpretation by: 19 Cypriots, transfer of: I 1?; III 143 Cyril, bishop of Monemvasia, petition to patriarch Joseph II of: X 157ff; XIII 90; XV 343 Cyrrhus, diocese of, parishes of: 19 Cyzicus, city in Asia Minor, devastation of, by the Arabs: 1 12

Delassenoi, family of: V 229 Danishmends, Turkish dynasty: V 236 David, the Curopalates, prince of Talk: V 231f Demena, city in Sicily: X 144, 146 Diehl, Charles, French scholar, on the popes of oriental origins: XIV 76 Dolger, F., German scholar, on demography: 13f Drogubites, Slavic tribe: XX 231, 238; XXI 19 Edessa, population of: 1 8 Edrisi, Arab geographer, on the cities of the Balkan peninsula: I 16 Egypt, population of: 19f Erzeroum (Erzerum), population of: 1 8; annexation of, by the Byzantines V 214 Eudocia: see Athenais Eulogios, fellow-conspirator of Basil I: V 210 Euthymius, bishop of Patrae of Central Greece, seal of: XXI 6 Evagrius, historian, on the penetration of Greece by the Slavs: X 151 Ezeritae, Slavic tribe in the Peloponnesus: VII 81 Fallmerayer, Jacob: 1 18; thesis of XXI 23ff; thesis as viewed by modern scholars XXI 25ff Foord, Edward, English scholar, on the population of the empire: I 1 Gagauses, descendants of Seljuks in Bulgaria: III 150

Gagik, king of Ani: V 232, 233 Gagik, prince of Kars: V 233 Gay, J., French scholar, views on the hellenization of Sicily and southern Italy: XIV 78 Genesius, Byzantine historian: V 209 Georgakas, D., Greek scholar, on the etymology of toponyms of the Peloponnesus: X 166; XI 254 Goths: 1 18; 11 32; III 141; V 201 Gothograecia: VIII 141 Graecia, meaning of: in Annales Einhardi XIX 24; in Isidore of Seville, XIX 22ff; XXI 19

Graikoi: XVII 620; XVIII 163, 164; XX 132 Greece, Slavic penetration of: XXI 13ff Greeks, relative numerical strength in Asia Minor: VIII 146; in Balkan peninsula XXII 112; in the empire 11 44; survival of, in Greece proper 11 41 Greek, official language of the empire: XXII 103 Gregory the Great, pope: XV 347; XVI 101 Gregory Magister: V 232 Gregory, prince of Taron: V 215 Gypsies: Il 27; III 145

Helladikoi: meaning of XVII 615; XXI 3; in J.B.Bury XVII 615; in G.Finlay XVII 615; in G.Ostrogorsky XVII 617; in H.G.Polites XVII 616; in Chronicon Paschale XVII 618; in Cosmas Indicopleustes XVII 618; in Malalas XVII 618; in Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum XVII 618; in Theophanes XVII 615; revolt of XXI 31 Hellas, mediaeval meaning of, as region: in Agathias XVIII 165; in the Chronicle of Monemvasia XVIII 173; in the Chronicon Paschale XVIII 169; in Cosmas Indicopleustes XVIII 167; in Evagrius XVI 94; XVIII 16Sf; in Hieroclss XVIII 167; in John of Antioch XVIII 168; in Isidore of Seville XIX 23; in Malalas XVIII 166; in Menander XVIII 165; in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii XVIII 169f; in Nicephorus the patriarch XVIII 171; in

4

Procopius XVI 95; XVIII 112ff; in Theophylact Simocatta XVIII 166; in Theophanes XVIII 171f; in modern scholarship XVIII 162; XXI lff; transfer of people from, to Constantinople XXI 31 Hellas, theme of: 1 14; XII 165; XVIII 173ff; XXI 4f Helen, wife of Constantine Porphyrogenitus: V 219 Hellenes: in Chronicle ofMonemvasia XVII 619; in Evagrius XVII 620; in John of Antioch XVIII 168; in Miracula Sancti Demetrii XVII 619; XVIII 169, 171; in Procopius XVII 619; XVIII 163; in Schollum of Arethas XVII 619 Henry of Flanders, campaign in Asia Minor: VIII 144 Heraclius, emperor: origins V 202; role of, in the creation of the theme system IV 76 Holmes, W.G., English scholar, estimate of the population of the empire: I 1

Iberitzes, Gregoras, role of, in revolt of Constantine Ducas: V 227 Illyricum, meaning of, in Isidore of Seville: XIX 23 Isidore, bishop of Kiev, author of Petition of Cyril of Monemvasia to patriarch Joseph II: X 157; XV 344, 348; XVI 92 Irene, mother of Photios: V 211 Italy, southern, hellenization of: II 41f; XI 255; XIV 74f Izzedin Kaikus Il, Seljuk chieftain: III 150 Jacobitzes, fellow-conspirator of Basil I: V 210

Jacoby, D., Israeli scholar: on the demography of the empire 13f; on the population of Constantinople 15 Jews in the Byzantine empire: persecution of IX 751; special quarters for IX 76; special tax on IX 77; toleration of IX 75 Jenkins, Romilly, English scholar, Fallmerayer thesis, views on: XXI 28f John Biclarensis, chronicler, on Avar and Slav invasions of Greece and the Balkans: XIX 24

John Curcuas, Byzantine general of Armenian origins: V 217, 220, 223f John of Ephesus, Syriac historian, on the penetration of Greece by Slavs: X 151 John the Grammarian, Byzantine intellectual: V 211 John Mystacon, Byzantine general: II 33; V 202 John, son of the usurper Mizizius: II 34; V 205 John Tzimiskes, emperor, origins: V 220 Justinian I, ethnic composition of army of: II 31f; V 200 Justinian Il, transfer of Cypriots and others: 1 12; III 143; VII 74 Karayannopulos, John, Greek scholar, origin of the theme system, views on: IV 74f Kekaumenoi, family of: V 230 Keramesion, plain of. XX 231 Keramesians: XX 235, 246 Khanzit, country of: V 214 Khatchik, Armenian Catholicus: V 215 Koloneia, theme of: V 202 Kontomytes, Constantine, military commander: V 208 Kotrigurs, Bulgars: 1 10; III 141; XV 348 Kourtikes: See Kourtikios Kourtikios, Armenian chieftain: V 212, 227f, 231 Kouver, Bulgar chieftain: XV 344, 346; XX 230ff, 246 Kouviares, family of: XX 246 Kouvratos: see Kovrat

Kovrat, Bulgar chieftain: XV 344, 346 Krenitae, family of: V 209, 224 Kukules, Ph., Greek scholar, on Greek expressions traced to Byzantium: XXII 109 Kutrigurs: see Kotrigurs Kyriakides, S.P., Greek scholar, Slavic penetration of the Peloponnesus, views on:

X 165f; XI 255ff

Lacedaemon: devastation of, by Slavs X 148; reconstruction of, by Nicephorus I X lS4f; XIII 84

5

Lamansky, V_]., Russian scholar, Slavs in Asia Minor, views on: VII 72 Latin, disappearance of: 11 43 Lemerle, P., French scholar, reforms of Heraclius, views on: IV 72f Lenormant, F., French scholar, views on survival of Greek in southern Italy: XIV 76 Leo V, the Armenian: V 206 Leo VI, legitimacy of, gossip about: V 218 Leo Apostyppes: V 226 Leo the Philosopher, Byzantine intellectual: V 211 Leo the Assyrian, fellow-conspirator of Basil I: V 210 Locana, stronghold of Paulicians: V 212 Lombards, in the Byzantine army: V 201 Lopez, R.S., American scholar, reforms of Heraclius, views on: IV 71f Lycandos: stronghold of I 12; theme of III 146; V 213f

Machitar, family of: V 230 Maniakes, Constantine, Drungarius of the Watch: V 209 Manuel, governor of Egypt under Heraclius: II 34; V 205 Manuel the Armenian, known as Amalicetes: V 208f Manuel, chieftain of Tekis: V 212 Mardaites: 117, 18; III 143 Maria, daughter of Theophilus: V 209 Maria, sister of the empress Theodora: V 208 Marianos, brother of Basil 1: V 210 Marianos, son of Petronas: V 207f, 210f Marinus, father of the empress Theodora: V 207 Matthew of Edessa, Armenian chronicler: III 147 Maurice, emperor, attitude towards Armenians: II 30; III 142; ethnic composition of army of II 32ff; ethnic origins of VI 412ff; military estates, diffusion of, by IV 73f; V 202 Mauroe, North Africans in Asia Minor: 111 149 Mauros, Bulgar chieftain: XX 231, 234f, 246f; seal of XX 244 Melias, Armenian general in Byzantine service: I 12; V 213, 227 Mehkitae, Turkish family of: III 150 Mesopotamia, theme of: V 213 Melitene, capture of, by the Byzantines: V 214 Menander, historian, on the penetration of Slavs in Greece: X 151 Mentzikert, battle of: V 236 Michael I, emperor, removal of Athinganoi: III 145 Michael II, emperor, origins: II 26; V 207 Michael III, emperor, restoration of cities in Asia Minor: I 11f Michael Syrus, Syriac chronicler: XV 347 Milengi, Slavic tribe in the Peloponnesus: VII 81 Mizizius, Armenian usurper of the imperial throne: 11 34; V 205 Mleh: see Melias

Monemvasia, Chronicle of: different versions X 141ff; date of composition of X 143f;

sources of X 144ff, 148ff, 153f; XIII 79ff; XIV 83f; XV 343 Monemvasia, city of, foundation of: X 148; see also author's preface Miracula Sancti Demetrii: 11 36; XV 344 Monotheletism: XIV 79 Montanism: 11 26

Morosi, G., Italian philologist, survival of Greek in southern Italy, views on: XIV 74 Moushegh: see Musele Mamiconian

Musele, Drungarius of the fleet under Romanus 1: V 224 Musele, Drungarius of the Watch under Constantine VI: V 206 Musele, Alexius, son-in-law of emperor Theophilus: V 209 Musele, family of: V 224 Musele, Mamiconian, Armenian general in the service of emperor Maurice: II 33; V 201 Nasr: see Theophobos

Neboulus, archon of Slavs in Asia Minor: VII 74 Nicaea, population of: 1 8

6

Nicephorus 1, emperor: importance of reign XIII 75ff; financial measures of III 144; resettlement of Peloponnesus by Greeks XIII 84ff; transfer of peoples III 145; XIII 77ff Nicephorus Phocas, emperor, origins of: V 220ff Nicephorus, son of Artavasdos, the son-in-law of Leo III: V 206 Nicetas, son of Artavasdos, the son-in-law of Leo Ill: V 206 Nicholas III, patriarch, on the Slavs in the Peloponnesus: X 149 Niederle, Lubor, Czech scholar, the Fallmerayer thesis, views on: XXI 27 Odovacer: XXII 101

Onogur Bulgars: XV 343ff, 348 Optimate, theme of: 111 141 Olakan, City in eastern Asia Minor, native city of the family of emperor Maurice: VI 412f Ostrogorsky, G., Russian scholar: Fallmerayer's thesis, views on XXI 27f; reforms of Heraclius, views on: IV 7 Pacurianus, family of: V 231 Pagoulatos, A., Greek scholar, views on the chronicle of Monemvasia: X 165 Panchenko, B.A., Russian scholar, Slavs in Asia Minor, views on: VII 76 Pancratius, prince of Taron: V 215 Patras, city in the Peloponnesus, devastation of, by Slavs X 148, 150; reconstruction of, by Nicephorus I, X 148, 150, 155; XIII 84, XXI 18 Paulicians: II 27; III 145f; V 197, 212 Pechenegs, settlement of, in the Balkans: III 149 Persians, settlement of, in the empire: III 147f Peloponnesus, Slavic penetration of: XXI 16; "Slavonization" of XXI 21; theme of 1 14; XVIII 176; XXI 6ff Pergamon, Armenian colony in: 1 12; II 29; V 197 Pertusi, A., Italian scholar, origin of the theme system, views on: IV 74 Petronas, brother of the empress Theodora: V 207 Philaretus, Great Domestic: V 236 Philippicus, emperor: drives Armenians from the realm 11 31; coins of, found in Athens XII 168; see also Bardanes Phocades, family of: V 220ff; VI 415 Photios, patriarch of Constantinople: ethnic origins V 211f; on the rebuilding of towns in Asia Minor 111 Phryges, heretical sect in Asia Minor: II 27 Population: transfer of IV 73f; reasons for transfer of III 150ff; effects of transfer of III 151ff Powicke, F.M., English historian, on the Byzantine empire: XXII 116 Priscus, Byzantine general: II 33; V 202 Procopius, Byzantine historian: on the invasion of the Balkan peninsula by barbarians XVI 91ff; on the plague in Constantinople 1 5; see also Hellas Prusa, population of: 1 8 Pterotos, Gregory, nephew of Leo V: V 208

Q'aligala:

see Erzeroum

Rhegium, city in Calabria, settlement by Greeks from Patras: X 148, 150 Rohlfs, G., German scholar, survival of Greek in southern Italy, views on: XIV 75, 79 Romanopolis, fortress of: V 214 Romanus I Lecapenus, ethnic origins: V 219 Rome, rank in population: 16 Russel, I.C., American scholar, on the population of the empire: 1 2, 5 Sabbatians, heretics in Asia Minor: III 141 Sabour-Aparasitgan, commander of the Armeniacs: II 34; V 205 Sagudites, Slavic tribe: XXI 19 Santa Maria Antiqua, frescoes in: XIV 80

7

Sclavinias, regions inhabited by Slavs: III 143; XIII 78; XV 345; XXI 11ff Scythians, term used for Turkish tribes: 111 143

Sebasteia, theme of: V 203 Serbs, settlement of, in Asia Minor: 111 149; VII 71, 73 Sergius Tychikos, Paulician leader: II 27 Sergius of Niketia, commander of expedition against Crete: V 209 Sermisianoi Bulgars: XX 244; see also Kerarnesians Sirmium, city in Pannonia: XX 236f Sisinnios, commander of the Carabisiani: XVIII 175; XX 233f Senacherim, king of Vaspurakan: V 233 Sempad, king of Greater Armenia: V 232 Setton, Kenneth, M., American scholar, devastation of Corinth, views on: XV 343ff Sicily: hellenization of II 41f; XI 255; XIV 74ff; settlement of Armenians in V 200 $imlat: see Arsamosata

Skiathos, island of, in state of desertion: XX 233, 237f Skleros, Bardas, rebellion of :l V 217 Skleroi, family of: II 34f; V 225 Skleros, Leo, governor of the Peloponnesus: II 36; V 206 Slavesinians, enrolled soldiers of Slavic origin: VII 80f, 82 Slavs, settlement of: in Asia Minor 1 12; 11 42; III 143; VII 69ff; VIII 141; see also Asia Minor; penetration and settlement in Balkan peninsula: I 11; II 36ff; see also Greece Slawinia terra, expression used by S.Willibald in locating Monemvasia: XIX 25 Sophia, sister of empress Theodora: V 208 Stadtmiiller, Georg., settlement of Slavs in the Peloponnesus, views on: X 166 Starr, J., American historian, views on Jews in the Byzantine empire: IX 75

Stephen, son of the emperor Romanus I: V 219f Stephen, son of Calomaria, Regent during minority of Constantine VII: V 208, 226 Stein, E.I., Austrian scholar, population of Constantinople, estimate of: I 2 Symbatios, brother of Basil I: V 210 Symbatios, son-in-law of Caesar Bardas: V 207, 210 Symposion, desert of: 1 12; V 213 Syria, population of: 19f Syrians:

113f

Syrian Jacobites: III 146

Taik, region of: V 231f Ta Katotika Meri, lower regions of the Peloponnesus: XX 15f Taranta, stronghold of Paulcians: V 212 Taronites, family of: V 229 Taron, country of: V 215 Tchalenko, G., French scholar, on Syrian villages: 1 9 Tefrike, Paulician stronghold: III 145; V 212 Tekis, region of: V 212 Teridates, cousin of Artavasdos, the son-in-law of Leo III: V 205 Tetraditae, heretics of Asia Minor: IIl 141 Thebes, city in Greece, number of Jews in: 1 9 de Thematibus, on the "Slavonization" of the Peloponnesus: XXI 21 Theme, system of, origin and nature of: IV 75ff; V 202f

Themes, military strength of: V 204f Theoctistes, Logothete of the course under Theodora: V 207 Theodora, daughter of Constantine VII: V 220 Theodora, empress, ethnic origin: V 207 Theodore, Armenian commander of Armeniacs: II 34; V 205 Theodorokanos, family of: V 228ff 'fheodosia, wife of Leo V, ethnic origins of: V 207 Theodosiopolis: see Erzeroum

Theodosios, brother of Alexius Musele, the Caesar: V 209 Theophanes, the chronicler: see Hellas, Helladikoi, population transfers, Slavs in Asia Minor

0

Theophiletzes, Armenian courtier: V 209 Terbel: see Tervel Tervel, king of Bulgars: VII 75; XX 241, 246

Theophilus, emperor: V 207, 208f Theophobos, Persian leader in service of the empire: III 148 Theophylact, son of Romanus I, becomes patriarch: V 219f Thessalonica: population of 1 8; siege of, by Avars and Slays XV 347 Thomas, father of the historian Genesius: V 209 Thomas the Slavonian: ethnic origins of VII 79; revolt of VII 79; multinational character of army of 1 17; V 196; VII 79 Thompson, Homer, American scholar, on the devastations of Athens as shown by the excavations of Agora: XXI 14 Thrace, theme of: 1 14 Tiberius, emperor, ethnic composition of army of. II 32; V 200f TivEev, P., Bulgarian scholar, on the Byzantine cities in the Balkan regions: 1 16

Tornikios, family of: V 229f Toxaras, Constantine, fellow-conspirator of Basil I: V 210 Tralles, city in Asia Minor, reconstruction and population of: 1 8 Turks, advance in Asia Minor: VIII 145f; settlement of, in Balkan regions III 148 Tzacones, ancient remnants of the Lacedaemonians: III 149; X 146 Tziphrinarites: see Chaldos, John Tzamandos, fortress of. 1 12; V 213

Uspensky, Th.N., Russian scholar, Slays in Asia Minor, views on: VII 73 Utigurs, Bulgar people: I 10; XV 348

Vahan, Armenian general proclaimed emperor: V 205 Vahtan, partisan of Artavasdos, the son-in-law of Leo III: V 205 Valentinus, Armenian general under Constans: II 34; V 205 Vandals, settlement of, in Asia Minor: 1 18; III 141 Vardanes Anemas, spatharius: V 206 Vardanes, domesticus scholarum: V 206 Vardanes, general of the Thracesians: V 206 Vardanes, the Turk, attempt of, for the throne: V 206 Vardariotae, Turks settled in Macedonia: III 148 Vardas, general of the Armeniacs: V 206 Vardas, general killed in Bulgaria: V 206 Vardan Mamicomian, leader of Armenians escaping from Persia to the empire: Il 29; V 197 Vasmer, Max, German scholar, on toponyms in Greece of Slavic origin: X 164; XI 254; XIII 86 Vaspurakan, region of: V 232 Vlachs, descendants of the ancient Daco-Thracians: 1 16; XXII 111 Vrachamios, family of: V 230 White, Lynn, American scholar, hellenization of Sicily, views on: XIV 76, 78 Willibald, bishop of Eichstadt: see Slawinia terra

Zabergan, chief of Kotrigurs: X 160; XV 348; XVI 92 Zakythinos, Dion, Greek scholar, penetration of Slays in Greece, views on: X 165; XI 254; XIII 87f Zaoutzes, Stylianos, minister of Leo VI: V 226