The role of the Slavs within the Byzantine empire, 500-1018
Michael David Graebner
BYZANTINIZATION — THE SLAVS IN ASIA MINOR
In the account of any single ethnic group within a multinational state the historian runs the risk of either overstating or understating the importance of that one cultural unit. This has been particularly the case with the discussion of the Slav's place in Byzantium.  A universally applicable description of their position in Middle Byzantine history is not entirely possible due mainly to peculiarities of imperial geography.  The empire, at least in relation to the Slav, was divided into two parts, Europe and Asia Minor. What transpired among the Slavic tribes gathered within the European bounds of Byzantium did not always run parallel to the fate of their brethren settled in Asia Minor. Therefore, any generalization based upon one or the other group, and applied to both, must give due recognition to the effects of this geographical division.
From the standpoint of Byzantium, Asia Minor was the major source of its wealth and strength.  What happened in Asia Minor always determined the fate of the entire empire. Imperial Europe, as its military-administrative record shows, was far leas significant. Byzantium could lose, as it did at one time or another, virtually the
whole of its European holdings and still remain a power to be reckoned with in the Mediterranean world.  The loss of Asia Minor, however, spelled the doom of Byzantium.  The Slavsʹ fate in Asia Minor is then crucial to any statement about their importance or lack of the same in Middle Byzantine history.
Two basic theories exist regarding the Slavs in Asia Minor. One posits that the Slavs were a decisive factor in the life of the Middle Byzantine State; the other, that they played a minimal role in imperial affairs and were rapidly assimilated by the local Byzantine population. The question boils down to whether or not the Slavic population in Asia Minor remained autonomous. It is obvious that if the Slavs remained independent of imperial control and forced the empire to maintain special relations with them, then, they were very important indeed. This has been proposed either in socio-legal terms by the Vasiljevskij-Uspenskij-Zachariä von Lingenthal theory,  or in a military sense by Pančenko and Kulakovskij,  or in Marxist dialectic by Levčenko and Lipšits.  The converse of these hypotheses states that the Slavs were assimilated and had little or no impact upon imperial life that is directly attributable to their ethnic identity. This conception finds its best expression in the writings of P. Charanis, F. Dvornik, and G. Ostrogorsky. 
Both sets of scholarly conclusions are based upon a circumscribed body of primary sources.  It is known from
these records that large numbers of Slavs were settled in Asia Minor during the seventh and eighth centuries.  It is also clear that there existed, during the ninth and tenth centuries, a body of Slavs in the Opsikion Theme called "Slavesiani."  This is the same location where the majority of Slavs had originally been transplanted. Therefore, it is certain that, for close to three centuries, some form of Slavic ethnic continuity was present in Asia Minor.  What is unclear is whether this presence implied any degree of autonomy. Two elements play an important part in the resolution of this question. One is the fate of other ethnic groups within Byzantium; the other, is an understanding of Slavic society and its potential.
Byzantine geographic appelations take into account various bodies of people not indigenous to Byzantine Asia Minor. Perhaps the best example of this is the Armeniakon Theme. This area contained Armenians imported from their homeland.  Likewise, the Thracesion Theme is known to have been populated with immigrants brought over from Thrace.  A similar case is that of the Mardites. Originating in Lebanon,  this group was transferred to imperial territories in Asia Minor and Europe at the time of the seventh century.  The Mardites preserved their original Identity well into the ninth century when a contingent was moved to Europe.  While no Theme was ever named after them, they remained, in the eyes of the Imperial bureaucracy, Mardites, regardless of where they were placed. 
Each of these groups was known for their special talents. The Thracians supplied good soldiers.  If cavalry was desired, the Armenians were a natural source, 
and for the navy the Mardites formed an elite of their own.  Yet none of them remained fully autonomous. They were all integrated into the imperial structure. Settlement of non-Byzantine peoples, especially upon Thematic lands, did not mean special treatment. The formation of semi-independent principalities came about in Byzantium, not by the various ethnic bodies declaring independence, but by the destruction of the Thematic system and the rise of a Byzantine-landed aristocracy.  The Themes were established to insure unity and efficiency in the administration and defense of the empire. 
The Armenians offer many examples of this integration. Different in language, possessing a separate alphabet, monophysitic in creed, and inheritors of Iranian traditions, they were the most logical body in the empire in which to find proof of long-standing autonomy.  By the riddle of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh centuries there was indeed evidence of Armenian separatism. Nonetheless, during the Middle Byzantine Era, a number of Armenians moved in the opposite direction and sought positions within Byzantine society.  Throughout the time period 500-1018 there existed loyal Armenian generals, soldiers, and even emperors.  Byzantine usurpers of Armenian origins fought not for independence, but for the imperial
throne itself.  Several of those who succeeded in taking the imperial crown proceeded to work hard for the preservation of the empire.  Not one shred of evidence, in the form of seals or inscriptions, remains to indicate that the Armenian language was ever employed by these persons in any official act, even though they had ample opportunity. Such was the case because many had become part of Byzantine society. 
The experience of those Armenians who found positions within the empire was possible for every other body settled in Asia Minor. Mardites, Arabs, Georgians, and Slavs all found places within the empire, even though many retained their original ethnic appelation centuries after their settlement.  Whether a Slav from the Opsikion or an Armenian from the Armeniakon, all paid the same taxes to the "Roman" empire, and were incorporated into the imperial administrative system. While it was possible to preserve ethnic idiosyncracies, the actual citizenship of non-Byzantine groups was no different than that held by any other inhabitant of Asia Minor. 
The Slav possessed even less potential than the Armenian for autonomy. It is difficult to believe that a pagan, illiterate, and agricultural people had even a remote chance to remain untouched by the literate urban Christianity which surrounded it on all sides.  Cultural background, if nothing else, determined their rapid assimilation. There was nothing in their society which formed
the basis for a potential alternative.  Byzantium, a civilization which later left an indelible mark on the East and South Slavic world,  made imperial citizens of these Slavs. This took place in much the same way as it occurred to any other people settled in Asia Minor. For if one thing marks the Byzantium of this era as unique, it was an ability successfully to assimilate, on a large scale, non-imperial elements into its framework. 
Many Slavic careers are recorded. Perhaps the most misinterpreted, but common, entry point into the Byzantine world was by way of the military.  The potential for misunderstanding is clearly illustrated by the significance accorded to Slavic enrollment in Byzantine armies. Were it not for the careful wording of the sources, it would be possible to see in them a parallel to the Roman Foederati.  The Foederati were foreign peoples specifically used as border troops in order to save the empire the expense of arms and training.  It is true that by the year 692 Slavs were enlisted as soldiers.  That, however, was four years after they had been peacefully settled in Asia Minor. Aside from this time lag, these same Slavs had to be armed and trained by Byzantium.  They were not even located near frontier areas, as were the Foederati of Later Roman History. 
Slavs were brought into the military both out of a need for additional manpower and a desire to incorporate them further into Byzantine civilization.  Like the Roman Empire of earlier centuries, the army provided a simple yet
effective method of naturalization.  This enlistment was even more essential to Byzantium because the Theme, the basic unit of administration, represented a fusion of the civil and the military.  Such able-bodied warriors were an added dividend to a policy of population transfer, but not the original reason for the transplantations. 
Less misunderstanding is possible in relation to the other modes of entry into Byzantine society. Since Slavs were pagan, evidence of their conversion in Asia Minor is, at the same time, a hallmark of their Byzantinization.  The examples of both Nicetas, and of St. Ioannicius the Great, clearly indicate that it had taken place.  St. Ioannicius came from a family already Christian.  The account of his conversion was a purely internal affair since it was not from paganism, but from the heresy of iconoclasm to Orthodoxy. 
Aside from his discovery of the true faith, Ioannicius and his heretical compatriot Nicetas partook of another aspect which marked Byzantinization, namely letters.  Greek, the Greek of Byzantium, was the language of the empire and it was necessary to employ it to communicate.  The spoken tongue paved the way to literacy which in turn opened new doors of opportunity to those asking advancement. It is difficult to imagine how any but the most skilled personalities could enter into the imperial court without some knowledge of the written
word.  Constantine Voilas, a patrician under Irene, could possibly have been illiterate,  but it is hard to envision the same for Damian, the Keeper of the Imperial Chamber,  or for Vardas Voilas, the Strategos of the Chaldean Theme,  considering the duties encumbent on their positions.
Indeed, high rank was yet another proof of integration into imperial affairs. Thematic generals, patricians, and paroikomenoi were all symbols of Byzantine unity.  Plot and rebel they might, but to gain prizes in a contest which was open only to citizens.  The bitter civil war of Thomas, or the opportunistic designs of Vasilitzes must be viewed in this perspective. Men who vied for the highest office in the empire can hardly be regarded as separatists. Their motives, along with their goals, were deeply rooted in Byzantine values and life.  They were no different than the more successful usurper Basil I, or the equally fortunate Romanus Lecapenus. 
The combined testimony of over three centuries indicates that Slavs in Asia Minor represented no single political persuasion. This would have occurred had the Slavs formed a separate autonomous unit. Instead they are found representing diverse factions. In the space of less than a generation, Slavs produced an Iconoclast patriarch and an Iconodule saint.  Earlier the Slavic leader Nevoulos and two-thirds of his Roman-trained army turned traitors, while the "City of the Slavs" remained loyal to the end.  Later, Thomas led a massive revolt but the
Predominantly Slavic areas in Asia Minor rallied to Michael II.  In the tenth century, Vasilitzes, from the Slavesian, attempted to replace the legitimate heir with himself.  Yet troops from this same area served both Leo VI and his natural son, Constantine VII, the heir whom Vasilitzes tried to supplant.  No specifically "Slavic" behavior makes its appearance because none existed. Developments among them were the natural results of Byzantinization and not of independence. They were as divided and contentious as was the rest of Byzantine citizenry. 
Although it can be said with surety that the Slavs of Asia Minor were quickly absorbed by Byzantium, the reasons for this rapid Byzantinization must be stated. The foremost was isolation. The Slavs had been effectively cut off from any contact with their compatriots in Europe.  There was nothing, therefore, to reinforce particularly "Slavic" activity in contrast to "Byzantine." Removed from their original habitat, surrounded by Byzantine population, and integrated into the fiscal structure, they had little choice but to Byzantinize. 
The negative aspects of this have often been cited, especially the two Slavic defections to the Arabs.  There nonetheless, a positive aspect to their settlement. Slavs came as illiterate agriculturalists, previously subject to whatever nomadic power wished to dominate them.  Byzantium offered them land, literacy, and position for the taking.  The wealth of the empire was as much theirs as
it was any energetic and able citizens. Isolation in Asia Minor also allowed them to grow in relative peace, touched only infrequently by Arab raids, and even then protected by imperial forces.  Those who desired could join these armies and even command them.  Surely such a way of life had its advantages, even if Byzantinization was the price.
Byzantinization came about through the channels of economic interchange, military training, and social advancement.  While all contributed to assimilation, there was one other influence specific to Bithynia, the area where most of the Slavs were settled, which could not but play a decisive part in the absorption of the Slavs. This was the force of Christianity and more specifically the monasticism of Mt. Olympos in Bithynia. 
Byzantine monasticism was not as tightly structured as its Western counterpart. Monks traveled widely and Ppayed an important part in the politics of the era.  They performed many of the eleemosynary activities of the empire,  and led their partisans in less charitable actions.  Even hermits like Simeon Stylites had comparatively rich and uninterrupted commerce with the ordinary citizen as he dealt out advice, eagerly sought by the lass saintly.  It was the fortune of the Slavs to be settled in the same region as Mt. Olympos, the greatest monastic colony in the empire, prior to the foundation of Athos.  Even during the harsh years of the Iconoclast emperor Constantine V, Mt. Olympos produced iconodule monks
of sanguine enthusiasm. 
Monks were effective propagators of iconodule views, as Constantine V acknowledged by his persecution of them.  The monk, therefore, was well equipped both in attitude and training to work among the large Slavic settlements in Asia Minor. Extra impetus was given monastic efforts by the fact that Constantine V, their relentless foe, had created Slavic patriarch of Constantinople.  With the settlement of 208,000 potential iconoclasts in Asia Minor, the monk dared not ignore the situation.  From the record of St. Ioannicius and his relatives it is obvious that the monks succeeded in their struggle. 
Already exposed to Christianity in Europe, the Slavs were surrounded by it in a most active form in Asia Minor.  The pressures of the early iconoclast struggle only heightened the efforts at conversion as each side ought proselytes from the other. These exertions accelerated a process which would have taken a similar course in any case. Slavic paganism lacked the power to stand up to the mystery, grandeur, and organization of Orthodoxy.  Confronted with a faith eager to include them, and served by monks of fiery enthusiasm, it is no wonder that conversion was quick. The Slavs had been settled in the central region of Monasticism and Orthodoxy in Asia Minor and the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
So it was that the Slavs of Asia Minor were assimilated. This does not mean that their presence in Byzantine
Asia was entirely without influence. To posit that close to a quarter of a million Slavs in Asia Minor had no effect upon the empire is not possible. Significant alterations in Byzantium came after, not before, their absorption into Byzantine society. As with all the other ethnic groups transported onto Byzantine lands, it is impossible to discern any specific change wrought upon Byzantium which clearly reflects the peculiar characteristics of that body.  Transformation within Byzantium always came after Byzantinization had taken place among the immigrants.
The various theories which posit Slavic influence are quite correct in demanding that so great a number of Slavs must have had some part in imperial history.  Their importance nonetheless is based on their worth as Byzantine citizens, and not upon any intrinsic characteristic they possess as Slavs. The economic effect of these massive transplants was appreciable.  A demographic improvement assured productivity with its resulting benefits.  The strength of the state was secured by the appearance of new citizens who filled, as time went on, various needs within the empire. Perhaps, due to heroic victories and decisive battles, the importance of this transfusion into the lifeblood of the empire is overlooked. Day-to-day productivity is an undramatic and anonymous phenomenon, noticed only when it ceases. Yet a state crippled by a lack of sufficient population and the concomitant decrease in productivity is, in spite of any spectacular victories it may win
on the battlefield, a state doomed to collapse.  There exists a certain substance to the Middle Byzantine Empire, not evident in the holdings of Justinian I. This solidity is due, in part, to a wise policy regarding population and productivity.  The Slavs were important for its implementation and its success.
Evidence reveals that the Slavs themselves, for the most part, moved willingly into this situation.  They were ready to participate had the empire the resources to integrate them. In a state whose emperors quoted Homer and the New Testament,  whose saints conversed with Rabbi and Turcic Khan,  and whose diplomats dealt skillfully with Arab and German alike,  absorption of a people like the Slavs came about practically without effort. It was this ability to synthesize which gave Byzantium cultural pre-eminence in the medieval world.  It also made assimilation of the Slavs possible. Yet there was a limit to this manner of Byzantinization, and this limitation could also be found within the borders of the empire. This occurs among the Slavs not in Asia Minor, but in Europe. The political social and cultural developments among the Slavs of the imperial Balkans recounts both the successes and the failures of Byzantium in its policy of acculturation. What transpired between empire and Slav on Balkan lands highlights the creative variations of which both were capable.
1. See above, pp. 3-9.
2. A. Philippson, Das byzantinische Reich als geographische Erscheinung (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1939), pp. 31-59.
3. G. Ostrogorsky, "The Byzantine Empire in the world of the Seventh Century," D.O.P., XIII (1955), 1-2.
4. The two chief examples are the recovery of the empire under the dynasty of Heraclius (610-711) and the Nicaean Empire (1204-1261). See Ostrogorsky, History3, pp. 87-147 and 418-465.
5. This is exhaustively described in Sp. Vryonis, The decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century (Berkelev-Los Angeles-London: The University of California Press, 1971).
6. See above, pp. 20-22, nn. 12-22.
7. Pančenko, "Pamjatnik Slavjan," pp. 35 and 62; Kulakovskij, Istorija Vizantij, III, 210 and 258-259.
8. Levčenko, "Vizantija i Slavjane," pp. 23-48; Lipšits, "Slavjanskaja obščina," pp. 144-163.
9. Charanis, "The Slavic Element," pp. 64-83; F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au le siècle (Paris: Travau Publiés par lʹInstitut d'Etudes Slaves, IV, 1926), p. 103; Ostrogorsky, History3, pp. 135-136, n. 3.
10. See above, pp. 27-30, nn. 75-119.
11. Theophanes, Chronographia, 364:9-16 and 432:25-29.
12. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis, II (Vol. I, Bonn), 662 and 666.
13. While Charanis ("The Slavic Element," pp. 80-82) rightly asserts continuity of cultural identity among the Slavs of the Slavesian, his assertion that these same Slavs maintained their language is not supported by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando. It is more likely that tribes of the Peloponnesus, who were able to cooperate with the Arabs (Constantine Porphyrogenitua, ibid., and
subjected to Byzantinization (Charanis, "Nicephorus, I," pp. 84-85), were able to communicate in Greek. Romanus Lecapenus I's worries were more concrete than merely a union of Slavesian troops with Slavic tribes. It should remembered that Tsar Symeon, highly Byzantinized himself, had reached the Gulf of Corinth in his war against Byzantium (Zlatarski, Istorija2, I/2, 394-420; Ostrogorsky, History3, pp. 263-264, especially p. 264, n. 1). Symeon's dility, especially taking into account his deep understanding of Byzantium, would have had Romanus anxious over the lot of most European Slavs and Symeon's chances at subverting them. With an astute Bulgarian Tsar looming in the background, Romanus I was obviously attempting to keep all the Slavs, Slavesian and Peloponnesian, out of Symeon's reach.
14. Charanis, The Armenians, pp. 19-21.
15. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, p. 253.
16. Theophanes, Chronographia, 355:5-14.
17. Ibid., 363:5-24.
18. Bon, Le Peloponnese byzantin, pp. 75-76.
19. E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen, arabischen, syrischen und armenischen Quellen (Brussels: Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, 3, 1935), p. 41.
20. Kulakovskij, Istorija, III, 58.
21. Charanis, The Armenians, pp. 16-18.
22. Charanis, "Transfer of Population," p. 143.
23. The basic theory of Vasiljevskij, "Materialy," Trudy, IV, 250-331, remains valid to this day, especially his description of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
24. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, p. 320.
25. The most comprehensive picture of the Armenians and their cultural-geographical background prior to their exodus, during the Middle Byzantine Era, to imperial lands, is N. Adonts, Armenija v epohu Justiniana: Političeskoe Sostojanie po Osnove Nahararskago Stroja (St. Petersburg: Teksty i Razyskanija po Armjano-Gružinskoj Philologii, Kn. XI, 1908); second edition with introduction by K. N. Juzbašjan (Jerevan: Izdatel'stvo Jerevanskogo Universiteta, 1971); and revised English translation of the same by N. Garsoian, under the title, Nicholas Adonts, Armenia in the
Period of Justinian, translated with partial revisions, a bibliographical note and appendixes by Nina G. Garsoian (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1970).
26. Charanis, The Armenians, p. 57.
27. Ibid., pp. 20-47.
28. Ibid., pp. 21-22.
29. Particularly the emperor Romanus I Lecapenus, ibid., pp. 35-36, and Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, pp. 224-245.
30. Charanis, The Armenians, pp. 56-57, ably presents the case for their inclusion in Byzantine society.
31. P. Charanis, "How Greek was the Byzantine Empire?" Bucknell Review, XI/3 (1963), 111-116.
32. Charanis, "Transfer of Population," p. 154.
33. Dvornik, Les Slavs, pp. 102-105.
34. The first society on Balkan lands which was to form such a cultural alternative was that of the Bulgars. See below, pp. 135-141.
35. Wm. Miller, "The Byzantine Inheritance in Southeastern Europe," Byzantium an Introduction to East Roman Civilization, ed. Norman H. Baynes and H. St. L. B. Moss (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1948), pp. 326-337; Baron Heyendorff and Norman H. Baynes, "The Byzantine Inheritance in Russia," ibid., pp. 369-391.
36. Charanis, "How Greek," pp. 107-116.
37. See above, pp. 93-94.
38. Pančenko, "Pamjatnik Slavjan," pp. 35 and 62.
39. Theodore Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, VI, = (Historische Schriften, III) (Berlin: Weidmannische Buchhandlung, 1910), 225-283, especially 225-230, = Hermes, XXIV (1889), 195-279.
40. Theophanes, Chronographia, 365:30-366:3.
41. See above, pp. 68-70.
42. With the exception of the "City of the Slavs" there are no known cases of the Slavs ever being deployed in this fashion. See above, p. 70.
43. Ostrogorsky, History3, pp. 130-132.
44. Nicely stated by Charanis, "Population Transfer," p. 150-154.
45. Ostrogorsky, History3, pp. 95-100, for bibliography and general discussion. More recently Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, pp. 240-252..
46. See above, pp. 70-73.
47. Dvornik, Les Slaves, pp. 102-103.
48. See above, pp. 87-91.
49. Vryonis, "St. Ioannicius," p. 247.
50. Vita Ioannicius, pp. 337-338.
51. Charanis, "How Greek," pp. 103-115; R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1969), pp. 59-72.
52. Ibid. , pp. 60-62, on the importance of this age for the development of Greek. Also see Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, pp. 546-574.
53. The emperor Michael II is one of these exceptions. He was barely literate. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 49:5-9.
54. Theophanes, Chronographia, 474:6-10.
55. See above, pp. 96-98.
56. Georgius Monachus, Chronicon, 896:13-897:2.
57. Charanis, "Observations on the Demography," p. 19.
58. This is best illustrated by the imperial problems with the Bulgarian claims. See V. Beševliev, "Die Kaiseridee bei den Protobulgaren," Byzantina, III (1971), 83-92; and V. Tapkova-Zaimova, "L'idee imperiale a Byzance et la tradition bulgare," ibid., pp. 291-295.
59. Charanis, "How Greek," p. 116.
60. Ostrogorsky, History3, pp. 232-233 and 264-272.
61. I.e., Nicetas the Patriarch of Constantinople and St. Ioannicius the Great. See above, pp. 87-91.
62. See above, pp. 63-72.
63. Lemerle, "Thomas le Slave, " pp. 255-297.
64. See above, pp. 97-99.
65. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Cerimoniis, II, 666:13-16.
66. Brehier, La Civilisation byzantine. Le Le Monde Byzantin, III (Paris: L'evolution de l'humanete 32, ter, 1950), 278-315.
67. See above, pp. 58-60.
68. Charanis, "The Slavic Element," pp. 80-82.
69. Theophanes, Chronographia, 348:16-20 and 366:16-20.
70. See above, pp. 34-40.
71. For land, see Theophanes, Chronographia, 364:9-15 and 432:25-29. For position, see Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 234 :7 and 235:6. On literacy, see Vita Ioannicius, pp. 370-374.
72. See above, pp. 64-65.
73. I.e., St. Ioannicius and Vardas Voilas, see above, pp. 91, 99-100.
74. Charanis, "The Demography," p. 19.
75. Dvornik, Les Légendes, pp. 112-147.
76. Sokolov, Sostojanie monašestva, pp. 409-494.
77. D. Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare (New Brunswick, N. J. : Rutgers University Press, 1968), pp. 88-110.
78. E.g., Leo VI's fourth marriage brought out the latent ability of the monk to stir up trouble; see Ostroqorsky, History3, pp. 259-260.
79. H. Lietzmann, Symeon Stylites. Das Leben des hl. Symeon Stylites (Leipzig, 1908), pp. 1-18.
80. Dvornik, Les Legendes, pp. 112-147.
81. Vita Stephanus Iunior (M.P.G., Vol. 100), cols. 1069-1186. Also see Ch. Loparev, "Vizantijskija Žitija Svatih VIII-IX vekovʹ," V.V., XVII (1910), 119-147.
82. Lombard, Constantin V, pp. 165-167.
83. Nicephorus, Brevarium, 75:1-2.
84. Ibid., 68:27 and 69:2.
85. Vryonis, "St. Ioannicius," pp. 247-248.
86. See above, pp. 90-91.
87. A. A. Šahmatov, Povest Vremennyx Let, I (Petrograd: A. V. Orlova, 1916), 136:11-137:6, is the classic description of the effect of Byzantine Christianity upon the Slavs. This is translated into English in The Russian Primary Chronicle Laurentian Text, trans. and ed. S. H. Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge: The Medieval Academy of America Publication no. 60, 1953), p. 111.
88. Cf. Charanis, The Armenians, p. 57.
89. Especially Vasiljevskij, "Materialy," Trudy, IV, 160-161, = Z.M.N.P., p. 250.
90. Ostrogorsky, "Agrarian Conditions," p. 197.
91. P. Lemerle, "Esquisse pour une histoire agraire de Byzance; les sources et les problèmes," Revue Historique, 219 (1950), pp. 63-74.
92. Cf. the empire of Justinian I. See Ostrogorsky, History3, pp. 78-79.
93. Charanis, "Transfer of Population," pp. 150-151.
94. See above, pp. 62-63.
95. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, pp. 575-605.
96. Vita Constantinus (Slavic version, Angelov-Kodov edition), pp. 60-119, especially notes, pp. 142-152.
97. Obolensky, "Byzantine Diplomacy," pp. 43-61.
98. Bréhier, La Civilization byzantine, pp. 549-574.
[Back to Index]