The role of the Slavs within the Byzantine empire, 500-1018

Michael David Graebner






In history, few, if any, peoples pass by without leaving a trace. That the Slavs were incorporated into Byzantium is obvious, but whether they contributed any distinctive features to that empire is open to debate. The causes for this difference of opinion are to be found in the historical perspectives developed during the nineteenth century. [1] While this era marked a time of great advance in critical scholarship, it also provided its share of mistakes and misunderstandings.


Historical interpretation, with the exception of that practiced by the lunatic fringe, must rely upon data for support. In the discussion of Slavic traces within Byzantium, the information itself provides room for ambiguity. In areas such as the Balkans and Asia Minor even the simplest aspects of language are complicated by diversity. [2] It is fortunate that, in this context, an international outlook has supplanted the chauvinism of the past. This does not mean that controversy has ceased to exist. Perhaps, in the discussion of Slavic traces within Byzantium, the chief topic over which considerable variety of





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 Νόμος Γεοργικός τοῦ Ἰστινιανού = The Farmer's Law of Justinian. [3] Since it was, in its earliest extant copy, appended to the Ecloga of Leo III and Constantine V, [4] Karl E. Zachariä von Lingenthal decided that it was a product of the Isaurian era. [5] This particular conclusion was questioned by V. G. Vasiljevskij, who noted a difference in phraseology between the Ecloga and the Farmer's Law. [6] Vasiljevskij suggested that the Farmer's Law originated during the era of Justinian II. [7] Vasiljevskij's dating has remained in general acceptance. [8]


In his discussion of the Farmer's Law, Vasiljevskij went far beyond chronology alone. Confronted with a legal document quite different from the Codex Justinianus, and originating after the Slavic invasion of the Balkan Peninsula, he decided that this new legislation was to accommodate the newly settled Slavic tribes. [9] The Farmer's Law represents, according to Vasiljevskij, a change in the empire directly attributable to the Slavs, and is, therefore, evidence of their impact upon imperial life. [10]


The Pan-Slavist and Byzantinist F. I. Uspenskij transformed this single observation of Vasijevskij into a general theory which posited the Slav as the chief reason for Imperial greatness during the Middle Byzantine Era. [11] Zachariä von Lingenthal, Vasiljevskij, Uapenskij, and N. Skabalonovič all saw in the Farmer's Law proof of communal





ownership, then considered a characteristic of Slavic society. [12] The Slavs with such common tenure of property provided, according to this group of Byzantinists, improved production within the empire and soldiers of superior quality to face outside enemies. [13] The great critic of the communal ownership aspect of this historical picture, B. Pančenko, shared with the Zachariä von Lingenthal-Vasiljevskij-Uspenskij school a high regard for Slavic military ability and its importance for the Byzantine State. [14]


At this juncture it is well to remember that the entire theory that the Farmer's Law represents Slavic influence upon Byzantium had already achieved its distinctive form 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 Egyptian papyri, had yet been published. [15] Greek lexicography reflected this deficiency. [16] There did exist, in part, the collection of Greek monastic documents edited by Miklosich and Mueller, [17] and Zachariä von Lingenthal's edition of Byzantine Greek Law. [18] These sources, along with the Byzantine historians found in the Paris, Venice, and the then almost complete Bonn editions, represents the basic collection of Greek materials available. [19]


The conception of early Slavic culture, in 1884, was rudimentary at best. Although all the relevant Greek and Latin sources were available, many were not utilized. The Strategicon of Maurice, a primary source in Greek which





devotes a full chapter to describing the early Slavs, was virtually untouched. This was partially due to the fact that it was available only in a rare seventeenth-century Swedish edition. [20] It was not until 1903 that a Latin translation of the Strategicon gave it wider circulation. [21] Most scholars relied upon the incomplete Latin paraphrase of Stritter (1771) for their information. [22] Stritter's key omissions in both the Russian and Latin editions of his compilation [23] were repeated in the one existing synthesis of Slavic history, Shafarik's Slovanské Starožitnosti. [24] Also available were the Semitic language sources on the Slavs. While R. Payne-Smith's edition and translation of John of Ephesus, published in England, may plausibly have escaped Russian attention, [25] the published Master's dissertation of Avraam Ja. Harkavy (1839-1919), entitled Reports of the Moslem Writers About the Slavs and Russians (St. Petersburg, 1870), was easily obtainable. [26] Although the basic primary sources on the early Slavs were available, they were only partially utilized and several important pieces of information overlooked entirely.


The Zachariä von Lingenthal-Vasiljevskij-Uspenskij theory, in spite of its oversights and deficiencies, remained unchallenged for close to twenty years. The fact that little information then existed to contradict the causal sequence proposed by these scholars undoubtedly played a part in the lack of criticism. More significant than mere lack of information in the unquestioned acceptance





of this interpretation was the reputation, much deserved, of all of these scholars, especially Zachariä von Lingenthal and Vasiljevskij. The generally careful scholarship and often brilliant insight of these two men gave their opinions on any topic a weight which made dissent difficult. [27]


The salutary feature of the predominantly Russian discussion of the Farmer's Law was that it focused its attention upon Byzantium as an entity of some worth. [28] The empire was at least valuable enough to be renewed by the Slavs. Such a theory was a refreshing departure from earlier works like Gibbon and Lebeau who saw in the social history of Byzantium nothing but a long decline. [29] If Pan-Slavism, as in Uspenskij's work, [30] intervened, it was far less deleterious in its effect than the bitterness generated by the Fallmerayer debate, and indeed more genuinely Byzantine-minded in outlook. [31]


Russian scholarship, with its renewed emphasis on Byzantium was also the first to produce criticism and refutation of the Zachariä von Lingenthal-Vasiljevskij-Uspenskij theory. In 1903, Boris Pančenko published a carefully documented study which stated that the Farmer's Law was not product of Slavic influence and indeed did not contain any reference to the communal ownership of the type posited by Zachariä von Lingenthal. [32] To substantiate his claims, Pančenko referred to Byzantine monastic documents, [33] Roman Law, [34] and improved lexicography. [35] The Farmer's Law, as a





document providing proof of Slavic influence upon Byzantium, was brought into question by his study and, in the eyes of many scholars, done away with completely. [36]


Since Pančenko's critique, it can no longer be taken for granted that the Farmer's Law was the result of Slavic influence upon Byzantium. Later criticism leveled against Pančenko by Hieromonk Mihail and Peter Mutafčiev, for all their scholarly ability, cites no new evidence to disprove Pančenko's contention. [37] Both Heiromonk Mihail end Peter Mutafčiev ultimately rely on the reputation of Vasiljevskij and Zachariä von Lingenthal to undergird their arguments. [38] Today, with the exception of one group of Soviet Byzantinists, no modern historian accepts so large a role for the Slavs as that suggested by the Zachariä von Lingenthal-Vasiljevskij-Uspenskij school. [39] Much of the reason for this is that, aside from Pančenko's work, improved knowledge of the Middle Byzantine Era has worked against any theory which posits Slavic predominance in Byzantium.


It is now known that the empire was well upon the road to recovery before the large Slavic population transfers . Even though there is a debate over the Thematic system's foundation, it is generally accepted that this new military-administrative organization had achieved its distinctive form by the mid-seventh century and prior to any sizable Slavic resettlement. [40] Likewise the decisive military actions which preserved Byzantium from Islamic conquest





were won without benefit of a Slavic transfusion. [41] In fact, the only clear examples of seventh-century Slavic participation in Arab-Byzantine affairs are both cases where the Slavs defected to the Arab side. [42] The one Slavic defection of 692 resulted in a Byzantine defeat and in continued Arab raids using these same Slavs. [43] As the empire survived Slavic defections, it was obvious that Slavs were not necessary for imperial survival.


Similarly, the picture of the Slavic warrior renewing Byzantium has undergone serious alteration due to the progress in Slavic history. Although there have been efforts to question the Strategicon of Mauricius as a reliable source, [44] it, along with the other contemporary descriptions of the Slavs, has significantly altered the present picture of Slavic society during the sixth and seventh centuries. [45] A lowered estimation of their warlike character is further amplified by the fact that imperial armies, as they regained control in Europe, were never defeated by the Slavs. It was, as the Soviet scholar Ju. Brajčevskij was the first to note, not a case of the Slavic social order changing Byzantium, but the reverse. [46] The Slavs themselves slowly took on the characteristics of a more stratified imperial society.


The discussion and study of the Farmer's Law itself has produced more sophisticated insights into its proper place within the Graeco-Roman legal system. Especially important in this regard are the advances made in the study





of the Egyptian legal papyri of the Later Roman Era. [47] While Pančenko pointed out the precedent for the Farmer's Law in earlier Roman legislation, it was not until 1963 that H. Evert-Kappesowa indicated the important similarities between the papyri and the Farmer's Law. [48] These juridicial documents have illuminated many aspects of Byzantine life which were unknown at the time of Vasiljevskij and Uspenskij. Although there remains much to be done in the investigation of the imperial law, H. Evert-Kappesowa's observations remain an important landmark in the study of the Farmer's Law and its relation to legal transformations throughout the rest of the empire. [49]


A more moderate estimation of the Slavs within Byzantium comes about with the removal of a causal nexus between Slavic settlement and the Farmer’s Law. The society for which this document was intended was the product of many forces inside and outside of Byzantium. [50] One of the external pressures was the territorial loss wrought by foreign invasion. [51] The shrinking frontiers of the empire underscored the importance of a strong native army. These troops came from the small landholding population. [52] Reemphasis on the legal rights of this group, so important in the survival of Byzantium, undoubtedly played a major hand in the enactment of the Farmer’s Law. [53]


Slavs were a part of this new legal development in the same way as the Arabs, Bulgars, Avars, and Sassanid Iranians. By their continuous inroads against the empire,





they compelled Byzantium to develop a social structure capable of resisting further disintegration. [54] Under conditions of demographic decline, it was a necessity for Byzantium to employ its population in the most effective manner. [55] By drawing upon its legal and administrative resources, the empire developed a socioeconomic system which was less grandiose and complex than that of Justinian I, but far more resilient owing to its reemphasis on the small landholder. [56] In turn, the changes in the legal-administrative structure as indicated in the Farmer’s Law facilitated the Slav's entry into imperial life as citizens. Aside from underscoring the importance of the small landholder, the Farmer’s Law, due to its brevity, allowed non-Byzantine elements to assimilate with a minimum of difficulty. [57] Nonetheless, regardless of how advantageous this legislation was in facilitating Slavic assimilation, it must be made clear that the Farmer’s Law was an enactment intended for imperial citizens. Byzantinization of the Slavs and other outside elements was a fortuitous by-product and not a primary goal of this law. [58]


The Slavs themselves were, by the seventh century, moving in the direction of a more hierarchical society. [59] A result of this social direction was that they became cultural recipients, not donors, of legal-social traditions. It is also evident that each time the empire decided to move Slavs into Asia Minor, it was in a basically secure military position. [60] Imperial authorities attempted with





some success to take advantage of Slavic social development during times of relative peace elsewhere. It was precisely because Byzantium was a healthy state that it could afford the risk of mass transfer of a foreign population into its heartland. [61] The Slavs themselves, in the end, proved that the empire had made a correct estimation of the situation, for in Asia Minor they were fully on the way to Byzantinization by the end of the eighth century. [62]


Aside from the Zachariä von Lingenthal-Vasiljevskij Ospenskij theory concerning the Farmer's Law, only one other claim has been forwarded suggesting deep Slavic influence upon Byzantium. Working on the assumption that Uspenskij's views on the Slavs within the empire were correct, Je. B. Lipšits proposed that the rebellion of Thomas the Slavonian (821-823) was an attempt by the Slavic peasantry of Asia Minor to overthrow the non-Slavic aristocracy. [63] Lipšits' portrayal of class revolt led by Thomas the Slavonian, with the support of the oppressed Slavs, is unconvincing. [64] It remains so not only owing to the serious doubt which has been cast upon Uspenskij's work, but also because the primary sources clearly show that the Slavic regions of Asia Minor remained loyal to the emperor Michael II. [65] It is further known that Slavs had already entered the aristocracy by the time of Thomas. [66]


After examining the difficulties involved in positing profound Slavic influence upon Byzantium as do the theories of Zachariä von Lingenthal-Vasiljevskij-Uspenskij and





Lipšits, it becomes obvious that if any Slavic traces exist, they must be found elsewhere. The dubious nature of these hypotheses, together with the Fallmerayer debate over the ethnography of Greece, [67] then a backwater of the empire, [68] has diverted research from seeking any Slavic remains whatsoever in Byzantine life. In view of these diversions, it is well to remember the multi-ethnic structure of Byzantium and the danger of overstating the importance of any one of these ethnic elements. [69] It was an empire which, while possessing a dynamic culture of its own, did not hesitate to draw upon its rich diversity of peoples in the creation of a culture unquestionably and uniquely Byzantine. [70]


Rather than venture again into the hypothetical questions of social structure and ethnic identity, it is best to search for traces in a more basic area — that of language. Byzantine Greek was the tongue of the empire. To the chagrin of the Attic purist, for whom any Greek after Alexander the Great is a travesty, and to the frustration of anyone who has had to translate it, it is obvious that Byzantine Greek offers much that is new and different from that which preceded it. [71]


Aside from basic internal changes, both phonetic and morphological, which do not need outside interference as an explanation, there exist external influences which play role in giving Byzantine Greek its distinctive aura. The heritage of Roman Latin, in syntax and in loanwords, is





especially strong in the Greek of imperial administration. [72] This influence is not unduly surprising since the empire saw itself and was considered by many who surrounded it as the legitimate "Roman Empire." [73] Likewise, new words entered Byzantine vocabulary from contact with the various peoples outside imperial bounds. [74] A majority of these words were used merely to describe phenomena among these same peoples. It was important for Byzantium to know of a certain "Khan's" or "Khagan's" activities, [75] but such terms were never applied to any official of the empire. Awareness of the world and the languages surrounding the empire was a necessity for survival and the results of a good intelligence system. [76] The empire itself, as is reflected by its multi-ethnic character, was rich in non-Greek personal names.


The East made an especially heavy contribution as regards personal names. The Persian Hormisdas (Ormzud) built the fortifications protecting Thessalonica. [77] He was followed by large numbers of Armenians who left their mark upon imperial history. Mezizus (Arm. Medj Gouni) assassinated Constans II, [78] while later the general John Curcuas (Arm. Gurgen) preserved the fortune of his emperor Romanus I Lecapenus. [79] The Armenian name Vardas occurs frequently among the families of the great land magnates. [80] Similarly, the West brought with it the Bulgaro-Slav names Voilas and possibly Nevoulos. [81] The Slavs themselves, very early in their contact with Byzantium, supplied one





Davregezas (Dobrugost). [82]


The Slavs most probably did, however, make one permanent mark on Byzantine Greek which has remained down to modem times. This is the Slavic diminutive ending "-itsa" transformed into the Greek "ίτζα." [83] As with any linguistic phenomenon found in the Balkans, the Slavic origin for the Byzantine Greek "ίτζα" has not gone unchallenged. Several theories exist to explain its origins from Greek alone. Strong argument has been made for deriving this formant from the hypochoristic "ίκε" ending by means of palatization. This hypothesis based on Greek phonology, presented in by K. Amandos, [84] Ph. Kukules, [85] and D. Georgacas, [86] is by far the most serious of the alternative suggestions advanced.


Several problems do, however, exist with this proposed etymology. The formant entered Byzantine Greek as a diminutive. This is clearly indicated in the Cedrenus-Scylitzes chronicle where, when speaking of a certain Theophilos, it mentions that "on account of his young age he received the diminutive appellation Theophilitzes." [87] It is not an adjectival formant during the Middle Byzantine Era, but used only with proper nouns. [88] The palatization theory, as advanced by Amandos, can show no parallels to such a change in Medieval Greek, but is forced to go back to Classical models to support its phonological correspondence. [89] None of the proponents of this theory has successfully answered the question first raised by G. Hatzidakis





on why an adjectival ending should suddenly attach itself to nouns to become a diminutive formant. [90] Failure to explain this change is the greatest weakness of this theory.


Another interesting objection was put forward against the Slavic origins of "ίτζα" on the basis of geography. In his Historical Greek Grammar, E. Jannaris suggests that the ending could not be Slavic since it is found in Medieval Greek manuscripts of Italian provenance. [91] Jannaris, along with M. Vasmer, [92] decided that the occurrence of the formant in areas not considered to be under Slavic influence was a telling argument against the Slavic origin of "ίτζα." Upon closer examination, the Italian documents cited by Jannaris are no earlier than 981. [93] This places them well after the earliest Byzantine references to the ending. [94] It also overlooks the fact that since the seventh century, as A. Guillou has pointed out, Slavs were in Italy in enough force to leave other written evidence of their habitation. [95] This does not even include the Slavic contingent sent there in 880. [96] All this indicates that Italy was not free from Slavic linguistic influence. Vasmer's objection, on the basis of Pontic Greek usage, presents a similar weakness. Vardas Voilas, Strategos of the Chaldean Theme, proves by his very name alone that, by the tenth century, people of Slavic origins were in these regions. [97] So it is that, after careful examination, Slavs do appear in regions supposed by Jannaris and





Vasmer to be free of the same. In Cyprus, which was, in fact, never during the Middle Byzantine Era settled with Slavs, the "ίτζα" ending is a late and very rare phenomenon. [98] This is as it should be were the formant imported from the Slavic by means of the Greek and not a natural development of Greek itself.


Two other alternative explanations to the Slavic also deserve mention. M. Hatzidakis once posited that the "ίτζα" formant came from the Italian "iccio." [99] This was refuted by W. Meyer, who pointed out that "iccio" is never attached to substantives, nor is "iccio" a true diminutive formant. [100] A like argument could be advanced on the basis of Codex Coislin CXCVII Fol. 242v, where the name Philippikos Vardanes is curiously changed to Vardanitzes. [101] Here a merging of the Armenian Vartan with the Georgian "dze" ending could be posited as the result of the linguistic proximity of these two peoples. The "dze" or "idze" does indeed attach itself to substantives. Again the problem is that the "dze" formant is not a diminutive, but used strictly in Georgian to signify sonship. [102] This is further complicated by a completely undefined state of Georgian-Armenian-Byzantine Greek relationship. [103] Nothing suggests an upsurge of Georgian Influence upon Byzantine Greek by means of the Armenian during the eighth and ninth centuries.


In Slavic the "itzas" ending is diminutive and attaches itself to substantives. [104] Byzantine Greek first





records this usage after the time of Slavic settlement in Asia Minor and provides several examples of Byzantinized Slavs (Vasilitzes[- βασιλίζης) [105] bearing names with this dormant. Of even more interest is the confusion of the sources over the name Voiditzes (βοῖδιτζης), the betrayer of Amorion. Because it was unusual, Joseph Genesios attempted to explain it as the result of a Jewish-Christian quarrel over an ox. [106] The account of the 42 Martyrs of Amorion [107] and that of Leo Grammaticus indicate that this may have been a nickname. [108] In any case, the novelty of the ending did attract the attention of contemporary writers who failed to note any similarity of this formant to Classical Greek.


Byzantine texts further amplify the argument in favor of the Slavonic origins of this diminutive formant. [109] Greek references indicate that this particular ending was used in Slavic regions in exactly the same manner as it was Byzantium. The Greek version of the Vita Clement Ohrida mentions four names with this diminutive formant, [110] while Vita Lucae Iunioris Eremitae in Hellade (obit. 953) refers to a town in Northern Greece which "the inhabitants, rustics, called 'Ioannitza'. [111] The Scylitzes-Cedrenus Chronicle similarly shows usage of this formant as it describes Bulgarian relations, again indicating that this formant was indigenous. [112] It is perhaps ironic, in this context, that the original author of this chronicle himself bore this ending as the last part of his name — Scylitzes.





In view of the popularity of nicknames within Byzantium, the acceptance of a new diminutive formant would not have been difficult. As Slavs entered Byzantine society, they dropped their language, but not all their speech habits. Such was the case of the Patriarch Nicetas' inability to pronounce diphthongs [113] and the same was undoubtedly the case with the diminutive formant "ίτζα." It is possible that the reference to Philippikos Vardanitzes was an intentional rhetorical device used to emphasize the shortness of "little" Vardanes reign — barely two years. [114] The Slavic formant "itzas" entered Greek, therefore, with the Slavs, becoming productive in Byzantine Greek and soon leaving behind any trace of its ancestry.


There may have existed more such transfers during the era of Byzantinization among the Slavs, but none remain. There is, nonetheless, one word which was part of the popular language of the Middle Byzantine Era which is without doubt Slavic in origin. This is the Slavic word for the Germanic peoples "Nemtsi" [115] which became, in Medieval Greek, "Νεμίτζοι." Constantine Porphyrogenitus gives clear indication that this word was the popular term for "German" used in lieu of "Bavarian," "Saxon," or other more specific official designations. [116] Although the word later disappeared from Byzantine Greek, it had quite widespread usage in medieval Byzantium. [117] So extensive indeed that it spread to the Arab world as well. The Slavic "Nemtsi" became the Byzantine "Νεμίτζοι" and from that the





Arab [118] Most likely the point of transfer was in the marketplaces of the empire where Arab, Byzantine, and Slav met. For the Arab this initial introduction to the word was reinforced by journeys into Slavic lands, especially the markets of Prague. [119] Nonetheless the Arab would already have been familiar with the term from the Byzantine usage of it. Aside from this, there is little to suggest that Slavic loanwords were prevalent among the general population.


A special category of Slavic words must, of course, be established for the various geographical locations in Greece and in the Balkan Peninsula which acquired Slavic toponyms. [120] Toponymic designations such as "zagora" fit this category. [121] It is not possible due to the strictly local provenance of such words, to treat them as true loanwords. The general Byzantine population might speak of the "Nemitzoi" or apply the "ftca" ending to names, but unless they were inhabitants of the region, they were quite unaware of these new Slavic toponyms. Slavic toponymic designations, important as they are in yielding traces of Slavic habitation in Byzantine Greece, cannot be considered as having anything more than the most local significance. As for Asia Minor, only the toponym "Gordoserbia," of uncertain etymology, may suggest Slavic habitation. [122]


A survey of possible Slavic traces within Byzantium would be incomplete if it failed to mention H. Gregoires conjecture that the nickname of Michael I





"Rhangabe" was Slavic. [123] By means of phonological analysis, especially with regard to the Slavic nasal phoneme "an," H. Gregoire decided that the word "Rhangabe" was a Hellenization of the Old Slavic "Ronkavu," i.e., strong arm, [124] while ingeniously argued, the lack of exact Slavic-Greek phonological correspondence in the early ninth century makes this suggestion hypothetical in the extreme.


Also interesting in connection with this hypothesis is the name of the land magnate Nicetas Rentakios. Here it is reasonably certain that Nicetas Rentakios did have Slavic ancestors. [125] It is also known that a patrician with an identical name "Rentakios" was executed by Khan Tervel in connection with a plot against Leo III involving Thessalonica. [126] The closeness of both Nicetas Rentakios and his possible ancestor Sisinnios Rentakios to Slavic areas makes it possible to infer that the name "Rentakios" is perhaps Slavic in origins. The root form is the Old Slavic "rend" which has a meaning almost harmonious in sound as well as meaning with the English "rank." [127] So Rentakios would mean "the one who ranks." Again this reconstruction is hypothetical due to the uncertainties of Slavic-Greek phonological correspondence.


About the only thing the Byzantine population noted about these new Slavic arrivals, aside from their ethnic background, was the matter of pronunciation. The Slavs, at least the first generation along with those who hailed from the Slavic areas of Greece, spoke Greek with a heavy foreign





accent. This accounts for Constantine VIIʹs remark on Nicetas Rentakios, [128] and Glycas' account of Nicetas the Patriarch's difficulties with diphthongs. [129] Subsequent generations, less exposed to Slavic, spoke Greek as their native language. While "ίτζα" and "Νεμίτζοι" were Slavic originally, they both became as fully assimilated into Byzantine Greek as their Slavic carriers. Such was the natural course of Byzantinization.


Interaction and eventual Byzantinization was the fate of a majority of Slavs within imperial borders. It is, nonetheless, remarkable how few traces the Slavs left upon Byzantine life. The Slavs who settled upon imperial lands did, however, make one profound change in imperial attitude. The process of Byzantinization attuned the empire's skills and understandings to the potential of this people. [130] After having converted Slavs within imperial bounds, Orthodoxy moved beyond imperial borders. The final Slavic trace to be seen in Byzantium is in the work of Constantine and Methodius, a mission which would not have been successful in so pervasive a fashion had not Slavs lived in the empire and become Orthodox imperial citizens. In effect, the final trace of Slavic culture to be seen in Byzantium was her conversion, by peaceful means, of a large portion of the Slavic world. [131]








1. ...

century movements in relation to the role of the Slavs within Byzantium was Russian Pan-Slavism. See Petrovich, Russian Pan-Slavism, pp. 63-94. Also of great value in showing both the solid achievements and the pitfalls of s movement is Grekov, Documentik istorii Slavjanovedeniia, passim,


2. Vasmer, Die Slaven, pp. 1-10 and 310-325.


3. The best edition is that of M. Ashburner, "The Farmerʹs Law," Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXX (1910), 85-108.


4. Ms Cod. Marcianus graecus fondo antico 579, f. 191-194.


5. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte, p. 250.


6. Vasiljevskij, "Zakonodatel'stvo," Z.M.N.P., pp. 96-97, = Trudy, IV, 198-199.


7. Ibid.


8. The various scholarly opinions are summarized nicely by Ostrogorsky, History2, pp. 90-91. The most complete argument that the Farmer’s Law cannot be said to be Justinian IIʹs legislation is that presented by F. Dölger, "Iste der Nomos Georgikos ein Gesetz kaiser Justinians II?" Paraspora (Ettal: Buchkunst Verlag Ettal, 1961, = Festschrift für Wenger, II, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte, XXXIV (1945), 18-48, 241-262.


9. Vasiljevskij, "Zakonodatel'stvo," Ž.M.N.P., pp. 105-106, = Trudy, IV, 207-208.


10. Vasiljevskij, "Materialy," Ž.M.N.P., p. 260, = Trudy, XV, 250.


11. Uspenskij, "K istorii," pp. 301-360.


12. Ibid., pp. 302-332; Vasiljevskij, "Materialy," Ž.M.N.P., 160-162, = Trudy, IV, 250-252; and Skabalonovič, Vizantijskoe Gosudarstvo, pp. 230-231.


13. Skabalonovič, Vizantijskoe gosudarstvo, pp. 230-231, represents the final development of this theory. For internationalization of this idea, see above, pp. 5-6.





14. Pančenko, "Pamjatnik slavjan," p. 62.


15. The first discussion of Roman litigation as revealed by the papyri was R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri (332 B.C.—A.D. 640), 2 vols. (New York, 1944 , and Warsaw, 1948) .


16. The first complete work here was F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit Einschluss der griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka usw., earbeited und herausgegeben von E. Kiessling, 3 vols. (Heidelberg, 1925-1931).


17. F. Miklosich and I. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, vols. 1-4 (Vindobonae, 1860-1871), had appeared, but volumes 5 and 6 (1887 and 1890 ) were yet to come.


18. Jus Graeco-Romanorum, ed. K. E. Zacharia von Lingenthal, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1856-1884).


19. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 42 vols. (Lutetia Parisorum, 1648-1711 (+1819), Corpus Byzaninae Historiae, 42 vols. (Venice, 1729-1733), and Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 50 vols. (Bonn, 1828-1878 + 1897).


20. Arriani tactica et Mauricii artis militaris libri XII, id. J. Shefer (Upsalae, 1664).


21. K. Cybyšev, Mavrikij, Taktika i strategija (St. Petersburg, 1903).


22. Memoriae populorum, pp. 1-105, and see above, pp. 3-4.


23. Ibid., pp. 75-76, and see above, pp. 81-82, n. 68. The omissions are even more evident in his Izvestija Vizantijskih Istorikov, p. 96.


24. P. J. Šafarik, Slovanské Starožitnosti, pp. 967-970, does refer to Mauricius, but see above, p. 82, n. 71, for the problems involved in his viewpoint.


25. John, Bishop of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part III, trans. R. Payne-Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960).


26. A. (H)Garkavy, Skazanija musulmanskih pisatelei, and on (H)Garkavy himself, see B. M. Dancig. Bližnij Vostok v russka Nauke i Literature (dooktjabriskij period) (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), pp. 249, 254-255, and 275.





27. Vasiljevskij, "Materiali," pp. 160ff. (= Trudy, IV, 250ff.), and Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte3, which remains a basic work in spite of its mistaken conclusions regarding the Farmer’s Law.


28. It is well to note here that, aside from A. F. Gefrörer's Byzantinische Geschichten, 3 vols. (Gratz, 1872-1877), it was the Russian scholars F. I. Uspenskij (1931ff.), J. A. Kulakovskij (1913-1915), and A. A. Vasiliev (1923) who first seriously used the title "Byzantine" rather than "Later Roman" for their histories of the Empire. For more on the historiography of this, see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, I, 2-9.


29. Ostrogorsky, History2, pp. 4-10.


30. Gorjanov, "F. I. Uspenskij," pp. 29-108.


31. See above, pp. 133-135.


32. Pančenko, "Krestjanskaja sobstvennost, " pp. 1-234.


33. Ibid., pp. 88-229.


34. Ibid., pp. 57-87.


35. Ibid., pp. 30-57.


36. Ibid., pp. 5-88.


37. This is especially true for Western European scholars, i.e., Ostrogorsky, History2, pp. 135-136, n. 3. Perhaps, most recently, the remarks of Jončev best express the direction of Eastern European and Soviet scholarship. See Jončev, "Die Klassenschichtung," p. 78, "Und warum ollte es dann nicht auch eine Armenische-Byzantinische Gemeinde geben? Richtiger sollte man von einem slavischen Einfluss auf die sozialökonomischen Verhältnesse in Byzanz, von Gemeindeverhältnissen in Byzanz sprechen als von slawisch-byzantinischer Gemeinde."


38. Ieromonah Mihail, review of "Krest'janskaja sobst"ennost' v Vizantii. Zemledel'ceskij zakona i monastyrskie documenty” (I.R.A.K., IX (1903), XII + 234 pp., by Pančenko), in V.V., XI (1904), 589-615. Mutafčiev, “Selskoto Zemevladenie" vuv Vizantija," Izbrani Proizvezvedenija, I, 23-114.


39. Lipšits, "Slavjanskaja obščina," pp. 144-163, the leading apologist for this theory.





40. Ostrogorsky, History2, pp. 144-146.


41. Ibid., pp. 96-97, ns. 1 and 2 (both pages).


42. Theophanes, Chronographia, 355:30-366-23 and 348:16-20.


43. Ibid., 367:9-12.


44. Bohumila Zasterova, Les Avares et les Slaves dans la tactique de Maurice, pp. 45-83, is the most recent study of the validity of the Strategicon. After searching criticism of the Strategicon, Zasterova finds it a source of positive information of the early Slavs.


45. Cankova-Petkova, "Gesellschaftsordnung und Kriegskunst," pp. 264-270.


46. Brajčevskij, "K istorii rasselenija Slavjan," pp. 120-138.


47. See above, p. 186, n. 16.


48. Evert-Kappesowa, Studia nad Historia, pp. 46-74.


49. Ibid., pp. 17-45.


50. Ostrogorsky, History2, pp. 135-137.


51. Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations," pp. 265-308.


52. Ostrogorsky, History2, pp. 97-100, and A. Pertusi, "La formation des themes byzantines," Berichte zum XI International Byzantinisten-Kongress, I (Munich, 1958).


53. Ostrogorsky, History2, pp. 68-79.


54. Ibid., pp. 95-100.


55. Lemerle, "Invasions et migrations," pp. 265-308.


56. Lemerle, "Esquisse," pp. 63-65.


57. Which is probably the reason for this law's Popularity among the later Slavic states, i.e., the Serbia of Stephan Dušan. Aside from the discussion of K. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte, pp. 250-252, there exists no general history of the tradition of this legislation among the Slavs. The best that exists is Dj. S. Radojičic, "Srpski rukopis Zemljradnickog zakona," Z.R.V.I., III (1955), 15ff.


58. Jončev, "Die Klassenschichtung in Byzanz," p. 78.





59. This is pointed out by Brajčevskij, "K istorij,” pp. 135-138.


60. Justinian II's transfer took place after an extraordinarily advantageous peace had been made with the Arabs and Byzantine troops were completely free to operate in Europe — Theophanes, Chronographia, 363:6-20. Similarly the transfer of 762 took place during the reign of Constantine V, and after Constantine V had already inflicted crushing defeats upon the Arabs, see Lombard, Constantin V, pp. 31-40.


61. Charanis, "Transfer of Population," pp. 15-151.


62. See above, pp. 123-126.


63. Lipšits, "Vosstanie Fomy Slavjanina," pp. 352.


64. Ibid., pp. 359-365.


65. Joseph Genesios, Vasileia, pp. 32-33, clearly states that both Olivianos, Strategos of the Armeiakon Theme, and Katakule, Strategos of the Opsikion Theme remained loyal to the emperor.


66. I.e., Constantine Voilas, see above, pp. 93-94,


67. See above, pp. 133-135.


68. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis Aulis, cap. 50, pp. 696-697 (Bonn), notes that the salary of the Strategos of Macedonia is 50 Litra while that of the Aegean is 10 and that of Greece and the Peloponnesus do not even rate mention due to their low standing.


69. Jončev, "Die Klassenschichtung in Byzanz," p. 78.


70. Charanis, "How Greek," p. 116.


71. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, pp. 59-72.


72. Ibid., pp. 71-72.


73. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica2, I, 11-15.


74. Browning, Medieval and Modem Creek, p. 72.


75. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica2, II, 332-334.


76. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio2, pp. 13-14.





77. Papahajis, Monuments of Thessalonike, English translation by William Sanford (3rd ed.; Thessalonike: S. Molho, 1968), p. 8.


78. Charanis, The Armenians, pp. 21-22.


79. Ibid., p. 91.


80. Ibid., pp. 24-53 passim.


81. See above, pp. 12 and 69, and Beševliev, "Les inscriptions," p. 229.


82. Vasmer, Die Slaven, p. 85.


83. This was first seriously suggested by Wilhelm Meyer, Simon Portius Grammatica Linguae Graevae Vulgaris (Paris: Bibliothoque de l'ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences Philologiques et Historiques, Fasc. 78, 1889), pp. 149-150. Since that time G. Meyer, "Neugriechische Studien II," S.K.A.W. , CXXX (1894), 2-3, and later Stamatios B. Psaltes, Grammatik der Byzantinischen Chroniken (Goettingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht = Forschung zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, 2, 1913), p. 167. Psaltes overstates his case since he makes both ίτζις and άτζης Slavic — "Ebenso werden auch die Zunamen mit den slavischen Suffix — ίτζης, άτζης dekliniert" (p. 167).




85. Φ. Κουκουλὲς, "Περὶ τῆς ἑπολοριστικῆς καταλήζεως -ίτσιν,", Ἑλληνικά, 4 (1931), σ. 361-375.


86. Δ. Γεωργακᾶς, "Περὶ Σαραματσαναίων," Ἀρχεῖον τοῦ Θρακικοῦ λαογραφικοῦ καὶ Γλωσσικοῦ Θησαυροῦ, 14 (IB 1945-6), σ. 65-128. Georgacas, in this article as in the one cited by Amantos, remains more neutral towards this question than either Kukules or Amantos.





87. Cedrinos-Scylitzes, Opera, II, 189:21ff.,


88. Browning, Medieval and Modem Greek, p. 71.


89. Κ. Ἄμαντος, "Γλωσσικὰ Περίεργα," σ. 9.




91. E. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (London: Macmillan and Co., p. 294, n. 2).


92. Vasmer, Die Slaven, p. 8.


93. The work Jannaris bases his contention upon is Francisco Trinchera, Syllabus Craecarun Membranorum (Naples Typis Josephi Cataneo, 1665), pp. 6-7 (document VIII dated April, 981) and 18-20 (document XVIII dated June, 1019).


94. The earliest reference to the use of this formant is in the name Voiditzes, the betrayer of Amorion in 838. See Nikitin's commentary in Skazanija 42 Amoruskih Mučenikah, pp. 193-194.


95. Guillou, Regionalisme et Independance, pp. 97-108, especially 98, where he mentions XI-XI century document which refers to Slavic name "Bodena" for the year 752. Document cited in full on p. 270.


96. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, 305:18-306:21.


97. See above, pp. 99-101.




99. Meyer, Simon Fortius, pp. mentions Hatsidakis' suggestion. The original Μ. Χατζιδάκις, Ἀθήναιου σύγγραμμα περιοδικόν, X (1882), σ. 81-84 was unavailable to me.





100. Meyer, Simon Portius, pp. 149-150.


101. Nicephorus Patriarchae, Opisculi, p. 225, "Φιλιππικὸς ὁ καὶ Βσρδανίτζης ἔτη δύο."


102. E. Cherkesi, Georgian-English Dictionary (Oxford: Marjory Wardrop Fund—University of Oxford, 1950, col. 2, p. 252) , " son; child."


103. Schota Dsidsiguri, Die georgische Sprache, German translation from the Russian Gruzinskij Jazyk (Tbilisi, 1968) by Gertrud Patsch (Halle [SaaleJ : VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1973) , pp. 60-70.


104. A. Belić, "Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der slavischen Diminutive- und Amplicative-Suffixe," Archiv für Slavische Philologie, XXIII (1901), 175, #67.


105. See above, pp. 97-99.


106. Joseph Genesios, Regnum, p. 65.


107. Skazanija 42 Amorijskih Mučenikah, 71:32 and 72:5.


108. Leo Grammaticus, Chronicon, 224:13-18.


109. H. Moritz, Die Zunamen Bei den byzantinischen Historikern und Chronisten, I Teil (Landshut: Programm des Humanistischen Gymnasiums in Landshut für das Schuljahr 1896/97), 23, 26, and 52-53.


110. M.P.G. , vol. 126, cols. 1217, 1124, and 1128.


111. M.P.G., vol. III, col. 445, ". . . ὅ παρὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων ἀγροίκως, οὔ τως, Ἰωαννιτζα καλούμενον."


112. Cedrinos-Scylitzes, Opera, II.


113. Michael Glycas, Annales, 527:13-528:1.


114. Nicephorus, Opiscula, p. 225.


115. M. Vasmer, Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, II (l-Sauda) (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1955), 211-212, under the entry for "Nemets," and 212 under the entry for "Nemoi."


116. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis, II, 689, ". . . εἰς τὸν βῆγα Σαξωνίας, εἰς τὸν βῆγα Βαῖοὺρη. (ἔστιν δὲ αὕτη ἠ χώρα οἱ λεγόμενοι Νεμίτζοι."





117. Anna Comnena, Alexiad, II, IX, 4,


118. Joseph Marquart, Osteuropäische und Ostasiatische Streifzüge (Leipzig, 1903, pp. 58, 105, 115, 142, and 144. This is basically an Arabic text, translation and notes on Mas'udi' account of the Slavs.


119. Ibid., pp. 95-160 passim.


120. See the introduction by Hans Ditten for a full bibliography on this important question in Vasmer, Die Slaven2, 3 pp.


121. Ibid. , p. 109, and Κ. Ἄμαντις, "Ζαγορὰ = Βουλγαρία," Ἑλληνικά, 5 (1932), σ. 127.


122. Dvornik, Les Slaves, p. 103.


123. Gregoire, "Rhangabé ou Forte-main," pp. 793-794.


124. Ibid.


125. See above, pp. 99-102.


126. Theophanes, Chronographia, 400:18-28.


127. L. Sadnik and R. Aitzetmüller, Handwörterbuch zu den Altkirchenslavischen Texten (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1955), p. 115, col. I — reds. Also see Vasmer, Die Slaven, pp. 187, 122, and 305.


128. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Thematibus, 90:41-2.


129. Michael Glycas, Annales, 527:13-528:1.


130. See above, pp. 154-155.


131. Miller, "Byzantine Inheritance in Southeastern Europe", pp. 326-337. Also see Meyendorff and Baynes, "Byzantine Inheritance in Russia," pp. 369-391.


[Previous] [Next]

[Back to Index]