THE ROLE OF THE SLAVS WJTHIH ThE 3YZANTTNE EMPIRE» 500-1016.
GRAEBNER MICHAEL OAVIO DEGREE DATEl

Published an dtmond by
Micrcxilms Hematfonal
>Х Ч МЛ *OAD ДМ И1Ж М> М«М 3QTV вОПНЫ ГТ tonoow ««Я Я»А 1**вии»0
This is an authorized facsimile printed by microfilm/xerography on acid-free paper in 1982 by UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS INTERNATIONAL Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
London, England
INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.	The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". if it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2.	When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3.	When a map. drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photomg from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4.	The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
6. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.
Xerox University Microfilms ЮО Молл ХмВ
Aon А'Ъо/	4Я17И
75-17,449
GRAEBNER, Michael David, 1943-
THE ROLE OF THE SLAVS WITHIN THE BYZANTINE
EMPIRE, 500-1018.
Rutgers University Th? State University of
New Jersey, Ph.D., 1975
History, inedieval
Xerox University Microfilms , Ann Arbor. Michigan 40106
© 1975
MICHAEL DAVID GRAEBNER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THE ROLE OF THE SLAVS WITHIN THE
BYZANTINE EMPIRE, 500-1018
By MICHAEL DAVID GRAEBNER
A thesis submitted to The Graduate School of
Rutgers University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Written under the direction of
Professor Peter Charanis
of the Department of History

New Brunswick, New Jersey
January, 1975
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS The Role of the Slavs Within the Byzantine Empire# 500-1018 by MICHAEL DAVID GRAEBNER# Ph.D. Thesis director: Professor Peter Charanis
The purpose of this study is to determine what, if any, was the part played by the Slavs living within the borders of Byzantium during the Middle Byzantine Era. Although the question was touched upon, especially in nineteenth-century Russia, no comprehensive account of the Slavs* place in Byzantium exists. Historiography reveals that past discussion was often weakened by national interests and by oversights regarding the primary sources.
This work first examines the primary sources as they portray the Slavs of the migration period. Descriptions of the early Slavs indicate that their cultural level was primitive, and, more important, quite different from that of earlier invaders, for example the Germanic tribes. Slavic success in their invasion and permanent settlement of the Balkan Peninsula was due to the widespread nature of this incursion and the inability of Byzantium to marshal enough resources to hold its own lands. Destruction was as much due to cultural transformation as it was to military action.
During the seventh century, the Byzantine empire
began to retake lost European lands, but this reccnquest did not remove the Slavic population. Instead, it reduced Slavs to tributaries, while driving out Bulgar incursions, especially in the region of Thessalonica. As a result, the empire gained numerous Slavs within imperial borders.
In the seventh and eighth centuries, sizable numbers of Slavs were transplanted in Asia Minor. By 800 A.D. close to a quarter of a million had been settled there. Their location near an active center of Byzantine Monasticism and their isolation from other Slavs, along with their integration into the thematic system, caused them to assimilate by the end of the tenth century.
Slavs in Byzantine Europe remained semi-autonomous. The most important reason for this was the constant interference of the Bulgarian State, Both by military action, and because Bulgaria, after Tsar Boris I, offered a Slavic Christian literature as an alternative to the Greek, Slavs did not Byzantinize readily. Some acculturation occurred in Greece and the Peloponnesus, and Slavs did, at times, support the empire. In Greece and the Peloponnesus, the Slavs eventually lost their identity.
Traces of Slavic culture within Byzantium are rare, confined to a few loanwords and a diminutive formant. Toponyms exist in Greece which bear witness to Slavic settlement there. Considering the large numbers and widespread cultural contacts, it is surprising that so little remains in Byzantine sources as evidence of this contact.
The Slava played an important, but secondary, role in the Middle Byzantine State. They added a productive population to enrich the empire and facilitated its effectiveness in converting the Slavic world to Christianity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The basis for this study came about as the result of a conversation with Professor Peter Charanis in which several dissertation topics were mentioned. Near the end of the dialogue, the subject of the Slavs and Byzantium came up. Professor Charanis* passing reference to both the quality and the difficulty of such a topic awakened this writer’s curiosity and enthusiasm. Perhaps the very intractability of the material seemed a challenge. In any case, after much research and reorientation of perspectives, it was agreed upon as a suitable topic for a dissertation. The evolution from generalities about the Slavs and Byzantium to a specific work on the role of the Slavs within Byzantium 500-1018 could only have taken place with the help of many scholars in the United States and Europe. Whit is of value to Byzantine and related areas in this thesis is mainly due to their help and suggestions. Whatever errors and oversights in scholarship occur in this dissertation are strictly the author’s.
Most important was the direction of the acknowledged master In the area of Byzantine Ethnography, Peter Charanis, Voorhees Professor of History at Rutgers, whom it
was my good fortune to have as dissertation advisor
Rutgers University is graced with several other scholars whose suggestions have enhanced its scientific quality. The comments of Professor Ernest W. McDonnell touched upon the all-important aspects of critical scholarship, especially in regard to Western Medieval Sources. Professor John Fizer of the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures was an invaluable guide in the complexities of this important discipline. Finally, at Rutgers, the suggestions of Professor Anna S. Benjiman of the Classics Department enriched both the style and the body of the work as it discussed the Greek Language and its historical development.
Thanks to a Rutgers University Fellowship, an H.E.W. Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, and a four-month grant from the Institute for Balkan Studies of Thessalonica Greece, the author was able, for two years, to pursue his research in Jugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Greece. The director of the Vizantoloski Institut of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Professor George Ostrogorsky, extended the full services of the Institute and the Byzantine Seminar of Beograd University for the purposes of this work. His graciousness was matched by the helpful suggestions of Ivanka Nikolajevid, Franjo Barisid, Bozidar Ferjancid, Ljubomir Maksimovid, and Mirjana Zivoinovid. A well nigh vital service was also provided by Lydia Subotin, Librarian at Svetozar Markovid Library at Beograd University.
In Bulgaria, Dr. Dobrin Micev, Director of the
Center for Bulgarian Studies, at the Bulgarian Academy of Science, made possible the location of the author at the Institute for Balkan Studies directed by Dr. Nikolai Todorov. The fine support of many Bulgarian Scholars gave this dissertation a sharpness characteristic of Bulgarian learned activity. The criticisms of Vasilka Tupkova-Zaimova, combined with the philology of Genvieva Cankova-Petkova, lent insight and awareness to the quality of East European Scholarship. It was also a great privilege and honor to receive the comments as well as work in the personal library of Professor Ivan Dujcev. Through his suggestions, along with those of V. Tupkova-Zaimova, this work gained a comprehensiveness impossible to achieve elsewhere. Also important was the support in facilitating the use of the National Library Kiril i Mefodii and the Kliment Ohridski University Library in Sofia by Professor Dimitur Angelov, a most busy man and yet most generous of his time. Likewise, the aid of Peter Tivdev was most appreciated. Bulgarian Scholarship in Byzantine studies, while recognized for its excellence in the Slavic-speaking world, still needs adequate representation among non-Slavic scholars. The author of this dissertation acknowledges his very real debt to all of the above along with the many other Bulgarians with whom he has worked, all of whom continue the creative vision of history in the tradition of Passij Hilandarsklj, Marin Drinov, and Vasil Zlatarski.
The living heirs to the Byzantines—the Greek
Scholars—also number among those to whom the author owes a great debt in the formation of this study. Particularly important were the services offered by K. Mitsakis, Director of the Institute for Balkan Studies of Thessalonica, and Mrs. Louisa Laourdas of the same institute. The comments and additional bibliographical suggestions made by Professors E. Kriaras, J. Karayannopulos, and A.-E. Tachiaos were of lasting significance in the final stages of this work.
The author also extends his cordial thanks to Professor Halina Evert-Kappesowa of the University of Lodz Poland and to Maria Nustazopoulou-Pelekidou of Athens for their gracious cooperation in sending valuable studies to the author, and likewise to Professors Bogo Grafenauer of the University of Ljubljana Jugoslavia and Veselin Besevliev for their time in discussion of the Slavs and related topics.
Finally, I must give credit to my wife, El Nora Bertita, whose complete lack of interest in the area of history, Byzantine or any other, and love for Slavic languages and literature added balance and sanity to a project deeply in need of the same.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................... V
A TERMINOLOGICAL AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL NOTE................. X
TRANSLITERATION CHART................................ Xli
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................... xiii
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1
II.	PRELUDE—BYZANTIUM AND THE SLAVS DURING THE ERA OF MIGRATIONS....................... 31
III.	THE SLAVS WITHIN BYZANTIUM—THE INITIAL STAGES ..................................... 57
IV.	SLAVIC PERSONALITIES IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE .................................. 85
V.	BY2ANTINIZATION—THE SLAVS IN ASIA MINOR....................................... 114
VI.	SEMI-AUTONOMY, THE SLAVS IN BYZANTINE EUROPE ................................. 133
VII.	POSTLUDE—TRACES OF THE SLAVS WITHIN BYZANTIUM .................................. 165
VIII.	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................... 194
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 201
VITA..............................................    226
A TERMINOLOGICAL AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL NOTE
In the course of this study, several terms have been used in a strictly defined sense not readily apparent to non-specialists in Slavic linguistics. The term "Old Church Slavonic" is used to define the Slavic written sources from the middle of the ninth to the end of the eleventh centuries. Likewise, the term "Middle Bulgarian" refers to the Slavic written in Medieval Bulgaria from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries.1 I have further tried to replace the misleading term "Proto-Bulgarian" with the simpler "Bulgar." "Bulgar" refers only to the Altaic people who came to dominate the Slavs of present-day Bulgaria during the sixth century. After the general assimilation of the Bulgars by the Slavs, I use the term "Bulgarian." "Bulgarian" represents, ethnographically, the synthesis of Altaic Bulgar and Slav into one Slavic-speaking Christian culture. This took place in the ninth century when Bulgaria became Christian under Tsar Boris I (852-889).
Orthographic charts for the various Cyrillic alphabets are provided on the next pages. In most cases they reflect the standard transliteration used in learned journals, ipaul Diels, Altkirchenslavische Grammatik (2 aufl.,-Heidelberg: Carl Winter—Sammlung Slavischer Lehr- und Handbuchcr, 1. Reihe: Grammatiken-6. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik, 1963), pp. 1-5.
Russian orthography is based on the reform of 1918 and all works which are cited in this study have had their orthography transliterated in accordance with the 1918 reform. In the case of Modern Bulgarian, I have made one slight departure from the standard transliteration of the reformed 1945 alphabet. The Modern Bulgarian (pre-1945 I have transliterated as "u" rather than "a." Although this means that I transliterate two letters, "Rand'S»" as "u," the sound values to a non-specialist in Slavic orthography more closely resemble those used in actual Modern Bulgarian. The possibility for error in the case of pronunciation is also lessened. The "u" in this transcription of "g” is pronounced just like the "u" in Bulgaria, of which it is, indeed, a transliteration. Finally, I have, in most cases, transliterated the Medieval Greek Beta as it was undoubtedly pronounced by its speakers, as the English *v." In order to avoid confusion, I have retained the incorrect Erasmian transcription "b" for "8" in the names of the emperors Basil I and II. In all other cases, it is "v" as it was then and is now in Greek. This is particularly important in the transcription of non-Byzantine names. The relation of the name "Vardas’* to the Armenian "Vartan" becomes obvious when such a transcription of Greek is employed. Greek, after all, is a living language and as much may be learned about its medieval usage from a solid acquaintance with its modern descendant as may be gleaned from its Koine predecessor.
TRANSLITERATION CHART
Russian-Latin
A	a	-	A	a
Б	0	-	В	b
В	в	-	V	v
Г	г	-	G	g
Д	Д	-	D	d
E	fe	-	E	e (initial Je)
E	e	-	Ё	e
ж	ж	-	2	I
Э	э	-	Z	z
и	И	-	I	i
Й	Й	-	J	j
К	к	-	К	к
Л	л	-	L	1
м	м	-	М	m
Н	н	-	N	П
О	о	—	О	о
П	п	-	Р	р
Р	р	-	R	г
С	с	-	S	s
Т	т	-	Т	t
У	у	-	и	и
Ф	ф	-	F	f
X	х	-	К	h*
Ц	ц	-	С	с*
Ч	ч	-	ё	<5
Ш	ш	-	Sw	sw
Щ	щ	-	SC	§с
ь -
м	ы	-	Y	у
ь	ь	-	’
Э	э	-	Е	е
Ю	ю	-	JU	ju
й	й	-	JA	ja
е	е	-	th	th
Bulgarian-Latin
А	а	-	А	а
Б	б	-	В	b
В '	в	-	V	v
Г	г	-	G	g
Д	д	-	D	d
Е	е	-	Е	е
Ж	ж	-	Z	z
Э	э	-	Z	z
И	и	-	I	i
й	й	—	J	j
К	к	-	К	к
Л	л	-	L	1
М	м	-	И	m
Н	и	-	N	п
О	о	-	О	о
П	п	-	Р	р
Р	р	-	R	г
С	с	-	S	s
Т	т	-	Т	t
У	у	-	U	и
Ф	ф	-	F	f
X	х	-	Н	h*
U	U	-	С	с*
4	М	-	$	с
ш	ш	-	S	S
Щ	щ	-	ST	St
ъ - u ь - *
Ю	ю	-	JU	ju
А	а	-	JA	ja
•Аж in Serbo-Croatian.
ABBREVIATIONS
A.A.S.S.	Acta Sanctorum, An twerp, 164 3-.
B.A.N.	Bulgarska Akademija na Naukite.
Bonn	Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Bonn, 50 vols., 1828-1897.
B.	Byzantion, Brussels, 1924-.
Bsl.	Byzantinoslavica, Prague, 1929-.
B. Z.	Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Leipzig, 1892-.
' D.O.P.	Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Washington, D.C., 1941-
E.E.B.S.	>Eh£Tf)pt< ,ETttip£fac; BuggvrtvSv £nou6wv, ’AOqvai, 1924-.
E.I.1	Encyclopedia of Islam, 1st ed., London.
I.B.I.	Izvori za Bulgarskata Istorija.
I.R.A.I.K.	Izvestija Russkogo Archeologiceskogo Institute v Konstaninople, 1895-1914.
Mansi	J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Florehce, 1769-.
M.G.H.	Monumenta Germanica Historia, ed. G. H. Pertz,
T. Mommsen, and others, Hanover, 182 6-.
M.M.	F. Miklosich et J. Muller, Acta et diplomata medii aevi sacra et profana, 6 vols., Vienna, 1860-1890.
M.P.G.	J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeco-Latina, Paris, 1857-.
M.P.L.	J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, Paris, 1884.
Pari* Corpus	Corpus Byzantinae Historiae, Lutetia Parisorum, 42 vols. ♦ Appendix, 1645-1711 * 1777 and 1819.
xlli
S.K.A.W.	Sitzungsberichte der Kaiscrliche Akademie der Wiasenschaften, Wien.
P.A.N.	Polskiej Akademii Nauk.
V.I.I.N.J.	Vizantiski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugo-slavije, Belgrade, 1955-.
V.D.I.	Vestnik drevnej istorii, Moscow, 19 3 8 -.
v.v.	Vizantijskij Vremennik, St. Petersburg, 1894-1927. New Series, Moscow-Leningrad, 1947-.
&.M.N.P.	Zurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosve££enija, St. Petersburg, 18347-1923.
Z.R.V.I.	Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, Belgrade, 1952-.
the Slavs within the empire and Byzantium was to continue to grow to the mutual benefit of both until well into the eleventh century.
A comprehensive modern account of the Slav's role within the Byzantine Empire (500-1018) is needed as a review of past work on the subject illustrates. Serious scholarship began with the massive compilation of ethnographic data by Johann Gotthilf Stritter (1740-1801).4 His four-volume collection in Latin paraphrase of the ethnographic data, to be found in the famous Paris Corpus of Byzantine sources,formed the basis for many subsequent national histories. He also prepared an abbreviated version which was translated into Russian and appeared in print well before his Latin edition.It is Stritter's Latin paraphrase upon which later scholars, even Russians, have based their studies, and it remains noteworthy because of its influence on later national-historical work, especially among Slavic scholars.
The first study to discuss the Slavs and their part in Byzantine history, P. J. ^afarik's (1795-1861) Slovanske Staroiitnosti,7 shows the pervasive influence of Stritter's collection. As its title "Slavic Antiquities" indicates, it was a work primarily devoted to the investigation of Slavonic history. The influence of Safarik's history of the Slavic peoples spread rapidly as his original Czech edition of 1837 was translated into Russian in 1838 and into German in 1843/44.® When referring to Byzantine
primary sources, Safarik relied heavily upon Stritter's compilation. Slovanske Starovitnosti deserves mention in that it was the first modern study (rather than annotated compilation) to discuss the Slavs within the Byzantine Empire. As such, it had lasting influence upon all historians who were later to continue the discussion. The specific subject of the Slavs within Byzantium was, however, peripheral to Safarik's aim and received cursory treatment. Significantly more attention was devoted to the
Slavs in Byzantine society by V. I. Lamanskij (1833-1914). In his published Master's thesis (1859), entitled "On the Slavs in Asia Minor, Africa and Spain," Lamanskij discussed at length the Slavs and their settlements in Asia Minor during the Byzantine Era.^ Utilizing the works of both Stritter and Safarik, Lamanskij's investigation of the Slavonic diaspora throughout the Mediterranean world was a daring and imaginative study. It is a credit to his scholarly acumen to have attempted such a comprehensive work. Complete as it was, it had its flaws, not the least of which was his Pan-Slavic attitude, which led him to overstatement, particularly with regard to the Slavs in Asia Minor.Ю Lamanskij, like Safarik before him, was a Slavist and not a Byzantinist. His contribution marks the beginning of a scholarly career in Slavistics and as a publicist for Russian Pan-Slavism.11
Lamanskij*s discussion of the Slavs in Asia Minor is the most lengthy, but not the most influential. The
observations of the Byzantine legal historian Karl Eduard Zacharia von Lingenthal (1812-1894) concerning a piece of legislation called The Farmer's Law became the basis, in the hands of V. G. Vasiljevskij (1838-1899), of the first 12 statement of the Slav's place in Byzantine society.
Vasiljevskij, unlike his predecessors, Safarik and Lamanskij, was a Byzantinist and the true founder of Russian Byzantine studies. A classicist by training, he received his inspiration from the great German historians of antiquity—T. Mommsen (1817-1903) and J. Droysen (1808-1884).13 While this training in the Classics preserved him from the Pan-Slavic enthusiasm of Lamanskij, it also led him to look to the era of Classical Rome for analogies by which to understand Byzantium.
Vasiljevskij’s formulation of the Slav's place in Byzantine social history resulted from his inquiries into 14
Byzantine law of the Iconoclast Era. Convinced that the legislation of the eighth century represented a departure from the era of Justinian I (527-565), Vasiljevskij sought for an explanation. Proceeding with an analogy with the Western Roman Empire and the changes wrought in its legal structure by the Germanic invasions, he decided that a similar phenomenon brought about legal change in Byzantium.^ This phenomenon was the Slavic migration to and ettlement in the Balkan Peninsula. The transposition of Slav for German and East Rome for West Rome formed the preface to an important essay by Vasiljevskij on the social
history of the Middle Byzantine Era. It also assured the Slav a place in all later discussions of Byzantine society.
Later, the studies of F. I. Uspenskij (1845-1928) gave an even more important place to the Slavs in Byzantine history, particularly during the middle period.17 Uspenskij, although a Byzantinist by profession, had been trained by Lamanskij as a Slavist and throughout his career he retained a certain partiality regarding the Slav’s posi-18 tion in history. Accepting Vasiljevskij's explanation for changes in the Byzantine legal system and filled with 19 Lamanskij's Pan-Slavic enthusiasm, Uspenskij found the Slav the primary reason for Byzantium’s strength during the era 700-1100.20 The profound Slavonic influence upon Byzantium was, in the words of Uspenskij, the result of Slavic communal property ownership. It was upon this unique form of Slavic land tenure that the empire's sur-vival as a world power depended. The decline of Slavic society, and with it communal property ownership, in 22 Uspenskij's theory, spelled the decline of Byzantium.
Uspenskij*s formulation received further support from another Russian Byzantinist, N. Skabalonovid (Fl. nineteenth century). Skabalonovic’s book, The Byzantine State and Church in the Eleventh Century, not only summarized Uspenskij*в findings in eminently readable form, but also provided further elucidation of the difference between 23 Slav and German in their respective areas of oettlement. Hie description attracted the attention and approbation of
J. В. Bury (1861-1927), then the greatest Byzantinist of the English-speaking world.213 The awareness and acceptance by Bury of such an important role for the Slav, as presented by Skabalonovic, led Bury himself to posit Slavic origins for several sixth-century generals. Aside from Bury, the only other Western European scholar fully cognizant of this Russian opinion was Karl Zacharia von Lingen-thal, who had started Vasiljevskij on his investigation of legal change in the first place. Zacharia von Lingen-thal, in the third and final edition of his History of Graeco-Roman Law, repeated Vasiljevskij's conclusion that the Slavs were a moving force behind the new legislation 27 of the eighth century.
The position developed by Vasiljevskij and Uepenskij, and strongly supported by such scholars as Bury and Zacharia von Lingenthal, received, in 1904, devastating 2 8 criticism from Boris Pandenko (1872-1920). Considering the importance of Pancenko's critique, and even though it received almost complete acceptance by Western European scholars, his discussion generated very little debate among the same. Up to the end of the Second World War, virtually all further investigations by Slavic scholars were written in support of Vasiljevskij and Uspenskij as well as in refu-29 tation of Pandenko.
Western Europe, with the exception of Bury and Saoharia von Lingenthal, failed to take serious note of the Slav's role within the Byzantine Empire because of the
influence of Classical historians and a general ignorance of Slavic languages. Traditional histories of the tine emphasized the heritage of Greece and Rome and considered Byzantium, if they discussed it at all, as a lamentable decline from past glory. Byzantium and its social structure was further obscured by the acrimonious debate over J. P. Fallmerayer’s (1790-1861) thesis that present-day Greece is inhabited by people of Slavic and others of nonHellenic blood.3° The result of this was not an investigation of Byzantium or, for that matter, of the Slavs themselves. Instead, all attention turned to Greece alone and the empire was treated as a minor appendage to Greek history. The clearest example of this is the work of Karl з 1
Hopf (1832-1873). The fact that scholarship generated by the Fallmerayer thesis is not truly Byzantine history, but specifically Greek history, does not detract from the high quality of what has been written, particularly regarding the Slavic population of Medieval Greece. The writings of A. A. Vasiliev (1867-1953),32 Max Vasmer (1886-1964),33 D. J. Georgacas,3^ St. Kyriakides (1867-1964),3^ Antoine Bon (obit.-1972),36 and other scholars on this topic are of exceptional quality. Yet it must be said that these works provide what they set out to provide, a background to the history of modern Greece and its ethnic composition.
Though the works of two French scholars, A. Rambaud (1842-1905) and G. Schlumberger (1844-1928) focus more directly upon Byiantium and show better awareness of
Russian scholarship, they still lack a discussion concerning the significance of the Slavs. Rambaud, in his book about Byzantium in the tenth century, relied entirely upon the earlier writings of Stritter and Safarik for information pertaining to the Slavs within the empire.37 G. Schlumberger made widespread use of Russian works but he also, like Bury, accepted the conclusions of the Russian scholars and developed no new insights.3®
The outbreak of the First World War and the Russian Revolution brought an end to all dialogue about the Slav's role within the empire. While Byzantine studies flourished during the era following the First World War, study of the
•>Q
Slavs within the empire remained dormant. In 1938 discussion re-opened with M. V. Levcenko's (1890-1955) article entitled "The Slavs in Byzantium,*' published in the journal 40
Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Messenger of Ancient History). Subsequently, the Soviet scholars Je. E. LipSits,41 G. G. Litaverin,42 A. P. Kasdan,43 M. Ju. Bra jdevski j,4 4 and M. J. Sjuzjumov45 discussed various aspects of the Slav's place in Byzantium. While the works of Levienko and Lipsits were a Marxist adaptation of Uspenskij, the studies of the remaining scholars represent more diversity in outlook.
Eastern Europe, following the lead of the Soviet Union, has also produced many excellent critical studies. Particularly important are the works of the Bulgarian scholars D. Angelov,4® Д. Burmov (J 911-1965),47 L. Joncev,4® V.
Tupkova-Xaimova, 49 and G. Cankova-Petkova.50 In Jugoslavia,
the short but penetrating analyses of F. Bari^ic,51 and B. Grafenauer are of great significance. The investigations of the Polish scholar H. Evert-Kappesowa mark an important new development in Byzantine history as it relates to the Slavs. Of less value, but still worthwhile for the overall picture, is the monograph of the Czech historian B. Zasterova.54 The work of Soviet and East European scholars has been matched in quality, although not in quantity, by P. Charanis,55 F. Dolger (1891-1968),56 and P. Lemerle.57 Outside the arena of Byzantine history, there is important material dealing with Slavic relations within the empire, but not directly to Byzantium. In several cases national histories supply excellent information and insight. Five national historians deserve special mention. They are e □	59
Marin Drinov (1833-1906), Stance Stanojevid (1874-1938), Vasil Zlatarski (1866-1935),60 and K. Amantos.61 Not to mention the researches of the Slavists Lubor Niederle (1865-1944),62 Nicolaj S. Der/avin (1877-1953),63 and Witold Hensel,as well as the Byzantino-Slavists Frantisek Dvornik65 and Ivan Dujdev66 would be a serious omission.
In spite of the wealth of scholarship, no single study devotes itself exclusively to the Slavs within the Byzantine State during the Middle Byzantine Era. The extreme fragmentation of the existing	r* *4
ing. Perhaps the closest to a comprehensive study was that written by V. 1. Lamanskij, a work far from satisfactory not only because of its lack of adequate primary source
information, but also because of its Pan-Slavic bias.
The mention of the Slavs within Byzantium conjures up many diverse, but always controversial topics. It can mean a debate over the racial types to be found in Greece, or, perhaps, problems of Peloponnesian toponymy. It may bring up the question of the Slavic or non-Slavic origins of The Farmer’s Law and possibly, in the same context, the rebellion of Thomas the Slavonian (providing that one is agreed as to whether or not he was a Slav). For the initial era of Slavic-Byzantine relationships, there is always the discussion of the chronology of the mode of the Slavic invasions to stimulate other debates. For a later era there is the question on the racial origins of the two saints from Thessalonica, Constantine, and Methodius, to stir up thesis, anti-thesis, but never synthesis.
The lamentable lack of synthesis, the chaos of unconnected fact, opinion, brilliant insight, and unsupportable assertion all indicate the need for a unified history of the Slav’s place within Byzantium. There is a basic continuity which does indeed link the primitive Slavic tribes north of the Danube during the time of Justinian I (527-565) to the Slavs in Michael Ill’s (842-867) court and to those in Constantine VII's (913-959) armies. Thia oneness touches both the social developments within the empire and the languages of ths empire itself. To realise thia unity it ia necessary to order the material, both primary and secondary, and aubsume it under the more

general category of Byzantine history. Whatever its potential use for understanding the Slavs outside of Byzantine frontiers, this study must first and foremost be a work of Byzantine history and not a sub-category of Slavistics. Byzantium itself, the arena where this interaction took place, was not an appendage to the Slavic world.
The history of the place of the Slavs in Byzantium begins, then, not with the first obscure references to dis-tant or even nearby neighbors, but with the actual entry of the Slavs into Byzantine life. This occurs in the sixth century.Along with examples of Slavic troops in the armies of Justinian I, there is important data on the cultural level of Slavic society which is vital for an under-standing of later Slavic society within Byzantium. These social developments, initiated in the sixth century, must also have a terminal date: the final conquest of the kingdom of the Cometopuli in 1018 by Basil II (976-1025) completes the infusion of a large number of Slavs differing totally in background from those within imperial borders during the previous five centuries.70 I have chosen the year 1018 in order to avoid confusion of Byzantine Slavs with Bulgarians and other non-Byzantine Slavs.
The Identification of the Slavs within the empire during the era 500-1018 is, in most cases, quite straightforward. Primary sources, throughout the period discussed, у a* the term "Slav" to identify members of that same
ethnic unit. For the sixth century the term "Ante" is
also used. While complex arguments and painfully ingenious theories have been advanced to distinguish between the ’Slavs" and the '•Antes," no author of the sixth century was able to discern any difference in language or custom between the two.71 For the purposes of this study, they will be treated as one and the same.
More problematical, but not unresolvable, is the question of Bulgar-Slav relations implied by the name/title "Boilas." The term "Boilas" is of indisputable Turcic 72 origin. Since there is no evidence that Bulgars were ever settled in Asia Minor, it will be assumed that persons coming from Asia Minor or in the imperial court who bear the name Boilas were brought into the empire as Slavs.7^ The term "Scyth," while being used in antiquity to describe the actual Scythians, was also used by Byzantine sources to denote virtually every tribe north of the Danube from the time of Attila (obit. 454) to that of Mehmet II (1451-1481).7* Therefore, except in cases where other corroboration is present, it must be rejected as proof of Slavic origin.75
Most of the primary sources which speak of the Slave and their place within the Byzantine Empire are chronicles and histories written in Greek. The contemporary account of Procopius (490/507-562) is the best starting point. It gives a significant description of the Slavs end their relations with the empire.76 Agathles (536-583),77 the continuator of Procopius, yields far less
information, but does contain several valuable references. Theophylact Simocatta (ca. 600)78 deserves mention because his is the only contemporary source on the Slavic campaigns of Maurice (582-602). His actual information on Slavic cultural life at this crucial period is meagre, and his chronology of the events is confused to the point of 79 uselessness.
Infinitely more useful is the famous Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (obit. 818).88 It remains the major source of information for the seventh, eighth, and early ninth centuries. The shorter work of the Patriarch Nice-phorus (758-829) covers basically the same era, but provides important additional details.8^ Subject to debate but still of historical worth is the Chronicle of Monem-vasia.8^	the ninth and tenth centuries there is the
compilation known as Theophanes Continuatus, a collection rich in ethnographic data.83 Further facts are given by Georgius Monachus (ca. 842),84 Joseph Genesios (ca. 959),85 and Simeon Magister (ca. ninth century).86 More local in character, but valuable nonetheless, is John Cameniates' eyewitness account of the Arab sack of Thessalonica (904) . Of the later historical compendia, only the Skylitzes-Cedrinus Chronicle (to mid-eleventh century)88 and the Chronicle of Michael Glycas (eleventh century)89 add significant information.
The data of hagiography is a most valuable supplement to the histories and chronicles. The only hagiographic
account covering the sixth and seventh centuries which concerns itself with the formative period of Byzantine-Slavic relations is the Miracula Sancti Demetrii. Slightly less important, but still of value for the following centuries, are the lives of St. loannicius the Great (ninth century) and St. Gregory the Decapolite (ninth century).92 Significant only for their corroboration of other sources are the Vitae of Athanasia hegumena in Aegina insula (ca. ninth century)," Eustratus hegumenus monasterii Abgari in Monte Olympo (ca. ninth century),94 Martyres XLII Amorienses (838),95 Euthymius junior asceta in Monte Atho (obit. 898),96 Clement of Ohrid (obit. 916),97 Lucas junior 9 Я eremita in Hellade (obit. 953), and Nicon Metanoeite (obit. 998).99
Along with chronicle, history, and hagiography there are also military, political, and geographical writings in Middle Byzantine Greek. For the military there exists the Strategicon of Maurice (582-602) and the Tactica of Leo VI (886-912),101 both of which contain valuable comments about the Slavs. Covering the seventh to tenth centuries are the three political works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (913-959): De Administrando Imperio,102 De Ceremoniis Aulis,103 and De Thematibus.1°4 An anonymous eleventh-century geographical guide to the city of Constantinople ia tangential, but still yields 8 О me data.
Latin primary aource material ia aurpriaingly poor
in its commentary on the Slavs within the imperial boundaries. Only Liutprand of Cremona (ca. 940-969) is worthy of mention, both for his description of, and participation in, imperial relations with the Slavs.1®6 While Liutprand has received much attention because of his comically unflattering portrait of Nicephorus II Phocas (963-969), his positive attitude toward Romanus I Lecapenus (920-944) remains almost unmentioned.10? His report on the political and ethnographic situation in imperial Europe should not be overlooked simply because of his dislike for Nicephorus II 108 Phocas, an emperor austere even by monastic standards.
The Arabic primary sources are far more informative than the Latin. Not only do the Arabic sources corroborate the Greek, but they also give data not to be found there. Four basic collections of translations from the Arabic concerning the Slavs and Byzantium exist. The oldest, covering the seventh to tenth centuries, is a Russian translation by the Semitic scholar A. Ja. (G)Harkavi (1839-1919),100 of twenty-six Arabic accounts. Specifically concerned with Byzantium and covering the seventh and eighth centuries are the annotated translations into English by E. W. Brooks.110 A. A. Vasiliev produced a particularly valuable two-volume Russian work which included full translations from the Arabic sources relating to the Amorion (820-867) and Macedonian (867-1056) dynasties.111 Under the editorship of H. Gregoire (1881-1964) and Marius Canard, these two volumes later grew into
a three-volume French translation.112 Taken in conjunction with Brooks, the translations of Vasiliev yield almost all of the necessary Arabic primary source material on Byzantine life from the seventh to the tenth centuries. A more recent study and replacement of Harkavi's Arabic texts on the Slavs may be found in the Polish translations of Tadeusz Lewicki.
Syriac sources, while not as rich in information as the Arabic, are, nonetheless, useful. The historical writings of John of Ephesus (507-586), although fragmentary, present a valuable picture of the Slavs at the time of their settlement on imperial lands and forms an important contemporary source on the events of the reign of Maurice (582-602).H4 Despite the fact that both Michael the Syrian (obit. 1199)H5 and Bar Hebraeus (1225/6-1286) H6 wrote several centuries after the events they described, the traditions upon which they drew contain many features which attest to their accuracy on specific points of Byzantine-Slav relations. For that reason they cannot be ignored.
Initially, Old Church Slavonic and Middle Bulgarian would appear to be a rich mine of data. Mont of the medieval Slavic sources are, however, merely translations from the Greek, and of little or no value for the purposes of this study. The Slavic texts of the lives of Constantine and Methodius (ninth century) are of passing interest.117 They, however, yield only minims! information on Slavic
Whatever the fate of the Slavs on imperial lands, it was but a facet of Byzantine life. There was an underlying unit* Byzantium.
Byzantium had more than one policy toward the Slavs and the Slavs more than one line of development within the empire. Factors such as geography» external enemies, and internal struggles all contributed to the varied fate of the Slavs within imperial borders. When these elements are taken into account and critically examined, the place of the Slav, as a member of Byzantium, emerges. Initially the examination explains more about the Slavs and their society than about Byzantium, but as the study proceeds chronologically and geographically and the interaction between Slav and empire matures, it is the empire and its rich ethnic
composition which is better understood.
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER I
^Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. De Boor, I (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1883), 347:6-7.
2
4For a full history of the reign of Constans II, see Th. Kaestner, De Imperio Constantini III (641-668) (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1907); and more recently A. N. Erpdro<;, To Bu^dvrtov qrov Z*	Л (*Aufjvai: Bl0A (опиЛеГоу ггц;
"Earfa^,” 1972.
^The importance of this is stressed by G. Ostro-gorsky. History of the Byzantine State (2nd rev., English ed.; New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1969), p. 117. On the Sklavinias themselves, see the discussion and good bibliography by F. Bari^ic, Vizantiski izvori za istoriju naroda Jucoslavije, I (Belgrade: tosebna Izdanja Srpska Akademija Nauka, CCXLI, VizantoloSki Institut 3, 1956), 222, n. 9. Also see P. Charanis, "Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages," Balkan Studies, XI (1970), 11-13.
Johann Gotthilf Stritter, Memoriae populorum, olim ad Danubium, Pontum Euxinum, Paludem Maeotidem, Cauca-sum, Mare Caspium, et inde magis ad septentxlones 'incolen-tium, e Scriptoribus Historiae Byzantinae erutae et digestae a loanne Gotthilf Strittero, II (St. Petersburg: Impensis Academiae Scientiaxum, 1774), 1-105.
^Corpus Byzantinae Historiae, Lutetia Parisiorum, 1648-1711 (+1819), 42 vols.
6Ivan Stritter (= Johann Gotthilf Stritter), Izvestija Vizantijskih Istorikov ob1jasnjajuSdija Ros-sijskuju Istoriju drevnih Vremen i Preselenija Narodov sobrany 1 hronologiceskim porjadkom raspoloZeny Ivanom Stritterom, I (cast pervaja 0 Slavjanah) (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1770) . Stritter, in the inroduction to the Russian version (n.p.), states that, "Beyond this it has pleased the Imperial Academy of Science to direct me to abbreviate the aforementioned Latin extract for a Russian translation.” The Russian version is not a full translation of the Latin as D. Obolenski states in his article "Modern Russian attitudes to Byzantium," Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft, XV (1966), 67, n. 20. A review of work done prior to S> trit ter may be found in I. Dujcev, "Les Etudes byzantines chez les slaves meridionaux et occi-dentaux depuis le XVIIе siecle," ibid. , pp. 73-88, • Medioevo Byzantino-Slavo, II (Rome: Storia e Letteratura, Ш, 1966j, 541-560;
P. J. Safarik, Slovansk6 Starozitnosti (Prague;
Tiskem Jana Spurneho, 1837).
P. J. Safarik, Slavjanskija Drevnosti, trans, into Russian from the Czech by G. Bogdjanskij under the sponsorship of M. Pogodin (Moscow, 1838), in two volumes. German edition under the title Slawische Altertiimer, 2 vols., ed. by Heinrich Wuttke and trans, into German from the Czech by Mosig von Aehrenfeld (Leipzig: Verlag Wilhelm Engelmann, 1843-44).
9
V. I. Lamanskij, "O Slavjanah v Maloi Asii, v Afrike i v Ispanii," Udenija Zapiski Vtorago Otdelenija Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, V (1859), 1-370.
10Ibid., pp. 3 and 125ff.
Lamanskij's relation to Russian Pan-Slavism, see Michael Boro Petrovich, The Emergence of Russian PanSlavism, 1856-1870 (New York: Columbia University Press, I$56), pp. 63, 94; and also B. D. Grekov, Dokirnentik istorrii slavjanovedenija v Rossij 1850-19L2 (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademi Nauk, 1948), passim. For his influence upon Byzantine Studies, see Obolenski, ''Modern Russian Attitudes," pp. 68-69; and В. T. Gorjanov, "F. I. Uspenskij i ego znadenie v Vizantinovedenii," V.V., New Series, I (1947), 52.
1 ?
V. G. Vasiljevskij, "Zakonodatel'stvo ikonoborcev," 3.M.N.P., <5. 200 (Nojabr, 1878), pp. 95-129, and ё. 199 (Oktjabr, 1878), pp. 258-309, - Trudy, IV (Leningrad: Akademii Nauk, 1930), 139-235.
P. Bezobrazov, ”V. G. Vasiljevskij," V.V., Old Series, VI (1899), 636-652.
G. Vasiljevskij, "Zakonodatel'stvo," &.M.N.P., pp. 105-106, = Trudy, IV, 207-208. "In the first half of the seventh century a whole mass of Slavic tribes entered the borders of the empire and occupied previously devastated provinces. Likewise, the whole mass of expelled native population were similarly seeking refuge in other provinces. Here lies the beginning of the transformation to a free peasant society, and here is, without doubt, as the source reveals, a new view towards the mode of land tenure. As late as the tenth century the Slavic tribes of the Sagudites and the Draguvites around Thessalonica still preserved the law, according to Kameniates, of their ancient social organization. We have full right to assume that, namely, on account of the new Slavic population of the empire, this advantageous establishment corresponded to their views, way of life and habits better than the
tradition of ancient Roman Law on personal ownership and the later establishment, in the Roman Empire, of the colonate or attachment to the land.”
V. G. Vasiljevskij, "Materialy dlja vnutrennej istorij Vizantijskago gosudarstva,” 2.M.N.P., d. 202 otd. II (Mart, 1879), pp. 160-232 (Aprel', 1879), pp. 386-438, c. 210 otd. II (Ijul', 1880), pp. 98-170 (Avgust, 1880), pp. 355-404, = Trudy, IV, 250-331. "The Legislation of the iconoclasts displays something of a wide and profound revolution, the reasons for which have never received adequate explanation, but according to all indications it is related to the great Slavic migration onto Graeco-Roman territory." 2.M.N.P., p. 160, = Trudy, IV, 250.
16Ibid. (S.M.N.P., pp. 160-161) = Trudy, IV, 250. "It is evident that the rise in the number of small free-holding landowners received strong supports, just as occurred somewhat earlier in the West on account of the settlement of the Goths, Burgundians and other barbarians. Slavs en masse occupied the European provinces of the empire; and even in the Asiatic provinces their settlement was counted in the tens and hundreds of thousands — that is almost not yielding in numerical ratio to the settlement of the Germanic barbarians in the West."
I. Uspenskij, "K* istorij krest*janskogo zemlevladenija v’ Vizantii," 2.M.N.P., d. 225 (1883), pp. 30-87 and 301-360, especially pp. 301-360 = part II, "The Slavic obscina in the Eastern and Western provinces of the empire."
18Gorjanov, "F. I. Uspenskij," pp. 29-108. On Uspenskij's relation to Lamanskij and Vasilievskij, see pp. 43-54.
19Uspenskij, "K' istorij," pp. 250-251 and 306-307, for his utilization of Vasilievskij, and pp. 314-316 for his utilization of Lamanskij.
20ibid., p. 360, "The political role of the Slavic element in Byzantium in every century was enormous, and it particularly stood out in the grand epoch in the life of the empire" (i.e., the Macedonian Dynasty, 867-1057).
2^lbid., "The information about the great Slavic settlementв in Asia Minor during the seventh and eighth centuries leads one to the conclusion that the Byzantine authorities themselves took interest in the Slavs and secured the production of the Slavic commune by means of various guarantees."
2 2
Ibid., "The Slavic commune fell, then, when the authorities finally deprived them of the usual guarantees, rooted in the attitudes of the sixth and seventh centuries. But the weakening of the commune went parallel to the weakening of the Roman Empire itself.”
Skabalanovid, Vizantijskoe qosudarstvo i cerkov v XI v. (St. Petersburg, 1884), pp. 230-231, "The Introduction of the Slavic element into the Eastern Empire happened in the same way as the introduction of the German element into the Western Empire, with one major difference, that the Slavs—for two centuries--came as peaceful colonizers, and so occupied, as a possession, the Greek Provinces left behind by the Germans,” and p. 24 0, "The Slavs, previous to their settlement within Byzantine borders possessed (social conditions] like those of the Germans—i.e., the existence of common ownership and, in addition, free common ownership. Slavery was also known, but the Slavs did not possess a parallel to either the Roman Colonate or to the German Laeti."
2 4
J. В. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D.) , 11 (London: Macmillan & Co., 1889), 419, n7 4, "For thisdiscussion I must acknowledge my debt to the work of N. Skabalonovitch (already referred to), Vizantyskoe Gusadarstvo i Tserkov v xi Veke. In the fifth chapter the author sets forth most lucidly the nature of the change and its causes; and the importance of the Slavonic element in bringing about the change is naturally not neglected by a Russian scholar.”
2 S
Ibid., I, 341, where Bury posits the Slavic origins of Belisarius, but 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) , Il (London: Macmillan and Co., 1923), 56, where Belisarius becomes an Illyrian. In the same edition the leader Anagast is a German--!, 319, but a Slav in II, 296, n. 1.
2^Karl Eduard Zacharia von Lingenthal, Geschichte des griechisch-rdmischen Rechts (2nd ed.; Berlin^ 1877)•
^7Ibid. (3rd ed.j Berlin, 1892), pp. 249-257.
28B. A. Pandenko, "Krest'janskaja sobstvennost’ v Visantii," Izvestija Russkogo Arheologiceskogo Instituta v Ronstant inopole, IX (1904), 1-234.
Mutafdiev, "Selskoto zemlevladenie v
VIsan11 ja, " Sbornlk za Narodni (Jmotvoreni ja i Knizina, XXV (1910), 1-72. » Izbrani Proizvedenija, ed7 D. Angelov (Sofiat Nauka i Izkustvo, В^З), ррГ 23-114; and the
discussion of Bezobrazov in his short review in V.V., XVII (1910), 336-346, along with Heiromonk Michael, V.V., XI (1904), 589-615, represent the only major attempts to discuss the matter further.
30J. P. Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Halbinsel Morea wahrend des Mittelalters, I (Stuttgart, 1830), iii-iv and xiii.
Carl Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf die neuere Zeit, 2 vols. (Leipzig: F. Brockhaus = Ersch-Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopadie der Wiss. und Kiinste, vols. 85/86, 1867-68).
A.	Vasiliev, "Slavjane v Grecii," V.V., V (1898), 404-438 and 618-670.
Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland (Berlin: Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 12, 1941). A reprint of this important work is now available with a new foreword by Hans Ditten with the additional series title (Leipzig: Subsidia Byzantina Lucis Ope Iterata, vol. IV, Zentxalanti-guariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republic, 1970).
34d. J. Georgacas, "The Medieval Names Melingi and Ezeritae of Slavic Groups in the Peloponnesus,* b.z., XL (1950), 301-333.
Kuptaxfie*;, Boviyapci ид) ЕАаЗо» de rqv *EXAqviкgv loTopfav (0caaalоv(иt» Д qyoatcuuara где ’Erat pc feu; SaAcfiovixujv Diou6wv, 5» 19^6).
^Antoine Bon, Le Peloponn£se byzantin jusqu'en 1204 (Paris: Bibliotheque Byzantine Publiee sous la direction de Paul Lemerle, Etudes I, Presses Universitaires de France, 1951).
Rambaud, L*Empire Grec au dixidme si£cle. Constantin Porphyrogenete (Paris, 1870), ppT 249-251.
^®G. Schlumberger, Ь'ёрорбе byzantine a la fin du Xе Blfecle (3 vols.; Paris, 1896, 1900, 1905).
3®The revival of Byzantine Studies after the First World War included two publications with a Slavic emphasis. They were Seminarium Kondakovianum (Prague, 1927-38, and Belgrade, 1946) jnd Byzantinoslavica (Prague, 1929-) . Neither of these, however, touched upon the matter of Slavic relations within the empire. It is also true that Henri Gregoire wrote a short work touching upon the subject --•Rangabe ou Forte-main,” B. , IX (1934), 793-794.
40
М. V. Levcenko, "Vizantija i Slavjane v VI-VII w. V«D-L• I (1938), 23-48.
41je. E. LipSits, "Slavjanskaja ob^dina i jeje rol v formirovanij vizantijskogo feodalizma," V.V., New Series, I (Old Series, XXVI, 1947), 144-163, = Ocerki Istorij Vizantijskogo obscestva i Kulturi (VUI-pervaja polovina IX veka) (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademia Nauk, 1961), pp. 18-48.
^G. G. Litaverin in A. P. Kasdan and G. G. Litaverin, Ocerki po istorii Vizantij i JuSnih Slavjan Posobie dlja ucitelej (Moscow: Akademia Nauk, 1958).
p. Kasdan, "Krestjanskie dvizenija v Vizantii v X v. i agrarnaja politika imperatorov Makedonskoi dinastij," V. V. , V (1952), 73-78, especially 73-74, on the Slavs as a peasant class. Also see Kasdan's book, Derevnja i Gorod v Vizantij IX-X w^_ (Moscow; Akademia Nauk, 1960), pp. 21-122.
^M. Ju. Brajcevskij, "K istorij rasselenija Slavjan na vizantijskih zemljah,” V.V., XIX (1961), 120-138.
Ja. Sjuzjumov, "O haraktere i suSdnozti vizantijskoj po Zemledel'ceskomu zakonu," V.V., X (1956), 27-47.
^D. Angeloff, "Die Rolle der Slawen in der friih-geschichte des Byzantinischen Reiches,” Palaeologia (= Kodagaiku, Osaka—Japan), VII, n. 3/4 (1959), 84-90.
^?A. Burmov, "Slavjanskite napadenija sres’tu Solun v 'cudesata na sv Dimitur* i tjahnata hronologija," Godisnik na Sofijskija universitet, filosofsko-istorideski fakultet, XL/2 (1952), pp. 167-215, = A. Burmov, Izbrani proizvedenija, ed. P. Hr. Petrov (Sofia: Bulgarskata Akademija na Naukite, 1968), pp. 77-121.
Joncev, "Die Klassenschichtung in Byzanz und in Bulgarien im 7. bis 10. Jahrhundert," Etudes Historigues a 1'occasion du XIIе Congres international des Sciences Hlstoriques-Vienne, Aout-Septembre 1965, II (Sofia: В/A.N., 1965), 73-84.	~”
Tupkova-Zalmova, Nase^tvija i etnideski promeni na Balkanite prez VI-VII v. (Sofia; B.A.N., 1966).
^^G. Cankova-Petkova, "Materlalnata kultura i voennoto izkuatvo na dakljskite slavjan spored svedenijata na "Psevdo-Mavrikij," Izvrstija na Inctituta za Bulgarska Istorija, VII (1957), 329-346.
lp. Barisid, Cuda DimitrijaSolunskog kao istoriski izvori (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka, kn. CCXIX, Vizantoloski institute kn. 2, 1953).
52
B.	Grafenauer, "Nekaj vprasanj iz dobe naseljevanja juznih Slovanov," Zgodovinski casopis, IV (1950), 23-126.
Evert-Kappesowa, Studia nad historia wsi bizantynskiej (Lodz: Lodzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Prace Wydzialu II-Nauk historycznych i spolecznych nr. 47, 1963), pp. 46-73.
Zasterova, Les Avares et les Slaves dans la Tactique de Maurice (Prague: Rozpravy Ceskoslovenske Akademie Ved, Rada spolecenskych ved, Rocnik 81-sesit 3, 1971).
55P. Charanis, "On the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece During the Middle Ages," Bsl., X (1949), 254-258.
5.	Do1ger, Ein Fall slavischer Einsiedlung im Hinterland yon Thessalonike im X jahrhundert (Munich: Sitzungsberichte der bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaft, no. 1, 1953).
Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans le Balkans depuis la fin de 1’epoque romaine jusqu'au VIIIе s.," Revue Historique, CXI (1954), 265-308.
58Marin Drinov, "Zaselenie Balkanskogo poluostrova s1avjanami," £etenija v Imperatorskom Obscestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskih pri Moskovskom universitete, kn. 4 (1874) = Sucinenija na M. S. Drinov, I, ed. V. Zlatarski (Sofia: Bulgarskoto knxZovno druiestvo, 1909), 139-316, ® Izbrani sudinenija, I, ed. I. Dujcev (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1971), 186-362.
5$stanoe Stanojevid, Vizantija i Srbi (2 vols.; Novi Sad: Knige Matice Srbske 7 & 8, 14 & 15, 1903 and 1906).
€0Vasil Zlatarski, Istorija na Bulgarskata DurSava prez srednite vekove, 4 vols? (Sofia: B.A.N., 1^18-1940), and new editi6n”6F"T/li2, ed. P. Hr. Petrov (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1970, 1971). Vols. II and III were recently reprinted with no change of the original text, but a foreword and appended additional notes by D. Angelov-Sofia: Nauka 1 Izkustvo, 1973, 1974.
®^Ktfr/aravri|i0<; ! **Auavro<;, ’Icrrepfa rou Bv^avrivou Kparou^, 2 г. (’Екбоок; bevrtpa; ’AOqvai: ’Opyavionoc; "Екбоасак; ZxoXtHur/ BipXfiw, 1953-1957).
fi 2
Lubor Niede r1e, Slovanske starozitnosti, 11/1 &2 (Prague: Bursika & Kohouta^ 1906, 1910) . Also see his Manuel de I1Antiquity Slave» I (Paris, 1923).
s. Derz’avin, "Slavjane i Vizantija v VI v.," Jazyk i Literature, VI (1930), 5-48.
64Witold Hensel, Die Slawen im friihen Mittelalter (Ihre materielle Kulture), German translation from the Polish by Siegfried Epperlein of [Slowianszczyzna wczesnosredniowieczna Zarys kultury materialnej "[Warsaw: Wydanie II poprawione i uzu pelnione, P.A.N., 1956)], (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956).
65Francis Dvornik, The Slavs—Their Early History and Civilization, vol. II (Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences--Survey of Slavic Civilization, 1956).
66jvan Dujcev, Medioevo Byzantino-Slavo (Rome: Storia e Letteratura, 102^ 112, 119, 1965-1971), 3 vols. Also more recently Bulgarsko Srednovekovie (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1972).
6?The first reference to the Slavs as "Slavs" occurs in the Dialogues of Pseudo-Caesarius of Nazianzus. For the question of when this was written, see Bari^16, "Kada i gde su napisani Pseudo-Cezarijevi dijalozi," Z.R.V.I. (= Zbornik Radova Srpska Akademija Nauka XXI), I (1952), 29-51, but also see for a more conservative estimate Rudolf Redinger, Pseudo-Kaisarios (Munich: Byzantinisches Archiv-Heft 12, С. H. Beck’sche Verlags-buchhandlung, 1969), pp. 301-309.
Hauptmann, "Les rapports des Byzantins avec les Slavs et les Avares pendant la seconde moitie du VIе si£cle," IV (1927-28), 144-146.
^9This is best discussed by Cankova-Petkova, "Materialnata Kultura," pp. 329-346.
^Zlatarsky, Is tori ja?, 1/2, pp. 603-745.
^Procopius, Bellum Gothicum, III, 14, 357:5— 360:4 (Haury edition), and Mauricius, Strategicon, p. -(Sheffer edition), pp. 276:26-28 (Mihaescu), both state that the Slavs and Antes are virtually the same in living habits and language.
72
Veselin BeSevliev, Die Protobulgarischen Inschriften (Berlin: Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten, Band 23, Akademie Verlag, 1963), pp. 40-49.
^3Sp. Vryonis, "St. loannicius the Great and the ’Slavs* of Bithynia," в., XXXI (1961), 245-248.
^4Gyula Moravcsik, Buzantinoturcica, II (2nd ed.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958), 279-283.
75lvan Dujdev, "Slavjani-Skiti," Slavia, XXIX (1960), 109-114, = Bulgarsko Srednovekovie, pp. 104-113.
?6procopii Caesariensis, Opera Omnia, 4 vols., ed. J. Haury with additional corrections by G. Wirth (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1962-63).
^^Agathiae Myrinaei, Historiarum libri quinque, ed. R. Keydall (Berlin: Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae, II, Walter de Gruyter, 1967).
^®Theophylacti Simocattae, Historiae, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1887).
^^Mapfa МиатаСспоиХои-ПсХсмСбои, "ЕицЗсХл etc; rqv Xpovoidrqcnv rwv ’AttoptKwv иа! EAaBtxwv ’Entбродит/ Ьпх .'<aup:xfou," Euhixeikto. (’EQvirov ’’Тбрица ’Epeuviuv Kcvrpov Bu£avrivur/ ’Epeuvwv), 2~(1970), cr 145-208, and Grafenauer, "Nekaj vprasanj," 49-90.
80Theophanis, Chronographia, 2 vols., ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1883).
®^Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opuocula Historica, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, Xeso)•
®2p, Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, V (1960), 152-153; P. Lernerle, "La Chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: Le contexte historique et legendaire," Revue des Etudes Byzantines, XXI (1963), 5-49.
®^Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), pp. 3-486.
84Georgii Monachi, Chronicon, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904).
85Joaeph Genesios, Regnum, ed. C. Lachmann (Bonn,
1834).
R 6
°°Simeon Magister# Chronicon, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838)# pp. 603-780# often known as Pseudo-Simeon Magister.
Й7
Ioann1s Caminiatae, De Expugnatione Thessaloni-cae, ed. Gertrud Bohlig (Berlin: Corpus Fontxum Historiae Byzantinae, IV, Waiter de Gruyter et socios, MCMLXXIII).
’^Georgius Cedrenus, loannis Scylitzae# Opera, 2 vols., ed. I. Bekker (Bonn# 1838-39).
89Michael Glycas, Annales# ed. I Bekker (Bonn, 1836).
90A. Tougard# De l*histoire profane dans les Actes grecs des bollandistes (Paris, 1874), or M.P.G., vol. 116 # cols. 1204-1384.
9^A.A.S.S. , Novembris, II/l (1884), pp. 332-435.
2F. Dvorniк, La Vie de saint Gregoire le Decapo-lite et les Slaves macedoniens au ixe si^cle (Paris: Travaux publies par I'Institut d’etudes slaves# V, 1926).
93A.A.,S.S. # August, III (1737), 170-175.
94 ’ДудАснта * ItpoaoAunt ti нт)<; Етахи°А-оГ lq9» (ПстрбпоЛ{<;, 1897), d 357-500	'
^^"skazanija о 42 Amorijskih mudenikov i Cerkovnaja sluzba im," ed. V. G. Vasiljeskij and P. Nikitin# Zapiski Imper. Akademii Nauk, 8th series, vol. VII/2, 61-78.
96L. Petit, "Vie et office de Saint-Euthyme le Jeune," Revue de 1'Orient chretien, VIII (1903), 163-205 and 503-536.
97 E, ’Avaoraafou, "Bfc^ KAquevroc ’Axpffi°<;»" ’EniorgiM ov * Encrgplc; 9соАоу:кг)<^ £x°^% Haven i от gu. feu SecfcraAov12 (1967), a. 162-184. Also see A. Milev, Teofilakt, Kliment Ohridski. Prevod ot grekija original# uvod i bele^ki (Sofia: B.A.N., 1955); N. L. Tunitskij, Material! dlja istorii zizni i dejatel*nosti ucenikov* svv. Kirilla i Mcthodija# vypusk pervyj (Sergiev Posad, 1913 + new edition with introduction by Ivan Dujcev; London: Variorum Reprints, 1972), and M.P.G., 126, cols. 1193-1240.
99M.P.G., 111, COls. 441-480.
9ЭГг. П« Adunpoc. "'О rou Nikov том Мс-гаУосГте," N/o^ * .ЕЛА qvc.uvguwvy III (1906), 131-228.
l°°MauriciuB, Arta Militara, ed. H. Mihaeacu (Bucharest: Scriptores Byzantini, VI# 1970).
101M.P.G., 107, cols. 672-1120.
102QOnstantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. G. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins (2nd ed.; Washington, D.C.: Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae, II, Dumbarton Oaks, 1967).
ЮЗтье only complete edition is that in the Bonn series—Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis Aulis, 2 vols., ed. I. Reiske (Bonn, 1829-1830).
1A. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito, De Thema-tibus, Introduzione, testo critico, commento (Citta del Vatican©: Studi i Testi 160, 1952).
105scriptores originum Constantinopolitarum, II, ed. Th. Preger (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1907).
^06M.G.H., Script, rer. germ.. Ill, ed. G. H. Pertz (Hannover, 1839), 273-363.
107Ibid., pp. 306:52-307:3.
lOBschlumberger, Ь’ёрорёе byzantin, I, 25ff.
109A. Ja. (G)Harkavi, Skazanija musul’manskih pisatelej о slavjannah i russkih (St. Petersburg, 1870). M. S. Rapoport made an English translation of several portions of Harkavy in “Mohamedan Writers on the Slavs," Slavonic Review, VIII/22 (June, 1929), 80-98.
H°E. W. Brooks, "The Arabs in Asia Minor from Arabic Sources," Journal of Hellenic Studies, XVIII (1898), 182-208; and "The Campaign of 716-1Й from Arabic Sources," ibid., XIX (1899), 19-33.
111д. A. Vasil’ev, Vizantija i Araby-Politiceskija Otnodenija Vizantii i Arabov za Vremja Amorijsr.oj Dinas tn (St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorohodova, 1900); and Vizantija i Araby-Politiceskija Otnosenija Vizantii i Arabov za Vremja Makedonskoj Dinastii (St. Petersburg:I*N. Skorohodova, 1902).
И2де Vasiliev, Byzance et ies Arabes, 3 vols. (Edition frangaise ргёрагёе par H. Gregoire et M. Canard; Brussels: Corpus Brux^llense Historiae Byzantinae, I, II/l, II/2, 1935, 1950).
H^Tadeusz Lewicki, £rodla Arabskie do Dziejow Slow!anszczyzny, I (Wroc1aw-Krakow, 1956).
Upjohn Bishop of Ephesus, The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John Dishop of Ephesus, trans.
into English by R. Payne Smith (Oxford: University Press, 1860); Iohannis E phe s i n i, Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia, trans, into Latin by E. W. Brooks (Louvain: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 106, Scriptores Syri, vol* 55, 1936).
B. Chabot, Chronigue de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche jacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199) (3 vols.; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899-1904).
116The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, ed. and trans.
E. A. Wallis Budge (2 vols.; London: Oxford University Press, 1932).
Inconstantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses, Fontes, ed. F. Grivec and F. Tomsic (Zagreb^ Radovi St a г о -slovenskog Instituta, 4, I960); and Kliment Ohridski, Subrani Sucinenija, III, ed. В St. Angelov and Hr. Kodov (Sofia: B.A.N., 1973).
118Simeona Metafrasta i Logotheta, ed. V. Srez-nevskij (St. Petersburg, 1905), and new edition under the title Slavjanskij Perevod Hroniki Simeona Logotheta (London: Variorum Reprints, 1971).
Pancenko, "Pamjatnik Slavjan v Vifinii,” I.R.A.I.K., VIII (1902), 15-62.
10Besev1iev, Die Protobulgarischen Inschriften.
121мах Vasmer, Die Slaven,
122por problems related to this question, see Simpozijum Predslavanaki Etnicki na balkanu u etnogenezi jufenih slovena odrzan 24-26. oktobra 1968. u Mostaru (Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Иe r c e g о -vine Posebna Izdanja Knjiga XIII, Centar za BalkanoloSka ispitvanja Knjiga 4, 1^69). A good example of work where archeological data is correlated with the sources is the work of Witold Hensel, Die Slaven, passim*
CHAPTER II PRELUDE--BYZANTIUM AND THE SLAVS DURING THE ERA OF MIGRATIONS
Since the time of Stritter, the Slavic invasion of the Balkan Peninsula has been frequently discussed.Prior to the settlement of the Slavs, the empire was barely aware of their existence; yet by 657 A.D. much of the Balkan land mass was inhabited by Slavic tribes. For an event of such importance the paucity of information is striking. The Slavic migration was indeed remarkable, especially in contrast to the barbarian tribes, which since the third century had passed through the peninsula and yet failed to make a permanent home there. Virtually unknown even by the appellation "Slav” at the beginning of the sixth century, in less than a century and a half (500-650), the Slavs possessed most of the Balkan lands and permanently altered the ethnic and cultural composition of the entire peninsula.*
A description of the Slavic invasion forms the beginning of many a national history. $ These works vary in their comprehension of the primary sources and in their •saaasment of Slavic culture.6 Studies based on these •valuations have, in the search for ethnic unity, tended
to overstate the cultural development of the Slavs at this time and, therefore, their later position within the 7 empire. Thus the conception held of the Slav’s level of development during their settlement determines what is p later said of their role in Byzantine life.
The drawing of a clear picture of the Slavs during their entry into Byzantine territory is not easy. Unlike their Teutonic predecessors, about whom the Greek and Latin sources speak in detail, we have hardly a clue to the Slav's mode of existence previous to their invasion. What information we do possess, before 500 A.D., is based upon dubious interpretations of the sources.Three Greek writings describe the Slavs as they migrated into Byzantine lands. They are in chronological order: Procopius of Caesarea, the first to present a full account of the Slavic social structure of the migration era;10 The Strategicon of (Pseudo-) Maurice (-Urbicius), who complements Procopius' information on Slavic society;11 and the Miracula Sancti pemetrii, the only other contemporary record on Byzantine-Slav affairs.H The Syriac writer, John of Ephesus, is likewise a valuable source.13
Other Greek and Latin sources describe the actual migration, but are completely devoid of any background information on Slavic culture.14 With the exception of Thoophylact Simocatta and Agathias, they can safely be omitted.1"* For the purposes of this study, a detailed Chronology is unimportant, as it is the socio-cultural
aspect of the invasions which will receive attention.16 it is important that the cultural level of the Slavs be clearly understood, since it was this that Byzantium was compelled by circumstances to accommodate.
Besides causing serious dislocations within the empire, the invasion and settlement represent an era of change within Slavic society itself.17 Greek writers of the sixth century, laboring under the influence of Classical terminology, tended to stereotype foreign peoples using 18 the models of Hellenic and Hellenistic Greece. In spite of this tendency, it is possible to see evidence of social transformation and variation among the Slavs. Considering the constant flux of widely disparate ethnic groups north of the Danube frontier, it is difficult to picture the Slavs remaining totally indifferent to their non-Slavic neighbors and rulers.1^ The vast majority of the Slavs were, perhaps, little affected by the tribes who either passed them by or imposed their rule upon them but some obviously did learn from their nomadic neighbors, such as the Huns and later the Avars.
Xt is in connection with the Huns that Slavs first appear subject to imperial authority. They formed part of a troop of Hunnic auxiliary cavalry used in Justinian I s 21 campaign in Italy against the Ostrogoths. It is noteworthy that Procopius mentions nothing about the skill of those Slavs as cavalry, but states their mastery at camouflage and ambuscade. This ability, which the Slavs used to
seize prisoners for ransom in their native habitat, was turned to imperial advantage in Italy to gather prisoners for interrogation.22 Reference to this mixed body of Hunnic and Slavic troops indicates a serious shortage of manpower within the empire and the rapid recruitment of whatever was available from beyond imperial borders. Slavic recruits were later used in the east against Sas-sand Iran, Byzantium’s most formidable rival.24 Since they are not recorded as being part of any Slavic contingent, but as individuals in the regular army, these par-25 ticular Slavs may have been more professional. A certain Davregezas, and Ante, even attained the high rank of Taxi-26 arch during the war against the Persians.
Such Slavs were an exception. They are, nonetheless, a good example of the variation among the Slavs at the time of their migration. The collection of Slavic tribes which were to move onto imperial territories and settle there had but minimal exposure to the life and ways of Byzantium. Contact between Slav and Byzantine during the early part of the sixth century was limited to hostages and booty taken from imperial lands by the Slavs and their neighbors.while this can be said to have increased an awareness of Byzantine wealth among the Slavs, it did not immediately bring any change to Slavic society.28 Lack of social development may have been, in part, encouraged by the Avars, who had little interest in anything but the subjugation of foreign peoples.2^ The Slavs often were
part of Avar raids upon the empire, but Slavic advance onto the Balkan Peninsula continued on its own impetus long after the Avars had departed.30 It was not until the rise Of the Bulgars that a nomadic ruler considered integration of the Slavs into the actual machinery of its ruling class.
The Slavic invasion of the Balkan Peninsula was, then, unique by reason of its successful seizure of Balkan lands and its permanent settlement on these lands. This, in part, capitalized on imperial weakness wrought by the attrition of previous barbarian attacks.32 Slavic settlement was due in no small way to unique elements within their culture, of which cultural autonomy was a primary force. This may best be seen in three basic areas of Slavic life. They are: the economic development of the Slavs and its effect upon Byzantium at the time of their invasion; Slavic social structure as it developed in contrast to Byzantium; and Slavic military skill and its effectiveness against Byzantium.
Slavic economy was based upon primitive agriculture, supplemented by fishing and petty brigandage. 33 Their economic life centered itself around small, virtually self-sufficient, settlements.34 There was a definite proclivity to settle in remote and inaccessible areas.35 The primary cereal crops were two primitive forms of wheat __Hlrsc and Millet.3$ Livestock raising also contributed to their livelihood.37 From Maurice and Procopius it can
be gleaned that Slavic economic life was one of isolated self-sufficient units utilizing the most primitive forms Of trade. Interchange between these Slavic settlements, even as they grew in number and proximity to one another,38 was sporadic due to the constant feuding between the vari-ous tribes. *
The effect of Slavic economy upon imperial lands was devastating. For an empire, even in the sixth century, based upon an agricultural economy supplemented with trade, the economic change brought about by this primitive system was profound.40 To intersperse a highly interdependent system of cities and towns with a network of particu-larlistic and self-sufficient tribes was to destroy much of the Roman economic structure. With the imperial mercantile framework interrupted by a series of independent and often hostile bands, an end was put to the cities dependent upon international trade.Many of the urban centers which survived did not do so as emporia, but as isolated semi-self-sufficient outposts of a battered empire.it is not hard to envision the damage wrought by Slavs upon modes of agriculture unknown to them, to wit the replacing, at least In the initial stages of their invasion, of such crops as olives and grapes with Hirsc and Millet. The Slavs, by their permanent settlement on Byzantine lands, destroyed ths entire framework of the Roman Balkans.43 They destroyed it by fregmentation and economic independence.
This often unwitting damage to the imperial economic
system was aided by the peculiar nature of Slavic society at the time of the invasion. Slavic social structure was a form of particularism.44 While there existed some kind of leadership, it was rudimentary.45 Internecine strife was common among the various groups, and leadership, until late in the sixth century, does not seem to have been well defined.46 To a Byzantine writer accustomed to the centralized bureaucracy of Constantinople, Slavic society was a perplexing mystery. Procopius described it, at one point, as being a "Demokrateia* yet also referred to it as having many kings.47 What interested both Procopius (and later the author of the Strategicon) was the ability of each man to go his own way regardless of a leader or council's decision.46 As for the many reges, they were so often at cross purposes with one another that the Strategicon could casually remark on their suspiciousness and mutual dislike of each other as a general characteristic.4
This disharmonious social structure granted a captured prisoner the option of full freedom, either by joining the local Slavic tribe as an equal member, or by returning to his native land.5^ This meant that Slavic tribes increased their numbers as they invaded, acquiring new members from the previous inhabitants. It is obvious that some depopulation was due less to destruction of human life than to destruction of the latifundia system.51 Life with the "Barbarians" had definite advantages over the taxation 52
of the Romans, especially for the poor and the slave.
The imperial response to the Slavic society of the invasion era was not easily formulated. At first, as Procopius indicates, it was merely the task of the empire to stop the predatory raids made by small individual bands of Slavs.53 ди that was needed was a vigilant watch on imperial frontiers and an occasional show of strength. As Slavic numbers grew and general population movement replaced isolated forays, the empire faced real difficulties. 54 Instead of staving off a single well-directed attack led by one chieftain or khan, the empire was vexed by the random and unpredictable movement of many Slavic groups.55 All the standard Byzantine military and diplomatic procedures for negotiations with barbarian peoples were useless, since among the Slavs themselves there was no single person in control.56 The Slavs lacked coherence in their objectives. A military defeat of, or treaty with, one tribe was no guarantee even among members of that same group, that matters would rest.5?
To pass through a territory inhabited by numerous tribes, all feuding among one another, self-sufficient and highly particularistic in character, was the very antithesis to the order Rome had set on the peninsula. Only with the development of a Slavic aristocracy did matters begin to improve.58 Even then, the situation was extremely unstable, due to the novelty and undefined position of these new aristocrats and thus the ability of dissident 59 elements among the Slavic tribes to remain independent.
The military skills of the Slavs matched the standards set by their economy and social structure. It is this which makes the success of the Slav, in contrast to the failure of so many other groups to settle the Balkan Peninsula, so incongruous. For the Slavic warrior, if anything, lacked both the weapons and skills of many a previous invader. In both tactics and armaments the Slav was most modest. His arsenal consisted of a spear, poison arrows, and a simple shield, supplemented by anything in the way of arms that could be stolen from the enemy.60 Aside from having a certain aversion to the military formations so representative of more centralized states, the Slav avoided open battle if at all possible.6^ Being poorly armed and trained, they acted individually or in wild disorganized on-rushes.62 Slavs were known throughout the sixth and seventh centuries as masters of ambuscade and guerilla warfare.63 Rather than defeat an enemy openly, the Slav wore his opponent down by constant harassment. The steady attrition wrought by the Slavs' skilled and sudden surprise attacks was calculated to discourage any foe.6*
In order to defeat the Slavs, Byzantium had to employ large armies capable of holding down wide areas of hoetile terrain for long periods of time.65 All the while they faced the prospect of steady casualties among their own troops and little booty, for the Slavs were not rich like the Persians.66 Had the Slavs been endowed with the
distinct military organization and leadership of earlier attackers, Byzantium would have had the opportunity for a decisive showdown and the possible removal of the threat once and for all. Instead, the empire was forced to support prolonged warfare against an elusive and well-positioned foe.This kind of fighting required a large expenditure with minimal immediate results. Because of commitments elsewhere, Byzantium was less able to supply the necessary troops for such operations.68
Facing the prospect of the total breakdown of imperial social, economic, and military structure in the Balkans, the empire was compelled to formulate an effective counter strategy. in very clear and realistic terms, the Strategicon of Maurice, most likely written during the era of Maurice, presented a new strategy for putting an end to the Slavic migration.6^ Taking into account the idiosyn-cracies of Slavic life, the Strategicon set forth a plan which would eliminate the problem by a series of several relatively short campaigns.
The idea of the Strategicon was simple. It suggested that large numbers of Slavs north of the Danube be driven out or exterminated by means of major mllxcary clearing operations.7^ The result of this would be to cut off the invasion at its source, well outside of imperial boundaries and thereby assure tranquillity inside of these same borders. Ideally the campaign would take place
in winter. The reasons for this are clearly stated by
the Strategicon;
It would be best to launch an attack against them in wintertime. Since the trees are bare, one is not able to escape notice easily. Also, the snow reveals the tracks of those fleeing. Their families are in poor condition and are exposed. Finally, the rivers are frozen and easily crossed.7^
All captured supplies, such as foodstuffs, were to be shipped back to the empire.72 Slavs capable of resisting were to be killed.7^ in this manner it was thought that the Slavic threat to the empire would be effectively eliminated.
Although these suggestions were never fully implemented, the parallels between the Strategicon1s instructions and the actual campaigns which were undertaken during the reign of Maurice are, especially the last and unfinished one, surprisingly similar. In the winter of 602, the troops sent north of the Danube rebelled.7^ The rebellion was due to imperial parsimony,7^ a parsimony well in keeping with the spirit of the Strategicon1s penny pinching demand to have all captured supplies sent back to the empire. When Maurice failed to accede to the troops’ demand for more pay, the army, led by Phocas, marched upon Constantinople and executed Maurice.7^ In the chaos and civil war which marked Phocas’ reign (602-610), the empire 77 lost any initiative it may have gained against the Slavs. After 602, there was not even a single imperial army to 78 cope with the large and continuous influx of Slavs. By 79 650, much of the peninsula was in Slavic hands.
The unity of Byzantine rule during the chaotic decades between 602 and 656 remained only in areas which were strongly fortified, mainly along the coast, and in direct contact with Constantinople.8^1 Even these regions were threatened by the wave of Slavs who, along with Avars and Bulgars, inundated the peninsula.81 The original population did, nonetheless, survive, and was often assimi-8 2 lated. Some of the Roman inhabitants and the Albanians, R3 remained unassimilated by either Slav or empire.
The removal from imperial power of so vast a territorial unit could not but bring changes in imperial policy and structure. Now, instead of a large recruiting ground, as Illyricum and Thrace had once been,84 imperial lands in the Balkans were, to a good extent, hostile territory я s requiring troops. From the first half of the seventh century onwards, the major source of imperial soldiers or was to be Asia Minor, the heartland of the empire.
Indeed, much of Byzantine Europe was written off as a loss while the empire poured its efforts into holding Asia Minor as a bulwark first against the Persians and later against the Arabs.®?
If anything stands out in this Slavic settlement on imperial lands, it is the fortuitous circumstances under which it occurred. An extremely large population was able to move onto a territory, stripped of troops by civil war and international struggles elsewhere. What resistance did exist was partially wiped out by a strong, but ephemeral,
Avar coalition.88 For over half a century the Slavs did not have to contend with a single imperial army. They moved onto land already denuded by previous invasions and replaced an imperial structure, whose fiscal impositions Q Q had been something less than popular.
They were in no sense counterparts to the earlier Germanic warriors who had shattered the Western Roman Empire beyond repair.91^ Nor could it be said of the Slavs that they had been brought in as Foederati, for they protected the empire from nothing. They were an invader, hid-91 den under no imperial fiction of alliance. They pos-sessed no great leaders such as Alaric. Never during this era did the Slavs send emissaries to demand imperial gold in order to keep from causing trouble. The individual Slavic tribes were quite content with what plunder they could gather.
As with any invasion, there was loss of life, but not on quite the scale alluded to by John of Ephesus. J The Strategicon's sober account of the Slavs observed that throughout Slavic held areas there were still Romans and therefore the imperial army should leave avenues open for their escape and return home.94 These remarks, combined with ita previous comments on Slavic hospitality and their permitting a prisoner to become a member of the local ас tribe, indicate that loss of life was incidental. Some of these tribes, then, possessed members from the earlier Roman population who were skilled in various phases of
Roman warfare. Perhaps it was these Slavonized Romans who were able to help the Slavs reduce fortified cities.96
The devastation inflicted upon the empire was wrought by Slavic ignorance. One can see Slavs destroying vineyard and villa in order to make room for a more familiar, subsistence economy. This, especially to a cultivated citizen of Byzantium, would represent destruction of a most terrifying kind. Since the Slav had even less comprehension of and use for the luxuries and buildings of Byzantium than the earlier Germanic princes, the very earmarks of Byzantine culture disappeared.98
Yet, the Slavic tribes were far less a threat to imperial survival than were the Persians and the Arabs of the East. For seize imperial territories as they may, the Slavs were far from united against Byzantium. Even during the reign of Heraclius (610-614), the empire was able to 9 9 establish positive relations with the Serbian tribes. Slavic disunity kept them from gaining the dangerous preeminence achieved by the Arabs. It was only under the leadership of the Avars that the Slavs attempted the capture of Constantinople in 626/27 and, then, with the failure of the Avars before the city, it was the Slavs themeelves who turned upon the Avars.100
Byzantium had the possibility of retaking its Balkan lands, if only the empire could gain respite from the assault of the East. Although the initial effect of the Slavic invasion was to remove large amounts of territory
from imperial control and even to endanger those areas which remained in imperial hands# Byzantium's position was not an irredeemable loss. The fact that the Slavs were politically disorganized and militarily unsophisticated made them less dangerous than many a previous enemy.303 Reconquest by sheer force of arms was# therefore# possible. 30^ As for the Slavs themselves they needed no prodding when offered the riches of Byzantine trade in exchange for the poverty of a subsistence economy. Indeed, exposure to such wealth hastened the rise of a Slavic aristocracy.303
The new aristocracy naturally found much to emulate in the highly structured society of the Byzantine court. Soon after the initial Slavic settlement on imperial lands# there appear Slavs familiar with Byzantine tastes and habits which would have had their ancestors gaping in wonder. The example of Perbund# chief of the Rynchians, is characteristic of the path to be followed by many a Slavic chieftain. Perbund not only "wore Roman dress," but was also able to converse in Greek# using the local dialect of Thes-salonica# a city which he had unsuccessfully plotted to take by stratagem.30^ Such was the progress of Byzantine language and culture among the Slavs.
Byzantine civilization also spread through the medium of hostages and the surviving Roman population. The first generation of Slavic settlers on imperial lands were exposed to people «till familiar with the Byzantine way of life.306 This not only brought the Slav into the
orbit of Byzantium, but also provided reinforcement to Byzantine rule# should the empire regain the initiative which it had lost in 602.
In the face of rapid change and disaster, Byzantium neither collapsed, nor ossified in attenuated form. Each invasion, including that of the Slavs, brought about revisions in imperial policy. Even in the troubled era of Heraclius, far-reaching negotiations were undertaken and implemented.The event of Constans II‘s expedition into Macedonia was merely a chapter in the long history of imperial diplomatic and administrative activities. By the era of Constans II, the Slavs and their abilities were already well known to the empire, and a positive assessment of these Slavic characteristics in favor of Byzantium had
commenced
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER II
good summary of all the work up to 1942 may be found in Ivan Dujcev# "Balkanskijat" Jugoiztok prez purvata polovina па VI vek,” Belomorksi pregled, I (1942), 229-270, = Bulgarsko Srednovekovie, pp. 11-69. A few of the works which have since been written are: Grafenauer, "Nekaj vprasanj," Tupkova-Zaimova, NaSestyija, F. Barisic, "Proces slovenske kolonizacije istocnog Balkans," Simpozium Mostaru, PP« 11-28, and Nada Кlaic, Povijest Hrvata u ranoni srednjem vijekum (Zagreb: Skolska Knjiga, 1971), pp. 95^1^4.
2The first occurrence of the word "Slav" in Greek texts is that in the dialogues of Pseudo-Caesarius of Nazianzus. While Barisic, "Kada i gde su napisani," argues for an early fifth-century dating, the more conservative (early sixth-century) estimate of Redinger, Pseudo-Kaisa-rios, pp. 301-309, seems to be more in keeping with what is known about the "Dialogues." Several indications of Slavs at the camp of Attila are explored by F. Barisid, ’’Prisk kao izvor za najstariju Juznih Slovena," Z.R.V.I., I (1952), 52-63.
^While a rich literature exists on each of the invaders of the Balkan Peninsula, very few syntheses on the overall subject exist. Several works which deserve mention are: L. Halphen, Les Barbares, des grar.des invasions aux conqu€tes turques du XIе s. (Paris: Collection Peuples et civilisations, V; Payot, 1940) , Georg Stadtrniiller, Geschichte Sudosteuropas (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1950), J. Kovadevic, Varvarska KoTonizacija ju^noslovenskihoblasti (Novi Sad: Matice Srbske, 1960), and P. Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de I'epogue romaine jusqu'au VIII sidcle," Revue Historique, CXI (1954), 265-308.	-------------
^Tupkova-Zaimova, Nasestvija, pp. 89-109.
^Marin Drinov’s article, "Zaselenie Balkanskogo poluostrova," begins a rich tradition of national historians and histories. Serbia received the attention of Konstantine Jirecek, Geschichte der Serben, I (Gotha; Tempsky, 1911), which was later improved and translated into Serbo-Croatian by J. Radonic under the title--K. Jiredek and Radonid, Tatorija Srba, I (2nd ed.; Beograd; Naudna Knjiga, 1952). Also for Serbia and the Slavic invasions, see St. Stanojevid, Vizantija 1 Srba, I. For Bulgaria there are the works of Zlatarski, Istorija, 1/1, and P. MutafCiev, latorlja na bulgarski narod, ITsofia: Hernus, 1943). The most recent work of this genre, and perhaps the beat, la Klai£, Povljeat Hrvata, pp. 95-164.
6Cf. Zlatarski, Istorija2, 1/1 passim, who minimizes Slavic importance with St. Stanojevic, Vizantija i Srba, I, passim, who gives a more dynamic picture of the Slavs.
The results of an over-generous estimation of Slavic abilities is best seen in Julian Kulakovsky, Istorija Vizantij, III (Kiev: S. V. Kul'zenko, 1915 = London; ~ Variorum Reprints, 1973), 210 and 258-259. Likewise F. I. Uspenskij, "Voennoe ustroistvo vizantijskoi imperii," I. R. A. I. К., VI (1900), 154-207, tends to maximize Slavic military ability (especially pp. 197-198) and its influence upon the empire . More in keeping with what the primary sources say is V. Tupkova-Zaimova, "Sur quelques aspects de la Colonisation slave en Macedoine et Grece," Etudes Balkaniques, I (1964), 111-123.
8
Based upon the sources and most careful in their evaluation of the Slavs at the time of their entry into imperial lands are: B. Grafenauer, "Nekaj Vprasanj," pp. 97-111; Cankova-Petkova, "Materialnata kultura," pp. 335-344; and Hensel, Die Slawen, pp. 7-8, 13, 28, 69, 71, 77-78, 134, 142-147, and 284.
a
The problems involved with such extrapolations is nicely elucidated by I. Dujdev, "Legendata za deteubijst-voto u drevnite slavjani," Zbornik Filosofskog fakulteta universiteta Beograd, VIII/I (1964)	125-130, = Bulgarsko
Srednovekovie, pp. 114-121.
^Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VII, 13-14. A full commentary with copious notes by F. Barisic may be found in V.I.I.N.J., I, 17-72. Also see F. Barisic, "0 najstarijoj Prokopijevoj vest о Slovenima," Z.R.V.I., II (1953), 25-31. Another commentary with notes by I. Dujdev is to be found in I.B.I., III, 103-154.
^•^Mauricius, Arta Militara, pp. 276-291. Also see commentary by F. Barisic^ V. I. I. N. J., I, 127-141; and by G. Cankova-Petkova, I.В.I., III, 272-290.
12M.P.G., 116, cols. 1204-1384, and again commentary by F. Barisic in V.I.I.N♦J., I, 183-216, and by V. Tupkova-Zaimova, I.В.I., VI, 89-168.
13John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, pp. 4 32-433.
^4The entire body of primary source material is available in the form of excerpts in I.В.I., III, IV, VI, and VII. A perusal of these sources will show that most are of either geographical or chronological, but not cultural lignificance. The excerpted material in V.I.I.N.J.,
I, is a Serbocroatian translation only, without the original text to refer to.
^Theophylact Simocatta, Historian, contains evidences of consolidation among some'Slavic tribes and the names of several chieftains. Agathias, Historiarum, has several references to Slavs serving in imperial armies.
^Detailed chronology may be found in Grafenauer, "Nekai vprasanj," pp. 24-96, and пиОго^опсиАои-ПсАсиГбои, *£up0oXn," a. 145-208.
^7This is best described by Cankova-Petkova, "Materialnata kultura," pp. 335-344, and interesting perspective is brought upon the same topic by Brajdevskij, "K istorij," pp. 135-138.
18
B. Zasterova, Les Ayares et les Slaves, while pointing out this influence in'Mauricius1 Strategicon, overstates this influence in her examination of the information in the Strategicon.
^Tupkova-Zaimova, Nasestvija, pp. 52-88.
p A
V. Zlatarski, "Naseljvanje Slovena na balkanskom poluostrovy," Kniga о Balkanu (Beograd, 1936), pp. 85-86, = Isbrani Proizvedenija, I, ed. P. Petrov (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1972), 32-51; and V. Tupkova-Zaimova, "Vuznik-vaneto na juinoslavjanskite durzavi i Vizantija," Slavjan-ska Filologija, XIV (1973), 43-54.
^Procopius, Libri de Bellis, V, 27, "Martinos and Valerian arrived leading 1,600 cavalry. Most of them were Huns, Slavs, and Antes, who live near the banks of the Ister river."
22Ibid., VI, 26. Particularly noteworthy is the remark that "this (i.e., the seizing of captives] they (the Slavs] continually inflict upon the Bomans and other barbarians along the Ister where they [the Slavs] live."
в. Bury, Later Roman Empire2, II, 77.
24Agathias, Historiarum, III, 6, 7, 21, and IV, 18 and 20.
25Ibid., where the specific Slavonic form of these Slavs' nance is given without reference to any other Slavic troops.
2^Ibid., III, 21. Also see M. Vainer, Pic Slaven, p. 85, on the name Davragezaa.
27	.
'Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VI, 26, and Mauricius, Arta Militara, 278. "Living the robbers' life, they love to perform operations against their enemies in overgrown, narrow and precipitous places."
2 8
The change in Slavic society came about later during the actual invasion of imperial lands in the second half of the sixth century. The names of Slavic leaders begin to make their appearance in Theophylact Simocatta, Historiae, VI, 6-8, 10,• VII, 4. Also see Brajcevskij, ”K istorij," pp. 135-138.
2^The role of the Avars is nicely stated in A. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 620-621. Also see Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 268, "The Avars, on the other hand, are most knavish and skilled, having the most experience for war. This, to wit, since they are ruled by a monarch—and a cruel one at that—and subject to the vengeance of their ruler if they fail. They are ruled not by love, but by fear. ..."
^Tupkova-Zaimova, "Sur guelgues aspects," pp. ИЗ-122.
31V. Zlatarsky, "Obrazuvane na bulgarska narod-nost," Bulgarska istoriceska biblioteka, 1/1 (1928), 74-112, " Izbrani Proizvedenija, I, 313-358, is the classic essay on the relation between Bulgar and Slav. From a Marxist point of view there is A. Burmov, "Kum vuprosa za otno^e-nijata mezdu slavjani i prabulgari prez VII-IX v.,” Istoriceski pregled, X/1 (1954), 69-94,  Izbrani Proizvedenija (Burmov, pp. 137-160. A more general treatment may be found in D. Angelov, Obrazuvane na Bulgarskata Narodnost (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1971), pp. 190-211. On the earliest phase of this integration of Bulgar and Slav, see I. Dujcev, "Naj-ranni vruzki mezdu purvobulgari 1 slavjani," Izvestija na Arheologiceskija institut, XIX (1955), 327-337, «= Bulgurako Srednovekovie, pp. 87-103.
32Dujcev, "Balkanskijat Jugoiztok," pp. 229-230,  Bulgarsko Sredonovekovie, pp. 112-113.
^^Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VI, 26, and VII, 13; Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 278.
^Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VII, 14, and Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 286.
35Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 278, "Living in forests, along rivers and in inaccessible swamps and mershes. • • • "
36
Ibid.t ". . . and especially Hrse and Millet." Also see Cankova-Petkova, "Materialnata kultura," p. 340, and it is, to wit, this wheat, which, from the most ancient times has been witnessed in these lands (Balkans] and which stands the closest to wild grain—i.e., spelt."
37
Ibid., They possess a multitude of livestock . . . and sheaves stacked up. . . ." See G. Cankova-Petkova 's remarks on the stacks of grain in I.B.I., III, 281, n. 1. Such stacks of sheaves may still be seen in the small villages of the Balkans.
3®Cf. Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VII, 14, "They are scattered far from one another, each living in his miserable hamlet, ..." but Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 286, states that "The villages of the Slavs and the Antes are sited continuously along rivers and are close to one another so that there is no interval between them worth speaking of." The comparison would indicate that some increase had taken place between the time of Procopius and that of Maurice.
3^rhe episode of Chilbudius and Pseudo-Chilbudius (Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VII, 14) shows that feuds were a part of Slavic life. Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 284, also mentions this Slavic propensity for feuding--"There are many kings and there is much discord among them . . . so that on account of all the hatred, they are neither made one or possess a single monarch."
4°A. Gui1lou, Regionalisre et Independance dans 1'Empire byzantin au VII6 s^cle—l'exen^le de 1*exarchat et de la pentapole d'Italie (Rome: Institute Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo-—studi storici, fasc. 75-76, 1969), p. 144.
^Robert S. Lopez, "The Role of Trade in the Economic Readjustment of Byzantium in the Seventh Century," D.Q.P., *111 (1959), 70-73.
42Ibid.
4^Tupkova-Zaimova, Nabestvija, pp. 89-109.
44G. Cankova-Petkova, "Gese1Ischaftsordnung und Kriogskunot die slawischen Staiwne der BalkanhaIbinsel (6.-8. Jh.) nach don byzantinischen Quollen," Helikon, II/1-2 (Gennaio-Glugno, 1962), 266-267.
45Maurlcluo, Arta Militara, p. 280—"Lacking loaders and hating one'anoth©r, they do not know political order. ..."
*6Brajdevskij, "K istorij," pp. 136-139.
47Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VI, 14. For тоге on the meaning of such terminology, see R. Benedicty, "Die auf die fruhslavische Gesellschaft bezugliche byzantinische Terminologie," Actes Xlie Congres International D*Etodes Byzantines, II (Belgrade: Naucno Delo, 1964) , 45-5 5.
4 8
°Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 284, "For difference of opinion holds sway among them. They are not united, or_if their opinion is united—soon another different opinion is brought forward. Each person is of a mind against the other, and no one wishes to give way to the other."
49Ibid.
^Ibid., pp. 276-278, "Their captives are not held in bondage for an indefinite time as other races do, but, at a stated time determined by them, the hostage must rake up his mind whether he wishes to return to his own land with his earnings, or to remain there—free and as a kinsman.°
S^Dujcev, "Balkanskijat Jugoiztok," in Bulgarsko Srednovekovie, pp. 22-33.
^This was already the case at the time of Attila as Priscus’ report on his mission to the court of Attila indicates. See Bury, Later Roman Empire^, I, 283-284, for a translation of the dialogue between Priscus and a Roman who was far more content to live among the Huns than in the empire.
S^procopius, Libri de Bellis, VII, 13-14. Procopius makes a point of mentioning that Chilbudius' forces were not large in number, but were effective in stopping Slavic raids.
^^Tupkova-Zaimova, Nasestvija, pp. 52-67.
55<)п1у under Avar supremacy were the Slavs held under any control whatsoever. The conditions under which thia Avar control existed were tenuous and finally ended in 610. See F. BariSic, "Car Foka (602-610) i podunavski Avaro-Sloveni," Z.R.V.I., IV, 73-88.
S^Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 280, "They are, in every way, faithless and at variance with treaties—yielding to fear rather than gifts."
s7Ibid., p. 284.
58
Tupkova-Zaimova, Nasestvija, pp. 93-108.
59The later episode of Perbund (Miracula St.
Demetri i, IT, 4) is an excellent indication of divided counsel among the Slavs. Also see Maurice, Arta Militara, p. 284.	--------------
^Ibid. , p. 280, "Each man is armed with two short spears. Some carry shields which are strong, but clumsy. They use wooden bows and small arrows smeared with poison.
• • •
e*ibid., "... nor as they trained in fighting hand to hand combat, nor do they appear on open and level places."
62Ibid., "They attack and act in a random way for plunder. . . . They harass the enemy in battle by the discharge of arrows from their bows and by undertaking sudden attacks against their enemy. ..."
^Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VI, 26.
64Mauricius, Arta Militara, pp. 280-282, ". . . cut down the ground cover (around the route of march) and widen it. Leave sufficient troops there until the armies return, so that the enemy is not able to ambush or overpower unawares the passing of the army weighted down with plunder, as is likely to happen . . . the younger of them, being adroit, have good opportunity to make sneak attack."
65Witness the great work of fortress building by Justinian I in the Balkans in order to achieve security over the peninsula. See Procopius, De aedificiis. III, 7; IV, 1-11.
66Mauricius, Arta Militara, p. 276.
67Theophyact Simocatta, Historiae, VI and VII, on the problems involved with this drawn-out warfare.
®Oetrogorsky, History-^, pp. 79-86.
€9Mauriciufl, Arta Militara, pp. 276ff.
70Ibid., pp. 282-284.
71Ibid., p. 282.
7^Ibid., "When you acquire wealth in lands nearby (imperial territories J do not spend it inopportunely, but make haste for it to be carried away either by means of
animals or by means of boats, since the rivers eventually join the Danube.*
73Ibid., pp. 288-290, "... one ought not to take any of the enemy captive who are able to resist, but rather kill all of those who fall into your hands lest they escape.
> • •
^Theophanes, Chronographia,
750strogorsky, History3, pp. 82-83.
?^.N. Етратос;» To Bi/gv-nov cttov Z' ,Atar/g> A (’A&qvat: BiBltanuAeTov rq<; "* ЕстГа<;»" 19<э5), a. 79-81.
770strogorsky, History3, pp. 83-85.
?®I. Dujdev, "Il Mondo Slavo e la Persia nell’alto Me d i о e vo," Atti del Convegno sul Tema: La Persia e il Mondo Greco^Romano--(Roma 11-14 aprile 1965) (Rome: Acca-demia Nazionale dei Lincei, Problem! Attuali di Scienza e di Culture, Anno CCCLXIII, Quaderno n. 76, 1966), pp. 273-306.
79
Lemerle, "Invasions et Migrations," pp. 265-308.
8 0
I.e., Thessalonica, Patras, Monemvasia, etc.
81	•
Tupkova-Zaimova, Nasestvija, pp. 89-108.
82
As early as the time of Mauricius, Strategicon, p. 286, instructions are given regarding Roman survivors.
. Make a practice of dwelling in their land so that Roman captives may safely be received and return home by this means—especially when the trees are in full cover it becomes easy for the captives fearlessly to return." This and other references in the Miracula St. Demetrii clearly Indicate that the loss of life due to the Slavic invasion was something less than total.
83Stadtmuller, Geschichte Sudosteuropas, pp. 95-99.
84P. Charanis, "Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century,” P.O.P., XIII (1959), 32-33.
®5дв late as 810 it was necessary for Nicephorus I to transplant Thematic troops onto European lands--Theo-phanea, Chronograph la, 4 86:10-17.
e6Charanis, "Ethnic Changes," pp. 32-33.
H7Ostrogoreky, History2, pp. 144-145.
®®0n the role of the Avars, see Barisi£, "Car Foka," pp. 73-78.
89	*
Dujcev, "Balkanskijat Jugoiztok," Bulgars<o Srednovekovie, pp. 13-17.
90As is unconvincingly claimed by Skabalonovid, Vizantljskoe gosudarstvo, pp. 230-231.
91This picture of the Slavs as "Foederati" was accepted even by critics of the Vasiljevskij-Uspenskij theory on the Slav's role within the empire—i.e., Pandenko "Pamjatnik Slavjan," p. 62. While, in the light of what the primary sources clearly state about the Slavs of the sixth century, Slavs cannot be mistaken as "Foederati" in the sense the term was used of the Germanic tribes. Some Slavs did become "by the beginning of the ninth century as Tupkova-Zaimova, "Sur quelques aspects," pp. 119-120, carefully states.
9^Ibid., pp. 115-118, on the realities of Slavic leadership.
93John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, pp. 4 32-433.
94Mauriclus, Arta Military, p. 286, see above, p. 54, n. 62.	------------
9^Ibid., pp. 276-278, see above, p. 52, n. 50.
9eCf. Tupkova-Zaimova, "Sur quelques aspects," PP- 113-114.
97John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, pp. 4 32-433.
9®I.e., in the Peloponnesus with the disappearance of many Greek place names of note--A. Bon, La Peloponnese byrant in, pp. 50-59.
"Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Adminlstrando Imperio, cap. 32, lines 1-30.
ths revolt Of Sa-чо, Bee G. Labuda, Plarwsc»" panstwo Slowianskle. Panatwo Samona (Posnant ftslegarnia Akademicka, Г445) , рр» 14t-V. Chaloupecky, "Coneidarations sur fianon, le premier rol des Slaves, Byrantjnoalevies, XI (1950), 22J-239. Also see Л. Grafe-naueF, 1Wove)ia~ 1 iterators о Samu in njenl problem»," |gpdOVihS»> i Casopi • , IV (1950), 151-169. The revolt of iaaest r ucK, as’1T Dujdev ("Bieanrio ed 11 Hondo Slave,"
Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, XI [1964], 140), states--"11imperatore s 11mo1о una grande rivolta degli slavi in Moravia e Boemia, quasi nel centre cioe dello stato degli avari."
^01As evidence of this political fragmentation there is the continuous existence of individual tribal names among the Slavs. See Vasmer, Die Slaven, pp. 20ff.
102E.g., Miracula St. Demetrii, V, 195-207, where a chance appearance of the fleet completely thwarted an attempt at seizure of the city. Also see Theophanes, Chromographia, 364:9-15, 430:21-22, and 456:25-457:6.
102Brajcevskij, “K istorij," pp. 134-138.
*0^Miracula St. Demetrii, IV, 67-90.
Ю^Е.д., the Pseudo-Chilbudius episode in Procopius, Libri de Bellis, VII, 14, where an Ante was able, with some help, to attempt to pass off a false-Chilbudius (the real Chilbudius being dead) for ransom.
10^Miracula St. Demetrii, V, 195-207.
lO^constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, cap. 31, lines 1-25 (Croats), and cap. 32\ lines 1-j6"L “Also see Ostrogorsky’s bibliographical note--History3, pp. 104-105, n. 5.
CHAPTER III
THE SLAVS WITHIN BYZANTIUM--THE INITIAL STAGES
Byzantium has long been recognized for its unique cultural ties with the Slavonic peoples. The influence exerted by Byzantium upon its Slavic neighbors was not merely a process of export to tribes beyond its frontiers. Slavs were also well within imperial borders, as formed by the end of the seventh century. Long before Constantine and Methodius, Byzantium had significant intercourse with Slavs. This interchange resulted from a series of new Imperial policies developed in the seventh century, which were to touch the Slavs within imperial borders in almost •very aspect of their lives and permit them to enter almost •very circle of lite within the empire. Owing to the scope of such interaction and what actually transpired, the movement of Byzantine civilization to Slavs outside of imperial boundaries is hardly surprising, and perhaps historically inevitable. Precedent for Byzantine cultural presence among the Slavonic peoples can indeed be found as early as the first quarter of the sixth century, but Byzantine policy regarding the Slavs finds its first full expression In the troubled days of Constans II.
Constans II (641—668) was hard pressed to salvage his battered empire.* His conspicuous failure to stem Arab naval power and territorial expansion caused him to turn 2 his attention westward. This new concern was decisive in import for imperial territories in the Balkans. For the first time since 602, imperial armies moved openly against the Slavs and regained the initiative.3 Aside from outright military conquest, Constans II took yet another bold step in relation to the Slavs—their use as an immigrant population in Asia Minor.4 So it was that when the Arab Abd al Rahman ben Khalid ben al Walid led a particularly successful raid in 664,5 he encountered a people entirely new to the Arabs, the Slavs, whom he settled in Syria.6 This Slavic colony numbered 5,000. In all probability these were the same Slavs who were taken in Constans Il's campaign against the Sklavinias. Here, for the first time, la witnessed a new policy toward the Slavs under imperial jurisdiction.
Imperial planning was designed to further Byzan-tinliation.7 while, in the Balkans, conquest by imperial armies was an important aspect of this process, it was not its sole basis.0 A policy of population transfer was designed to further the same program by dispersion. Resettlement gave the added effect of placing Byiantlne population in a higher ratio to the Slavic in areas where the Slavs themselves were numerous.10 Thue a Slavic population was resettled in Asia Minor. They did not, however.
seem to be composed solely of unwilling captives. Evidence of later Slavic population transfers indicates that they were more often by choice than by force.11
The great relocations of Slavic population by Justinian II in 688 and by Constantine V in 762, each, had a further aim. Primary sources state that in both cases the Slavs willingly came as refugees from the Bulgars.1^ As a result, the Bulgar State was weakened and Byzantine power subsequently strengthened. Imperial policy had been successful not only by military constraint, but by persuasion, a force to which the Slavs made a positive response. The number of people involved in such transplantations, especially in the transfer of 762 (208,000), indicates Slavic willingness to place themselves under Byzantine rule and provides concrete evidence of positive Byzantine-Slav relations .13
Accurate statistics, in the modern sense, do not exist for the seventh and eighth centuries. Numbers recorded by contemporary or near contemporary accounts are for many reasons to be treated with circumspection. Nonetheless, careful comparison of the sources often yields an approximation of size. Since a later account mentions Slavs settled in Asia Minor, who could not have been placed thera after the reign of Constans II, the settlement of Slavs during his reign must have been in excess of 5,000.14 It still remains likely that the 5,000 taken by Abd al Rahman represented the majority of the Slavs removed to
Asia Minor previous to Justinian H’s reign.
A more serious problem exists for the number mentioned in relation to the Slavic settlement of Justinian II. Later Byzantine sources state that Justinian II selected 30/000 Slavic immigrants for his army.15 This figure is suspect. The size of such a recruiting effort is completely inconsistent with what is known about the imperial military. Arabic sources for the ninth century, a century of expanding imperial power, list the troop strength of the empire as 120/000-90,000 of those being stationed in Asia Minor.16 This number does not differ radically from the 150,000 given by Agathias for the impe-rial army of the sixth century. A recruitment of 30,000 in the seventh century, a century when imperial armies, if anything, were smaller in size, would mean that the Slavs composed one-third or more of the entire troop strength of the East, hardly a "supernumerary corps" as it was so
1 й
named. The subsequent loss of 20,000 men to the Arabs would have been far in excess of the average field army 19 utilized by the empire throughout most of its history.
Fortunately, there exists another source which give a signlficantly different number--Michael and Syrian.^ While thia is a much later account, there Is strong evidence that hie figures are much closer to reality. Michael the Syrian writes that 7,000 Slavs deserted to the Arabs in 6*2, a store credible figure given the armies of thia area. The 10,000 stent ioned by the Rysantlne sources is more
likely the total number of slave settled in Asia Minor by Justinian II. This figure allows for an average family of four# out of which one able-bodied man could be chosen for military service.22 Such a family size in consistent with the idea of population transplantation, to wit, young families which would grow as time passed. Therefore, in the light of what is definitely known about Byzantium's military and the evidence provided by at least one of the sources, the number of Slavs settled in Asia Minor by Justinian II was most probably in the area of 30,000.
The last Slavic transplantation into Asia Minor, under Constantine V, was the largest. Nicephorus the Patriarch places their number at 208,000.23 Unlike the figure agreed upon by Theophanes and Nicephorus for the transfer of 688, there is no compelling reason for doubting the verity of the figure 208,000.24 The Slavs were not captives, but part of a major political upheaval against the Bulgars.25 Theophanes, while not stating a specific number, does stress the size of this transplantation.26 Nicephorus the Patriarch’s insistence at an unrounded number of 208,000, rather than the more general figure of, for example 200,000 or 210,000, adds credibility to this estimate.27
Thus, in little over a century (657-762), close to • quarter of a million Slavs were settled in Asia Minor, the heartland of the empire. This Slavic immigration represents the largest aeries of population transfers in
Byzantium’s history.Movement of people on this scale could not have been made without Slavic cooperation. Willingness did in fact exist/ as the sources clearly testify.2^ References to Slavs migrating by "flight" occur in the accounts of 688 and 762. The reason for this "flight” is, in both cases, due to the Bulgars. 3^ in this manner the empire gained not only numbers# but also a body of potentially willing citizens.
Thia voluntarism was, in several cases, somewhat illusory. Slavs continued to be restive in areas retaken by imperial armies. 33 As late as the tenth century there are evidences that the Slavs were not completely satisfied with Byzantine rule and desired autonomy.32 Added to this outright assertion of restlessness was the continued activity of Slavic pirates#33 and the willingness of some Slavs 34 to join in anti-imperial intrigues. The record of unrest and separatism begins as early as the reign of Tiberius-Apsimar (690-705) and continues well into the tenth century. 35 Such difficulties were to require more than one emperor to send troops into Thrace and Greece.
The Slavs in Asia Minor constituted a different problem, for there, open rebellion was not possible. As the Slavs fled from the Bulgars when the pressure of Bulgar rule become too firm for Slavic likings, such was also the case when the impositions of Byiantium became onerous. The success of Abd al Rahman was Implemented by the flight of 5,000 Slavs to him from Rysantine lands.36 They were again
moved farther to the east. The events surrounding the sec ond defection of the Slavs to the Arabs were, however, to show less spontaneity. While Nicephorus mentions only the Slavs’ crossing over to the Arab side in 692,37 Theophanes gives the full case, stating that outside intrigue had an important place in the proceedings. Theophanes states:
Mohamed secretly made suggestion to the ally of the Romans, the general of the Slavs, sending him a full purse of Nomismata, and beguiling him with many promises, he persuaded him to flee to his side, and with him 20,000 Slavs and so procured the flight of the Roman forces.38
Although bribery and promises played a part, once the Slavs were on the Arab side, they remained there. Two years later, in 694, to the distress of Byzantium, these same Slavic troops reappeared in a successful Arab attack against the empire. it is highly likely that the descendants of these same Slavs, still loyal to their Arab rulers, took part in the fighting during the inter-4 0 necine struggles of the Abbasaid Caliphate in 754.
The great Slavic turnabout of 692 was the last time Slavs in Asia Minor made any unified attempt at anti-imperial behavior as Slavs.41 The rebellion of Thomas cannot be seen as being solely Slavic.4^ Nor can later rebellions and plots be regarded as signs of the same ethnic sentiment on the part of the Slavs. All were the choice and work of Individual citizens of the empire. The majority of Slavs transplanted in 762 remained imperial citizens and provided loyal soldiers for imperial armies. Participation, for over a century and a half, in imperial forces
is sufficient proof of this loyalty and, hence, satisfaction with their standing in the empire.43
The relocation of the Slavs in Asia Minor reflects the necessities of the times. While no clear data is available on the transplantation effected by Constans II, it must have been close to the southeastern frontiers of the empire at that time (664) , Abd al Rahman’s raid penetrated into the heartland of Asia Minor, but not close to where the Slavs were later settled.44 It is known that in the great Arab campaign of 716-718, an Arab attack took a city called "the city of the Slavs." Careful study has revealed that this center, also called Loulon, was a key fortress on the eastern border of the empire. As all later transfers of Slavs were made far to the west of this area, it is most likely that the Slavs mentioned in Abd al Rahman's campaign, and the Slavs by whose name the city of Loulon was known, were both placed in the east at the same time by Constans II in an attempt to hold his borders.
The two later colonies were placed in western Asia Minor.This positioning of Slavs strengthened the population closer to the capital, and allowed it to increase without close exposure to the Arabs. Justinian II placed the entire Slavic mass in the Opsikion Theme and relatively close to the Sea of Marmara.47 Although the exact location of the Artanas River is still in question, the great transplantation made by Constantine V was also in the same gen-4 8 eral era. From the evidence of a lead seal and the later
life of St. loannicius the Great,49 it is known that the area called Bithynia was a popular place for the settling of Slavs. This region touched two Themes—the Opsikion and the Anatoliken. Bithynia*s Slavic identity continued up to the tenth century when some of its inhabitants were known as Slavesiani.50 The settlement of Justinian II, however, was greatly reduced by his massacre of the Slavs in revenge for the desertion of units of the Supernumerary Corps in 692.51 By far the most significant transplantation in numbers and duration was that of Constantine V.52 The colonization affected by Constans II and Justinian II, while providing a precedent for such handling of the Slavs, does not appear to have maintained strength due to both the Arabs and to the vindictive nature of Justinian II.
The chain of Slavic tribes in the European holdings of the empire were far more independent, but Byzantine Europe lacked, with the exceptions of Constantinople and Thessalonica, the vital importance of Asia Minor. The tribes around Thessalonica, the Smoljani, Draguvitl and Rynchinl, were all more or less neutralized by the imperial authorities, but still able to cling to some form of auton-cecui existence.53 Much the same may be said of the Sagu-datae and Velegisltl to the south,and the Nelingl and Eseritae in the Peloponnesus.^ Such imperial power, ae was present, was not sufficient to absorb in so short a Um su-h a wid»»i read and iriror us Slavic population. As time went on. Slavic power was. nonetheless, curtailed I-.
significant population transfers from Asia Minor to Europe,56 military action57 and Byzantinization.58
The geographically widespread distribution of the Slavs within imperial borders raises the question as to how the imperial authorities regarded these peoples. The Slavs in the European part of the empire were less of a problem in this respect since their settlement occurred during an era of imperial collapse and without any imperial support. The case of the Slavs in Asia Minor is another question entirely. While imperial policy was intended to maximize imperial strength by whatever means possible, the transfer of Slavs into Asia Minor was far more than a weakening of Slavic population density in the Balkan Peninsula by their dispersion to other areas.
The level of Slavic cultural development played an important part in the imperial decision to move Slavs into Asia Minor. Their introduction into the heart of the empire represented a numerous but not particularly hostile population reservoir upon which to draw. These transfers were a necessity. Asia Minor, the center of the empire and the source of its strength, was in serious danger due to the severe loss of population it had sustained in the previous century.The situation in 657 was critical in the extreme, as frequent Arab raids had increased the depopulation. If the empire was to survive, its core, Asia Minor, leeded manpower.
In the 110 years which followed 657, a large body
of people was transferred to Asia Minor. Some of them came from the East# a move brought on by Arab conquest, but by far the most numerous population settled in Asia Minor by transfer was that of the Slavs. The progressively larger numbers of Slavs settled in Asia Minor helped the empire solve a serious manpower shortage. Areas which had previously been desolate were now productive. For the most part, the Slavs on these lands had come willingly, and so formed not only an active citizenry, but also a loyal one. At first, under Constans II, Slavs were used in zones threatened with Arab raids, possibly as a buffer, but more likely as a replenishment for areas previously devastated. Later policy, after direct Arab attacks upon the capital, tended to place Slavs farther to the West. Such a placement allowed them to increase in relative security, distant from the troubled Eastern frontier. This also assured the empire that Slavs would not leave imperial lands, as they were located far from the nearest border. So, by a series of transfers, not without several mistakes, the empire was able to utilize the Slavs in the reviving of Asia Minor.
A series of settlements, such as the empire effected in its moving of the Slavs, yielded concomitant results In production. For, as a consequence of additional populace, Byzantine economy Itself Improved.A large body of agriculturallsta had been settled on previously fallow land, thereby making the land yield revenue again. The agricultural production of Aela Minor allowed the
empire to compensate for the loss of Egypt, the old imperial grainary, and so keep its cities fed. For an emperor as astute as Constantine V, who had faced at least one serious grain shortage,the possibility of improved food output by means of renewed population must have been almost an ideal solution to a serious problem. The chain of productivity, increased at its base, agriculture, affected every other aspect of imperial life.
It may have been such a rapid improvement which prompted Justinian II to break his treaty in 692 with the Ommayid Caliphate. This also brought about a less successful utilization of the Slavs as imperial troops. While the Slavs had been effective in the art of ambush in the heavily wooded and watered areas of the Balkans, such fighting qualities were of little use in the open stretches of Asia Minor. The Slavs were primarily brought into Asia Minor for other than military purposes. This becomes obvious when the actions of Justinian II are closely investigated, and the facts of his attempt to make imperial troops out of the Slavs are clearly stated.
With the possible exception of Constans Il's attempt to place the Slavs in border areas, Slavs were not directly brought into Asia Minor as armed troops.It was not until four years after moving the Slavs into Asia Minor that it occurred to Justinian II to utilize them as such.®^ What is more significant is the fact that, as Theophanes unequivocally states:
In this year Justinian picked out from among the Slavs and enlisted 30,000 and arr^ed them. He called them the "supernumerary corps" and made a certain Nevoulos, by name, the leader over them.67
This indicates that the Slavs needed to be enlisted and armed in order to facilitate Byzantine military objec-6 8 tives. A case, based on philological comparison, may even be made that their leader, Nevoulos, was actually a Bulgar, a supposition which hardly enhances the supposed _	_	CO
federate quality of the Slavs. Aside from arming them, these Slavs had to be given training in the profession of Roman arms, of which they seen to have been ignorant.70
Warfare in Asia Minor against the Arabs required training and highly developed strategy on a scale which went far beyond anything then present in Byzantine Europe. It was in Asia Minor where mounted armies marched in well-planned campaigns and fought in open battles, all of which was foreign to a people accustomed to the techniques of random ambush in well-forested and watered areas, and then armed only with the most rudimentary of weapons. The Slavs were therefore poorly prepared for the kind of military action undertaken in Asia Minor. They had to be drafted, armed, and trained before they were fit to be included among the imperial forces. They were then given the appela-tion “supernumerary"--!.e., draftees. Their recruitment yielded good results, but not for Byzantium. 71 The Slavs learned well from their masters, as Theophanes ruefully
states x
Mohamed made war against the Romans, having with him turncoat Slavs, experienced in Roman ways, and he took many captives.72
Properly instructed, as the evidence shows, the Slav made a very good soldier, unfortunately for the other side, the Arabs. He was nonetheless a "Roman" soldier and not a Slavic federate.
The earlier settlement of Constans II may have been utilized militarily, but in a more stationary manner, to strengthen Loulon. This indicates that Slavs could have been of service in the defense of the precipitous passes of the East, areas much more suited to their natural inclinations.7^ Here, in spite of a Slavic defection, the Slavs of Loulon remained long enough to give the city its Arabic appelation "the city of the Slavs." They were probably still present as its defenders when it fell to the Arabs in 715.74
The Slavs' later record in imperial armies is better. As late as the tenth century, Slavs from Asia 75 Minor fought as imperial troops. Some, like St. loan-nicius the Great, who were militarily distinguished seem to have come from families where a military career was a tradition.76 Likewise the rebel Thomas the Slavonian (821-823) showed skill in leadership.77 These Slavs in Asia Minor represent a highly Byzantinized population. In all but name, they had lost their Slavic identity.
Military utilization of Slavic manpower was initially one of the least successful of all the imperial
policies developed in the seventh century. As offensive troops they succumbed to bribery and joined enemy armies, Although some among the defense forces of the empire remained loyal, many deserted.78 It was not until the mid-eighth century that Slavic military effectiveness proved of actual benefit.
Imperial strength faced near dissolution in the chaos of the seventh century, but the eighth century 79 brought about a form of stabilization. Involved in both the near destruction, and in the revival of the empire were the Slavs. During the course of events, both of terrible defeats and of spectacular victories, Byzantium tested out many new policies. One plan attempted to utilize the Slavic population. To a degree the experiment was tried upon willing subjects, for given the choice between the rule of another nomadic people from the Steppes, the Bulgars, and the rule of the empire, many Slavs chose Byzantium. Their decision and satisfaction with this resolution varied, but it never became a reversion to Bulgar rule.
Incorporation of the Slavs into the imperial framework of Asia Minor does not seem to have meant immediate dispersion among the local population. The evidence of the lead seal of Bithynia and the selection of Nevoulos from among the same settlers indicates that they were settled as a body in one particular place. The Slavs were, however, snhjwet, as every other citizen, to all the imperial laws and taxes.80 While Slavs were numerically the
largest ethnic body ever transplanted by the empire, it cannot be said that the empire based its policy solely upon this population. Imperial rule could experience defections and even military defeats incurred by Slavic disloyalty without falling apart or even showing signs of disintegration. The theory which posits the Slav was the basic cause for the revival of the empire overlooks the fact that other peoples were also entering the empire. The significance of the Armenians, Wardites, and Greek refugees from Arab lands 81
well overshadows the importance of the Slavs. One looks in vain for Slavs playing key parts in the victories over the Arabs in 678 and 717, events which literally saved the empire, or in the subsequent events which stabilized go
Islamic-Byzantine affairs. Neither Constans Il's transplantation, nor Justinian Il’s, nor even Constantine Vs play a crucial role in the military or political situation of the era.83
The Middle Byzantine State, during the difficult year» of its formation, took advantage of whatever resources were at hand. Its survival in the seventh century attests to the skill with which Byzantium's leaders used available men and materials.04 Where such resources were lacking, they were developed. New armies, new weapons, and a new administrative system grew out of the needs of this formative era, yet there remained one factor missing, one which needed an external source of supply. To consolidate the remaining imperial lands and assure their permanent
survival, a large population base was essential. The neglect of many years and the attrition of widespread warfare had created this demand. In this, the Slavs rade their contribution, not immediately vital, as were the great victories and subtile diplomacy of the seventh and eighth centuries, but, rather, as a more lasting assurance that there was (unlike the facade of strength presented by Justinian I's era) a solid foundation upon which the empire could build. That the Slavs were not the sole contributors to population growth within the empire and its concomitant Increase in production is obvious. That they were a significant element, improving the overall demographic condition of the empire, and therefore its economic strength is also certain.
Byzantium's rulers were far too skilled and experienced to base their survival on a single factor. They tried rather to develop a number of strategies out of which • favorable situation for the empire would result.®6 The Slave were the object of one of these plans. Well chosen for their role end known for their capabilities, the Sieve' use papulation replenishment wss eventually successful. This utilisation was not without its mistakes, as the Slavic defections to the Arabs fully illustrates. In the •od, however, the policy developed by Constans II did boar positive results as the record of later centuries testifies.
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER III
The most recent discussion of Constans Il's reign is Етоатос, To Bi^avTiov, Д (entire). Older works include the very literal work of Kaestner, De iripeno Cor.star. - „ n i III (641-668), and the more interpretative accounts of Kulakoveky, Istorija Vizantij, III, 186-227, and Ostro-gorsky. History3, pp. 110-123.
^Constans Il’s defeat and near capture at the naval battle of Phoenix off Asia Minor (Theophanes, Chronograph! a , 346:7-17) marked the low point of Byzantine naval power in its struggle against the aggressive naval policy of Muawija. Similarly Arab raids against Asia Minor increased in intensity and depth (Brooks, "Arabs in Asia Minor," pp. 182-206). For Conetans Il's plan to move the imperial capitol west, see Theophanes, Chronographia, 348:
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 347:6-7; and Niederle, Slovanske Starozitnos11^ IX/*, 421-422.
4P. Charanis, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century," Byzantion, XVIII (1946-48), 64-83, reviews the material and remains the most convincing study. V. I. Lamanskij's assertion CO Slavjanah," pp. 157-189) that the Slavs had arrived in Asia Minor centuries earlier is completely without foundation.
^The Arab account of this raid is recorded in Brooks, "Arabs in Asia Minor," p. 184. The Abderachman of the Greek account is 'Abd al Rahman b. Khalid b. al Walid* of the Arabic sources. His career provides an interesting picture of the rapid expansion of Arab power. He already commanded a division of troops at the fateful battle of Yarmuk (616) where Byzantium lost Palestine *o the Arabs. The Arabs of Syria mentioned him as a possible successor to Muawija, but his career was ended by poisoning in 666/ 667 after another euccessful raid on Byzantine Anatolia. For s»re on him, see H, Lammene, "Abd al Rahman b. Khalid b. al Walid," Г.. 1.1, Ь 55-56.
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 141«16-20. "Abderac-h-skan, the Chaldean, campaigned in Romania and wintered there, ravaging the whole territory. The Slava there, who escaped with him, he established in Syria, in nunlar 5,000, and they made a home in the area of Apamea, in the village of Be 1euAovolos•"
V. Tupkova-zaimova and M. Vojnov, "La politique de Byzance dans ses rapports avec les Barbares,Etudes' Historiques S 1*occasion du XICongrds Internat гЕТТГЧр Sciences Historiques-Vienne, Aout-Septembre 1965. Fi (Sofia: B.A.N., 1965), 31-467	---------—"
g
The place of military conquest in this activity is well stated by P. Charanis, "Sicephorus I—Saviour of Greece," Byzantina-Metabyzantina, 1/1 (1946), 75-92.
9
P* Charanis, “The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, I1/2 (1961), 147.
10Ibid., p. 151.
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 364:9-16 (for the events of 688), 432:25-29 (for the events of 762), and Nicephorus, Brevarium, 36:17-25 (688) and 68:27-69:2 (762). Nicphorus is especially noteworthy in his account for the уе*лг 688 (Brevarium, 36:17-25) for the mention of sone kind of an agreement between certain Slavs and the eapire--"There he took captive cany peoples of the Slavic race, either by battle or by treaty, and transporting then over (the Hellespont) he established them in the Territory called the Opsikion—in the village of Abydus.”
The evidence that the Slavs involved in bcth the transfers of 688 and of 762 had, in many cases fled from the Bulgars is indisputable. See Theophanes, Chror.cgraphia, 364:9-15, "In this year Justinian marched against the Slav-inias and Bulgaria. He met the Bulgars there and forced then out until they were well beyond the bounds of Thessalonica. Very many Slavs whom he received by flight during the war, he sent to the Opsikion Theme and established them in the area of Abdus." Even more pronounced in this regard is the transplantation of 762—Theophanes, Chrcnograph ia, 432:25-29, “The Bulgars rose up and killed their ruler descended from the (royal) lines, and established an evil «tinded nan by the name of Telets, who ruled 30 years. Many Slavs fled, seeking refuge with the emperor, who established them on the Artanas.'
i3The flight of 208,000 Slavs from the Bulgarians in 762 fits well into the kind of diplomatic activities undertaken by Constantine V in his struggle against Bulgaria. This particular defection may have been, in part, stimulated by Constantine V. See V. Besevliev, "Die Feldzuge des Kaisers Konstantin V. gegen die Bulgaren,” Etudes balkaniques, VII/3 (1971), 12, for Constantine Vs advance preparations against the Bulgars.
14There is reasonable probability that the Slavs were also settled in Loulon during the reign of Constans II. See Charanis, "Ethnic Changes," pp. 42-43, and G. Ch. Soulis* review of P. Charanis, "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century,” B. , XVIII (1948), 69-83, in * Ehcrgp'ii; 'ЕгшрсГск;	ivaiv Елоибшу
16' (1W), a. 337->0.	-------------------------
15Theophanes, Chronographia, 365:30-366:3, and Nicephorus, Brevarium, 36:17-25.
J. de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Araborum, VI (Leiden: J. Brill, 1899), 167ff. Ibn Hordadbeh, citing the Arab Kudama, states that, under the Amorion Dynasty (820-867) , the troop strength of the entire Byzantine empire was 120,000 men—90,000 of these located in the eleven eastern Themes. The figures given by Kudama seem to represent the work of Arab spies working for the various Arab Emirs, who made raids upon Byzantine lands, and so represent extraordinarily accurate figures. See E. Brooks, "Arabic Lists of Byzantine Themes,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXI (1901), 67-77.
?Agathias, Historiarum, 9:5-13.
IP
The acceptance of these figures involves accepting evidence which flatly contradicts everything which is known about the Byzantine military. The statement that these 30,000 men were "supernumerary"--!.e., draftee auxiliary troops—puts these "supernumerary" troops at a larger number than the entire army used by Constantine V against Bulgaria 80 years later—see Be^evliev, "Die Feldziige," p. 10.
19Theophanes, Chronographia, 366:16-24.
^Michel le Syrien, Chronigue, II, 4 70.
^Theophanes and Nicephorus both give the same number in relation to the Slavs in Justinian Il's army— Theophanes, Chronographia, 365:30-366:3, and Nicephorus, Brevarium, 36:17-25. Nicephorus, however, does not state the number of the Slavs who deserted. A remote possibility exists that the source used by Theophanes used a poorly written minuscule C (7) which was read as a A (30) cf. Carl Faulmann, Das Buch der Schrift (Wien: К. K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerlei, 1878), p. 168, under ligatures for C and A. This does not account for Theophanes' use of K’ (20,000) to denote those who deserted. It is best, in this case, to posit that the source Theophanes used was already corrupted and confused. This is the best one can conjecture in the light of what is known about the Byzantine military.
22
Such families with strong military traditions do make their later appearance among the Slavs within the empire--see Vryonis, "St. loannxcius the Great," pp. 245-
23
Nicephorus, Brevarium, 68:27-69:2. "Not a little time passed and a Slavic population migrated by flight from their land and crossed the Euxine. The numbers of their multitude was counted as being about 208,000. They were settled on the river called the Artanas."
2 4
There is little reason to doubt this number since Nicephorus stresses the time element, and it does not contradict what is known about the empire--!. e. , it is not a military figure, but a number for a total population which migrated. A time-consuming migration of Slavs after a major political upheaval in Bulgaria is quite credible.
2 5 Theophanes, Chronographia, 432:25-29. Zlatarski, Istorija^, 1/1, 276-28Г? Zlatarski‘s conclusion that the migration was, in part, due to tensions between the Hunno-Bulgar noble families and the royal line, a line which preferred the Slavs as a counterbalance to aristocratic power, most accurately fits the description of the sources.
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 432:25-29,	.
many Slavs. ..."
^Charanis, "The Slavic Element," p. 77, originally questioned the number 208,000, but now accepts (P. Charanis, "Author's Preface," Studies on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire, London: Variorum Reprints, 1972) the number as being correct. Also see Ostrogorsky, History2, p. 168, n. 2.
^Comparison with other population transfers is discussed by Charanis, "The Transfer of Population," pp. 147-148. Especially important comparison may be made with the Armenians in Byzantium.
2^Theophanes, Chronographia, 432:28, ". . . seeking refuge with the emperor. . . .
^®This is not to say that a rapport existed, at a very early period, between the Bulgars and the Slavs. The relationship between the two was, nonetheless, troubled by intra-Bulgar strife for and against the Slavs. For a discussion of this, see Zlatarski, Istorija2, 1/1, 191-202, 264-281, 308-309, 371-373, 380-38i, and 446-447. It was this strife, as has been mentioned before (p. 74, fn. 25), which brought about the willingness of the Slavs to migrate. This also indicates that the Slavs played a part in Bulgarian internal affairs at a very early time in the relationship between these two peoples.
Michel le Syrien, Chronique, II, 473, records a 705^^^ОП 35 ваГ1У aS ге^9п of Tiberius Apsimax (698-
32
Liutprand, Antapodosis, Lib. II, Cap. 24. Discussion on the Slav uprising of 926 also in Zlatarski, Istorija2, 1/2, 489-491.
33Slavic piracy seems to have remained a problem well into the ninth century as the life of St. Gregory the Decapolite gives testimony—Dvornik, La Vie de Saint Gregoire le Decapolite, pp. 22-23 and 61:28-62:1.	”
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 473:32-474:10, on the plot of Akamir, chieftain of the Veletzian Slavs, against Irene. Zlatarski's interpretation (Istorija^, 1/1, 314-315) of this plot is not fully convincing as this particular plot cannot be seen to involve the issue of Slavic independence in the way Zlatarski states it.
^Distinct accounts of this necessity are given for the reigns of Constans II, Justinian II, Tiberius-Apsimar, Constantine V, Irene, Nicephorus I, Theophilus, Michael III, and Romanus I. The basis for imperial control was, nonetheless, fairly well consolidated by the reign of Nicephorus I as Charanis points out in "Nicephorus I," pp. 79-86.
3^Theophanes, Chronographia, 348:16-20.
3?Nicephorus, Brevarium, 37:6-8, "Those of the Slavs called the "Supernumerary" corps went over to the Saracens, and with them inflicted a severe defeat on the Roman s."
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 366:16-20.
39Ibid., pp. 367:9-12.
4°Ibid., pp. 428:24-25, ". . . and Aboumouslim defeated him and killed many, for there were many Slavs and Antiochenes."
*^This was probably due, in part, to the firm, but brutal action taken by Justinian II against the remaining Slavs. Theophanes, Chronographia, 366:20-24, "Then Justinian killed those who remained, along with their women and children, at a place called Leukati, situated on the cliffs by the sea along the bay of Nicomedia." Justinian II, as later events were to show, was hardly an emperor who could afford to let actions against him go unpunished.
While, in many ways, an able ruler, he is not quite the model C. Head paints in her account, Justinian II
(Madison: ^University of Wisconsin Press, 1972). Also see A. Mariq, Notes sur les Slaves dans le Pelopon£se et en Bithynie," В., XXII (1952), 348-355.
4 2
The thesis of a great Slavic upheaval advanced by de. E. LipSits, "Vosstanie Fomi Slavjanina i vizantijskoe krestjanstvo na grane VIII-IX w., V.D.I., I (1939), 352-365, is no longer tenable, if, indeed, it ever was. The most important study on Thomas is that by P. Lemerle, "Thomas le Slave," Travaux et Memoires, I (1965), 255-297.
4 3	•	•
For imperial armies in later centuries and the Slavs in those armies, see Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia , V 66 (pp. 305-306, Bonn), and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis Aulis, I, 662-663 (Bonn).
^Brooks, "Arabs in Asia Minor,” p. 184, clearly shows that Abd al Rahman's raid penetrated deep into Asia Minor, possibly as far as the Anatolicon Theme, but not as far as Bithynia, where Slavs were later settled.
^Brooks, "The Campaign of 716-718,” p, 21, corrects his previous comment ("Arabs in Asia Minor," pp. 194-195), aund concludes that "the City of the Slavs" was Loulon.
^The location of the Slavs in Asia Minor is reviewed by Charanis, "The Slavic Element," pp. 70-71.
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 366:20-24, locates the massacre of the Slavs along the Bay of Nicomedia on the Sea of Marmara.
*8₽ancenko, "Panjatnik Slavjan," pp. 16-62. Also see G. Schlumberger, "Sceau de esclaves (mercenaires) Slavs de le eparchie de Bithynie," В. Z . , XII (1903), 277; A. F. ViSnjakova, "Slavjanskaja kolonija VII w. Vifinij,” V.D.I., 1940 (HI), pp. 138-141, and discussion in Ostro-gorsky, History2, pp. 130-131, n. 4.
<9A.A.S.S., Nov. II/l (1894), 332-435, and Vryonis, "St, Ioannicius the Great," pp. 245-248.
$°The meaning of the term "EMafiiaAav" is uncertain. The chief references are unclear as to whether ot not this term was a specific geographical location or merely an ethnographic appelation. „ Theophanes Copti nu<? tus K Chronograph ia, 379:2-5, TaBpiqAonouiov wji BcutiAit^qv tov 4noi>AapiJiav Г 7 ." would seem to indicate a geographical location, but Constantino Porphyrogenitus, De Cerimonii s, I, _ 666 :^15-16, "Anb w	rwv ka-Jqufvurv"ro fyfxiov Avftpwv ox.'..”
For further discussion, see G. Soulis, "Review," pp. 339-340, and K« wAiUivro<;. "btAdflo:, 2>Aaflqai<$voi Bapgapoi.* Промг1ха rnc ‘Axaftnufa	7 (1932), о» 331-339»
It is now generally agreed that the Slavs survived Justinian Il’s massacre. See Marig, "Notes," p. 349 and Charanis, "Ethnic Changes," pp. 42-43.
52
Nicephorus, Brevarium, 68:27-69:2.
Kupta*<f6r]<7, "’At TTept twv Erpuiicva xai rqv eccuaXoviKqv crXaBixat bnotKfjgti^ ката riw цЕаилг ata/va," бессаЛсА'Гша Me^Et^pam i (1939), a. 1-18 «al, 37-42; G. Soul is, "On the Slavic settlement in Hierissos in the tenth century," В., XXIII (1953-54), 67-72; H. Evcrt-Kappesowa, "Slowiane pod Tesalonika," Ksiega Ku csi prof. K. Tymienicegkieao (Poznan, 1970) , pp. 179-196; Dolger, Ein Fall, pp." 1-2T.
5^St. P. Kyriakides, "The Northern Boundaries of Hellenism in the 7th and 8th centuries," Balkan Studies, I (I960), 57-61; Tupkova-Zaimova, "Sur guelques aspects," pp. 117-122; Charanis-, "On the Question of the Slavonic settlements," pp. 254-258.
55д. Bon, Le Peloponese byzantin, pp. 27-70;
A. Za«u6qv6^, 01 LAaflot £v *£AXd6t< £u^3oAat еЦ t^v ’laropfav. rou UECTavtxoC ’EAXqvtOUou, (rA6rjwai> 19^5)«
^Population transfers to Byzantine Europe occurred during the reigns of Constantine V, Leo IV, and Nicephorus I. See Theophanes, Chronographia, 429:19-22, "The emperor (Constantine in 75?! settled Syrians and Armenians from Theodosiopolis and Melitene, in Thrace, where they spread the Paulician heresy." Likeiwse Leo IV settled Jacobite Syrians from Germaniki onto Thracian lands in 778--Chronographia, 451:11-452:2. Finally, Nicephorus I settled even more population in Thrace in 810. For the significance of these transfers on the Balkan Peninsula, see Zlatarski, Istorija^, I/I, 267, 313, and 330.
S^Extremely important military action was undertaken during the reign of Irene in order totally to subdue the Slavs. Theophanes, Chronographia, 456:25-457:6. "In that year (783) Irene made peace with the Arabs, securing it without indemnity. She sent Staurikios, a patrician and Logothete of the imperial Drome, with many forces against the Slavic peoples. He descended upon the region of Thes-salonica and Hellas and subjugated all and made them subject to the empress. He entered into the Peloponnesus and took many captives and spoils and brought that place under control of the Roman Empire. A.M. 6276 (784 A.D.). In this year, in the month of January of the seventh indiction, the aforementioned Staurikios returned from the territory of the Slavs and led in triumph the victory celebration in the Hippodrome."
123 5®Tupkova-Zaimova, "Sur quelques aspects," pp. 119-59
P. Charanis, Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire,” Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studiesr Main Papers, XIV (Oxford: Ox fora-Uni-versity Press, 1966), 10-13.
6°Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, pp. 107-122.
61Ibid., pp. 79-87.
6 2 George Ostrogorsky, "Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages," Cambridge Economic History, I (London: Cambridge University Press, 1941), 197.
6^a. Lombard, Constantin V. Enpereur des Romains (740-775) (Paris: Universite de Paris*, Bibliotheque de la faculte des lettres, v. XVI, etudes d'histoire byzantin, Felix Alcan, 1902), pp. 93-100. Also see John L. Teall, "The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire, 330-1025," D.O.P., XIII (1959), 89-139, especially 105, 125, and 131.
^4Theophanes, Chronographia, 365:8-29.
65The misapplication by Pandenko ("Pamjatnik Slavjan," p. 62) of the term "Foederati" was a continuation of Lamanskij's misconception that (”O Slavjanah v Maloi Azij," p. 3) the Slavs were brought into Asia Minor as troops.
66Theophanes, Chronographia, 364:9-15, clearly states 688 as the year of transfer and (365:30-366:3) 692 as the year of recruitment.
67Ibid. , 365 : 30-366 : 3. "Гсстц) np *Iouari v«avo<; tneAflj01*'1'0 i** ruiv MtrotкtaGcvrwv Ьл’абтсС LkAuSu/v tarpdreucrc XiAtdficu; 1 *ма: bnlfcra^ айтси<; tnwvouacTEV a6rou< Aaov rrcpiouaiov, Spxcvra re aOrwv NePouAov rol5voua."
®®Ibid., note especially the phrase "and armed them." Stritter, Memoriae Populorum, II, 75, paraphrases this as "in armis InstruxitM thereby changing the whole meaning of the Greek "Hoplisas." If Stritter's paraphrase is used, then the assumption is that the Slavs were already armed and only needed extra training—an assumption completely contrary to what the text of Theophanes actually does state. As a misleading interpretation, Stritter*s paraphrase is noteworthy for its later influence. It is Stritter's text which both Lamanskij ("O Slavjanah v Maloi Azij," p. 75, n. 1) and Safarik (Slavische Alterthiimer, II, 231, n. 4) cite on the Slavic troops of Justinian II. Neither Theophanes nor Nicephorus give the idea of training
by their specific verbs (Theophanes ’	Nicephorus
t£onAi<7a<; ). The Russian paraphrase of Stritter (Izvesti yizantijskih Istorikov, p. 96) fails even to repeat the Arms instruxit” of Stritter’s Latin. The Latin translation of Anastasius Bibliothecarius reads "a mat is eis"--a close translation of the Greek.
69The linguistic question involved in the name Nevoulos is discussed by V. BeSevliev, "Les inscriptions du relief de Madara," Bsl. , XVI/2 (1955), 229, and G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, 210. This mixture of Slav and Bulgar, at this date, would help confirm Dujdev’s ("Naj ranni vruzki," Bulgarsko Srednovekovie, pp. 87-103) contention that the Slavs and the Bulgars had already developed a close relationship by the middle of the seventh century.
70Theophanes, Chronographia, 367:9-12, on the Roman training of the Slavs.
?^The meaning of ” Xao<; ntpicuaiox;* is open to several interpretations. The term is used once in the Vita of St. Clement of Ohrid, where it is an obvious borrowing from the Biblical reference to the people of Israel (Milev, Teofilakt, Kliment Ohridski, p. 146). The term is translated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius to mean ’’populum acceptabilum" and by Stritter (Memoriae Populorum, II, 76) as "Aciem Superabundantem.’’ Stritter notes (ibid. , n. TH) the translation of Comfebus' footnote to the text—"Pecu-liarem aciem factam comparabilem.“ Of all these Latin translations Stritter is presumably the best. Theophanes is probably expressing a play on words by using the term. "Aao<; neptouato^ " carries with it the allusion to a people who crossed water (i.e., the Israelites exodus from Egypt compared with the Slavs who crossed the sea to Asia Minor) and a play on "neptouatc<; " = extra, supplementary. Safarik (Slavische Alterthiimer, II, 231) completely misses the sense ofF this, and bases his interpretation on a dubious method of translation indeed--"Aus ihnen bildte sich der Kaiser ein eigenes 30,000 Mann starkes Heer, welches er seine Leibgarde (LAOS PERIOUSIOS, in der Kyrillischen Ueber-setzung des Georg Hamartolos izrjadnij, in einer andern ljudii bogatnyi, irrig) nannte." While Lamanskij notes 7nO Slavjanah v Maloi Azij," p. 3) that Justinian II armed these Slavs ("booruzil"), he also follows the curious and unfounded idea of the importance which Safarik attaches to the Slavs under Justinian II--i.e., the imperial life guard.
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 367:9-12,* "xal ЬпЕатратсистс МоиаиЕф r?)V * Puakxv fav*	rou^ npo^puyac;
£кАаЗои<; fix; tunEfpou^ rrfc ‘Pwuavfa^j на-i noAAou^ AxP<JAu/rcijacVe" Here is proof that the Slavs not only had to be armed by the empire, but they had to be trained also before they
stulecia, w srdo ktorych masowa kolonizacja slowianska byla zjawiskiem wielkiej wagi."
81
On the Armenians, see P. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon: Livraria Gulbenkian, 1963). On the Mardites there is Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, pp. 86-88. The refugees from Arab lands included persons like Callinicus, the inventor of Greek Fire—Theophanes, Chronographia, 354:14.
8 2
It was the "Greek Fire" of Callinicus, a refugee from Syria, which successfully defended Constantinople from the Arab siege of 672-678. Later the activities of the Mardites of Lebanon helped bring the Umayyad Caliph Muawija I to beg for peace in 680—Theophanes, Chronographia, 355:6-356:2. The second Arab attempt of 716-717 was thwarted by the cleaver designs of Leo III--Brooks, "The Campaign of 716-717," pp. 19-22.
8 3
° The Slavic defections to the Arabs in 664 and 692 can hardly be called helpful to Byzantine plans. While the great Slavic migration from Bulgaria in 762 aided Constantine V, it did not destroy Bulgaria since Bulgaria recovered to become even a more dangerous enemy of Byzantium. See Besevliev, "Die Feldzuge," pp. 13-17, and Zlatarski, Istorija^, 1/1, 307-321.
®4Ostrogorsky, History^, pp. 144-146.
®5Charanis, "Observations on the Demography," pp. 11-13.
Obolensky, "The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy," Actes du XIIе Congrds International d*Etudes byzantines, I (Belgrade: Naucno Delo, 1964), 43-61, = Byzantium and the Slavs: Collected Studies (London. Variorum Reprints, 1971).
CHAPTER IV
SLAVIC PERSONALITIES IN
THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE
The year 717 A.D. marks the last attempt by the army and fleet of the Umayyad Caliphate, and indeed the last serious Arab attempt, to take Constantinople, action by the Umayyad Caliph, Sulaiman (715-717), whose caliphate was already rife with the dissension which was finally to destroy it and with it the unity of the Ara empire, failed utterly in its objective. The chief archi tect of this Arab failure was the Byzantine emperor Leo III (717-741).4 Leo Ill's victory marks a new era in the his tory of Byzantium.5 Not until the coming of the Seljuk Turks in the middle of the eleventh century was the empire again to face the serious threat of total Islamic con quest.6 imperial borders were to fluctuate and serious territorial losses were to occur,7 but Byzantium remained the dominant power in the Mediterranean world. The criti-,	1	its very survival was open to
cal age of Byzantium, when its very question,® the age of shattering losses’ and miraculous victories?® the age which had begun with the rebellion Of Phocas in 602, was now definitely over.
<717 was not without significance
The victory of 717 wa
for the many peoples living within Byzantium's borders.
For now day-to-day life within the empire was given a^sense of security that it had not seen for over
Aside from the stabilization of international conditions during Leo Ill's reign,12 there was the advent of Iconoclasm, a movement which under Leo's guidance reflected tne leadership of the emperor in matters of faith ,13	...	_____- wimeelf as nefensor Fidei
law.
His ability to present himself as be later contrasted with the patri-exclude iconoclasts such as the Pauli-
against Islam14 may
arch’s inability to clans from the framework of Orthodoxy forced conversion of the Jews* Leo toward gaining their of the Mosaic injunc
more to be directed
Even in his iconoclasm seemed influence against
icons as supporters idols.16
only
Constantine
proved an able continuator also introduced new elements -nt It was during Constantine V s act that the largest Slavic p
Further* in a bid
he focused ini]
V (741-775), son of Leo III* not of his father’s policies, the life of Byzantium, and auspicious reign transfer took place.18 ties again on the West 756 until his
but
17
From
to reconquer los 775, the emperor the Bulgar State.1^ Жам the Slavs into
death in
worked relentirow,, _
To achieve this end* he endeavored b - - "•«•ntine orbit and away from the
Iconoclasm*
V’b
program, saw a ecclesiastical
significant Slavic addition in no less an personage than the Patriarch of Constanti-Motivated by political and ecclesiastical
’ - -ortain Nicetas, a Slav
noPle himself.
reasons,21 Constantine V created a -----
and a eunuch,22 Patriarch of Constantinople, a Pa with the Bishop Of Rome, since Constan-highest ecclesias-764 until 780,
equal in standing
„23 tinople was the "New Rome."
tical office in the
empire was
Thus the held, from
by a Slav.
that,
What little
unlike several less
is known about Nicetas inax«~«>.—
’---*enrs, he was unguestion-
to the
a
ably loyal to
Patriarchate
Church of the
his emperor. Before nis av-----
had served as a Presbyter at the 24
-*io4 in Constantinople, strong iconoclast
Nicetas
Later
and anti"
to the emperor's
his adherence
monastic views earned him, al° anathematization in the Acts о Nicea.25 in spite of the rich ______________________~4*llv on
ruler,
of
heaped
that
26
upon Iconoclasm neither the vituperous Theoph
Patriarch Nicephorus mentions any
ets and curses of Constantine nor the more concise amiss in Nicetas'
V,
administration of the patriarch	slaVic patriarch
The only close glimpse of	s> Nicetas,
of Michael Giyca*
tomes from the much later Pen	eating and
d the pleasures or
according to Glycas, enjoye	dld eO
ion he chanted,
linking.27 When upon occas	diphthongs.
Poorly, due to his inability t0 p*
28 it o£ the nanve Matthew, Once, after his mispronunciation	vowels,
♦hat he separate
was called to his attention	vowels occasioned
The patriarch’s inability to	Byzantine's zeal
,jeT. regarding this
his somewhat sharp ansv.	й lied that those
for ecclesiastical detail- N1C€	cage hiS soul
. that in a y
•round him chattered too much	triphthongs*29
racy to it in As portrayed by
had a great hatred for Glycas* anecdote spite of its eleventh-century Glycas, the person of Nicetas
has a ring
speaking would be
. ♦> of one raxo-
is that or
later removed to a Gre
"„.a 1. «»• l"““
easily discern *
Since by then the Slavs thems
one.
less
eiav of the
For a Slav
religious and ^.pronunciation not only po’sible'
was a
on the
30
and ecc
sotnewhat new such as
for «папу to produce
8dlot• ot th. icon a.
. axV man
were to
in chant eighth century» raised i“ . oroble^5 linguistic environment.» н
At correction wer and embarrassed anger	that
but also likely to occur. rne	high position?
•unuch in no way disqualifie	wAnV	positions
, ллс1гаЫе £•-contrary, it made him
While the iconoclasts wore
Patriarch, the iconodul65
In the era which reestabl	retire° ---
•n expression of orthodoxy	e monastic
_________ ro-nniciu. tw GrMt	SL.V but th0’C
— W	V*.	--- RV
A not Оп1У which ultimately touched
into
also outside of Byzantium. The entry or the monastic way of life meant a sign shaky iconodule regime.33 Tt waS al
, ^nasticism had been
tant for an age where the forces о
1ячт 34 Aside from having a
seriously depleted by Iconocl •
th₽ir position, the bona fide military here to enhance
iconodules gained an energetic r0	.
r i л\71С ЗПСсЬ v-А j
Bithynia.35 Evidence for his Bulgaro-trom Constantine VI'S (780-797) mention
.. - 36
victory f°r a
As Professor Sp. Vryonis was rated that loan-of the name Greek,
family name, the voiiaox.
the first to point out, it can be der nicius was of Bulgar-Slav origin bee __	first names were
Voilas.37 Since his parents	Bu,antin-
. least, *as fully syza the Voilas family» by then a	. ,_л<. wpre surviv-
ired. it is highly probable ora of Justinian H’s transi loannicius, after a
773 and ending by 795, sett Bithynia.39 His settlement Prising, for Olympos had pr bed of monasticism through-®onastic movement in Bithyr George Limneota41 and the no	, Bytantine топав
#iuential center ”
continued to be an in	loanniciua’ •ettb,n"-n
ticlsm for many centuries to	coioni*te had been
bare indicate* not only tha
at least, was that the Vo dant and purge, military career beginning in .ed as a monk at Mt. Olympos in at Mt. Olympos is hardly wen to be an intractable iconoclast era.40 already produced
sur-
hot-
The
the
за in ts,
42
Byzantinized, but were mainstream of Byzantine Voilas family had been further fame as a monk#
also already deeply involved life. While this member of outstanding as a soldier, he for his monastic activities
in the
the
are
cited in several other Vitae. ’ -
The relation of loannicius to Mt. Olympos and the °cation of this monastic center in an area heavily populated by people of Slavonic origin was not without signif-later developments.45 A monastic center such as been a positive and moving force for of the Slavs in Bithynia. Interaction transplant and the ther Minor brought results.' purged by the struggle settled in Asia capable of work farther
Mt. Olympos would have the conversion
between Slavic
46 A monasticism with iconoclasm and
L Minor was obviously afield- While the e was to absorb eecond phase of the iconociaau -
 rhe early ninth century/7 Byzan-oonaatic energies during the К	Asia Minor had already taken
tlnization of the Slavs in A
place. What remained was
center in Asia
which had been
which converted Slavs
a monasticism
and into
the remainder of
the Slavic world.
Constantine and
48
Nonastary on Mt. OlyriP03-
Methodius spent time at Here stood
wonder that both the Polychronion the center of a rvation of Orthodoxy.
was already imbued with traditions proven successful conversion of Slavonic peoples. Constantine and satisfied, by their residence on Mt. Olympos,
. life, impeccable highest aspirations of Byzantine monas
► и<=> i r experience in Orthodoxy. Equally important was tne
traditions which were to aid Olympian monastic traditions—tradition
,	.nd Which had been enhanced
in the conversion of the Slavs,
less than fifty years before by St. loannicus
f7Q7-802}, famous for its resto-The reign of Irene (79
ration of icons and the revival of monasticism,
Slavs of Greece. This, m nessed new measures against tn
Mrt, was the reestablishment of imperial contro
чj Irene s «Gt**
*reaa as the regions around Thessalonic	nonnesus,
	.гЛ Hellas and the Peloponnesus,
Hies were also directed tow	^^50 had not
•teas which were inhabited by slavl‘	why< after
been particularly restive. The gee	cunqJCSt
Constantine Vs successful Slavic po
Arabs in 783 and then Drome, with a large army
Slavs. In the words of Theophanes:
upon the region of Thessalonica and Hellas and made them subject to the empress. “ the Peloponnesus and took many and brought that place under con-Anno Mundi 6276 (784 A.D.) of January of the seventh
 ---	from
Irene made peace with the Logothete of the
ent Staurikios, to subjugate the
He descended
SS’S'.K'ia:; US-
In thia year, in the ’nont^'	____ K vic-
Xndlction, the aforementioneo	in trlufaph th
the territory of thel_^ai’uppodrome-51
tory celebration in the и	Constantine
U»» l	fro® the dipl°^,cy
HUB le a	salon 1
. •	cisvs from the
V, which could induce wholesale defection
Bulgars. It is even more remote from a reign
so much control over Slavic chieftains that even the xcono-e Forced to record in his dule Patriarch Nicephorus was forcca
Brevarium that:	d
Constantine released the cl?^^^J^islands of Imbros* regained those Christians	been their [the sla^
Tenedos and Samothrace who	reDaid them with silk
prisoners for a long time.	_ 590 and drawing eac
robes, their number being * . wlth a small gift and .° "“l,a , ».	... „.pell- to
barely thirteen years later. It is 4 Irene's unusually incompetent reign Constantine V had established between
Slavic peoples.
Staurikios' campaign again however, fully subdue them. Sla
t«ke an interesting turn in 799 when.	ir.
In the month of March of the »ev^ urged by the H£1 _ chief of the Velzitian Slav , f constantine, and p ladikoi to liberate the uhen the empress _tantine claim one of them emperer.	patrician t Irinel.
learned of this, she sent to the of Constantine 1. Serantapechon his son 11 * ’ ^iu8 and a nephew * inst Theophylact, who was SP^^verthreW the plot aga We blinded all involved and ove
ЬвГ’53	ot a rebellion in
It should be noted that this was n	forvard a pos-
Slavic autonomy* but an attempt	break-
1	Akamir was not
•1Ы. legitimate heir to the thron	influential role
with Byzantium* but seeking a	Irene.
-ihle under ***
MAhln the empire. Thia seemed iinpos.ibi
likely that the rapport which empire and its
Slavs did not, «caress was to
had transpired previous to Irene’s reign had now because the Byzantinization of the Peloponnesus to rely more upon force than conciliation.
It is most likely that Nicephorus I effected a _ final consolidation of Byzantine power in the mor teglc regions of Byzantine Europe. Theophanes sp
Whatever
changed,
was now
records that in the year 810:
Nicephorus, with godlessness, m'J'^ians were humiliated, everything seeing to it tha and arranged them in He moved them out of every т the Sklavinias as fell their
- ^„inias for Byzantium.
Thus, Nicephorus I securea He thereby removed the poss
Slavic upris-
, 56
As has been seen, the reign for monasticism and the rise of The monk St. loannicius was not Voilas family to acquire Another Voilas, oian and a high court functionary, list of Irene's
ibility of further —onared to conque of Irene was ai licius the member of the reign year 800, name appears
Great.
only
the
of Irene.
standing during Constantine, was.
by the
His
court entourage. His exact
C°Urt is ,
n°t known, but he was a participan
a pav*«
in a
spectacle
place:
— .the second day of Easter the empress went to the of the Holy Apostles. She was mounted on a chariot drawn by four white horses, which were 'cians; Vardanes--the Strategos of the Sisinnios—Strategos of Thrace, Nice-Scholar!an Guard, and Constantine liberally passed out gifts.
—<’Ation» the Voilas
which took
golden held b Thracesion Theme, tas--Domestic of Violas, all of whom
established in court and Ьу c
leventh century.
of the ninth century, Byzantiniza-settled in Asia Minor was complete enough certain Thomas, to attempt the ncement—the seizure of attempt was not without a red up and led by of the sources
Ithough there exists the an Armenian. , is based upon the 59
family was to continue well into By the beginning tion of the Slavs i--
for one of their number, ultimate in Byzantine sc the imperial throne itself* degree of success, for re^f 1 .	58 An but
him lasted several years, maintain Thomas' Slavic origin# •Uggestion that he may have been tion, put forward by H. Gregoire fused commentary of Joseph Genes
The roots of the confusion mo , nf this rebellion* Eastern origin and support	Also it Is sh°wn
that Thomas received aid from th	that the
loved by Thomas by the catalogue of the troops P	By
majority of them came this time the Arabs, most pr had transplanted Slavs on •tmilar to that
The
one
This
sugges-
con-
in the
of the troops employee. from Eastern frontii obably by way their western f
of Constans II.61
of the Caucasus, rentier in a way It is possible that
--'«in, had at one
Genesioe, being aware of Thomas for the eastern nature as being
Part of <^в in Aeia Mi"01-
Point accounted
•imply by referring to Thomas ^•«nian frontier area.^ L -•’Planation le the fact that
of the a Slav jp eason
the
from the for »uch ЛП
area ot
Theme,
’imum Slavic popuiatxu» —
n°k ‘uppert the rebellion of Thomae.63 *11 th®
other
, and to the fact . uv^rina the
_ record s
Thomas himself, there is n
a 66
Slavic supporters origina e
..b Aii the Mia Minor were, along with a
y the population of the to rest yet another
in these Themes.
aside ft°m lion, asr
where his
that the Slavs of
in
one
patently false.
important positions patriarch, a monastic leader
previous fifty years.
rebellion were
claes in
within the , for the actual causes
accounts attest to Thomas’ Slavonic or.g in a Theme that hs was born in Asia 64 Opsikion—the Anatolikon.
The lack of rebelliousness 1
Armeniakon and Opsikion Th-. m< s theory. Je. E. Lipsits advanced
j > нa Slavs lion was led by Thomas and tn While Slavs participated in Tho tating from д claim other ethnic min< tine overlords is their eyrantin ities all "ad memb These minori
, the Slavs themselves and a patnc
Whatever the those of a s-.,-Sits once have m< conditio"3 .,es from being beside3 of ^tavasdus ag breadth of ° ЬГ «8 Asia Minor-f Thomae‘ advancement-•unity for
under
я 67 proposed. iovea fr°m East in the the most
t they were not Asia Minor as Je- E* -^nton seems to
the compleX it had to do with E«»t. Thomas' activities, triouB rebellion since th tlhB V in 742-743, indicates °P«n to Byzantinized Slavs
side effects
to West,
ity
Whatever the ^•y did not inhibit th* Slave continued to
subsequent emperors.perhaps the drarnatic role was played by Damian,
most important and most the Slavic Paroikomenos
to Michael III (842-867).70 Damian was, by 865, a p to be reckoned with in the imperial court. Through political astuteness he had risen to the rank of patrician, but now his skill as a politician was to achieve far more important objectives. In 857 he was a leading participant in the removal of Theoctistus and Theodora from the imperial regency and the accession to power of Michael III under the tutelage of Caesar Vardas.71 Damian hastened this change of regime by letting Vardas into the city and by help 9
72 seize control of the palace.
Damian's alliance with Caesar Vardas
undoing. When influence over
Vardas, a
the young who stood
was Damian’s sought total obvious that
the one person
the man most responsible
versify of Constantinople and
7 3 tiveness against the Arabs,
having Damian removed.
Michael III, it was in his way was Damian, for the renaissance of the Uni-effee-
Vardas,
the author of military finally successful in The pretext used by Vardas aside was Damian's failure to rise in honor when was wearing the purple Skaramangion, an important This, by Vardas’ suggestion, was Michael II, persuaded by the accusa-*on* commanded his chamberlain, Maximian, to remove Damian l<®Wdlately. Maximian, then, under imperial orders, brought “^«lan to the marketplace of St. Mamas, shaved hla head,
Damian
Vardas imperial badge of rank.
75
*n act of Majestas.
was
to set
76 and, placing him under guard, made him a mon
The sequel to Vardas’ action was to prove disastrous for him. On the day that Damian was remov office, a certain Basil, then Protostrator, was elevated __ 77 This Basil was the to the position of Paroikomenos.
future emperor Basil I. « Oamian was a stumbling blech to Vardas* ambitions, Basil was fatal for them.
continuator of Theophanes states:
• this [i.e., the closeness Caesar [Vardas], perceiving	i bitten by envy and
between Michael III and Bas J	He accused and
was very fearful about his u ’eled and incited him found fault in those who had co being foolish and against Damian. Recalling	decision
ill-advised, he said "You	"!t~Owing out the
against what I thought was right thro	q£
fox and introducing a lx°n evoured."78 us shall be swallowed and de
,	•_ net with his own
The lion, Basil I, soon afterwards, i
however, survived the mur-hand murdered Vardas. Damian,
Having been forced to derous intrigues of the court.
79 A century become a monk, he did well in his new
-.
co..t„urapl.	” “•
Slav, a monument to this monastery built by Damian the
80
The next Slavs to achieve not enter or leave in such a re., fashion. During the erratic an J
spectable or innocent a
'•Цп of Alexander (912-913», Gavrielopoulos and Vasili».., both Slav, and possibly from Asia Minor, appear as impo
_	.	..ь. but one of Alexander в
tint personages.®7 Their advent m
excesses. They both adapted well to their new and improved circumstances and are known chiefly for their depredation of the imperial fisc.92 Their deft rascality and skill at this form of personal enrichment gained for them dark distinction in the ranks of Alexander’s entourage. Wealth, however, only whetted the appetite of
Vasilitzes, cognizant of the poor health ruler, attempted to take advantage of Alexander's capricious nature to secure his own future position- By means of persistent suggestion he tried to persuade to castrate the young Constantine, son of Leo VI (886-91
i. ~ thereby elevating himself and heir to the imperial thron ,
_ 83 what Thomas the Slav had to the position of co-emperor»
.«...„a „ ... by ««=..	s,“ *"“P“
» ...	...... ...I-..—"-	"
luck that saved the child Chronicles states, it was on у
referred by the pro-Leo VI fac Constantine. The advice profe
n♦» nnA time tion eventually held sway» the child was too young for such time they counseled Alexander th would die, leaving the si-
These constant counterproposal taking the steps sugges Alexander in 913 put an v*ailitzes and Gavrielo
; at another child was sickly and
.	i	84
accession open in any case.
Alexander from The death of of both sweep was
Hamartolos
end to the careers oulos, for a clean
— *-<r,,iAtor of George
®ade of the palace.
Then those who were given command over imperial affairs took office in the palace—Constantine the Paroikomenos, Constantine, and Anastasius nicknamed the Stout; at the sugges tion of John Eladas, the household of Alexander were driven out—to wit John the Rector and the aforementioned Gavrielopoulos and Vasilitzes and others.85
Thus the careers of the "Slavic fops," as Arethas later called them, ended.
Several years later during the reign of Romanus I Lecapenus (920-944), members of the famous Voilas family reappeared, this time in plots against the emperor. After the involvement of one Constantine Voilas in court intrigues was quickly foiled by Romanus I, Constantine Voilas soon found himself an unwilling monk at the famous establishment
. loannicius the Great, other member of the Voilas
A combination of the surname Vardas represents a merging of Asia Minor with the Armen-i of such a combina-basis of family back-
of his ancestor, St
The plot of
Voilas, was
Voilas with
the
the
more serious.
Armenian name Slavic family 88 Thp repre
of an important ian aristocracy.
tion would have been important °
fi7 on Mt. Olympus.
family, Vardas
Re
an
ground alone, even without от.	on
Vardas Voilas. however, had an official
, x.hG Chaldean Theme, was Strategoa, military gov- -nor °
important district in the Eastern
ha ioined forces with a cor command of numerous troops,	Tzant-
. _ bv the name of Tzanc Armenian r>y tf‘ л rebellion *
Thoie threo, along with their suppo
Xn tain Adrian and a very rich
Initially
successful. They seized a key fortress as a ba operations.89 But this good fortune was followed by disaster. Not only was Romanus I an able ruler, he seased able and loyal subordinates. The emperor inun ately sent John Curcuas, then Domestic of the Scholari Guard, against the rebels. As other campaigns prove, John Curcuas was probably one of the best imp
j thP driving force behind generals of the tenth century and
a new era of Byzantine offensive against
Curcuas quickly crushed the rebellion, blinded cany of the leaders, and confiscated rebel property. The haples Vardas Voilas, spared blinding only because he had been a close friend of the emperor, immediately became
. a. 4n fhp Voilas family* move not without precedent in t	,
Romanus I Lecapenus proved to
Slavic friends.
Lecapeni family
nate Nicetas Rentakios.
have other more loyal Possibly the most important, as far as the was concerned, was the Peloponnesian mag-Nicetas and his family, deeply involved in Byzantine-Bulgarian relations, were quite influential in Greece.92 Sofia, Nicetas’ daughter, was 9iven in marriage to Christopher, the third son of 1,93 With a daughter married to the imperial family ^Messing substantial personal wealth, Nicetas claimed for ^•if pure Hellenic lineage. His specious claim was tinted out by the emperor Constantine VII, who declared ln • somewhat elliptical remark, that such a “cult in the light of .O Slavic • continence.94
History was yet to bring about a final irony in ,	Nicetas Rentakios. The
relation to the descendants of Nic
Of	‘"°
topher Lecapenus, one Maria, placed bringing about peaceful relation5 Byzantium. During the Tsar Simeon’s death in
Bulgaria and which followed
927, it was decided that the new a princess of the Byzantine imperial rial family at this time was that of ' '"--''♦nnher and Sophia was having changed
(Irene
Tsar Peter would marry a family. Since the imperia the Lecapeni, the daughter q27, Maria, chosen. In the fall of the innifv the new peace her name to Irene in order to signify married in Constantinople In this way the Bulgarian royal _________________________________,{nee„ not much different Of nubile Bulgar-
* Peace in Greek), was 95 Peter of Bulgaria.
family gained a true В
in ethnic background from a good
Ian women.
and heir to
Tsar
throne, the scholarly Cons effective control of the throne year minority. Having si— replace him, he was to rema death in 959. Thanks to his
tantine VII, finaxxy in 944, after a thirty-one-to remove or until his
urvived all attempts in the sole ruler
--кЛ]ДГ]у bent and literary
₽Ut there exists пел ________
°f ten th-century Byzantium.^*5 inc ConstantIne* a writings is valuable i v* within the empire. Of particular
on the lire t-------
luded in the mass of the
record of Slavic military achievements. The second part of Constantine VII's De Cere menus Aulis,97 and eclectic storehouse of information on far sore than imperial ceremonies, yields important information on Slavic military units from Asia Minor. It is known that, at least from the ninth cen-biry, there were troops from the Opsikion Theme called the Slavesians.98 While it is not possible to prove continuity between the ninth-century inhabitants of the Opsikion
" and the colonists of Justinian II, such , Justinian Il’s massacre notwithstanding, have been augmented by Con-By the ninth century,
indeed contain people carry-pelation due most likely to 99 of Slavs settled there.
i took part in an expe-Later, according to the Opsikion Theme par-of 953 and in the lonstantine VII’s ref-। were cavalry, and in i horsemen as compared , Anatolikon Theme, । contingent was impor-v of the people in that
called "Slavesians
is highly possible
This colony would, of course,
the
area of the Opsikion Theme did ing the name "Slavesian,” an a: the large numbers
Slavs from an unknown region 100 dition to Southern Italy in 8
Constantine VII, Slavic troops ticipated in the Lombard expedit’ 101 Cretan expedition of 949. ®rence it is known the Cretan venture they n to the 1,000 mounted troops from 102 such a
From
that these troops umbered 220 the
it testifies to tne
,,„rd to send a contingent «•«Ion, .me. they could .K иа> to equlp •uch «lie, considering how expen»
•nd maintain.
The only combat description which exists for these Slavic troops is in the Italian campaign of Sounder the leadership of Procopius, the imperi
• j epvpre setback in savage fight-vestarios, they received a seve
_ finally aided by the more ing against the Arabs, but we
103 Their showing was successful troops of Leo Apostupc
not better or worse than other imperial soldiers. After the expeditions to Italy in 935 and to Crete in 949,
that
fate of the Slavs in imperial a >
A . Victory, that at Amorion in One spectacular Arab ramble Slavonic origin, a 838, was due to a person of P° certain Voiditzes.”< The name Voiditses. and the con u-•ion Of the sources in explaining this Voiditzes might have been Slavic, sine
.. „105 Greek names with the with a Slavic diminutive ending.
„„ especially in sources
-itzes formant are quit	of
like the life of St. Clement Ohri ,	the
Slavonic and Greek is easily recogni	. ending
Byzantine court, to wit VasiH-	betrayed
Played a part. In any case, i	dynasty, to the
^morion, home of the then reigni q	blow to the
Xrab Mutasim.107 This indeed was a serous prestige of the emperor Theophilus like another famous Slav, Nevou
,	108 he gained
to Michael the Syrian, deed. The haglographic traditio
(829-842). Voiditzes, was bribed. According 10,000 DarlcB for his
the Forty-two Martyr*
, not live to enjoy his of Amorion. stated that Voiditzes c
. hut was executed in 845 Perfidiously earned treasures, 109 along with those whom he betrayt
►hor Slavs within the empire, Voiditzes, like many о
d as so many Byzan-had achieved an important posit кг
_ nf it. The history Of tines, attempted to make the mos
„ Varies during the era 600-the Slavs within imperial boon
orations into every
Ю18 provides examples of Slavic pent г
rf a Slav had not attained facet of Byzantine society.	,ng. Their
Fnr want or try-14 u the imperial diadem, it was no activity within the empire was citizen. From this record it mu	fro„ oUt.
Slavs within the empire had ma	—
Sider to citizen. This particular transf barbarian to imperial subject and	£ indi-
л rtf three centurie=> tions of this, is, as the recor cates, an important phenomenon
from
footnotes
2K. V. Zetterstein, Sulaiman <
CHAPTER IV
XThe conquest of Constantces^of* Turkish^ather II Fatih (1451-1481) marked the 8UEceB binger, Mehmed der than Arabic Islam. For this, see - enbourg? 1953). Eroberer und seine Zeit (Munich: F. Oldenoo g
.	<• г г	IV. 518-
..	....Zetterstein, "Su^a^”??{e to~iessen the
519. Sulaiman (679/80-717) Proved unable,	actual
problems which beset the Cmmayi я1-Malik and Omar ben attack was led by Maslama ben . . - surrounding Sulai-Hubaira. For more on the difficult^’ »urro * g 600-750 man's reign, see M< A. Shaban, _5 /rimbridge: Cambridge JA H. 132); A New Interpretation ( •• • •*
University Press, 1971)» PP* *1
3	the problems which beset the
JA good summary of the pz Becker, "The Expan-later Ommayids may be found in -	• arnhrjdqe Medieval
Bion of the Saracens-The East, TheC^£^_—( History, II (Cambridge: Cambridge Univers у
362-364.
«Brooks, -The campaign of 716-718,” PP- 19-33.
^Ostrogorsky> History. , PP*
c	.,-Rashid (736-809) cannot be
6The raid of Harun al-Rashi^ despxte hiS SUc-seen as a real threat to c°ns^poiphyrogenitus, PP* cess—cf. Toynbee, Constanting-------E_x -s
112-
the loss of Sicily in stages y.ance et les Arabs, I, 61-88, the loss of Crete—
7, t	Most important was 1
and т Ага^з — зее Vasiliev, Byzanee ju?,11* 142-152. More temporary was
I. 49-61. о -	Three attacks during this era
*.и enough to have possibly finished the
Avar-Persian attack of 626/27, the Arab siege of Con-^ntinople 674-78, and the Arab campaign of 716-718.
.	9The loss of Egypt and Palestine to the Persians,
» lr subsequent reconquest by Byzantium, and finally eir
•s again to the Arabs typifies the nature of Byzantine te^U"le8 dur*n9 the early seventh century. The most cent account of this is
d.— . 10The defeat of Persia by Herac““".
fanatic change of Byzantine fortunes, See A. Pernice, TriaSratore Eracllo, Saggio di storia b^antl^a 'Forence: 71Йд?«Пв Callotti e Cocci, WdbJ. PP- ш1,л "nd
were indeed seri-empire. They were
* r' o. f	о _ 777-792 Of more lasting success
Etparog, To BuCavrtov, В, о 777 792.	defences of Constan-
and importance were the two determined de	rsky,
tinople against the Arabs in 674-678 ano History2, pp. 123-125 and 156-157).
1Iqstrogorsky, Histоry > PP* 15
io	„ the 717 attack were partic-
12The repercussions of the ^gtruction of the Arab ularly deep on the Arab world. , ined the strength of army outside of Constantinople	removal of its main-
the Ommayid Caliphate by the Part-^‘ ' the part of stay, the army of Syria. This «^^idenJelements Damascus played into the hands о ". Caliphate's atten-in Iraq, thereby directing ™ch °* Script ion of this tion elsewhere. For a	Islamic History, pp.
important development, see Shahan, Islamic.----
100-137.
R .	Stephen Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the
of Leo TH with Particular Attention to the Oriental _ (Louvain: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orien-alium, vol. 346, Subsidia, t. 41, 1973), pp. 40-58.
pp. 32-47.
p. 27, n. 11.
explanation (Later Roman Empire to Irene, Leo Ill's attempt at Conversion of the Jews their help in suppression of the icon still ’i*-ornative suggestions such as the Byzantine Empire, 1934), pp. I-
14Ibid.,
15Ibid.,
_	^Bury's
431) that Leo was to obtain 1___
remains a feasible theory, aivci• those offered by J. Starr, The Jews in
(Athens: Texte und Forschungen XX / "JT Emperor consideration.
17 is witnessed by Constantine Vs settlement of as is witnebscu	Lombard, Con-
eastern peoples in 745, 751, and 755.
Itantln V, pp. 92-93.
18*	the 208,000 Slavs settled in 762
.	For example, tne
(Nicephorus, Brevari urn, 68:27-69: •
IQ	.	44^2	r/1. 261-296, and Besev-
.	* 17 * 19 20Zlatarski, Istorijg. •
Alev, "Die Feldzuge," pp* 5-17.
20	F 708 000 Slavs hardly seems pos-
Ei	The defection of 208,oou fchG part of Confltan-
•Jble without some form of col 1	remarks on Constan-
v. Besevliev (ibid. , P* 1	‘ Bulgars. The celerity
Ane V’s uee of agents against lands has all the marks of °* the Slav's move to Byzantine lands n •uch an intrigue.
21 .	. „ai-riArrh. Constantine II (754
-“The previous patriarcn,	Constantine V.
766), was involved in a plot to o	plot. See
He waa executed for his complicity in /lot-Lombard, Constantin V, PP- 1^6 1
,	22TheophaneSj
is rov NocuOpfou unvos.T^aJr?Sftuv ibvcuytoc	латр|«РХП<;
XEipotoveurat NlMqTXK b fan ZnXaPwv tow ч Kwvaravr i vounuX cum;. "
2^This understanding, Rome, was part of Canon Two of stantinople (381), office. See Mansi, Ш» cols, for the exact context of this phru
24Nicephorus, Brevarium, 75:1-2.
„hi л 4 63: 3, and Mansi, “Theophanes, chronoara^Ma,	-----
XIII, cols. 399 and 400.
26On the sources treatment of Constantine V, see Lombard, Constantin V, pp-
------------ co 7-13-528:1, "And then “Michael Glycas,	- copronymus. So a
Nicetas, a eunuch, was broug	d drinking was made
шап who thought only about ea patriarch."	_	. , -
-	- . rTv Ь rov «*T“ MarSaiov -t« rou
28Jbid. .&«. rou slneiv t«
•uj.ro. MarOaVcv"	%	. *
Yap fiftpOoyya наг трГфОоГТ» n •	.
nF t-he Slavs in tne 30T e after the conversion ot	Bulgaria,
ninth century. "Slavic 1®“вь®;еГсепЬигу and continued reached a high point in the 1 " th. This is best to flourish well into the ele ви^датчка described in I. Dugcev,	ia-
(2nd ed., Sofia: Hemus, 1^^>M| v jx-X Vj. (So*1 • Harvetut na Bulgarskata la	—
£mn., 1962) , pTT^n-SHd	ot Irene
confirmed by the Second	cols. 1-489
XXI, cols. 951-П54, and XII	#
a g S. Nov. II/1 . w> weinber9or in u«, cols. 36-92T~andK^sZrllche_Ak*da«4°^7^|^
while never accepted by Canon Two ox the First Council of Con-, and was the Byzantine view of the
559 (Latin) and 560 (Greek)t
33Vita loannicius, pp. 339-342.
^Constantine V's attack upon monasticism had not been without effect upon the monastic population. See Bombard, Constantin V» pp. 165-167» and P. Charanis, ..<e as an Element in Byzantine Society," P.O-P-, XXV <1971), 66-67.
35Vita loannicius, P- 333 •
36Ibid., p. 330-
37„ is -st. loannicius the Great and .ne J/Vryonis, st.	(1961), 245-248.
•Slavs' of Bithynia, В., XAAi
38Ibid., P- 246•
38Vita loannicius, p. 34 0.
Р. в.
Ses
d	4^There is only one study (unavailable to j
3о1е1У bbls important monastic center--R
9 ^bon, (Jn terre de l^gendes, L'Olympe de Bithynie______
glints, ses couvents, ses sites (Paris, 1935) . A good gen-dral account may also be found in F. Dvornik, Le L^gendes yg Constantin et de Methode Vues de Byzance (Prague:
’	---- ". 112-147.
Byzantinoslavica Supplementa I, 1933) , PP-
._	43Vita Georgius Limneota, A.A.S.S., Aug., IV
<1739), 842.
42Vita Stephanus Junior Confessor (vel «•’> analecta Graeea, pp. 396-531; M.P^G., 100, cols. 1069-1186.
43Dvornik, Les Legendes, pp- 112-147.
44u., Af-hanasis heguninae in Aegina insula, A-A s e .	?73- Vita Eustrati hegumenr, pp- 367-
lZn'S*S‘ * Ли9« * III* 173‘	16Я-205 * notes and pp. 503-
*00; and Euthymius iunior, PP- 168 20
fc.	45Vryonis, "St. loannicius," p. 248, for sugges-
1On of other Slavs in Bithynia.
St. loannicue the Great.
47I. Sokolov, Sostojanie monasestva v* vizantijskoj yr-£*vi a polnvlny IX do nacaia XIII veka (Kazan: Imperator-Unlferelteta, 1Й94), pp. 4ЬM ., TTghtly speaks of the y®‘r 843 as the date for the permanent revival of monasti-j!®"». With the reestablishment of Orthodoxy came a new nourishing of Byzantine monasticism not fully possible durlng the years of the iconoclast struggle.
Malysevskij, "Olimp" ла kotorom iili sv. Constantin* i Methodij,” Trudy Kievskoj duhovnoj akademii, 1886/III, 549-586 and* 188*7/1, 2^5-i9 7; Dvornik , Les ^egendes, pp. 114-117 and 210-211; A. S. L'vov, 0 prebyvanii Konstantina Filosofa v monastyrc* Polihron, Spvetskoe slavjanovedenie, XXXV/5 (1971), 80-86, A. E. T*chTaos, "’b'origine de Cyrille et de Methode. Verite et legende dans les sources slaves," Cyri1lomethodianun, 11 <1972-1973), 98-140. For the actual text or the lives, see either F. Grivec and F. Tomsic, Constantinus et MethodiusF or Kliment Ohridski, Subrani Suuinenxa, III.
*9It £g difficult to believe that Thessalonica was in any serious danger of Slavic attack
V s transplantation of population into ^race ^ombard, Constantin Vr pp. 92-94) and his successful wars again
it was related to Irene • s
--a policy unpopular with the more iconoc1p®in"e ^^tl-units (n, Garsoian, "Byzantine Heresy. A Reinterprets tion," D.Q.P., XXV (1971)/ 97-98).
®Bon, Le Pelopon^se byzantin, pp• 27- 70 -
5Theophanes, Chronographia, I, 456:25-457:6
52
Nicephorus, Brevarium, 76:22-29.
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 473:32-474:5
5 Theophanes, Chronographia, 486:10-13
I’s activities in other areas of Nicephorus I the Savior of Greece " Byzantina-Metabyzantina, i
56For Nicephorus^ Greece, see P. Charanis, £rom the Slavs (810 A.D.), <1946), 75-92.
^Theophanes, Chronographia, 4 74:6-10.
58т
betnerl i.e., 821-823. The best study is that of
Ae« "Thomas le Slave," pp. 255-297.
59	)
Thl8 , Vaeiliev, Byzance et les Arabes1, pp. 25-26.
varience with Vizantija 1 Araby, I, 21-43, which that Thomas was a Slav.
|l, 32, n.
end makes several conjectures as 1 anachronistic names.
noting People (Slavs
60Joseph Genesios, 5SSHHS]	are definitely
peoples mentioned in this enu^e^f western neighbors of eastern origin, the other 4 ff^/Laby, I, 28, n. 4, of the empire. Vasiliev (VizarrUjJ—rAnTscusses this list *nd Byzance et les Arares, I,	e meaning of the more
uZrthis into account it is worth -------- , JJhin?3 U4) eastern names identity that 10 (11) of the 13 (1<м	4 western names
then existing, while о"** * °** peoples, and Goths) refer to contemporary .
•• F 1.1/ IV, 467-468.
61V. V. Barthold, "Slavs,-.-TKese Slavs were
7 Khakhetia to the Cilician See also Niederle, Slovansxe
^abic sources explicitly state sported from Khazaria by way о frontier by Mansur (754-775). gtarozitnosti. I1/2, 464-467.
^^This is not impossib The City of the Slavs," Loulon, frontier. See above, p. 67.
63Genesios, Regnum, pp. 32-33.
_	64Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 50:17-51:
*• For more on the subject of Thomas' identity, see J. B.
Bury, "The Identity of Thomas the Slavonian," B^Z., 1 (1892J, 55-60; M. Rajkovic, "0 poreklu Tome, vodje ustanka 821-3 g.r" Z.R.V.I., II (1953) , 33-38; Lemerle, Thomas le Slave," p. 2847
msidering the existence on the Arab-Byzantine
’’Lipsita, Vosstanie Fomi Slavjanina," pp. 352-365. Lipsits has made some revision of her	_tilfOry
in her later work Ocerki Istorij, pp. 213-228, but still holds on to many of her 1939 suppositions.
66Joseph Genesios, Regnum, p. 33,.gives no geographical location for the Slavs Tn Thomas armies. It is “‘ore probable that in the light of the Opsikion and Anato Ukon Themes' loyalty to Michael III, the Slavs referred to from Thrace where the rebellion ended. It was at th fine that the Bulgar Khan Omurtag (813-831) was brought in °" the side of Michael III, and helped put an end to ^xs
"J	---Hmutos, Chronographia,	do.
355.
latarsxx,
67Lipsits, "Vosstanie Fomi Slavjanina," pp. 352-
®®In relation to Iconoclasm, these two rebellions A etrangely similar in their ambiguity. For more on tav«edus, see Lombard, Constantin V, pp. 22-30.
69m.
Cial DO44 1Пе cont^nued existence of Slavs in high offi-indicatpltl?n3 after the collapse of Thomas' rebellion becaus- ьь at Slavs were not singled out for reprisals
43 Linqif116!! were not the central factor in the rebellion pp. 36 4- lien hypothesized ("Vosstanie Fomi Slavjanina,"
235:1$ 70Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 234:7-
71Georgius Monachus, Chronicon, 821:14-822:18. 72
the pat Abid. t "Vardas Caesar had a liking for Damian emperorric4an and Paroikomenos. He had influence over the Vardas Persuaded him to let Vardas enter the city.
from th -9ether with the Paroikomenos, by means of gifts the imperial largesse made a determined advance into
imperial palace."
the man J^There ex^sts no study devoted to Caesar Vardas, rial	Р1аУе<3 so important and tragic a role in impe-
PP. 2?, ® bhe ninth century. See Ostrogorsky, History3, ***-232 passim.
74
20, "u . Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 234:15-emperoUC" s^an^er was made against him [Damian]before the it ай!’ *?. Persuasively was the denunciation crafted that empio, ₽hS<3 ^e imperial good will, and by these means good urn 9ainst Damian, brought about the opposite of he ho	the result that he (the emperor] asked
»hi°Velleved of о________/ — --	:----
achi ^₽as.aa^e indicates that Vardas needed some time to achieve his ainu
.	7Symeon Magister, Chroniccn, 675?4-10, and
Paro?bUS Monachus, Chronicon, 827:17-19, "Damian the not r- menos has disgraced me and you, his emperor, by «ее M1Elng for me before the Senate." On the Skaramangion, a k "• ₽- Kondakov, Prispevky к dejinam stredovekeho umenf
7 Oderki i Zametk'i po istorii srednevekovago pp^SStVa 1 kill* tn ry (Prague» Гечка Akademie Ved a Umenf, **а’ГГррГ 23i-i38.
елп-. 76Georgius Monachus, Chronicon, 827:19-22. The CerTf?r* being angered, immediately commanded Maximian, a
4in chamberlain, to seize Damian and take him <ыау to and ?a5ketPlace of St. Mamas, and there cut off his hair
make him a monk, and he ordered him held under guard.
•Con> 77Theophanes Continuatus, Chronogra£Mj, 73a523’5-tl22trary to all expectations, the emperor, after a ahort
advanced Basil to the post of Paroikomenos, also ® v<4r»g him the title of Patrician." Thia action then was
that the dignity of the imperial household."
the part of Michael III alone, without any suggestion £rom Vardas.
78Ibid., p. 235:10-16.
79Ibid., p. 234:21-22, "Driven out, he lived alone er that time, but some high esteem remained his.'
80
Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanum, 11, 1”13. "The monastery of Damian, built by Damian, Michael"1"*103 and Slav* durin9 the time of Theophilus and
"In а lit Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 379:2-5. SlaveSiar>e manner Gavrielopoulos and Vasrlxtzes, from the eagerly enriched themselves. ..."
8 2
of Slavic Geor9-ius Monachus, Chronicon, 872:11-12, ". . . revenues ягасе* enriched themselves out of the palace
8 3
"They Sav Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 379: 5-7, many timeq Vasiiitzes# had counseled him [Alexander) elected -> tO ma,<e Constantine a eunuch, and have himself
a as co-emperor." 84_
but these Ge°rgius Monachus, Chronicon, 872:14-16, "... the ЦПе counsels were dispersed by those working good for “«t he was .?2Z7.^»bein9 suggested that he was a child or
85Ibid., 878:13-18.
87Theophane3 Continuatus, chronographia, 410:11-
»* 1: 7
88Charanie, The Armenians, PP- 43-44.
89Georgius Monachus, Chronicon, 896:9-12.
H	90S. Runciman, тП^е^Етрегог
&l«*eign (Cambridge: Cambridge Univers у
9^Georgius Monachus# Chronicon* 896.13
a?	«...a rhronographia, 3 99.12 22.
92Theophanea Continuatus, cnro—j—t------
Пр Thcmatlbut, 90i
U	,3Conatantine Porphyrogenitus,----------S
94
Bury, History of the Eastern Ronan Empire,
P- 380, n. 2.	---------------------------——
"ziataxski, Istorij a2, 1/2, 501-514.
Q g	П
Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica , I, 356-390.
$?See above, p. 29, n. 103.
90Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis Aulis, II, 666:15-16. Also see above, p. 79, n. 5J, r the text and bibliography on the Slavesianon region.
"see above, p. 65.
^^^Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 305:18-306:21; and Scylitzes-Cedrinus, Compendium Historiarum, I, 231-232; also J. Gay, L’Italie meridionals et l>£mpire byzantin depuis i'avenement de Basil I jusqu*a la prise jfe Bari par les Normands (867-1071), I (Paris: Biblio-theque des ecoles fran^aises d*Athenes et de Rome, Fasc. 90» 1904), 112-114.
i01Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis, II, $66:15-16.
IQ2Ibid., 666:13-14.
303Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 305:18-306:21; and Gay, L'Italie meridionale, I, 61-78.
10<Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 130:10-22; and “Skazanija о 42 Amorijskih mucenikov," pp. 61-78.
below
106M.P.G., 126, cols. 1194-1240, especially cols.
1217, 1124, and 1228.
l°7Leo Grammatici, Chronographia, 224:9-225:3.
10®Michel le Syrien, Chronigue, III, 98-99.
109-Skazanija о 42 Amorijskih mucenikov," p. 50:24-
27, "b; 61 Ao.nov ttjv tAccivqv	oi
nJ rupaw?* 'Si'Kaiov fjyotfUcta afirov	tf rap П
nftyriv O&M hpvAa'CV, ©Обе rgv f^ctcpav fpuAa<ci. тоиго 6c twon6c4 ua ПЛ7С1 Mai aCrov 4nan*90r[vai«’’
CHAPTER V
BYZANTINIZATION—THE SLAVS IN ASIA MHO
. »nv single ethnic group within a In the account of any single
- risk, of either multinational state the historian run
.	of that one cul-
overstating or understating the impo tural unit. This has been
1
discussion of the Slav’s
A univer-
of their position in Middle — ^nacihle due mainly to
sally applicable description Byzantine history is not ent peculiarities of imperial geography.2 The empire, in relation to the Slav, was divided into two parts, Europe and Asia Minor. What transpired among tne gathered within the European bounds of Byzantium
f f-hnir brethren settled always run parallel to the fate о ralization based upon in Asia Minor. Therefore, any g
я «wiled to both, must give due one or the other group, and app
- this geographical division, recognition to the effects
Prom the standpoint of Byzantium, the major aource of its wealth and strength.
Pened in Asia Minor always de
Minor was
What hap-
of the
military-adminle-
.ntir. empire. weriar	By„nUun
tr.tlv. record .howa, — •	~	„тмвНу
could lose* as it did at one
till remain a power to with in the Mediterranean world.4 The loss of however, spelled the doom of Byzantium.5 The in Asia Minor is then crucial to any statement importance or lack of the same in Middle Byzan
the Slavic popu-It is obvious
relations with
This has been
whole of its European holdings and s be reckoned Asia Minor, Slavs* fate about their
tine history.
..i.	o..	««• ”” •
,	the other,
tor in the life of the Middle Byzantin . -imnerial affairs and that they played a minimal role in
U local Byzantine population, were rapidly assimilated by t e The question boils down to whether lation in Asia Minor remained autonom that if the Slavs remained independen and forced the empire to maintain P them, then, they were very important uoal terms by the
proposed either in socio-lega	/ or in a military
Uspenskij-Zacharia von tlngenthal th У	dialectic
sense by PanSenko and Kulakovs >	these hypotheses
by LevJenko and Lipsits. The c	little or no
. < 1 Ated and had
states that the Slavs were ass	attributable to
ig directly “ impact upon imperial life	,—
their ethnic identity. This concept . nf p. Charanis#
•xpreasion in the writings
G. Ostrogorsky.9
	- КО1АГ1У concluelons
Both .et. of scholarly
•Arcwnecribed body primary
finds its best в, F. Dvornik, and
i are based upon a It 1b known from
f qlavs were settled in these records that large numbers о
u пЯ Piahth centuries.
Asia Minor during the seventh
, Л Haring the ninth and ie also clear that there existed,
tenth centuries, a body of Slavs in the opsikion called •Slavesiani."32 -is is -e same iocaUon КГ f	.	been transplanted.
cen-
the majority of Slavs had orig*
Therefore, it is certain that, for close to thr turies, some form of Slavic ethnic continui у
in Asia
implied any degree of autonomy.
presence
an
One is
_ is whether this Minor.13 What is unclea
TWO elements plsy of this question, important part in the resolution	other
». .. .»- — — ... <	c giavic society and its P
is an understanding of ь±а	account
Byzantine geographic appelat— * « «4- indigenous to »УЛ bodies of people no	"	Armeniakon
„nle of this is tne
Perhaps the best examp This area contained Armenians the Thracesi' immigrants j.s that
various
Minor.
Theme, ho'*Und.l4 Likewisef
hdve Kp en PopulaCe(j with
ThraCe.15 л
A similar case n9 in Lebanon,this ^^itor
le® in Asia Minor
The
the ninth century While no Theme
I, in the eyes of the 1 ----M«>es of where they
is known to brought over from of the Mardites. Origi-was transfe at the
•cventh century.
1 8
•°ved to Europe.
them, they remained
group
and Europe Hardites preserver when a
was ever
time of the
contingent wae named after
19
Each of these groups was known for their special lente. The Thracians supplied good soldiers.20 If a natural source,21 elite of their
--***'^rT»nus. They
desired, the Armenians were formed an
cavalry
•nd for the navy the Mardites own.22
was
Yet
none of them
Settle-
®ent of non-Byzantine peoples, especAo*-y --lands, did not mean special treatment. The formation »eml-independent principalities came about in Byzantium, thnic bodies declaring independence. Thematic system and the rise
23 Tjie Themes were to insure unity and efficiency in the adninis-
24
not by the various e but by the destruction of the of a Byzantine-landed aristocra у
established
tration and defense of the empi
,	this integra-
nffer many examples
Armenians ofte	alpha-
The
tion. Different in language, posses bet, monophysitic in creed, ai ditions, they were the most *hich to find proof of long-s middle of the there was
of Iranian tra-i the empire in
25 tending autonomy.
-<na of the eleventh centuries
By the
jfonethe-
tenth and оедл indeed evidence of — ng the Middle Byzantine Era, a number of Amen-and sought positions
lane moved in the opposite
26 Throughout tJ within Byzantine society*
*00-1016 there existed loyal Armeni
27 «viantine usurper®
•nd even emperore*
x_nce, but for oine fought not for independent
throne itself.2® Several of those who succeeded in taxing the imperial crown proceeded to work hard for the preserve tion of the empire.Not one shred of evidence, m the
. e tn indicate that the form of seals or inscriptions, remai
nlnved by these persons in any Armenian language was ever employed oy
, _ _^^i-Minitv. Such official act, even though
they had ampic -------
had become part of Byzantine
was the case because many
30
The experience of
•ettled in Asia Minor. Slavs all found places retained their origina their settlement.31 Whether a si *n Armenian from the Armeniakon to the "Roman" empire, and were Imperial administrative system-
those Armenians who found posi-Ons within the empire was possible for every other body Mardites, Arabs, Georgians, and within the empire, even though many ation centuries after from the Opsikion or t all paid the same taxes incorporated into the
While it was possible to the actual citizenship of
.Ьяп that held by different than tna
hon-Byzantine groups was no <ny other inhabitant of Asia Minor. The Slav possessed even le Tt is difficul Armenian for autonomy. 1 P*gan, illiterate, and agricultural f feoote chance to remain untouched by
on all side»-Christianity which surroun	rapid aaai
1ST	,_e determined
“•ckground, if nothing	which formed
. ►weir eociety w ietlon. There wee nothing in
believe that a
literate urban
^he bagjq
or a potential alternative.34 Byzantium, a at on which later left an indelible mark on the East th Slavic world,35 made imperial citizens of these
Slavs. This
•	took place in much the same way as it occurred
У other people settled in Asia Minor. For if one
9 marks the Byzantium of this era as unique, it was an
У successfully to assimilate, on a large scale, non-elements into its framework.36
Many Slavic careers are recorded. Perhaps the most mi Bint
erpreted, but common, entry point into the Byzantine *Orld Wao u
by way of the military. 37 The potential for mis-^««•tandine «
is clearly illustrated by the significance
to Slavic enrollment in Byzantine armies. Were it not for th
tne careful wording of the sources, it would be possible t
° see in them a parallel to the Roman Foederati.^^ °ederati were foreign peoples specifically used as border t
roops in order to save the empire the expense of
•ид training.^9 it is true that by the year 692 Slavs
unlisted as soldiers.40 That, however, was four years
1 te* they had been peacefully settled in Asia Minor.
® from this time lag, these same Slavs had to be armed brained by Byzantium. 41 They were not even located frontier areas, as were the Foederati of Later Roman ei’tory. <2
Slavs were brought into the military both out of a additional manpower and a desire to incorporate further into Byzantine clvllization.43 Like the Roman
Empire of earlier centuries, 44 effective method of naturalization.
the army provided a simple yet This enlistment was ev®n more essential to Byzantium because the Theme, the basic unit of administration, represented a fusion of the Civil and the military.45 Such able-bodied warriors
------lAt-ion transfer, but
46
added dividend to a poll' n°t the original reason for
is possible in relation to n-*»»n-hine society. Since in Asia
the other modes of entry into Qj
? their conv<
Slava were pagan, evidence
Minor is, at the same time, a hall itation.47 The examples of both Nic
, and of St- I°an' e that it had taken hiclus the Great, clearly indicat	already Chris-
Place.48 st. loannicius came from tian.49 The account о n*l affair since it was
f his conversion was a puiC4J — not from paganism, but from the
---- 50
neresy of iconoclasm u	Хоал-
the true tarn»
A.lde from hi. diS'°Veart"iQt Nicetas partook of Hiciue and his heretical comp	namely let"
v я Bvzantinization, Another aspect which marked у	language
V Hf Byzantium, was tn tare.51- Greek» the Greek	to commu-
.pqnary to етрЮУ ot the empire and it was necess „.ved the way bicate.52 The spoken tongue	ity
opportunity opened new door, of H
r to those imagine how any enter into the
*hich in turn O| le*Klng advancement. It --the most skilled personal!
court without soma bn
1Owl«d9e of
word.53
Constantine Voiles, a patrician under Irene, could have been illiterate?- but it is bard to envision
Possibly the same or for Vardas Voilas, the Strategos considering the duties encumber Indeed, high rank was ye tion into imperial affairs. Th ahd paroikomenoi were all symbo PTot and rebel which was open Thomas, or the viewed in this office in the empire can hardiy * Their motives, along with th
• f 59 in Byzantine values and it e’ than the more successful usu F 60 fortunate Romanus LecapenUS'
for Damian, the Keeper of
of the Chaldean Theme,56
_ 57 unity*
they might, but to gain prizes in a -------
only to citizens.58 The bitter civil war о opportunis tic designs of Vasilitzes must be "'’Hve. Men who vied for the highest
were deeply rooted
They were no tnuc.,--
Basil I, or the equally
uni t.
In the space
£ over three centuries
The combined testimony о	nO single
indicates that Slavs in Asia f,inor	,,_red had the
Thls would have occurre Political persuasion. Th S1«V8 formed a separate autonom found representing diverse
a generation, Slavs produced an 61 Еаг1*ег tl
•hd an Iconodule saint.
’’•voulos and two-thirds of his Bom , the Slavs tr«ltora, while the "City ° led a tnassi th* and.62 Later, Thomae lea
Instead they are of less
Slavic leader

predominantly Slavic areas in Asia Minor II.63 In the tenth century, Vasilitzes,
from the Slavesian, with himself.64 served both Leo VI and his whom Vasilitzes ifically “Slavic" behavior
attempted to replace the xegn-
*et troops from this same area natural son, Constantine VII, the he
to supplant.65 No speci^^^^e 	
existed. Developments
its appearance because non	tini2ation and
were the na^ai — “ ;;idyed and contentl0US
not of independence. They were
•8 was the rest of Byzantine citi	Slavs
U «.id With surety that tn
Although it can be	_____rea.
stated. The
tried
makes
among
67 in Europe*
reinforce particular, —-----*<ne." Removed from
„•«{ration must be eons for this rapid Byzantiniz
•	 The Slavs had been
foremost was isolation, Tn off from any contact with their There was nothing, therefore, ‘Slavic* activity in contrast
their original habitat, surrounded
. fiscal structure, And Integrated into the 68 choice but to Byzantinize-orts of this have The negative aspect
•specially the two Slavic del •Alats, nonetheless, a posit Tha Slavs came as illiterate •object to whatever nomadic 1 byzantlum offered them land, tAking.7^ The wealth of thc
they had little
often been cited, ections to the Arabs.There ve aspect to their settlement. agriculturalists, previously ower wished to dominate them.70 literacy, and position for the empire was as much theirs as
was any energetic and able citizens. Isolation in Asia Minor also allowed them to grow in relative p< ace , tou ОП1У infrequently by Arab raids, and even then protected by ^Perial forces.72 Those who desired could join these ^titties and even command them.7Surely such a way о had its advantages, even if Byzantinization -as the p ,n came about through the channels of military training, and social advance о assimilation, there was Bithynia, the area where which could not but play a of the Slavs. This was the
ec°nomic interchange, ^nt.74 while all co One other influence specific to
®°8t of the Slavs were setticu, decisive part in the absorption ^°rce of Christianity and more speci
of Mt.
.75
Olympos in Bithynia.
Byzantine monasticism was not as tightly structur
Western counterpart. Monks traveled wide ly
- 4-he politics of the era.
of the
Played
They performed many
an
ans in less charitable Simeon Stylites had com-(ted commerce with the ordi-Gltixen as he dealt out advice, eagerly sought у •<intiy.79 It was the fortune of the Slavs to be set-tUd in the same region as Mt. Olympos, the greatest monas-Uc «Glony in the empire, prior to the foundation of
Even during the harsh years of the •*₽»ror Constantine V, Mt. Olympos produced
*ctiona.7® Even hermits like Putatively rich and uninterru nary
monks
81
Of sanguine enthusiasm.	views
4-ov-a of iconoduie
) Monks were effective propaga	them.82
. bv his persecution of the
И Constantine V acknowledged by	. de and
L	₽11 equipped both in attitude
The monk, therefore, was wel 4	Asia
Slavic settlements m Gaining to work among the large
_-nastic efforts by tne
*Unor. Extra impetus was given	created
<_	v their relentless foe,
fct that Constantine V, thei	settle-
• Slavic patriarch of Constantinop	. r the
“ent of 208,000 potential iconoclasts^	record of
“Onk dared not ignore the situat
I	it is obvious tnao
St. loannicius and his relatives
monks succeeded in their struggl
the
Already exposed to Chr Slavs were surrounded by it i *inor.8^ The pressures of the only heightened the efforts at proselytes from the oth
in have taken a a process which WOU--case. Slavic paganism mystery, grandeur#
nost active form in Asia
early
•ought
in any U> the Confronted with a faith eag ЬУ monks of fiery enthusiasm#
been
•ion was quick. The Slavs
j orthodoxy
fMion of Monasticism and
ersion as each side
These exertions accel-similar course lacked the power to stand up 87 organization of Orthodoxy.
include them, and no wonder that
to
ts
conver-
setticu _
in Asia Minor and the
a foregone conclusion.
So it was that the Slavs of Asia Minor This does not mean that their presence
were asaim* in Byi*ntine
Bf	. то posit that Close
Xsia was entirely without influen	effect
	'	in Asia Minor ha-
to a quarter of a milli°n Slavs £№.	u i «	S ign i f i c‘
upon the empire is not possi in Byzantium came after, not e	aroups
I	. ь 11 the other ethnic у
Byzantine society. As with a	„«-eible to dis-
nds it is irnPos
transported onto Byzantine an *	which
tern any specific change wrong
into
of that -----	zantiun always сазе after
body,88 Transformation within	immigrants.
. r,iare among tn
Byzantinization had taken P	slaV£C influence
The various theories	reat a number
are quite correct in demanding that .» gr	_ 89
cart in impe Slavs must have had some p importance nonetheless citizens, Possess as Slavs. ine 9° transplants was appreci^b __________4 vitv with
is based on and not upon any in
h as Byzantine ristic they effect of these massive A demographic improvement its resulting benefits.91 —я bv the appearance needs
The
of neW within
flecure« — went on,
trength of the state was citizens who filled, as time
‘"‘° '
ooked. Day ue phenomenon, . cripPled ЬУ *
empire.
battle8, the importance
bX°od of the
*n undramatic and anonymo *b*h it ceases. Yet a state C1«nt population and the con *,*>l*“* 8- «nite of any ®P*
-to-day piuu.._ noticed only lack of suffice in produc--''•'fls it may win
empire i3 °ve
-	4-rs
on the battlefield, a state doome	tine Empire,
t-he Middle
exists a certain substance	solidity
* lustinian I*
n°t evident in the holdings о	.lation and
1irv regarding populate
l“ due, in part, to a wise po	imple-
Productivity.93 The Slavs were importan
themselves# for the .uation.94 They : the resources to
>rs quoted Homer and conversed with Rabbi and dealt skillfully with
empire
dentation and its success.
Evidence reveals that the ®ost part, moved willingly into Were ready to participate had th integrate them. In a state who tbe New Testament#9^ whose sain '^cic Khan,96 and whose dipl°mat	like the
krab and German alike,9 absorp	this
,.<cllv without effort.
cultural pre made assimila-a limit to this ;ion could also This occurs , but in Europe. The in Asia Minor.	Slavs
-glopments among „= and the both the successe .	--ап. What
id. " Jt aiS° ^odnence in the medieval *or
Yet there was uon of the Slavs possible.
 n and this li"ita banner of Byzantinization, nf the empire, found within the borders
the Slavs not
Political social and culture
°* the imperial Balkans recounts
failures of Byzantium in Lts P	o-ikan lands high
, ciaV ОП	.
transpired between empi*e an	were capab
wh*cn
x19hts the creative variations
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER V
^See above, pp. 3-9-
Philippson, Das byzantinische pp ^31^59SC^e ErSC^e^nUn^ (Leiden: Ё. J-Bril 17 1	'
W-,.. .	3<3’ Ostrogorsky, "The Byzantine Empire in the
d of the Seventh Century," D.O-P-/ XIII (1955),
4<rhe two Chief examples are the recovery of the Nirir€ Under the dynasty of Heraclius (610-711) and the on a»an Empire (1204-1261). See Ostrogorsky, History , ₽P- 87-147 and 418-465.
Th»* л 5This is exhaustively described in Sp. Vr7onis, of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minorandtjy HrPSSrTslamization from the Eleventh ТЬго^Г^е Z^^th Century (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: ine
of California Press, 1971).
6See above, pp. 20—22, nn. 12—22.
Kulab. 7Pancenko, "Pamjatnik Slavjan," PP-Ulakovskij, Istorija Vizantij, III» 210 and 258-259.
Uns<4. 8Levdenko, "Vizantija i Slav^?^1/\PP’ 23 48' P its, "Slavjanskaja obscina," pp. 144-16 .
P n 9Charanis, "The Slavic Element," PP- 64-83;
(* D^nik, Les Slaves, Bvzance et Rome-au,	-
IV	Tfavau Publies par 1'lnstitut d’^udes^Slaves,
*1^26), p. ЮЗ; Ostrogorsky, History , PP
• w «
10-
See above, pp. 27-30, nn. 75-119.
29. ^Theophanes, Chronographia, 364:9-16 and 432:25-
ne Cejrem°rlLl-S./ 11
.	«Constantino ₽°'₽*yr°genitU9'	a2.
(v<“. I, Bonn), 662 and 666.	...„ent," PP- 80'®Г
J*‘ntalned their language »» ando. It »• le to coope”te Jjtphyrogenitue, ОеЛ^ИДИ-^ДТ^По w®f.tue, Iftii-' an ‘ha tribes of thn Peloponne pnyrogeni
•ith th. Arabs (Constantine PO P
________„	. _ -Nicephorus , I»* objected to Byzantinization	in Greek. Homanus
PP. 84-85) , were able to coramun	crete than m®fe^hould
becapenus I's worries were mor	ic tribes. 11 ' in_
^ion of Slavesian troops with s hly ByZantinxzed h be remembered that Tsar	ffin Ins «4Г	k
self, had reached the Gulf of Cor _ 394-420; Ostrogo^ Byzantium (Zlatarski,	D. 264 , n. !»• i r.
History3, pp. 263-264, especially his deep ^rQVer ability, especially taking	had RomfnuShtnces at subStanding of Byzantium» w°u	Symeon's c . £n the
the lot of most European Slavs J£d >an Tsar 1°°^£Ц ali Orting them. With an astute Bulga pting to keep background, Romanus I «®s °^nesian, «t of Sy"e° the Slavs, Slavesian and ?ei p teach.
^Charanis, The Armenians, pp. 19-21.
^Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, p. 253. ^Theophanes, Chronographia, 355:5-14.
17Ibid.. 363:5-24.
®Bon, Le Peloponnese byzantin, pp. 75-76.
Reir. * * 19 20 21E« Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen
von 363 bis 1071 nach griechxschen, arabischen,
und armenischen Quellen (Brussels: Corpus
e lense Historiae Byzantinae, 3, 1935), p. 41.
20Kulakovskij, Istorija, III, 58.
21 Charanis, The Armenians, pp. 16-18.
^Charanis, "Transfer of Population, p- 143.
Trud„ 23тЬе basic theory of Vasiljevskij, "Materialy,* IV, 250-331, remains valid to this day, especially de»cription of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
2«Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, p. 320.
•nd .25The most comprehensive picture of the
•*odi	CU1tural-geographical background pr ‘ lands
b NU'Ldurin9 the Middle Byzantine Era, to
fejtojan??*®' £™eniia У. eP°hH JpS.tttojaajstr Petersburg': po Qsnove Nahararskago .^troja	. .
7? Razyskanija po Arnjano-Gruzinsk"j
’ ®econd edition with Introductionу • versiteta, I»ln,3*n Iderevan: Jrdatel'stvo JerevansS“ c. C«rii! *nd revised English translation of	x 3n the
'•°l*n, und^r the	Nicholas Adonta, Armer.ia_in---
Period of Justinian,
(LisbonУaPnif31 note and appendixes, WJ ___
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1970).
Charanis, The Armenians, p. 57.
27
Ibid., pp. 20-47.
28Ibid.« pp. 21-22.
ibid. ^Particularly the emperor Romanus I Lecapenus, Бепие' PP’ 35-36, and Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Leca-
PP. 224-245.	-------------------------
the cas Charanis, The Armenians, pp. 56-57, ably presents e for their inclusion in Byzantine society.
Charanis, "How Greek was the Byzantine
' Bucknell Review, XI/3 (1963), 111-116.
32
Charanis, "Transfer of Population,” p. 154, 33Dvoxnik, Les Slavs, pp. 102-105.
34
form я к ^he first society on Balkan lands which was to s«e ьЛ'?. a„cult^al alternative was that of the Bulgars.
в below> PP. 135-141.
•eater Wm’	"The Byzantine
с1711™ЛиГОре'П BYzantium an Introdu.----------
' ed. Norman H. Baynes and H. St. L.
Clarendon Press, 1948), pp. 326-337; Baron in R.,.°fff-and Norman H. Baynes, "The Byzantine Inherits
Ru®Sia," ibid., pp. 369-391.
^Charanis, "How Greek," pp. 107-116.
See above, pp. 93-94.
38 Pancenko, "Pamjatn
39
Theodore Mommsen, ^£i«ch>e schriften, III) .
«XIV	' 225-283, especially
(1889), 195-279.
40«,u
I	Theophanes, Chronograph!a,
[ ^See above, pp. 68-70.
4 2
With the exception of the of the Slavs ever
tance in south-to Fast Roman.
----B. Moss
pp. 35 and 62.
Gesammelte Schriften, VI, = ^Berlin: Weidmannische Buch-225-230, = Hermes,
365:30-366:3.
-««
b*fu.are no Known cases
^hi* fashion* See above, p.
70.
^Ostrogorsky, History7, pp. 1 30 1 32.
_	««Nicely stated by Charanis, "Population Transfer
PP- 150-154.
45	.	2 r-n 95-100, for biblicg
. ^Ostrogorsky, History , PP- entiv Toynbee, »»₽hy and general discussion. More recently Toy
•—B^tantine Porphyrogenitus, pp- 2 4 0
*6See above, pp. 70-73.
47Dvornik, Les Slavs, PP- 102-103. 4 8
See above, pp. 87-91.
49Vryonis, "St. loannicius,” P- 247'
50Vita loannicius, PP- 337-330.
I	im-115; R- Browning,
51Charanis, "How Greek,” PP- ^hinson University
^leyal and Modern Greek (London: Hutcn
_ f- h i s acre *	9^ibid.t pp. 60-62, ь°П А^^о^еГтоупЬее! ^ta£'
f?r the deT^pment of Greek. Also see Toy --------------
^SS-Porphyrogen itus, pp. 546-574.
f these excepts	53The emperor Michael II ^e^phanes Continuatus,
i£o"s. He was barely literate. Theophan ^^H^nographia, 49:5-9.
54Theophanes, Chronographia.' 4 74.6
S^See above, pp. 96-98.
5*Georgius Monachus, Chronicon, 896:13-897:2.
«Charanis, "Observations on the Demography,"
Р- 19.
co	-, i ...irhtpd by tne	‘
eThis is best illustr	ne&evliev, Die,r,-,11
rTT8 with Bulgarian claims. Se ,,’Bvzantina, I11 (I9	'
 i1!*ridee bei den Protobulgaren, J^IJ^Fiale a Byzance and V. Tapkova-Zaimova, Lniae291-295.
la tradition bulgare," ibid-• PP
«Charanis, 'How Greek." P-	264.2„.
«Octrogorsky, Historx . PP-	and
,t «Z.e., Nicetas the Patr^» pp. B7.,l.
loannicius the Great. See
62
See above, pp. 63-72.
^Lemerle, "Thomas le Slave," pp. 255-297
*See above, pp. 97-99.
^^Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Сеги^.^*
66T o u • bv	L. Brehier,
Hi (Paris: 1Э50), 278-315.
Civilisation byzantine, Le Monde evolution de l^humanete 32] ter,
$7See above, pp- 58-60.
. " no. 80-82. e8Charanis, "The Slavic Eleven ,
1ЛЯ:16-20 and 366:16
^Theophanes, Chronograp '
7°See above, pp. 34-40.
<32:25-29.
For land, see Theophanes, Сйгоподхоу..—, 364:9-15 For position, see Theophanes Continuatus, „---- 234 : 7 and 235:6. On literacy, see Vita
H£' PP. 370-374.
72
See above, pp. 64-65.
pp q 73I.e., St. loannicius and Vardas Voilas, see above, 91» 99-100.
409-494.
and
74Charanis, "The Demography," p. 19-
75Dvornik, Les Legendes, pp. 112-147. 76„
Sokolov, Sostojanie monasestva, pP•
Social	Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthro^-------
f 3 re (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers Universi у ' 1968),pp. 88-110.
letent 38е*9‘* Leo Vi’s fourth marriage b5?ugh t. fUqst£o-
90rB£v hllity of the monk to stir up trouble; see os
y* Hiatory3f pp. 259-260.
e79®* bietzmann, S eon Stylitej,, Das Leben des h_b (Leipzig, 1^08), PP-
®^Dvornlk, Les Legendes, pp. 112-147.
l°69-i)O8lyita Stephanus Junior (M^ P^G-> Yo*‘ * °°^jtiта
^•tli	Л1яо	Ch. Loparcv,"^^!^!!-Jitija
Vliz-xx vekov’,* VJZ., XVII (1910). 119-147.
Constantin V, pp. 165-167.
83M.	-----
CGPh©rus, Brevarium, 75:1-2.
t	Ibid-, 68:27 and 69:2.
85Vr
yonxs, "St. loannicius," pp. 247-248.
86-
’	ee above, pp, 90-91.
87A
A. u* ?*, Sahmatov, Povest Vrerennyx Let, I (Petro-thScription va' 1916) , 136 : 11-137:6, is the classic p e Slavs. Th- e^ect °f Byzantine Christianity upon rt^£y Cbm 1S translated into English in The Russian й	Laurentian Text, trans, and ed. S. H.
^jevai A^?erd ₽* Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge: The
emy °? America Publication no. 60, 1953) ,
Charanis, The Armenians, p. 57.
j	89	--------------
°*161r a f₽®cia-Hy Vasil jevski j, "Materialy, " Trudy, IV, £M.P,, p, 250.
90 atrogorsky, "Agrarian Conditions," p. 197.
91
>* Byzance^’i Leinerle, "Esquisse pour une histoire agraire П95< pp? sources et les problernes," Revue Historigue
^МогуЗ Cfe the empire of Justinian I. See Ostrogorsky, • PP. 78-79.
9згъ haranis, "Transfer of Population," pp. 150-151.
94-
See above, pp. 62-63.
®05. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, pp* 575-

#6Vlta Constantinus (Slavic version, Angelov-Kodov • PP. 60-119, especially notes, pp-
97
°Ьо1вПа^у# "Byzantine Diplomacy," pp- 43-61.
98fi
r«hier. La Civilization byzantine, pp. 549-574
CHAPTER VI
SEMI-AUTONOMY, THE SLAVS IN BYZANTINE EUROPE
_______	but differ" w came in *°rn1' Ь o the s»llc
Byzantine Europe wa	from being
Asia- Aside г*
in texture from Byzantine	^ur)cish con
Evaded and fought over from R°m	holds the dubioUS
^3t by many peoples, Byzantine EurO?^^ scholars. distinction of being a major feudl g^ ^zantium light**' ^is second front has tended t	QVer racial sut
Preferring to wage acrimonious	culture as lS
V1V>1 and the pros and cons of	thoughts would have
c*xrled by the bloodstream-1 Thes ^dering, but the
an Athenian such as Isocrates won^
«•bate about classical culture, *s pQ.nt in this •tteam, remains yet a hotly
odern" era.2	ities of nati°nal
One of the more serious	*	dleCuSSion
^••tons in the battle of the P^9 h* Mbr-»ut the Slavs in Byzantine Eur
Slavs invaded and settled
ailv obvi°uS and as it is equal У Vlv«d this Invasion, and sir beth«*a mixture of these two P
As it ia obvious far south as the Pelopon-that Byzantines aur-oclde was abhorrent to -* ia an obvious

fusion to draw 4
«Цв-л	* T“e culture which Byzantium pos-
a' and which
BtotDg	W3a trans<nitted by other than genetic
Т1ца	v-ntually, Byzantinize many areas in Europe.5
' however dirt
not fully envelop the Slavs of Byzantine r«tain ^at during the era 600-1018/ many Slavs
ethnic identity in several imperial areas.6
8 accurate to say that the process of Byzan-Ound its limits among the Slavs in imperial
rcasons for such a limitation helps to indi-
what was
necessary for assimilation to take place and Was, того
tlo..	Ге ₽recisely, the true nature of Byzantiniza-
* Hist
fical developments/ vis-cHvis the Slavs within ^daries, are complex, and partially explained °®Ung Of another non-Slavic people, the Bulgars,
*lkan Peninsula.7 Without the presence of this
1 the p
ast-Balkan lands, assimilation certainly | г
Progressed more quickly and spread much farther. due
unique features in Bulgar culture, efforts ^avs were hampered and geographically limited.® ^2antium might claim theoretical rule over many r°uPs, including the Serbian tribes to the North,9 e*Uty control was confined to those areas where
•dv	J;t 11 r‘1 3t-ration was actually present,
'u'“-iJled effective control.
1 no other nomadic invader ^Xft»uia h и
f t	independent cultural synthesis capable
ln9 «n	_________________ 10
^ope.
cate
by the r °ht° the
But,
but In
Bulgar
The Bulgars achieved of the Balkan
The unique
йж	lp developed between Bulgar and Slav was not
•‘•Uy attai
|ц	Пе blit its steady progress proved a constant
to imPerial hopes for the Byzantinization
‘h Slavs 11 e
’ scholars, who# in their search for
Pu*ity, ov
erloofc the Bulgars, fail to understand an it f4ct
r Ш the history of the medieval Balkans.
fche Bulgars been merely another nomadic tribe
” the steo
PPes, Byzantium might have eventually assimi-ЗЦ the ci
a-tavs on the peninsula. This did not occur.
s did not just raid, leaving devastation behind
9 з great confederation one day and collapsing the They formed something far more durable. For rea-УеЬ known, the Bulgars memorialized themselves
nUments and inscriptions.While the historical
of all
racial
impor-
The
®°r)s
With
*nd -
oated, they, in essence, gave the Bulgars a per-^ence Of
Presence not possessed by any other invader.
e*Pedi►
2tion of Constantine IV and his illness which ^«Orali
Ze<l the imperial armies at a crucial moment brought ‘oout i
681 Byzantium’s recognition of a Bulgar State north Balkan mountains.15
map of imperial holdings in Europe at this time, *^9 Italy and Sicily, would have shown great dispar-'<e*n imperial claims and imperial realities. The °* the southward Slavic invasions was over.17 Slavs be found virtually everywhere in the Balkan Penin in Greece.18 Scattered among thia Slavic popuJotion
It
the
to
imper
that these
j.ciently
such as md the of the Arabs in 21 With the survival of an -adminisi
The reunifica-
key C1
«ere strong pockets of imper wx .	.19
vived the invasions.
ties were more numerous
Numerous to support the
c. я 1 tieiu -Byzantium, in bex' thessalonica, Corinth, Monem t, had after tJ Of the Aegean-
jood positi
lter Of i"₽erial
...ie was
full control
indigenous population . in a 9
support, Byzantium stooa moat important city and th tion of the peninsula unde ionica.22 Lands in the region
. c
gyze.n of Thes
23 This Pr°
saionica
on th® other
ever, heavily popular-	signs
complicated further by Bul9ar
.moerial Р1аП f out Thessalonica any ^Pe	iinpoeeible*
Greece and the Peloponnesus W	^alf of
The situation in the	§
nht.h centur
Hrst quarter of the eig
The city ayi<ntine Thessalonica-
bY slaV threatened numerous times
*	, r? the DC
*ith Bulgars.25 Not sine
Millenium B.C. had the
they were distant and • connecting link, th
sing16
o ho*'-were 1
,bieW waS
24 with" city*
_*ав in
the seventh and critical for was at ~b°d and
sometimes 1 nvasion faced a'
of the x-_ of Greece io- change of itnplexion. For-could hold out, but ' -**ealonica a wed
and cultural co/ and Monemvaaia 27 without
it c of Eur°Pe' areas oi
,he Old Byran-i-order was to come to	innica'
from Thessas-would have to emanate	Constans
A decisive moment came w	succe5Sful
.inst the Arabs wrtb
28 This car^ 6э * •
. o	Constans
future poHc •	he
ound Thesealon and admrnra
JJ balanced ampaig11 Lished a the
against the Slavs in precedent for Slavs out from ar
who were removed from transferred elsewhere
II
did not »rive
rely subjugated
29 The Slavs' tion.
.	were
a ar°^ 30 The Slavs the emplre'	nOt com-
.	aUtonon>oes an
pletely isolated from which, totally free о the peninsula.31 Con
and done L absolutely necessary
- an immediate
the possibility lonica, but not the en
rhain ot
the 1ОП9	extended UP
, Byzant	done
« Ц had »eiel/
3ta" .. .itb economy
ti°n*
in Europe' ** 6uch i^eri31 . educed the es °f
in
and down what was
He removed of Thessa-This was the from c°n3t
attenti°n' in the Slavs i” 3J the en>pl»e-. a of the
, .pcelut tinople itself» had . IX.S conquest Constans I*
Vicinity o£ Thessalonica	,oble®
«..finite Pr°
Although there is a	p
Miracuia-£----
louver episode in t e	„rring
d a® occ now generally »ccepte the seventh century» n -.л be comm3 •*Ionlea Slavs coul ВМДа.ЭЭ evidence stron<3
thiB epra-
^er of
ded
in the	-me»-
.n tbe	°'
—IV imPerl* the
, 4-Hirtv-one years . .	.34 Exactly thi j
Initiator of this control*	. by
К	, - this region was amplify
*ater imperial control in t	thened Thes-
Justinian II.35 Justinian II not on 7 ared the stry” »«lonica as a Byzantine center, but ® fcy created a “bn region of Slavic interference	Thessalonica-36
ial Thrace and
Connecting link between imperi	raWaign of
. Justinian Use
Further elucidation	Dulgar-SlaV-ВУzan'
fi88 may be seen when the complexlt	artite nature of
tine relationships are examined	tanding imperial
this relationship remains a key	Balkan
„haDS for much or
₽°licy in this region, and per	-reSsor Constans
ъ	tt like his predec	38
^fcninsula. ' Justinian U*	• i borders.
„t-g within imper lx* permitted Slavic settleme	Slavic
His military activities were cone	solved) than with a
Problems (which were already par	its envir°nS*
•erious Bulgar threat to Thessalo	northz even if not
*be existence of a Bulgar State to t	of
pf-.Г	_ laar control
de«ired, was tolerable» but u	f the ques-
«.	i Macedonia «a® out °
^hessalonica and imperial
Uon.<0
was stiU sparse in this eate a vacuum into Й1» r«91on, Justinian II dared not er	foCUSed iteelf
&ulgar power could move. Thus»	°* ^he sl«vs* ftn
uPOn expulsion of the Bulgars* a le3ClerahiP into By,an th* transporting of potential SlaV1^.on vhAch remained
Asia Minor.41 The Slavic P°Pul	influence* Jt
«tine sphet*
**• than drawn into the Byzd
Pot
k«Pt **Ce1onia W°Uld ®ц19аг
P°rtant that these Slavs be Kept from wlth the Bulgars. Imperial-T.ili tary admin-ati°n Worked £	ailigentiy to create a set of conditions
* whiie aU
wing Slavs to remain on imperial lands.
s°lated from Bulgar influences.4^ -n Eastern d in Greece they succeeded admiranly. Sl-vs
С3 Li 3 g
ouble, but primarily as Slavs ..d not as a9ents.43
The Bn]
J-gars, who migrated south, were occupying a
Vdcuum. д i
л large portion of the Balkan Peninp-la lay
P°*er
°Pen to vh
ever could dominate the numerous Slavic tribes had settled there.
to the task the East, »uit
* under the Bulgar influence.
®8OrSr the Bulgars
*uch r-
₽ee<iece
As imperial energies were not of retaking the whole of ths peninsula, Thrace, and parts of Mncsia ell, almost 44 Unlike their
seem to have developed a cluse the	^he Slavs very early in their domination of
E«8t BaI К ЛС
lnerw, 1>fans. This, coupled with the permanence ЭПа d monuments, points toward the e. rly stages synthesis with the Slavs.46 eat to Byzantium.47
-2antium, ironically, was in the
Of	Bulgars with reference to the
he Peninsula.
**• the
of
It was also a
same lisle posi-
Slavic popul >tio •
While imperial population eu -'ived, it seventh century# not large enough tc dominate
”V1C trlbes by numbers alone.48 This was exactly the ith fiul9«r-siav relations. Although Bulgar rxpulatlcn
К	to Slavic, the Bulgars,
*	M in a definite minority i	domination by means
like the Byzantines, «ere cap	cases the
°ther than sheer force of numbers.	go
tistical entity»
Slava represented the important s » ilcans renamed to enhance
*	«• that the Slav in the Balkan	Bvzar.tine.50
Bulgar and z
•	trength of the two real powers:	„4arv '.ar
in Macedonia, especial-
Bulgar interference m Ma
the Bulgars ««e d“Ven seventh century, i^al Fr,rce. to keep the
, by treaty or by	.	51
-ration into Macedonia.
and Nicephorus. t
, from the Bulgar point e£ the "emperor with
and treaties
! included in
n concerning Thessa-be clearly said is
treaty with Khan
Thessa-
any case,
Slavs were allowed to remain/ out. During the remainder of t
from the Chronicles of Theoph tered inscriptions at Madara relat °f view, the activities the cut off nose" with Khan Ter lnicriptions is a much-debated pa le_.	53	A11 that can L
Monica and environs. ЛА Mi	im Justinian made
that sometime before 70/	over
, disagreement arose о
Ttrvei, but some kind of dxS	Tervel‘B- In
lonica With a possible relative ° reioained в; ’hesaalonlca and the surround 4	Eastern Mace
orbit, ^ey
During ion in thl*
While the Slavs ot тле..	Bul<jar
^°п1а continued to stand outsi
to eyxantxne *
not entirely subservient	bei
there was a
ere of Tiberiue"APB*mar'	—-Л/
down but
Of
I • continued. Piracy seems to have been a long-®tft] pf-Qb I
m* Slavic piracy was on a small enough scale ®ot to be a ,
_	erious threat to tne imperial navy, but con-
®*ant p
to reduce the population of such islands as t°s ceriouslv 55
It was only with the coming of Con-v that this problem was brought under a semblance
G*eece.
e what was to follow in
Ost
to the
he had
In 758 he waged a the Slavic regions This
quick but decisive campaign of Macedonia subjugating the accomplished, he then turned his attention n9er, Bulgaria.5® By his campaign of 758
reign. So
*0 a r ’«J.S» •nd
ец_ Uonce except that of Byzantium. Byzantine influ-^РОП f
e Slavs of Greece and the Balkan Peninsula grew powerful was this influ-’ *‘nat thr.
e emperor could strip the Bulgar State of close 5 ^rter
°* a million of its inhabitants, as he did in ^Arther south he was able to reduce Slavic piracy regai
2,500 captives from Imbros, Samothrace, and do«,60
Kla eavage campaigns against the Bulgars their non-interference in Macedonia. The Byzan-PUlation of Thessalonica had gained time to build ngth and envelop at least part of the Slavic popu-
‘On «Г the area.
*hlle Conetantlne V'» death brought an end to the flJ9gic
xth Bulgaria, it did not put an end to the
her
in Macedonia and Greece. Untroubled by to the north, the empress Irene was under Staurikios, then Logothete of the Slavs of the Thessalonica region.
**«0^63 r*cUl of

gar neighbors tO aend an army “le °ron,e. to r * * to reduce he Ca^Paiqn
УП» however, went much farther than this. Impe-
t*°Ops Passed through Thessalon
83/84, penetrated into Greece and the Pelopon-
yzantium had returned in force. Whatever the
₽°sition of Greece, it was no longer after 783/84 importance, since culturally it
Byzantine in character» Yet,
ica, and, in this cam-
would now be
there remained
Mfa*.	aa<tonica and environs had for a
6,	{657'-783) been the
By^tine
century and a
focus of at least four major
^litary expeditions.While these expeditions bother and farther from Thessalonica, it still Question why so many were necessary, unless 7,<htlum wa.
*>» continually uncertain of its control over **9ion
Imperial uncertainty may be explained by ® actions of

Га„, ’’ a significant 910n Qf
thl
It
810. In that year Nicephorus I population to the Sklavinias thus appears obvious that before
the Slavic population was in such a ratio to the
to
consolidate the control brought by each military
Byxantiniiation needed a siiable Byxantrne to •••imllate a foreign body such a* the Slava.
gn of Nicephorus I, such an opportunity was
m	on* sP-ite of the flight of some of the
e ^У Nicephorus I, there is mention only of
C troubles, never requiring the kind of force
®^ry before Rin
d ,	«10. From the testimony of John Cameniates
BUL
a century later (904), Slavs, although
к	У^пд some autonomy, were, nevertheless, loyal to
® eflipire
9q^ 66 and f°ught bravely against Leo of Tripoly in he only other evidence of trouble among the Slavs
reqi
Ош	°П thessalonica comes from Liutprand of
m,	here, as Marin Drinov forst noted,70 such a
* Slavic uprising (in about 926) was at least
the work of Byzantium’s most dangerous and able
opponent, Tsar Simeon (893-927).71 The Macedon-
•* et
-	oeyond Thessalonica had become, by the ninth
c*ntUry/
* not only a border area between Byzantium and Bul-la' but A zone of cultural transition.
Sa
a	curity in this northern zone around Thessalonica
8Ured, .
0^	*	* 810, development which worked to the advantage
ft у £ .
2	tium in Greece and in the Peloponnesus, while iso-
i^n of *,u	,
L.	tr,e Slavs of Greece was assured by Nicephorus I s
Population72 and by the military achievements 3* the Slava of Greece, especially in the * remained autonomous.7^ In spite of the for-a of Hellaa and the peloponneue,74 they
40*>nne.u.
iOn °* the Theme i ►
ut®d a chronic problem to imperial authorities
®«Vi
«ff<
W,t°«9hout th
9«lla.	e M'lcidle Byzantine Era. 75 The Themes of
and the Pel
:*lbes .	l'Ponnesus contained autonomous Slavic
Wh^n these
areas were organized as Themes, and would e to cont
ain autonomous Slavs throughout the next
Centuries,76 .
-ft is instructive to assess the
fcbese Slat/e
avs upon their Byzantine neighbors in
stand both the survival of Slavic autonomy
’««r to the j
At first _
the p ,	91ance, by 810, conditions in Hellas and
lo₽onnesus
•hd	would have appeared felicitous for quick
had vi	OrPtion of the Slavic population. Byzantium
*^tuai2y
a	^^allenged military control on both land
a
' ^ever, ?‘r°U8 -“ ftot of,_
•‘«He И"«1г4 ^e., t© н»
e'ue
administration in control.77 Such a picture somewhat illusory. The Slavs also were Occupied inaccessible areas* many of which economic advantages to Byzantium. 79 As was self-sufficient from the outset, inter-ren,ained minimal.79 Thus, large population, sibHjt
У# and primitive self-sufficiency combined G ф t
n9 lasting Slavic autonomy. For a good part
-
дЛ<^ n^nth centuries/ this independence was
Slavic piracy and brigandage. While impe-Mgf ft! < L
"*A9ht reduce the leading tribes to tributary
®v®rwhelming numbers of Byzantine population
*nd finally end Slavic autonomy and its problem*.
Once Slavs
a in the ted *
,o becowinq
f 3uch C1
of	,A
they	Й1
Lesг	и*
«» Patras were reduce-°eet likely be sub^ec ''hatever tribal arist°c
Greece, i. e. , the
_ sure »>" s10* bU „ the Si isted a»ong eX1	. and Ese
ogling1»	. ;лП and
cX^'
of
th^y
qeZ	л BY*antl
-tOWatd	an
to 9	mir is bU
.„e of	. „= and
*8slmilatlon. T^e in Pie of Slavic entry 1Г Ккапйг, who unsuccess
. _ir to tb
Constantine V as
ted
799 t0
a
tne °£
one i” P Л against -„of
in ^₽е
chi®1 fleet
!elf wOt
Bis a
chie«tainS' ! Ъ ted aS 1 £ra^n
1 ’	in ByaaS
iciP»te
“Jieiy retiecce'-a -
Irene.82 This la an exam₽le invoive r tUn Slavs working to Slavi^ ' r^<l politics, not f°r j ъу n\anY ° to be followed oy Siavic c *med from Bulgaria,	to
*<»• found it most advan 'Citation.	se.e in
This ia not hard	tbe
Rentakios, a l®n^ m	ethn
about
•Untlne VII’э remar	\opiner‘L
1 dev©10^
tuhily Indicates sev^r	^icetaS
, . HeUeniC " pur® ,entiy pr' f£i	lien!'*-
H®11
Ol»11" °	й enoo^
then e*let
autonomy * Sl»viC
puri« °l witM" tbe
Sep*
of ”lce'
Con*
*n4 unplaced pride had s° byrantinlzati°n
**^4 the Slave, f°r thB
Гоа. Vm. аИЛГЬа thOr
Hent^* si»viC' extr*100 sho*»e .г Ю»
»ge
-ss®d* o9fe
e 4nea9e
to
Wh°
- that only ized
. 84 round*
Moreover.
,und A" SlaV'
-pference for this supports a Pre Byzantine areas.
nvzanti —
of being -
.c nobler	d
tostead of being a Siavl	v/ealth аП
Aside troiu	г
of Nicetas Rentakios*	,imPer
rvs14a.l__l „«eiflOn Withln
a
in tbe ‘ase proniinent
His
.	t with Const— surprisin9
4 npd con t^t	viewed s
“““ ’* t O1
• rrP. to Tsa	л from
nartxa^e	aside
!Г S 3S becomes.	ехаГО-
?£lnce an m«tiucti
„1С quality.
aVlC 4
85	nied sUCh
tl°n-	,ch .ccompani
benefits -hie	slaVS
IV sh°wS h	—4tten
, сотЫпе<3
«t Sla< anr
association
results.
Nicetas
His g
Bulgaria
the irony of its dual
Pie of total Byzantinrza in spite of t^ «.inflation, evidence domic loc4'te dents „th centuty
e. «а3 who «е£в
in the ninth ie -о- that
COnt1"9 j Рго«в«» to oh,e*
as a Byz
Remained unassiwii3* documents, indicates to Greece.86 By the
though ihCO^P
•M assimilation, thouy the Sl»vi= Pir' the Decapollte
for
1 had “ ei,’W ntin.
.ted wltn
been ₽>-°d
to fit. Gregory
time of Basil
>vic setV
re heinO jre	Jt
..king ₽1вСе‘ h. ve^ such » eenWty
the
8« £гасУ»
u.	. i keV to understand-
force, however, is not the rea
the slow pace of Byzantinization	’	r - ji
. factor in irr,Pe
Possibly the most important	ratio.
Bu*°Pe, along with the Slavic-Byzantin p	njne-
**’ CQitural. The Russian monastic hi
Д, В	.o1v pointed ou
e®nth century, I. Sokolov, accura	ntroverey had
l®₽ortant the end of the second icoi	гево~
for the spread of Byzantine monasti	agtic
iplit Eastern Christianity for over a more than any other individual
century-the empire*
in
in
which had It was the who was
had
f011»-90 While monasticisra of a "°st
other areas
^rong foundations in Bithynia an ^°r, the great monastic centers
come.^1 Without this cult
of Asia
Antine Europe were in Byzantin
to
f and
to .earch out
To be sure, commerce, 8y**ntlne wealth had all brought 1^ By’*Atine and Slav in Greece, but mo *** touch every aspect of life wa	Baal1 and
. tenets of	92
••ticism however, heeding t tk	nd preach to
• •crlptural injunction to go a
*• an ideal vehicle to transform	ffai'
that ai* administration care	сОНявГС<!
tai	<a ’3 imp**1*1
1 enG thst tribute was p*ld’
in Europe*
The
in the markets on iure of position and wealth tou
.	______Lcpst to such
Tbe ftonk, in contrast, wab ы °ut and caring for all of hi-^ith the monk came the alp- “*J Orthodoxy, traditions pro5-» r-91es with paganism. Until n ^ty, monks, due to the pres5
Byzantine by warfar upset the st^ility _	_ HonXS present
U the north of the peloponnesu
UjZ—	theirs®
There
awaiting tia market days, a	a,
iched only
wealth and P°s , interested ts from birth t
.<«»
tive in p
л of the ninth
e 6	last strur
. есопос^а
of €	95 The tenth
gurope*
BvZahtiUIft <_^^een
of areas
in these
as their thoroiW*"
.ъеге m°nK
. cases «her ,
9le« were in short supply in
patriots had in the East. *®*e forced to flee due to Maintain continuity* a lotion of foreigners.
Elated individuals* but ** be found at Olympos in
The slowness of Byza ltlnponne»ue is closely tied ^•lopment in these areas. 4taUy absent, it was ^•ngth during the n
94
of
the By^ntin'
. not a such a3 wa tion »u
or in Constan ation I" « th© 610 *. that was not d,d not »u’ ehat they d* ie. to n inth and tenth Ce“ eion. r0C.O •« ®yI „г ₽ro	Ofche
force
What *aS a strong
ortant in needed **
and tb.
„ Of щопК» *еГв ,.r .Uff^ient ten »"d xn •«"' . nO*
u th. Slava. th. Peloponn*
ian of Basil I, there . • i the reign
yet converted. Indeed ' Ш'	Greek variety along with
were still pagans of the Clas	conversion
97 to the nortn,
Oews to keep the monk busy-	£Chool at Preslav
of Bulgaria and the developing literary	talented
provided a tempting vista whic	Peioponnesus
monks in Byzantine-Slavic w and Greece remained rather
afterthought than as a
which was The key was .lonica, the
and its vicinity f the empire-
front line of monastic acti Again it is Thessalonica to receive the major at tent
• And by means
the north, Thessalonica,	centuries were to
Slavic world." The ninth and ten	influential
witness the growth of the greates	Thessa-
-	Ht. Kthos was the
f- trade t
, but with one in Bithynia,
> final entury a 1
antine one.
of many
almoat
monastic center oi
•~ arteriss ° lonica and the main _____________.=»art of Oly"P°s the ninth C world and the Byz
a, while aware Greek language
important difference. . Slavic was drawn between t The monastic foundation used the alphabets and language-'	devex«r---
exclusively. Athos did n	* permanence to
letters in the ninth century	pressed an
U пкя to By^ntxum, culture. Slavs, tha
alphabet.	,i£t of Constantine and
Xn a sense the Byz— ’ lnl..ti- ~ Methodius curtailed the sco₽« °	puig.H-
version of Bulg«r*a
e Cultural orbit of Byzantium. However, the development the Slavic alphabet and its use at the Bulgarian court ®®oved Bulgaria forever from the final step of Byzantin-2*tion: the adoption of Byzantine Greek as the native language.Byzantine culture, as transmitted by the reat monastic centers of the Byzantine-Slavic world, Mt. thoa, Ohrid, and Preslav, was now permanently established h most of the Balkan Peninsula.Total Byzantinization limited by the vicissitudes of political and military ^Orfcune to only those areas under the full control of yzantium and where there was a considerable Greek-speak-
element. Macedonia, a politically disputed area, re*nained Byzantine in culture, but not completely Greek in language.1
« ... .„„«.....I.» « . » maria remained the great
under imperial rule. Had 9	.ska_Preelav. north
northern neighbor centered aroun	developments
Of the Balkan mountain range (Stara Plan-
< ht have taken a different in Macedonia and Greece might
.so rase. Constantine and course.105 Such was not the	Moravia,
driven out of Moravie»
Hethodiue' students, having een	Ohrid in
renter of letters at onr^ moved south and founded a c	development upon
Macedonia.106 The ramifications о	b,
both the Slavic and tha By**ntine
*nd long lasting.	work started
iл meant tn
For the Slavic world
by Constantine and Methodius would endure, but the imme ate results of the mission to Moravia soon dis r . ewallowed up by the Germanic move eastward and Latinization.107 At Ohrid and at Preslav, under Powerful arm of the Bulgarian Tsars, the actual and . ttanent conversion of the Slavs to Orthodoxy commenced.
This was not particularly dangerous to Byzantine inter-•	_nnr" so far south,
. .•	a Slavic center sw
ests, but the foundation of a biavx
at Ohrid, was indeed a threat, especiaily in the hands of the Bulgarian Tsar. As Tsar Simeon was to show by hrs campaign which reached as far as the Peloponnesus in 920,
.	< Slavic independence backed by a
uch a southern center of Sla*
. . effectively cancel out all trong Bulgarian monarch cou
, 1 ainn that had been made in the progress towards Byzantiniza
109 Greece and around Thessalonica.
• in Greece had been hard won but were Imperial gains in Greec
y®t incomplete. Slavs but properly isolated, they Since Greece and especia. waters of the empire, not 110 .и these factors in these areas. AH -dangerous set of conditions resume hostilities with Byzantium loos peaceful conditions -in 927.111 These years of . _ in the i-♦ning of th® Bulgarian Sta
• fan invasion of 96» *nd John T2m‘*'<
still remained throughout Greece, ' would eventually Byzantinize.
lly the Peloponnesus were back-much imperial energy was expended combined to create a should Bulgaria choose again to
‘ ~i in Macedonia. More or followed the death of Tsar Simeon n followed by a weak-north duo to the Bue-•uccoooful
ffect created a more immediate
i. Centered in the Prespa-; Comitopuli was well situ-the vital regions of
«solution of the Russian problem at Durostorum (972) . The result was to give Byzantium a certain preeminence in the northern part of Bulgaria. This had serious consequences for the South Balkans, especially Macedonia.
Hhat Byzantium had accomplished was not to destroy the Bulgarian State, but to draw its vore clos nerve center of imperial Europe, namely Thessalonica. It . I x	.	____ immediate threat to Byzantin-
had in el______
ization, particularly in Greece.
Ohrid region, the kingdom of the ated and equipped to strike at t
113 This is precisely what took plac European Byzantium. Th	and SaJnuel.
during the long and deadly war between
moved south attacking Laris of Samuel included a
Beginning in 976, Samuel •	114
Without success.
arch (996) into the Peloponnesus
Thessalonica.115 To such great resources to build was destruction of Samuel's Nation of the Greek an
•The campaign
threat Byzantium poured state Samuel had set out • 1018.116 It was the
meet such a ' that the : totally destroyed by state which insureu u..- —
I Peloponnesian Slavs. There now ***
*** no Slavic power to which they could turn.
Byzantine relations with the Slavs within its ^°Реап borders previous to the conquest of Bulgaria in*
----.aiuHi Buffered in the
never com-
cates the limitations
In tb'
y^antine Greece and the Peloponnesus# it was, at least until well after 1018# a case of too little too late. The ioponnesus and Greece remained secondary areas to an ®Pire based in Asia Minor. The empire paid as little
Mention as possible to this region simply because more leasing problems were constantly at hand. Slavs were Serous enough to make quick assimilation impossible in 1ПалУ regions. Extra imperial population was needed.118 Yet
' Population was not the only factor missing or in hort supply. The bitter iconoclast struggle robbed the atea of monastic attention until well into the tenth cen-*Ury. it is possibiy the monk# more than any other factor# bo made Byzantinization complete.
Once imperial reconquest of Greece was completed the eighth century, the Slavs themselves were accepted ^У the empire. At worst, they were a nuisance; at best, еУ kept the land productive and occupied.118 in the area rOund Thessalonica, their occupation under Byzantine u^erai^ty prevented a vacuum into which some more hostile might come, l.e., the Bulgars. Whatever troubles exieted between Slav and Byzantine, they were local in Char«cter. in Greece, Byzantinization took place not so eucb by coercion as by Slavic willingness. To move up the cuUural ladder meant precisely just that—Byzantinization. That this was incomplete by 1018 shows only a lack of f‘h«ticl,m on both sides. Constantine VII might ridicule N1°«ts. Rentaklos- specious claim to true Hell.nlc lineage,
hat made him no less acceptable as a land magnate or relative of the imperial family through marriage. if ahtium, during its middle era, had failings, extreme racism was not one of them.
Unfortunately for history, the debate on Greece Uring the Middle Ages is just that.120 Neither the Slavs, fche Ramaioi, as the citizens of Byzantium were known, ticed genocide. The classification of human culture transmitted by racial blood type belongs only to the aays which this century has known. No Byzantine Slav would have been so barbaric. Culture existed in Gx*q
aa it did throughout the empire. The Romaioi, as Ue bearers of Classical learning, Christian religion Roman Law, compelled no one to accept them immediately 121	,
z* It was not necessary. Perhaps this, more than other factor, has evaded the historian familiar with absolutist regimes. Athens, much to the classicist's was no longer the city of Pericles. During the
® 7OQ-iQig, it was a provincial city, perhaps less glit-tering, but stlll Offering its Slavic neighbors a bright rewarding culture,122
Tribute was levied upon the Slavs of Greece, but th®ir freedom to exist there was not threatened.123 Byzan-Um 4ave at least what it received in the way of trade, Ucatlon, and general public welfare. One can hardly Cita the attempted elimination of Slavic pirates aa an •Xe»ple of mindleaa tyranny. The Slava during their
the original invasion of Greece did not slaughter
• .„al inhabitants, strength inhabitants, nor did the origr	.
 I	kill Off or drive out the Slavs.
®ned by imperial armies,	occUrred leaving
Byzantinization, total Byzantiniza	there
only Place names as evidence that Slavs had se tied
as Slavs.124 By 1018 much of this had tak P f foreign people , The total Byzantinization
, /I its limits among tne a indeed Byzantium itself, о	empire’s
Of the Balkans. To a good extent
own doing. It was enough for	Byzantium’s
trol to receive its culture.	alphabet and much
finest act. By giving the Slavs t	placed
allowed a limitation to be P o£ its culture, Byzantium	borders
Slavs outside or
4>on itself. It permitted t e	125	that
.	min to remain Slavs.
both before and after 101»' v	Byzantium's
-active to compare By b® taken lightly, it is inst	treatment of
f Medieval Germany s r
Slavic policy with that о	finally
. £ts borders a
the Slavs.126 Whether withi	converted, the
f its borders and conv
Byzantinized, or outside or	civHlza'
oreived the same gn
Slav exposed to Byzantium r	empire’
u the lifeblood of tn tion. That, after all» was	ft in
им* traces the Slav It remains now to examine w
their union with the empire
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER VI
Fa1Imerayer, Geschichte des Halbinsel Korea
H-iv л	1л'егаУег* Geschichte des Halbinsel Morea, I,
no tin аП<*	was the first to assert this curious
n* that blood played a part in the transmission of H0i1en5c culture. Lack of Hellenic blood meant lack of neUenic culture.
2
Creek Falmerayer's assertions on the extinction of the pp, 3.race Were refuted by Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands, of*cj ” . * . Hopf, nonetheless, remained under the influence nomenа53^С*5т' and treated Byzantium as a secondary phe-quest°n’ ₽efhaps the most level-headed discussion of this "Slav1On	original form was that of Vasiliev,
contr Ле v Cretsii," pp. 404-438, 618-670. The whole •nd fiOversy was revived by R. J. H. Jenkins, Byzantium
y^ntinism (Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati = be_ ures in memory of Louise Taft Semple, delivered Novem-•qain and.6' 1962, published 1963), pp. 1-43. Jenkins of u.,?osits that dilution of Hellenic blood was a dilution
Upon th ^The focus of the discussion has tended to be Conve ex*stence or non-existence of Slavs in Greece, or Greece. У' the existence or non-existence of Greeks in any Only in the era following the Second World War has The mr>tem₽t been made to create a more general picture. vatic St ofc>jective in this regard is P, Charanis, "Obser-Aqes «S °n History of Greece during the Early Middle
’ Balkan Studies, XI/1 (1970), 1-34.	___
Onymy# Tbe best evidence of this is provided by top-h®Ve beer r existenc® Slavic toponyms in areas which Proves th’ Геек in lan9ua9e and culture for centuries Earner nls to be the case. For more on this, see M.
' le Slaven in Griechenland, pp. 11-19.
^Bon, Le Peloponnese, pp. 27-70.
"•«lev.! J??1’.®'' "Ein Fall," p. 28, and Georgacas, "The Names Melingi and Ezeritae," pp. 301-333.
7Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, I, 108-119.
®Zlatarakl, latorija, 1/1, 176-257. a
Ь1«Га G. Ostrogorsky, "Die flyzantinische Staaten-
• lft s. J**" Seminarium Kondokovianum, VIII (1936), 41-62, 1970» efbO“Croatian, Subrange Delo,” V (Belgrade: Proaveta,
J • 23B-262.	--------------

10Tupkova-Zaimova, Rasestvija, p. 110. ^Zlatarski, Istorra2, 1/1/ 376-447.
_	12Cf. the Huns and the Avars. See Moravcsik,
£X*antinoturcica, I, 57-65 (Huns) and 70-76 (Avars).
l^Befievliev, Die Protobulgarxschen Inschrirten, P₽. 89-92.
14Ibid., pp. 86-87.
^Theophanes, Chronographia» 356:18-359:21, espe-cially 359:3-21. Also see Zlatarski, IstorijaS pp. 195-
Ostrogorsky, ’The Byzantine Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order," The Slavonic and East European B£yiew, XXXV, No. 84 (December, 1956), 1-14, = Subranie v, 263-277.
445	l^Niederle, Slovanske Starozitnosti, I1/2, 400-
«	Zlatarski, "Naseljevanje Slovena," pp. 82-100,
laani Proizvedenija, I, 32-51.
On the and
PP.
PP.
the n faster, Die Slaven, pp. 20-173,- P. Charanis, Mdrl^?UeSti°n of Slavonic Settlement in Greece During _^le A9es," Byzantinoslavica, X (1949), 254-258;
аег^е/ Slovenske Starozitnosti, II/2, 421-446.
19
Charanis, "The Chronicle of Monemvasia,"
5-4g 66; and Lemerle, "La Chronique improprement,"
— — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _
In Buron °n tt,e actual establishment of Thematic units ₽P- U«°lB.?e\ Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Thematibus, *83; слагал is, "Observations, " pp. 1-11.
21
Charanis, "The Demography," pp. 13-18. 22
Activ'ti	c^aranis* "Kouver, the Chronology of His
Thr>Sai^d Their Ethnic Effects on the Regions Around «icnica," Balkan Studies, XI/2 (1970), 229-247.
Colon,-	Tupkova-Zaimova, "Sur quelques aspects de la
BaijrJ a'*On slave en Macedoine et en GrAce," Etudes
1 '’964), 111-123; Evert-Kappesowa, ’Slowianie pp. j,8^onika," pp. 179-196; Charanis, "Observations," 8clevi	doubtlessly correct in his location of the
Tb«s®a?ias ln Macedonia and Thrace. For the closest to slaven °nAca* eee ₽• 12' n- i5’ Also eee Vasmer'
₽₽• 176-178 and 202-204; Nlederle, Slovanske ***
***---lltnoBtl. 11/2, 421-429.
.	< a the proto-Bulgarian
2*Important in thia rec?arcT chr£ften, PP- 95-111* inscription at Madara (Besevliev,	activities in the
inscription 1C) , which refers to В g
south.
25
Seventh T^e most important instance of this in the late PP* 229-235)tUry	attac,c Kouver (Charanis, "Kouver
26,, Zlatarski, "Naseljvanje," p. 50.
^Tupkova-Zaimova, Nasestvia, pp. 106-107.
28mu
Jheophanes, Chronographia, 34 7:6-7. 29
that Co Charanis, "Kouver," p. 238, rightly concludes Slavs' ns^ans 11 was the emperor responsible for these of Con t^^ugation. Thessalonica was the farthest limit 6). c?tans.H's campaign (Theophanes, Chronographia, 34 7: and ltcafan^'s ("On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs [1952]S ^ecaPture by the Byzantines," Speculum, XXVII/3 Of к 343-350) is, therefore, correct in his criticism etton’s theory that Constans II reached Corinth.
30.,
Chrono Most likely to Asia Minor as Theophanes, -2raphia, 34 8:16-20, would seem to indicate.
^^Tupkova-Zaimova, "Quelgues aspects," pp. 117-
^22.
347:6-7; Charanis, 32Theophanes, Chronojra£h__
"Observations," pp- H"13*
- op. 229-235-
33charanis, "Kouver,	126-136- Both
38Ibid., P. 238; ®“iKouCeF^Pi®®Ls?rn’is,'^3t ^arisi6 and Charanis date	basis °f teS under the
reign of Constantine IV.	Dthe Dragovites
i° assume that Constans II P this ер1зойе' imperial control portrayed У	354-9-15*
35Theophanes, Chronogr^P—
. . 2 i/l, 219-
36Zlatarski, Istorij— •	Bulgar and
3?Thie interplay between
Slav ... (irst clearly	* by 0. Angelov.
Izbrani ProizvedenA^:/;4hip is *h“ud£s Balka-Jttempt to clariiyTh7T/^l»“e buJgare, £i--------------
La formation de la nati©n
nigues, IV (1969), 14-37.
—3	_  4 s 1
38_
39Theophanes, Chronographia, 364:9-11
40Zlatarski, latorija2, 1/1, 261-260. 41
amr>n	This, perhaps, explains the Bulgar elements
>ej J.these Slavs, i.e., the Voiladi and Nevoulos. For the Vrva .on tfle Voiladi to the colonization of 688, see Bul°niS' "st* loannicius," pp. 245-246. On the possible <_ gaf origin of the name Nevoulos, see Be^evliev, "Les
3criPtions," pp. 228-229.
42Zlatarski, Istorija2, 1/1» 273 275,
43The Slavic troubles mentioned^ ^“tpran Cremona, Antapodosis, pp. 3O6-®2 i3toriia2, I/2» 490' for Bulgar inspired'.--S^e Zlatarski, istorij_
this support of this contention.
. . 2 т /1	195-205
44Zlatarski, Istorija <	' plemena
Dujcev, -Qbedinenieto na s^^pp. 70-86. VII vek," Bulgarsko Srednove*4----*
45Dujcev, "Nai-ranni vruzki, £bid
, and I•
v Mizia prez
pp. 87—ЮЗ •
«6se,evlle..	PP' ” ”
..... xr-
Justinian Il’s campaign ind	7S-92, was the
«Charanis, "41popul^io" »i« in first to point out the impor
this regard.	264-266, and Burmov
«Zlatarski. l£ggljgd;nijZ I, 137-160.
Kura vuprosa,” Izbrani pr---	313-321» and
5021atarski, ;°brazuvaner4PP’ge
Charanis, "On the Question, ph
51Zlataxski, Istorija2, PP- 218 220
« A7-58 and 95-111
52Bedevliev, Inschriften, PP-
53Ibid., pp. 102-111.
^4Mlchael le Syrian, chroniqu«, P 55Nicephorus, Brevarium, 76:22-29
56Ibid.
57Theophanes, Chronograph!
4JO:21‘22,
58,.
latarski, Istorxja2. 1/1, 266-308.
59M
1CePhorus, Erevan шп, 68:27-69:2.
60TK. ,
I*? id. t 76:22-29.
1Besevliev, "Dxe Feldzuge," pp. 5-17. 62—.
*«eophanesz Chronographia, 456:25-457:1.
3*bid.. 457:2-6.
,	64r
«U8tinian тт’Тёа the camPaigns of Constans II (657), IOr Irene (783) 8)' Constantine V (758), and Staurikios
^axanis T^e°phane5, Chronographia, 486:10-13. Also see P₽’ 12-13. N1CePborus I/ pp. 75-92, and "Observations,"
•	66гк
.^icephor* L/laranis, "Transfer of Population," p. 151, and *^clude th₽ d*" ₽₽* 77“S6r allows the Sclavinias region to . °ns,« p Peloponnesus and Greece, but admits ("Observa-18 ^hferpn Л* that, regarding the Pelooonneus, this with that Only. The juxtaposition of Theophanes account 5®9ards th°f tile Chronicle of Monemvasia is misleading as 7°th transf Sc-lavinias. Nicephorus I may have performed • ne Euron еГЗ,co“terminously, as his interest was Byzan-.Sc^avoniA^’ Scl-avinia, or as Willibald mentions it
an iSO] <vasnter, Die Slaven, p. 173), seems to refer ‘•Idore	region. Charanis* suggestion ("Graecia in
taken Seville," B.Z., LXIV (1971), 23) that this be vlnias- a~raily is* ЬУ far, the best suggestion. "Scla-?апУ Slav mentioned by Theophanes gives the impression of Thr*ce. д о settlements over a large area of Macedonia and Can be’m ^though not absolutely verifiable, two inferences fefera tr e ^rom the information at hand. One, Sclavonia *r°a conh Л definite region in the Peloponnesus, cut off Гв*ег8 t with the Slavs of the north. Two, Sclavxnias ^?u°ue br,l.{*r. !?3S. circumscribed, and in places, con-^tophan ОС*У Slavic settlements in Macedonia and Thrace. re91on« °acuaes "Sclavinias" only to refer to these same Д£®рН1л’ Stauricios’ expedition (Theophanes, Chrono-butto* '’56:25-457x1) was no*- against the "ScI avxnias, "
<ne south-Hellas and the Peloponnesus.
67
Charanis, "Nicephorus I," pp* 8J-86.
rCamenlates, Da Expugnatlone, 20:74 and 80,
	^bultprand, Antapodoaia, 306:52 to 307:16.
Sucine ’ .70Dr*nov» "Juznye slavjane i Vizantija v X veke 7iZlatarski, Istorija2, 1/2, 489-494, 72
Bon, Le Peloponnese byzantin, pp. 27-70.
7^Charanxs, "On the Question," pp. 257-258. 74
n n Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Thematibus, PP. 89-91 and 170-174.
75B
Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, pp. 375-381.
76Bon, Le Peloponnese byzantin, pp. 177-179.
Va>4 77Charanis, "Nicephorus I,” pp. 84-86, and "Obser-вС1°пз," pp. 11-34.
78«U,
?rage Яр T“ls was well stated by J. Karayannopulos, "Zur Etudes r $^avenansiedlungen auf dem Peloponnes," Revue des -----g-Sue-Est Europeenes, IX/3 (19 71), 448.
- . 79Mauxicius, Arta Militara, pp. 276'2’7',?Jd Cankova-Petkova, "Materialnata kuitura, pp- 338 ®°Dvornik, La Vie, pp- 29-30 and 51:24.
io	81Leonis imperatoris, Tactica, M♦P -G -» English
18* col. 968, par. 101. This is translated into Engiisn Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, p.
8 2 Theophanes,
83Constantine ₽• 81:40 (Pertusi).
в	8^J. B. Bury,
vi (1891), 151.
Chronographia, 473:32 to 474:10. Porphyrogenitus, De Thematibus,
Героке lift." English Historical
85
Zlatarski, Istorija2, 1/2, 501-503.
86v
eln /автег, "Die Slaven," pp. 11-19, and Dolger, PP- 1-28.
87b
Ovornik, La Vie, pp. 29-40 and 51:24.
B8b
,Bon* be Pdloponn&se byzantin, pp. 75-76.
8 9
Sokolov, Soatojanie monadestva, pp. 150ff.
90-^
Charanis, "The Monk," pp. 63-84.
'‘К. Lake, The Early Days of	if-8” °П/?д—*
^thos (Oxfords Oxford University Press, 1909), pp. •
92Mathew 28:19-20.
9^Tupkova-Zaimova, "Quelques aspects, pp. I)7
X1	94Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthropy, PP- 88"
~	95Individual monks and even monasteries
Greece as the sources testify, but the existence Paganism until the time cism was far from being
existed in of Hellenic
itds, De AdmiJlbStran-----
, their disruptive effect 96Bulgarian incursions	to by hagiography,
upon monastic life is widely el both Christians, The activities of Symeon and S^^[ion of Byzantine *onas have been intentional in fch slbly part of a mo 2an_ ticism in these areas and *as_Jting the progress zI/2, eral policy of hindering о (Zlatarski, Is to-—J__,'gt tinl2ationY Symeon‘s invasi^	1)
395-396- Ostrogorsky, Si£S^-£e{oponnesus	'700-701)
Lucas Junior to move to L	a.s.S., Nov- I •
<*9) - Likewise Maria Junior __2---
МЛВ
1/2, 419). The life of St
J™, Zlatarski. Istorija77~pp- 810-816) «cord, the dis '«Ption brought by Saimwl. Bulgar invasions are also ??!ed in the lives of Euphrosyna Junior	Г'°У
Hj. 874) and Blasius Amorionensis (Л^Л-^^s. . ..ov. i «0-882). Charanis ("The Demography7^	pelo-
ill effects of Bulgarian military action in the^Pel Ponneaus as witnessed by the vita of S	to
иняеп to9ether these sources are a tremend
97
c*p. 5o Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando, Pp.	71“82; "Vios to Nikonos to Metanoeite,”
^ZjjBnt inm W‘ A# Vees* "Vie de saint Theocldte," Revue LJuTTr-—S w yizantijskoe obozrenie, suppl. to vol. Il
J V* 1916), pp. 37:7ft.
98
V* Gjuxelev, Knjax Baria Purvl (Sofia: Nauka 1 u<t*o, J969), pp. 324Trtr----	-------
at la civilisation byran-(1919), 249-259 and 295-
tin. • >U/
99L. Brchler, "Salonlgue
Journal des Savanta, XV11
®Lake, Monasticism, pp. 1-14, and P. Lemerle, "La
*re ancienne de saint Athanase 1’Athonite composee au debut «и XIе si^cle par Athanase de Lavra," Le Mi lienal re du Mont T^?a 9бз-196 3, I (Chcvetogne: Editions de Chevetogne IBeIgiqUe), 1963), 59-100.
-	101I. Dujcev, "Le Mont Athos et les Slavs au moyen
ibid., I, 121-143.
O^Gjuzelev, Knajz Boris, pp. 178-373.
Dujcev, "Relations entre les Slaves meri-Jionaux et Byzance aux Xe-XIIe si^cles," Cahiers de
---------	-	IX/4 (Octobre-Decembre, 1966),
549^5567
l°4Zlatarski, Istorija2, 1/2, 60-61, 327-329, and
*01-802.	---------
Ю5
Zbld., r/j, 444-447.
106-
Georgiev, Razvetut, pp. 160-169 107., (New BP.,_e •• Dvornik ₽₽. 192^229^' N‘ J’:
Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs University Press,1970),
108»,	л
Zlatarski, Istorija ,
109
Ibid., pp. 395-397.
HOr, 9enitua .vEVen durin9 the reign rate i * * the Themes ox nexxa^ -----------.
3 even fourth-class Themes—cf. Constantine Porphyro-verxmonxx hum, II, cap. 50, 696-697 (Bonn). /Selzer, "Die Genesis der Byzantinischen Themen-' Abhandlung der Konigliche S^chsischen Gesell-71ssenschaf t s, Phil. Hist. Kl., 18, nr. 5
1/2, 210-279.
^enitus.
Also see H.
• pU * 3 3	9 t " rtUndllUAW»j
77—^£t(des Wissenschafts. 'Leipzig, 1899), pp. 114-126.
ny иле	of Constantine Porphyro-
of Hellas and the Peloponnesus did not
111Zlatarski, Istorija2, 1/2, 495-517.
Ibid., pp. 574-602.
Ibid-/ pp. 603-614.
Xbid., pp. 627-628.
115гь,^
±bid., pp. 660-666.
116Tk<
Ibid., pp. 725-745.
Cn&ranla, "On the Question," pp. 254-258
11В
for Nicephorus I's reset-
—-«=«,.	up______ in -'-"-’niag-TheO-
Phanes, Chronographia, 486:10-13.
DeAdmij^strando^
cap. 50, lines 1-70.	,ntro-
120This is well stated ЬУ.Sp- ^^^^rjphy of the duction to P. Charanis’, -^riorum Reprints? 1972), n.pT Byzantine Empire (London: Variorum
^Witness the rich traditionsis ' *’ found in Byzantine ecclesias	c iX1 himself,
exemplified by the °	jjj PP- 91-103,
See Kliment Ohridski, Subranx-±-
134, and 143-153.	j ,t
”-> -. —j Hw-Aaorovius,_G£SC^i£h|e__££___—-ta>
122-
123T
Be Artm.- i 1*e’/ in Patras—Constantine Porphyrogenitus, ---^SSlhistrando. cap. 49, lines 1-75.
124,,
Vasmer, Die Slaven, pp. 20-163 and 174-229.
Гееелм “•——	’ Te*'orija2, II, 1-41, and more
W fuy G* G- Litaverin,	i Vizanti ’	- XI-XTI
—t (Moscow: Akademii Na , I960), pp. 9^375.
£s .	126A nice summary of German treatment of the Slavs
Hi • Sr found in Caroline M. Riley, "The Emperor Henry Camb-- J e Cambridge Medieval History, III (Cambridge: idge University Press, 1924), 304-306.
Т-ТэКоЬ pp-
CHAPTER VII
POSTLUDE—TRACES OF THE
SLAVS WITHIN BYZANTIUM
. „ if anY, peoples pass by without
In history, few, if any' F
,	Slavs were incorporated into
leaving a trace. That the Slavs w
lhev contributed any dis
Byzantium is obvious, but whe er .	1ne
tinctive features to that empire is op causes for this difference of opinion ^vplooed during the
the historical perspectives develop
1	marked a time of great
century.1 While this era mar
.. also provided its share critical scholarship, it also p takes and misunderstandings.	exception of
Historical interpretatio ,
-z- fringe, must reiy
within
ambi”
to debate.
be found in nineteenth advance in of mis-
that practiced by the 1W for Support. In the dis< ^ytantiurc, the informati' ^ity. in areas such as the simplest aspects ity.2 it ie fortun n*tional outlook has This does not mean that ₽e*hape, in the discussion the chief topic over
m xcet__ the Balkans < of language are < ite that, in this supplanted the
controversy has
of Slavic f provides room for and Asia Minor —->nlicated by
inter-
even
diver-
an
cheuvani»»> °f
wlthln Bya*n-
Which con
Opinion is offered is the problem of the Farmer s—Law.
Little or nothing is known about the exact origins Of the Piece of imperial legislation entitled S&iog Геору.^ «С ’Icuarivtavou = The Facer's Law о f^ustinian.3 Since it “as, in its earliest extant copy, appended to the Ecloga of
.	v 4 Karl E. Zacharia von Lingenthal
Leo III and Constantine V, Kari
a . of the isaurian era.’ This decided that it was a product о
j bv V. G. Vasiljevskij, Particular conclusion was questio
wbo noted a difference in phraseology between the Ecloga
the Farmer’s Law.6 Vasiljevskij suggested that the
* s Law originated during the era of Justinian II. ?
V^8iljevskij•s dating has remained in general acceptance.8
In his discussion of the Farmer’s Law, Vasiljevskij
went far beyOncj chronology alone. Confronted with a legal d°cament quite different from the Codex Justinianus, and Ori9inating after the Slavic invasion of the Balkan Penin-
he decided that this new legislation was to accom-«OOate the newly settled Slavic tribes.9 The Facer’s Law ^presents, according to Vasiljevskij. a change in the
ciavSi and is* there empire directly attributable to	.r 10
fore, evidence of their impact upon imper
Pinist F. I- Uspenakij The Pan-Slavist and Byzantinist
. _	VasijevBAkj *•••*'
transformed this single observat.on^ а> t„, chief reason 9«ner.l theory which posited	»
for imperial greatness dur.ng	uspen.kij, .nd N.
Lingenthal, Vs»413ev '	.	.-----.--.
von
ownership, then considered a characteristic of Slav ety.12 The Slavs with such common tenure of j x
Vided, according to this group of Byzantinists, improved production within the empire and soldiers of ity to face outside enemies.13 The great critic
communal ownership aspect of this historical picture, B.
₽«n£enko, shared with the Zacharia von Lingenthal-Vasiljev-
s^ij-Uspenskij school a high regard for Slavic military
ability and its importance for the Byzantine State.
is well to remember that the
At this juncture it is wen entire theory that the Farmer's Law represents ence upon Byzantium had already achieved its
*оги by 1884. The date is important because virtually none
of the practical day-to-day litigation of the Roman and Byzantine Eras, as was later revealed by the Egypt—
15 Greek lexicography papyri, had yet been publishea.
16 There did exist, in part, reflected this deficiency.
the collection of Greek monastic document	p
©di
°Л Byzantine Greek Law.10 These sources, along wi th
the Byzantine historians found in the Paris, Venice, «nd the t-h
xnen almost complete Bonn editions, represents the
Collection of Greek materials available.
culture, in 1884,
ception of early Slavic
Although all the relevant Greek
were not utilized.
The con w«« rudimentary at best.
Latin sources were a.-	urce in Greek which
Xh_6 Strategicon of Maurice.» « P
, was to the fact in a rare seventeenth-century not until l»03 that a Latin
ascribing the early Slav was partially due
devotes a full chapter virtually untouched. lb that it was available only . .	20 rt was
Swedish edition.	----
.ОГ11СОП gave it
translation of the StrLatin paraphrase ihe incomplete ua
Most scholars relied upon	22 Stritter's key
,	information.
of Stritter (1771) f°r ъ e	Latin editions of his com
omissions in both the Russ'	eXisting synthesis of
pilation23 were repeated in th	..„roSitnosti-24 Also
sources on the translation of dohn of
-..sibly have escaped dissertation of Master s
, „ neoortsof_Ete
Slavic history, snaiuxx available were the Semitic language While R. Payne-Smith’s edition
1ЯП£Ь may Plau Ephesus, published in Engl* 25	published
Russian attention,
/1й 3 9~1919)* Avraam Ja. Harkavy <LBJ Moslem Writers About^thg-^- — 1870), was easily obtainable sources on the early Si Partially utilized and sever mation overlooked entire У The Zacharia von LiMeI theory, in spite o£ its о _____________________- ,or close to
and_BH2^ ‘S*	.	ry
though the basx= P liable* the/ °"
were ava
Uspenskij
then e
c*uaal sequence
and d®
The fact contradict the
More eA9n
in th®
*han mere lack
is interpretation was the reputation, much deserved, Оf cl 2 2 nF f к
nese scholars, especially Zacharia von Linyen-and Vasiljevskij. The generally careful scholarship often brilliant insight of these two men gave their | ions on any topic a weight which made dissent difficult. 27
The salutary feature of the predominantly Russian c^ssion of the Farmer's Law was that it focused its ention upon Byzantium as an entity of some worth.28 The was at least valuable enough to be renewed by the Slayg с w
Such a theory was a refreshing departure from ear-w°rks like Gibbon and Lebeau who saw in the social Istory Of Byzantium nothing but a long decline.29 If ^“Slavism, as in Uspenskij's work,30 intervened, it was less deleterious in its effect than the bitterness generated by the Fallmerayer debate, and indeed more nuinely Byzantine-minded in outlook.33
Russian scholarship, with its renewed emphasis on 2 anti tun was also the firgt to produce criticism and refaction of the 2acharia von Lingenthal-Vasiljevskij-Uspen-theory. jn 19Q3, Boris Panfienko published a carefully ^euaented study which stated that the Farmer's Law was not * Product Of Slavic influence and indeed did not contain •** reference to the communal ownership of the type posited by 2,charia von Lingenthal.32 To substantiate hla claims, “•"«enho referred to Bysantine monastic document.,35 Roman Uw'34 «nd improved lexicography.35 The Farmer's Law, a. a
Slavic influence upon Byzan-docuroent providing proof of Sla
Uum, w„ brought into question by his study and.^n the eyes of many scholars, done away with coinplot
Since Panienko's critique, it can no longer be
•c Taw was the result of taken for granted that the Farmer-------—
rater criticism leveled Slavic influence upon Byzantium.
v Mihail and Peter Mutafciev, against Pandenko by Hieromon .
cites no new evidence to for all their scholarly ability,	м.ИяМ
л 37 Both Heiromonk Mihail disprove Panienko’s contenti •
• ,»lv rely on the reputation of ana Peter Mutafdiev ultimately	undergird their
Vaslllevskig and Zacharia von Ling-
arguments.38 Today, with the.exc^so large Soviet Byzantinists, no modern	zacharia von
a role for the Slavs as that	39 Much of the
bingenthal-Vasiljevskij-usPenski:i	work,
»cide from panienko s wor
reason for this is that,	worked
м-яя1е Byzantine Era n
improved knowledge of the i slavic predominance in Against any theory which posits
Byzantium.	_ upon the
that the empire wa
It is now known tha	population trans-
. larofi Slavi r
road to recovery before t e	thematic sys-
<« a debate over tn
*ers. Even though there	that this new
-<allv accepteo
tem’i foundation, it i9 9en
„4 ration had Military-administrative org* w id-seventh century iinctive form by the mid
and prior to any the deci a Ivo mili-rved Byrantiurn from Islamic conquest
*®re won without benefit of a Slavic transfusion.41 in
• e only clear examples of seventh-century Slavic ^ticipation in Arab-Byzantine affairs are both cases ere the Slavs defected to the Arab side.42 The one «Vic defection of 692 resulted in a Byzantine defeat and
°tinued Arab raids using these same Slavs.As the €	*1 j- <Q
survived Slavic defections, it was obvious that Slavs U’p
*e not necessary for imperial survival.
Similarly, the picture of the Slavic warrior renew-3 Byzantium has undergone serious alteration due to the Згезз in Slavic history. Although there have been ®^fortq	.
to question the Strategicon of Mauricius as a liable source,44 it, along with the other contemporary 8c*iptions Of the siavSr bas significantly altered the ₽re8ent picture of Slavic society during the sixth and ®eventh centuries.45 A lowered estimation of their war-lik
e Character is further amplified by the fact that im-a-*lal Proles, as they regained control in Europe/ were never defeated by the Slavs. It was, as the Soviet scholar Ju.
Nevskij was the first to note# not a case of the Slavic ^*1 Order changing Byzantium, but the reverse. The v* themselves slowly took on the characteristics of a * tratlficd imperial society.
The discussion and study of the Fanner^ Law itself
** Produced more sophisticated insights into its proper ₽lac« within the Graeco-Roman legal system. Especially e’p°rtent this regard are the advances made in the study
the Egyptian legal papyri of the Later Roman Era.4?
i	a
e Panfenko pointed out the precedent for the Farmer's Law s n
— n earlier Roman legislation, it was not until 1963
H. Evert-Kappesowa e8 between the papyri ^^^icial documents ^zantine Life which
indicated the important sirnilari-and the Farmer's Law.48 These have illuminated many aspects of were unknown at the time of Vasiljev-Although there remains much to be done iperial law, H. Evert-Kappe-important landmark in the its relation to legal trans-throughout the rest of the empire.49
A more moderate estimation of the Slavs within yzantium comes about with the removal of a
в|:У for
eRij and Uspenskij-in the investigation owa's observations remain an Study of the Farmer's Law and i formations
Slavic settlement ana <_ which this document was
causal nexus aw. The soci-intended was the product of many forces inside and outside of Byzantium.50 One of «>• external pressures was the territorial loss wrought by foreign invasion.51 The shrinking frontiers of the empire “Merscored the importance of a strong native army. These
—	came rrom еле —	important
i rights of this group/
••««Ph..!, on the legal rig	°
In the survival of Byzantium, un ou	j3
hand in the enactment of the Farmer	development in
. this new legs*
Slav, were a part	SM„nld
‘he same way a. the Arab/, Bulgar/.	enp‘»«"
Iranian/. ,y their continuous inroad.
they compelled Byzantium to develop a social capable of resisting further disintegration.54 Under con ditions of demographic decline, it was a necessi У Byzantium to employ its population in the most manner.55 By drawing upon its legal and administrative resources, the empire developed a socioeconomic system . momnlex than that of Justinian which was less grandiose and P
•	its reemphasis on the
I# but far more resilient owing
changes in the legal-email landholder.56 In	the	,	,
administrative structure as indicated in the Farmer^ facilitated the Slav's entry into imperial life as =r»-the importance of the small rens. Aside from underscori	brevity, allowed
landholder, the Farmer’s Law, due to 1	f dif.
-----------. •	with a minimum of on
non-Byzantine elements to assimi	advantageous
ss, regardless
. . r, Slavic assimilation, in facilitating
.  raw was an enact-that the Farmer-S-ti.
_____nation Of
this legislation was
it must be made clear
outside elements i primary goal of
the Slavs and other < ^“product and not a
The Slavs themselves °ving in the direction of a * result of this social direc t<>ral recipients, not donors, is also evident that each •°** Slavs into Asia Minor, At
M-u<en/° imperlal
was a fortuitous this law.58 were, by the seventh century, more hierarchical society. tion was that they became cul-of legal-social traditions, the empire decided to
attempted with
, Slavic social development some success to take advantage
1ew*ere. It was. precisely during times of relative peace e
it could afford because Byzantium was a healthy sta e
u» .... .. .... ........ - 	”,
... ..... —•• -°
...... had .... •	“•
... i. .... «...	...• <"»» ""
ization by the end of the eighth cent
тinaenthal-Vasiljevskij Aside from the Zacharia von Langent
Oepensklj theory concerning the Farer^'- only о other claim has been forwarded suggesting deep Slavte in ence upon Byzantium. Working on the assumption that us
►bin the empire were correct, •fcij's views on the Slavs wi
,	.	A that the rebellion of Thomas the
’Je. e. Lipsits proposed that	A<?antry
. bv the Slavic peasantry
Slavonian (821-823) was an attemp	63
««-Slavic aristocracy, of Asia Minor to overthrow the n
led by Thomas tne Lipeits* portrayal of class rev
g »-hp oppressed Sia Slavonian, with the support о
not only owing to unconvincing.64 Xt remains so	work,
cast upon Uspenskij s wq serious doubt which has been	ehow that the
sources
but also because the primary	*	the втрвгог
Slavic regions of Asia Minor re	slave had already
Michael II.65 It i« further known that
.... tune o« Thomaa-
entered the aristocracy ьу	involved An posit-
Hi faculties invoiveu
After examining the	the
n BySBntlUffl
Ing profound Slavic influenc	«kll-Uspenaklj and
mbal-VSSl*Jev> J
or lee	von
Lipsits, it becomes obvious that if апУ Slavic exist, they must be found elsewhere. The dubious nature о these hypotheses, together with the Pallmerayer debate over the ethnography of Greece/7 then a backwater of the empire,68 has diverted research from seeking a у
, . ж» life. In view of these remains whatsoever in Byzantin diversions, it is well to remember the multi overstating the impor-ture of Byzantium and the danger
л	.	6 9 jt was an
tance of any one of these ethnic eleme
a dynamic culture of its empire which, while possessing
«n its rich diversity oi own, did not hesitate to draw up -
. nt a culture unquestionably and Peoples in the creation of a
uniquely Byzantine.70 Rather than
into the hypothetical hnic identity, it is basic area—that of the empire, any Greek to the frus-it is obvi-and dif-
venture again
®8tions of social structure < search for traces in a Greek was
chagrin of the Attic p’ the Great is a ti had to translate it, ffers much that is new
, _	71
ceded it.
changes, both phonetic
*r»O
language. Byzantine To the
®fter Alexander
Oration of anyone who has л*’“ **—ine Greek о
ferent from that wnicu r Aside from basic
and e
more
the tongue urist, for whom
— and
of
do not П'
which
•• an explanation, there dUv * in giving Byz
antin®
and in
heritage of *ornan
empire saw
It as the legitimate entered Byzantine vocabulary
74 д majori' peoples outside imperial bounc words were used merely to describe phenome same peoples. It was important a certain "Khan's" or "Khagan s terms were never applied to any Awareness of the i---
... =».*-•.»- -'°.: .	-73 Likewise, new words
"Roman Empire.
fron contact with the various ty of these
among these m to know of activities,75 but such .fficial of the empire. л<= surrounding the world and the languages sur
	. r survival and the results of
empire was a necessity for	as is
,pffl 76 The empire itsel , good intelligence system.	rich in non-
reflected by its multi-ethnic Greek personal names.
The East made an regards personal names, built the fortifications followed by large numbers upon imperial history. 1 nated Constans II/ (Arm. Gurgen) prese l Lecapenus.79 The Armenian n^e 1
contribution «
The Persian Horine— 77
protecting Thessalonica. 1 of Armenians who left 1 Mezizus (Arm. Medj
78 while later rved the fortune Vardas occurs . 80
He wag their mark Gouni) assassi-the general John Curcuaa f his emperor Romanus frequently
Simi~
with it 81
* - —
the Bulgaro-Slav names The Slavs themselves, contact with Byzantium, supplied one
*"^e9ezas (Dobrugost) .
The Slavs most probably did, however, make one per-er*t mark on Byzantine Greek which has remained down to Grn times. This is the Slavic diminutive ending "-itsa" 4,18formed into the Greek "ГтСа."8-3 As with any linguis-c Phenomenon found in the Balkans, the Slavic origin for e Byzantine Greek "frCa" has not gone unchallenged. Sev-theories exist to explain its origins from Greek alone. n9 argument has been made for deriving this formant
X°m the hypochoristic " fKe" ending by means of palatiza-ton. This hypothesis based on Greek phonology, presented к. Amandos,84 Ph. Kukules,85 and D. Georgacas,86 is
У far the most serious of the alternative suggestions Advanced.
,АГ exist With this proSeveral problems do, how	Greek as a
. entered Byzantine or Posed etymology. The forman	Cedrnus-
, ^aicated in the diminutive. This is clearly	certain
.hen speaking of a cer Scylitzes chronicle where,	young age
account of his
Theophilos, it mentions that	hilitzes.”87
illation Theophil1C
he received the diminutive app	Middle gyzantine
Xt is not an adjectival formant	palatization
Era, but used only with proper	narall®*9 to
can show no P
theory, as advanced by Am<*n ° '	forced to go back
•«ch a change in Medieval Greek, bUt^ological correspon-to Classical models to support	theory has buc-
a«nce.89 None of the proponents of th	c Hatsidakis
. first raieea * ^••fully answered the quest
У an adjectival ending should suddenly attach itself OUns to become a diminutive formant.90 Failure to ®*plain tи
tJ*ls change is the greatest weakness of this theory.
Another interesting objection was put forward nst the Slavic origins of "fT£an on the basis of geog-
In “is Historical Greek Grammar, E. Jannaris suggests that «.w
tne ending could not be Slavic since it is found e<iieval Greek manuscripts of Italian provenance. 91
risr along with M. Vasmer,92 decided that the occur-£
°? the formant in areas not considered to be under
influence was a telling argument against the Slavic ®zigin nF " <•
iT^a." Upon closer examination, the Italian
tUnents cited by Jannaris are no earlier than 991.99 This ni
Peaces them well after the earliest Byzantine refer-
CeS the ending.®^ It also overlooks the fact that
ПСе seventh century, as A. Guillou has pointed out, ®	in Italy in enough force to leave other written
®V1<ience of their habitation.95 This does not even include
Slavic contingent sent there in 880. 9^ All this Indi Cate® tbet Italy was not free from Slavic linguistic influ-
Ce* Vasmer’fl objection, on the basis of Pontic Greek Presents a similar weakness. Vardas Voilas, Strate-
Of the Chaldean Theme, proves by his very name alone by the tenth century, people of Slavic origins were these regions.97 so it la that, after careful examlna-
* Slava do appear In regions supposed by Jannaris an
99 This was
iccio" is never
Vasmer to be free of the same. In Cyprus, which was, in f»ct, never during the Middle Byzantine Era settled with Slavs, the "frea" ending is a late and very rare phenomenon.96 This is as it should be were the formant imported ftom the Slavic by means of the Greek and not a natural ^evelopment of Greek itself.
Two other alternative explanations to the Slavic *lao deserve mention. M. Hatzidakis once posited that the formant came from the Italian "iccio Refuted by W. Meyerr who pointed out that
attached to substantives, nor is "iccio" a true diminutive formant.100 л like argument could be advanced on the basis °f £odex Coislin CXCVII Fol. 242v< where the name P0^11* Plkos Vardanes is curiously changed to Vardanit Bere a merging of the Armenian Vartan "	7 " L
^orgian "dze" ) ending could be posited as the result the linguistic proximity of these two peoples. The or -ldze. doe3 indeed attach itself to substantives Again the problem is that the "dze” formant is not a di ut^ve, but used strictly in Georgian to signify sonship.
a completely undefined state 103 Greek relationship.
of Georgian influence upon of the Armenian
°* Oeorgian-Armenian-Byzantine Nothing suggests an upsurge ®y**ntine Greek by means and ninth centuries.
In Slavic the ’ll
durin? the eighth
* ending is diminutive and
]O1 »««antlne Greek first
records this usage after
Asia Minor and provides sever*-*-
4105
Slavs (Vasilitzes-0udi formant, of
eources over
of Aroorion.
attempted to quarrel over Amoyion
is the
even more interest the name Voidi Because it was explain it as
The ac
the time or ______
exeunples of Byzantinized ^-a»-inq names with this ion of the
tzes (0oT6 i . the betrayer unusual, Joseph Genesios the result of a sh-Christian count of the
э Grammaticus ind In any case,  —‘ion of contemporary wrx
of this formant to
that this
106 an ox.
107 and that of Leo ^У have been a nickname.' ending did attract the *ra who failed to note any
the
5
CX‘««ical Greek.
yzantine texts further amplify the argument in
O£
the Slavonic origins of this diminutive formant.209 Terences indicate that this particular ending was
in Slav.
vrc regions in exactly the same manner as it was
П Byzanti
um* The Greek version of the Vita Clement Ohrida Пв four names with this diminuti'	110 while
- in He
. 9S3)
the Vita Lucae iunio£b^
r®fere to a town rU>ticB, called £hronlcle в
^Bicrlbea Bulgarian formant was indigenous. Context, that the origi thia ending aa the
in Northern •loannitza’.
imilarly shows relations, - lt
author
in
Greece which the inn<^_
The Scylitzes-Cedrenus usage of this formant ав it again indicating thi is perhaps ironic, 1 of thia chronicle of hie name--Scy
this
thi«
hl**®1*
— In view of the popularity of nicknames wrthrn Byzantium, the acceptance of a new diminutive formant wou not have been difficult. As Slave entered Byzantine socz- i nuuaoe but not all their speech ety, they dropped their lang ,	Nicetas' inabil-
t-he Patriarch Niceta
habits. Such was the case о
113 the same was undoubtedly ity to pronounce diphthongs
. -hca." 1S PosS1" the case with the diminutive formant К	to Philippas Vardanitzes was an
Ые that the reference to Philipp	hrtrt-
□ to emphasize the short intentional rhetorical device us
-barely two years. Tne ness of "little" Vardanes reign
. Greek, therefore, with tn Slavic formant "itzas" enter	n
svzantine Greek and soon Slavs, becoming productive i
,	its ancestry.
leaving behind any trace	transfers during
There may have existed mor
f-he Slavs, out
the era of Byzantinization amon	which part
remain. There is, nonetheless,	wfcich is
..	the Middle Byzantine
the popular language of tn	glaVic word
Without doubt Slavic in	became, in
for the Germanic peoples Nemts	porphyrogenitus
Medieval Greek, "Nepf*£<>*•" conS	popular ter®
. this word was the
9ives clear indication that	* *saXon,’ or other
for "German" used in lieu of	jjg Ajt^ough the word
°°re Specific official designation	hed quite wide-
later disappeared from Byzan	eXten«ive indeed
•pread usage in medieval Byz	Slavic
it spread to the Arab *°rl	from that the
иле
Nemtil" became the By*an
.-118 Most likely the
of transfer was
Arab in the marketplaces of and Slav met. For the
the empire where Arab, Byzanuu..^, Introduction to Slavic lands, Nonetheless the Arab with the term from the from this, there is little to —-«Tent among the gen-
Arab
into
the word was reintoxce^* -* -
. 119 especially the markets of Pragu would already have been familiar Byzantine usage of it. Asidt
suggest that
A special category ° be established for the various geog	.
Greece and in the Balkan Feninsula whic ations such toponyms. 120 Toponymic dt-s J this category.121 It i’ not P°sslbU a- to treat local provenance of such wo*
Hne population l words. The general Byzan 	И -пса" ending t°
Nemitzoi" or apply the •	were
r #-he region»
they were Inhabitants о	toponymi
°f these new Slavic toponyms	trace
in yielaing
tions. Important as they arC	cons
k»k'- *.	.	«..-.r>4-ine Greece, c	. „n4
the moat local
Cordoserbi*-
of course, words must, o*
____,«-<ons in
ired Slavic
•zagora’ fifc
to
true loan-of the
them as
Blight speak names, but unless quite unaware ! designa-i of Slavic
As
having anything more than for Asia Minor, only the top© Y™ tain etymology, may suggcB
A survey of possible Si-if it * tium would be incompleto
- *hit th« n
- of uncer-122
„Ithin W**”' ntion H.
of
BRhangabe- L.. Slavic?» By «.n. of phonological analyse, especially with regard to the Slavic nasal P •ап,- H. Gregoire decided that the word «Khangabe- «as a
" 1 c., strong
Sellenization of the Old Slavic Ronkaw,	qiavic-
,	lack of exact Slavic
ar».124 While ingeniously argued,
t-he early ninth cen-
Gfeek phonological correspondence 1 _ .icai in the extreme, tury makes this suggestion hypothetic
• connection with this hypothesis Also interesting in connecti
. Nicetas Rentakios. is the name of the land magna c
_ Akios’ was executed by Khan »ith an identical nW Rentd	involving
Terve! in connection with a plot against beo Monies- The closeness of both	*
cisinnios Rentakios t and his possible ancestor	nanie "Rentakios"
^reas makes it possible to inf
The root form is the iS Perha₽’ SlaViC in	„lng .is-ost harmonious in
Slavic -rend- which has a meaning	.127
with the English ran . wound as well as meaning	this
who ranks.
Rentakios would mean "the on	uncertainties
reconstruction is hypothetical
About the only thing •bout these new Slavic arrivals., as background, was
Slavic-Greek phonological correspondence.
the Byzantine population noted ide from their ethnic
the matter of pronunciation. The Slavs, at generation along with those who hailed from Slavic areas of Greece, spoke Greek with a heavy foreign
ternatfc on the
VII'S
,nt of Nicetas
Patriarch's
Greek as their were Slavic
was
Far Constantine eccent. This accounts rcr Nicetas Rentakios.128 and Glycas- acco ulties with diphthongs.
Л to Slavic, spo* generations, less exposed t "to" and
dative language. While fully assi—i originally, they both became a	the
к. • - davic carriers-Byzantine Greek as their natural course of Byzantin12t
tual Byzantini within imperia how few
who
the
It
on and even У of Slavs • remarkable
The Slavs make one pr of Byzantinization derstandings to the potential of having converted Slavs within impe-moved 1	*	*~rS. The
be seen
is, nonetheless,
se
upon Byzantine Ше lands did, however,
traces the Slavs ic* pon imperia in imperial
attitude. The piv^'----- umpire's skills and un< this people.130 After rial bounds, Orthodoxy final Slavic trace to
in Byzantium is a mission which evasive a fashion
in the worl< would not had not
°f Constantine ana r<>—
have been successful in so pe and become
Slavs lived in the empire	ic culture
final trace of SAO
citizens. In eff-»ct< the	peaceful
.. her conversion' ОУ и
be seen in Byzantium w	lc world.131
“®ana, Cf a large portion o« the
FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER VII
^nturv Pe*“haps the most inportant of these nineteenth-w*thinyRrT,Oveni®nts in relation to the role of the Slavs Russian ^2ant^um was Russian Pan-Slavism. See Petrovich, an~Slavism, pp. 63-94. Also of great value in this mov Ot” s°iid achievements and the pitfalls of X£deniernent is Grekov# Documentik istorii Slavjano-
—Ща, passim.	----------------------------
^Vasmer, Die Slaven# pp. 1-10 and 310-325. 3m,
Parmer’ The best edition is that of W. Ashburner, "The $5-108 S Law'" Journal of Hellenic Studies. XXX (1910)#
i91-194
4MS Cod.
Marcianus graecus fondo antico 579,
Zacharia von Lingenthal# Geschichte^, p. 250.
96-97 Vasiljevskij, "Zakonodatel’stvo," Z.M.N.P., *  Trudy# IV# 198-199.
7Ibid.
3
Cicely <n T^e various scholarly opinions are summarized Pi®te’dr Ostrogorsky, History2# pp. 90-91. The most com-Justln£aguine^t that the Farmer's Law cannot be said to be
der м *S legislation is that presented by F. Dolger, / 03 Georgikos ein Gesetz kaiser Justinians IIP" ®ebrifp-r-. Ettal: Buchkunst Verlag Ettal# 1961# » Fest-^2£schun Ur L‘ Wenger# II# Miinchener Beitrage zur Papyrus-4Antiken Rechtsgeschichte, XXXIV (1945), 18-
9Vas: ₽P. 105-106, =
l°Vasi Trudy# IV, 250.
Ijevskij, "Zakonodatel'stvo#" 2.M.N.P. Trudy# IV, 207-208.
Materialy#" &.M.N.P»# P- 260#
^Uspenskij# "K istorii#" PP« 301-360.

H.F.,
<5# Vi
i2Jb. .
pp----гёл 302“232; Vasiljevskij, zantii^"162' " Trudy# IV# 250-252; "——±2£koe Goaudarstvo, pp. 230-231
"Material/#" and Skabalo-
13Skabalonovic#
• represents the fina internationalizat ion
VIzanti jskoe 1 development of this idea#
gosudarstvo, pp, 230 of this theory. For see above# pp. 5-6.
p. 6 2» litigation
The Law.
“pancenko, "Pamjatnik slavjan. 15The first di9Cu3?lo?a°ben°chl
as of
—me	Y*e'--o Taubenscniay, rj—n ГГ-
^-Vealed by the papyri was «• of Roman Egypt in the
£Soi, 2 iols/TN^wTkTl»^-	preisigk®,
„	“The first complete work herewas^^^^
jPeterbuch der qriechischen—aCX,.-ehrilTen, 155—.-rTS" r^g 9riechischen Inschri^ten,	-—тг ’xiesslinlf» 'u
bearbeited und herausgegeben von .
«Heidelberg, 1925-1931).	,t diplomata
17F Miklosich and I. Muller'	,
gees» medii'aevi sacra^t^r^,^ 5 and 6 <188’ rf" 1850-1871), had appeared, but
«90) were yet to come.	* zachari3 von
T .	18Jus Graeco-Ron^anorj^, 56-1884) .
Lln3enthal, 7 vols. (Leipzig,	^inae, 42
19Corpus Scriptorumgl^YpTTlГ81 ГГ *?la. (Lutetia Parisorum,^6j®\ce< 1729-1733)	18у^1878
-,inae Historiae, 42 vols. <	vols. <	*
SStiptorum Histnriae Byzant}--•
„ilitaris
strateai!*
20Arriani eactica^aiae,
j зев above , 1-105, and se
ed. J. Shefer
.	21K. Cybys’ev, Mavribi
'St. Petersburg, 1903).
PP* 3~<--------"	DP 81-82,
„ вя ’3Ibid., ₽₽. 75-7в.в»^л:%да in'hle p- ’ * **
. 967-. I1'
.	2«P. J. Safarik, Slovan^j-TbS^T₽•
*’0, does refer to Mauri!?in'his viewpoint-	y,
** the problems involved in hi	, eia=ti£lL-ttl^fR7
_	Ecclesra3^_--^^91ty
p	2 5 John, Bishop ofe^xth
trans. R. Payne-Smitn
***' 19601 *	Osulmans*i5
26Л. (H)Garkavy,
"nd on (H)Garkavy himself, ъ
X^usska Nauko i Litcratu
‘'•ЦЕТ-ТтГ, PP~.~^
t-t	. . isnff (s Trudy,
7Vasil jevskij , "Materia 1 i, PP- Gegchichte3, 250ff.), and Zacharia von Lingent. * - ietaxen“con-v^ch remains a basic work in spite of its mist elusions regarding the Farmer's Law.
no	.-haf- aside from A. F«
r	®It is well to note here i'voIs. (Gratz,
io^r6rer's Byza-^’"i5che Geschichten,	Uspenskij
?1877)'	the	A.‘A. Vasil-
J193lff.), J. A. Kulakovskij	title "Byzantine

r!ZJ1923) who first seriously used theJjit^	Ещр1Ге>
ther than "Later Roman" for thei	Moravcsik,
£°r more on the historiography of this, see m
чгг-ica, I, 2-9.
y, History2, PP- 4"1°'
"F. !• Uspenskij,” PP- 29 . 133-135.
"Krestjanskaja
3®Gorjanov, 31See above, PP
PP-
sobstvem
234.
33Ibid., PP’
34Ibid.
35lbid.
36Ibid.
pp.
pp.
for Western Euru^— ^2., pp. 135-136, n. 3.
'* -londev best express ~K'>1 arship.
'‘«wxacn-DZxa„u*..__
•oh . 38Ieromonah Mihail, ^y^el 'ceskij*aK' ^ЬвЬ-ennosf v Vlzantii*	, IX
^tyrakle uocum- ty"	, 58^1
Й:; by Рапбепко],	^Lntija,” X£bran£
-•’.Яап!» VUV /1«®П J
I
pp.
39
«•	. Llpllta,  Slavj» —
• leading apologist f°r thl*
89-229.
57-87.
30-57.
pp. 5-88.
8choi. 37This is especially true ₽erha^rS' i,e-» Ostrogorsky, Histo—
the d?®* m?st recently, the remarks	3Cboi^--
See т r®ction of Eastern European and . -ynd warum
•оц п^ "Die Klassenschichtung, P- ' tinische Gemeinn*3 dann nicht auch eine Arn,en^s^f einein slavischen Bin?J, dT 9eben? Richtiger sollte man “tneS3e in Byzanz, auf die sozialokonomischen	^en ais von
*	*» '•* i nissen in By^anz P
—<nde."
- ‘--«Jcaja
Les Avares et les Slaves
....	2	144-146-
40Ostrogorsky, History *
1 and 2 (both pages).
«Ibid., pp. 96-97, ns. 1 and
----	„hia 355;30-366-23 ana
^Theophanes, Chro££Sl^2--'
348:16-20.
43Ibid., 367:9-12.
«Bohumila Zasterova.^—^-n^-nSst recent dans la tactique de Maurice* teaicon.	a 3OUrce
®tudy of the validity of/th -Y^terova^finds criticism of the Strate£i£2£' early Slavs.
₽°SitiVe info™atl°n °	.Gesellscbaftsordnung und
43Cankova-Petkova»
^legskunst,- pp. 264-270.	elenija Slavjan,”
4®Brajcevskij, "K istor11
PP* 120-138.
See above, p. 186, n. 16.
4 g Evert-Kappesowa, Studia nad Historia, pp. 46-74.
4 9
Ibid., pp. 17-45.
50л .	ч
Ostrogorsky, History , pp. 135-137.
51r
Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations," pp. 265-308.
52
tusi, "r Ostrogorsky, History?, pp. 97-100, and A. Per-t formation des themes byzantines," Berichte zum XI > x°nal By zan tin is ten-Kongre ss, I (Munich, 1958) .
^Ostrogorsky, Hi story, pp. 68 79
S^Ibid., pp. 95-100.
55Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations, PP- 265 30в*
56Lemerle, "Esquisse," PP* 63-65.
57Which is probably the	fOf,^*Sthe Serbia
JJPularity among the later Slavic	;ion of к. Zacharia
Stephan Dusan. Aside from th® 252 there exists no Lingenthal, Geschichte, PP* hi_ legislation among history of the tradition of this le9	ic,
the siave. Th£ beat that exists is Dj.	y J # XJI
Q^P*ki rukopis Zemljradnickog -
»• 78.
Klaeeenechichtung in Вужапх,
59
Pp. 135-i30T^is iS P°inted out ЬУ Brajcevskij, "K istorij,
e*traord.^Justinian Il’s transfer took place after an Arabs a	advantageous peace had been made with the
in Еигг>Лб вУ2апГ1пе troops were completely free to operate the tr ^е“"тЬеорЬапезг Chronographia, 363:6-20. Similarly bine v ns^er of 762 took place during the reign of Constan-CrUshin and after Constantine V had already inflicted V, B ? defeats upon the Arabs, see Lombard, Constantin " PP* 31-40.	----------
61Charanis, "Transfer of Population," pp. 15-151. 62o
See above, pp. 123-126.
62Lipsits, "Vosstanie Fomy Slavjanina," pp. 352-
365.
64
Ibid., pp. 359-365.
stat GSjoseph Genesios, Vasileia, pp. 32-33, clearly The»ZS that both Olivianos, Strategos of the Armeiakon rernff* and Katakule, Strategos of the Opsikion Theme
bed loyal to the emperor.
66I.e., Constantine Voilas, see above, pp. 93-94.
^?See above, pp. 133-135.
Ain 4 ^Constantine Porphyrogeni tus , De Ceremoniis сГгЦтр caP- 50, pp. 696-697 (Bonn), notes that the salary the .e Strategos of Macedonia is 50 Litra while that of <jo Aegean is ю and that of Greece and the Peloponnesus
Ot even rate mention due to their low standing.
^Jondev, "Die Klassenschichtung in Byzanz,
7®Charanis, "How Greek," p. 116.
71Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, pp. 59-72.
72Ibid., pp. 71-72.
72Moravceik, Byzantinoturcica2, I» 11-15.
7^Brownlng, Medieval and Modem Greek, Р- 72.
75Moravceik, Byzantinoturcica2, IX» 332-334.
2 76Con»tantine Porphyrogenitus, De Adminiatrando t ppo 13-14,
PaPahajis, Monuments of Thessalonike, English
S. Molh °n by William Sanford (3rd ed.; Thessalonike: °1Ло* 19efi)f p. 8
78_.
Charanis, The Armenians, pp. 21-22.
79n>id. . p. 91.
yu J _a
АРД<Д» > pp. 24-53 passim,
*n®cript£Q above, pp. 12 and 69, and BeSevliev, "Les
82., vasmer, Die Slaven, p. 85.
8 3
Meyer _ This was first seriously suggested by Wilhelm Jp*ris	Portius Grammatics Linguae Graevae Vulgaris
Scienc filbliotheque de 1*ecole des Hautes Etudes, PP- 14gf Philologiques et Historiques, Fasc. 78, 1889), Studien~Tr°n Since that time G. Meyer, "Neugriechische tics в p 1 * _ S • К»A. W. , CXXX (1894), 2-3, and later Stama-fGo©11i Psa^tes/ Grammatik der Byzantinischen Chroniken 9**iech ‘ ngen: Vandenhoek und kuprecht » Forschung zur P8alte1SChen unc^ lateinischen Grammatik, 2, 1913), p. 167. бтСп. ci°V®rstates his case since he makes both СтСЛ4 and •hvic к v*c—"Ebenso werden auch die Zunamen mit den chen Suffix—Стслц., бт^лс dekliniert" (p. 167).
r. 8«K. *JUxavro?, "ГЛ«х7а<ка Пе.рСгрга^
8.. a?a, uinv.«h	^>. h 7^^
Л. rwraxai auv^kqpMc rqv иel I Ц1. uu'p^n?-*• *«vrov a. 423). ’АпЬ ™ »РХ°Га 8vd«ra -
*1«'W „po^8tv магоИ?!? -fxio*» h	“’2 “ccafjo?
£'o
(8е£л. Luv«. a. г?5), ил. r* 508 LnoKop. row <paya<) ккп. atyicpov (Avouara x°^PtuV 6iaJpop<* XP
.	»Ч. гоияои*^, -nepi
,v»* *EAAqvgmq> 4 (19J1)» °* J61-J/ ’»
ltt e ®®4. Гешрга*А<. "Пср< Eapa«a.	<?. 65-12S.
jSiM.oG A^rpTtpiHoC на)	ЗузоЧ -* ,,u cited by Antentoe.
?^^ae, in this article эГГл"^» one	elther
»• n. more neutral toward, tbla Ч^1 ulee or Amantoe.
87~	.
". ш	Cedrinos-Scy1itzes, Opera, II, 189:21ff.,
MikZi" f^TYcvgi; 8сЛр|Ао<;, £лтоиор« ^o^evoi 6ta ro uixpov г?к
* веоФ«Л|тСп<; t*a.\ ouv.”
88
Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, p. 71.
89 и
K. Auavroc, "ГAuxrcuмл. Пер'срта," a, 9.
I ( *2a *	$ ewpYio<; N. Xar£t дан i <, Mcoattoyixa >-ol N&x «QArvtxa»
anЕакеббарГои, 1905), cfe 7^-	5 ucrao-Aq
ino Ьцвсгиок еЦ bnoxopiartxqv на: ?) napo^urovfa
OUa‘ Tnv YVLuunv rccurnv." 9 1
Chiefs E• *^алnaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, Yb-srSiLy of tho UHr птяТесЕ (London: Macnillan and Co.
«^Vasmer, Die_Sl^' ₽' ®‘	upon is
’3The work Jannaris'
Francisco Trinchera, Syll^-—op. 6 “7(docume 1019)-^ypis Joseph! Cataneo? 1665)' f‘ XVIII dated June, *₽ГН, 981? and 18-20 (docent XV
««The earliest referenttoetbayer	A^ri^an
Jant is in the name Voxdltf in skazani-------------------J
®3?. see Nikitin's commentary -------------
gugenikah, pp. 193-194-	97_
ln	»SGuillou,
Ж^ЙгМ^с n-e/'B°dena' f° document cited in full on p-	305:18"
««Theophanes Continuatus, Chrono3ra£
306:21.
See above, PP-
«г.ийоХп йсАсГТ1 ’ „ КиПрюхл<
9Цсоата А. П^алН’	Ьпокор^^'
15й Кип₽,ало" l6«u*ja>r°C» М£ТС-' кипр«ахл^ £пOv6а^^а>аpаЛ,^^пov<^•
(ЛсАтГоу -ПК *ETa,₽L,aS . Гсаф¥|ОУ лгг(АпрП
ГК АкабпцГа<; ’Aenv3v-npo<*₽0Pa . J	Н cl.arCv^re₽o°S
> (1970). a. 12J-14O. г"|Т(,‘Г (^ |бГаС
^vra auxva отоис ucaaluV‘‘H |A.'lU>a
^гу₽афс- |у-	КиПр।ано I »v|Cjvci го	.• fr{bpaw Та
J>Wrara Uae.«h «.1/9 Г-"”	’
его Кепр.акЬ U.>a ’/Jx»"»' 4"° n><?M-tWa. отЪ Kunp.axb I»•«" п,и,‘"
Vt®rcpr) Ьибраап."	i50< mention»
««Meyer,
149-150* , _.i { о. 225»
.	Ч	fit-#» was unavailable
<тиуургт"ра ntptoftiH.'v, л ( It -  > ’
X00Meyer, Simon PortjAlg.> I’P
•*	10XNicephorus patriarchле,
’битное; b xal Bopfiavt'r^ 4’J
. 4	102E. Cherkesi, Geor^i^^^^,
J^jory Wardrop Fund--Univers У
P’ 252), -J3 son; child."	Sprache, Ger-
103Schota Dsidsiguri, ^translation from the J*6?) by Gertrud Patsch (Halle [Saa Verlag, 1973), pp. 60-70.	der
104A. Beli6, "Zur EntwidklunSS^suffixe," Archiv ®lavi8chen Diminutive- und	о1}	175, *6 .
^Slavische Philologies XXlH
chichte der
|67.
65.
, 71:32 and
105See above, PP- 97'99’
106Joseph Genesios, Pe^nun
X 0 7Skazanija 4 2 AmorjJsjSJJl
ф*	224si3""i8’
l°8LeO Grammaticus, Chronicon-
«’h. Moritz, zr^Stotikern und Chronisten» I in Landshut Humanistischen Gymna s	52-53.
23'	1217, I»», and 1128-
vol. 126, c°le- *	„ара
.	X11M.P.G. t vol. *	клК^***0*’"
^YXwpfur/ iypoiku<> об тик»» 1йХ1''
1X2Cedrinos-Scylitxea,	2Е££-	52в;1.
527:l3i
113Michael Glyca«r Annp__<
“«Nicephorus, O£iscula* P-	worterbuch’
IJ	115M. Vaimer,	• - th® entry f°r
(l-S.uda) (Heidelberg:	212 under
the entry for "Nemeti#
(it “^Constantine .p®rp^,jr . . «к r&v
14 X^Q ol Acyoucvoi Ncp»’^01
“°M.P.G
r'Kiiovpn * ”
.4	117Anna Comnena, i
°c vov<; Ntiiir^ouc (Z$vo<; be *cl Puyafwv iouAcuov ivcHaOev)• • •'
,4XAaX<^
$'xaY rh’Ba^‘9
glrelfzuge ^Ipiig, l'®»2:, ₽₽'/’^„station and notes on Thisis basically an Arab>«•	*
Mas’udi' account of the Slavs.
H9Ibid., pp. 95-160 passim-
120See the introduct bibliography on this imports
Slaven*, 3 pp.	*
и	*Z<if opcv-3ou^la'^,c’*
121Ibid. , p. 109* and K* A|iav
Ditten for a full in Vasmer, £1£
3,22Dvornik, Les Slave_g,< P	.	 o 793-794 .
. - ou Forte-main, PP*
123Gregoire, "Rhangabe ou
124Ibid.
125See above, PP* 99-Ю2-
400:18-28-
126Theophanes, СЬгопояга£__-Handvorterbu£h
127L. Sadnik and R. ^“e^HeidelEergT^arT^
ItkirchenslavischenT^--	AlgO see
• PP-
itus
9°Ul-2.	СЭЯ-1.
527 •13-528•A
129Mlchael Glycas, Ann£les*
l30See above, PP* I54"155	Southeastern
111	«Чпе InheritanCTf and Bay"09'
»	* 129 30 131Miller, "Byian.i Meyendorf_
!^°₽e,- PP. 326-337- Al.o	.УрР. 369-391-
By«antine Inheritance in
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
’hie idea
fc.	advent of the Slavs marks a new stage in Byzan-
story, Unlike previous invaders of the Later Roman 4>lre such
n as the Germanic tribes, the Slavs have remained П the Ba j j, ..	Kan Peninsula. Many historians, in describing
e Process at 4
B	ox nugration and settlement, assumed that the
s*av'a s
-	Access was the result of superior military ability,
had its basis in a mixture of Pan-Slavism and analogy with previous invading tribes like the incomplete utilization of the primary sources
“Atoned >»,<
this misapprehension. A close examination of the c
_	®mP°rary account reveals the opposite, that the
iava of hh
tne sixth century were militarily unsophisticated ₽oiitically fragmented.
The effectlveness of the Slavic invasion of the
•U«n» wa. .
Ironically, due to this lack of coherence.
**• ««-Plre w
e was compelled by circumstance to face, not a
**n91e
concerted attack, but widespread and ill-defined nrolcla
*n imperial lands. Because the Slavs were poorly Lx&Wd
* th«y preferred the hit-and-run tactics now aesoci-U<J With
л guerilla warfare. This mode of combat spread a ,
1Лг9» and topographical ly varied geographical area
>w*red of Byzantium substantial expenditure of e4^1pment. Unfortunately, the empire was undergoing a *®fious demographic crisis and so could not affo teeources necessary to halt the Slavic migration.
—«^xng the reign of Maurice (582-602), an attempt
*8 ftade to stem the tide of Slavic advance. Several cam-pai9ns were undertaken and success was achieved in reducing Bi .
col-
By
ж nf Maurice
. -...nation. The “h’l^ied by ₽hocae. lapsed when he was overthrown an	Balkan
rnucH О СПс middle of the seventh century.
^ninsula was in Slavic hands.	during this
Social organization among	ilT,prove-
, ~ Along witn ’ra of settlement, was change
—UCZV J1JJX UC O44IU aiJIlOJIlCil G / LAJ-UUJ «* a.
^91 ne t
make its appearance. Improved martial ability
ИвЛСО
°f Byzantium. In spite of these changes, the were unable to unite and form a single state.
at least upon imperial lands, separate units. An imperial counter-offensive began. Its
-.«y remained,
In 657	of . P°rtion °f £ОЯ*|Г ByZan'
objective was the recovery °	t of
4 of power on the i tlr»e lands. Reassertion о	.elon of the
a,	the expuleAon
not mean, in this case,	tributaries^
Byzantium allowed Slavs to r * Bulgar*' •° On account of ths ri>in9 р°*вГ AJtaic people to
the Northeast, *ho threatened to
the empire
Slavs.
It did
an
unify
_____	я of Slavs in its sphere
-«lerred having this numerous body
f the often hos
of influence rather than as auxiliaries о
L« Bulgars. It was in this manner that numbered in the empire.
To augment its population in
to reduce the Slav ratio in i* P '	a of
The first area transferred Slavs to Asia Mino
to have been in tne Plantation in Asia Minor seems	nntier.
_ the Arab-Byzantine fxonti
-» of Loulon, close to the
settled in Bithynia.
> in 688 and 762, Slavs were	692)
f Slavs defected
though sizable numbers о
to be
the Slavs came
regions and pos-
®®₽1ге transr te9ion
Europe, the
Bven to tJ1G Arab
s/ Byzantium maintained a significant Slavic **₽UIatio
n Asia Minor throughout the latter half of the 5v*nth cent,
«vary. Although precise figures are often uncer-П' it is _
reasonably well established that over a quarter iiion Slavs were settled in Asia Minor by the end ®i9hth century. This number includes a transfer, Point (762), of 208,000 Slavs, the largest single
У of POflnl
pxe ever moved by the empire at one time.
Of
Of the
One
ha.	a₽Pearance of Slavs within the Byzantine Army
91v^n £- <
3e to the supposition that they were placed in °r Primarily for military purposes. This hypothe-o~	entirely correct because Slavs were, with only
e*c®ptlon
•1^	Л* n®ver placed noar frontier regions as defen-
^°rcea c
•g	’ formed during tho reign of Justinian II, the
Miner a
ГУ Corps" indicates that Slavs were not fully enrollment in Bytantine armies since they
heeded to be trainee their transfer to As^a tecord also shows that, _______________________.,«»aS as a
b 692, their e
ffectiveness their "Training in B°”'an	ar»ies’
4 HAflP. t 1
Ant'S-
. s€vera* > umerary Corps The -Superb ЛП to their det( cowbat
It
unit waS true that impr°ved
the AtabB due to Slavs» the stra
by adding manpower to fcegic position
Related to an
military ability is a
,	__.v that 5J
century Russian theory
1-ial c°’
•hip created the essent
trength was based dur
of the empire-over-geh
•r s Law, once см*,и	Amporta
f SlaviC 1
•hip, and therefore о of thx not to contain evidenc	jnsti^
•imilar manner other iinP	_»ntine
fche aurvival of the Mi
the K *
Thematic system, anted' i fluence•
<nd possible Slavic SlaVS
X» Asi.	iffpel
4 r\tО but were integrated i	tney
quarter of the ninth cen
* the eVj
••«imilation. A11 ° of e ^•ation was the result ^aphlcal ieoletion frorn in combined with location
*lc center in Asi'* M*
erous e erroneous
•1У err
tavi0	;ich Byrantine
nditi°nS "loo- -₽eti°d 7 c co^nal —' e£O£SlaV1 has been shOU" . h^3	_
---In a
nth"
essenti such •’ coloni«tl0n
t reinaih did not _^al systein*
11 on
utonom°°e'
ВУ tbC> £ rtad to th« to th-t ВУ^°П' Geo-
in
In body °’ tna£n
... then
,«dtb*
[
№.a „ Щ. ...	°'
4-.1: .y.ten «h..e tbB ‘"V вС*е to pa....0 °’ the desire t«
The evidence
Nation, and the Slav’s own offered by imperial posi Slavs' careers shows roles within the state.
that they P
imper
of
•ne Europe Byzanti-n
----------- Inte . Asia Minor-erably from those or assimilation, was uncertain imperial due to the slowness о	,
. elated in 657 ’ t&ry action was init	the
• 1 the end «gainst the Slav unti after the reestablish171 collect did little more than °rdex. The Slavic tribes ®оиз. They also had an of direct contact with imperial borders.
and sporadic-reconquest-contin
feted consi-a-
, much l«ss
wag 1П РаГ iah mii*~
This
, Even centum-, Byzantiu>” in basic
the Bal**”3 outside of
Gontr< and n*a emain semi
able tO Г j advantage ,n	-„upin^
Slave
BalbanS inthe the»ul^l’n quart®1’	ovet
infiuenc
real institutions. 111	„-eiv®
isrly d«9tr b«®uel were particui	siting
Opposition from another
*hieh, to e
both succeeded ! population aa f®r eO’ *l*hmant of a achool
activ® state-the south al »”d P°lit' syroeon ‘>"d ^ard b®“U“ in t*'1* eaKi"’ the dree*-*’	.
-h. Th f C0rin	4na the
>l	durin’
the
course of the ninth century tine effect by providing a
had an adox
. ._in
1 anti-Byzan-vic rather than
Greek.
Nevertheless, some
autonomous Slavs were
the Peloponnesian land mag1 that certain Slavs had forsak .	,	ctill this was
totally Byzantine. St* Ю1В, an incomplete proces the Peloponnesus were rega by imperial authorities.
/zantinization did occur in an incursions, many semi-to the empire as their (904) highlights. The
••-•-.«♦-as Hentakios, ties the era as Greece in importance j consider-Byzantin-to assim-of monks conse-ithin impe-
, during 1
Regions such < irded as secondary Where there exist in relation to the Slavs i, but stimuli for the Slavs >hical isolation and numbers ’^tion, were '	As a
aid in case of shows and become
500-and
Чиепсе Slavs often rial borders.
я autono®005 remained
missing-
units
Cons 1*1' and the
of the Slav's roixe-absorbed a considerable * - * * *yna between
number.
Byzantium > es in Byzantine By,	does show that, (
^•nwOr<J Cjne Period, the Slavs contributed se one diminutive formant to the Greek they occur.
Regardless
81ava, the paucity
during tbe
they
eponyms have little °* local settlement.
8
there to show
• to the emPire* lived or were integrated in	ntium
•	. within By^anti
Slavic relations wi
^ortance in another ai< Byzantium, the Slavs became and this resulted not only large segment
^n a profound trans imperial bounds- L could not have made the East Slavic world-conversion of its Slavs to convert the effectual role 5°0 to 1018 is
For the empire played an import have survived wi but ita survival
By their : very aware the Byre”
that
speak only virtually Slavs ever
had P
Of the imperial Slavonic formation of SI g a perman* "'r^antium
of Byzantine lux___
"’’'ization of a tion, but also re outs’ de of
1, the i the success w	to its ef
dom. It is here that the most within the Byzantine empire from
reSs чР°п ent i*PreS
lg internal -veneSS
Of the Slav ' to be found, itself it muSt mt, but j,out the adOi“ was considerably manpower which t i»tei inf
Bd. Byxantiun, S	eflrlier re
w0rld was made more effective У osura Я1*уАс 81*Vic tribes, and its intin»«te eXP	^te
titles. For both Slav and ВУ«*П
Slavs tovla tion,
Productive and williri^
Ptovad of lasting value
emPire
in the
be concluded that the secondary, role. Byzantium ,JU’on of Slavic populate ted by the
so abun-in the
with , and
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Greek
.-—
P^riou ПрсоЗигсрои-ВГо КердцЕцх^ ^удЛекта 11сРоогоАий-пстрапоХi1897. J67-^OO
П. -о вГо, гой N.'-v «й
-JjXnvouvniwv, ИХ с 1906), »1-"°-	Edited by
*”thiae Myrinaei. HlstorlanOTjiffi^Tn^ori ae вУ2ап~
«• Keydall. ВегТх^-сЗгрйроп»
Unae' и, Walter de Gruyter,	French
^•Co^nena. Alexiad. B^^ed and “anslat^	^tin«
by Bernard Leib. Vol. I- ^Association Guii
PUbliee sous le patronage de
8^, 1937.	Westerink-
^•thae 	j Edited by
fa®‘ Scriptora Minora.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 196»-	XII.
tactic, .t Mauricil arUgJj4||£a£ia-A~J
J^a-by T. Sbe^TT-TF^ ^al^J-iienic
^“fner, w. .The Farmer' в И«-	----
^ijaies, XXX (1910), 85-Ю8’	Inschriften.
,’<eut:v< VeBelin. 0ie_Prot£^12|£^I^T^
Jjrlin:	Berliner Byzantinisc
^•demie Verlag, I960.	and the
Peter. -The Chronlel.ji,Xemin*0reeCe’’
2u«Btion of the Slavonic set
V (I960), 152-153.	ifp££12-.
Coftl4.	na AdnUfv£str3nd2_-Xy^ed.
Ea?tino ₽°rpbyrogenitue •	—«—. aC pyiantine
*<lted by 0. Moravc.iK «nd *• iu,eorl»« ^••hlngton, D.C.. Corp-» ront*
Dumbarton Oaks, 196".
C°h8tart
bv r ne p°rphyrogenitus. De Сегетопл __
y !• Reiske. 2 vols. Bonn, 1B29-1830.
DV°retki Prantisek. La Vie de saint Grecoi r e_l£jZe£^£glH£ TraT"^S ??aYs wacedoniena au ixe fli^cleiParis;	'
puKlies par i’lnstitut d'etudes Slavs, V, 19	.
p -
°x9ius Cedrinus et loannis Scylitzes. 0pe££- Edited by
Bonn, 1838-1839.
Imperatoruin Recent iprurn. Edited by
I. Bekker. 2 vols.
9i. Monachi. Vitae I. Bekker. Bonn,
n«or. Leipzig De Boor*
Chronicon.
“• G. Teubner, 1904.
Io«nnle Caminiatae. De Expugnatj^neJ^-— by Gertrud Bolig. BerliT! Corpus fot Byzantinae, IV, Walter de Gruyte ,
8е?л Genesius. Regnum. Edited by
1834.	------
^-уГЦсо-Вотапогил!. Edited by K- zacno^. ьНаГ—Г vols. Leipzig, 1856-1884-
a. Hite de Moner
*le* Paul. "La Chronique ii"pt°Pbe7®^ndaire. ’ ££V“£ v«.ie, Le contexte historique et
aa Etudes Byzantines, XXI (
VI Operator. Tactica- M.P-.G» 107*
H. on Stylite»: 
8.
Edited by Carolus
;ione Thessalonicae.
Corpus Font iurn His t
1973.
C. Lachmann.
-_-Ka^ia von Lingen-
Bonn,
5-49.
672-1120.
des hl. Syneon
pzxg i
Buch*"
Arta Mllllatu.
Scriptores Byzantini r cas. Annales. Edite
Teofilakt
ftanelated iron thT
•nd notes.] Sofia:
IV, l9’0,	1вэ«.
bv I. BekX.r- Bonn, ЬУ ,	«££*114
. , prevojd.^--^ ’oKr^®*
Theopnjr—^ in
В-*.*-' 116'
1204-13®4-
B. c-
Д1»torlea. Ed
T*ubner, I860.
i* sleXic
vx
л* ,^onstantino Porfirogenito, De thematibus, =**-oauzione, testo cntico, ccrvnento^ Citta del
' ° c 9
Vaticano: Studi i Testi, 160, 19b1.
L. "Vie et office de Saint-Euth^me le Jeune.
Revue de 1»Orient chretien, VIII (1903), 168-205 and ——--------------------------
>hia. Edited by Carolus De G. Teubner, 1883.
Anhia. Edited by I. Век-
Edited by J- Haury Procopii Caesarensis. Opera Omnia-	4 Vjig.
with additional corrections by G. Wirt
Leipzig; B. G. Teubner, 1962-196J.
. iif-лгпл. Edited by Th.
Scriptores originum Constantinopo- —feubner, 190 7.
Preqer.--2 volF	B* G‘
_	•	Edited by I- Bekker. Bonn'
Simeon Magister, chronicon»
1838.	₽p. 603-780»
» nikov i Cerkovnaja sluzba "Skazanija о 42 Amorijskih rnucen Martyrfl of Алюгюп and im." (The Lengend of the 42 Martyrs^ v. G Vaslljev their service to the	Tmoeratorskoj Akademii
skij and P. Nikitin.
Nauk, 8th series, vol. vw<
Theophanes Confessor. ,Chronogru 2 vols. Leipzig-
Theophanes Continuatus.	jS?
ker. Bonn, 1838» PP- '	Edited by Cerolus De
Theophylacti Simocattae-	1887.
*°°r-Lei₽zi9i
Trinchera, Francisco.
Naples: Typis Joseph -	tf.n grecs des
boll and is tee. e»i^‘	_	Bv,anting -
v«ee, N. A. 'Vie de saint Tb®°p|> to vol. 11
Vizantijskoe obozreni_r
Boor.
aa in Aegina__iJ21Hl^-Athanaaiae viduae et
—<*“^rTnrT;i; s ,Novembri. xv, »»>.
Yita Bia11 Amorionensis.	--
Ща Clementis Bulgarorunu
H46.
Vita Euphroayпае. MA•S
H. F - G. 126, 1193-
19Ю>. ese-ee».
gita Georqii Limneotae mon, in m°nteQlZHg Isauro" A.A.S.sZ (August IV/ 1'J
qnb Leone
Vita loanicii. A.A.S.S. (Novembris 11/1» 1884),
_, , mpg 111,^41
Vita Lucae lunioris eremitae in—L'J————-------
ш:----------
Vit-A м 4 т  ~	д A S S (Novembris IV, 1925) , 692
XAta Mari ap lunioris. A. A. ь ♦ ь. u
m. -------------
Yj-ta Stephani lunioris Confessor—6 .
<5Fae£a, 39ё-5з1 = м^рДГГ!00' *069
Latin
ч	Edited
Sspstantine et Methodius Thessa--braros10-Бу'р. Grivec and F. tSSs.c. zagre .
venskog Institute, 4, i960.
_ „ crriotores re rum Liutprand of Cremona. Opera- ‘-g' 'H; pertz^ Hannover, germanicarum. Ш- Edited by G. и
1839. Pp. 273-363.
vol.
E d i t t? d
B«r Hebraeus. The СЬгоподгарЬу о£_=^-ВеЬГ2-j^js  London: and translated by B. a7«’»*s
Oxford university Press, •	_ Journal
BrooHa, E. w. -Arabic UsU Byzantine^he» • of Hellenic Studies, XXI	Sources."
---------- "The Arabs in As‘a,“1П^1П°”1898) - 182-208.
JoE^al of Hellenic^tudies. xv	Sources.-
-_________ -The campaign of 7^'7^/ Ц899) , 19-33-
Journal of Hellenic Studies-------------------- -^anhorura Araborum-
de Goeje, M. J. BibliothecaGegSL—------------
VI. Leideni J. Brill*	isatele
mu sи1Д22£1Д^^з71е1П wr it-
.-.•^ian^h"! russkib-	‘st°. Petersburg, I»’»-
Sr. on the Slavr^H3^u»slan*‘'
H°nlgmann, E. Dle_oetarenzed£’b 16 3 bi a 1071 nach\grjg£lU^77^ 8 e i e ’
У nd armen ischon Quelley.•	9j5#
Hiatoriae Byzantinae*
Reichee_von
Bruxellense
Corpus
Iohannis pnho • •
EditedF”eSlnx* Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia.
jfOuv . ап<3 translated into Latin by E. W? Brooks.
vol	Corpus Scriptorum Chr1stianorun Orientaliwn,
3	*• Ю6, Scriptores Syri, vol. 55, 1936.
calSu°P Ephesus. The Third Part of the Ecclesiasti-tOry of J°hn Bishop of Ephesus. Translated into
186QiSh ЬУ R" Payne Smith. Oxford: University Press,
Tadeusz.	Cul-
szczyzny.	[Arabic Sources for a Hist j
tore.] j. Wroclaw-Krakow, 1956.
^chel le Syrien. Chronigue de M ^chej_^2_r
Jacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199)•	•- Paris: Ernest
into French by J, B. Chabot4 vols. Paris.
Leroux, 1899-1904.
^poport, M. S. -Mohamedan Writers on the Slavs. Slavonic Review, VIII/22 (June, 1929), 80-98.
A. A.
i Arabov za vremjo	_____
Betu ntium and the Arabs—The Political delations Алю een Byzantium and the Arabs at the Time of the
Iqqo °n Dynasty.J St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorohodova,
Vizantija i Araby-
1 Arabov za Vremja Makcdcr.skoi Dinastij. Bet Ke tlUn and the Arabs--The Political delations Maceden B^2antium and the Arabs at the Time of the dova °1эоП Dlrnasty-1 St. Petersburg: I. N. skoroho-
- V.slll.v, a. A.
BruxeUense Hl, Byzantinae, 1935-1950.
Slavic
Ha. ICO1
«Ument Ohridskl. SubraniSue^nJ-|Ir. Ings.) Edited EyJJ- sc* Sofia: B.A.N., 197J-
t„ Edited by
Petersburg: itmperotorsко? л**Cf^qothcta. (The f*«vianskij Perevod HroniM	the
•Hv/c Translation of the chronicle
Petrograd:
M	. . introduction by G. Ostro
Logothete.] New edition W1 ints, 1971. дБТаку. London: Variorum Reprints,
Sahmatov, A. A. Povest yremennyh ic_t>
A. V. Orlova, 1916.	1я*.«а
. Text- Translated The Russian Primary ChronicleJ^Lgn-A—p7^herbowi tz-and edited by S-	Academy of ™etlca
Wetzor. Cambridge: The Medieva Publication No. 60, 1953.
.• ijzni i dejatei_ runitskij, N. L. Material! d. {Materials nosti ucenikov1 SYV‘.KAf \,7".	Cyri 11. an	t h
Tor the History of the Liy- 1913, = New edition Methodius.) Sergiev Posad, London: variorum introduction by Ivan Duj «- • Reprints, 1972. Vypusk pervyj
Secondary Source s
Greek
Aw<XVTo<;, K. TluxjaiMa ПсрГерга." Nca	5,5 ( IaVOUG₽
’louvio^ 1954), 8-9*
---------- "Zayopa-BoulYap t*a« °	"g« -
- v '	2 г. ’Автуаи ’OpY^i^oc;
——С jjfrepfa tog Ви<УГ1У-^^и195?. В*
Ex6oacu>r i^oltKwv BiPAtuf*'» 1
-----r__. ImAoSoi, LKAaBndiavci на! SaP^apoi." _Анд&г)ц ig *A6 gvujv, 7 (1932),
Гтл .	и I |Tr ГУ r-"
с®РТама<;ф Д. "Пер! Eapa»<araavaiu^.	9;>tT. 65-*^‘
AttoypaptRou Mai rXa>j.7iHG~ - q J
*EAAgvtouoC, ’A6^vai . 194>.	*
Л np '	—
’»*_____.?! r*K bwKQpio-ri Kifc xaraAq^cun; -t'raiv.
,	«1 rnv
Zt. П. "Al "«pi fS'-Irp^“oisva." 6<«2i“XlM2 "Xaa.Mai boi^o.K »a«"
И«>,т4ц>то, I (1939). I-»8
E^ «рФу"». «°1	’
•eaouAovfKq: Aquooi с<л*»га T K
5| 1946.	TeovoKorno»*
.i сц ГП* *P°*®•*r, etwfa
^тСопоОЛви-ПсАсиГбои. Mapfa- fcni Kavpt*’OUe* •A0ap.M<Sv -al £Aa»<^
( EOvirov **I6puua ’Eptuviv/ Kevrpcv Bu£avrivu/v ’Epcuvw/), 2 <1970), 145-208.
г—	*	- au bariKffc ro~ Кипр iaxeu
UiMJaan, Koara A. "ЕчЗоХП arq ^еХетЛ|^bat_ iSiuMaroc, M€TE6uv**’*a wU >мт гпоибил' Bpa^EuScv tn о rqc (Ar>rfcv rvfc ,Etalpei<K Kunpi	v X. lianax-iP3*^™^'’
Ч> а6пм.Гс<; ’Aenvwv-npcwpopa еЧ ‘ e pt
34 (1970), 123-140.	. - v
,	ь r 'Aenvai: BiBXionuAEiov
Етратос;, Ae N, To B<<avrtov otov Z A-^.
tt^ "‘Earia*;,” I9bj-197^-	f , ,	.
t ь£м, , ГEiupуi оc N. Meoatu^tKa.	гА\дур<а.
П. д. Еаяеббарtou> 1905»
"*--------• ’Абдуаюи риуурама neptc6>*оу> X (188z), 81-84
Western
A^geloff (Angelov) , Dimitur * t£nischen Reiches." friihgeschichte des Byzantiniscn	3/4 (ig59J, 84
(- Kodagaiku# Osaka Japan), Vi
^gelov, D. "La formation de la nationality bulgare.” Etudes Balkaniques, IV (1969), 14-37.
Babinger, F. Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit. Munich: E- Oldenbourg, 1953.
B«rthold, V. V. "Slavs. •' EU.1, IV. 467-468.
’‘««er, с. H. "The Expansion of the Sjracens^-^East." The Cambridge Medieval History. •	. , 2-137.
SKbrUge University Pr^s» ^971’ Pp’ 112 1
•»l«, A. .2ur Entwick lungs geschichte der
Dlminutiv- und Amplicative- Suffix ’134Г20б7
^l*vlsche Philologie, XXIII (190 )#
»sel1scha ft
Actes XIIе
s. II- ®el”
R* "Die aut die fruftsiavievu Sno’i.lc?5 by«" tinxsche Termxnolgie ——2H?s Jnternational D'Etudes Вугдп
’'1‘ev. V. -Ole Feldzugc des Kaisers Konstantin v. ? ??n die Bulgaren.* Etudes Balkaniquea, VII/J <1971>,
r-j--• "Ole Kaleerldee bei den Protobulgaren.
JU (1971), 83-92.
Byzan-
elief de Madara-
Besevliev, V. "Les insc^|?fc254S Bsl., XVI/2 (1955)# 212--*------- u?

Bon, Antoine. Le_₽£loi_H2£4'' publiee
Paris:	Bib otheque ву-an.i pre5Ses
tion de Paul LernerIе* de France, 1951-
bvz anting Le
"hin:	e U“an‘
------- -Salonigue et
nal des Savants# XV11	.
I^"-~si and
Browning, Robert.
Hutchinson University
Bury, John Bagnall.
from the Fall of—London:
u«enl20i:
Universita*re

Jour/
bond00:

T&.D. 802-667)7
Ltd., 1912.	Rnnire^ro^||_J-
f the Later-jomant^^--co-
"Sius to Irene. 2 Ltd., 1889.
. ’T'apatfGoE 16*1*. • (1891), 151.
____. His tor
VI
EnaiHVii^^------------
ftorn the_b£3th
fthe_J^ter*|^^
,оаП^гНЖ1Р^1'15^
565).	2 vols.
London:
B.Z- •
of Thomas
"The ldentit-У I~T1892), 55-60.
i 1 schatts^ -
Cankova-Petkova# G. ..^S^der Ва1*ап^° der slawischen ^tac-hen 0ие11!л' nach den byzantinis	264-2?
(Gennalo-Giugno, i»c tions su
Chaloupecky, V. "co?sldyi (1950)* dee Slaves.” Bsl.« » , preface
Charanis, Peter. "^utplanting Demography oj the JL^	ire in the
Reprints,^1972*	the Byx»n^?e «?4<-
________. -Ethnic cJan’eo,P?. XI,X °9 Seventh Century.
да® и?а(б!-вГ5ь-’С
HcjJ-kSH* 11/1
le premier roi Samon, A
onth£
London s
"Graecia in Isidore of Seville." B.Z.
v (1971), 22-25.	---
^RevTl. How Greek Was the Byzantine Empire? XI/3 (1963b 101-116.
"тКеТг p Kouver, the Chronology of His Activities and nica „Et”nic Effects on the Regions Around Thessalo-Balkan Studies» XI/2 (1970), 229-247.
TJTTT’a Nicephorus I—Saviour of Greece from the Slavs 92	Byzantina-Metabyzantina» 1/1 (1946), 75-
Bucknell
"Enipi* „Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine tln₽>Гc *	thirteenth International Congress of Byzan-
VcTTT-ftudies^ Main Papers XIV. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
"tTr— * "Observations on the History of Greece During 1-3^Еаг^У Middle Ages." Balkan Studies» XI/1 (1970),
iTr— *	"°n the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs and
/jg Recapture by the Byzantines." Speculum, XXVII,'3
* "On the Question of Slavonic Settlements in 25QGCe During the Middle Ages." Bsl., X (1949). 254-
’ "The Monk as an Element in Byzantine Society." XXV (1971), 63-84.
v"“' . the Armenians in the Byzantine Empire. Lis bo n : raria Gulbenkian, 1963.
’****Tr--• "The Slavic Element in Byzantine Asia Minor in
e Thirteenth Century." B-» XVIII (1946-1948) , 64-83.
— • "The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the
У2antine Empire." Comparative Studies in Society and ^Utory, 11/2	2?0’-"13Г
Gh
еГмГ81' E* Georgian-English Dictionary. Oxford:
r J ory Wa rdrop Fund--University of Ox ford 9 19 50*
fju.
netantelos, D. Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare. Brunswick,	--Rutgers University Press, 1968.
ЧИ1
F' Ein r.ll slnvischer Eln.iedluno I. Hinterland Д2В Theataionike im X. jahrhunu>rt- Munich.
No:t:195з:
°О1дег
Wissen-
1st der Nomos Georgikos ein Gesetz Kaiser II?" Paraspora. Ettal: Buchkunst Verlag 1961. pp, 241-262. = Festschrift fur L, Wenger, ur Papyrusforschungund antiken 71$43), ifl-lff. ------------------------------
Ц м-	Hp. 241—262. =
8ech^~fi??5. Pelt.r.a<7e гиГ- ??
, XXXIV
lation* ®chota- Die qeorgische Sprache. German trans-By c °* the Russian Gruzinskij Jazyk. Tbilisi, 1968.
Verl rtru<3 Patsch. Halle (Salle): VEB Max Niemeyer ria9, 1973.
studf* Bizanzo ed 11 Mondo Slavo." Sett inane di ay—_Qdei Centro Italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo
1 (I9ST), 135-158.---------------------------“--------
"XttY’d H Mondo Slavo e la Persia nell'alto Medioevo." no sul Теша: La Persia e il Mondo
N^~r~~~~~°mano—11-14 aprile 1965. Rome; Леса dem i a
Сц1>ГПа^в dei Lincei, Problem! Attuali di Scienza e di CUra» Anno CCCLXIII, Quaderno n. 76, 1966.
Les Etudes byzantines chez les Slavs m^ridio-occidentaux depuis le XVIIе si^cle." Jahrburh r^eichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft, XV 73—88. = Medioevo Bvzantino-Slavo, II, 541-560.
"be Mont Athos et les Slavs au moyen Sge. " Le du Mont Athos 963-1963. II. Chevetogne:
ions de Chevetogne, 1963.
antino-Slavo. 3 vols. Rome; Storia 112, and 119, 1965-1971.
“ "delations entre les Slaves mdridionaux et M^rt?5Ce aux Xe-XIIe si^cles." Cahiers de Civil i^twn ^l^vale, IX/4 (Octobre-D^cembre, 1966П 549-556.
Panels. Byzantine Missions Among the	New
«runswick, n.	—Rutgers University Press, 1970.
L^gendea de Constantin et de М/thode.
-Jti^nce T Prague: Byzantinoelavica Suppl erne n t a J , 1 9 3 J.
Slaves, Byzance et Rome au
T'ravaux Publics par 1 ’ Insti tut^TTtudes Slaves, v» 1926.
Slav.—Their Early History and Clylli
„*‘®n» American Academy o< Arts anTTFionce., survey Slavic Civilization, Vol. 2, 1956,
Ahrend
Р,11!?Уауег' J- ₽• Geschichte des Halbinsei nc- __ -^-Mittelalters^ T7 Stuttgart, 183(1.
F*UX“’!?n' Carl. Das Buch der Schrift. Vienna: К. K. Hof-Staatsdruckerlei, 187Й.
arSnian* Nina. "Byzantine Heresy. A Reinterpretati
i±-O-P.. XXV (1971), 87-113.
гтче de ВЭГЛ  BibUStn^p5 g‘et*de Rowe* fasC*
**аУ» Jules. L*Italie
3 vols. GtAtz,
£®£>Uis J •	-
Рагтт-^-ЛУ^петепь de Basil J
°^7Т7ГГ^2Г^1алс33 (567-1071).
19Q4e es franfaises d‘Athe
C*,r6«-er. .
1872-ig77 ^zantini3Che Gesc
C*Ue*-. Я. -
®Ung.* »D^e Genesis der Byzantinischen Themenverfas-• chaft ,Aghandlung der Koniglichen Sachsischen GcspU-LeT^rr-S£s _ W Д1 s sen s cha f t я . Phil.-Hist. Ki., nr. 5,
PZ19/ 1899“	--------
^^acas, o ,
Of Slav!	The Medieval Names Milingi and Ezeritae
<19S(H ^Groups in the Peloponnesus." B.z., XL1II
• 101-333.	—
°«уо, Ste
Ьво г т r* ° ° J Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of ' w 11h Particular Attention to the Oriental
~ ----- erriptorun Christianorum
’ Л-1 1
Ranged ou Forte-main.
в., Iх
im гш-
7’3'794-	dcr Stadt Athen
°r»9orovius, Ferdinand.
Mlttelalter. vol. X. Stutt?ar
^iuf!7-----
Regional is me e t Г n d ependance dans 1'L.mplre
—au Vllg siecle--l Weinplc de 1 'exarcha^ уД f-^-tapola d 1 i tailed Rome: 'inutituto st on co
1969. 4no P** 11 Medio Evo--Studi в	fasc. 75-76,
Let ВагЬагеЯиЛ^|^---и»., du xPlSssAs-
g. co** 1940.
econd® «"*>
IV (1927-J9W
inndesJj-^" s2 Leipzig1 .-л—. 1 ПОdd
tt Madison*
Head, Constance. Just inxa_n-•
Wisconsin Press, 1972.	, _14.rtr- ,

HenseL, Witold. Die Slaweni^lX^^^^ f r°mw^esnosred-  materielle Kultur. German. x ianszczyzna w <• - ydanie Ey-Siegfr^pperlexn ^У;
niowieczna Zarys kuitu у	p.a.N., 17jDJ
II poprawione i uzu pelnione, Akademie Verlag, 1956.
Hopf, Carl. Gegchichte^EA££^£glfS||-telalters bis auf d- gc8
F. BrockhausT^E^h^^g/g5/86, 1867-1BGB der Wissen und Kiinste,	rhiefly_2X
,	4	An «4«4-лг1са1_Сгеек^£^^со^ Ltd.,
«annaris, Edward. An
the Attic Dialect*
1697.

Jenkins, R. J
published 1963.	Serben. I- Gotha:
Jlricek, Konstantine. Geschi^t^'^ Tempsky, 1911.	.,лп2 und in Bu ”
L. .„. «..--а:,;- ’ВнййШ
Hiatoriques—^епПа4~Т~~п~Г
1B.A.N., 1965.	84	Ц1J641Z668L'
Kaestner, Th. De Irn2^i^?^T Leipzig:	B. G. Teubner,
Karayaimopulos , J. "o^u^des ^Etudes dem Pelopones.” Revue IX/3 (1971)/ 443
Ryriakides, St. P- "a^Eighth^enturie9•	§
in the Seventh and	K»-hos.
I (I960), 57-61. л/ MonflSjLi——"Т7Г7ТО .
Uke' к-	...... ы- '
Oxford!Oxford un
tanunene, H. "Abd al Rahr I, 55-56.
^merle, P. "Esquiase lee sources et le® p (1950), 63-74.
nsiedlungen auf der-sla;u2-lb
f Hellen!sn ‘ " ctudies*
j Walid*
...
b
et en
ячпз le Balkans
temerle, P. "Invasions et nigra^^e jusqu'au VI11 s-depuis la fin de	265-308.
Revue Historigue, CXI U"	pAthonite
--------- "La Vi® "cj®n$iedsi6cietp^ AthinaSch^vetog^:
таи:п:^еай%.оп^?л^9-1°о-
editions de Chevetogne, хУ	T
,,,v et Memoiresy
. "Thomas le Slave." Tr^X-{I965), 255-297.
bombard, k. Constanti n__Zr---—gi Paris: Universite de n- 'd.h des lettres, v. Xvlr euu
Alcan, 1902.	.	Economic
Ьсрег, Robert S. "The Role °* ^seventh Century-justment of Byzantium i« XIII (1959), 69-85.
Mariq, A. -Notes sur leS $£52b 348-355.
Bithynie." В. , XXII (1954), eiatische_Streif'
Maxquart, Joseph. Osteuro aische und
*uge. Leipzig, 3*	r'olympede
l^qendes.-p^ris,
Menthon, R. p. B. Une teX££-^^jyfHtsT3S--~~~
Bithynie, Ses saints, ------
ТЯГ-------—	, ,The Byzantine
Norman H-	rnduct 1QJ2—
M*yendorff, Baron, and Bayne , Inheritance in Russia. edited ij rlarend°n Pre ' East Roman Civilization.^^. The Cl«
•nd H. St. L. B. Moss-
1948. Pp, 369-391-	. s_JGAj*-*
. ц» Studien II- ------
ИеУег, Gustav. "Neugriechisc i<-

CW< 'lm>-	crasiatl^ и^со1е de.

Si>non_J2£^H54ren^tbSuL Si.tori4“e»'
c <740-775)-
• Read-
D.Cb_P-'
Meyer, Wilhelm. ! ___
Craecae Vulgaris.	M r».*-
Hautes Etudes, Science Case. 78, 1889.
Miller, Wm. "The Byzantine^Production Europe." By z an t i	nqi.*ii---
Civilization^ 'Editc7^	c1« r e n d
L. B. Hoss. Oxford: Rp. 326-337.
M^^ien, Theodore-lache Schriften. *1 *' uendlung, 1910-
.„ Southe«"tern 1П E.JtJSJ^e.
1948.
to
VI. - !Ш4£Г SCfiiHSSaUnni.cb.T^
M°ravcsik, Gyula. Byzantinoturciea.	2 vols. Berlin.
Adademie Verlag, 19S19.	2 auf 1 •
W°rit2» Heinrich. Die Zunamen bei	Pro-
Historikern und Chronisten. I Teil‘ «/ш Landshut fur Згалт des к. Humani^tlschen Gymnasiums in Lanas das Schuljahr 1896/97.
Niederie, Labor. Mnnnel de i'Antiguite Slave»
1923.	------------
I.
Paris,
Monument^oL^^
w°lho^y2 9gg Uan Sanford-
^PPson, A
Erschein. ’	— 5 byzantinische Reich als geograp/,x
Д£1пил2.	Е. ~—вГШ~~	------’
Pe^ice, A
t in a , * p. =- 1Tnperatortf Eraclio, Saggio di storia bizan-’	Юге nee? Tipografia Galletti e Cocci, 1905.
ertu3i, А -r
fierieh/ ba formation des thdmes byzantines." l XI Interna '	~	--Kongress.
b	1 ch: c7 H. Beck,
® tro V j
£lavismMtf??eL Boro. The Emergence of Russian Pan-Fress^—New ^ork: Columbia University oUt^Ei F‘ ^°rterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden Bp^pp^lischluss der griechischen inscHriften, Auf-VorTT—Osfraka usw. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben I ’ Kiessling. 3 vols. Heidelberg, 1925-1931.
chronikan'atios B* Grammatik der Byzantinischen 11ПсГ~Г~г^* Goettingen: Forschung zur griechischen 1913 ateinischen Grammatik, 2, Vandenhoeb and Ruprecht,
Obolenski
^ahrbii ь’ ''Modern Russian Attitudes to Byzantium.” irK7-£H£LLder dsterreiJByzantinischen Gesell-, 61-	.	----------
** thac^’e T'he Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplo-by>J»Д4.. ^ctes du Xlie conдгё& International d 'Etudes ir—П Belgrade: Naucno Delo»	Pp? 43*
tonнлл^Xzentiwn and the Slava: Collected Studies.
Q	‘ Variorum Reprints, 1971.
kro9or.k
C* "Agrarian Con J- r j the Middle Agee. 22jw ondon» Cambridge University
che вухепУ"’
Pp.
c+-aatf>nbierarC^^^*
0®trogorsky, G. "Die Byzantinische	36), 41-62, - in
Seminarium Kondakovianug,	у. Belgrade-
Serbo-Croatian, Subran' Prosveta, 1970. Pp- 238-262.
—History of the^zanUne^^-^^,
English ed. New Brunswick,
Press, 1969.	, ^hG
in the world of t
---- "The Byzantine BmPir^in (1955) , 3-21*
Seventh century.* 2x2^-'	Hierarchical
-------- "The Byzantine Emperor ^ПРЯЕ). Euro_gan gevrew» S^Td Order. ' The Slavonic and--------Т-ГТпТегЬо^
XXXV, NO. 84 (Decs	Belgrade: Pr
Croatian, Subranie Delo-1970. Pp. 263-277.
Rainbaud, A, L* Empire
Porphyrogenete. Paris*	Byzantin-
R®dinger, Rudolf. Pseudo-KaJ^ffi^rk• sche Verlagsb^ laches Archiv, Heft 12,
 Arle	constantin
--------------------------
••analung, 1969.	„ The
«Неу Caroline M. ’The	—
Medieval History. 11oi?-308. «Пу Press, 192 4. PP* 272
«unelman, s. The Enpero^BS^g^ Cambridge:Cambridge Un
Sadnlk, l., and Aitzetmuller, Mtkirc;
W—
8ch«rf, j. Hi.- ,
®chjumberger, Gustav. «ifecle.	3 vols.
"Sceiu de eeC^^vtg
•parchie da Bithynie- -	_nil^.
Alte ttiSlcr'r.rma'' <fO™ .
Sle«i’|b2S3-IKw^K“ i- beip»‘9‘
[r»8*ate®	2 vols*
Aehrenfel3^ie44t
600-750
and
LecaE££B5 press, ..._a„Srterbuch_£P_^
He
SrgT"c«
winter,
The Jews, *J}?.M°37-46-
B.Z., LIX (1966). 3'
and the ««« “°
Paris,
. „ 3 la fin^L-S byzanting
ires) Slav»
j 1 о л 1) » 2
B^Z* •
<ar*k, Pawel J. Д — — — rich Wuttke and transl®*® C««ch by Hoaig von *— vsrlag Wilhelm Engelman ,
®h<baftt Цe дв	Hlsjtpf
13212
at ion*
S°ulis г «
S' "On the Slavic Settlement in the Hierissos in Tenth Century.” в. , XXIII (1953-1954), 67-72.
By^r’ Review of P. Charanis' "The Slavic Element in E p 1ле Asia Minor in the Thirteenth Century."
XIX (1949), 337-340.
“'•^11,,. r„
P • Oldenbourg^* 1 ^g^ichte Sudosteuropas. Muni ch :
Athen4^UJ^ —e Jews in the Byzantine Eroire, 641-1204. ns- Texte und ГогесЬиБ^ГхххТ’ТэТГ"'--------------------
Stx>itter,
°anubiii аЛЛ Gottbilf. Memoriae populorum, olim ad ^*rZT~o7Tf Pon turn Euxinum, Paludcm Maootiden, Caucasus, Flum"--et inde r^agis as septentriones incolen^
glQeSc^ptoribus Historiae Byzar.tinae erutae et loanne Gotthilf Strittero. Vol. II. St.
ur9: Impensis Academiae Scientxarum, 1774.
Te>cbiaos A
VeriteA* - "b'origine de Cyrille et de Methode.
®ethriH-et legende dans les sources slaves." Cyri llo-
-ISOianum, ц (1972-1973) , 99-140.
Taubenschi
Liqht-ia?' Re The baw of Greco-Roman Egypt in the V^r!7^-^-the papyri (^^2 B.C.-A.D. 640).	2 vols. New
« and Warsaw, 1944-1948.
33OJ?IJ? L* "The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire, 10*5." D.O.p., XIII (1959), 89-139.
Qy^bee д
Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World.
n: Oxford University Press, 1973.
MlpVo
imrtsf?i/nova (Tapkova-Zaimova), Vasilka. "L'idee fiyza!- e S Byzance et la tradition etatique bulgare.
in (1971), 291-295.
***^«1гП*1 *Sur quelques aspects de la Colonisation slave
>»» ??^d°ine et Grdce." Etudes Balkaniguca, I (1964).
-------- end Voinov, M "La politique de B/zance dans вея
J?₽POrt, *WC les 'Barbaras1." ft.H»»
.^eccasion du XIIе rnn</r^s tntc.fn‘lti‘^&r b ~557i T

Berlin: Abhand-
P^i J	*Ov*-“------------ lie act --enscha f ten,
—------ . Xlaeee, nr. 12, 1941 ♦ reprint with ntv
»-injfla» Subcldla Byzantine
II
and the Process
Lucie ope Iterate, vol. * ^lic?*l970* beutschen Demokratischen R P fat.	Pieches Worterb
v*smer, Max. ruSs isches	f955-
(1-Ssuda). HeidelbergT Carl nis' Studies in VrYOnis, Sp. -Introduction” xn.f‘ C£*pire. London: the Demography of the Byzan-------1
Variorum Reprints, 1972.	^vs. of
bras.!?:-
___________ eenth Cen^H£X;if^rnia press, !»«• London: The University °r	и s.K.Ai^''
ftenkunde.	2-— --
Merger, w. "BeitrSge zur Hansc^^
Bist.-Phil. Klasse, СЫХ/6	GeSC±ich«JeS,
'aria von Lingenthal, KafJsEdUBerlin' 1892.	3
gi.chischro.nxschen^ec^.	^ia«sdgyfnskd
-erova, Bohumila. Les—Rozpzavy~^°®k gl seiit Tactique de Maurice. P^n^ych ^d, Akademie 3, 1971.
К. V. "Muhammad b. Marwan." E. I.Uff 674-Sulaiman." E.I.IV, 518-519.
^elov, Di 
[^Orm., . tlLr * Obrazuvane na Bulqarskata
ж > '1 •
•“«toy, ..
• Aiexandur.

Nauka 1
Kum vuprosa za otnosenija^ ...
Оие»ё£ви	Igari prez VII-IX v. " [Towards the
F*oto а”) fcbe Relation Between the Slavs and the feori6es??ri*ne,During the Seventh-Ninth Centuries.J РсрТУгЦ^-, Pregled, X/1 (1954), 69-94. - Izbrani "A~~7j—*n j J a • I. Edited by P. Hr. Petrov. Sofia:
1968T Pp. 137-160.
iija sreetu Solon v tjahnata hronologia.* Thessalonica in the
——«Г Chronology.J
^udenata na sv. D,n’ltj[n» [The Slavic Attack» A9j* 'Mlracula Of St. Demetrius
$93isnik na Sofijskija universitet, filoso.s q-Zgtorideski facultet, XL/2 (1952) , 167-^Гэ7 - ---——
££Qizvedenija, I, ~7 7-121.
c®nkova<Petkovar G “Materialnata kultura i
}2kustvo na dakijskite slavjan spored sveae .	• of
Psevdo-Mavriki j[Material Culture and t..e ~rt о
Var of the Dacian Slavs According to the лссоил Pseudo-Maurice. *' ] Izvestija na Tnstxtuta za
SHlsarska Istorija, VII (1§S7)
E- Razvetut na Bulgarskata Literature v ^_-X_y.
(The Flowering of Bulgarian Literature ia
^onth Centuries.] Sofia: B.A.N.» 196 -
ei’Uelev, Vasil. Kniaz Boris Purvi. (Prince BoriB K1
ia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 19o9.
“"««V. I. "Balkanskiat* Jugoiztok prez purvar^polovina
JJa VI vek." (The Southeast Baikan^ needled, I Of the Sixth Century.) Bel-^7 Ц-69.
(19<2), 229-270. = Bulgarsko srednovcjso —'
Bulgarsko srednovekgvie- (The Bulgarian Middle
A9<2S.J “Sofia:-Nauka "T^^vo'
-----—_• Iz^Starata	a-^H^nus,°1943.
9а?Гап Literature] ~I. 2nd e^ Sofia, неп
--. "Legendata za deteuhijstд-ong the
J^vjani." (The Legend of.^h _fk‘‘ fnvulteta uni vers 1
^cient Slavs.) Zbornik FUos^ SSt* Beograd, VII-” ”л**' * 12Э
B-Kednovekovie, pp. 87• 1C3.
-------	1	1 >ri i slavjani.
----»—_• "Naj-ranni vruzki mezdu ₽“7proeo-Bulgarians and
Ji'he Earliest Contacts Between the Slavs.) Izvestija na,ЛГ -7T7~~cr	PF*
?J* (1955»; 327-337. ^SSS^* ------------
0.
Pre7 vrT0i3edinenieto na	^__	v Mizxa
°иг1ло tkVek‘" [The Alliance of Slavic Tribes in Misia ₽P. 70«.gg Seventh Century.] Bulgarsko Srednovekovie, ^^6) "?^evJan“Sklti. • [Slav-Scyth. I Slavia, XXIX
• 109-114. - Bulgarsko SrednovekovTc> pp- 104-113. ------------------------------
Of thl ^etur* I»torl1a na bulgarski narod. [History Bulgarian People.] I. Sofiai Hemua, 1943.
^fctafciev, Petur. Izbrani Proizveden ija.	. Nauka i
ings.) Edited by D. Angelov. 2 vols. Sotia.
Izkustvo, 1973.
----_______ "Selskoto zemlevladenie v ^nik^a Narodr.i Proprietorship in Byzantium. J	- г-or ani
Onotvoreniia i Knizina, XXV (19WV 1 72.	-------
Proizvedenija, I# 23-114.
I^Pkova^zaimova, Vasilka. gasestvijw
jjf Balkanite prez VI-VI	1 sixth and Seventh
CKSige in the Balkans^Through the Sixth an Centuries.) Sofia: B.A.N., 196 .
*	-	j
—-—__t	"Vuznikvaneto na juz'noslavpnsJ^vic States and
Vxzantija." (The Rise of the	^iv (1973), 43-54.
Byzantium. ] Slavjanska Filol0?1^-•
^ski, Vasil. Istoriia_na_Bul^^ srednite vekove. (History ° ls Sofia: trough the Middle Ages.]	2 by P- «r- Petrov
1918-1940. = New edition of I/ Sofia: Nauka i and vols. 2 and 3 by D. Angel
Izkustvo, 1970-1974.	(rormation
_____• "Obrazuvane na
°f the Bulgarian Pe°ple- 1	—rrf—= I zbran^J_rOXZ v—-
bibliotheca, 1/1 <1928), 74-112-	------
3-358.
T isexeu.»- writings.) __________________	tela, NauKa i izknstvo. Edited by P. Hr. Petrov. sori * 1972.
Czech
'Bursik ь Kohouta,
1906 and 1910.
^Atd^ik, Pawel Joseph. Si Antiquities.] Prague:
polish
t'Kappesowa , Halina. "SnSWThessalonica•J S
Sieve in the Region Arojwd The Po^an, 1970-prof. K. Tymienicegk—2—
1837.
u- (The p<ja Ku Pp. T?9"
bizantуп-
Bvert-Kaopesowa, Halina.	-Г1аче
ttiei v VII-IX Wieku. TSt“dias	Lodzki*
1л the Seventh-tlTnth CenturHisto у Towarstwo Naukowe, PraCc °.7	1963.
cznych i spolecenskycn nr. c i ow i a n S к ill. Labuda, G. Pierwscze pajisJ^S—fiSfQate о [The First Slavic State. Ksiegaxnia Akademicka,
Pans two Sarnongz Poznan:
Russian
Adonts, N.
Politiiesfcoe ft:—StTPeters-^Gruzinskoj on with and_-, .
introduction by '•llN:^Keta“’l”l=	period
stvo Jerevanskago Univ -	лгиег^гЛ-^^т-^Г"F3undation'
translation under the. с1"аоиз£^сЛь^ИаЛ
of Justinian. Lisbon-
Bezobrazov, P. "Kritika# ------	cerieS/ VI
 " V.V./ b
V. G. Vasiljevski3‘
636-652.
0899) Cybysev, K. navx ----------
Tactica and Strategy-J
Brajcevskij, M. Ju.
vizantijskih zemljah- *ntine
Slavs* Settlement on &У
0961), 120-138.	i
bancig, в. Bliznli	:
(d<x>ktiab^kn_£sS2Si- ,ore-October Per
|р₽Жй^7‘1903-selenii-^i^hr Is a/if °;yv°, XIX Lands-J ----
science and	laVfl
Nauka, 1973.	v VI v." ^itera-
i vizantija T syk * h--------—
beriavin, N. S. "®laV?ansixth Century-1 -------
and Byzantium in t e
tura. V! (1930), 5-48-	vi„ntija v X *^ry.)
brinov, Harin. "•’uinyedSByranti>“" *n tb®
Sudtnenx j^,SI?V365-52a.	Bdit®eX 1*”'
________. м S^blASSriovno dru»eetvo'so,i.: __________ SUCin«>L!U п)*.,.Лйаг»1'в^'Ч ь« I. DujeeV. ----------ZTStarskT—	-I. Edited by
• Izbrani sucinen ^L»
Nauka i izkustvo, 1
ЯЧсп!nenija
lov. Harin. -zaselenie	. the
nami.- (The Settlement о	Obscestve^x---7^7
- a v irper^^g-^u^I^s^
eninija, i•
186-361.	v vi!;an_
-.janov. В. T. /В I- Us^hskij.x	н"в/^“‘‘С29-?0в.
tinovedenix. I* • * ’	NeW series, •*
Byzantine Studies-] Xi—*'	. - a v Rossi j
Orekov. в. о. £о]£НЭ£—
1850-1912. (Documents °2nfcow-benin,3rad: A
In Russia, 1850-1912-J Moscow
. Nauk- 1948-	 g. g.
Kesdan, a. P., and Litaverin, 1, ohie dlia uC^ "^r.iuth
Vxzar.tx-j x Juznih 51 а У^га-Е-^тТ^ГапД^^ТЕ ade mi a
Ussays on the Н?«^2Цег5.) «°scow:
Slavs—A Handbook for T
Nauk, 1958.
Ocerki po istorii
____- "Krestjanskie dvizenija J[avedonskoi dinastij* ^g^maja politika imperatorov Makedon	century
(Peasant Movements in Byzant i a- Emperors of the and the Agarian Politics of /1952), 73-76* ^cedoniar, Dynasty.) bl-.»»’5 '	(Co(jntry
Derevnja i Gorodv^^b^rr^turxes.J and Town in Byzantium in t • Moscow: Akademia Nauk, 19
.	-	1 rHnvAkeho umenj-
akоv, p. Prispevkv к	;rLi>rii srednevekovj^.
fcultury - oderki
Tskusstva i kuVtury^ l^s < Prague; des к a
of МрЯ|л.>=1 FTZ	iCtil ture. ]
Ved a UEeni, 1929.
(History of
‘kovasky, Julian. Istorij	.2enko, 1915. -
Byzantium.] III. Kiev:
London: Variorum Reprints, i»'-»*
, v Malox .*«“.д’г*5%‘ *
1ja xS2eraeor-
inakij, V. I. "O Slavjan-lepanii." (On the Slavs .
Spain.] Ucenija ZapA**? ->oi Akadcmii Nauk, V <*•
'•nko, и. V. ’vl**ntpasiin1the
E
me v VI-VII w. -> Sixth and Seventh 23-46.
obttina 1 jeja rol v "	1Slavic
^ionUQf1 ProPerty Ownership and Its Role in the Forma-
Ser<r*Za!\tine Feudalism.) V.V., New Series, I, » Zjzantii u*	(1947), 144-163. « Ocerki Istorij
jpgj^'-JSkggo obscestva i Kulturi (VIII, pervaja
Moscow“beningrad: Akademi ja
____	P₽. 18-48.
—PBits, Je
^estian	Vosstanie Fomi Slavjanina i vizantijskoe
Thomas thV°ina 9ranne VIII-IX vv. " [The Revolt of
Of the p;.e Slav and the Byzantine Peasantry at the Turn
365.	^Shth-Ninth Centuries.) V.D.I., 1 (1939), 352-
^itaverin g
garia\ ’	* Bolg.'.ria i Vizantija v XI=XTI vv. (Bul-
Moscow-n Byzantium in the Eleventh-Twelfth Centuries.]
* Akademii Nauk, 1960.
^Parev rw
(Вуга„2; Vizantijskija Zitija Svatih VIII-IX vekov." V.v v.^ne Hagiography in the Eighth-Ninth Centuries.)
----- XVII (1910), 1-224.
l,*oV| As
Polihr’ « ° Prebyvanii Konstantina Filosofa v rnonastyre at th °p’”- C°n t^e staV of Constantine the Philosopher denie^ Po^^cbronion Monastery.) Sovetskoe slavjanove----±£' XXXV/5 (1971), 80-86.
HaiySe
Method* J* "01imp1 na kotorom zili sv. Constantin' i dlua Г, ’ ' (Olympos where SS. Constantine and Metho-ц» cived.J Trudy Kievskoj duhovnoj akademii, 1886/ 549-586, aHd 1B87/I, 265'^97:
Св Fl lr
Vi гаь,	A« "Krest * janska ja sobstvennos t' v
I p	(Peasant Proprietorship in Byzantium.)
IX (1904), 1-234.
awel J. Slavjanskija Drevnosti. [Slavic Antiq-bv r ®'Translated into the Russian from the Czech
BG4<iiansklj under the sponsorship of M. Pogodin.
4 v°l«. Moscow, 1838.
(The II.
Juitjov, m. Ja. "Pervyj Period ---------
?Jret Era of Iconoclasm. J Iftorija VizantlA-n°ecowj Nauka, 1967. Pp- 49-64.
"° Haraktere i suscnoeti	and
-J^Tedel'ieskomu zakonu." (On the ^ha.. . cr-, Law.1 {-•nee of Byzantium According to the Farmer 
XtV.f X (1956), 27-47.
•i«novu, N. vi..ntn.i.o« yagdag»^
cantine State and churcn
St. Petersburg, 1вй4.
V. (The
Century.)
• izantx r.oj cerkvi 3
—v&ov. I. Snst-oianie monasestv^Y------(The Conuiti°n of
poloviny IX do natala	fr om the Sen
Monasticism in the Byzantine	of the Thi r t»”'11	4
Half of the Ninth to the	universiteta, 1894.
Centuries.] Kazan; Imperatorskag
\	г z ves 11 j a,
^fritter, Ivan (= Johann Gotthilf	Rossi
Vizantijskih IstoriJs2y S^^^hj?gT^^^	7
Istoriju drevnih Vremen х-д<г^1о?впу^^аП?тКс---------------
Г hronolog Icesklin pornatl*-^" r?sgI'7^wnct~ [The . grom. v31. I	.‘‘/torians as They ^Pl“?he
Accounts of the Byzantin	the Settlem<- loqi-
Russian History of A^tlJU(\	Arranged in cl}r T era-
Various Peoples, Collected	Petersburg;
cal Order by Ivan strlt^$AJ
torskoj Akademii Nauk, iy
UepenoVJj —
••«лхт Ft *• •
V* Vizanti • * K Istorij krest’janskogo zemlevladenija ship £11." (Towards a history of Peasant Proprietor-3°l-3€0 Byzantium-] S.M.N.P. , <*. 225 (1883), 30-87 and
"'"""мГГГьаг ^°еппое ustroistvo vizantijskoi imperii." (The Vi (]олл. Structure of the Byzantine Empire.) I.R.A.I.K.
154-207.	----------
Vaail'ev(v
in	* Ae A- "Slavjane v Grecii." [The Slavs
reece.] V.V. , V (1898), 404-438 and 618-670.
V" G* "Zakonodatel'stvo ikonobordev. " [The (NoiAbatlOn t^ie Iconoclasts.) 1.M.N.P., i. 200 258-3o$* 1S78) , 95-129, and C. 199 (Oktjabr, 1878), 193П	e Trudy. IV. Leningrad: Akademi i Nauk,
Ue PP- ТзУ-235.
gosTTn Materialy dlja vnutrennej istorij Vi zantijskago the aratva." (Materials for the internal History of 187qi 2antine State.) i.M.N.P., <5- 202 otd. II (Mart, 16°-232; (Aprel’, 1T79)', 386-438; <?. 210 otd. II XV, 250 188°)* 58’170; (Avgust, 1880), 355-404. - Trudy,
•fu v*» A« F. "Slavjanskaja kolonija VII v. v Vifinij." V n , lavic Colony of the Seventh Century in Bithynia.) *4—ЛД-» 1940, |1, pp. 138-141.
Serbo-Croatian
*16, F. -Car Foka (602-610) * *(602^610) аП<\л?в 73-88
81oveni.- (The Emperor phocja V.I.» *v (1556). 73
banublan Avars and Slavs,J —:—'
8arl»16, F Л J
(The Mira~?da	Solunskog kao iatoriski izvori.
Historic i e 3 °ISt? Demetrius or Thessalonica as a ^n. CCXTv Source.] Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka, *' Vizantoloski institut, kn. 2, 1953.
K"dar1 gde su napisani Pseudo-Cezarijevi ₽Beudo-r2 lwhen and Where Were the Dialogues of «-aesarxus Written?] z. R.V.I. , I (1952), 29-51.
'"'^""TSrT'the f najstarijoj Prokopijevo vest о Slovenima." Z.R,v r ar-liest of Procopius' Accounts on the Salvs.J -------^£-r II (1953), 25-31.
TPrTscua₽r*sk tao izvor za najstariju Juznih Slovena." Historv *S a Source for the Oldest Strata in the 63. y ot 016 South Slavs.] Z.R.V.I., I (1952), 52-
7?Ke*pr Proces slovenske kolonizacije istocnog Balkana." H*lkan °?ess °f Slavic Cononization of the Western
e*J Simpozium-Mostar, pp. 11-20.
VTzant^3^0^^* Mila; Krekic, Barisa; and Tomi6, Lidija, izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslav!je.
₽eOpi )Пе Sources for the History of the Jugoslav ₽овеЬ * Vol. I. Belgrade; Srpska Akademrja Hauka, j, 1955 Izdanja kn. ССХЫ, Vizantolo^ki Institut, kn.
K-r and Radonic, J. Istorij* Sr^-‘	£^^°195?
the Serba.] 2nd ed. Belgrade: Maucna К j 9
Nada. Poviiest Hryata u галош srednie* '-^-I 3^ F" i’H.tory Of SIegLats-rH-TKb^IT^^^ x«9reb: Skoleka Knjiga, 1971.
*°V<ek Y1 ' J‘ Varvarska Kolpnizacija "^o^South bl a v i C I The Barbarian Colonizat'j ‘ x 9 6 0.
itories.] Novi Sads Matice or
Lt^gLJ'redwlavensk 1 etnlcki na	й - ц ^ost7ru.
alovena odrzan 24-26.	liiiuanta m *h«
ynpoaiwn on the prc-Slavic ^th< '*fch slave Held on Ikane in the Ethnogeneeel of th aieVOi Akadesd)*
of October 196B in Moetar’irtU£nP_poaebna Xadanja
*•*><• 1 Umjetnoati Boano i	ja, kn. 4.
^I.XIU, Center as Balkanoloeka lepltvanj
J® v 1 д
Stалое. Vizantlja 1 Sr bl. (Byzantlwn and the • . I?’*	2 Vole. Novi Sadi KnLgti Matice Srbike ? and
” *• and is, 1903-1906.
225
JG1C, Dj. S. "Srpski ruk°Pis Z^^sdLaW^)9 Z.R.V-A-(A Serbian Manuscript of the a
III (1955), 15-28.
WV16, м. "О Poreklu Tome, vodje rVthe Uprising of (On the Origin of Thomas, Leader
Ш-823. J Z.R.V..I., II (1953), 33 зо
arski, Vasil. "Naseljvanje Sloven	Slavs on the
Poluostrovy.* [The Settlement о - Belgrade, 1936. Balkan Peninsula.) Kniga о Balkar^.	Bulgarian
Bp. 82-1Q0.	« Izbrani Broizvedenjja,
entry under author) , 32-51.
Slovenian
juinih r<-?Ogo’ "Nekaj vprasanj iz dobe naseljevanja Beriod Sl°vanov*" (Some Problems Relating to the Свели, °* South Slavic Settlement.] Zgodovinski
IV (1950), 23-126.	---------
"ТтКем Novejsa literature о Samu in njeni problem!.“ Zoodr GSt Recent Literature on Sarno and Its Problems.]
-^Egovinski casopia. IV (1950), 151-169.

VITA
!943
i960
1960-62
1962 1962-64
1964
1964-68
1968
1968-75
*969.72
1972-73
*972-73
Michael David Graebner
Born March 26 in Medford, Oregon.
Graduated from Concordia Preparatory School, Bronxville, New York.
Attended California Concordia College, Oakland, California.
A.A., California Concordia College.
Attended Concordia Senior College, Ft. Wayne, Indiana.
B.A., Concordia Senior College.
Attended Concordia Theological Seminary, St.
Louis, Missouri.
B.D. (и. Div.), Concordia Theological Seminary.
Graduate work in History, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
A.M. in History.
H.D.E.A. Title IV Fellowship, Rutgers University.
University Fellowship, Rutgers University.
Research at Vixantoloski Institut, Serbian Academy of Science, Beograd, Jugoslavia.
H.E.w. Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, Rutgers University.
Attached to Institut sa Dalkanlatik, Bulgarian
Academy of Science, Sofia, ’ jigaria.
Fellowship, institute for Balkan Studies. Thee-ealonikl, Greece.
Fh.D. in History