Forging Unity. The South Slavs between East and West, 550-1150 9788675585732

Table of contents :
tibor fu 00 nulte_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 00 skracenice_Layout 1.pdf
Forging Unity.pdf
tibor fu 00 nulte_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 01_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 02_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 03_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 04_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 05_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 06_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 07_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 08_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 09_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 10_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 11_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 12_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 13_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 14_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 15_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 16_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 17_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu 18_Layout 1.pdf
tibor fu index_Layout 1.pdf

Citation preview

Tibor Živković

FORGING

UNITY

The South Slavs between East and West: 550-1150

The Institute of History Belgrade

Supported by The Ministry of Science, Republic of Serbia

CONTENTS

5

PREFACE

7

I On the Chronology of the Avar-Slav Relations between 559 and 578

17

II Relations Between the Avars and Danube Basin Slavs 579 – 626

31

III Ethnic Identity and Stereotypes about Southern Slavs during the Early Middle Ages

45

IV On Tribal Organization and the Military Power of the Danube Basin Slavs in the 6th and 7th Centuries

71

V The Strategos Paul and The Archontes of the Westerners

89

VI On the Date of the Creation of the Theme of Peloponnesus

105

VII Uspenskij’s Taktikon and the Theme of Dalmatia

147

VIII The Earliest Cults of Saints in Ragusa

157

IX Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Ragusan Authors before 1611

175

X On the Foundation of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts

193

XI A New Reading of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ Statement on the Numbers of Croat Horsemen, Foot Soldiers and Sailors in the Early 10th Century

205

XII The Legend of Pavlimir Belo

229

XIII The Campaign of Emperor Samuel against Dalmatia

249

XIV On the Northern Borders of Serbia in the Early Middle Ages

259

XV Rama in the Royal Title of the Hungarian Kings

275

XVI Two Questions From the Time of King Bodin’s Reign

293

XVII Dioclea between Rascia and Byzantium in the First Half of the 12th Century

313

XVIII Zavida’s Sons

335

INDEX

P R E FA C E

During the last ten years of my scholarly work, I published a number of papers regarding the history of South Slavs. The majority of these papers were printed in Serbian, which is not a language used by academic communities elsewhere. It seems that foreign authors, who deal with similar topics (i.e. South Slavs, Byzantium, Bulgaria), as well as the same chronological span (i.e. the period form the 7th to the 12th century), are generally not informed about the results of Serbian, Bulgarian or Greek researchers. Because of this, numerous monographs of Western scholars, published recently, lack many ideas and solutions already achieved by and presented in the works of their colleagues, who write in the Serbian, Russian, Bulgarian or Greek language. For the benefit of historiography, and in order to offer our foreign colleagues an opportunity to read and encounter such ideas, I collected and translated 18 papers into English, which propose new solutions and represent a fresh approach to the history of South Slavs and Byzantium. All of these papers were published previously, but here they are slightly improved and partially rewritten to integrate the text into a compact and cohesive volume. Presented in this way, the book will be of some interest to the scientific community, but it will also appeal to a wider reading audience. Regarding the composition of this book, the chapters are given in chronological order, from the earliest contacts of the Slavs with Byzantium, to the first decades of the 12th century. Each chapter contains a reference specifying the publication where it originally appeared for the first time. The list of abbreviations is given at the beginning, while transliteration of nonEnglish names and titles is given according to the normative in English literature and historiography. Being at the crossroad of West and East, the South Slavs were at the receiving end of many various influences, which shaped their political, social and religious life. Thus it seemed appropriate to title the book Forging Unity, since the effects of these influences had not always been taken willingly, but

rather imposed through complex relations between the Slav principalities and kingdoms, and their more powerful neighbours – Byzantium, Venice, or Hungary. Therefore, it appears suitable to create a book which would shed light on these complex connections, and describe the events that took place during the course of some six centuries of South Slav history (7th to 12th centuries).

Belgrade August, 2007

Tibor Živković

ABBREVIATIONS

Acta Albaniae I

Acta et diplomata res Albaniae mediae aetatis illustrantia, ed. L.Thallóczy – C. Jireček – E. Sufflay, Vol. I, Vindobona 1913.

Agath.

Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum Libri quinque, ed. R. Keydell, Berolini 1967.

Ahrweiler, Mer

H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, Paris 1966.

Ahrweiler, De thematibus

H. Ahrweiler, Sur la date De thematibus de Constantine VII Porphyrogénète, TM 8 (1981) 1 – 5.

Alexiade

Anne Comnène Alexiade, ed. B. Leib, I – III, Paris 1937.

Anastasijevi}, Otac Nemanjin

D. Anastasijevi}, Otac Nemanjin, Beograd 1914.

Anonymi

Annales Ragusini Anonymi, ed. S. Nodilo, Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, Scriptores I, Zagrabiae 1883, 1 – 163.

Arhitektura

M. Čanak – Medić – Đ. Bošković, Arhitektura Nemanjinog doba, I – II, Beograd 1986, 1989.

Athanasopoulou – Penna

                   !" 

#$    %& ' Martin Jesop Price, Athens 1997, 95 – 288.

II Barišić, Proces

F. Barišić, Proces slovenske kolonizacije istočnog Balkana, ANUBIH XII (1969) 11 – 28.

Bekkerus

Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De thematibus et De administrando imperio, rec. I. Bekkerus, Bonnae 1840.

Blagojević, Kneževine

M. Blagojević, Srpske udeone kneževine, ZRVI 36 (1997) 45 – 62.

Blagojević, Pregled

M. Blagojević, Pregled istorijske geografije srednjovekovne Srbije, Zbornik Istorijskog muzeja Srbije 20 (1983) 45 – 126.

Blagojević, Reke

M. Blagojević, Župa Reke i “Dendra” Jovana Kinama, ZRVI 35 (1996) 197 – 212.

Blondi

Blondi Flavii Forliviensis historiarvm ab inclinatione Romanorum libri XXXI, Basel 1531.

Božić, Grad i selo

I. Božić, Grad i selo na zetskom primorju u XV veku, Istorijski glasnik 2 (1973) 63 – 70.

Brooks, Lists

E. W. Brooks, Arabic Lists of the Byzantine Themes, JHS 21 (1901) 67 – 77.

Brown, Gentlemen

T. S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, Rome 1984.

Bury, Administrative System

J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, London 1911.

Bury, History II

J.B. Bury History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius to the Death of Justinian, vol. II, London 1889.

III Camin.

Ioannis Caminiatae De expugnatione Thessalonicae, ed. G. Böhlig, Berolini 1973.

Chalandon, Les Comnènes

F. Chalandon, Les Comnènes II, Paris 1912.

Chon.

Nicetae Chonitae Historia, rec. I, Bekker, Bonnae 1835.

Chron. pasch.

Chronicon paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, Bonnae 1832.

Chronique

P. Lemerle, La chronique improprement dit de Momemvasie: Le contexte historique et légendaire, REB 21 (1963) 5 – 49.

Cinn.

Ioannis Cinnami Epitome, Rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. A. Meineke, Bonnae 1836.

Codex I

Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae I, ed. T. Smičiklas, Zagreb 19672.

Codex II

Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae II, ed. T. Smičiklas, Zagreb 1904.

Codex III

Codex Diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, III, ed. T. Smičiklas, Zagreb 1905.

Curta, Making

F. Curta, The Making of the Slavs, Cambridge 2001.

Ćirković, “Naseljeni gradovi”

S. Ćirković, “Naseljeni gradovi” Konstantina Porfirogenita i najstarijateritorijalna organizacija, ZRVI 37 (1998) 9 – 32.

IV Ćirković, Preci

S. Ćirković, Preci Nemanjini i njihova postojbina, Stefan Nemanja – Sveti Simeon Mirotočivi, istorija i predanje, ed. J. Kalić, Beograd 2000, 21 – 29.

Ćorović, Historija

V. Ćorović, Historija Bosne, Beograd 1940.

Ćorović, Pitanje o hronologiji

V. Ćorović, Pitanje o hronologiji u delima svetog Save, GNČ 49 (1940) 1 – 69.

Ćorović, Primedbe

V. Ćorović, Primedbe o Dukljaninovoj Hronici, Scripta minora (unpublished manuscripts), ed. B. Marinković, Valjevo 1998, 76 – 112.

DAI

Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio, I – II, ed. Gy. Moravcsik – R. J. H. Jenkins, Washington 1967.

Danduli Chron.

Andreae Danduli Chronica per eatensum descripta, Raccolta degli storici Italiani dal cinquecento al millecinquecento ordinada da L. A. Muratori, ed. G. Carducci – V. Fiorini – P. Fedele, Bologna 1939.

De cerim

Constantine Porphyrogeniti imperatoris De cerimoniis aulae byzantine libri duo, ed. Th. Mommsen, Berolini 1894.

De regno

De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri sex, ed. Joh. Lucius, Amstelodami 1666.

De them.

Constantino Porfirogenito De thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi, Vatican 1952.

V DH

Diplomata Hungariae Antiquissima, I, ed. G. Györffy, Budapest 1992.

Diacono

La Cronaca Veneziana del Diacono Giovanni, ed. G. Monticolo, Cronache Veneziane antichissime, vol. 1, Roma 1890.

Dialogi

Caesarii fratris Gregorii Theologi, Dialogi quattuor, ed. Migne, PG 38 (1862) col. 851 – 1190.

Documenta

Documenta historiae chroaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia, ed. F. Rački, Zagrabiae 1877.

Đurić, Romejski govor

I. Đurić, Romejski govor i jezik Konstantina VII Porfirogenita, ZRVI 24/25 (1986) 109 – 137.

Einh.

Einhardi Annales, MGH SS I, ed. G. Pertz, Hannoverae 1826, 135 – 218.

FB

Fontes Byzantini historiam populorum Jugoslaviae spectantes, I - II, ed. G. Ostrogorski, Beograd 1955 – 1959.

Ferluga, Uprava

J. Ferluga, Vizantiska uprava u Dalmaciji, Beograd 1957.

Ferluga, Niže jedinice

J. Ferluga, Niže vojno-administrativne jedinice tematskog uređenja, ZRVI 2 (1953) 88 – 93.

Foretić, Povijest

V. Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika I, Od osnutka do 1526., Zagreb 1980.

Goldstein, Bizant

I. Goldstein, Bizant Jadranu, Zagreb 1992.

Goldstein, Hrvatski

I. Goldstein, Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, Zagreb 1995.

na

VI Guillaume

Guillaume de Pouille, La Gesta de Robert Guiscard, ed. M. Mathieu, Palermo 1961.

Grafenauer, Nekaj vprašanj

B. Grafenauer, Nekaj vprašanj iz dobe naseljevanja južnih Slovanov I, Zgodovinski časopis 4 (1950) 23 – 126.

GSND

Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društva

Haldon, Praetorians

J. F. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians, Bonn 1984.

Hauptmann, Rapports

L. Haputmann, Les rapports des Byzantins avec les Slaves et les Avares pendant la seconde moitié du VIe siècle Byzantion 4 (1928) 137 – 170.

Historia

Historia de Leone, ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae 1842.

Huszár, Münzkatalog

L. Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn von 1000 bis Heute, München 1979.

ICG I

Istorija Crne Gore I, Titograd 1967.

Illyr. sacr.

Illyricum sacrum, I – VI, ed. D. Farlati, Venetiis 1769.

INJ I

Istorija naroda Jugoslalvije, I, Beograd 1953.

Ios. Gen.

Iosephi Genesii Regum libri quattuor, ed. A. Lesmueller Werner et I. Thurn, Berolini 1978.

IRAIK

Izvestija russkago arheologičeskago instituta v Konstantinopole

VII ISN I

Istorija srpskog naroda, ed. S. Ćirković, Beograd 19942.

IČ

Istorijski časopis

Jireček, Istorija

K. Jireček, Istorija Srba I, Beograd 1952.

Joannis de Thwrocz

Joannis de Thwrocz, Chronica Hungarorum, Scriptores rerum hungaricarum I, ed. J.G. Schwandtner, Vindobonae 1766.

Kalić, Crkvene prilike

J. Kalić, Crkvene prilike u srpskim zemljama do stvaranja arhiepiskopije 1219. godine, Sava Nemanjić – sveti Sava, istorija i predanje, Beograd 1979, 27 – 53.

Katičić, Uz početke

R. Katičić, Uz početke hrvatskih početaka, Split 1993.

Klaić, Povijest

N. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1971.

Klaić, Srednjovekovna Bosna

N. Klaić, Srednjovekovna Bosna, Zagreb 1994.

Kovačević, Nekolika pitanja

Lj. Kovačević, Nekolika pitanja o Stefanu Nemanji, Glas SKA 58 (1900) 1 – 106.

Krumbacher, Geschichte

K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Oströmischen Reichs, München 1897.

Kukuljević-Sakcinski, Codex I - II

Codex Diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, I – II, ed. I. KukuljevićSakcinski, Zagreb 1874.

VIII Kyriakides, Meletai

(  )*  +   II – V , -  #./0

Laurent, Serbie

V. Laurent, Le thème byzantin de Serbie au XIé siècle, REB 15 (1957) 185 – 195.

Leo Gramm

Leonis Grammatici Cronographia, ed. I. Bekkeri, Bonnae 1842.

Lexicon

Lexicon linguae Slovenicae veteris dialecti, ed. F. Miklosich, Vindobonae 1850.

Lib. Pontif.

Liber Pontificalis, I – III, ed. L. Duchesne, Paris 1955.

Lindsay, Byzantium

J. Lindsay, Byzantium into Europe, London 1952.

Lounghis, Les ambassades

T. C. Lounghis, Les ambassades byzantines en Occident depuis la fondation des états barbares jusqu’aux Croisades (407 – 1096), Athens 1980.

Lounghis, Sur la date.

T. C. Lounghis, Sur la date du De thematibus, REB 31 (1973) 299 – 305.

Luccari

Copioso ristretto degli Annali di Rausa libri quattro di Giacomo di Pietro Luccari, Venetia 1605.

Lučić, O nekim problemima

J. Lučić, O nekim problemima najstarije dubrovačke povijesti, HZ 19 – 20 (1967) 537 – 547.

Lučić, Povijest

J. Lučić, Povijest Dubrovnika od VII stoljeća do godine 1205, Zagreb 1973, Supplement in: Anali 13 – 14 (1976) 7 – 139.

IX Lup. Protosp.

Lupi Protospatarii Annales, MGH SS V, ed. G. Pertz, Hannoverae 1829, 52 – 63.

Ljetopis

Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina, ed. V. Mošin, Zagreb 1950.

Maksimović, Ilirik

Lj. Maksimović, Severni Ilirik u VI veku, ZRVI 19 (1980) 19 – 57.

Maksimović, O hronologiji

Lj. Maksimović, O hronologiji slovenskih upada na vizantijsku teritoriju krajem sedamdesetih i početkom osamdesetih godina VI veka, ZRVI 8/2 (1964) 263 – 271.

Maksimović, Organizacija

Lj. Maksimović Organizacija vizanitjske vlasti u novoosvojenim oblastima posle 1018. godine, ZRVI 36 (1997) 31 – 43.

Makušev, Izsledovania

V. Makušev, Izsledovania ob istoričeskih pametnikah i betopisatelia Dubrovnika, Sanktpeterburg 1867.

Malalae Chronographia

Malalae Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf, Bonnae 1831.

Mango-Scott, Theophanes

The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, ed. C. Mango – R. Scott, Oxford 1997.

Mansi

Sacrorum conciliorum, nova et amplissima collectio, ed. J. D. Mansi, Venice 1759 – 1798.

Marci Chronica

Marci Chronica De gestis Hungarorum ab origine gentis ad annum MCCCXXX producta, ed. F. Tóldy, Pesta 1867.

X Margetić, Provincijalni arhonti

L. Margetić, “Provincijalni arhonti” Taktikona Uspenskog (s osobitim obzirom na arhonta Dalmacije) ZRVI 29/30 (1991) 45 – 59.

Marović, Arheološka istraživanja

I. Marović, Arheološka istraživanja u okolici Dubrovnika, Anali 4 –5 (1956) 9 – 30.

Medini, Starine

M. Medini, Starine Dubrovačke, Dubrovnik 1935.

Menander

History of Menander the Guardsman, ed. R.C. Blockley, Trowbridge 1985.

Miracula

Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius, I – II, ed. P. Lemerle, Paris 1979.

Monumenta Serbica

Monumenta Serbica spectantia historiam Serbiae, Bosnae, Ragusii, ed. F. Miklosich, Viennae 1858.

Nesbitt – Oikonomides, Seals

Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, I – III, ed. J. Nesbitt – N. Oikonomides, Washington 1991 – 1996.

Nikeph. Hist.

Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople Short History, ed. C. Mango, Washington 1990.

Nodilo, Prvi ljetopisci

N. Nodilo, Prvi ljetopisci i davna historiografija dubrovačka, Rad JAZU 65 (1883) 92 – 128.

Notitiae

Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae constantinopolitanae, ed. J. Darrouzès, Paris 1981.

XI Novellae

Corpus iuris civilis, Novellae, ed. R. Schoell, Berolini 1912.

Novaković, O granicama

R. Novaković, O granicama Srbije i srpske države u srednjem veku, ZFF 8/1 (1964) 153 – 181.

Novaković, Prvi osnovi

S. Novaković, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti među balkanskim Slovenima, Beograd, 1893.

Novaković, Zemljište radnje Nemanjine

S. Novaković, Zemljište radnje Nemanjine, GNČ 1 (1877) 163 – 243.

ODB

Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I – III, ed. A. Kazhdan, Oxford 1991.

Oikonomidès, Les listes

N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris 1972.

Oikonomidès, Stratègos

N. Oikonomidès, Une liste arabe des stratègos byzantins du VIIe siècle et les origines du thème de Sicile, Documents et études sur les institutions de Byzance (VIIe – XVe s.), London 1976, VII, 121 – 130.

Olympiodorus

Olympiodorus Thebae, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum IV, ed. C. Mullerus, Parisiis 1885.

Orbini

Il Regno de gli Slavi hoggi corrottamente detti Schiavoni Historia di don Mavro Orbini Ravseo abbate melitense, Pesaro 1601.

Ostrogorsky, Taktikon

G. Оstrogorsky, Taktikon Uspenskog i Taktikon Beneševića, ZRVI 2 (1959) 38 – 48.

XII Ostrogorsky, Istorija

G. Ostrogorsky, Istorija Vizantije, Beograd 1969.

Ostrogorsky, Postanak

G. Ostrogorsky, Postanak tema Helada i Peloponez, ZRVI 1 (1952) 64 – 77.

Pauli historia

Pauli historia Langobardorum, ed. L. Bethmann – G. Waitz, in MGH Scriptores Rerum Langobardicarum et italicarum, saec. VI – IX, Hannover 1878, 12 – 178.

PG

Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca

Philippi de Diversis

Philippi de Diversis de Quartigianis, ed. V. Brunelli, Programma dell’ I.R. Ginnasio superiore in Zara 23 (1880) 10 – 49.

Pirivatrić, Država

S. Pirivatrić, Samuilova država, Beograd 1998.

Pisidas

Georgii Pisidae Expeditio paersica, Bellum avaricum, Heraclias, ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae 1836.

Pohl, Die Awaren

W. Pohl, Die Awaren, Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567 – 822 n Chr., München 1988.

Povesty

Povesty vremennix Sanktpeterburg 1910.

Procopii

Procopii Bellum Persicum, B. Vandalicum, B. Gothicum, Historia arcane, De aedificiis (Opera omnia I – IV), ed. J. Haury – G. Wirth, Leipzig 1962 – 1964.

let,

XIII Ragnina

Annali di Ragusa del magnifico ms. Nicolò di Ragnina, ed. S. Nodilo, Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, Scriptores I, Zagrabiae 1883, 166 – 301.

Rapanić, Marginalia

Ž. Rapanić, Marginalia o “postanku” Dubrovnika, Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovačkom području, Izdanja HAD 12 (1988) 39 – 50.

Resti

Croniche di Ragusa opera di Giugno Resti senatore di Ragusa, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, ed. S. Nodilo, Zagrabiae 1893.

Rochow, Byzanz

I. Rochow, Byzanz im 8. Jahrhundret in der Sicht des Theophanes, Berlin 1991.

Sabrana dela

Stefan Prvovenčani, Sabrana dela, ed. Lj. Juhas-Georgievska – T. Jovanović, Beograd 1999.

Sava, Žitije svetog Simeona

Žitije svetog Simeona, Sveti Sava, Sabrana dela, ed. and trans. by T. Jovanović, Beograd 1998, 147 – 191.

Scyl.

Ioannis Scylitzee Synopsis historiarum, rec. I. Thurn, Berolini 1973.

Shevchenko, Fragments

I. Shevchenko, The Date and Author of the So - Called Fragments of Toparcha Gothicus, DOP 25 (1971) 115 – 188.

Sigillographie

Sigillographie de l’Empire byzantin, ed. G. Schlumberger, Paris 1882.

XIV

Simocattae Hist.

Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae, ed C. De Boor – P Wirth, Stutgardiae 1972.

Sokolova, Pečati

I. Sokolova, Pečati arhontov Hersona, ZRVI 18 (1978) 81 – 97.

Sokolova, Sceaux

I. Sokolova, Les sceaux byzantins de Cherson, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 3, ed. N. Oikonomidès, Washington D. C. 1993, 99 – 111.

Solovjev, Hilandarska povelja

A. V. Solovjev, Hilandarska povelja velikog župana Stefana (Prvovenčanog) iz godine 1200 – 1202, Prilozi za KJIF 5 (1925) 66 – 71.

Solovjev, Odabrani spomenici

A. V. Solovjev, Odabrani spomenici srpskog prava (od XII do kraja XV veka), Beograd 1926.

Stein Histoire II

E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, Paris 1959.

Stein, Studien

E. Stein, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Reich vornemilch unter des Kaisern Justinus II und Tiberius Constantinus, Stuttgart 1919.

Stepanova, Seals

E. Stepanova, New Seals from Sudak, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 3, ed. N. Oikonomidès, Washington D. C. 1993, 29 – 39.

Stevović, Novi izvor

I. Stevović, “Prospetto della citta di Ragusa”, Novi izvor za najraniju istoriju vizantijskog Dubrovnika, ZRVI 29/30 (1991) 137 – 154.

XV

Storia I

Storia documentata di Venezia, I, ed. S. Romanin, Venezia 1853.

Stošić, Prikaz nalaza

J. Stošić, Prikaz nalaza ispod katedrale i Bunićeve poljane u Dubrovniku, Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovačkom području, Izdanja HAD 12 (1988) 15 – 38.

Strategikon

Das Strategikon des Maurikios, ed. G. T. Dennis, Wien 1981.

Synaxarium

Synaxarium ecclesiae constantinopolitanae, ed. H. Delahaye, Bruxelles 1902.

Šišić, Letopis

Letopis Popa Dukljanina, ed F. Šišić, Beograd 1928.

Šišić, Povijest

F. Šišić, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, Zagreb 1925.

Šišić, Poviest Hrvata

F. Šišić, Poviest Hrvata za kraljeva iz doma Arpadovića (1102 – 1201) I, Zagreb 1944.

Tactica

Tactica Leonis Philosophi, ed. Migne, PG 107 (1863) col. 669 – 1120.

Thacker, Saints

A. Thacker, The Significance of Place in the Study of the Saints, Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West, ed. A. Thacker – R. Sharpe, Oxford 2002, 1 – 43.

Thallóczy, Studien

L. Thallóczy, Studien zur Geschichte Bosniens und Serbiens in Mittelalter, München-Leipzig 1914.

XVI Theoph.

Theophanis Chronographia I – II, ed. C. de Boor, Lipsiae 1881.

Theoph. Cont.

Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae 1838.

Thomas

Thomas Archidiaconus: Historia Salonitana, ed. F. Rački, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. 26, Scriptores III, Zagrabiae 1894.

Treadgold, History

W. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford 1997.

Treadgold, Notes

W. T. Treadgold, Notes on the Numbers and Organization of the Ninth-Century Byzantine Army, GRBS 21/3 (1980) 269 – 288.

Treadgold, Revival

W. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival 780 – 842, Stanford 1988.

Tubero

Lvdovici Tvberonis Dalmatae abbatis Commentarii de temporibvs svis, I – II, ed. V. Rezar, Zagreb 2001.

Uspenskij, Tabel’

F. I. Uspenskij, Vizantijsky tabel o rangah, IRAIK 3 (1898) 109 – 129.

Vernandsky, Russia

K. Vernandsky, Ancient Russia, vol. I, New Haven 1943.

VINJ I – IV

Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije

Waldmüller, Die Ersten

L. Waldmüller, Die Ersten Begegnungen der Slawen mit dem Christentum und den christlichen Völkern vom VI bis VIII Jahrhundert, Amsterdam 1976.

XVII Weithmann, Politische

M. Weithmann, Politische und etnische Veränderungen in Griechenland am Übergang von der Antike zum Frühmittelalter, Die Kultur Griechenlands in Mittelalter und Neuzeit Bericht über das Kolloquium der Südosteuropa – Kommission 23 – 31. Oktober 1992, Göttingen 1996, 13 – 30.

Zacos – Veglery, Seals

Byzantine Lead Seals I – III, ed. G. Zacos – A. Veglery, Basel 1972.

Zakythinos, Céphalonie

D. Zakythinos, Le thème de Céphalonie et la défense de l’occident, L’Hellénisme Contemporain 3 – 4 (1954) 303 – 313.

ZFF

Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta

Zlatarsky, Istorija

V. N. Zlatarsky, Istorija na Bulgarskata derzava prez srednite vekove I/1 – I/2, Sofia 1918, 1925.

Žitije svetog Simeona

Žitije svetog Simeona, Stefan Prvovenčani, Sabrana dela, ed. Lj. Juhas-Georgievska, Beograd 1999.

Živković, Crkvena organizacija

T. Živković, Crkvena organizacija u srpskim zemljama, Beograd 2004.

Živković, Date of the Creation

T. Živković, The Date of the Creation of the Theme of Peloponnesus, Symmeikta 13 (1999) 141 – 155.

Živković, Južni Sloveni

T. Živković, Južni Sloveni pod vizantijskom vlašću (600 – 1025), Beograd 2002.

XVIII Živković, Legenda

T. Živković, Legenda o Pavlimiru Belu, IČ 50 (2004) 9 – 32.

Živković, O prvim poglavljima

T. Živković, O prvim poglavljima Letopisa Popa Dukljanina, IČ 44 (1998) 11 – 34.

Živković, Romeji

T. Živković, Sloveni i Romeji, Beograd 2000.

Živković, Jedna hipoteza

T. Živković, Jedna hipoteza o poreklu velikog župana Uroša I, IČ 52 (2005) 9 – 22.

ZMSI

Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju

ZRVI

Zbornik radova Vizantolo{kog instituta

Źródła

Źródła arabskie do dziejów słowiańszczyzny, I, ed. T. Lewicki, Wroclaw – Kraków 1956.

XIX

LITERATURE

N. Adonz, Samuel l’Arménien, rois des Bulgares, Mémoires de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres 38 (1938) 1 – 63. H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, Paris 1966. H. Ahrweiler, Sur la date De thematibus de Constantine VII Porphyrogénète, TM 8 (1981) 1 – 5. D. Anastasijević, Otac Nemanjin, Beograd 1914. E. Ashtor, Gli ebrei nel commercio mediterraneo nell’alto medievo (secc. X – XI), in: Gli orizzonti aperti. Profili del mercante medievale, ed. G. Airaldi, Torino 1997.                    !"  – #$    %& ' ' 1 2  #..0 .3 – $"" A. Babić, Iz istorije srednjovjekovne Bosne, Sarajevo 1972. N. Banašević, Letopis Popa Dukljanina, Beograd, 1971. F. Barišić, Prisk kao izvor za najstariju istoriju Južnih Slovena, ZRVI 1 (1952) 52 – 63. F. Barišić, Vizantiski Singidunum, ZRVI 3 (1955) 3 – 13. F. Barišić, Car Foka (602 – 610) i podunavski Avaro-Sloveni, ZRVI 4 (1956) 73 – 88. F. Barišić, Proces slovenske kolonizacieje istočnog Balkana, ANUBIH XII (1969) 11 – 28. M. C. Bartusis, The Megala Allagia and the Tzaousios: Aspects of Provincial Military Organization in Late Byzantium, REB 47 (1989) 183 – 207. V. Benešević, Die byzantintischen Ranglisten nach dem Kletorologion Philothei und nach den Jerusalemer Handschriften zusammengestellt und revidiert, Byzantinisch Neugriechische Jahrbücher 5 (1927) 97 – 167. M. Berza, Amalfi Preducale, Ephemeris Dacoromana 8 (1938) 349 – 444. M. Blagojević, Pregled istorijske geografije srednjovekovne Srbije, Zbornik Istorijskog muzeja Srbije 20 (1983) 45 – 126. M. Blagojević, Severna granica bosanske države u XIV veku, Bosna i Hercegovina od srednjeg veka do novijeg vremena, Medjunarodni naučni skup, 13 – 15. decembar 1994, Beograd 1995, 59 – 76. M. Blagojević, Župa Reke i “Dendra” (ΔΕΝΔΡΑ) Jovana Kinama, ZRVI 35 (1996) 197 – 212. M. Blagojević, Srpske udeone kneževine, ZRVI 36 (1997) 45 – 62. M. Blagojević, O “Zemljištu radnje Nemanjine”, Stefan Nemanja – Sveti Simeon, istorija i predanje, ed. J. Kalić, Beograd 2000, 65 – 75. Blondi Flavii Forliviensis historiarvm ab inclinatione Romanorum libri XXXI, Basel 1531. A. Bon, Le problème slave dans le Péloponnèse à la lumière de l’archéologie, Byzantion 20 (1950) 13 – 20. A. Bon, Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu’en 1204, Paris 1951. I. Božić, Grad i selo na zetskom primorju u XV veku, Istorijski glasnik 2 (1973) 63 – 70.

XX J. Bromberg, Toponimical and Historical Miscellanies on Mediaeval Dobrudja, Bessarabia and Moldo-Vallachia, Byzantion 12 (1937) 449 – 475. E. W. Brooks, Arabic Lists of the Byzantine Themes, JHS 21 (1901) 67 – 77. T. S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, Rome 1984. R. Browning, Byzantium & Bulgaria, London 1975. Fr. Bulić, Iscrizioni e rappresentazioni su oggetti di metallo acquistati dal Museo di Spalato negli anni 1895 – 1901, Bolletino di arch. e storia dalmata 24 (1901) 139 – 140. J. B. Bury History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius to the Death of Justinian, vol. II, London 1889. J. B. Bury, The Treatise De administrando imperio, BZ 15 (1906) 517 – 577. J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, London 1911. J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to Acession of Basil I (A.D. 802-867) London 1912. F. Chaladon, Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Ier Comnène, Paris 1900. F. Chalandon, Les Comnènes II, Paris 1912. P. Charanis, Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages, Balkan Studies 11 (1970) 1 – 34. V. Christides, The Conquest of Crete by the Arabs (ca. 824). A Turning Point in the Struggle Between Byzantum and Islam, Athens 1984. A. O. Citarella, The Relations of Amalfi and the Arab World Before the Crusades, Speculum 42/2 (1967) 299 – 312. F. Curta, The Making of the Slavs, Cambridge 2001. S. Ćirković, Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske države, Beograd 1964. S. Ćirković, Vladarski dvori oko jezera na Kosovu, Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 29 (1984) 67 – 83. S. Ćirković, “Naseljeni gradovi” Konstantina Porfirogenita i najstarija teritorijalna organizacija, ZRVI 37 (1998) 9 – 32. S. Ćirković, Hilandarski metoh u Zeti, Hilandarski zbornik 10 (1998) 145 – 151. S. Ćirković, Preci Nemanjini i njihova postojbina, Stefan Nemanja – Sveti Simeon Mirotočivi, istorija i predanje, ed. J. Kalić, Beograd 2000, 21 – 29. V. Ćorović, Spisi sv. Save, Beograd – Sremski Karlovci 1928. V. Ćorović, Pitanje o hronologiji u delima svetog Save, GNČ 49 (1940) 1 – 69. V. Ćorović, Historija Bosne, Beograd 1940. V. Ćorović, Primedbe o Dukljaninovoj Hronici, Scripta minora (unpublished manuscripts), ed. B. Marinković, Valjevo 1998, 76 – 112. V. Čajkanović, Ein frühslavisches Motiv bei den Byzantinern, Revue international d’Études balkaniques 1 (1934) 112 – 116. M. Čanak-Medić, Katedrala svetog Tripuna kao izraz umetničkih prilika u Kotoru sredinom XII veka, ZRVI 36 (1997) 83 – 98. M. Čanak-Medić – Đ. Bošković, Arhitektura Nemanjinog doba, I – II, Beograd 1986, 1989. A. Dabinović, Kada je Dalmacija pala pod jurisdikciju carigradske patrijaršije?, Rad JAZU 239 (1930) 151 – 244. G. Dagron, Empereur et pretre, Paris 1996.

XXI G. R. Davidson, The Minor Objects, Corinth XII, New Jersey 1952. H. Delehaye, Sanctus, Bruxelles 1927. A. Deroko, Crkva sv. Apostola Petra u Bijelom Polju, GSUD 7/8 (1930) 141 – 146. Ch. Diehl, L’origine du régime des thèmes dans l’Empire byzantin, Études byzantines, Paris 1905. M. Dinić, Tri povelje iz spisa Ivana Lučića, ZFF 3 (1955) 68 – 70. M. Dinić, Srpske zemlje u srednjem veku, Beograd 1978. M. Dinić, Zemlje hercega Svetoga Save, Glas SKA 182 (1940) 151 – 257. H. Ditten, Zur Bedeutung der Einwanderung der Slawen, in: Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung des Feudalismus, Berlin 1978, 73 – 160. G. Downey, The Composition of Procopius De aedificiis, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 78 (1947) 171 – 183. I. Dujčev, La versione paleoslava di dialoghi dello Pseudo-Cesario, Medioevo Bizantino-Slavo II, Roma 1968, 191 – 205. F. Dvornik, Les légendes de Constantine et de Méthode vues de Byzance, Prague 1933. I. Đurić, Romejski govor i jezik Konstantina VII Porfirogenita, ZRVI 24/25 (1986) 109 – 137. J. B. Egnatius, De Caesaribus libri III a dictatore Caesare ad Constantinum Palaeologum, hinc à Carolo Magno ad Maximilianum Caesarem, Venetiis 1516. V. von Falkenhausen, Untersuchungen über die byzantinische Herrschaft in Süditalien vom 9. bis ins 11. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden 1967. V. von Falkenhausen, La dominazione biyzantina nell’ Italia meridionale dal IX all’ XI secolo, Bari 1978. B. Ferjančić, Sevastokratori u Vizantiji, ZRVI 11 (1968) 141 – 192. B. Ferjančić, Invasions et installation des slaves dans les Balkans, Actes du colloque organisé par l’Ecole française de Rome, Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin, Rome 12 – 14 mai 1982, Rome 1984, 85 – 108. B. Ferjančić, Dalmacija u spisu De administrando imperio – vrela i putevi saznanja, ZRVI 29/30 (1991) 9 – 21. B. Ferjančić, Dolazak Hrvata i Srba na Balkansko poluostrvo (osvrt na nova tumačenja), ZRVI 35 (1996) 117 – 154. J. Ferluga, Niže vojno-administrativne jedinice tematskog uređenja, ZRVI 2 (1953) 88 – 93. J. Ferluga, Vizantiska uprava u Dalmaciji, Beograd 1957. J. Ferluga, Sur la date de la création du thème de Dyrrachium, Actes du XIIe congrès international d’etudes byzantines, Ochride 10 – 16 septembre 1961, ZRVI 8/2 (1964) 83 – 92. J. Ferluga, Vizantija i postanak najranijih južnoslovenskih država, ZRVI 11 (1968) 55 – 64. V. Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika I, Od osnutka do 1526., Zagreb 1980. J. Gay, L’Italie mérdionale et l’empire byzantin depuis l’avènement de Basile Ier jusqu’à la prise de Bari par les Normands (867 – 1071), Paris 1904. H. Gelzer, Ungerduckte und Wenig bekannte Bistümerverzeichnisse, BZ 2 (1893) 222 – 272. H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung, Leipzig 1899.

XXII T. Gerasimov, Un sceau en plombe de Georges fils du roi Bodine, Studia historicophilologica Serdicensia I, Serdicae 1938, 217 – 218. I. Goldstein, Bizant na Jadranu, Zagreb 1992. I. Goldstein, Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, Zagreb 1995. I. Goschev, Zur Frage der Kronungszeremonien und die zeremonielle Gewandung der byzantinischen und der bulgarischen Herrscher im Mittelalter, ByzantinoBulgarica 2 (1966) 145 – 168. B. Grafenauer, Nekaj vprašanj iz dobe naseljevanja južnih Slovanov I, Zgodovinski časopis 4 (1950) 23 – 126. B. Grafenauer, Prilog kritici Konstantina Porfirogenita o doseljenju Hrvata, HZ 5 (1952) 1 – 56. H. Grégoire, Un nouveau fragment du “Scriptor incerytus de Leone Armenio”, Byzantion 11 (1936) 417 –428. K. Grot, Izvestia Konstantina Bagrùnarodnogo o Serbah i Horvatah, S.-Peterbourg 1880. V. Grumel, L’annexion de l’Illyricum oriental, de la Sicilie et de la Calabre au patriarcat de Constantinople, Recherches de science religieuse 40 (1952) 191 – 200. R. Guilland, Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin, REB 18 (1960) 117 – 133. G. Győrffy, Der Aufstand von Koppány, Studia turcica 1971. J. F. Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians, Bonn 1984. L. Haputmann, Les rapports des Byzantins avec les Slaves et les Avares pendant la seconde moitié du VIe siècle Byzantion 4 (1928) 137 – 170. Historija naroda Jugoslavije I, Zagreb 1953. L. Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn von 1000 bis Heute, München 1979. Istorija naroda Jugoslalvije, I, Beograd 1953. Istorija srpskog naroda, ed. S. Ćirković, Beograd 19942. S.A. Ivanov, Oborona balkanskih provinciy Vizantii i proniknovenie “varvarov” na Balkany v pervoy polovine VI v., VV 45 (1984) 35 – 52. D. F. Jackson, Inventory of the Library of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi, Manuscripta 45/46 (2003) 55 – 77. R. Jenkins, Byzantium, The Imperial Centuries AD 610 – 1071, Toronto 1987. K. Jireček, Istorija Srba I, Beograd 1952. Lj. Jovanović, Prilošci hronologiji života Stevana Nemanje i svetoga Save, Glas SKA 64 (1901) 75 – 107. R. Jurić – S. Sutlović – B. Vilhar, The Early Croatian Boats from Nin, Diadora 18 – 19 (1997) 379 – 394. W. E. Kaegi, Byzantine Military Unrest (471 – 843), Amsterdam 1981. J. Kalić, Crkvene prilike u srpskim zemljama do stvaranja arhiepiskopije 1219. godine, Sava Nemanjić – sveti Sava, istorija i predanje, Beograd 1979, 27 – 53. J. Kalić, Naziv Raška u starijoj srpskoj istoriji (IX – XII), ZFF 14/1 (1979) 79 – 92. J. Kalić, Župan Beloš, ZRVI 36 (1997) 63 – 81.

XXIII J. Kalić, Evropa i Srbi u XII veku, Glas SANU 384 (1998) 95 – 108. J. Karayannopulos – F. Dölger, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, Münich 1968. L. Katić, Saksonac Gottschalk na dvoru kneza Trpimira, Zagreb 1932. R. Katičić, Uz početke hrvatskih početaka, Split 1993. N. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1971. N. Klaić, Srednjovekovna Bosna, Zagreb 1994. V. Klaić, Poviest Bosne do propasti kraljevstva, Zagreb 1882. V. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata I, Zagreb 1899. V. Košćak, Pripadnost istočne obale Jadrana do splitskih sabora 925 – 928, Historijski zbornik 33 – 34 (1981) 291 – 355. J. Kovačević, Arheološki prilog preciziranju hronologije slovenskog naseljavanja Balkana, ANUBIH XII (1969) 57 – 83. Lj. Kovačević, Nekolika pitanja o Stefanu Nemanji; prilog kritici izvora za srpsku istoriju XII veka, Glas SKA 58 (1900) 1 – 106. B. Krekić, Borba Dubrovnika protiv vatre (XIII – XV v.), ZRVI 29/30 (1991) 169 – 182. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Oströmischen Reichs, München 1897. (  )*  +   II – V , -  #./0 V. Laurent, Le thème byzantin de Serbie au XIé siècle, REB 15 (1957) 185 – 195. É. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique des XVe et XVIe siècles I, Paris 1962. P. Lemerle, Philippes et la Macédoine orientale à l’époque chrétienne et byzantine, Paris 1945. P. Lemerle, La chronique improprement dit de Momemvasie: Le contexte historique et légendaire, REB 21 (1963) 5 – 49. J. Leśny, Stefan Zavida als Sohn von Uroš I. und Vater von Stefan Nemanja, Südostforschungen 48 (1989) 37 – 49. Letopis Popa Dukljanina,ed F. Šišić, Beograd 1928. Lexicon linguae Slovenicae veteris dialecti, ed. F. Miklosich, Vindobonae 1850. C. Leyser, The Temptations of Cult: Roman Martyr Piety in the Age of Gregory the Great, EME 9 (2000) 289 – 307. N. Lihačev, Sceau de Stefan Nemanja, Byzantion XI (1936) 461. J. Lindsay, Byzantium into Europe, London 1952. T. C. Lounghis, Sur la date du De thematibus, REB 31 (1973) 299 – 305. T. C. Lounghis, Les ambassades byzantines en Occident depuis la fondation des états barbares jusqu’aux Croisades (407 – 1096), Athens 1980. T. C. Lounghis, 4   *  5 6*7   jussio, Symmeikta 3 (1979) 63 – 82. J. Lučić, O nekim problemima najstarije dubrovačke povijesti, HZ 19 – 20 (1967) 537 – 547. J. Lučić, Dubrovčani na jadranskom prostoru od VII stoljeća do godine 1205, Rad JAZU 369 (1975) 5 – 38. J. Lučić, Povijest Dubrovnika od VII stoljeća do godine 1205, Zagreb 1973, Supplement in: Anali 13 – 14 (1976) 7 – 139. S. Ljubić, Opis jugoslavenskih novaca, Zagreb 1875.

XXIV T. Macan, U povodu istraživanja u dubvrovačkoj katedrali, Dubrovački horizonti 15 (1983) 3 – 11. A. Madgearu, The Province of Scythia and the Avar-Slavic Invasions (576 – 626), Balkan Studies 37/1 (1996) 35 – 61. F. Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni, Budapest 1989. Lj. Maksimović, O vremenu dolaska Neretljana na dalmatinska ostrva, Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta 8/1 (1964) 145 – 152. Lj. Maksimović, O hronologiji slovenskih upada na vizantijsku teritoriju krajem sedamdesetih i početkom osamdesetih godina VI veka, ZRVI 8/2 (1964) 263 – 271. Lj. Maksimović, Severni Ilirik u VI veku, ZRVI 19 (1980) 19 – 57. Lj. Maksimović, Struktura 32. glave spisa De administrando imperio, ZRVI 21 (1982) 25 – 32. Lj. Maksimović, Pokrštavanje Srba i Hrvata, ZRVI 35 (1996) 155 – 174. Lj. Maksimović, Organizacija vizanitjske vlasti u novoosvojenim oblastima posle 1018. godine, ZRVI 36 (1997) 31 – 43. Lj. Maksimović, Srbija i metodi upravljanja Carstvom u XII veku, Stefan Nemanja – Sveti Simeon Mirotočivi, istorija i predanje, Beograd 2000, 55 – 64. V. Makušev, Izsledovania ob istoričeskih pametnikah i betopisatelia Dubrovnika, Sanktpeterburg 1867. Ph. Malingoudis, Aspects of Early Slavic Paganism: The Evidence of PseudoKaisarios, Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis, JR., ed. J. Stanojevich-Allen – C.P. Ioannides – J. S. Langdon – S. W. Reinert, II, New Rochelle – New York 1993, 77 – 86. G. Manojlović, O godini “Prijenosa sv. Anastasije u Zadar”, Zemaljski arkiv 3 (1901) 104 – 113. L. Margetić, Vjerodostojnost vijesti Andrije Dandola o Dalmaciji u XI st., ZRVI 19 (1980) 117 – 146. L. Margetić, “Provincijalni arhonti” Taktikona Uspenskog (s osobitim obzorom na arhonta Dalmacije) ZRVI 29/30 (1991) 45 – 59. A. Maricq, Notes sur les Slaves dans l’Péloponnèse et en Bythynie et sur l’emploi de “Slave” comme appellatif, Byzantion 22 (1952) 337 – 355.  '        - * Symmeikta 5 (1983) 249 – 285. R. A. Markus, Carthage – Prima Justiniana – Ravenna: An Aspect of Justinian’s Kirchenpolitik, Byzantion 49 (1979) 277 – 306. I. Marović, Arheološka istraživanja u okolici Dubrovnika, Anali 4 –5 (1956) 9 – 30. R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, London – NewYork 1993. M. Medini, Starine Dubrovačke, Dubrovnik 1935. S. Mijušković, Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina, Titograd, 1967. N. Miletić, Nakit i oružje IX-XII veka u nekropolama Bosne i Hercegovine, GZMS 18 (1963) 155 – 178. B. Montfaucon, Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum nova II, Parisiis 1739. J. Nešković, Đurđevi Stupovi u starom Rasu, Kraljevo 1984. K. Nikolaević, Kritička pokušennja u periodu od prvih sedam vekova srbske istorie, LMS 110 (1866) 1 – 76.

XXV I. Nikolajević-Stojković, Solinski pečat egzarha Pavla (723 – 726), ZRVI 7 (1961) 61 – 66. N. Nodilo, Prvi ljetopisci i davna historiografija dubrovačka, Rad JAZU 65 (1883) 92 – 128. G. Novak, Povijest Splita I – II, Split 1957. G. Novak, Povijest Dubrovnika I, Od najstarjih vremena do početka VII stoljeća (do propasti Epidauruma), Supplement in: Anali 10 – 11 (1966) 3 – 84. R. Novaković, Kad se rodio i kad je počeo da vlada Stevan Nemanja, IG 3 – 4 (1958) 165 – 192. R. Novaković, O granicama Srbije i srpske države u srednjem veku, ZFF 8/1 (1964) 153 – 181. R. Novaković, Još neka razmišljanja o obimu Srbije IX i X veka, ZFF 10/1 (1968) 141 – 181. R. Novaković, Neka zapažanja o 29. i 30. glavi De administrando imperio, Istorijski časopis 19 (1972) 5 – 54. R. Novaković, Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka, Beograd 1981. S. Novaković, Srpske oblasti X i XII veka, GSUD 48 (1880) 1 – 151. S. Novaković, Zemljište radnje Nemanjine, GNČ 1 (1877) 163 – 243. S. Novaković, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti među balkanskim Slovenima, Beograd, 1893. M. C. Nystazopoulou, Note sur l’Anonyme de Hase improprement appelé toparque de Gothie, BCH 86/1 (1962) 319 – 326. ' 8 9   *  ( : + : 2  7 ; 21

Theophanes I, 398.29 – 30, says that Paul beheaded the monostrategos of the usurper. We

assume that Basil-Tiberius was recognized from both the Italian (Calabrian) and Sicilian army. The monostrategos may be identified with George mentioned in Nikephoros, 55.16. 22

Already underlined by Lounghis, Les ambassades, 275. W. E. Kaegi, Byzantine Military

Unrest (471 – 843), Amsterdam 1981, 211, thinks that Paul carried an imperial letter and orders for the army. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565 – 1453, I – II, ed. F. Dölger, Münich 1924, I, N°s 1, 25, 60, 75, 177, 190, etc., does not distinguish between the verb ) (to order) and the noun  (the order); cf. also J. Karayannopulos – F. Dölger, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, Münich 1968, 91 n. 10 and 115 n. 15. However, it is not clear when the  became a document exclusively related to foreign policy. According to the DAI and De cerimoniis (see above), this may have happened sometime around the middle of the 9th century. It is quite possible that during the 7th and 8th century, this type of document was used for both internal and foreign policy; cf. Malalas, 457.2 ?4   were dispatched to the king of Ethiopia, containing an order to attack the Persians. The same document is understood by Theoph. I, 244.16 as   wrongly placed in the year 571. 23

In fact, according to the source, the term archontes has a several different meanings. In

Theophanes, archontes are Byzantine officers, except in this particular case where the term is used in conjunction with the . H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, Paris 1966, 59 (= Ahrweiler, Mer) believes that in the earliest records the term archontes refers to officers which are at the head of a region. For other meanings of the term archon, see, L. Margetić, Provincijalni arhonti Taktikona Uspenskog (s osobitim obzorom na arhonta Dalmacije) ZRVI 29/30 (1991) 45 – 59 (= Margetić, Provincijalni arhonti); J. Ferluga, Vizantiska uprava u Dalmaciji, Beograd 1957, 50 (= Ferluga, Uprava); Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I – III, ed. A. Kazhdan, Oxford 1991, I, 160 (= ODB). See also, N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et

84

FORGING UNITY

Xe siècles, Paris 1972, 342 – 343 and n. 317 (= Oikonomidès, Les listes); Idem, L’ archonte slave de l’Hellade au VIIIe siècle, VV 55 (1998) 111 – 118 (for more specific cases). 24

Theophanes does not clarify the relations between the rebels in Sicily and the Exarchate of

Ravenna. It seems that Basil-Tiberius controlled both Sicily and Calabria, but we know nothing about any diplomatic efforts towards Rome or Ravenna. Since Sergios escaped to the Longobards, it is quite possible to assume that they played some role in the rebellion, while the hostile relations between the Pope and the Longobards, at the time exclude any support of Rome to the rebels. From the Lib. Pontif. I, 408.13 – 409.3, we know that the Pope did not support the usurper Tiberius Petasius in 728/29, when religious dispute between Rome and Constantinople had already begun. It is, thus likely that the Pope had no reasons to betray the Emperor Leo ten years earlier. For a general survey of the Pope’s attitude towards the Longobards, see T. S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, Rome 1984, 41 – 42, 178 – 181 (= Brown, Gentlemen), and E. Zanini, Le Italie bizantine. Territorio, uinsediamenti ed economia nella provincia bizantina d’Italia (VI – VIII secolo), Bari 1998, 90 – 96. 25

The greatest part of the geographic area covered by these units was still under the spiritual

guidance of the Pope. Since we have no direct information about the relations between the Pope and the rebels of Sicily, we cannot put forth any hypothesis on the attitude of the western provinces towards the rebels or Leo III. However, if our assumption is true, then the western provinces remained most probably faithful to Leo III. 26

According to Ahrweiler, Mer, 24, the Karabisianoi fleet was created in the last quarter of the

th

7 century. Nesbitt – Oikonomidès, Seals II,150, dates the creation of this fleet after 678. At an indefinite date the Karabisianoi was replaced by the theme of Kibyrrhaiotai. Theoph. I, 370.24, mentions a droungarios of the Kibyrrhaiotai in 698, probably under the supreme command of the strategos of Karabisianoi; cf. Nesbitt – Oikonomidès, Seals II, 110, 151. Theoph. I, 353.19 – 23, records Constantine IV’s construction of large biremes and dromones in 671/72 (or 674), which were harboured in the Theodosian harbour of Constantinople; cf. Mango-Scott, Theophanes, 354 n. 4. In 715, during the siege of Constantinople by the rebelling soldiers of the Opsikion and the so-called Graeco-Goths backed by a part of Karabisianoi, the Emperor built a fleet, which was harboured near St. Mamas; cf. Theoph. I, 385.25 – 26; 385.31 – 386.2. From Theoph. I, 385.17 – 19, we learn that after the uprising of the Opsikion, the Karabisianoi fleet was divided in several squadrons, each of them sailing to its own naval base. 27

According to Theoph. I, 405.14 – 24, in 726, the rebelling army of Hellas rose a great fleet

and troops against Leo III. More than two centuries later, the De cerim. 653.15 – 16, informs us that the theme of Hellas had ten dromones with 700 soldiers on board. The same text (De cerim. 653.5; 652.12) records ten dromones for the theme of Samos, seven for the Aegean islands, and 12 for the Kibyrrhaiotai. Therefore, we suppose that the great fleet mentioned by Theophanes, should have consisted of ships of at least two regions: Hellas and the Kyklades, an indication for the reorganization of the fleet after the abolishment of the Karabisianoi, prob-

The Strategos Paul And The Archontes Of The Westerners

85

ably after 718 as Ahrweiler, Mer, 19 sq, has already proposed. In that case, the great fleet of Hellas did not exist by May-July 718, when Paul conducted his mission. 28

Theoph. I, 398.18. When appointed by Justinian II (685 – 695, 705 – 711) as strategos of the

theme of Hellas, Leontios had at his disposal three dromones (Theoph. I, 368.20 – 21), and those were times of peace. 29

Theoph. I, 398.20.

30

Theoph. I, 398.21. Sergios would not be surprised because Paul arrived in Sicily very soon,

since Paul’s journey lasted at lest for two months. Paul set sail in April – May (see above), and the end of the rebellion should be placed in the first half of July (cf. Nikephoros, 56.5 – 7, on events placed after the suppression of the rebellion and the 15th August of the same year). The unusual duration of the journey, which normally lasted no more than three weeks (see below), is probably explained by the fact that Paul sailed from place to place by land and by sea. 31

We exclude from our investigation the Slavs of Hellas or Peloponnesus. The Slavs of

Thessaly and Peloponnesus were subjugated only after 783, and they are not known to have been organized in military contingents. On the other hand, the Slavs settled near Thessalonica were better organized, but they would be more useful for the defence of the East. 32

Pauli historia, 146.16 – 18. The reasons for the choice of the long route remain unknown. R.

Jenkins, Byzantium, The Imperial Centuries AD 610 – 1071, Toronto 1987, 41, supposed that Constance proceeded to an inspection of the fortresses in Greece before departing for Italy. According to the Lib. Pontif. I, 343.6 – 7, Constance arrived in Rome two years after his departure. Theoph. I, 348.4 – 6, dates Constance’s departure from Constantinople in 660/61. 33

Vita Willibaldi episcopi Eichstetensis, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS, XV/1, Hannoverae 1887, 93.

34

Lib. Pontif. I, 390.7 – 12.

35

@. ,?  AB  1 C)/  'C    B/. 1

-- / - 4 DE A FG . -. H> I/- Martin Jesop Price, Athens 1997, 201 (= Athanasopoulou – Penna). 36

Nesbitt – Oikonomidès, Seals II, 22.

37

Travelling by this route would require about three weeks. Cf. Theoph. I, 454.25 – 27: In

February 781 Elpidios was appointed strategos of the theme of Sicily, and in April of the same year Theodore the patrician was sent to remove him. For Theodore sailing directly to Sicily cf. Theoph. I, 455.26 – 28. 38

Theoph. I, 402.37; 403.11,20 – 21; 455.20; 463.26; 472.27; 475.12.

39

Theoph. I, 356.3; 402.24; 449.2; 464.4.

40

Cf. De cerim. 686.3 – 692.2 (about the emperor sending grammata to the rulers of the

Magyars, Russians, Petchenegs, Bulgars or Franks). For the terminology used by the emperor to designate himself in his correspondence with foreign rulers, see G. Ostrogorsky, Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie, Seminarium Kondakovianum 8 (1936) 49 sq., and FB II, 78 n. 291. 41

Theoph. I, 366.2. We assume that Nebulos was already a prominent Slav leader with a title

corresponding to the term archon. On Nebulos’ noble origin, see Nikephoros, 38.13.

86 42

FORGING UNITY

Theoph. I, 436,15. For the dating, see V. N. Zlatarsky, Istorija na Bulgarskata derzava prez

srednite vekove I/1 – I/2, Sofia 1918, 1925, I/1, 221 – 222 (= Zlatarsky, Istorija). 43

Nikephoros, 86.9.

44

Theoph. I, 491.21 – 22.

45

Theoph. I, 473.33. It is interesting to note that Theophanes (I, 275.99) dubs the Slav chief-

tain Peragastus #  , whereas his source, has J    4  ; cf. Simocatta Hist. VII, 5, 253.13. 46

Miracula, II, 4, 217.20; 219.7; but also ! ; cf. Miracula, II, 4, 209.3; 214.19; 218.30 as

well as #  ; cf. Miracula, I, 179.5. DAI I, 29.113: ( '   (of the Serbs, Croats and other Southern Slavs); cf. also DAI I, 30.90; 31.21; 31.43 – 44; 31.58; 32.30; 32.42. Theoph. Cont. 292.6 and 292.11. 47

I. Goldstein, Bizant na Jadranu, Zagreb 1992, 126 (= Goldstein, Bizant). The Slav toponyms

in the Peloponnesus give the same picture. The Slav pirates who plundered the north Aegean islands in the 8th century came from the middle flow of Strymon. 48

The evidence derives from a posterior source, the DAI I, 31.17 – 20. However, information

provided by George of Pisidia (Georgii Pisidiae Restitutio crucis, v. 78 – 81) supports Constantine Porphyrogenetus’ narrative. 49

Theoph. I, 356.2 – 7; Nikephoros, 34.31 – 35.

50

Lounghis, Les ambassades, 122 – 123, thinks that the  7  of the western tribes are

to be identified with the souverains mérovingiens de la Gaule. For the identification with the chieftains of the Slav tribes, FB I, 224 n. 17. 51

DAI I, 32.17 – 20; 32.7 – 27; 32.31 – 32. For the Slav sources of the DAI, see J. B. Bury, The

Treatise De administrando imperio, BZ 15 (1906) 539. L. Waldmüller, Die Ersten Begegnungen der Slawen mit der Christentum und den christlichen Völkern vom VI. bis VIII. Jh., Amsterdam 1976, 308 and n. 314, believes that the information about the Slavs is drawn from the imperial archives. 52

On this text, see T. Živković, O prvim poglavljima Letopisa Popa Dukljanina, IČ 44 (1998)

11 – 34. 53

Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina, ed. V. Mošin, Zagreb 1950, 44 (= Ljetopis).

54

Ljetopis, 44 – 47.

55

Ljetopis, 47. The reign of the four bad kings in the Chronicle is not recorded in the 10th cen-

tury the DAI, which does not know any Serb ruler until the very end of the 8th century. 56

: AB, 314, 388.

57

Miracula, II, 5, 229.9 – 12.

58

On the country of the Dragoubitai, see H. Ditten, Zur Bedeutung der Einwanderung der

Slawen, in: Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung des Feudalismus, Berlin 1978, 99 and n. 4; cf. Miracula (commentary) 89 and n. 112 – 113. 59

Miracula, II, 5, 231.6 – 8; 232.23 – 25.

60

Illyricum sacrum, ed. D. Farlati, Venetiis 1769, IV, 306 – 307 (= Illyr. sacr.); cf. Goldstein,

Bizant, 93 n. 608.

The Strategos Paul And The Archontes Of The Westerners 61

87

On this seal, now lost, see: Fr. Bulić, Iscrizioni e rappresentazioni su oggetti di metallo

acquistati dal Museo di Spalato negli anni 1895 – 1901, Bolletino di arch. e storia dalmata 24 (1901) 139 – 140, and I. Nikolajević-Stojković, Solinski pečat egzarha Pavla (723 – 726), ZRVI 7 (1961) 61 – 66. On cruciform monograms, see N. Oikonomidès, A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, Washington 1986, N° 26. 62

Sigillographie, 515.

63

Lib. Pontif. I, 403 sq. On the identification of Paul exarchos with Paul, patrikios and strate-

gos of Sicily, see Brown, Gentlemen, 65; Nikolajević-Stojković, op. cit. 62. Lounghis, Les ambassades, 130, thinks that they were two distinct persons. 64

De them., 9.35 – 36.

65

On the borders of these Slav principalities, see DAI I, 30.94 – 119.

66

For these places, see, FB II, 59 – 65.

67

Theoph. Cont. 291.8 – 10.

VI

ON THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE THEME OF PELOPONNESUS

Before we try to set up a hypothesis about the date of the creation of the theme of Peloponnesus, let us emphasize one crucial point. We have to bear in mind that the earliest themes were created as the result of a particular policy towards external enemies of the Empire. In the case of the themes in Asia Minor, this policy was caused by the Persian threat. In the case of Thrace, it was the Bulgarian danger. However, later on, especially in the Balkans, the creation of themes crowned the efforts of the Byzantine government to strengthen its hold on the territories obtained or regained through the wars with the Bulgarians or the Slav tribes. The object of this chapter will not be the question of Byzantine rule in the Peloponnesus, during the 7th and 8th centuries, since we would be forced to speak about the time, nature and character of the Slav settlement, rather than about the question of thematic rule. However, some events, which took place during the 8th century, and concern Byzantine rule in the Peloponnesus, will be mentioned and explained. There is a well established opinion among scholars that the theme of Peloponnesus has been created between 783 and 812, and although we have no new evidence, derived either from written or archaeological sources, it is possible, to regroup and reconsider the existing evidence, and place this event in a much shorter time span.1 It is a well-known fact that thematic organization in the European parts of the Empire was not in place before the very end of the 7th century. The statement of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in De thematibus, places the time

90

FORGING UNITY

of the creation of the theme of Thrace around 680, and connects it to the Bulgarian danger.2 The second theme, Hellas, was created a few years later, between 687 and 695, because we know from Theophanes that Leontius was appointed strategos of Hellas before dethroning Justinian II (685 – 695; 705 – 711).3 That should be a terminus post quem non. On the other hand, in 687, Justinian sent a synodic letter to Pope Conon II, in which he mentioned the military commanders gathered at that time in the imperial palace.4 Since we do not read the name of the strategos of Hellas, the year 687 should be the terminus ante quem non. However, there is some doubt about this letter to Pope Conon II. We cannot be completely sure that Justinian’s intention was to mention all the strategoi or just those who were present at that time in Constantinople. Observing the policy of Justinian II toward the Sclavenias in Macedonia,5 and his large-scale resettlement of the Slavs in Asia Minor,6 and probably from the west of Thessalonica (Dragoubitai) to the lower reaches of the Strymon,7 we get a strong impression that Justinian II planned to reorganize large portions of the territory of what is today Greece. His plans were interrupted by a military disaster on his way home, when the Bulgarians utterly destroyed his army while he himself narrowly escaped death.8 All these events took place in 688/89. Then, in the years that followed, Justinian II planned the war against the Arabs, placing his hopes, unfortunately for him, in the hands of 30, 000 Slav soldiers.9 After a heavy defeat at Sebastopolis, the Emperor ruled three more years, and then his first reign was ended by the usurpation of Leontius. As mentioned above, the Arabs defeated the Emperor in 692; thus, he could turn again his attention toward the Slavs or, better, toward Europe. In spite of these plans, having learnt his lesson from the previous campaigns, he would probably have decided to create a theme in Hellas, with the remains of the Byzantine possessions in central Greece under one military governor, i.e. the strategos. In this way, he would have naval and ground troops at his disposal for the renewed offensive against the Slavs. In that case, we can assume that the Emperor planned to reach Thessalonica and then Hellas by the sea route, with the clear intention of avoiding a possible Bulgarian surprise. Having in mind the additional taxation in 693/94, raised by Theodotus, minister of finance, we

On The Date Of The Creation Of The Theme Of Peloponnesus

91

would conclude that it could be connected with some large-scale military preparations,10 besides the building activities in Constantinople.11 In accordance with this theory, we could place the creation of the theme of Hellas between 693 and 695. However, we know that Leontius was persona non grata at the court. Naming him as the strategos of Hellas for the purpose of renewed offensive against the Slavs of Greece does not seem likely. Having this in mind, we would propose that if Justinian II created the theme of Hellas, it could have happened during his stay in Thessalonica in 688/89 and be connected with the Emperor’s policy toward the Slavs and his intention of subjugating their tribes settled between Thessalonica and Thermopylae. Since we know with certainty that the theme of Hellas already existed in 695, we have to ask ourselves which parts of Greece this theme covered. Its northern border can be traced more or less with certainty. The Slav tribe of the Velegezitai, living around Demetrias and Thebes (Phthiotis) around the Gulf of Volos,12 probably blocked Byzantine rule to the north of this line. To the west, the border did not reach the distant Nicopolis, probably ending somewhere in, or immediately behind, Beotia. Attica and Euboea are the two most certain parts of this theme; but the problem is its southern border. There are two general points of view on how the theme of Peloponnesus has been created. According to the first, it was created independently of the theme of Hellas.13 According to the second, the theme of Peloponnesus emerged from the theme of Hellas.14 If we want to give an answer about the date of the creation of the theme of Peloponnesus, we should first accept one of these theories. There is, of course, a third opinion, according to which, both the theme of Hellas and the theme of Peloponnesus emerged as results of the division of the large naval-military district of Karabisianoi.15 The great English scholar J. B. Bury supposed long ago that the theme of Peloponnesus was initially a tourma of the theme of Hellas, and was later separated from it and upgraded into a theme.16 For a long time this opinion prevailed, until George Ostrogorsky, another great name in modern Byzantology, proposed that the Peloponnesus was never a part of the theme of Hellas.17 Another supporter of the third theory was also a great scholar, Peter Charanis. His theory is neutral, allowing for the independent creation of both themes out

92

FORGING UNITY

of one large district, which presumably had a naval character. Later, in 949, there is a mention of tourmarches of the shore (of Peloponnesus?), which could be a relic of the maritime background of the theme.18 G. Ostrogorsky believed that the Byzantine Empire had a very strict order in the ranking of thematic officials. According to him, when a theme was divided, the new unit would be placed below the mother theme in official lists.19 In this way, for instance, the themes of Thrakesion and Cappadoce emerged by division of Anatolikon, and come in all preserved Taktika below it. In addition, the themes of Bukelarion and Optimaton emerged from Opsikion, and also come below it.20 However, G. Ostrogorsky did not propose a definite answer. Why then, if we accept this point of view, does the theme of Peloponnesus come before Hellas in all the preserved Taktika (Uspenskij, Benešević, Philotheos and Escorial)? If Hellas is older than the Peloponnesus, how could it be possible that the strategos of Peloponnesus ranks before his colleague of Hellas?21 Obviously, we have to re-examine the theory about the mother theme and the newborn theme at least for its validity for the themes in the European part of the Empire. It is indisputable that this theory works well in many other examples, especially in the eastern part of the Empire. In the western part, however, there are some exceptions. For instance, the theme of Dalmatia, created in the middle of the 9th century, is seven places below Longobardia (899), but in the Taktikon Benešević (934 – 944) it is two places above the theme of Longobardia.22 A plausible explanation is that the theme of Dalmatia played a minor role in 899 in comparison with Longobardia, but became much more important in 934 – 944, because of Byzantine losses in Italy. Another example is the theme of Nicopolis, which appears in all Taktika before Hellas.23 Furthermore, the theme of Nicopolis was created in the middle of the 9th century and was never a part either of Peloponnesus or of Hellas.24 However, strategically, as it faced Italy to the west and also faced potential Arab threats, it had a more prominent military and naval position than Hellas. Exactly the same principle could be applied to the Peloponnesus and its military importance towards the west. So, which principle of ranking of themes was followed in Byzantium during the 8th and 9th centuries? Our impression is that the order of appearance of the themes in the Taktika actually shows how the Byzantines judged the

On The Date Of The Creation Of The Theme Of Peloponnesus

93

military and strategic importance of the themes, and not only their date of creation. Probably the best example would be De thematibus, written by Emperor Constantine VII, who also wrote De cerimoniis. Since he allowed himself to enumerate the themes in geographical order, counting from east to west, Thrace, Macedonia, Strymon, Thessalonica, Hellas, Peloponnesus, Cephalonia, Nicopolis, Dyrrachium,25 it is obvious that we cannot stick so firmly to the theory of mother and newborn themes. We would now turn out attention towards the second opinion – the Peloponnesus being a part of Hellas? Since we know of representatives of the Byzantine administration in Argos, Troizen, Corinth and Monembasia, during the 7th and 8th centuries,26 we have to accept that the Peloponnesus was part of the theme of Hellas.27 Now, the question is when were they separated from each other?28 The most commonly proposed date for the creation of the theme of Peloponnesus is between 784 and 805, rarely 806 – 812. These opinions are based on four sources – the Chronicle of Monembasia, the De administrando imperio – Chapter 49, the Scholion of Arethas, and Theophanes’ Chronographia. Now we will summarise their contents. The Chronicle of Monembasia (CM) or better, Chronicle of the Metropolis of Patras, speaks about ecclesiastical reorganization in the largest portion of Peloponnesus, including the building of churches.29 It reflects an oral tradition, which had roots in the ecclesiastical circles of Patras. However, the striking fact in this narrative is that the strategos was regularly sent to the Peloponnesus by the Emperor. Then, one of these strategoi, of the family of Skleros, defeated some Slavs and subjugated them, sending the good news to the Emperor Nicephoros I. On hearing this, the Emperor started reorganising the Church and rebuilding the towns – Patras and Sparta – and repopulating them. All these events, according to CM, took place during the patriarchate of Tarasios, who died, as is well established, in February 806.30 In our opinion, here we find only the information that a strategos already existed during the third year of the reign of Nicephoros I,31 i.e. in 804. On the other hand, Arethas also mentions a strategos of Peloponnesus, his victory over the Slavs, and the rebuilding of Patras in the fourth year of

94

FORGING UNITY

Nicephoros’ rule – (i.e. 805). Both accounts speak only about Achaia, not at all about the whole of the Peloponnesus. When we add a third source, the DAI, which speaks about the uprising of the Slavs of Achaia, we can see that a strategos also existed in the Peloponnesus during the rule of Nicephoros. Since Nicephoros I spent the first half of his rule fighting Arabs in the East, not even making an effort to respond to a Frankish proposal for peace in 803, it does not seem likely that he undertook administrative and military action in the Peloponnesus. For us, all three of these sources speak about two different events. First, Arethas and CM speak about a military campaign of the strategos of the Peloponnesus towards Achaia; the second, De administrando imperio, speaks about the uprising of the Peloponnesian Slavs in Achaia.32 Furthermore, the next time we hear about the Milingoi and the Ezeritai, around 839 – 842, we can see that they were already subjugated to the Empire.33 Therefore, the campaign of Scleros was also conducted against Laconia, and probably Arcadia. This interpretation goes along with the report of CM about the rebuilding of Sparta. To conclude, it is unlikely that Nicephoros I created the theme of the Peloponnesus. On the contrary, CM, DAI, and Arethas say that a strategos of the Peloponnesus already existed during the rule of Nicephoros I. How effective this rule was until the victory of 804/05 and which territories he governed, is another question. Since we have eliminated the possibility that the theme of Peloponnesus was created during the rule of Nicephoros, let us examine the period between 783 and 802. Theophanes speaks, in his very short account, about the military campaign of the logothete Stauracius in 783, probably during the spring, summer and autumn. The logothete proceeded toward Hellas, subjugating Slav tribes, and then attacked the Slavs of the Peloponnesus, taking many prisoners and a large booty.34 The importance of his victories is underlined because he held a triumph in the hippodrome of the capital (February 784).35 Since Theophanes is usually not interested in administrative changes, he does not give any more information about this expedition. However, later, writing about the Velegezitai and their chieftain Akamir, he shows that one result of Stauracius’ campaign was the subjugation of these Slavs, and their

On The Date Of The Creation Of The Theme Of Peloponnesus

95

administrative incorporation within the theme of Hellas.36 This means that after 783 the theme of Hellas extended its borders to the north, towards Thessaly.37 After a long time, the jurisdiction of the strategos of Hellas passed the natural border of Thermopylae. Did this happen immediately after the campaign of 783, or some time later? Some eastern sources also speak of the campaign of Stauracius. Michael the Syrian says that Stauracius attacked the Arabs in the Peloponnesus, defeated them, took booty (sheep and camels), and established garrisons there. Michael’s information is also preserved in Barhebreus,38 with the same distortion. Instead of Slavs, both sources speak of Arabs. The information about the garrison which Stauracius left there is important. If we check his route from Constantinople to the Peloponnesus, it seems quite possible and necessary that he had to leave some forces behind him before going back home. If this is correct, why not in the Peloponnesus too? However, establishing a garrison does not prove that a theme was created. It could be just the beginning of such a process. A very important question is why this campaign was conducted. How does it fit in the foreign policy of Irene? Should we see it in the context of the eastern or the western policy? Since the Peloponnesus did not play any part in the eastern policy before the fall of Crete to the hands of the Arabs in 824/27,39 we would prefer the western policy.40 However, the creation of a particular theme must be observed in the context of the state’s general policy. When Irene began her rule in 780, the very first thing she did was to send the strategos Elpidios to Sicily (February 781).41 Then, since she heard that Elpidios was involved in a plot, she sent Theophilos to remove Elpidios and arrest him.42 During the same year, she had some success against Arabs.43 The achievements in the East were overshadowed by the, now open, rebellion of Elpidios. The importance of Sicily grew after 774, when the Franks crushed the Longobard kingdom and entered Italy with the support of The Holy See.44 Close to Sicily, were the remnants of Byzantine rule in Calabria; the Duchy of Benevento, ruled by Arches, son-in-law of the last Lombard king, Desiderius, was a tiny buffer state between Byzantium and Charlemagne. In spite of the Frankish threat, it is clear why Irene’s first steps as a ruler were made towards Italy.

96

FORGING UNITY

The next step of Charlemagne was to proclaim his son Pippin as the king of Italy in 781. Then Irene tried some diplomacy. Before May 782, she sent an embassy with proposals to the Franks.45 She asked for the hand of Rothrud, the daughter of the Frankish ruler, for her son Constantine VI.46 After the betrothal had been arranged, both sides gained more time for further plans. However, Sicily was still rebellious, and, during the same year, Irene sent a strong fleet under the command of Theodore to remove Elpidios. Finally, Sicily has been secured, and Elpidios escaped to the Arabs in Africa. In the East, however, the Arabs defeated Stauracius, and peace was concluded.47 This peace lasted until 786. Free from the Arab danger, and temporarily removing the threat of the Franks by the betrothal, Irene was capable to pay much more attention to the European parts of the Empire, much closer to Constantinople. We do not believe that her policy towards the Slavs was just a picnic, as W. Treadgold understood it, but rather a well-planned action.48 It becomes clear that this action was serious if we see the length of the land route followed by Stauracius. The campaign lasted at least over half a year, during which Stauracius subdued the Slavs in Macedonia and Hellas.49 His attack on the Peloponnesus was not accidental, but it was rather a part of the plan made in Constantinople before his departure. As we learn from Theophanes, later in 799, and the action against Akamir and the Velegezitai, it is clear that Slav tribes had been incorporated into the theme of Hellas. Between 784 and 787, Irene made preparations for the re-introduction of icon worshipping.50 This was a very important question. The Holy See gave support to the Franks, and the only way that she could regain some ground in Rome was if she was to finish with iconoclasm. Irene took great a risk. She confronted almost the entire eastern army and other powerful elements of the Capital. In her first attempt, she failed (786), but a year later the Council of Nicaea was held, and the restoration of the icons took place. The policy toward the Holy See seemed to have been fruitful. Then, Charlemagne reacted. Before the Council, Irene had sent an embassy asking again about the planned marriage between Rothrud and Constantine VI, with a clear intention of discovering what was actually in the mind of the Frankish king.51 The answer was neutral, and both sides knew very well that a conflict was in the air.

On The Date Of The Creation Of The Theme Of Peloponnesus

97

The Frankish king was illiterate, but definitely had a great gift for politics. Recognizing that the policy of Irene toward the Holy See and Benevento would damage his interests, he attacked Benevento in 786/87, and forced Arches to recognise him as his sovereign.52 The Duke of Benevento sent an embassy to Irene in 787, but when this embassy reached Constantinople, the old Duke has already died, on the 26th of August 787. However, an agreement was reached. If Byzantium wanted to remove the Franks from Italy, Benevento would be a useful ally. Learning of this from Pope Hadrian, Charlemagne did not want to establish the son of Arches immediately as the Duke.53 Finally, in the spring of 788, he established the second son of Arches, Grimoald, as the Duke of Benevento, since the older one, Romuald, also died, almost at the same time as his father. This was under the following conditions: all documents issued by the Duke had to be countersigned by Charlemagne, coins had to have Charlemagne’s image and, most important for us, the Duke had to forbid his citizens to wear beards. Here it is clear that Charlemagne was afraid of Byzantine influence.54 Therefore, when Charlemagne established Grimoald as his vassal in spring of 788, it became obvious that diplomacy could not stop the Franks. Therefore, from the moment when Benevento became a vassal state of the Franks, Irene could start her military preparations. In the autumn, she broke the betrothal, and, in November, Constantine was married to Maria of Armenia.55 Then, the Empress sent to Italy the eunuch John at the head of an army, the same eunuch who had been successful against the Arabs in 781. Along with John, Irene sent Theodatus, son of the last Lombard king, Desiderius, and natural heir to the throne of Lombardy.56 However, this expedition failed and John was killed. Benevento stayed under the Frankish influence.57 In that year, all western policy, conducted between 781 and 789, although carefully planned, including the reorganization of the European possessions of the Empire, the reinstatement of the icons, and diplomatic buying of time, fell into ruins. In 790, Stauracius, the real architect of the Empire, was removed from office and Constantine seized power.58 After the removal of Stauracius, we do not see anyone, who could take serious measures in the sense of administrative and military changes. All that was done during the reign of Irene was done during the time when he was logothete, as Theophanes remarked refer-

98

FORGING UNITY

ring to the year 789/90 – everything was in his (i.e. Staurakios’) hand (   ).59 The sole rule of Constantine VI is just a list of failures against the Arabs, as well as against the Bulgarians, with some sporadic small-scale victories. After Irene took power again in 797, all energy was spent between the rival factions at the court, those of Stauracius, Aetius and Nicetas.60 Certainly, one could ask what the creation of the theme of Peloponnesus meant in practical terms. Did Irene expect to get soldiers, a fleet, or logistic support for the war in Italy? If we observe the sources of the 9th century, we can see that the Peloponnesus is mentioned only in the context of Italian military affairs. In 880, an army of the protovestiarios Procopius, sent to Calabria, also had troops from the theme of Peloponnesus.61 On the other hand, the Byzantine admiral Nasar sailed to Methone during the naval operations against the Arabs around 873/74.62 In the 10th century, according to the DAI, cavalry units of the theme of Peloponnesus had the obligation to participate in the military campaign in Italy.63 But it seems that the troops of the Peloponnesus have never been used in the East. Therefore, Irene could expect that the Peloponnesus would yield troops, a fleet, and give logistic support for the war in Italy. It appears that this logistic support was the main point during the first years of the existence of the theme of Peloponnesus.64 We can conclude that there is a much greater probability that the theme of Peloponnesus was created between 784 and 788. In 784 Irene made a famous trip to Thrace and Macedonia, rebuilding Berrhoe (Stara Zagora), Anchialos and Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv). It was the logical exploitation of Stauracius’ successes. Later on, especially when it became clear that the war with the Franks was on its way (i.e. after the spring of 788, when Grimoald became the vassal of the Franks, or, more probably, already in the late autumn of 786 or spring 787, when Charlemagne attacked Benevento), the re-organization of the western part of the Empire occurred. Therefore, it is more likely that the theme of Peloponnesus was created between the spring of 786 and winter 788. It was a process which began in 784, and ended before the expedition of the eunuch John in late 788. Then, the definite subjugation of the still independent Slav tribes was carried out by 805, and with the forces

On The Date Of The Creation Of The Theme Of Peloponnesus

99

of the theme of Peloponnesus. The CM and Arethas actually speak of this last stage of subjugation, while Porphyrogenetus speaks about the Slav uprising which occurred later, probably in 811.65

100

FORGING UNITY

NOTES 1

G. Ostrogorsky, Postanak tema Helada i Peloponez, ZRVI 1 (1952) 73 ( = Ostrogorsky, Postanak), put the creation of the theme of Peloponnesus between 783 and 805; similarly, Weithmann, Politische, 18 (after 784); Idem, Die Slavische Bevölkerung auf der Griechischen Halbinsel, München 1978, 122 (between 784 and 804/805); P. A. Yannopoulos, La pénétration slave en Argolide, BCH, Supplément VI, Études Argiennes, 1980, 371 (before 806); A. Bon, Le problème slave dans le Péloponnèse à la lumière de l’archéologie, Byzantion 20 (1950) 14, thinks that the theme of Peloponnesus was created before 812; Idem, Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu’en 1204, Paris 1951, 46 (between 802 and 812). Also, D. Zakythinos, Le thème de Céphalonie et la défense de l’occident, L’Hellénisme Contemporain 3 – 4 (1954) 310, (= Zakythinos, Céphalonie), 802 – 812; W. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival 780 – 842, Stanford 1988, 136 (= Treadgold, Revival), 809/810. Nesbitt –Oikonomides, Seals II, No 2.22 (last decade of the 8th century). Same opinion: D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, London 1971, 77. The original point of view on the date of the creation of the theme of Peloponnesus expressed by A. Stavridou-Zafraka, Slav Invasions and Theme Organization in the Balkan Peninsula, Byzantiaka 12 (1992) 172, that Peloponnesus was a theme before the military campaign of Staurakios in 783, and consisted of the eastern part of the Peloponnesus with Corinth as the capital, is not sufficiently supported by the sources. 2

De them. 84.5 – 11.

3

Theoph. I, 368.15 – 369.26.

4

In this letter the Emperor mentioned his collegiis popularibus, commanders of armies of Opsikion,

Anatolicon, Thrace, Armeniacon, Italy, Cabarisiani (Carabisiani?), Sardinia (sic!), Africa, being at that time gathered in the imperial palace – i.e. ad hoc; cf. Mansi XI, col. 737. Pertusi, De them. 110, proposed that it should be written Carabisiani instead of Cabarisiani; N. Oikonomidès, Une liste arabe des stratègos byzantins du VIIe siècle et les origines du thème de Sicile, Documents et études sur les institutions de Byzance (VIIe – XVe s.), London 1976, VII, 121 – 130 (= Oikonomidès, Stratègos). This opinion is mostly accepted: cf. Nesbitt – Oikonomides, Seals II, 150 – 151. 5

Theoph. I, 365.11 – 14. This offensive was directed against the Slavs of Strymon.

6

Theoph. I, 364.14 – 15.

7

De them. 89. This conclusion follows the story about the creation of the kleisoura of Strymon.

8

Theoph. I, 364.15 – 18.

9

Theoph. I, 365.30 – 366.20.

10

Theoph. I, 367.23 – 27.

11

Theoph. I, 367.12 – 14; 368.9 – 11.

12

Miracula, II, 4, 214.11 – 12.

13

Ostrogorsky, Postanak, 67.

14

Bury, History II, 350 – 351. Bury believed that the theme of Hellas had at least two tourmas,

Hellas and Peloponnesus, and, maybe, a third which should be Epirus or Nicopolis.

On The Date Of The Creation Of The Theme Of Peloponnesus 15

101

P. Charanis, Observations on the History of Greece During the Early Middle Ages, Balkan Studies 11

(1970) 10 – 11, thought that the theme of Karabisianoi embraced the southern and southeast shores of Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, the shores of Greece, Crete and the eastern shore of the Peloponnesus. 16

Ch. Diehl, L’origine du régime des thèmes dans l’Empire byzantin, Études byzantines, Paris

1905, 284, beleived that the theme of Hellas also comprised Thessaly and the lands on the shores of the Ionian Sea. F. Dvornik, Les légendes de Constantine et de Méthode vues de Byzance, Prague 1933, 12, adopted Diehl’s point of view adding to the theme of Hellas, the Ionian islands – Cephalonia and Zakynthos. 17

According to Ostrogorsky, Postanak, 68, the theme of Hellas consisted only of Attica and Euboea.

18

De cerim. 665.18 – 19. Namely, during the preparation for the expedition against the Arabs of Crete,

in 949, we find mention of      ; cf. Nesbitt – Oikonomides, Seals II, 62. 19

Ostrogorsky, Postanak, 69.

20

Oikonomidès, Les listes, 49, 137 – 139, 245 – 247, 263 – 267.

21

Oikonomidès, Les listes, 49.11; 49.13; 105.12; 105.15; 265.23; 265.8. Ostrogorsky, Postanak,

70, thought that an important fact in support of his hypothesis that the Peloponnesus and Nicopolis had never been tourmas of the theme of Hellas is the order of their appearance in the Taktika – always before the theme of Hellas. On the other hand, he did not answer the question of what the Peloponnesus was in an administrative sense before the creation of the theme. 22

Oikonomidès, Les listes, 247.29 – 30.

23

In the Taktikon Uspenskij (842 – 843) there is no theme of Nicopolis (Oikonomidès, Les listes,

49) but in Philotheos Nicopolis comes immediately after the Peloponnesus and two places before the theme of Hellas; cf. Oikonomidès, Les listes, 139.8 – 10. The Taktikon Benešević keeps the same order of appearance of these themes; cf. Oikonomidès, Les listes, 247.19 – 21. In the Escorial Taktikon, Nicopolis also comes before Hellas, but here they are separated not only by the usual theme of Kibyrrhaiotai, but also by Cyprus and Crete; cf. Oikonomidès, Les listes, 265.24 – 28. 24

De them. 176; Ostrogorsky, Postanak, 70.

25

De them. 86 – 94.

26

Anthony, bishop of Troizen was among those who attended the 7th Ecumenical Council in

787; cf. Mansi XII, col. 1099. Also well known is the seal of an ek prosopou of Troizen; cf. Nesbitt – Oikonomides, Seals II, 2.35.1, dated to the 8/9th century. Among the participants of the 6th Ecumenical Council in 680/681, was John, the Bishop of Argos; cf. Mansi XI, col. 646. But probably the most important proof of the existence of imperial rule and, in some way, developed economic life, is the seal of Theophylactus, kommerkiarios of the Peloponnesus; cf. Nesbitt – Oikonomides, Seals II, No 2.22.14, dated to the 8th – 9th century. Also, note the seals of Nicetas, hypatos and epoptes of the Peloponnesus, dated to the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th century; cf. Nesbitt – Oikonomides, Seals II, No 2.22.8. 27

Theoph. I, 405.17 – 18, mentions in 726 Agalianos, tourmarchos of the Helladikoi. Since we

know that the theme of Hellas existed at least from 695, it follows that it had at least two tourmarchoi – one in Hellas proper (Attica, Euboea), and the other in the Peloponnesus.

102

FORGING UNITY

28

Miracula, II, 5, 230.27 – 233.26.

29

P. Lemerle, La chronique improprement dit de Momemvasie: Le contexte historique et légendaire,

REB 21 (1963) 9 – 11 (= Chronique). According to this source, ecclesiastical reorganization took place in Achaia and Laconia. 30

Theoph. I, 481.15 – 16.

31

This was already pointed out by Ostrogorsky, Postanak, 72.

32

Ostrogorsky, Postanak, 72, believed that the DAI, CM, and Arethas, speak about the same event.

33

DAI I, 50.6 – 7.

34

Theoph. I, 456.25 – 457.2.

35

Theoph. I, 457.4 – 6.

36

Theoph. I, 473.32 – 474.4.

37

On the contrary, Treadgold, Revival, 73, thinks that the boundaries of the theme of Hellas

remained essentially the same. 38

Bar-Hebreus, ed. W. Budge, London 1932, 120: Stauricius dux Romanorum Peloponnesum ador-

tus est, quae dudum Arabum fuerat, eaque potitus est. Praesidio illuc collocato abiit, postquam ingentem captivorum copiam, oves, gregesque equorum et camelorum inde deduxerat. BarHebraeus was born in Melitene in 1225 and died in Maraga, Azerbaijan, 30. VII 1286; Michael le Syrien Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166 – 1199), I-III, ed. J. B. Chabot, Paris 1905, III, 13. 39

According to V. Christides, The Conquest of Crete by the Arabs (ca. 824). A Turning Point

in the Struggle Between Byzantum and Islam, Athens 1984, map. 11, Arab attacks on Cephalonia or Patras and Methone should be placed between 867 and 886. Christides also assumes that the Arabic attack on Patras occurred in 805 or 807. 40

N. Oikonomidès, Constantin VII Porphyrogénète et les thèmes de Céphalonie et Longobardie,

REB 23 (1965) 118 – 123, asked himself the same question concerning the problem of the creation of the theme of Cephalonia. He concluded that this theme was created firstly because of the Frankish danger and secondly owing to the Arab threat. 41

Theoph. I, 454.25 – 27.

42

Theoph. I, 454.29 – 31.

43

Theoph. I, 455.2 – 5.

44

For the relations between Byzantium and Charlemagne see: J. Gay, L’Italie mérdionale et

l’empire byzantin depuis l’avènement de Basile Ier jusqu’à la prise de Bari par les Normands (867 – 1071), Paris 1904, 34 – 39; C. N. Tsirpanlis, Byzantine Reactions to the Coronation of Charlemagne 780 – 813, Byzantina 6 (1974) 347 – 383; V. von Falkenhausen, La dominazione biyzantina nell’ Italia meridionale dal IX all’ XI secolo, Bari 1978, 13 – 16; Lounghis, Les ambassades, 153 – 156. 45

Annales Mosellani a. 704 – 797, ed. I. M. Lappenberg, MGH SS XVI, ed. G. H. Pertz,

Hannover 1859, 497.15 – 16, mentions this embassy under the year 781; cf. Lounghis, Les ambassades, 153. 46

Theoph. I, 455.19 – 25.

On The Date Of The Creation Of The Theme Of Peloponnesus

103

47

Theoph. I, 456.15 – 22.

48

Treadgold, Revival, 71 – 72.

49

Treadgold, Revival, 72, thinks that the campaign lasted at least five months.

50

As of 784 Irene started preparations for the Council, and sent a letter to the Pope, inviting his

representatives; cf. Mansi XII, col. 984 – 986. 51

Einh. 169.39 – 42, says, under the year 786: Ipse post haec cum legatis Constantini impera-

toris, qui propter petendam filiam suam ad se missi fuerant, locutus est, atque illis dimissis Romam reversus sanctum paschale festum magna cum hilaritate celebravit. It seems that the embassy from Byzantium reached Italy at the very end of the year 786. 52

Einh. 350.17 – 19, we learn that in October 787 Charlemagne was marching against

Benevento. Also, according to the same source, when the Frankish king arrived in Capua: Grimaltum filium Aragisi (Arches) ducis Beneventanorum in obsidatum accepit. Hruodtrudis (Rotrhud) filia regis a Constantino imperatore desponsatur. R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, London – New York 1993, 69, places this campaign of the Franks against Arches in 787/88. It seems that a better solution would be in 786/87. Also, Annales Laurissenses a. 741 – 801, MGH SS I, 168, 170, put Charlemagne’s campaign against Benevento and the submission of Arches in 787. 53

Codex Carolinus, MGH Epistolae III, ed. W. Gundlich, Berolini 1892, 83, 617 – 618.

54

Gay, op. cit. 38. Lounghis, Les ambassades, 154 – 155.

55

Theoph. I, 463.21 – 28. McKitterick, op. cit. 70, thinks that the breaking off of the betrothal

had already occurred in 787. 56

Gay, op. cit. 14 – 15, thought that this expedition was conducted in 788; Falkenhausen, op.

cit. 16 is of the same opinion. It is better if we put this expedition between December 788 and spring 789, since the definitive break in Frankish-Byzantine relations happened in October 788 and was sealed by the marriage of Constantine VI in November of the same year. 57

Theoph. I, 464.2 – 8. Einh. 350.21 – 22, sub. a. 788; Ann. Lauriss., 174.1 – 5, sub. a. 788.

According to Ann. Lauriss., Benevento sided with the Franks. Furthermore, it is narrated as if the conflict occurred between Graecos et Langobardos, id est duce Spolotino nomine Hildebrando, seu duce Grimoaldo...et fuit missus Wineghisos una cum paucis Francis. From there it follows that the Franks had a very small detachment in the allied army. 58

Theoph. I, 466.26 – 28.

59

Theoph. I, 464.19 – 20.

60

Theoph. I, 474.13 – 20. It should be emphasized that a follis of Constantine the VIth and

Irene (780 – 790) was discovered at Hagios Phloros near Messine on the road connecting Messine and Vulkano in Arcadia. See B. Athanasopoulou-Penna, 201, 261. 61

Georg. Monachus Cont. 845.6 – 11 mentions the strategos of the Peloponnesus in the con-

text of a military expedition against the Arabs in Italy. 62

Theoph. Cont. 304.12 – 14.

63

DAI I, 51.199 – 204; 52.1 – 15.

104 64

FORGING UNITY

Further military strengthening of the theme of Peloponnesus occurred in 805, when Patras had

been rebuilt to become a naval base, because of the ongoing war in Dalmatia against the Franks, and Sparta was garrisoned, with the clear intention to keep the Milingoi and Ezeritai in check. 65

The uprising of the Slavs of Achaia could be connected with the fifth vexation of the Emperor

Nicephoros. Accordingly, we believe that the Slavs, who were paroikoi of the metropolis of Patras revolted soon after the implementation of this law (after spring 810). In accordance with this date, the Arabs mentioned in CM are kaphiroi settled in the Peloponnesus, and they were actually converted; about kaphiroi, see Chornique, 20, n. 28. For the fifth vexation of the Emperor Nicephoros, see Theoph. I, 486.29 – 487.2.

VII

USPENSKIJ’S TAKTIKON AND THE THEME OF DALMATIA*

According to contemporary historians, the work that had the decisive influence on the dating of the creation of the theme of Dalmatia is Uspenskij’s Taktikon (UT), in which the incumbent archon and the former archontes of Dalmatia are mentioned for the first time in an official source.1 That implies that the theme of Dalmatia was created some time before the composition of UT. The dating of the creation of the theme of Dalmatia also depends on the dating of UT, i.e. on the time when Dalmatia was still only an archontia. There are two basic views concerning the time of the origin of the theme of Dalmatia – one that it became a theme in the time of Basil I (867 – 886), and the other that it was created at the very beginning of the reign of Michael III (842 – 867).2 An earlier third view, according to which Dalmatia became a theme after the fall of the Ravenna exarchate in 751, has now been dismissed as unfounded.3 The following writings provide the initial basis for the dating of the origin of the theme of Dalmatia: De administrando imperio by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Uspenskij’s Taktikon, Einhard’s Annals, and the notes of Gottschalk, a Frankish preacher who lived at the court of Prince Trpimir of Croatia from 846 to 848. Several seals of Byzantine officials who served in Dalmatia are also of some help. Since there is no Latin or Byzantine record which states explicitly when Dalmatia became a theme, the answer to this question must be sought by an examination, comparison, and critical analysis of the information derived from the above sources. The Byzantine administration was careful in keeping track of all the changes in the internal organization of the Empire. The documents that record

106

FORGING UNITY

them and give a detailed roster of high imperial officials, listed according to their rank, are known as taktikons. Four documents of this type are known today: Uspenskij’s Taktikon, Kletorologion of Philotheos, Benešević’s Taktikon and the Escorial Taktikon.4 These valuable records contain important information on the internal organization of the Empire, on its provincial administration, and on the position of its officials. An analysis of their content makes it often possible to deduce some chronological evidence which could be essential for the tracing of the history of the internal organization of the Empire, such as the date of the creation of individual themes, archonties, and kleisourai or of the establishment of new court or administrative titles and offices. Uspenskij’s Taktikon was first published by F.I. Uspenskij, who, however, did not tackle the question of its dating on that occasion.5 This was done by J.B. Bury, who set the chronological limits of the origin of the UT between 842 and 856, mostly based on the headings in the UT, which contain references to Emperor Michael and his mother Theodora.6 St. Kyriakides, who argued for a date between 809 and 828, challenged the dating proposed by Bury.7 Not long afterwards, G. Ostrogorsky refuted Kyriakides’s arguments and supplied further evidence supporting Bury’s dating. He also narrowed down the proposed period (842 – 856) to 845 – 856, based on the fact that the title of the UT does not mention the Emperor’s sister Thekla, who is known to have been Michael’s and Theodora’s co-ruler until 845.8 Finally, N. Oikonomidès suggested that the UT originated in 842 – 843, since the text mentions the droungarios of the Aegean Islands, who was superseded by the strategos of the Aegean Islands from 843 on.9 As regards the argument set forth by G. Ostrogorsky, i.e. that the title does not mention the Emperor’s sister Thekla, N. Oikonomidès points out that the title of Kletorologion of Philotheos mentions only Emperor Leo VI, and makes no reference to his brother Alexander, although they are known to have been corulers in 899, when the taktikon was composed. This shows, concludes N. Oikonomidès, that Thekla’s name may have also been omitted from the title of the UT although the text originated in the period of her joint rule with Michael and Theodora.10 The opinion of all the scholars who have studied the UT, except Kyriakides, is that the key evidence for its dating is contained in the very title

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

107

of the work:              ! "#$%&  ' ( &, from which it follows that the text was compiled at the time of „Michael, the Christ-loving Emperor, and Theodora, his most pious and saintly mother“. Since Michael and Theodora were co-rulers from 842 to 856, any analysis of the text, which might point to a date outside that period, is rendered problematic by the weight of the evidence contained in the title.11 Nevertheless, we shall have to return to the title of the text after a survey of some other facts of essential importance for the dating of the UT. According to the present state of research, the basic elements for the dating of the UT into 842 – 856 come down to the following: 1. a reference to the strategos of Klimata (= Cherson); 2. the non-existence of the theme of Coloneia; 3. a reference to the kleisoura of Charsianon; 4. a mention of the theme of Chaldia. The basic negative element is a reference to the strategos of Crete, but there are also some other indicators, which will be discussed later. 1. The theme of Klimata mentioned in the UT has usually been identified with the theme of Cherson.12 A dissonant view is that by St. Kyriakides, who argues that the reference to Klimata is not connected with the theme of Cherson, created in the time of Emperor Theophilos, c. 833/34, as testified by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who is our sole authority on this point.13 St. Kyriakides omitted to pursue his interpretation of the theme of Klimata to its logical conclusion, and to state clearly what exactly he had in mind when he pointed to the possible difference between Klimata and Cherson. G. Ostrogorsky took up Kyriakides’ lead, and reached the conclusion that the theme of Klimata mentioned in the UT was identical with the later theme of Cherson and that, consequently, the UT reflected faithfully the circumstances in Cherson produced by the creation of the theme of Cherson: a strategos of the theme of Cherson – the strategos of Klimata – is cited among the thematic strategoi, and archontes of Cherson are mentioned among the officials subordinated to the strategos.14 Ostrogorsky’s view is not based on a consistent reading of the text of the UT, but on a subjective interpretation of evidence, since the archontes of Cherson are not described as subordinated to the strategos, and are accorded the same status as the archon of Dalmatia, the archontes of Dyrrachium, the archon of Cyprus, or the doux of Calabria.

108

FORGING UNITY

Kyriakides’s objection seems, however, valid, for the later Byzantine sources mention always and exclusively the theme of Cherson. The explanation is that the theme of Klimata was created before 833/34, and that Cherson was a town under Byzantine rule, governed by a local archon, and outside the jurisdiction of the strategos of Klimata.15 Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself, speaking of the time when the decision was made by the authorities in Constantinople to appoint a strategos in Cherson, makes not a single reference to Klimata. Moreover, he quotes spatharokandidatos Petrona, who suggested to the Emperor: if you wish to establish complete control and rule in the town of Cherson and the adjacent places, so that they do not slip out of your hands, you should install there your own strategos, and not trust their chiefs and leaders.16 The UT contains very clear information on the strategos of Klimata,17 but it also gives some evidence of the archontes (or archon?) of Cherson.18 It is true that the sources often say that Klimata and Cherson are the same place, or, as it is usually put,  )*  +  ,19 , )-  .  20 or /   - )0-  1-  -  -  %-.21 Elaborating on Petrona’s words, Porphyrogenitus explains that before the time of Emperor Theophilos, no strategos was sent to Cherson from Constantinople, so that the entire government was in the hands of the socalled primates and the officials styled the city fathers.22 In conclusion, Porphyrogenitus writes that the Emperor promoted Petrona to the rank of protospatharios, appointed him strategos, and sent him to Cherson (, )-), commanding the primates and all the others to obey him. It is quite clear that Porphyrogenitus’s report refers to the city of Cherson and its immediate surroundings and not to the entire region from the Cimmerian Bosphorus to Cherson and the klimata. Consequently, what we have here is an administrative measure introduced in 833/34, which placed the city of Cherson under the direct control of Constantinople, and which may have led – in the course of the following years or even decades – to the renaming and reorganization of the theme of Klimata into the theme of Cherson. Speaking of the theme of Cherson in his work De Thematibus, Porphyrogenitus remarks; it is said that in old times Cherson was not a theme, nor had the metropolitan status, and that Cherson and the other klimata, i.e.

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

109

inhabitants of Bosphorus, were under the royal rule of those in power in Bosphorus.23 Later on, Porphyrogenitus says, referring to classical authors, that these rulers were the kings of Bosphorus, i.e. of the classical Pontic Kingdom in the time of the Roman Republic.24 There is no direct connection between the first sentence and the later statement, but it is clear that the first sentence also refers in fact to the Pontic kings from the classical times. It follows, therefore, that Porphyrogenitus’ conclusion that Cherson was not a theme in old times pertains to the 3rd and 4th centuries. Hence, this statement reveals something else, i.e. that Constantine Prophyrogeniuts did not know when the theme of Cherson was created. The term regions (klimata) concerns the area fairly clearly defined by Constantine Prophyrogenitus: 2  3 )- 4 1  , . % -  %0  3 %&   5.25 That is, from (the Cimmerian) Bosphorus way up to Crimea there are the towns of the klimata, extending over an area 300 miles in length.26 This entire belt was called klimata, and Cherson was merely one of the numerous towns in it. The same chapter in the DAI contains a reference to the passage of the Petchenegs through Cherson, (Cimmerian) Bosphorus and the klimata.27 It is obvious that the geographical concept of klimata was complex, while it’s meaning in the administrative sphere underwent certain changes in conformity with the administrative development of the entire region of Crimea. It follows that it is not impossible that the klimata of (Cimmerian) Bosphorus and Cherson were differently organized in this respect. It is most likely that the original klimata were organized as a theme and that the district of Cherson was incorporated into this theme only later, when the Byzantine presence became stronger. It was probably then that the city itself, as the most important in the whole region, became the seat of a strategos.28 That would mean that originally there had been a theme of Klimata, which was later, as the Byzantine influence increased, reconstituted as the theme of Cherson, but which was in fact the theme of Klimata with an enlarged territory. Perhaps the only proof that the incorporation of the original klimata into the theme of Cherson followed this pattern is a seal dating from the 9th century: 555555 64 7 %809.29 The seal seems to indicate that the imperial official, whose name and title have not been preserved,

110

FORGING UNITY

served in The Five Regions, presumably the original organizational unit constituted in the area between (Cimmerian) Bosphorus and Cherson – possibly precisely that which Porphyrogenitus discusses in De Them. The finds of coins and seals of Byzantine officials corroborate the account of the course of administrative changes in the Crimean area offered above. I. Sokolova pointed out that the coins with the inscription

& )- represent an exceptional occurrence in the otherwise centralized monetary policy of the Empire, and that no other mint (e.g. Syracuse) uses the term &5 The above inscription on the coins disappears in the time of the joint rule of Basil I and Constantine (869 – 879), precisely in the period when the seals of archontes go out of use, and those of the strategoi of Cherson begin to appear.30 Not a single seal of the strategos of Cherson is known before the 870s. These facts seemed quite sufficient for Sokolova to conclude that the theme of Klimata was created first, and that the archon of Cherson exercised his office in the city of Cherson only. The appearance of the term & )- is a testimony that the town enjoyed self-government, which lasted until the rule of Basil and Alexander (869 – 879), and its disappearance probably coincides with the reorganization of the theme of Klimata as the theme of Cherson.31 The long tradition of self-government in Cherson was asserted in 896, when a rebellion broke out, and the strategos was assassinated,32 and again in the time of Emperor Alexander (912 – 913), when the term & )- was reintroduced.33 That the population of Cherson was easily stirred seems to have been well known, since Constantine Porphyrogenitus found it advisable to include in the DAI detailed instructions for the strategoi of the adjacent Black Sea themes (Paphlagonia and Boukellon) how to proceed in the case of a rebellion in Cherson.34 All these facts indicate that the theme of Cherson was of a comparatively recent origin, and consequently precludes the terminological identification of the theme of Klimata with the theme of Cherson. The question of the centre of the original theme of Klimata represents a separate problem. There were a number of towns in the region, and each of them might have been the seat of the strategos. Porphyrogenitus himself recommends that in the case of a rebellion of the inhabitants of Cherson, the strategos should seek refuge in some other town, and continue to reside in it.35 In 1819, the famous Hellenist Charles Benoit Hase edited the History of Leo

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

111

Diaconos, and incorporated into the philological commentary of Book X three unpublished fragments containing, as he thought, a statement associated with the capture of Cherson by Prince Vladimir of Russia in 980. In these fragments, an unknown (Byzantine?) commander says that he serves in a town called Klimata (. 7: 555 % ;555< Lat. castrum Clematum), which is not adequately protected, because the barbarians have recently destroyed its defence walls.36 I. Shevchenko also devoted great attention to these fragments, and finally concluded that the famous Hellenist had forged them.37 None of these fragments, however, contains any essential information that might alter our picture of the developments in the Crimea from the 9th to the 11th centuries. Besides, one wonders why should Hase have taken such trouble to forge the statement of an unknown military commander without even bothering to name the barbarian invaders he mentions. Nevertheless, an aggravating circumstance is that the manuscript had disappeared from the Royal Library in Paris (where Hase was in charge of Greek manuscripts) before the 1819 edition of Leo Diaconos was published. It should be remembered, however, that between 1797 and 1815 several hundreds of Greek manuscripts had been brought to Paris, and restored to their original depositories after the final fall of Napoleon.38 It is not impossible, therefore, that some manuscripts never reached their former owners.39 Shevchenko’s denouncement of Hase as a forger remains a hypothesis only for the time being, and the reference to the town of Klimata, however vague, should not be lost for the further researches. We should turn again to Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ account of Petrona’s inauguration as the strategos of Cherson in the time of Emperor Theophilos. As it has been pointed out, Porphyrogenitus speaks only of the town of Cherson, not the theme of Cherson. It is well known that Porphyrogenitus often applied the terminology of his day to former times, when these terms had either a different meaning, or did not even exist. Thus he mentions the theme of Thessalonica in the time of the migration of the Serbs to the Balkan Peninsula, or the strategos of Belgrade in connection with the same event.40 One wonders whether here too, Porphyrogenitus used inconsistently the term strategos, or whether Petrona, promoted to a protospatharios, was sent to Cherson as a =. This title was widely used and its holder might be a

112

FORGING UNITY

mandator, kandidatos, strator, spatharios, spatharokandidatos, protospatharios, or an official of some other rank.41 Porphyrogenitus himself says that a = may also be the commander of a fort, instead of a tourmarches.42 He could even be the commander of a battleship.43 The purpose of all this is that a = was an official in charge of a special mission, which might have been either military or diplomatic.44 Finally, one might ask, if Porphyrogenitus was so sure that the strategos of Cherson was sent regularly from Constantinople from the time of Theophilos on, why he did not say so in the chapter on the theme of Cherson in the later De them.? He did mention that the themes of the Anatolicon and Armeniacon were created during the reign of Heraclius (610 – 641), or that the theme of Thrace was established at the time of the migration of the Bulgarians across the Danube (680).45 Porphyrogenitus offers no information on the date of the creation of the other (older) themes, and only mentions that the theme of Strymon was a kleisoura at the time of Emperor Justinian II (685 – 695, 705 – 711).46 Constantine Porphyrogenitus concludes his account of the fortress of Sarkel, of Petrona and Emperor Theophilos, by saying that, from that time on, a strategos from Constantinople was sent to Cherson, because he seems to have associated this event with the creation of the theme. But the same author records in the DAI that Cephalonia was a tourma of the theme of Longobardia, and that it was created in the time of his father Leo the Wise,47 while that detail is not found in the later De thematibus. Fortunately, there is evidence of the strategoi of Cephalonia from as early as the 8th century,48 and we know that Porphyrogenitus was wrong. If he made such a serious mistake reporting on the period of his father’s reign, it is quite possible that he made an even more serious blunder writing on a similar event, associated with the strategos of Cherson, from the time of Emperor Theophilos. 2 – 3. Regarding the argument, presented by G. Ostrogorsky and J. Bury, that the UT makes no mention of the theme of Coloneia, which is first attested in 863,49 it merely shows that the UT was compiled before 863, but it cannot be taken by any means as decisive proof that it dates from 842 – 856 or 845 – 856. The same holds good for the theme of Charsianon, which is mentioned as a kleisoura in the UT, and for the first time as a theme in 863.50

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

113

Moreover, Charsianon was certainly a kleisoura until 863, when the Continuator of Theophanes mentions it.51 It is not clear, however, why this should be taken as evidence supporting the dating of the UT into the period suggested by Bury, Ostrogorsky or Oikonomidès. The real question is: what is the earliest possible date of the creation of the kleisoura of Charsianon? It is first mentioned by the Arabic writers Al Diarmi (845/46) and Ibn Hardadbeh (d. 912/913),52 Charsianon, on the road to Melitina, with a seat in Harshan, where there are four more fortresses.53 Ibn al Fakih also refers to Charsianon as a kleisoura, adding that it has 4, 000 soldiers at its disposal.54 4. The theme of Chaldia, created after the division of the theme of Armeniakoi,55 is mentioned both in the UT and in the works of the Arab geographers. J. B. Bury associated its creation with the victorious expedition of Emperor Theophilos in the Pontic region in 837.56 This conclusion is unsustainable, because Chaldia had certainly existed as a theme in 824, as pointed out by N. Oikonomidès.57 There is no decisive evidence of the origin of this theme. Of equal validity would be Theophanes’s passage concerning the great victory won over the Arabs by Leo, the strategos of Anatolicon in August 811.58 It should be borne in mind that a civil war was being waged in the Caliphate at that time, which gave Byzantium an opportunity to strengthen its position in the East.59 In any case, a late 8th century seal of Christopher, the imperial spatharios and doux of Chaldia, has been known for some time.60 The UT shows that the territory of Chaldia had an exceptionally complex administrative structure; it mentions a strategos, a doux, and archontes, which implies a long period of Byzantine rule in that region and, presumably, its recent elevation to the status of a theme. Although a reference from 824 remains the earliest evidence for the dating of the origin of the theme of Chaldia, it should be pointed out that the reference, though written in 824, concerns an event from 821, for Thomas the Slav operated in the Eastern provinces of the Empire in that year, and left for Thrace only some time later. It is to be inferred from this that the theme of Chaldia had existed before the outbreak of the Thomas the Slav’s rebellion. The Arab geographers, primarily Al Diarmi and Ibn Hardadbeh, are frequently cited as authors who give a reliable picture of the administrative

114

FORGING UNITY

organization around the middle of the 9th century. Their works show, however, that the basic text they (or, rather, Al Diarmi) used was from a much earlier time, and probably dated from the period between 692 and 695.61 Ibn Hardadbeh mentions strategoi of the following provinces: Anatolicon, Armeniacon, Thrace, Sicily, Sardinia and Amria (exercitus Orientalis). He also says that there are twelve patrikioi in Byzantium, six of whom reside in the provinces mentioned above, and six in Constantinople.62 Accordingly, the lists of the provinces found in the works of the earliest Arabs’ geographers were largely based on a much earlier record, dating from the end of the 7th century, while the notes concerning the provinces added later were written in their own time, although the exact date of the origin of these provinces is not known. What can be concluded without doubt is that Charsianon was a kleisoura in 845/46, when Al Diarmi was composing his work. The theme of Cappadoce poses a special problem. Uspenskij’s edition contains no reference to a strategos of Cappadoce, but it does mention a tourmarches of Cappadoce.63 This led Oikonomidès, who observed the order of tourmarchai, to introduce a strategos of Cappadoce between the strategoi of Boukellon and of Paphlagonia.64 Oikonomidès saw an additional reason for this emendation in a passage in the Continuator of Theophanes, where a strategos of Cappadoce is mentioned as early as 830.65 Another reason is that there is an unambiguous reference to Cappadoce as a military province already in Theophanes, i.e. in 812/13.66 On the other hand, the 9th century Arab sources refer to Cappadoce both as a kleisoura (Ibn Fakih) and a theme (Masoudi),67 which understandably led Oikonomidès to conclude that Cappadoce had been a kleisoura before it was elevated to the status of a theme.68 The problem is that the UT contains no reference to a kleisourarches of Cappadoce and mentions only a tourmarches. However, according to a detailed report of the Scriptor incertus de Leone, Cappadoce is referred to as a kleisoura in the time of Emperor Michael I, or more precisely in the winter of 813,69 exactly as Licaonia, which the UT also describes as governed by a tourmarches, but which does not exist as a theme.70 Constantine Porphyrogenitus briefly notes that Cappadoce was a tourma of the theme of Anatolicon.71 The clue for the solution of the problem why there is no strategos of Cappadoce in the UT probably lies in this testimony of Porphyrogenitus. Namely, the tourma of

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

115

Cappadoce had belonged to the theme of Anatolicon until 830 at the latest, after which it became a theme, so that it is necessary to adjust the dating of the UT in accordance with this.72 As the above discussion shows, the arguments adduced in favour of the dating of the UT on the basis of the reference to Michael and Theodora (842 – 856) in its title are far from adequate. Even when one examines the date of creation of the other themes mentioned in the UT, one finds that all of them existed before the reign of Michael III.73 It is not necessary to enter here into a discussion of the dating of the creation of the themes of Macedonia,74 Thessalonica75 or Dyrrachium,76 for no definitive answer to this question has been reached so far. It is sufficient to say that they were all probably created in the late 8th or early 9th centuries. The creation of the themes of Macedonia and Thessalonica is certainly chronologically associated with the creation of the theme of Strymon, which was an outpost towards Bulgaria along the Strymon – Mesta – the southern foothills of Rhodope – the Aegean line. Although this theme is first mentioned in Kletorologion of Philotheos in 899,77 there is strong evidence that its creation should be pushed well back, to the beginning of the 9th century. Since this theme is not mentioned in the UT, and since the UT is assumed to date from 842 – 856, or 845 – 856, 842/43, all the attempts to establish the date of the creation of the theme of Strymon have been hindered. The problem of the theme of Strymon has recently been brought up by N. Oikonomidès, who refers to a seal of Leo (?) imperial spatharios and strategos of the Strymon,78 which is definitely dated before the mid–9th century,79 which brings into question the dating of the UT, where the strategos of Strymon must have been mentioned, if that dating is correct. A seal of Basil, the hypatos and protonotarios of the Strymon, also dates from this period.80 A number of seals of thematic protonotaroi have been preserved, and almost all of them date from the latter half of the 9th century.81 The UT does not list thematic protonotaroi, and they are first included in the official lists in Kletorologion of Philotheos.82 The absence of thematic protonotaroi in the UT shows beyond doubt that the work dates from before the middle of the 9th century.

116

FORGING UNITY

Constantine Porphyrogenitus reports that Strymon was originally organized as a kleisoura, and that this took place during the reign of Justinian II (685 – 695; 705 – 711), who, probably in 688/89, settled the Scytes (Slavs) there.83 This was in conformity with the policy of protecting the Aegean basin from the incursions of the Bulgarians from the north, by settling there the Slav tribes from the neighbourhood of Thessalonica, loyal to the authorities in Constantinople and who could be relied on as allies.84 Theophanes reports that there was a sudden onslaught of Bulgarians on the army in Strymon in 808/09, and that the strategos and a considerable number of officers from the other themes were killed in battle.85 On the same occasion, the Bulgarians seized 1, 100 pounds of gold – i.e. the soldiers’ salaries about to be disbursed at that time.86 Theophanes’ report clearly shows that the strategos who is mentioned was the strategos of Strymon, since he says that officers from the other themes also perished.87 In February 811, the Arabs seized 1, 300 pounds of gold, designated for the payment of the army of the theme of Armeniakoi.88 This figure shows that in the former case, too, a thematic army was in question. The later attempt of Emperor Nicephoros I to restore the military strength of the Western provinces of the Empire, which certainly included Strymon, by settling there stratiotai from other themes89 failed, because, in June 812, the colonists from Strymon fled to their old homesteads before Krum’s advancing Bulgarians.90 A note in Theophanes, saying that the Emperor sent the colonists to the Sclavenias,91 the territories that had been under the control of the Slav tribes until a short time previously, also indicates that the region of Strymon may be here in question. A further testimony that the Byzantines put pressure to bear on the area of Strymon and the Slavs settled there, which might have eventually led to the creation of the theme of Strymon, can be found in the so-called Chronicle of Leo the Isabrian, which contains a short note saying that war was waged against the Slavs from Strymon in 797.92 The testimony of the existence of the theme of Strymon in 808/09 also marks the terminus post quem non of the origin of the UT. Thus, the original theme of Strymon was created between 797 and 808/09, and lasted until June 812 at the latest.93 The thirty-year peace treaty which Byzantium and Bulgaria concluded after Khroum’s death in 814, recorded in an inscription and therefore an

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

117

absolutely reliable document, shows that the boundaries between the two states were restored to those from the time of Khan Terbel – from Develtos to Makro Livade, that is, from the Hebros to Chemus (Mount Balkan).94 That means that the region of Strymon remained in Byzantine possession, and it is possible that the theme of Strymon was re-established a short time afterwards. Consequently, since the UT does not list the theme of Strymon, the origin of this taktikon should be placed at some time between June 812, when the theme of Strymon fell before the invading Bulgarians,95 and before the end of the 840s, i.e. the date of the seal of the imperial spatharios and strategos of Strymon, which was published by N. Oikonomidès.96 Moreover, since Byzantium concluded the thirty-year peace treaty with the Bulgarians after Khroum’s death, it had sufficient time to restore the theme of Strymon during that period. Accordingly, if the UT had originated after 842, it could not have omitted to mention the theme of Strymon as well. N. Oikonomidès has pointed out a detail in the UT, which he considers of decisive importance for the dating of the UT into the short period 842/43. According to him, since the UT contains a reference to the droungarios of the Aegean islands,97 and since the first strategos of Lesbos, which was a part of the theme of the Aegean Sea,98 is already attested in 843, the UT originated in 842/43, immediately before this administrative change was put into effect, and the droungarios of the Aegean Islands replaced by the strategos of the Aegean Islands. As regards the lower chronological limit of the origin of the UT, Oikonomidès’s conclusion is quite acceptable; if one seeks to determine the upper chronological limit, however, one could rather argue for 842/43, and possibly considerably earlier. The droungarios of the Aegean Sea appear already on late 8th and early 9th century seals,99 and possibly even about 763, in the Hagiography of Theophanes, whose father Isaac held that office.100 The above reasons and arguments, according to which the composition of the UT should be dated into the period 842 – 856, seem rather tenuous in the light of recent interpretations. The text itself contains evidence, which indicates that the UT may have been composed several decades earlier. This evidence consists primarily of the references to the strategos of Crete,101 the archon of Crete,102 and the archontes of Crete.103 They were Kyriakides’ key

118

FORGING UNITY

argument in his attempt to date the UT into the period between 809 and 827/28. The earliest, rather dubious, reference the strategos of Crete dates from before 767 (probably 764/65),104 and it theoretically places the earliest possible dating of the UT within the same chronological framework. The theme of Crete ceased to exist in 827/28, when the island was taken by the Arabs and kept by them until 961, when the Byzantine military commander Nicephoros Phokas (Emperor 963 – 969) restored it to the Byzantine rule.105 Based on the indisputable fact that Crete was under the Arab rule from 827/28 on, St. Kyriakides simply concluded that the UT had been composed before that time. The scholars who date the UT into the period 842 – 856 usually solve this problem in two ways. According to the one proposed by J. Bury, Byzantium organized an expedition against Crete in 843. It was led by logothetes Theoktistos,106 whom the imperial government appointed, anticipating the taking of the island, the strategos of Crete.107 To accept this line of thought would mean, however, to assume that the imperial government had also appointed in advance all the subordinate officials of the future strategos, including the archon of Crete, as well as the archontes of the same island. This does not seem likely, of course, and represents in fact J. Bury’s ingenious attempt to explain away the chronological problem posed by the reference of a strategos of Crete at a time when the island had already been under the Arab rule for almost two decades. G. Ostrogorsky refuted Bury’s hypothesis by pointing out that the Byzantines were reluctant to erase the lost regions from the official lists of their provinces and provincial governors.108 G. Ostrogorsky did not explain, however, the references to the archon and the archontes of Crete in the same text. Are we to understand that the Byzantines still kept all the officials on the payroll two decades after the loss of the island in the hope that it would be eventually restored to their rule? That would be a unique example indeed. Ostrogorsky points out, it is true, that a strategos of Sicily figures in Benešević’s Taktikon (the text of which is dated 934 – 944), in spite of the fact that the last Byzantine stronghold there had been lost as early as 901.109 A strategos of Sicily is even mentioned by Porphyrogenitus in De them., although he says that the island is not under Byzantine rule.110 Moreover, Porphyrogenitus

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

119

explains that the island had been lost in the time of Leo the Wise and that only Calabria, governed by the strategos of Calabria, had remained in the Christian hands. In the same chapter he concludes, however, that twelve cities were under the strategos of Sicily.111 Quoting Constantine Porphyrogenitus is not a particularly convincing argument in support of the assumption that the strategos of a province is mentioned several decades after the loss of that province, for no definitive assessment of the value of his texts as historical sources has been made yet. It was long thought, for example, that De thematibus was written before the De administrando imperio, and it has only recently been shown that the latter is in fact the earlier work of the two.112 In De them., Porphyrogenitus gives lists of towns in individual provinces, obviously copied from Hierocles’ Synecdemus, which do not correspond at all to the circumstances of his time.113 Such examples show the chronological diversity of the sources used by Porphyrogenitus in the compilation of his works. Finally, De them. is not an official list of imperial provinces, so that it is not necessary to attach the same importance to the information given there, as to the facts in official documents, such as the taktikons. In a short account of the theme of Cephalonia, Porphyrogenitus says that it had been a tourma of the theme of Longobardia in former times, and that it became a strategias (theme) in the time of the Christ-loving Emperor Leo.114 The known sources show that this account is only partially correct. The theme of Longobardia was created considerably after the theme of Cephalonia, and its earliest known strategos is mentioned in 911.115 The reference to the strategos of Sicily may have been associated with an expedition in the time of Roman Lacapenos (938/39), when Byzantine rule was temporarily restored in part of the island,116 as well as with the fact that the Byzantines recaptured Taormina in 912/13 and continued to hold it, just as they did Rameta, until 962 at least.117 The need for the compilation of a taktikon of the provinces and provincial governors or commanders, arose primarily after important changes had taken place in the administrative structure. Consequently, if there is any dilemma concerning the dating of a document of this kind, it is always more advisable to push the chronological limit further into the past, when the changes which had caused the court to revise the existing taktikons were most likely to have occurred, than to raise it, as it has been generally done so far.

120

FORGING UNITY

In a study dealing with a different subject, J. Ferluga pointed out long ago that the UT did not mention certain administrative units definitely known to have existed in the first half of the 9th century, and possibly in the latter half of the 8th century, or even earlier. Two cases in point are the katepanos of Mardaitai, and katepanos of Paphlagonia. In the UT Paphlagonia is a theme, and there is no mention of a katepanos, who figures in Kletorologion of Philotheos,118 as does the theme of Paphlagonia.119 Nevertheless, that katepanos is not mentioned in the UT. More importantly, the UT makes no mention of the katepanos of Mardaitai, who had existed since the time of Juistinian II, and who was mentioned in the time of Leo VI in connection with a dispute between the strategos of Kibyrrhaiotai and the katepanos of Mardaitai over certain administrative prerogatives.120 Similarly, the kleisoura of Seleucia is omitted in the UT, 121 even though it was created in the first half of the 9th century, 122 as testified by the Arab writers Ibn Hardadbeh and Ibn Al Fakih.123 The compiler, who wrote in the time of Leo VI, as it can be deduced from a payroll in De cerim., was aware of the fact that Seleucia had previously been a kleisoura and that it was a theme in his time.124 Therefore, Oikonomidès’ suggestion that the intended reading in the UT was Seleucia, not Sozopolis seems sound.125 Another problem is presented by the kleisourai of Cilicia, Isabria, Cappadoce,126 and Galatia, mention at the end of 811,127 but never in later sources. It is possible that the kleisourarchai of these kleisourai are listed in the UT under the joint heading %,128 and that only two kleisourarchai, those of Charsianon and Sozopolis (i. e. Seleucia), are listed by their names. Another explanation is based on the fact that the kleisourarchai of Charsianon and Sozopolis (i.e. Seleucia) are mentioned in the plural in Uspenskij’s edition of the UT,129 which may imply that the kleisourarchai of Charsianon and Sozopolis (Seleucia) referred to by Theophanes in 811 or even earlier, in 697/698, were their subordinates.130 The above remarks render the dating of the UT considerably more difficult, for they open a number of questions to most of which no easy answer can be given. The clue for the dating of the UT may lie, in fact, in its title, which, however, cannot be interpreted as it has been done so far if we bear in mind the above comments.

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

121

The basic import of the title of the UT:              ! "#$%&  ' ( &, is that the text was compiled during the reign of Michael and his mother Theodora, i.e. in the period 842 – 856 or possibly 845 – 856, as G. Ostrogorsky suggested. That is what the scribe from the 12th/13th century says. A detail clearly shows that he slightly modified the title, and gave the epithet saint to the Emperor’s mother. Theodora was actually canonized, so this designation is accurate.131 However, since she was canonized after her death,132 it is not possible that the original title of the work came down to us as it was primarily entitled. Two explanations are possible. First, the scribe may have used a text, which was itself a transcript of the original, made later, at a time when the Empress had been canonized. Second, the scribe may have copied the original, adding the designation saint because he knew that Empress Theodora was canonized after her death. In that case, the evidence for the dating is not substantially altered, for the scribe merely inserted the epithet saint without changing the main meaning of the title, which states that the work was compiled in the time of Michael and Theodora, i.e. not later than 856. The Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, which dates from the time of the Macedonian dynasty, adds the epithet the most orthodox to Theodora’s name three times.133 Leo Grammaticus (Symon Logothetes) also mentions Theodora’s orthodoxy -   "#$, to be expected in view of the fact that he is a later author.134 The compiler of Theodora’s Hagiography, which was written after 867 and preserved in a transcript from 1111,135 notes in the title 10555!    ' .136 Her contemporary, George the Monk, does not add the epithet saint to her name,137 and neither does any secular or ecclesiastical source from the second half of the 9th century, or the entire 10th century.138 The term     , should refer to the reigning Emperor, for the designation despotes coupled with the emperor’s name is generally used in historical records for the reigning emperor. However, this usage can hardly be taken as an argument, because in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, for example, Basil I, Leo VI the Wise, Romanos I Lacapenos, and himself are all called despotes.139 Porphyrogenitus uses the

122

FORGING UNITY

term basileos much more frequently – but that term, too, is used for both living and deceased Emperors. The title of Kletorologion of Philotheos contains, in addition to the exact year, the indictos and the month of writing, the following  >4    0% ? - =40. In the BT, for example, the late Emperor Leo VI is referred to as    .140 In De Cerim., the late Emperor Basil I is referred to in a passage describing his mother’s tomb as :& 1   .141 When Emperors Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and his son Roman II address foreign sovereigns (for example, the rulers of the Russians, Petchenegs, and Hungarians) the formula is % =+ @A 0,142 but when they (or their predecessors) send letters to the rulers of the Balkan principalities, the sender is designated as 0  -.143 It cannot be, therefore, said that    always refers to the Emperor in power (i.e. living) at the time of the writing of the text.144 In this case, there can be no serious objection to the supposition that the scribe wrote the title when Michael and Theodora had already been dead. A particular question that remains to be considered is whether the scribe attributed the work to Michael and Theodora for some particular reason, as St. Kyriakides supposed. G. Ostrogorsky posed the question why anybody should do so.145 Of course, we do not know the answer why someone should decide to ascribe a text to the time of Theodora and Michael, but we think that it is not a very relevant question, since there may have been many reasons indeed. For example, during their rule, the cult of icons was established, and the scribe may have wanted to attribute to them something else he considered noteworthy. It is also possible that the original manuscript may have been part of another manuscript, which really belonged to the time of Theodora and Michael. There may have been many such reasons, and it would be injudicious to proclaim any of them for a fact. Suffice is to note that Theodora is referred to as a saint, an epithet which could not have been applied during her lifetime.146 This is sufficient proof that the scribe made arbitrary alterations in the text, or that he transcribed from copies already tampered with. This would also explain the omissions of some katepanoi or kleisourai noted above. Oikonomidès himself admits that the manuscript of the UT is de qualité très médiocre, and that elle comporte des lacunes, des interpolations, des fautes

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

123

de transcription, sans doute plus nombreuses que celles que j’ai relevées dans l’annotation.147 It should be recalled that Uspenskij published several leaves of Kletorologion of Philotheos, which formed a part of Manuscript No 39 of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and which the scribe began with   =B – that is, without a title. Uspenskij collated the text of Kletorologion of Philotheos preserved in De cerim. with the one found in Manuscript No 39, and concluded that the scribe was extremely careless.148 Mediaeval manuscripts often lack a title, and it was not unusual for a later copyist to supply a title he thought appropriate. It seems, however, that scholars have overlooked an essential piece of information hidden in the title of the UT. Namely, the title refers to the emperor as Emperor Michael, not as Michael the Younger or Theophilos’s son, as the Byzantines usually distinguished their emperors bearing the same name. He is called simply Emperor Michael, which means that he was the only emperor of that name known to the compiler of the UT. This, in turn, means that he had in mind Emperor Michael I Rangabe (811 – 813). This seems even more likely in view of the fact that Michael I and Michael III were orthodox Emperors – followers of the cult of icons, so that a later scribe might have thought that the reference was to the far better known Emperor Michael III, the orthodox Emperor, and not to Michael I, whose brief reign left no notable trace in Byzantine history. This seems possible if we bear in mind that the extant transcript of the UT dates from the 12th or 13th centuries. In Leo Grammaticus, the chapter on each Emperor has a brief heading which gives the Emperor’s name and, in most cases, the epithet which distinguishes him from the other Emperors of the same name. Thus, Leo I is described as  %< Leo II as C , Leo III is given a series of epithets C DE< C F;< C  70< C , %, Leo IV is called ! )G%, Leo V C BH 4, while Leo VI is given no epithets, but the preceding text makes it clear that he is the son of Emperor Basil I.149 The Emperors named Michael are distinguished in a similar way. Thus Michael I is C  %,150 Michael II C H +,151 and Michael III is without epithets, but it is made known in the previous text that he is the son of Emperor Theophilos.152 Constantine Porphyrogenitus adds  I  to the name of Michael III.153

124

FORGING UNITY

The studies of the UT, particularly in Serbian historiography have so far been focused on the evidence concerning the archon of Dalmatia, which was used to prove that the theme was created in the later years of the reign of Basil I (867 – 886). It has been assumed that the archontia of Dalmatia certainly existed in 842/3 – 856, and that the theme was created around 870. However, if the origin of the UT is pushed further back into the past, things begin to look quite different, and bring into question not only the duration of the archontia of Dalmatia, but also a necessity of a revision of the dating of the creation of the theme of Dalmatia. The earliest mention of the archontia of Dalmatia occurs on a seal of the spatharios and archon of Dalmatia, which is dated into the late 8th or early 9th centuries.154 A seal of George, imperial spatharios and archon of Dermatia dates from the early 9th century.155 There is another seal of the imperial spatharios and archon of Dalmatia from the middle of the 9th century,156 as well as a seal with the same inscription, dated roughly into the 9th century.157 All four seals testify that the archontia and the office of archon lasted for more than a century. In addition to these four seals of the archon of Dalmatia, a seal of Euthymios, imperial spatharokandidatos and doux of Delmatia, dated into 9th/10th centuries, has been preserved.158 It was not unusual in Byzantine practice to appoint a doux in addition to the strategos of a theme. J. Ferluga has pointed out a number of such examples in his discussion of the lower administrative units of the Empire.159 The doux had special duties, and he was directly subordinated to the strategos of the theme in which he served. Thus, the occurrence of this seal might be taken as a proof that Dalmatia was a theme in the latter half of the 9th century. It may also be regarded as another testimony that the UT originated before the second half of the 9th century. There is another seal, belonging to Eustathios, imperial protospatharios and strategos of Delmatia, also from the 9th/10th centuries.160 The seals mentioning the strategos of Dalmatia, which gave rise to the greatest disputes of scholars, were published at the end of the 19th century and have been variously dated. Thus, Schlumberger published a seal of Bryenas, the spatharios and strategos of Dalmatia, which he dated into the middle of the 9th century. He also mentioned another seal of Bryenas, designated as the protospatharios of Dalmatia, which had been reportedly seen in a

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

125

bazaar in Istanbul.161 J. Ferluga later dated the published seal of the spatharios and strategos Bryenas into the second half of the 9th century (after 870). Recently, however, N. Oikonomidès has argued that Schlumberger’s dating was more accurate.162 It should be borne in mind that the strategoi of themes in the UT are almost all patrikioi, while the seal of the strategos of Dalmatia mentions spatharios or protospatharios. The conjunction of this lower title with the function of the strategos is rare in the early stages of the thematic organization, and its occurrence should be associated with later rather than earlier periods.163 In the UT, all the strategoi are patrikioi, while not all patrikioi are strategoi.164 In addition to the two seals of the strategos of Dalmatia, a seal of the protomandator of Dalmatia is also well-known.165 It should be pointed out that persons holding the rank of protomandator in the provinces were always subordinated to either the strategoi, or the tourmarches,166 which is an indirect indication that this protomandator resided in a province, which was a theme at that time. Moreover, if he was subordinated to a tourmarches, it would mean that Dalmatia was divided into at least two tourmai in the middle of the 9th century, the date of this seal. The Frankish sources provide some additional information. The most important Western sources, which provide information on Dalmatia in the early years of the 9th century, are Einhard’s Annales and the Venetian Chronicle of John Deacon. John Deacon relates that the doges of Venice, Obelarius and Beatus, navalem exercitum ad Dalmaciarum provinciam depopulandam destinaverunt.167 It was an action which Venice undertook against the Byzantine possessions in Dalmatia as a Frankish ally. The outcome of the expedition is made clear in Einhard’s notes, which say that Obelarius and Beatus, the doges of Venice, Paul, the dux of Jadera, Donatus, the bishop of Jadera, and the emissaries of the Dalmatians came to the court of Charlemagne in 806. The envoys brought gifts to the Emperor and were confirmed as rulers in Venice and in Dalmatia.168 The embassy from Venice and Jadera set out to the Frankish Empire in a specific political moment, when Byzantium temporarily lost its predominance in that part of the Adriatic, and the visit of the envoys to Didenhofen,

126

FORGING UNITY

was connected to the expansion of the Frankish influence. They continued to rule as Frankish subjects. J. Ferluga argues that Paul’s title dux shows that he was a Frankish, not a Byzantine official, and that the visit itself was connected with the reorganization of Frankish Dalmatia.169 The following year, the Byzantine general Nicetas came to Venice to recover the Byzantine towns.170 Having concluded peace with King Pippin of Italy in 807, he set out for Constantinople, taking Beatus as a hostage, and leaving Obelarius, on whom he conferred the title of spatharios, to govern Venice.171 Soon afterwards, Beatus returned to Venice with the rank of hypatos.172 Thus, Venice fell under Byzantine rule again. Pippin’s military response of 810 was not successful, for John Deacon explicitly says that the Italian King was defeated.173 Although the Franks were unsuccessful in Venice, they re-imposed their dominance in Dalmatia between 807 and 810,174 so that Paul, the praefectus (strategos) of Cephalonia, was sent to Dalmatia to restore the Byzantine rule. Two years later, the Frankish Empire and Byzantium concluded peace in Aachen. According to the peace treaty, the Franks retained the hinterland (Croatia), while the Dalmatian towns were ceded to Byzantium.175 This survey of the developments in Dalmatia in 806 – 812 raises the question of the way Dalmatia was organized. The reaction of the Empire to the expansion of the Franks in 806 is a certain proof that Dalmatia was under the Byzantine dominance, and that its rule was seriously jeopardized by the passing of the port of Jadera under the suzerainty of the Frankish Emperor. The immediate dispatch of Nicetas’ fleet is a clear sign that Dalmatia had been a constituent part of Byzantium before 806. The appellation dux used for the official based in Jadera, the centre of the province of Dalmatia, may be explained as Einhard’s loose translation of the term, but then one wonders what the original Byzantine title of that official was. Our presupposition is that he was in fact the archon of Jadera, or rather of Dalmatia, which would mean that the archontia of Dalmatia existed even before 806. The temporary Frankish successes in 810 and the return of the praefectus (strategos) of Cephalonia are merely episodes indicating a brief suspension of the Byzantine rule. As soon as 812, the peace of Aachen defined the frontier between the Byzantine possessions in Dalmatia and the Franks. The archontia of Dalmatia also got firm boundaries at that time. Five years later, in 816/17, Emperor Leo V

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

127

sent a certain Nicephoros to settle the boundaries between the Dalmatian Romans and the Slavs.176 The concern of the Empire for the definition of the borders in this region shows not only that the Byzantine rule was established there, but also that its territory was clearly defined as a province. Latin sources mention a certain John, praefectus of the province, based in Jadera, who received Bishop Forutnatus, a supporter of Ludovicus Posavski in his struggle against the Franks and their vassals, the Dalmatian Croats (819 – 822).177 John’s title, preafectus of the province, is quite different from Paul’s appellation, dux of Jadera, mentioned fifteen years earlier by the same Frankish author. He not only holds a different title, but his authority is enlarged to include not only Jadera, but also the entire province The province referred to may be only one – Dalmatia. That would further mean that an administrative change took place in Dalmatia between 806 and 821, when it grew from an archontia into a theme. Einhard gives the same title to Paul, the preafectus of Cephalonia, who operated along the Dalmatian coast against the Franks in 810, and it is well known that Cephalonia had been a theme since the last decades of the 8th century. It would be odd indeed if the same source used the same title for two different functions. In both cases the reference is to the strategos – of Cephalonia and of Dalmatia. Gottschalk, a Saxon who was at the court of Prince Trpimir of Croatia between 846 and 848, provides an exceptionally important testimony of the existence of a strategos of Dalmatia. According to the report of this Frankish preacher, Trpimir waged war against the Greeks and their patrikios, whom he defeated.178 J. Ferluga thought that this patrikios may have been the strategos of Cephalonia, not Dalmatia, and that he may have led an expedition against the Croatian Prince.179 This interpretation is at variance with the source, which says that it was Trpimir who attacked the Byzantines, not vice versa. Although all the strategoi in the UT are patrikios, not all patrikios are strategoi, as pointed out.180 However, this Byzantine patrikios in Dalmatia had military units under him, which means that he had the rank of a military commander. The high title of patrikios consequently puts him into the highest military rank – strategos. Gottschalk’s mention of the Greek patrikios is presents undeniable proof that in 846 – 848 Dalmatia was a theme governed by a strategos. In the

128

FORGING UNITY

light of the arguments discussed above, this testimony supports an earlier dating of the UT, and makes it possible to set the year 846 as the latest date of its origin. Finally, Constantine Porphyrogenitus observes in the DAI that the entire Dalmatia and the peoples in its vicinity… were under Byzantine rule181 until the time of Emperor Michael II, when the situation began to deteriorate seriously. At the same time, the Dalmatian towns, as well as the adjacent Slav tribes, ceased to recognize the Byzantine rule. This state of affairs persisted, according to Porphyrogenitus, until the reign of his grandfather Basil I, who restored the Byzantine rule over the Slav tribes and sent them priests to convert them again. As for the Dalmatian towns, Basil subjected them to the Byzantine rule after successful operations of the Imperial fleet near Ragusa, besieged by the Arabs in 866/67.182 Porphyrogenitus specifies in the next chapter of his work, in fact a revised and improved version of the preceding chapter, that the inhabitants of Dalmatia were paying tribute to the strategos, and that Basil ordered them to give the Slavs what they had been previously giving to the strategos.183 Although it may be inferred from Porphyrogenitus’s text that there was a strategos in Dalmatia even before Basil I, we should bear in mind that this author often uses contemporary terminology and thinks in terms of the current situation when speaking of things belonging to distant past. In other words, the anachronistic use of terms is a feature of Porphyrogenitus’ style, and the researcher must use him rather warily. The essential fact is, however, that a high Byzantine official to whom the inhabitants of the Dalmatian towns were paying tribute existed there, even before Basil I. He may have been an archon, but it is also possible that he was a strategos. It is more likely that he was a strategos, for he collected revenues from an extensive territory from Spalato to Jadera and Trogirium, and further on, as far as the northern islands of Dalmatia. This would be a very difficult, if not impossible, task for an archon relying only on the town militia of Jadera. Besides, Porphyrogenitus does not mention that Basil introduced any administrative reforms in Dalmatia, so that it is reasonable to suppose that the reference is to same title or rank, as it existed before Basil‘s reign. In that case, it must be concluded that there had been a strategos of the theme of Dalmatia even before the reign of Basil I. This seems more likely, as the total sum paid by the towns amounted

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

129

to 710 nomismata – and that was equivalent, if we ignore the 72 nomismata the Ragusans were paying to the Zachloumlians and Travounians, to the salary of a strategos – 10 pounds of gold = 720 nomismata.184 This is in fact a certain testimony that the strategos of Dalmatia existed before Basil I, and that he was paid a salary of 10 pounds of gold accruing from the revenues from the Dalmatian towns, since the strategoi of the Western themes did not receive their pay from the central imperial treasury.185 A detail preserved in the DAI also points to the antiquity of the theme of Dalmatia: Porphyrogenitus says that the province of Dalmatia is the most famous of all the Western provinces.186 As noted by R. Novaković,187 and elaborated by B. Ferjančić,188 that statement could have been made only by one looking at things from Constantinople, which indicates that the final revision of the material used in this chapter of the DAI was made in Constantinople. It is not necessary to regard this statement as certain proof that the theme of Dalmatia existed long before the origin of the DAI, for Porphyrogenitus uses contemporaneous terms anachronistically, but it is noteworthy that this view was current in Constantinople, and that it must have had some real basis in past times. Indeed, further narrative shows that the author looks at the time prior to the fall of Salona and the arrival of the Slavs,189 as the period in which Dalmatia was the most famous of all the Western provinces. Yet, a later Latin source (1308) describes Dalmatia as the most famous province under the good Constantinopolitan Emperors.190 The renouncing of the central authority by the Dalmatian towns in the time of Michael II was most likely associated with the Narentans and their expansion to the Adriatic islands – Pharos, Korkyra, Meleta and Brachia. It was precisely at the beginning of the 9th century that the Narentans captured these islands – a development also testified in some Western sources, where they are referred to as the lords of these islands.191 Thus, John Deacon relates that an envoy from the Narentan islands came to Venice, made peace with the Doge and was baptized by him on that occasion.192 Recent research has shown that the Narentans began the conquest of these islands at the end of the 8th century,193 which resulted in the weakening of the Byzantine position in Dalmatia, and a kind of split of the regions under the Byzantine rule into a northern and a southern segment. Thus, during the last decade of the 9th cen-

130

FORGING UNITY

tury, Ragusa and southern Dalmatia were virtually cut off from the remaining part of Byzantine Dalmatia and its seat in Jadera. The conclusion of Constantine Porphyrogenitus that the Byzantine rule in the territory of Dalmatia collapsed in the time of Michael II, may have been based on these developments, when the Narentans became completely independent in their relations with Byzantium and Venice, extended their rule both on the mainland and on the sea, severed the links between southern and northern Dalmatia and effectively isolated the Byzantine towns. Consequently, the towns could rely on their own forces only, and had to manage their relations with Slavs on their own. That might be why Porphyrogenitus wrote that the towns had become independent.194 The administrative reforms in individual territories were always prompted by some developments in the immediate surroundings. Thus, the Byzantines set up a series of kleisourai and doucates in the East in order to facilitate the defence of the border zone from the Arab incursions, and they eventually grew into themes. A similar principle was applied in other parts of the Empire, and Dalmatia was certainly no exception. The theme of Peloponnesus was created in a moment of deteriorating relations with the Franks, and its development was concurrent with the strengthening of the Frankish influence in Italy.195 Following the same policy, the Byzantines created the theme of Dyrrachium in the early 9th century. The creation of the theme of Dalmatia was a logical result of the reorganization of the westernmost regions of the Empire, and it might have taken place in 810 at the earliest, and in 821 at the latest. A more precise date should be looked for in the period between 817 (when the Byzantine mission was defining the borders between the Byzantine possessions and the Slavs in the hinterland), and 821 (when Einhard mentioned the praefectus of the province based in Jadera). Some time later, the attacks of the Narentans undermined the Byzantine dominance in Dalmatia, so that Porphyrogenitus’ comment concerning the weakening of the Byzantine rule in that territory might have been partly drawn from the consequences of the expansion of the Naretans. The Narentans caused damage not only to the Byzantines, but also to Venice, whose powerful fleet seems to have failed to intervene in time. The theme of Dalmatia probably existed in 817/21. In that case, the UT, which was compiled, according to its title, in the time of Michael and

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

131

Theodora, originated considerably earlier, which means that we should reconsider Kyriakides’s suggestion that it should be dated into the period 809 – 821. Because of the same reason, the theme of Klimata, which figures in the UT, and which has been used as the key clue for the dating of the UT into a time after 833/34, is not in fact identical with the theme of Cherson, but its precursor created after 809. In all the extant taktikons – UT, BT, Kletorologion of Philotheos and Escorial, the strategos or the archon of Dalmatia is listed before the strategos or the archon of Cherson.196 It is known that the lists of themes in the taktikons followed an established pattern, and that were arranged in the order of both importance, and the date of creation.197 When new themes were created by the detachment of a region from a previously existing large theme, it was added below the parental theme, so that such lists also make it possible to follow the geographical distribution of the themes. On the other hand, the themes, which were never divided, were recorded in the chronological order. In that case, the older theme preceded the more recent one. In the UT, the archon of Dalmatia is listed before the archon of Cherson, just as in the later taktikons the strategos of Dalmatia always precedes the strategos of Cherson. This can mean only one thing – that the theme of Dalmatia was older than the theme of Cherson, and the theme of Cherson was created under that name in the time of Emperor Theophilos at the earliest (possibly already in 833/34, if Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ statement198 is understood in that sense), but most likely several decades later. This approach also shows that the archontia of Dalmatia originated already in the 8th century, for several seals of the archontes of Cherson dating from the 8th century have been preserved. In 826, Theodore Stouditas wrote a letter to strategos Bryenas.199 It cannot be inferred from the content of the letter where the strategos served, but there are indications that he was in Dalmatia.200 Thus, for example, strategos Bryenas from Schlumberger’s seal may have been precisely the strategos to whom Theodore Stouditas wrote. It is indicative that the Bryennios family, whose members served as the strategoi of Dalmatia and Peloponnesus, owed its rise in the imperial administration to the Amorian dynasty,201 which had lost its prominence in the time of the Macedonian dynasty. If we therefore view the seal of Bryenas, the strategos of Dalmatia, in this context, it may be concluded that the seal dates from the time of the Amorian (820 – 867), not

132

FORGING UNITY

the Macedonian dynasty. The reference to Theoktistos Bryennios, who led an expedition against the Ezeritai and Milingoi on the Peloponnesus in 842, at the very beginning of the reign of Michael III, can also be very important, for he is designated as protospatharios. Namely, if the UT originated in 842/43, his proper appellation would have been patrikios, not protospatharios, for the UT refers to the patrikios and strategos of Peloponnesus.202 The proposed dating of the UT into the time of Michael I provides an answer to another important question much debated in historiography. It has been noticed that provincial archontes figure in the UT only, and attempts have been made to explain what their role was in the region, which already had a strategos. N. Oikonomidès briefly mentions these archontes without going into a detailed explanation of their role. He disagrees, however, with the explanation, suggested by H. Ahrweiler, that they were commanders of naval squadrons in the maritime regions of the Empire,203 and concludes that they represented the remnants of the municipal administration and of the semiindependent status of these regions in former times.204 We shall not discuss the interpretations suggested by previous scholars, but only point out the explanation, which is the only possible one, once the UT is dated into the time of Michael I. It is a fact that the archontes of Chaldia, Crete and Dyrrachium figure in the UT in addition to the strategoi of these provinces.205 Moreover, in the case of Crete, a particular archon appears in addition to the archontes who are mentioned together. It is remarkable that the strategoi of the older themes have no subordinate archontes. The evidence of the complex administrative structure in the three themes mentioned above – strategos, archon, archontes – is in fact an indicator of the continuation of the state, as it existed previously, immediately before the creation of the theme. In this case, that would be a reliable sign that Crete, Chaldia, and Dyrrachium were recently elevated to the status of a theme, and that the former administration was partly preserved. This is the explanation already suggested by J. Bury, but since it seemed to him that the previous administrative division of authority persisted too long, and since he dated the UT into the period from 842 to 856, he concluded that the scribe was late in updating the lists of imperial officials.206 Thus, according to his view, the archontes were listed besides the strategoi by mistake. In

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

133

this study, it is assumed that Chaldia may have become a theme immediately after 811 (and possibly earlier), that in all likelihood Dyrrachium became a theme at about the same time, and that, consequently, the same explanation holds well for Crete. The fact that there are no extant seals of the strategoi of Crete before the 10th century corroborates the view that the theme existed for a very short time before it fell to the Arabs – not more than fifteen years (810/811 – 826/827).207 The appearance of the archontes beside the strategos of a theme can be taken as reliable evidence of the recent elevation of a province to the status of theme. The explanation is not that the scribe forgot to leave them out of the list of imperial officials, but that the Byzantines preserved the previous administrative organization for some time after the creation of a theme. As time went on, this organization was completely abandoned, and Kletorologion of Philotheos, for example, makes no mention of provincial archontes. All the evidence for the dating of the creation of the theme of Dalmatia discussed so far indicates that the UT could not have originated in the time of Michael and Theodora. Virtually the only testimony that it dates from their time is contained in the title of the work, and the scribe as we have shown, altered that. According to the above discussion, the UT may have originated after June 812 (the peace of Aachen) and before July 813 (end of the reign of Michael I). The changes which took place at that time, not only as a result of the peace of Aachen and the weakening of the Arab pressure caused by the civil war in the Caliphate, but primarily as the outcome of the extensive administrative reforms carried out by Nicephoros I, made it necessary to compile a new taktikon, in which these administrative changes would be recorded.208 These changes had a number of important results: 1) the disappearance of the theme of Strymon (809 – 811/812); 2). the reestablishment of the archontia of Dalmatia (formally as early as 810); 3) the creation of the theme of Dyrrachium (by 811/12 at the latest); 4) the creation of the theme of Chaldia (around 811); 5) the creation of the theme of Crete; 6) the creation of the theme of Klimata. What is more important, the majority of these changes did not take place during the reign of Michael I, but in the time of Nicephoros I, which clarifies the term   in the title of the UT, for the new

134

FORGING UNITY

Constantinopolitan government made a survey of the situation after the unexpected death of Emperor Nicephoros I, who was probably not able to carry into effect all his plans for the reorganization of the provincial administration. Finally, it is significant that the themes of Thessalonica, Dyrrachium, Crete and Klimata were entered at the very end of the list of themes, which shows that they had been created recently – or more precisely in the first years of the 9th century.

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

135

NOTES *

Taktikon Uspenskog i tema Dalmacija, IČ 48 (2002) 9 – 44.

1

Oikonomidès, Listes, 57.12; 59.8. In the case of the former archontes of Dalmatia, V.

Benešević points out that Δ is written instead of X, so the word reads )  instead of J , which means that the reading here might have been ); cf. V. Benešević, Die byzantintischen Ranglisten nach dem Kletorologion Philothei und nach den Jerusalemer Handschriften zusammengestellt und revidiert, Byzantinisch Neugriechische Jahrbücher 5 (1927) 157. 2

Ferluga, Uprava, 70, determined the period between 867 and 878 as the time of the origin of

the theme of Dalmatia. Most scholars accept this conclusion. A different view, according to which Dalmatia became a theme between 842 and 846, was put forward by J. Posedel, Pitanje dalmatinskog temata u prvoj polovici IX stoljeća, Historijski zbornik 3 (1950) 217 – 219. Zakythinos, Céphalonie, 310, who dates the origin of the theme of Dalmatia into the period around 840, and Margetić, Provincijalni arhonti, 47, endorses Posedel’s view. N. Oikonomidès has recently suggested that that the theme of Dalmatia may have existed (for a limited time?) in the first half of the 9th century; cf. Nesbitt–Oikonomidès, Seals I, 46. 3

See Ferluga, Uprava, 45, n. 31, for this view and the earlier studies.

4

They have all been published by Oikonomidès, Listes, passim.

5

F. I. Uspenskij, Vizantijsky tabel o rangah, IRAIK 3 (1898) 109 – 129 (= Uspenskij, Tabel’).

Manuscript No 39 of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (12th– 13th century). 6

J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, London 1911, 12 sq. (=

Bury, Administrative System). A survey of the arguments advanced so far for the dating of the UT is given in G. Оstrogorsky, Taktikon Uspenskog i Taktikon Beneševića, ZRVI 2 (1959) 38 – 48 ( = Ostrogorsky, Taktikon) and Oikonomidès, Listes, 45 – 47. F5 65 7< 1G 4 II – V,  & 1937, 235 – 241 (=

7

Kyriakides, Meletai). Kyriakides correctly takes 809 as the lower chronological limit of the origin of the UT, deducing it from the service of  4 - I%0 the commander of the guard of Emperor Nicephoros I’s son, which was composed of young men of noble stock, and which Nicephoros I founded precisely in 809; cf. Oikonomidès, Listes, 53.2; 332. 8

Оstrogorsky, Taktikon, 47 – 48.

9

Oikonomidès, Listes, 46 – 47.

10

Oikonomidès, Listes, 45. Leo and Alexander are referred to as co-rulers in the main text of

Kletorologion of Philotheos; cf. Oikonomidès, Listes, 83.31. 11

W. T. Treadgold, Notes on the Numbers and Organization of the Ninth-Century Byzantine

Army, GRBS 21/3 (1980) 269 – 288 (= Treadgold, Notes) has pointed out a number of disputable passages in the UT. 12

Bury, Administrative System, 12.

136 13

FORGING UNITY

DAI I, 42.39 – 54. According to Porphyrogenitus, the first strategos of Cherson was

spatharokandidatos Petrona, the man who suggested to Emperor Theophilos that he replaces the former archontes in Cherson with a strategos appointed from Constantinople. A seal of Petrona, antypathos, patrikios, imperial protospatharios and genikos logothetes from the 9th century has been preserved; cf. I. Sokolova, Les sceaux byzantins de Cherson, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 3, ed. N. Oikonomidès, Washington D. C. 1993, 104 (= Kyriakides, Meletai). 14

Оstrogorsky, Taktikon, 43. It should be mentioned that in the case of Cherson it is not clear

whether the reading should be archon or archontes since the original text is I 2-, as Margetić points out in Provincijalni arhonti, 53, he opts for the singular – the archon of Cherson. However, Uspenskij, Tabel’, 124, settles for the plural – archontes of Cherson. 15

Treadgold, Notes, 278, thinks that the archon of Cherson was replaced by the strategos of

Klimata in 839 or 840. 16

DAI I, 42.41 – 44.

17

Oikonomidès, Listes, 49. 19

18

Oikonomidès, Listes, 57.13. A number of seals of the archontes of Cherson have been preserved.

The most frequent title found on them is: the imperial spatharios and archon of Cherson; cf. E. Stepanova, New Seals from Sudak, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 3, ed. N. Oikonomidès, Washington D. C. 1993, Nos 11 – 13, 15 (= Stepanova, Seals). See also, Nesbitt - Oikonomidès, Seals I, No 82.1 – 2, and No 82.3, Sabbas hypatos and archon of the Cherson. However, an imperial spatharokandidatos and archon of Cherson is also known, cf. Stepanova, Seals, No 14. 19

Theoph. I, 332.4.

20

Theoph. I, 451.1.

21

Theoph. I, 377.25 – 26; cf. also, De them.12.3.

22

DAI I, 42.44 – 47.

23

De them. 12.1 – 4.

24

De them. 12.13 – 16.

25

DAI I, 42.72.

26

Constantine Porphyrogenitus says that the extent of the region between Cherson, Klimata

and the Cimmerian Bosphorus is slightly over 1, 000 square miles; cf. DAI I, 42.81 – 83 27

DAI I, 42.85 – 86. Cf. DAI I, 11.10:  .    )-.

28

The earliest known seals of the strategoi of Cherson date from as late as the eighth decade

of the 9th century; cf. Sokolova, Sceaux, 100; Zacos-Veglery, Seals II, No 191 – John, the imperial spatharokandidatos and strategos of Cherson. Nesbitt-Oikonomidès, Seals I, Nos 82.19; 82.21 published the seals of Nicephoros, imperial spatharokandidatos and strategos of Cherson (9th/10th centuries) and Sergios, imperial spatharokandidatos and strategos of Cherson (9th/10th centuries). A 9th century seal of an unknown spatharokandidatos and strategos of the Klimata of Cherson has been published recently; cf. Stepanova, Seals, No 16. There is also another seal of an unknown official of the klimata of Cherson; cf. I. Sokolova, Pečati arhontov Hersona, ZRVI 18 (1978) 93, note 65 (= Sokolova, Pečati).

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia 29

137

Nesbitt - Oikonomidès, Seals I, No 81.1.

30

Sokolova, Pečati, 92 – 93.

31

Sokolova, Pečati, 96.

32

Theoph. Cont. 360.14 – 16.

33

Sokolova, Pečati, 96.

34

DAI I, 53.528 – 529.

35

DAI I, 53.528 – 529.

36

Leonis Diaconi Caloensis Historia, ed. C. B. Hase, Paris 1819, 258; cf. I. Shevchenko, The

Date and Author of the So - Called Fragments of Toparcha Gothicus, DOP 25 (1971) 126 (= Shevchenko, Fragments). See also M. C. Nystazopoulou, Note sur l’Anonyme de Hase improprement appelé toparque de Gothie, BCH 86/1 (1962) 324, note 7. 37

See Shevchenko, Fragments, 117 – 188, and the extensive literature cited there.

38

Shevchenko, Fragments, 131.

39

Shevchenko, Fragments, 132 and n. 22.

40

DAI I, 32.11; 32.19 – 20.

41

For this term see Lounghis, Ambassades, 299 – 303.

42

DAI I, 45.80 – 83.

43

DAI I, 8.7 – 8.

44

DAI I, 7.1.

45

De them. 1.20 – 21; 11.3 – 4; 1.6 – 7.

46

De them. 3.1 – 5.

47

DAI I, 50.85 – 87.

48

Cf. the comment in De them. 174 – 175.

49

Theoph. Cont. 181.12.

50

Ios. Gen. 68.33.

51

Theoph. Cont. 181.15; 183.9.

52

Oikonomidès, Strategos, 121. On Ibn Hardadbeh and Al Djarmi, see Źródła arabskie do

dziejów słowiańszczyzny, I, ed. T. Lewicki, Wroclaw – Kraków 1956, 43 – 47, 59 – 60 (=Źródła). 53

H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung, Leipzig 1899, 83.

54

E. W. Brooks, Arabic Lists of the Byzantine Themes, JHS 21 (1901) 76 (= Brooks, Lists).

55

Cf. J. Ferluga, Niže vojno-administrativne jedinice tematskog uređenja, ZRVI 2 (1953) 87 (=

Ferluga, Niže jedinice). 56

J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to Accession of

Basil I (A.D. 802-867) London 1912, 261. 57

Mansi XIV, 419; Oikonomidès, Listes, 349. On the other hand, Treadgold, Notes, 280,

doubts the evidence on which Oikonomidès bases his case, i.e. a letter of Michael II (820 – 829) to the Frankish Emperor from 824, in which the ducatus of Chaldia is mentioned. Chaldia was certainly a theme at that time for in the same letter the Emperor also calls the theme of

138

FORGING UNITY

Anatolicon – ducatus, so the problem should be actually explained by the inadequacy of the Latin translation of Byzantine terms: totum Armeniae ducatum simul et ducatum Chaldeae…; Mansi XIV, 419. 58

Theoph. I, 497.6 – 9.

59

Theoph. I, 497.9 – 14.

60

Zacos-Veglery, Seals, No 3088A. The seal of an unknown imperial protospatharios and doux

of Chaldia from the 9th century is also known of; cf. Zacos-Veglery, Seals, No 3226A. 61

Oikonomidès, Strateges, 1.

62

Źródła, 71.

63

Uspenskij, Tabel’, 124.

64

Oikonomidès, Listes, 49.6 (with an explanation in n. 24).

65

Theoph. Cont. 120.10

66

Theoph. I, 500.13 – 14

67

Oikonomidès, Listes, 48, n. 24.

68

Ibid.

69

Historia de Leone, ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae 1842, 336.19 – 21 (= Historia).

70

See Oikonomidès, Listes, 343, for the specific character of Licaonia

71

DAI I, 50.83 – 84.

72

According to Oikonomidès, the UT mentions tourmarchai (I  %) of the themes of

Anatolicon (emend. Armeniacon) Thrakesion, Opsikion, Boukellon, Cappadoce, Paphlagonia, Thrace and Macedonia; Oikonomidès, Listes, 56.16 – 57.3. This definitely means that Cappadoce was a theme, which is also indicated by the fact that several tourmarchai were under their strategos. Uspenskij, Tabel’, 123 – 124, however, uses the plural form only when he speaks of the tourmarchai of Anatolicon, Thrace and Macedonia (I  %) while those of Opskion, Boukellon, Cappadoce, Paphlagonia and Thrace are referred to in the singular (C  %&). Oikonomidès also disagrees with Uspenskij on the question of kleisourarchai. Thus, Oikonomidès (Listes, 55.5 – 6) uses the singular form for the kleisourarches of Charsianon and Sozopolis (i. e. Seleucia) (C %&) while, Uspenskij, Tabel’, 123, refers to them in the plural (I %). At present, the only leads for the solution of this problem can be found in the Arabian sources, above all in the text of Ibn al Fakih, who explicitly mentions three tourmarches of Anatolicon, three tourmarches of Armeniacon; and two tourmarches of Chaldia. In the case of the other themes, he does not mention tourmarchai subordinated to the strategoi. The same source refers to the kleisourarchai of Seleucia and Charsianon in the singular form. It is interesting that the commander of Cappadoce is also called kleisourarches; cf. Brooks, Lists, 74 – 76. 73

The following themes are listed in the UT: Anatolicon, Armeniacon, Thrakesion, Opsikion, Boukellon

(emend. Cappadoce), Paphlagonia, Thrace, Macedonia, Chaldia, Peloponnesus, Kibyrrhaiotai, Hellas, Sicily, Cephalonia, Thessalonica, Dyrrachium, Crete, and Klimata; cf. Oikonomidès, Listes, 47.14 – 47.19 74

Theoph. I, 475.22, mentions a monostrategos of Thrace and Macedonia in 802. It is usually

considered that the theme of Macedonia was created between 789 and 802; cf. P. Lemerle,

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

139

Philippes et la Macédoine orientale à l’époque chrétienne et byzantine, Paris 1945, 122. Ostrogorsky, Istorija, 199; Oikonomidès, Listes, 349. 75

It seems justified to put the creation of the theme of Thessalonica in the years immediately

following the campaign of logothetes Stauracios in 783. A. Stavridou-Zafraka, Slav Invasions and the Theme Organization in the Balkan Peninsula, Byzantiaka 12 (1992) 172, even considers a date before 783. Oikonomidès, Listes, 352, mentions that this theme probably existed before 824. Оstrogorsky, Istorija, 199, n. 3, leaves this question open and warns that the theme of Thessalonica appears in sources for the first time in 836. Treadgold, Revival, 190, disagrees with these views and argues that the theme of Thessalonica was created during the reign of Emperor Nicephoros I (802 – 811). 76

The theme of Dyrrachium certainly existed in 826, and probably before 815; cf. J. Ferluga,

Sur la date de la création du thème de Dyrrachium, Actes du XIIe congrès international d’etudes byzantines, Ochride 10 – 16 septembre 1961, ZRVI 8/2 (1964) 91. 77

Oikonomidès, Listes, 139.13

78

Nesbitt-Oikonomidès, Seals I, No 37.3.

79

Ibid. 104.

80

Ibid. No 37.2.

81

Zacos-Veglery, Seals, Nos 1956A, 1969, 2057, 2067, 2097, etc.

82

Kletorologion of Philotheos mentions protonotaroi of the themes; cf. Oikonomidès, Listes,

121.6. The UT makes mention only of protonotarios of dromou, but not thematic protonotarios; cf. Oikonomidès, Listes, 57.24; 59.19. The office of the protonotarios of the theme was introduced in mid-9th century at the latest, as is shown by the seal of the protonotarios of Strymon mentioned above. 83

De them. 3.1 – 5.

84

Živković, Romeji, 90 and n. 280.

85

Theoph. I, 484.29 – 485.3.

86

Treadgold, Revival, 157 reckons that this sum was sufficient for about 12, 000 soldiers.

87

Theoph. I, 485.1 – 2. M. Rajković, Oblast Strimona i tema Strimon, ZRVI 5 (1958) 3, thinks

that the reference is to the strategos of some other theme, for example Macedonia 88

Theoph. I, 489.17 – 21.

89

Theoph. I, 486.10 – 13.

90

Theoph. I, 496.5 – 6.

91

Theoph. I, 486.12.

92

Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, ed. P. Schreiner, I – III, Wien 1975 – 1979, I, 49.16. This

testimony should be supplemented by a passage in Theoph. I, 464.1 – 2, which mentions the stay of the strategos of Thrace in Strymon (geographical area) in 789, the sudden Bulgarian assault and his death 93

Kyriakides, Meletai, 137, has also suggested, based on Theophanes’s report of the attack of

the Bulgarians on the army of Strymon, that Strymon became a theme before 809.

140

FORGING UNITY

94

Die Protobulgarischen Inschriften, ed. V. Beševliev, Berlin 1963, No 41.4 – 8.

95

In June 812, Khroum occupied Develtos and extended the Bulgarian rule to Thrace and

Macedonia. As a consequence of the expansion of the Bulgarians, Byzanium abandoned a number of towns and fortresses, including Anchialos, Nicea, Probaton, and Philippopolis; cf. Theoph. I, 496.2 – 5 96

See above, note 78.

97

Oikonomidès, Listes, 53.18.

98

Ann. Boll. 18 (1899) 253, 258; Oikonomidès, Listes, 46 – 47. However, the earliest seals of

the strategoi of the Aegean Islands date from the 10th century; cf. Nesbitt-Oikonomidès, Seals II, 40.27, Demetrios, the imperial spatharocandidatos and strategos of the Aegean Islands; Ibid. 40.29, Leo, the imperial protospatharios and strategos of the Aegean Islands; Ibid. 40.31, Michael, the imperial protospatharios and epi tou chrysotrikliniou and strategos of the Aegean Islands; Ibid. 40.32, Nicholas the protospatharos and strategos of the Aegean Islands. 99

Nesbitt-Oikonomidès, Seals II, Nos 40.5; 40.7; 40.8 – 10.

100

Žitie prep. Theofana Ispovednika, ed. V. V. Latišev’, Zapiski Rossiskoj Akademij nauk’, Po

istoriko-filologičeskomu otdeljenju, tom XIII, No 4 , St. Peterburg 1918, 4.7. 101

Oikonomidès, Listes, 49.18

102

Ibid. 53.5

103

Ibid. 55.2 – 3.

104

The strategos of Crete appears in the Hagiography of Stephen the Younger, compiled

from earlier sources in 808; cf. Оstrogorsky, Taktikon, 44. Theophanes Lardotiros appears in the Hagiography as 2% & ! :, &, K0; cf. PG 100, col. 1164. 105

D. Tsougarakis, Byzantine Crete from the 5th Century to the Venetian Conquest, Athens

1988, 170 – 178, argues that Crete was not a theme before 827/28, but an archontia. 106

For this abortive expedition see Georgii monachi Chronicon, ed. C. de Boor, I – II, Lipsiae

1904, 814.14 – 815.7 (= Georgii monachi). It should be borne in mind, however, that in this source Theoktistos is dubbed as a logothetes, not a strategos. 107

Bury, Administrative System, 14. Bury also considered the possibility that some of the

Aegean Islands were incorporated into the theme and that after the conquest of Crete by the Arabs they were governed, as the remaining parts of the former theme of Crete, by the strategos of Crete. 108

Ostrogorsky, Taktikon, 45.

109

Oikonomidès, Listes, 247.22; Ostrogorsky, Taktikon, 45.

110

De them. 11.33 – 40.

111

Ibid. 11.40.

112

T. C. Lounghis, Sur la date du De thematibus, REB 31 (1973) 299 – 305 (= Lounghis, Sur

la date); H. Ahrweiler, Sur la date De thematibus de Constantine VII Porphyrogénète, TM 8 (1981) 1 – 5 (= Ahrweiler, De thematibus).

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia 113

141

Cf. De them. 9.4 – 8, where the provinces of Dacia, Dardania and Pannonia are listed with

the number of towns as found in Hierocles’s Synecdemus, although these towns and provinces had ceased to exist three centuries previously. Cf. Hierocles Synecdemus, ed. G. Parthey, Amsterdam 1967, 16 114

DAI I, 50.85 – 87.

115

Oikonomidès, Listes, 75 – 76, 351 – 352.

116

Treadgold, History, 483 – 484.

117

Lupi Protospatarii Annales, MGH SS V, ed. G. Pertz, Hannoverae 1829, 54 (= Lup.

Protosp.), et Trabomen capta est a Saracenis; La Cronaca Siculo-Saracena di Cambridge con doppio testo Greco, ed. G. Cozza-Luzi, Palermo 1890, 38; Ibn al-Atir, ed. M. Amari, Biblioteca arabo-sicula, Versione italiana I – II, Turin – Roma 1880, I, 424 sq.; cf. V. von Falkenhausen, Untersuchungen über die byzantinische Herrschaft in Süditalien vom 9. bis ins 11. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden 1967, 26. 118

Oikonomidès, Listes, 231.24 – 25; De cerim. 788.10 – 11.

119

Oikonomidès, Listes, 105.6.

120

DAI I, 50.182 – 187; cf. the comments of Ferluga (Ferluga, Niže jedinice, 74 – 75) and the

opposite view of Oikonomidès (Listes, 231, n. 289.) 121

The UT mentions a kleisoura of Sozopolis (Oikonomidès, Listes, 55.6), mentioned nowhere

else, and Oikonomidès suggests that the original reference was in fact to Seleucia (Oikonomidès, Listes, 54, n. 35). 122

Brooks, Lists, 75; Oikonomidès, Listes, 350.

123

Cf. De them. 147 (comment).

124

De cerim. 697.6 – 7; Ferluga, Niže jedinice, 80.

125

See n. 121.

126

It seems that Cappadoce became a kleisoura quite early. A passage in Theophanes (Theoph.

I, 350), from 666/67, may be interpreted as a reference to Cappadoce as a kleisoura. In 694/95 Theophanes (Theoph. I, 368.27) mentions Gregory the Cappadocian who was a kleisourophylax. Three years later, in 697/98, Theophanes (Theoph. I, 371.11 – 12) mentions Cappadoce and the adjacent kleisoura. The references to Cappadoce and Galatia by the same writer (Theoph. I, 473.10) 797/98 may be also understood as relating to kleisourai. 127

Historia, 336.20 – 21.

128

Oikonomidès, Listes, 55.4; Uspenskij, Tabel’, 123.

129

Uspenskij, Tabel’, 123.

130

Theoph. I, 371.11 – 12.

131

The Church of Constantinople celebrates its feast on the 11th of February; cf. Synaxarium

ecclesiae constantinopolitanae, ed. H. Delahaye, Bruxelles 1902, 458.27 (= Synaxarium). 132

It is well known that the Emperor of Byzantium was considered a saint from the moment of

his coronation, as is shown in De cerim. 193.4, but the use of the term depended on the circumstances and on the type or purpose of the text in which it was mentioned; cf. I. Goschev, Zur

142

FORGING UNITY

Frage der Kronungszeremonien und die zeremonielle Gewandung der byzantinischen und der bulgarischen Herrscher im Mittelalter, Byzantino-Bulgarica 2 (1966) 145 – 168. In the case of Theodora, we do not have a text dealing with a solemn occasion on which she might have been appropriately designated as a saint. In any case, the source (the title of the UT) uses the term saint only for Theodora, and not for Emperor Michael. Had the author wanted to use the solemn formula, he would have also called Emperor Michael saint. For the usage of the term saint for Byzantine Emperors see G. Dagron, Empereur et pretre, Paris 1996, 159 – 168, especially p. 166. 133

Synaxarium, 444.27 – 28; 521.3 – 4; 936.35 – 36 (together with her son Emperor Michael).

134

Leonis Grammatici Cronographia, ed. I. Bekkeri, Bonnae 1842, 228.12 – 13 (= Leo Gramm.).

For Symon Logothetes’ work and its variants ascribed to various authors see ODB III, 1982 – 1983, and F. I. Uspenskij, Očerki po istorij vizantiskoj obrazovanosti. S. Peterburg’ 1891, 15 – 18 135

H5  < 1 &  0< Symmeikta 5 (1983) 255.

136

Ibid. 257.2 – 3.

137

Cf. Georgii monachi, II, 801.6; 801.15

138

Ios. Gen. 77.2; 78.11; 79.20; 85.20 – 21, etc. Theoph. Cont. 148.9; 149.16; 160.16; 162.16

139

DAI I, 26.68, 72; 50.86 – 87, 92, 101, 131, 50.133, 51.7 – 8, 51.137, et passim.

140

Oikonomidès, Listes, 249.14 – 15.

141

De Cerim. 648.11 – 12.

142

De Cerim. 691.1 – 7.

143

De Cerim. 691.12.

144

On the terms =;,  &, see G. Rösch, L  =< Wien 1978, 37 – 40.

145

Оstrogorsky, Taktikon, 40 – 41.

146

The Continuator of Theophanes, writing in the middle of the 10th century, mentions Empress

Theodora several times, but he never calls her saint. Cf. Theoph. Cont. 148.9; 149.16; 151.20; 160.16; 174.2. Neither does Leo Grammaticus use this designation when he refers to Empresses Theodora, Theophano or Zoia Zauces (Leo VI’s wives) Procopia, the wife of Michael I; cf. Leo Gramm. 213.18, 229.13, 234.19 – 20; 270.14; 270.19, 270.22; 335.3, 337.1, 337.4. 147

Oikonomidès, Listes, 41.

148

Uspenskij, Tabel’, 102 – 108.

149

Leo. Gramm. 113.2; 116.1; 173.17; 190.6; 207.6; 262.13.

150

Leo. Gramm. 206.3.

151

Leo. Gramm. 211.7.

152

Leo. Gramm. 228.9; 227.12 – 13.

152

DAI I, 50.9 – 10.

154

W. Seibt, Jadran Ferluga, L’admministratione bizantina in Dalmatia, Venezie 1978, JÖB

30 (1981) 338. The same seal was published by Zacos-Veglery, Seals, No 2637 and Nesbitt–Oikonomidès, Seals I, No 14.2. 155

Nesbitt–Oikonomidès, Seals I, No 14.1.

156

G. R. Davidson, The Minor Objects, Corinth XII, New Jersey 1952, No 2697.

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia 157

143

Nesbitt–Oikonomides, Seals I, No 14.3. It is interesting that Porphyrogenitus’ DAI, written

around the middle of the 10th century, mentions Dalmatia exactly 23 times, always with the expression – J ; cf. DAI I, 29.1 – 5 et passim; 30.1 – 8, et passim; 31.3,56; 32.24; 36.5. 158

Nesbitt–Oikonomidès, Seals I, No 14.4. F. Winkelmann, Byzantinische rang – und Ämter-

struktur im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1985, 117, dates this seal into the second half of the 9th century. 159

Ferluga, Niže jedinice, 85 – 88.

160

Nesbitt–Oikonomidès, Seals I, No 14.5.

161

Sigillographie, 206 – 207.

162

Nesbitt–Oikonomidès, Seals I, 46

163

Theophanes, for example, mentions fourteen times strategoi who were also patrikioi in the

period from 607/8 to 812/813. Only in two cases the strategos has a lower title – Sergios, the protospatharios and the strategos of Sicily (717/18), and Petrone, the spatharios and strategos of Kibyrrhaiotai, (770/71); cf. Theoph. I, 398.7 – 8; 445.21 – 22 164

Ferluga, Uprava, 67.

165

Sigillographie, 206 (also from the first half of the 9th century).

166

Cf. De cerim. 663.8 - 9, 663.16 – 17; Oikonomidès, Listes, 111.4 – 5.

167

Diac. 102.1 – 4.

168

Einh. 193.11 – 14.

169

Ferluga, Uprava, 48 – 49.

170

Einh. 193.37 – 40.

171

Diac. 103.12 – 16.

172

Diac. 103.21-104.2.

173

Diac. 104.5 – 15.

174

According to Einh. 197.16 – 18, Pippin seems to have sacked the Dalmatian coast in 810

and restored his rule in the Dalmatian towns. 175

Einh. 199.26 – 39; Einhardi Vita Karoli imperators, MGH SS II, ed. G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae 1829,

451.8 – 10, notes that Dalmatia was a part of Charlemagne’s state, exceptis maritimis civitatibus, quas ob amicitiam et iunctam cum eo foedus Constantineopolitanum imperatorem habere permisit. 176

Thegani Vita Hiudowici imperatoris, MGH SS II, ed. G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae 1829, 621.13 – 16.

177

Einh. 208.10 – 11, Iohanni praefecto provinciae.

178

L. Katić, Saksonac Gottschalk na dvoru kneza Trpimira, Bogoslovska smotra 4 (1932) 10,

…contra gentem Grecorum et patricium eorum. 179

Ferluga, Uprava, 67; cf. also, V. Košćak, Pripadnost istočne obale Jadrana do splitskih sab-

ora 925 – 928, Historijski zbornik 33 – 34 (1981) 306 – 307 180

Ferluga, Uprava, 67

181

DAI I, 29.56 – 58. The text marked by italics is missing, but nearly all the editions of the

DAI agree that the Emperor wanted to say that Dalmatia had been under the power of the Romans until the time of Emperor Michael II (820 – 829).

144 182

FORGING UNITY

DAI I, 29.110 – 111, where the Dalmatian towns under the Byzantine rule at the time of the

siege of Bari in 870 are mentioned. 183

DAI I, 30.124 – 132.

184

DAI I, 30.130, mentions that the towns contribute, in addition to the sum paid to the Slavs,

a small amount to the strategos. That might have been the 10 nomismata, which would add up to the total of 720 nomismata. 185

Ferluga, Uprava, 74 – 75; De cerim. 697.10 – 12. The strategoi of Kibyrrhaiotai, Samos and

the Aegean Islands received ten pounds of gold from the strategoi of the Eastern themes; cf. De cerim. 697.8 – 10. 186

DAI I, 30.12.

187

R.Novaković, Neka zapažanja o 29. i 30. glavi De administrando imperio, IČ 19 (1972) 12 sq.

188

B. Ferjančić, Dalmacija u spisu De administrando imperio – vrela i putevi saznanja, ZRVI

29/30 (1991) 17 – 18. 189

DAI I, 30.13 – 60.

190

Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis, ed. O. Górka, Cracoviae 1916, 20.12 – 14, que qui-

dem prouincia cum adiunctis regnis tempore bonorum imperatorum de Constantineopoli, erat prima prouincia grecie. 191

For the dating of the invasion of the Narentans on the islands of the Adriatic – Brachia,

Pharos, Korkyra and Meleta, see Lj. Maksimović, O vremenu dolaska Neretljana na dalmatinska ostrva, Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta 8/1 (1964) 145 – 152 192

Diac. 110.6 – 8

193

A short text from 1405 giving an account of the struggles of the inhabitants of Brachia with

the Narentans during the 8th/9th centuries has been preserved - Braciae insulae descriptio, Legende i kronike, ed. V. Gligo – H. Morović, Split 1977, 219 194

DAI I, 29.60 – 63.

195

T. Živković, The Date of the Creation of the Theme of Peloponnesus, Symmeikta 13 (1999)

141 – 155 ( = Živković, Date of the Creation). 196

It is interesting to mention that none of the Arabian lists of Byzantine provinces, and five of

them are extant, contains either the theme of Klimata or the theme of Cherson; cf. Brooks, Lists, 67 – 77. 197

Živković, Date of the Creation, 145 – 146.

198

DAI I, 42.39 – 54. However, since the seals of the strategoi of Cherson date from as late as

the 880s, one should tread cautiously here. The material evidence, coins and seals, points to the early years of the rule of Basil I as the period when the theme of Klimata was renamed Cherson. 199

Studitae Epistolae, No 509.

200

Nesbitt–Oikonomidès, Seals I, 46.

201

DAI I, 50.10 – 11 - Theoktistos Bryennios the protospatharios and strategos of Peloponnesus.

202

One should bear in mind, of course, that the taktikons show the disposition of officials

according to an ideal pattern, which does not mean that there were no occasional departures

Uspenskij’s Taktikon And The Theme Of Dalmatia

145

from it. Thus, it was possible to fill the post of a strategos, which presupposes the rank of patrikios, with an official of lower rank – protospatharios or spatharios. 203

Ahrweiler, Mer, 72 – 73.

204

Oikonomidès, Listes, 342 – 343, with notes. 316 – 317 and the references cited there.

205

Oikonomidès, Listes, 53.2; 53.5; 57.11; 57.15.

206

Bury, Administrative System, 13.

207

A seal of John, imperial spatharios and tourmarches of Crete, reliably dated into the first

half of the 9th century; corroborates the view that Crete had been a theme before the Arab conquest; cf. Zacos-Veglery, Seals, No 2059 (cf. also the same authors’ comment on No 1782). Treadgold, Notes, 281, n. 48, unnecessarily speculates that this tourmarches was a subordinate of the archon of Crete. 208

We have an identical case in the Escorial Taktikon, which had been compiled even before

the generals of John Tzymisces completed the conquest of the Balkan interior; cf. S.Pirivatrić, Samuilova Država, Beograd 1998, 55, n. 85 ( = Pirivatrić, Država). Oikonomidès has an interesting remark on the expression   in the title of UT - he thinks that it indicates that the text originated lors d’une occasion particuliere; cf. Oikonomidès, Listes, 47, n. 20.

VIII

THE EARLIEST CULTS OF SAINTS IN RAGUSA

The earliest record of the cult of the saints in Ragusa has been preserved in De administrando imperio written by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. In Chapter 29 of this work, On Dalmatia and the Neighboring Nations, the Emperor includes short descriptions of the Dalmatian towns Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Diadora (Zadar), Spalato (Split), Tetrangourin (Trogir), and Decatera (Kotor). At the very end of his account of Ragusa, the author mentions the body of St. Pancratius, and says that it lies in the Church of St. Stephen, which is in the middle of the city.1 This passage is the earliest record of the cult of St. Pancratius in Ragusa. The appearance of the cult of a saint, or the building of a church dedicated to a particular saint, can provide a specific clue for the reconstruction of political developments in the area concerned. Namely, the peripheral zones, which were the frequent meeting points between the ecclesiastical authorities of Constantinople and Rome, contain evidence of the intermingling of the cults characteristic to both Churches2. Dalmatia represented precisely such a fringe zone. Politically, it was under the rule of Constantinople, but in ecclesiastical matters, it was influenced by both centres of the Christendom – Rome and Constantinople. The cult of a particular saint can therefore represent an important testimony of how much either Church succeeded in asserting its control in Dalmatia.3 As the cults of individual saints last for a specific period, it is also possible to infer the approximate chronology of these influences. It should be also borne in mind that the Constantinopolitan and the Roman Churches were not always opposed, and that their relations depended on general political circumstances. For example, Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ testimony that the Serbs and the Croats received Christianity from Rome, which

148

FORGING UNITY

sent priests to them at the recommendation of Emperor Heraclius (610 – 641),4 is an instance of the joint church policy of the two great Christian centres. The use of the cult of the saints as an instrument of Byzantine foreign policy (in this case in Dalmatia) is quite apparent in the transfer of the relics of St. Anastasia from Constantinople to Jadera in 807.5 The relocation of the relics of St. Tryphon from Byzantium to Catera in 809 should be interpreted in the same sense.6 Since St. Tryphon and St. Anastasia are Byzantine saints, the promotion of their cults is indicative of the expansion of the Byzantine political and ecclesiastical influence. The case of St. Pancratius, on the other hand, is probably a testimony of the efforts of the Holy See to assert its ecclesiastical policy in the Ragusan territory. Still, this does not mean that such a policy was pursued unilaterally, and without the consent of the Byzantine government. The chief elements upon which an analysis of the cult of St. Pancratius in Ragusa should be based, is the study of its development, as well as the study of the expansion of the cult of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, whose church, according to the testimony of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, was the resting place of the relics of St. Pancratius.

The Cult of St. Stephen the Protomartyr The legend of the transfer of the relics of St. Stephen has been preserved in a late version (Aurea Legenda), which is virtually useless as a historical source. According to the Golden Legend, a clergyman named Lucian discovered St. Stephen’s relics near Jerusalem in 417. Later, Juliana, the wife of Senator Alexander, transferred the saint’s body to Constantinople, from where it was removed to Rome during the time of Emperor Theodosius II (408 – 450).7 This was a very important saint in Byzantium. First, St. Stephen was the patron saint of the imperial family, and a church dedicated to him was attached to the royal palace.8 It is, however, noteworthy that the cult of St. Stephen was venerated at a very early date also in Rome and, particularly, in North Africa, where the activity of the famous church father Augustine contributed much to its popularity and diffusion.9 Around the middle of the 5th century, there existed a church dedicated to St. Stephen in the Via Latino in

The Earliest Cults Of Saints In Ragusa

149

Rome, and a huge moratorium containing, among others relics, the remains of St. Stephen, was built by Pope Simplicius (468 – 483), on the Mons Caelius. The cult spread to the Frankish state as well. The blood of this saint was kept in the church in Bourges, and a handkerchief sanctified by his body was kept in Bordeaux. It was used in the consecration of new churches.10 St. Stephen’s relics and churches dedicated to him existed also in Clermont, Marseille, Metz, Tours, and elsewhere.11 It can be, therefore, said that the cult of St. Stephen the Protomartyr was venerated in the West, both in Rome and in the Frankish state.12 In other words, it is not easy to associate the emergence of this cult with the ecclesiastical influence of either Rome or Constantinople. Both centres are equally likely to have initiated it.

St. Pancratius and His Cult From the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 7th centuries, the cults of deacon Laurentius, virgin Agnes, and Pancratius began to attract special attention of the Holy See. Large basilicas, which were bigger than any church edifice built after Simplicius’ Rotunda dedicated to St. Stephen (Rotunda di Santo Stefano), were devoted to them.13 The Gesta Martyrum, indicative of Rome’s wish to discover and establish new local cults, originated precisely in this period, in the 6th century.14 The basis of the new cults was the large aisled basilica dedicated to SS Nereus and Achillius, built as early as 398. It was then that Petronilla, who was either the founder of this church, or its founder’s daughter, was buried in the catacombs under the basilica. This was also the site of an earlier Christian shrine, located in the so-called catacombs of Domitilla.15 In the course of the next decades, Petronilla, too, came to be regarded as a saint. At first, she was thought to be the adopted daughter of St. Peter, but, later, when she was included in the Passio of SS Nereus and Achillius, she became fully recognized as a saint. Her tomb already figured in the pilgrims’ itineraries in the 7th century, and in 757 her remains were moved, together with the relics of some other saints, to the basilica of St. Peter.16 Thus, there gradually emerged the cult of a group of saints, which included Achillius, Nereus, Domitilla, and Petronilla. This cult, which originated and

150

FORGING UNITY

was developed in Rome, was never very popular in Byzantium. Hence, the appearance of the relics of these saints in Ragusa before 948/49 indicates that Rome showed an interest in the south-eastern shores of the Adriatic long before Byzantium increased its presence there. SS Pancratius, Petronilla, Laurentius, Stephen the Protomartyr, Sergius and Bacchus were particularly venerated in Rome, as the Lives of the Popes show. Pope Honorius (625 – 638) rebuilt the basilica of St. Pancratius at the second milestone of the Via Aurelia, and set his relics in silver.17 Pope Vitalian sent the relics of St. Pancratius to King Oswiu of Northumbria, and the cult of this saint spread very rapidly in England.18 In the time of Pope Hadrian (772 – 795), the churches of St. Pancratius, St. Stephen the Protomartyr, and St. Petronilla (in Rome) were particularly richly endowed.19 The interest in St. Pancratius and the saints from his circle grew considerably during the pontificate of Hadrian’s successor, Pope Leo III (795 – 816). The Pope presented a number of silver icons and embroidered vestments to the Church of St. Pancratius, an ornamented altar to the Church of St. Petronilla, and various ceremonial robes to the deaconicons of SS Nereus and Achillius, and of St. Stephen the Protomartyr.20

The Saintly Circle of St. Pancratius in the Ragusan Tradition Although Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentions only the relics of St. Pancratius, the Ragusan tradition remembers other saints who were also venerated in Ragusa. Thus, the earliest Ragusan poet Miletius, who probably lived in the 14th century, says that some refugees brought the relics of SS Nereus, Achilleus, Domitilla, and Petronilla, from Rome, and that they were placed in the Church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr. Ad decus et laudem Stephani Protomartyris extat Castellum: templum fundant, et corpora credunt Sanctorum, quorum nomina scripta, subaudis: Nerei, Achillei, Domitillae, Petronillaeque, Quae secum furtim tuilerant Roma fugientes.21

The Earliest Cults Of Saints In Ragusa

151

It is interesting that Miletius makes no mention of the relics of St. Pancratius, although he names precisely the saints whose cult was united with the cult St. Pancratius in the Roman tradition. It may be assumed, therefore, that Constantine Porphyrogenitus abbreviated his source, and mentioned only the relics of St. Pancratius, leaving out the other saints venerated in Ragusa already in his own time. It is possible to deduce the reason for this omission. Porphyrogenitus knew that these saints were specifically associated with the Roman Church, and he mentioned Pancratius only because he felt that this saint’s Greek name might be taken as evidence of his Byzantine origin. If that is correct, Porphyrogenitus’ act might be interpreted as an indication that he was very cautious about the possible political repercussions of what he wrote down. The same caution seems to underlie Porphyrogenitus’ use of the terms  and   in his chapter on Dalmatia, because he wished to make a distinction between the Latin and the Greek populations, and yet to unite both groups under the political supremacy of Constantinople.22 Accordingly, his descriptions of Dalmatian towns seek to associate the former heritage of the Roman Empire with Byzantium (e.g. the passages referring to Diocletian in connection with Spalato or to the etymology of the name of Jadera, iam erat, etc.).23 It is quite certain that his selection of the saints venerated in these towns was made with the same objective in mind, and that the information the Emperor had was actually much more complete, but that he chose to include only those facts that suited him, and the general drift of his work. Perhaps a century and half after Miletius, a work known as The Anonymous Annals of Ragusa was compiled, and Niccolò Ragnina used it as the basis of his Annals of Ragusa. The legend of the foundation of Ragusa was in this work complicated by the merging of the Roman and Slav traditions, so that its historical core is almost unrecognizable. Nevertheless, the anonymous author writes that the refugees who came from Rome were the descendants of Radoslav, a Slav king dethroned long ago, and that they brought with them several relics from Rome: St. Petronilla, St. Domitilla, two pieces of the Holy Cross, St. Sergius, St. Nereus, St. Achilleus, and St. Pancratius.24 The story of the translation of these relics to Ragusa, fully formed in the late Middle Ages, is not of great help in the reconstruction of the actual his-

152

FORGING UNITY

torical development. What is important, however, is that this intricate legend seems to contain allusions to various events, which took place over a period of several centuries. If that is true, the references of SS Pancratius, Domitilla, Petronilla, Nereus, and Achillius, belong to the earliest stratum of the legend. It would also seem that the very intricacy of the legend indicates that it was not known how the relics of these saints actually reached Ragusa. This conclusion would support the view that their transfer had taken place a long time before the compilation of this work, perhaps as far back as the early Middle Ages. There is, however, a sentence in the anonymous author’s account of the relics, which shows that he made use of earlier records. After listing the relics which the newcomers have brought from Rome, he says that they are kept in the Church of St. Stephen at the Pustierna today (Santa Petrunjela, Santa Domintjela, Sancto Nereo, Sancto Anchileo e Pangrazi, capo et mano et pedi de sancto Sergi, Bacho, et molte altre Reliquie sancte; peze dua de legno di Christo, qual son hoggi dì a Sancto Stefano a la Pusterna).25 This remark, however, dates from some period after the 10th century, for the Church of St. Stephen mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus was in the centre of the city,26 while the Church of St. Stephen at the Pustierna was located – if it existed at all at that early date – in a suburb.27 It was only later, probably in the 12th century that the precinct of the Pustierna was encompassed by the town walls of Ragusa. Therefore, at the earliest, the source of the anonymous author dates from the 12th century, and probably even from some later period. The appearance of the cult of St. Pancratius and the building of the Church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr in Ragusa should be viewed perhaps within the framework of the papal policy towards Ragusa and, more specifically, of the plans of Pope Zacharias (741 – 752) to make the town the main missionary centre in southern Dalmatia. The charter, which can be taken as the basis for this interpretation, is a later forgery, but it does contain elements, which preserve the historical core of the original document.28 On the other hand, the papal policy towards Ragusa in 743 could be taken as an additional argument in support of the thesis that the separation of Illyricum from the papal throne took place between 752 and 757, and not as early as 728/29.29 In this case, Rome and Byzantium still pursued a concurrent policy in 743, and the translation of the relics from Rome was the result of a synchronous action

The Earliest Cults Of Saints In Ragusa

153

of the Empire and the Holy See, designed to further the missionary and political work in the Serbian principalities in the hinterland of southern Dalmatia.30 Although the political relations between Byzantium and Rome were very strained in the time of Emperor Leo III (717 – 741), Pope Gregory II and Pope Gregory III, primarily as a result of the Emperor’s iconoclastic policy,31 the charter issued to Ragusa by Pope Zacharias in 743 shows that there was nevertheless a certain rapprochement between Rome and Constantinople at that time. In view of the fact that Constantine V (741 – 775), who succeeded Leo III, continued to pursue the iconoclastic policy, while Pope Gregory III remained on the same position as before, the possibilities for cooperation in religious matters were very limited. An opportunity presented itself after June 742, when Artabasdos, the comes of Opsikia, defeated the legitimate Emperor and took over the throne in Byzantium.32 Artabasdos held on to the throne of Byzantium until 2 November 743, when Constantine V recaptured the capital and regained the imperial rule.33 Thus, the usurping Artabasdos sat on the Byzantine throne for sixteen months, during which time he seems to have sought to obtain the favour of the Roman Pope. He was apparently successful, since the cult of icons was re-established, and since we find Pope Zacharias referring, in two letters addressed to co-bishop Bonifatius, to Artabasdos and his son Nicephoros as rulers whom he recognized as the legitimate Emperors in Constantinople (Data X. Kalendas Iulias, imperante domno piissimo augusto Artavasdo a Deo coronato magno imperatore anno III, post consulatum eius anno III, sed et Niciphoro magno imperatore anno III, indictione duodecima).34 Since Artabasdos had good relations with Pope Zacharias, the charter granted to Ragusa can be interpreted only in this context – as the price, which the Emperor of Byzantium paid for the recognition of his imperial rule by Rome. Thus, Pope Zacharias exploited the internal discords in Byzantium in his efforts to extend the ecclesiastical influence of Rome in southern Dalmatia, or, more precisely, in Ragusa. It was probably then that the relics of the saints remembered in the Ragusan tradition – SS Nereus, Achillius, Petronilla, Domitilla, and Pancratius – were transferred to Ragusa. This interpretation of the events of 743 could also explain the reference to the refugees from Rome, whom the Ragusan tradition always associates

154

FORGING UNITY

with the translation of the relics of SS Nereus, Achillius, Petronilla, Domitilla, and Pancratius to Ragusa. Namely, after the victory of the iconoclastic party in Constantinople in 730, many iconophiles probably sought refuge in the distant provinces or even further, in Rome itself.35 It is therefore quite possible that some of these eminent iconophiles brought the papal charter and the saints’ relics – a hypothesis which provides an easy explanation of the reference to the refugees in the Ragusan legend of the removal of the relics of the Roman saints, for, according to that legend, it was from Illyricum that these refugees went to Rome, and from Rome they came to Ragusa.

The Earliest Cults Of Saints In Ragusa

155

NOTES 1

DAI I, 29.235 – 236.

2

Thus A. Dabinović, Kada je Dalmacija pala pod jurisdikciju carigradske patrijaršije?, Rad

JAZU 239 (1930) 192 – 195, distinguished four periods of the reception of particular cults in Dalmatia. 3

The political position of Dalmatia is discussed by Ferluga, Uprava, passim. The ecclesiasti-

cal affairs are studied in T. Živković, Crkvena organizacija u srpskim zemljama, Beograd 2004, 107 – 130 (= Živković, Crkvena organizacija). 4

DAI I, 31.32 – 35; 32.26 – 29.

5

Cf. G. Manojlović, O godini “Prijenosa sv. Anastasije u Zadar”, Zemaljski arkiv 3 (1901) 104

– 113. The text of the legend of the translation of St. Anastasia’s relics is in Documenta historiae chroaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia, ed. F. Rački, Zagrabiae 1877, 306 – 309 (= Documenta). 6

Instrumentum corporis nostri gloriosi confalonis sancti Tryphonis, Književnost Crne Gore od XII

– XIX vijeka, Pisci srednjovjekovnog latiniteta, prir. D. Sindik – G. Tomović, Cetinje 1996, 18. 7

Around 1260. Jacobus de Voragine compiled the so-called Golden Legend, in which he col-

lected numerous hagiographic texts, including an account of the life of St. Stephen the Protomartyr and of the discovery and transference of his relics. 8

See, e.g., De cerim. 7.7 – 10; 129.6 – 9; 539.17 – 18; 550.1 – 12.

9

Augistine, De civitate Dei, XXII, 8.

10

A. Thacker, The Significance of Place in the Study of the Saints, Local Saints and Local Churches

in the Early Medieval West, ed. A. Thacker – R. Sharpe, Oxford 2002, 13 (= Thacker, Saints). 11

Gregory of Tours, Glor. mart. c.33; Idem, Lib. Hist. I, 31; II, 6; II, 17; VI, 1; Idem, In gloria

confessorum, ed. B. Krusch, MGH, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum I/2, Hannover 19692, c.72. 12

The Roman church celebrates the feast of St. Stephen on the 6th of December, and the

Orthodox Church on the 27th of December. 13

Thacker, Saints, 14.

14

Cf. C. Leyser, The Temptations of Cult: Roman Martyr Piety in the Age of Gregory the Great,

EME 9 (2000) 289 – 307. 15

Thacker, Saints, 14 – 15.

16

Lib. pontif. I, 464.6 – 11. The removals took place during the pontificate of Pope Paul I (757 – 767).

17

Lib. pontif. I, 324.5 – 6.

18

Bede Venerabilis Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 29.

19

Lib. pontif. I, 504.20 – 22; 509.11 – 12.

20

Lib. pontif. II, 2.8 – 23.19.

21

Only fragments of Miletius’ verses have been preserved in the work of Nicolò Ragnina,

which dates from around the middle of the sixteenth century. It is therefore possible that

156

FORGING UNITY

Miletius mentioned St. Pancratius as well in some other passage; cf. Annali di Ragusa del magnifico ms. Nicolò di Ragnina, ed. S. Nodilo, Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, Scriptores I, Zagrabiae 1883, 174 (= Ragnina). 22

The term   is specific only in the chapters dealing with the Slavs in Dalmatia and hin-

terland; cf. DAI I, 29 – 36. 23 24

DAI I, 29.237 – 238; 29.272 – 273. Annales Ragusini Anonymi, ed. S. Nodilo, Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum

Meridionalium, Scriptores I, Zagrabiae 1883, 3 – 4 ( = Anonymi). 25

Anonymi, 3.

26

This oldest church of St. Stephen in Ragusa could be the same as the one mentioned by

Philippus de Diversis in 1440; cf. Philippi de Diversis de Quartigianis, ed. V. Brunelli, Programma dell’ I.R. Ginnasio superiore in Zara 24 (1880) 34 (=Philippi de Diversis), Habetur et aliud templum S. Stephani Prothomartyris valde devotum, ubi servantur Sanctorum Petronillae filiae S. Petri, et Domitillae corpora, et aliorum Sanctorum copia grandis Reliquiarum argento inaurato ornata. 27

For the location of Porphyrogenitus’ Church of St. Stephen in Ragusa see T. Živković,

Legenda o Pavlimiru Belu, IČ 50 (2004) 21 (=Živković, Legenda). 28

Codex I, N° 1. For a more detailed discussion of this charter, see Živković, Crkvena organi-

zacija, 140 – 145. 29

Theophanes records that the separation of Illyricum took place in 728/29, during the pontif-

icate of Gregory II (715 – 731), cf. Theoph. I, 408.23 – 25. 30

Cf. Mango – Scott, Theophanes, 566, n. 5, where it is pointed out that Pope Gregory II and

Pope Gregory III remained in good relations with Byzantium. A later separation of Illyricum – i.e. during the pontificate of Stephen II (752 – 757) was suggested already by V. Grumel, L’annexion de l’Illyricum oriental, de la Sicilie et de la Calabre au patriarcat de Constantinople, Recherches de science religieuse 40 (1952) 191 – 200. 31

Ostrogorsky Istorija, 172.

32

Theoph. I, 414.16 – 21.

33

Theoph. I, 420.10 – 12.

34

Merowingici et Karolini aevi I, Epistolarum tomus III, MGH, ed. W. Gundlach, Berolini

1892, 314.28 – 30; 316.13 – 15. 35

About eighty years later, in 824, Emperor Michael II of Byzantium (820 – 829) complained

in a letter sent to the Frankish Emperor Ludovicus the Pious, that the iconophiles in Rome seek to overthrow the Constantinopolitan government and the iconoclasts; cf. Mansi XIV, col. 419 – 420.

IX

CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENITUS AND THE RAGUSAN AUTHORS BEFORE 1611*

The work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio (DAI), was first edited by Johannes Meursius in 1611.1 Since the work was titled by its first editor, based on the introduction, we cannot consider its title appropriate.2 It is interesting that the learned humanists of the 16th century did not know of this work, although two copies of the DAI had been made between 1509 and 1529. The only exceptions in this respect were some Ragusan authors, who are considered in this work. But before we enter into an analysis of the use of the material from the DAI by these authors, we should say something about the fate of the known manuscripts of this work, because tracing their trajectories might give us some idea of how these writers came to the information contained in it. The earliest manuscript of the DAI, written on vellum, Codex Parisinus 2009, is first mentioned in the catalogue of the library of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi (1501 – 1550). Niccolò Ridolfi possessed 618 Greek manuscripts, and item 21 on the list is described as Constantini Romanorum Imperatoris ad Romanum filium descriptio gentium et locorum, ac varia historia ad rectam administrationem tendens.3 (Description of peoples and places, and various stories relating to proper government, written by Constantine, Emperor of Romans, for his son Romanos). The work in question was no doubt the DAI. Pietro Strozzi acquired this manuscript from Ridolfi’s collection, and, afterwards, in 1560, it became a part of the collection of Catherine de Medici. In 1599, it was transferred to the Royal Library in Paris, where it is kept now. 4 It is from this manuscript that Anthony Eparch,5 a learned Greek from Corfu, made a copy in 1509. Another transcript was made from this copy,

158

FORGING UNITY

probably in the same year. Anthony Eparch copied a small part of it, and his collaborator Michael Damascene, a Cretan by origin, transcribed the rest.6 Both copies, the first marked V (Codex Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 126), and the other marked F (Codex Parisinus gr. 2967), are on paper. Manuscript F is based on V, so that the two transcripts were obviously made sequentially.7 Already in 1516, Johannes Baptista Egnatius wrote, not without some pride: We keep that book as a precious thing in our library. The Emperor himself relates many things about our Venetians in it.8 Manuscript F is first mentioned in a catalogue from Fontainebleau in France in 1529. 9 Mauro Orbini inserted in his work The Kingdom of the Slavs a quotation from the description of Ragusa in Chapter 29 of the DAI.10 Orbini published this passage in Italian translation, presumably based on a text, which was either in Latin, or already translated into Italian. Discussing the devastation of Epidaurus, which he believed was destroyed by the Goths, Orbini cites in support of this view, put forward by Philippo da Bergamo, a work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus entitled: Foedera, iura ac societates imperii Romani. No work of this title attributed to Constantine Porphyrogenitus is known, but it may be inferred from Orbini’s quotation that the text in question is in fact the DAI. It may be added that in 1516 Johannes Baptista Egnatius had already described the DAI as a work which describes: summam totius imperii, sociorum omnium foedera, hostium iures, rationes...etc. Orbini’s text on Ragusa: La città di Rausa (dice egli) prese nome questo dal Sasso, che i Greci chiamano . Onde prima furono appellati Lausei; ma poi per la mutatione della lettera furono detti Rausei: i quali prima furono Epidaurij da Epidauro città, la quale col restante della Dalmatia fù presa da gli Slauinis e i cittadini parte furono ammazzati, e parte menati in cattiuità. Quelli, che fuggirono da queste ruine, ritirandosi ne’ luoghi eminenti, fabricarono vna terriciola, la quale poi accresciuta, cinsero di mura, che tiraua mezo miglio di circuito. Li primi Autori di questa furono Gregorio, Arsatio, Valentino Arcidiacono, & Fauentino prete di S. Stefano. Sono fin’à questa mia età anni cinquecento, dopo che partiti da Salona, fabricarono detta Città. Nella qual’è posto s.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus And The Ragusan Authors Before 1611

159

Pancratio, nella sudetta Chiesa di S. Stefano la quale hoggi si vede in mezo della città. Questi Rausei astretti da poco, & sterile paese, con maggior studio attendono alle mercantie, & à i traffichi maritimi, che all’ agricoltura de’ campi. Orbini marked off clearly the conclusion of the quotation from Porphyrogenitus by the sentence: Et fino quì parla Costantino.11 This is followed by the remark that the Emperor wrote this work in 959, after the Treatise of the Mutation of the States (Trattato delle mutatione de gli Stati) by Arpontaco Burdugalense (i.e. from Bordeaux). This shows where Orbini actually got his the DAI quotation from – from Arpontaco Burdugalense, an author who has remained unknown to modern scholarship. Two essential differences between the Orbini quotation and the DAI are immediately apparent. The first concerns the passage about the gradual expansion of Ragusa, which Porphyrogenitus describes as a three-stage enlargement of the urban core, which grew until the town had...                           † ! " †      #  $ % & '()  *$#  $+, The text of the DAI is damaged at this place in all the known manuscripts, and the words are not completely clear. In Orbini, however, the passage speaks of a two-stage expansion only, and the description ends with the remark that the walls of the town had half a mile in circuit The other difference between Orbini and Porphyrogenitus is to be found in the concluding sentence of Orbini’s quotation: These Ragusans, being confined within a small area of barren soil, engage with greater dedication in commerce and maritime trade than in the cultivation of fields. This sentence is missing in the manuscripts of the DAI, which are known today. In addition to these two discrepancies, there are two others. One concerns LAS, the only Greek word which Orbini borrows. Porphyrogenitus says that the Roman word for precipice is LAU -& . . / 0 *

0 1  ) 2/ 3  45 *

 &+ hence Lausa, of which Rausa is a later corruption. Orbini writes, however, LAS, not LAU. Scholars think that LAU is a Dalmatian Romanism derived from Latin labes, meaning fault-

160

FORGING UNITY

line, chasm, ruination, as Radoslav Katičić claims.12 Porphyrogenitus’ expression ) 2/ 3  45 *

 &6 probably does not stand for which means precipitous lau in Latin, but which means steep rock in Greek. Indeed, the word 7 recorded by Hesychios of Alexandria in the 5th or 6th century, means stone or rock.13 However, Orbini, who knew no Greek, could not have written this if he had not seen it in the source he used. This could have been written only by someone who was much more educated and had a good knowledge of Greek. In other words, LAU is not a Dalmatian-Roman word, but a local expression of Greek origin, derived from the Greek word 7.14 The form & which should be the genitive case correctly spelled  with the omicron omitted) does not seem to be a copyist’s slip, but an accepted form of the nominative, current in the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Hence, the sentence: which means a steep rock in Greek (referring to the steep slope on which the inhabitants of the original Ragusa dwelt). It is plausible that the original name of the settlement on the slope, which was named Rausa (Ragusa) later, had been    , Another and less conspicuous discrepancy concerns the names of the first founders of the town. Porphyrogenitus listed seven of them: &8 9 0

*  /   4:#    ;6  ?/  ? ?   5 - /  ?   5 @  / $(A B> A+, Orbini left out two of the seven (Victorinus and Valentinus) and replaced protospatharios Stephen with Faventinus, a priest of the Church of St. Stephen. The omission was probably accidental, and the transformation of protospatharios Stephen into a priest of the Church of St. Stephen was presumably a result of the inadequate understanding of the Greek text. It is far more interesting and important that the form Faventinus is also recorded in the earliest manuscript of the DAI as ?   ,15 Anthony Eparch corrects this error in two copies, where it is clearly written ?  , This shows that Arpontaco Burdugalense, to whom Orbini refers, did not have Anthony Eparch’s copies in front of him. Accordingly, the error contained in the earliest transcript of the DAI existed also in the copy which is richer in detail (the perimeter of the town walls, the sentence relating to the commercial activity of the Ragusans, the correction of LAU into LAS), and which belongs to another manuscript tradition of the DAI.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus And The Ragusan Authors Before 1611

161

Finally, it is particularly important that Arpontaco Burdugalense explicitly says that Porphyrogenitus wrote his work in 959. The reference to 948/49 as the year in which Porphyrogenitus wrote Chapter 29 of the DAI is preserved in this very chapter.16 Orbini’s work is full of typographic errors, and it would not be surprising if the year 959 was in fact just one of them. But, if the year is recorded accurately, this radically alters our knowledge of the date of the DAI, i.e. it permits the hypothesis that the Emperor finished the final redaction of the DAI in 959 (before 9 November, when he died). However, before we say something about this possibility, we should turn to some other Ragusan authors who had used the information contained in Chapter 29 of the DAI before Orbini. About fifty years before Mauro Orbini, around 1550, Niccolo Ragnina (1494 – 1582) compiled his Annals of Ragusa.17 The work is actually a reworking of the Annals by the so-called Ragusan Anonymous, a work which had been written not long before Ragnina and which does not contain material from the DAI.18 Ragnina’s additions to the Anonymous’ work included some details concerning the earliest history of Ragusa. Thus, he inserted, almost at the very beginning of his narration, which is in Italian, the extract from a Latin text containing data known from Chapter 29 of the DAI. Anno Christi 944 Constantinus Imperator, ex libro cujus Imperatoris, (qui) ad Romanum filium Caesarem appellatur, in ea parte, ubi de Dalmatia tractat: Oppidum Rhagusinum dictum a saxo, quod graece las dicitur, unde prius Lausaei, quasi in praecipitibus locis et saxosis positi, postea vero per immutationem litterae Rhagusaei, quia ante Epidaurii nuncupati sunt. Hoc oppidum a Slavis cum reliqua Dalmatia captum oppugnatumque est, civesque ipsi, pars interfecti, pars in servitutem abacti; qui vero calamitatem aufugere potuerunt, altissima petentes loca oppidulum in vici formam construxere, quod postea in majus auctum cinxere moenibus quattuor stadiorum ambitu. Condendae urbis auctores hi celebres habentur, Gregorius, Arsatius, Victorinus, Vitalis, Valentinus archidiaconus, Faventinus pater s. Stephani.

162

FORGING UNITY

Quingenti sunt anni ad meam aetatem, ex quo Salonis profecti oppidum condidere; in quo oppido positus est divus Pancratius in divi Stephani aede, quae hodie in medio urbis posita conspicitur.19 It should be pointed out that Ragnina mentions, in a short prologue preceding this quotation, that the text which follows is taken from the book of Emperor Constantine to his son Roman, and, more specifically, from the passage relating to the province of Dalmatia. These words show that someone made the note synonymous with the entire work, for the fact that the work is dedicated to the Emperor’s son Roman is mentioned only in the Introduction of the DAI. It should be also noted that Ragnina mentions that the work dates from 940, which adds another problem to the interpretation of this extract. The quotation from the DAI also has LAS instead of LAU, but in this case the word is written in Latin, not Greek, and it is explicitly stated that LAS is a Greek word: Oppidum Rhagusinum dictum a saxo, quod graece las dicitur. Further, it is stated in the text (as in Orbini’s quotation) that the town defence walls were extended in two (not three) stages, and the conclusion of the sentence reads: until the walls had a perimeter of four stadia. Four stadia corresponds to half a mile. It is interesting that the earliest perimeter of Ragusa was, according to archaeological investigations, about 960 metres, which is only slightly more than half a Byzantine mile.20 Only a person writing at the time when the town had the specified perimeter, i.e. in the 10th century, could have supplied such a detail. When it comes to the names of the first founders of Ragusa, Ragnina lists all seven of them, with a slight variation – he writes sp. instead of protospatharios, presumably meant as an abbreviation of spatharios. Archdeacon Valentinus is listed, as in Orbini, as Faventinus. The additional sentence concerning the disposition of the Ragusans for trade is missing. A few pages later, Ragnina quotes again the text from the DAI, this time in Italian. This is not a translation of the previously cited Latin text, but a quotation which he found somewhere in that form and inserted into his work. Ex libro etiam di Constantino imperatore ad Romano suo fiolo, Cesare appellato, in parte dove di statocratia tratta, o ver scripto:21

Constantine Porphyrogenitus And The Ragusan Authors Before 1611

163

La città di Ragusa (è) ditta da sasso, che in greco Las s’appella; unde in prima Lausei, quasi in elli precipiti et sassosi lochi posti, poi veramente per la immutation delle litere Ragusei sono chiamati, quali antiquamente Epidaurini si nominavano. Questa città dalli Slavi, o vero Goti, con tutta la Dalmatia, fu expugnata; li cittadini di quella, parte furno ammazzati, et parte in servitù menati. Et quali veramente la calamità poterono fuggire, alli altissimi lochi fuggirono, castello in forma di casale edificarono, quale poi, in maggior augumento, cinsero con li muri, quattro stadj quasi el circuito. Fra li auctori della città questi celeberrimi furono: Gregorio, Arsatio, Victorino, Vitale, Valentino archidiacono, Faventino. 500 furno anni, fino all’ età mia, (che) quivi dalla città di Salona (sono) venuti (e) questa città hanno edificato. Tratta questa istoria in ello libro hactenus; quale Constantino par essere stato al mondo nelli anni di Cristo 940.22 This translation also preserves the Greek LAS, and mentions the perimeter of four stadia. Six founders of the town are named - protospatharios Stephen is omitted and a full stop is placed after the name of his father Faventinus. This passage does not retain the sentence with which Oribini concluded his quotation. But there is another interesting point – referring to the destruction of Epidaurus, the text says that the attackers were the Slavs or the Goths (o vero Goti), which shows that someone had interpolated this conclusion before Ragnina, who does not discuss the Goths and Epidaurus. An additional difficulty is posed by Ragnina’s explanation that the Emperor wrote this book in 940. Climbing down the chronological ladder, we finally come to Lodovico da Cerva Tubero (d. 1527). In his work Commentarii de temporibvs svis, which includes an excursus on the earliest history of Ragusa, Tubero mentions the legend of Pavlimir and of the manner in which exiles from Rome decided to build Ragusa. Ubi intellexit eos maxime, qui tenuiores genere ac fortunis erant, praeoptare maritima loca, utpote emporio magis idonea, seque malle mercatura ac nauigatione quam cultura sterilis ac asperi circa soli uictum quaerere...”23 This quotation includes the sentence from the DAI cited by Orbini, not found in the known manuscripts of that

164

FORGING UNITY

work – Questi Rausei astretti da poco, & sterile paese, con maggior studio attendono alle mercantie, & à i traffichi maritimi, che all’ agricoltura de’ campi. In his digression on the earliest history of Ragusa, Tubero mostly used the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, which he describes as very old, but not so damaged that it could not be deciphered.24 It would seem that the Ragusan Sallustius, as Tubero was called because of his superb mastery of Latin, combined at least two sources in this passage – the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea (the legend of Pavlimir) and the version of Chapter 29 of the DAI, which Orbini quoted from Arpontaco Burdugalense . Tubero, however, provides another interesting detail, not found in the earliest manuscript of the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, the account of the foundation of the Church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr in the centre of the city: In medio fere oppidi, regionem hanc nunc incolae Pusternam nuncupant, Polimirus diui Stephani Protomartyris erigit templum, reliquiasque Neraei, Archilei ac Pancratii martyrum, Petronillaeque ac Domitillae uirginum argento inclusas, secumque Roma asportatas ibi condit... It is possible that this detail was based on the verses of the earliest known Ragusan poet Miletius: Ad decus et laudem Stephani Protomartyris extat Castellum: templum fundant, et corpora credunt Sanctorum, quorum sunt nomina scripta, subaudis: Nerei, Achillei, Domitillae, Petronillaeque, Quae secum furtim tulerant Roma fugientes It should be pointed out, however, that Miletius mentions Nereus, Achilleus, Domitilla, and Petronilla, but he says nothing about the relics of Pancratius. They are mentioned in this context, as being kept in the Church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr in the centre of the town (in medio fere oppidi), only by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in Chapter 29 of the DAI &8 9 C C  D  5 E) F) . C C  G)(A B> A C H       A+,25 Moreover, some other sentences from Chapter 29 of the DAI, which describe the founding of Ragusa, can also be found in Tubero. His sentence:

Constantine Porphyrogenitus And The Ragusan Authors Before 1611

165

Addunt etiam arcem ipsam, lingua Epidauria Lauusam, eo quod in praeruptis saxis posita esset, uocitatam in quod quidem nomen totam mox urbem abisse traduntm Lauusa in Rhacusam mutata,26 seem to be a mere paraphrase of the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea - ...aedificaverunt civitatem supra mare in ripis marinis, quas Epidaurii lingua sua “laus” dicunt. Unde ea civitas “Lausium” vocata est, quae postea r pro l posita, Ragusium appellata est.27 A little later, however, Tubero relates again how Ragusa was named Lausa, which subsequently became Ragusa, but this time his text resembles the account given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in Chapter 29 of the DAI. Alii, ut paulo ante dictum est, ab Epidauriis inditum arbitrantur, qui ljuidem eam a rupibus, in quibus oppidum constructum est, eorum lingua Lauusam appellarunt paulatimque pro Lausa Rhacusam esse nominatam, vulgo per linguae corruptelam literas immutante.28 This description resembles most closely Constantine’s account: 4I 9  @ A $ J  >$(A   '   K . )K 0 )

/  L  @ M  4:A (A #A .  ,29 Tubero’s Alii (authors, writers) are not known, but the marked similarity with Porphyrogenitus’s statement indicates that the reference is in fact to him. The expression Alii obviously excludes the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea as a source of this sentence, for this work is Tubero’s main authority, and all the other sources are classed as Alii. Finally, Tubero also mentions some events from the reign of Basil I, when the Slav tribes from the eastern shores of the Adriatic took part in an expedition against the Arabs in southern Italy. These events are known from Porphyrogenitus’ report recorded in as many as three works written (or supervised) by him: the DAI, De thematibus and Vita Basilii.30 In Chapter 29 of the DAI, Constantine Porphyrogenitus relates that the Saracens (Arabs), raised their siege of Ragusa on hearing the news of the arrival of an imperial fleet, crossed over to Longobardia and captured the town of Bari. At the Emperor’s command, the Croats, Serbs, Zachlumians, Travunians, Konavlians, Ragusans, with all the men from the towns of Dalmatia, crossed to Longobardia and took Bari. Porphyrogenitus also notes that the citizens of Ragusa transported the Croatian and other Slav archontes to Longobardia in their vessels.31

166

FORGING UNITY

Orbini is also familiar with these events; however, his knowledge is not based on the DAI, but on Cedrenus and Zonaras, whose works had already been published in his time. Cedrenus’ work was printed in Basel in 1566, and Zonaras was published in Venice in 1557.32 Orbini took the details of these events – the Arabian siege of Ragusa, the intervention of the Byzantine fleet under Niceta Oriphos, the campaign in southern Italy, the siege of Bari, etc. – from Cedrenus, who uses the data from the Vita Basilii,33 although they are also found in Chapter 29 of the DAI. Even a cursory glance at Orbini’s narrative shows without doubt that his account of these events was taken from Cedrenus, and not from Chapter 29 of the DAI. For example, the DAI says that the Ragusans sent an embassy to Emperor Basil, while Cedrenus correctly states that the Emperor in question was Michael, and Orbini follows him.34 Having related how Ragusa was built, Tubero narrates that the town gradually grew populous and rich, because the bareness of the soil taught its people to be industrious.35 After that, he goes back to the story of the Saracens, who defeated the Calabrians and the Apulians, and captured the promontory Gargano. The Ragusans thereupon consulted with the people of Jadera,36 and secured the alliance of the other maritime towns of Dalmatia as well. After that, they sent emissaries to the Slavs to urge them to attack the Saracens. The Slav people, who had recently (allegedly in the time of Pope Hadrian III) adopted Christianity, and whose king ruled Dalmatia with the permission of the Emperor of Byzantium, gathered ships, sailed to Apulia and drove the Saracens from Gargano.37 Tubero’s account shows great similarity with that of Porphyrogenitus, but it also contains details, which could have been known only to someone familiar with the entire Chapter 29 of the DAI. Namely, references to the conversion of the Slavs and to the sovereign authority of the Emperor of Byzantium do appear in Chapter 29 of the DAI, but they are set apart, not given in sequence, as in Tubero.38 This shows that Tubero must have been familiar with the content of the entire Chapter 29 of the DAI, for else he could not have retold the Slav expedition in Longobardia so concisely or explained the political position of the Slavs and the Dalmatian towns in relation to the Empire with such unusual accuracy. It is interesting that Tubero consistently calls the Arabs Saracens, just as Porphyrogenitus does in Chapter 29 of the

Constantine Porphyrogenitus And The Ragusan Authors Before 1611

167

DAI.39 Even more interesting is the mention of Pope Hadrian III, whom no known source associates with the conversion of the Slavs.40 However, Hadrian III (17. May 884 – September 885) was a contemporary of Emperor Basil I (867 – 886), who is explicitly referred to in the DAI as the Emperor who effected the second conversion to Christianity of the Serbs, the Croats and other Slavs of Dalmatia. Tubero’s perception of the time of the conversion of the Slavs and of their subordinated position in relation to the Empire was undoubtedly chronologically associated with Basil I, who is explicitly mentioned in the DAI in the context mentioned above. If Tubero was familiar with the entire Chapter 29 of the DAI, he must have noticed the name of Emperor Basil, but decided to omit it from his account. It may be deduced, however, that he introduced Basil I’s contemporary, Pope Hadrian III, instead, because he wished to preserve the correct chronological order. Since Tubero spent about twenty years (1484 – 1502) as a monk in a monastery on the isle of St. Andrew, off Ragusa, it may be supposed that his sources and the notes he made were kept in that monastery. Later, in 1502, the Ragusan Senate appointed him Abbot of the Monastery of St. Jacob at Višnjica.41 Tubero’s will provides no clue as to the fate of his personal books and notes.42 Since no mention is made of them in the will, it may be assumed that they remained either in the Monastery of St. Andrew, or in the Monastery of St. Jacob. In 1592, the Prior of St. Andrew was Mauro Orbini. If Tubero’s books and papers, primarily his notes, remained in the library of the Monastery of St. Andrew, this would explain how Orbini could have quoted the still unpublished Tubero’s work in his Kingdom of the Slavs. A careful analysis of Tubero’s account of the earliest history of Ragusa reveals that he makes use of several sources. The first and basic one is the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea. This is also the only source he mentions, and refers to it in a number of places. It may be noticed, however, that in his chapter on Ragusa, Tubero – who had an exceptional command of Latin43 – very skilfully conflates his sources and forges completely new sentences, which flow smoothly, as if they have been copied or paraphrased from a single source. Another important source, as the preceding analysis has shown, was Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the material from Chapter 29 of the

168

FORGING UNITY

DAI.44 Tubero knew the entire chapter, not only the short report on Ragusa. A third source was undoubtedly the earliest known Ragusan poet Miletius, whose account of the origin of Ragusa is cleverly combined with Porphyrogenitus’ report, as is obvious in the passage where Tubero mentions the saints’ relics, and interpolates the name of Pancratius, as well as in the reference to the location of the Church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr in the centre of the town – both details known from Constantine Porphyrogenitus only. A fourth source, or group of sources, might be the writings of the Italian historians Flavio Biondi (1392 – 1463) and Marco Antonio Sabellico (1436 – 1508), which were published at the end of the 15th or the beginning of the 16th centuries and were certainly accessible to Tubero.45 Arpontaco Burdugalense and his work Trattato delle mutationi de gli Stati is unknown to modern historiography.46 Mauro Orbini refers twice to this author and his book, once in connection with the already mentioned detail concerning Ragusa, and the other time in his account of how the women of Dalmatia hurled their children at the enemy during the siege of their town.47 The fact that no humanist from the 15th or 16th centuries mentions Arpontaco Burdugalense deserves some consideration. Even if such an author, or his work, now lost, did exist, how are we to explain that only Orbini knows of him? This important detail shows that the Trattato delle mutationi de gli Stati may have been a manuscript kept in the library in which Orbini worked, i.e. at Urbino. Another possibility is that this manuscript was a part of Tubero’s legacy, and that he had acquired it during his stay in France. It is remarkable that neither reference to Arpontaco Burdugalense specifies the chapter or title of his work, although Orbini often supplies this information when he quotes from printed works. Finally, it is possible that Tubero had only excerpts from Arpontaco’s work, which had been used by Orbini. In any case, Arpontaco Burdugalense remains a mystery, which deserves a separate inquiry. Tubero studied in Paris, where he was awarded a doctoral degree in among other disciplines - mathematics. We know nothing of his life in that period. Who were his friends, were there any learned humanists among them – all this remains obscure. Arpontaco was also in France. There need not have necessarily been a direct connection between Tubero and Arpontaco Burdugalense, but both of them might have had access to the same manuscript of the DAI.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus And The Ragusan Authors Before 1611

169

If the manuscript of the DAI, used by Arpontaco Burdugalense and Tubero, dates indeed from 959, than it represents the final version of the DAI. This might clarify a very important question: why is there no mention of the theme of Dalmatia in De thematibus. If De thematibus was completed in 945/55,48 and the final version of the DAI in 959, the answer is quite clear, for Porphyrogenitus still had two versions of the text relating to the theme of Dalmatia in the manuscript of 949 – 952, and had not yet decided which one to use in the final version. The other detail from Arpontaco Burdugalense, the story of Dalmatian women, may also have been taken from the final redaction of the DAI and probably concerned a more circumstantial story of the fall of Salona. There is another important indication that Porphyrogenitus had not completed the DAI by 949 – 952. There are a number of passages, which open with the characteristic conjunctions isteon, isteon oti, oti, which indicates that the passage is merely an extract, a note yet to be elaborated. Some chapters are obviously finished, but a number of chapters contain points, which are not developed. No such conjunctions appear in De thematibus, or in Vita Basilii, which is a clear indication that these works are completed. Even the passage concerning Ragusa also begins NO     4:A (A, The section on Ragusa in the final redaction of the DAI was to include the remark that the compass of the city walls was four stadia, a sentence on the economic activity of the Ragusans, as well as a new etymology for LAU, i.e. LAS. As regards the other parts of the chapter, an addition seems to have been intended concerning Jadera as the chief town of the Byzantine province, as well as the inclusion of a more detailed story of the fall of Salona – this is what can be deduced from the texts of Orbini, Tubero and Arpontaco Burdugalense.

170

FORGING UNITY

NOTES *

Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Ragusan Authors Before 1611, IČ 53 (2006) 145 – 163.

1

Constantini Imperatoris Porphyrogeniti, De Administrando Imperio, ad Romanum F. Liber

nunquam antehac editus. Ioannes Mevrsivs primus vulgavit, Latinam interpretationem, ac Notas adjecit. Lvgdvni Batavorvm, Ex officinâ typographicâ Ioannis Balduini, impensis verò Ludovici Elzeviri 1611. 2

This work of Porphyrogenitus has been recently cited after a sentence from the Introduction:

-     ) :/   , Cf. DAI I, 44. This is, however, merely an introductory remark meant to inform the reader of what he will find in the work, and it is addressed to the Emperor’s son Romanos. Consequently, this could not have been the title of the entire work. 3

Ridolfi’s Catalogue was published by B. Montfaucon, Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscrip-

torum nova II, Parisiis 1739, 777. This manuscript does not figure, however, in the earliest known catalogue of the Ridolfi collection; cf. D. F. Jackson, Inventory of the Library of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi, Manuscripta 45/46 (2003) 55 – 77. 4

A brief account of the movement of this manuscript is given in the DAI I, 16 – 17. This man-

uscript was in the possession of caesar John Ducas, as it is recorded on the last page of the codex, and the copyist was his personal secretary Michael Royzak. Accordingly, its editors suggest that it should be dated into the period between 1059 and 1081; cf. DAI I, 16. It is known, however, that John Ducas had to become a monk in 1074 and that he spent the rest of his life in a monastery; cf. D. I. Polemis, The Doukai, London 1968, 39. In view of this and of the fact that the manuscript was transcribed by his personal secretary, its dating should be narrowed down to the period 1059 – 1074. 5

An exhaustive account on Anthony Eparch is to be found in É. Legrand, Bibliographie hel-

lénique des XVe et XVIe siècles I, Paris 1962, ccx – ccxxvii. 6

Cf, DAI I, 16.21 – 23.

7

DAI I, 23, suggests 1509 – 1529, as the period of the origin of F. Since P was in possession

of John Egnatius by 1516 at the latest, and since F is a literal copy of P, it may be concluded that both manuscripts date from the same year – i.e. 1509. 8

J. B. Egnatius, De Caesaribus libri III a dictatore Caesare ad Constantinum Palaeologum,

hinc à Carolo Magno ad Maximilianum Caesarem, Venetiis 1516, 329v. 9

H. Omont, Catalogues des manuscrits grecs de Fontainebleau sous François Ier et Henri II,

Paris 1889, 372. 10

Il Regno de gli Slavi hoggi corrottamente detti Schiavoni Historia di don Mavro Orbini

Ravseo abbate melitense, Pesaro 1601, 181 (= Orbini). 11

Orbini, 181.

12

R. Katičić, Uz početke hrvatskih početaka, Split 1993, 135 (= Katičič, Uz početke).

Constantine Porphyrogenitus And The Ragusan Authors Before 1611 13

171

The form 7 P 7 is cited only by the Greek lexicographer Hesychios of Alexandria.

The expression  A)A( means ($ 

  quadrangular stone; cf. A GreekEnglish Lexicon I – II, com. by H. G. Liddell – R. Scott, Oxford 1973, I, 1031. On Hesychios of Alexandria see ODB II, 924, 14

Ivan Đurić showed some time ago that Constantine Porphyrogenitus in using 2/ 3  prob-

ably had in mind Greek, not Latin; cf. I. Đurić, Romejski govor i jezik Konstantina VII Porfirogenita, ZRVI 24/25 (1986) 120 (= Đurić, Romejski govor). The learned Ragusan author Ignjat Đorđić 1737 also understood  as dicitur Graece praecipitium Lav. Moreover, Đorđić also considered 2/ 3  as novae Romae idiomate 15

Cf. DAI I, 135.232: ?   , Bekkerus in his edition, Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De

thematibus et De administrando imperio, rec. I. Bekkerus, Bonnae 1840, 137 (= Bekkerus), retains Banentinus in the Latin version of the text, although he corrects it into Valentinus ?  + in the Greek text. 16

DAI I, 29.234 – 235.

17

Enciklopedija Jugoslavije VII, Zagreb 1968, 43.

18

Anonymi, 3 – 163.

19

Ragnina, 168.

20

Cf, I. Stevović, New Cognizance on Early Byzantine Dubrovnik in the 6th Century, Starinar

42 (1991) 146. A Byzantine mile measured 1,460 meters; cf. DAI II, 48, 9/53. 21

The concluding part of the introductory sentence, dove di staocratia tratta, o ver scripto, was

suggested by the editor, S. Nodilo who pointed out in a note (Ragnina, 175, n. 1) that the reading of the manuscript was dove di dato Matia tratta, over scripto dicono. We have not consulted the manuscript tradition of Ragnina’s Annals, but, bearing in mind the Latin version quoted by Ragnina only a few pages earlier, which says in ea parte, ubi de Dalmatia tractat, that Nodilo wrongly amended the damaged text, which is probably only a translation of the corresponding Latin sentence and which in all likelihood read: dove di Dalmatia tratta. 22

Ragnina, 175.

23

Lvdovici Tvberonis Dalmatae abbatis Commentarii de temporibvs svis, I – II, ed. V. Rezar,

Zagreb 2001 ( = Tubero). 24

Tubero, 89.

25

Tubero, 87. Tubero is also the first author who explicitly says that he uses Docleatem authorem.

26

DAI I, 29. 235 – 236.

27

Tubero, 89 – 90.

28

Ljetopis, 70.

29

Tubero, 90.

30

DAI I, 29.220 – 222.

31

De thematibus was first published in 1588 and Vita Basilii in 1653Q cf. K. Krumbacher,

Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Oströmischen Reichs, München 1897, 255 – 256 ( = Krumbacher, Geschichte).

172 32

FORGING UNITY

DAI I, 29.98 – 115. In De thematibus (Bekkerus, 61.11 – 62.20) the events are narrated with-

out reference to the Slav tribes, while Vita Basilii (cf, Theoph. Cont. 292.14 – 293.19), merely states that the Slavs also took part in the expedition to Bari, but it does not mention individual Slav tribes. It is only in Chapter 29 of the DAI that one can find details on the basis of which it is possible to reconstruct the political position of the Slavs on the eastern Adriatic shores and the Dalmatian towns in relation to the Empire. 33

Krumbacher, Geschichte, 369, 374.

34

Georgius Cedrenus Historiarum Compendium, ed. I. Bekkerus, Bonnae 1839, 218.16 – 225.8.

35

Orbini, 183.

36

Here Tubero merely repeats what he already said about the sterile soil and the diligence of

the Ragusans; cf. Tubero, 90 – 91, Iam noua urbs opibus ac ciuium multitudine, soli inopia industriam acuente, aliljuantisper coaluerat, ljuum iterum Rhacusanorum animis Epidaurii excidii metus obuersari coepit. It should be noted that two statements of Constantine Porphyrogenitus are merged in this passaage: 1. The increase in the number of inhabitants; 2. The sterility of the soil and the industry of the Ragusans. The first statement is based on the DAI, and the other is known only from Orbini’s Italian translation of the information contained in Chapter 29 of the DAI, i.e. from Arpontaco Burdugalense . 37

No Byzantine source which could have been known to Tubero mentions Jadera as the chief

town of the Byzantine theme of Dalmatia. The statement is, however, correct, since Jadera was the seat of the strategos of Dalmatia. 38

Tubero, 90 – 91. Blondi Flavii Forliviensis historiarvm ab inclinatione Romanorum libri

XXXI, Basel 1531, 179 – 181 (= Blondi), records the military activity of the Saracens from Gargano in Italy, but he depends on John Deacon or on the later Andrea Dandolo. Tubero must have combined at least two sources in this passage – Chapter 29 of the DAI and the above mentioned Italian authors. 39

The reference to the conversion of the Slavs of Dalmatia is in Chapter 29 of the DAI; cf. DAI

I, 29.68 – 75. The mention of the subjection of the Slavs to Emperor Heraclius of Byzantium, however, is at the very beginning of Chapter 29 of the DAI, and this place is damaged in all the manuscripts of the DAI, so that the listing of the Slav tribes is not followed by any information on their position with regard to the Empire. The next sentence, which begins with a reference to the breakaway of these Slavs in the time of Emperor Michael II Amorian (820 – 829) gives some ground for the supposition that the conclusion of the preceding sentence was that the Slavs of Dalmatia were subjected to the Empire of the RomansQ cf, DAI I, 29.58 – 66; FB II, 14, n. 20. 40

DAI I, 29.89, 29.29.99, 29.117. Porphyrogenitus calls the Arabs Saracens in many other

chapters of the DAI as well; cf. DAI I, 14.3; 16.2, 6, 8; 17.2, 12; 21.36, 85, 88, etc. However, he also calls them Arabs R=L+ in many places; cf. DAI I, 16.10 – 11; 18.1, 5; 19.1; 20.1,12; 21.3, 17, 37, 38, 49, 50, 52, 66, 110, 115, 120; 22.19, 22, 27, 33, 53, 57 – 59, 63, 77; 25.57.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus And The Ragusan Authors Before 1611 41

173

The Priest of Dioclea, for example, mentions Pope Stephen in connection with the conver-

sion of the Slavs of Dalmatia; Ljetopis, 48 – 50. Blondi, 177, mentions Pope Hadrian II. This is not based on Dandolo, for he gives only the name of Cardinal Honorius, and makes no mention of the name of the pope. Besides, he only paraphrases, although rather briefly, the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea. It seems that Blondi had the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea at his disposal. Cf. Letopis Popa Dukljanina, ed F. Šišić, Beograd 1928, 57 (= Šišić, Letopis), who believed that Blondi used Dandolo in his account of the Council at Duvanjsko Polje. 42

The Monastery of St Jacob had a famous library, to which large donations in books were

made on several occasions. Thus Sigismund Philochristos bequeathed 200 books to it in 1628, and the Bishop of Ston John Đurđević, a Benedictine, gave it a number of Greek codices (1605 – 1608). The library was damaged in the 1667 earthquake, and it sustained further and particularly severe damage from the Russian-Montenegrin army in 1806, and during the French occupation in 1808. What was left of it has been preserved mainly in the Franciscan Library in Ragusa; cf. I. Ostojić, Benediktinci II, Split 1964, 463. 43

Testamenta notariae 1525 – 1527, f. 89v, quoted in Tubero (V. Rezar), XV n, 47.

44

Tubero’s mastery of Latin is discussed in Tubero (V. Rezar), LIX – LXII.

45

Vlado Rezar (Tubero II, XXXVIII) was the first to draw attention to the DAI as a possible

source of Tubero. 46

The best known works of Sabellico are Historia rerum Venetarum ab urbe condita ad obi-

tum ducis Marci Barbadici, Venetia 1487; Rhapsodiae historicarum, enneades, Venetia 1498 and 1504. Judging by what Rastić says (we have not been able to consult Sabellico’s work), he makes no mention of the conflict between the Saracens, the Byzantines and the Slavs in southern Italy; cf. Croniche di Ragusa opera di Giugno Resti senatore di Ragusa, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, ed. S. Nodilo, Zagrabiae 1893, 23 ( = Resti). What makes it more interesting is the fact that Resti refers here to Giovanni Battista Ignatius (sebben Gio. Bat. Ignazio, nella vita di Basilio, dica, che Ragusa fosse stata espugnata da’Saraceni), who is the same Giovanni Ignatius for whom Anthony Eparch copied the earliest manuscript of the DAI in 1509, and who published a book on the Roman emperors from Caesar to Constantine Palaeologus in 1516; cf. n. 8. 47

Cf. Mavro Orbini Kraljevstvo Slovena, ed. S. Ćirković, Beograd 1968, 390; Mavro Orbini

Kraljevstvo Slavena, prev. S. Husić, Zagreb 1999, 538. 48

Orbini, 145.

49

Lounghis, Sur la date, 299 – 305; Ahrweiler, De thematibus, 1 – 5.

X

ON THE FOUNDATION OF RAGUSA: THE TRADITION vs. FACTS

The beginnings of Ragusa, the city which will develop into a major trade centre of the southern Adriatic, are covered with darkness.1 The earliest historical record, written by the Cosmographer of Ravenna, most probably from ca. 700, mentions Ragusium id est Epidaurum.2 This source is very important, because it is the earliest text which establishes a connection between the ancient Roman city of Epidaurus and Ragusa, as it is stated not only in various sources of Ragusa’s origins, but also preserved in the legends developed in, or around, Ragusa. That strong feeling about close relations with ancient Epidaurus is remembered even by the inhabitants of Ragusa in official documents from the 14th century: Epidaurus at the seashore was the ancient city of Ragusa.3 The similar view about the origin of Ragusa is also found in the works of the Ragusan authors: Ragusan Anonymous, Lodovico da Cerva Tubero, Mauro Orbini, Jacob Luccari, Niccolò Ragnina, etc. The earliest and most complete story on the origins of Ragusa was written by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who relied on the local popular tradition, most probably gathered by an official of the Empire. Constantine wrote that by the time of the Slav incursions into Dalmatia, the ancient city of Epidaurus was destroyed, and that citizens who survived the catastrophe settled on top of the cliff near by. That cliff, called in Greek lau, became the nucleus from which the city of Ragusa will develop.4 Furthermore, Constantine Porphyrogenitus adds that the first refugees were also from Salona, the metropolis of Dalmatia, at that time also destroyed by the Slav intruders.5 The mention of Salona’s refugees is odd, since the previous

176

FORGING UNITY

text does not mention them, but only the inhabitants of Epidaurus.6 It is already supposed that here Constantine Porphyrogenitus compiled from two different sources – one dealing with Epidaurus, and the other with Salona.7 The most interesting information provided by Constantine Porphyrogenitus is related to the date of this migration. From their migration from Salona to Ragusa, it is 500 years till this day, which is the 7th indiction, the year 6457,8 (948/949). The calculation gives the year 448/449 as the date of the Ragusa’s foundation, which is not in accordance with historical information about the time when the Slavs settled in Dalmatia. It is well known that the Slavs populated Illyricum and Dalmatia during the first years of Heraclius’ rule (613 – 614) and that the Croats and Serbs followed them two decades later (around 630 – 634).9 Rounded numbers in historical sources always provoke suspicion, especially in the works of authors who use them often. In this case, the mistake seems quite serious, since the historical frame is pushed backward for some 200 years. Therefore, either Constantine Porphyrogenitus mixed two independent sources, which were speaking of the fall of Salona and Epidaurus, or he made an abbreviated chapter on Ragusa from the abundance of material, which was gathered from several sources. If the Slavs were responsible for the destruction of Epidaurus, then it should have happened at the beginning of the 7th century. In that case, either the year 448/449 is related to some other destruction of Epidaurus and Salona, which cannot be ascribed to the Slavs, or 500 years have some other meaning. There is some new archaeological evidence, which can provide clues about the origin of Ragusa. Namely, the excavations carried out in 1981, below the Cathedral of Ragusa,10 established that an earlier basilica existed at the same place, which could be most probably dated to the time of Justinian I (527 – 565).11 This new evidence suggests that Ragusa existed at least some 60 years before Slavs settled in Dalmatia. The finds of coins which were washed off from the higher ground are extremely interesting: around 15 coins of Illyrian and Greek origin from the 3rd to the 2nd century B.C.; over 80 Roman coins dated from the 1st to the 4th century A.D; and more than 170 Byzantine coins from the 4th to the 14th century.12 The finds of coins are unambiguous evidence that the earlier settlement existed on top of the cliff a long time before

On The Foundation Of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts

177

Constantine Porphyrogenitus claims. This fact is sufficient to challenge the reliability of the Emperor’s statement on the origin of Ragusa. Finally, there is a funerary inscription of a Roman soldier, which is found in Pusterna (Pustierna, Pustjerna), the southern part of medieval Ragusa.13 The archaeological evidence at Spilan and Gradaz, in the vicinity of Ragusa, show that these sites were populated and enclosed (Spilan) by walls already in the 2nd century and lasted until the 6th or 7th century.14 This is very important, since the later Ragusan authors claimed that the survivors from Epidaurus escaped to Spilan and Gradaz, from where they finally settled in Ragusa.15 The Ragusan Anonymous, who wrote at the beginning of the 16th century, based on some earlier texts of various origins, says that the inhabitants of Gradaz and Spilan came to Ragusa in 691 and settled in the part of the city called Pusterna, and that all of them were descendants of the citizens of Epidaurus which was destroyed by the Saracens.16 Ragnina, who wrote his Annals around 1550, writes almost the same story in a slightly different chronological frame (601). In addition, Ragnina mentions that the inhabitants of Ragusa already lived there for 160 years. This means that he based his chronology on Constantine Porphyrogenitus, since 160 years lead us back to the absolute date of 441 for the foundation of Ragusa. Indeed, Ragnina had at his disposal some excerpts from the DAI, which he most probably took from the legacy of Lodovico Tubero, and which he dated in 940 and 944. Ragnina’s predecessor Lodovico Tubero, who wrote in the first two decades of the 16th century, also mentions the inhabitants of Spilan and Gradaz which settled in Ragusa. He also had at his disposal some excerpts from the DAI. The learned Ragusan author Giugno Resti (died in 1735) thought that Epidauresi cominciaron abitare Spilan e Gradaz, castelletti piccoli nella contrada di Burno in 550.17 The Saracens, appearing in the works of the Ragusan authors of the 16th century, are interpolated into the story of the foundation of Ragusa, because they used the DAI or Vita Basilii, in which Porphyrogenitus speaks about the Saracen siege of Ragusa in 866. The learned humanists compiled traditional narratives, the DAI and other written sources found elsewhere, to create a picture about the origin of Ragusa. It is up to the modern scholars to find a way to extract the historical core of these legends preserved in Ragusa in the Late Middle Ages, and discover the ways of their transmission and reception.

178

FORGING UNITY

The earliest Ragusan poet, Miletius, who wrote most probably in the middle of the 14th century, and who had at his disposal some historical sources, which could be traced back to the beginning of the 11th century,18 also left several verses related to the foundation of Ragusa: Quidam Romani, destructa sic Epidauro, Bellum civile fugientes forte subintrant Portum Dalmatiae, qui Gravosius vocatur. Hic pariter inopis, fugientes ex Epidauro In magnis ripis, ubi nunc est urbs Rhagusina, Castellum statuunt monitis actuque Joannis, Qui jam predictae fuit Archiepiscopus urbis. Quamque arcem, vivi tutam munimine saxi, Aspectu horrendo, praecelso in vertice montis, Hoc castrum vocitat Epidaurica lingua Labusa, Namque ripa sonat hoc idiomate labes. A magnis ripis nomen traxere priores: Nunc, L in R, G pro P mutando, moderni Rhagusam dicunt, quae Sclavonice Dubrovnik Dicitur a silva, quia silva fuit locus ille, In quo nunc urbs est, et dubrava silva vocatur. Ad decus et laudem Stephani Protomartyris extat Castellum: templum fundant, et corpora credunt Sanctorum, quorum sunt nomina scripta, subaudis: Nerei, Achillei, Domitillae, Petronillaeque, Quae secum furtim tulerant Roma fugientes.19 These verses also indicate that Miletius had the same ancient source which was the basis of the Porphyrogenitus’ narration on the beginnings of Ragusa.20 He also used the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, and very probably some ecclesiastical records on the beginnings of the Ragusan Archbishopric. It is very interesting that the Priest of Dioclea wrote about the origin of Ragusa in a similar manner to Porphyrogenitus. He repeats the story about the

On The Foundation Of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts

179

origin of the name of Ragusa and mutation L to R (Rausa = Lausa), but in a different context. Namely, in his introduction to these events the Priest of Dioclea mentions Saracens, who destroyed all of the (southern) Dalmatian towns and that their inhabitants escaped to the mountains where they have been captured by the Slavs. Later on, these Romans came back to the seashore taking an obligation to pay tribute to the Slavs, after they were allowed to rebuild the cities again.21 The whole story is a mixture of legends about the mythical king of the Slavs, Radoslav Belo, and reliable historical data, such as the mention of the Arabs’ incursion in the southern Adriatic in 866, already described by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.22 Even though it is impossible to detect all the sources of the Priest of Diocela, it is a fact that here is preserved the oldest Slav version (ca. 1150) of the story from which will develop the later humanist story of the origin of Ragusa, enriched by some specific elements. One can be certain that the Ragusan authors used the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea as it is explicitly stated by Tubero – which he describes as a very old manuscript, but not so damaged that it could not be deciphered.23 It is very important to mention the oldest Papal Charter issued to the Church of Ragusa in 743 by the Pope Zacharias. This Charter is not an original, but rather a much-amended transcription of the late 12th century, which could be very important for the explanation of the appearance of the cult of St. Pancratius in Ragusa.24 The relics of this saint are mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, as they laid at the Church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, in the centre of Ragusa. The origin of this cult in Ragusa could be traced back to 742 – 743, when the usurper Artabasdos relied on Papal support giving back, most probably, some rights to the Pope over Dalmatia.25 This would mean that the story of Constantine Porphyrogenitus was based on the original records preserved in Ragusa and dated back to the middle of the 8th century. Therefore, it is quite possible that the whole narration related to its origins existed in Ragusa at least from the middle of the 8th century. However, in that record, there is no mention of Spilan and Gradaz, or the Saracens who destroyed Epidaurus. The pieces of the puzzle on the origin of Ragusa are coming in place.

180

FORGING UNITY

The story of the origin of Ragusa is stratified in layers, which should be recognized, and put in correct chronological frames. In addition to the main story, there is also a mention of the Goths, to whom Mauro Orbini ascribed the destruction of Epidaurus in 265. Some of the citizens of Epidaurus withdrew to the cliff nearby, where they built a small fortress, and enlarged it again in 283, when the Sarmatians devastated the vicinity of Epidaurus.26 Indeed, there is one single find of the ceramic from the surrounding area of Epidaurus, which could be of the Germanic type.27 It should be pointed out that Orbini drew his information on the earliest history of Ragusa, the Goths and the Sarmatians, from Michel Salonitano and his Trattato della Dalmatia. This source, unknown to modern historiography, was most probably composed in the 15th or 16th century.28 Orbini believed that Michel Salonitano was an older author, at least a century older than Philippo da Bergamo and Sabellico, the authors he also quotes in his discussion on the origin of Ragusa (autore vie più antico di tutti loro).29 Still, the historical sources do not provide any testimony, which could lead up to the conclusion that barbarians razed Epidaurus to the ground between the 4th and the 7th century. The only source, which states that the Goths were attacking as far as to the sea (Adriatic), is Zosime.30 Orbini’s main sources are Philippo da Bergamo, Sabellico and Michael Salonitano, who composed their works towards the end of the 15th century (Sabellico and Philippo da Bergamo), and eventually at the very beginning of the same century (Michel Salonitano). Therefore, the Goths should be safely excluded from the story of the foundation of Ragusa, since these learned humanists created this story based on their free interpretation of Zosime. The previous narrative could lead to the conclusion that the story of the foundation of Ragusa as written down by Constantine Porphyrogenitus had its roots in the tradition of the city itself. In the middle of the 10th century, it was believed that the Ragusans were descendants of the citizens of Epidaurus, and that the destruction of this city was connected to the Slavs and their arrival in Dalmatia. This is the oldest layer in all the later traditions on the foundation of Ragusa. On top of this layer come the variations written by the later Ragusan authors, who based themselves on the Slav versions of the origin of Ragusa (Dubrovnik in the Slavic language) and their mythical king Radoslav Belo.

On The Foundation Of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts

181

The Illyrian settlement on the top of the cliff called Ragusa was inhabited already from the 3rd century B.C., and it developed slowly during the following centuries. It was probably enlarged and fortified during the 6th century, as the new archaeological evidence shows, most probably as one of the Byzantine fortresses, which kept watch on this important Adriatic route. The chronological frame must be placed during Justinian’s war with Goths and their expulsion from Dalmatia at the beginning of this conflict, i.e. 536 – 537. This period marked the crucial point in the history of the settlement on the cliff called Ragusa. From that time should be dated the earliest defence walls, which enclosed the fortress of Lave, as it is mentioned at the later Ragusan authors.31 The archaeological finds in modern Dubrovnik, which revealed the basement of the Byzantine basilica, deserve profound research and plausible explanation, since such a large church (31 meters long and 15.80 meters wide)32 cannot be built ex nihilo by the refugees, which were gathered on the top of the cliff.33 Such a large basilica should rather be interpreted as a seat of the bishop.34 The claim that Epidaurus existed as a bishopric towards the end of the 6th century is based on the letters of Pope Gregory the Great, which mention Florentius the bishop of Epidaurus, and which are dated in 592 and 597 respectively. In light of the new archaeological evidence from Ragusa, this statement should be re-examined. It is true that the coins of the Byzantine emperor Phocas (602 – 610) were found in Epidaurus,35 serving as a testimony of the city’s existence at the beginning of the 7th century, but these finds do not give an answer whether Epidaurus was bishopric or not at that time. The letters of Gregory the Great from 592 and 597 should actually be examined much more carefully. In the first letter to Antoninus, subdiaconus (in Constantinopole?), Florentius, the bishop of Epidaurus, is just mentioned as a deposed bishop.36 In the second letter from 597 to the bishop of Jadera, Sabinianus, Florentius is also just mentioned as the former bishop of Epidaurus.37 So far, the papal letters prove that Epidaurus was a bishopric at the end of the 6th century, but on the other side point out that the Church of Epidaurus was at that time in some kind of turmoil. In the first letter is it is stated that Florentius was deprived of all property and exiled, and in the second letter the pope asked the bishop of Jadera whether he knows something about

182

FORGING UNITY

the case of Florentius since the citizens of Epidaurus were ready to accept him again as their shepherd. They admit that Florentius was exiled according to the wish of the late archbishop of Salona, Natalis. It is also worth to mention that the bishop of Epidaurus was not present at the Second Council of Salona in 533.38 All this confusion around the bishopric of Epidaurus points to the conclusion that something unusual was happening during the 6th century within the ecclesiastical organization of the southern Dalmatia. After the conquest of Africa and the parts of Italy, Justinian I reshaped the ecclesiastical organization which was incorporated into new provincial organization, i.e. archbishoprics of Ravenna and Carthage.39 Among these measures, undertaken just before the outbreak of the war with the Goths, was the creation of the archbishopric of Justiniana Prima,40 which actually determined the zones of ecclesiastical organization between the Byzantine Church and the parts of Illyricum ruled by Goths.41 In 536, Justinian sent Constantian, sacri stabuli comitem, to Dalmatia, who harboured his fleet at Epidaurus, which is on the right hand side when you go into the Adriatic.42 It could be expected that after the conquest of Dalmatia and expulsion of the Goths,43 Justinian had some new ideas about the organization of the Church in southern Dalmatia. Among these ideas was the creation of the new bishopric at Ragusa. The exact chronological frame, in which we could safely put this change, must be after 548 when a large group of Slavs penetrated as far as to Dyrrachium. The intruders devastated wide areas of southern Illyricum, which was protected only by 15,000 Byzantine soldiers, and safely went back across the Danube.44 As the immediate consequence of this attack, Justinian could start to repair and build up fortresses elsewhere in the regions during the 550s, which have not been included in the rebuilding plan during the period of the 530s – 550s. These immense building activities mark the turning point in the urban design of Illyricum, which gradually moved toward the smaller but better fortified towns and settlements reduced in population. It was truly the end of the Late Antiquity and the beginning of a new era usually called the Early Middle Ages. Procopius left a testimony about the construction work in Illyricum, which occurred until 559/560, and that is why we do not have any such information on the building activities in Dalmatia at De aedificiis. In addition, it is

On The Foundation Of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts

183

worth to mention an opinion of G. Downey, who successfully proved that Procopius’ De aedificiis is in fact an unfinished work.45 Having said all this, we would follow the authors who already pointed out that Ragusa was refortified and enlarged as one of the important fortresses on the southern Adriatic route during the rule of Justinian I.46 But, what is more important, the task was in a way quite similar, even though on the lesser scale, to the one conducted in the interior of Illyricum where the new archbishopric was created at Justiniana Prima (545). In other words, we could conclude that Justinian I created a bishopric in Ragusa following the clear plan after which this city should be a new and important centre. From the point of view of the local Church officials, those of Epidaurus, it was probably not a welcome solution and could open a dispute between Ragusa and Epidaurus. That way we have a perfect explanation of the archaeological evidence discovered at Ragusa in 1981 – the large cathedral church was the seat of the new bishopric. Furthermore, this conclusion helps us to understand the Ragusan tradition, which stubbornly repeats that the Ragusan Church inherited its bishopric status from Epidaurus. This was possible only after Epidaurus ceased to exist, which could have happened in the first decades of the 7th century. The other possible explanation is that two bishoprics existed at the same time – the older one at Epidaurus and the new one at Ragusa (ca. 550 – 560) – and that the new circumstances which emerged after the Slavs populated the areas in the vicinity of Epidaurus and Ragusa, created the situation which led up to the disappearance of the bishopric of Epidaurus, as well as the town itself. The later claims of the Ragusan authors that the Church of Ragusa is a legal successor of the Church of Epidaurus could be a consequence of their need to prove that the land as far as to former Epidaurus belonged to Ragusa. This explanation could be supported by the writings of Thomas Archdeacon of Spalato from the middle of the 13th century: Erat autem Epitauros episcopalis ciuitas, salonitane ecclesie suffraganea. Then, after he wrote the Roman legend on the foundation of Ragusa and the destruction of Epidaurus, Thomas continues: Homines autem cum eis permixti sunt, et facti sunt populus unus. Edificauerunt Ragusium et habitaureunt in eo. Ex eo tempore conari ceperunt pallium suo episcopo optinere.47

184

FORGING UNITY

If the archaeological evidence and various sources are put together, we still lack explanation for Porphyrogenitus’ statement that Ragusa was founded 500 years ago, i.e. 448/449.48 Was this information provided to the Emperor’s official who gathered the material from Ragusa itself or just the Emperor’s calculation based on his own impression about the events, which he described? He could have not heard from the citizens of Ragusa that the first founders of the city came from Salona. Such a story does not exist in the later works of the Ragusan authors. This must be a consequence of the Emperor’s usage of at least two independent sources (excerpts) originated in Dalmatia. However, 500 years could also be an impression of Ragusans themselves. It seems that the Chronicle of Salerno provides a very good clue. The Chronicle of Salerno was written ca. 974 by an anonymous monk from southern Italy. However, the monks of Montecassino, in exile at Teano, compiled the core of the Chronicle already in 897/898.49 To this part of the Chronicle should belong a passage dealing with the origin of the city of Amalfi, which could be very useful for the modern historians to understand how the Early Medieval man of Europe understood the questions of the origin and foundation of towns. The author says that he made an inquiry to find out something about the beginnings of Amalfi and Amalfitians themselves, since it was not known to his time from which province they originated, to which clan they belonged, under which kings they fought, etc. His investigation, mostly based on the stories of the elders, provided materials, which he arranged in some kind of order and chronological frame. The story runs as follows: during the time of the Emperor Constantine (the Great) the decision was made that the Emperor himself and his most important dignitaries and their families leave Rome and resettle in Constantinople. During the trip, when they reached Sclavorum fines, a storm came and two ships were wrecked on the shores. Nobody was hurt, but all of their property was lost. There they found some local inhabitants, who allowed the shipwrecked victims to settle among them. Their city was called Ragusa (Vocaturque nomen loci illius nimirum Ragusi). They lived among them for a long time, but since the Ragusans oppressed them, they decided to run away. When they reached Italy, they came to the vicinity of the place called Melfis and, by the flow of time, they were called, upon the name of that place, Amalfitians.50

On The Foundation Of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts

185

It is obviously that story runs in the form of popular tradition, mixing historical individuals (Constantine) and political conditions (the Slavs of Dalmatia) which cannot be put in the same chronological frame. The information about the Sclavorum fines leads to the conclusion that the tradition of Amalfitian’s origin was developed after the beginnings of the 7th century. However, what is most important is the perception of the inhabitants of Amalfi towards the end of 9th century, who believed that their origin should be traced back for some 500 years – the beginning of the 4th century. Constantine Porphyrogenitus writes in a similar manner in the chapter 45 of the DAI speaking of the origin of Iberians of Caucasus. The Emperor gathered a popular tradition told by the Iberians themselves, according to which they were descendants of the Biblical king David. After a considerable time had passed they decided, being warned by the oracle, to come out of Jerusalem and settle down in Persia. And from their migration from Jerusalem to the country now inhabited by them it is 400 years, or rather 500 up to the present day, which is the 10th indiction, the year from the creation of the world 6460, in the reign of Constantine and Romanus, Christ-loving emperors of the Romans, born in the purple.51 This passage shows that Porphyrogenitus used some earlier records on the origin of Iberians, for which he thought to have been written in the 9th century, and because of that he added another 100 years to correct the date, according to his own time. It is interesting to underline this passage of time (500 years) as a pattern to explain distant history, unknown from the written sources. The impression that 500 years is a relatively long period of time which marks the earliest history for which they have not any kind of records at all. We meet this pattern in Italy and in the eastern borders of Asia Minor. This kind of thinking was widely present in the regions, which could not be whatsoever linked or able to communicate with each other.52 When Porphyrogenitus was much more certain about the time when something happened, he used lower numbers. For instance, he said that 73 years have passed from the foundation of New Capua, and 200 years from the division of Lombardy until to-day (948/949).53 In fact, the division of Lombardy was in 849, exactly 100 years from the time of Constantine.54 Here he had some sources of Latin origin, which were inaccurate, but still he still presented

186

FORGING UNITY

information that his story did not happen a long time ago. It seems that he had a critical feeling for the flow of time describing the various events, which occurred in the distant past. Regarding the origin of Ragusa and Constantine’s statement that Ragusa was founded 500 years before his own time, it seems that modern historians should completely neglect this number. This only means that the citizens of Ragusa could not provide the Emperor’s informer with exact data when their town came to exist. Therefore, whoever investigates the earliest history of Ragusa should be aware that this figure represents just firm proof that something happened in the deep past, which is not written down, and which is just a product of popular tradition. The passage from the Chronicle of Salerno gives excellent ground for some other important conclusions. Namely, since the earliest Ragusan tradition does not know anything about the refugees from Rome and their settling in Ragusa, it is possible to give a plausible explanation in which way this later tradition is found in the works of Ragusan Anonymous, Ragnina and others. In one section, the text of the Chronicle of Salerno, related to the origin of Amalfitians, is unclear and probably a line is missing. There is a mention in which way the Emperor Constantine and his dignitaries and their families sailed to Constantinople and than a part of the sentence which cannot be explained - Romam quippe beatorum Petri et Pauli iuris reliquia. Is it possible that in the first part of that sentence something was said about the relics taken by Constantine from Rome intended to be placed in Constantinople? This is very probable, because the later Ragusan authors, already from Miletius onwards, mention that the refugees from Rome brought with them relics of SS Achillius, Nereus, Petronilla, and Domitilla.55 Miletius does not mention St. Pancratius, the saint whose relics were in the Church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr already in the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. This was to be expected, since we know that the relics of St. Pancratius have been sent from Rome to Ragusa in 742/43.56 The whole story about the origin of Amalfitians is reflected in Ragusa at least from the 14th century (Miletius), if not a century or two before (the Priest of Dioclea). Therefore, it should be taken as almost certain that the later

On The Foundation Of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts

187

story on the origin of Ragusa did not originate in Ragusa itself, but in Amalfi, and that from there it was taken by the Ragusan sailors which had contacts with Amalfi.57 That way the Ragusans enriched the knowledge of their earliest past through contacts with Amalfi. The Ragusan ships were sailing to Italy at least from the 9th century onwards, if not even earlier.58 They should have had various contacts with Italian towns, among which was Amalfi.59 It is important to points out that Amalfi reached its heights in the 11th century and already in 1135, the Pisans destroyed its fleet. This was the end of Amalfi’s maritime power.60 Sometime between 11th and the beginning of the 12th centuries, the Ragusans almost certainly received the story about the origin of Amalfi, connecting Amalfitians’ origin with Ragusa. In the trade contract between Pisa and Ragusa (together with Spalato), it is said that Ragusans can keep trade connections with other Italian towns, which are subordinated to Pisa.61 Therefore, these connections could be kept with Amalfi too. The writer of the Chronicle of Salerno was a Benedictine monk, so was the Priest of Dioclea, the author who was the first to mention Roman legend on the origin of Ragusa, mixed with the elements of the Slav tradition. It could be taken as a sign that the exchange of the ideas related to the history or tradition, could flow from western shores of Adriatic to the eastern and vice versa. The Benedictine monks certainly played a major role in these transmissions and receptions. The story on the origin of Ragusa should be interpreted in the following manner: the earliest Illyrian settlement on the top of the cliff could be traced back to the 3rd centuries B.C. During the Roman times, it existed in approximately same size and was not of any major significance. During the 550s A.D., the place was rebuilt, enclosed by the walls and became a seat of bishop. After the destruction of Epidaurus, either by the Slavs or just because of its slow disappearance as the urban centre, part of the citizens of Epidaurus resettled in Ragusa, which became the main cause of the renewed building activities and probably growth of the city’s size. The major tradition on the origin of Ragusa is preserved in the DAI, and can be taken as a widespread belief of the Ragusans themselves about the origin of their town contemporary to Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The later tradition is a mixture of the various

188

FORGING UNITY

stories, some of them from Amalfi (the story of Roman refugees), and partly coming from the Slavs (the legend of Radoslav Belo), which at the 12th century lived near Ragusa or, in the town itself. The text about the 500 years of time, which was written down by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, was just a manner of the writer to fill up the chronological gap in the cases when it was impossible to say when something happened. It seems that this style was widespread in the Early Middle Ages all around the Latin and Eastern world. Therefore, any discussion about the year 448/449 as the exact date of the foundation of Ragusa is in vain. The Emperor just wanted to say – it happened long time ago. Exactly in the same manner, learned Giugno Resti understood the Emperor’s words: E l’imperatore avrà posto il numero d’anni 500, per dimostrar un lungo corso di tempi, non perchè infatti avesse voluto dire cinquecento anni determinati, she saria l’anno 449.62

On The Foundation Of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts

189

NOTES 1

The major works on the beginnings of Ragusa are: G. Novak, Povijest Dubrovnika I, Od najs-

tarjih vremena do početka VII stoljeća (do propasti Epidauruma), Supplement in: Anali 10 – 11 (1966) 3 – 84; J. Lučić, Povijest Dubrovnika od VII stoljeća do godine 1205, Zagreb 1973, Supplement in: Anali 13 – 14 (1976) 7 – 139 ( = Lučić, Povijest); Idem, O nekim problemima najstarije dubrovačke povijesti, HZ 19 – 20 (1967) 537 – 547 ( = Lučić, O nekim problemima); V. Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika I, Od osnutka do 1526., Zagreb 1980 ( = Foretić, Povijest); Ž. Rapanić, Marginalia o „postanku” Dubrovnika, Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovačkom području, Izdanja HAD 12 (1988) 39 – 50 (= Rapanić, Marginalia). 2

Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia et Guidonis Geographica, ed. M. Pinder – G. Parthey,

Berolini 1860, 208.10. 3

This is preserved in the cyrillic document of the year 1391; cf. Monumenta Serbica spectan-

tia historiam Serbiae, Bosnae, Ragusii, ed. F. Miklosich, Viennae 1858, 217. 4

DAI I, 29.217 – 230. The term lau is understood by Katičić, Uz početke, 134 – 136, as the

derivation from the Latin word labes. In the opposite sense, that lau derived from the Greek laas, see, Đurić, Romejski govor, 120. 5

DAI I, 29.230 – 233. Constantine listed six names: Gregory, Arsaphius, Victorinus, Vitalius,

Valentine the archdeacon, Valentine the father of Stephen the protospatharius. Their Roman names (Victorinus, Vitalis and Valentinus, mixed with the Greek names Gregory, Arsaphius, Stephen and one Byzantine rank – protospatharius – refer to the times of the Late Antiquity. 6

Thomas Archidiaconus: Historia Salonitana, ed. F. Rački, Monumenta spectantia historiam

Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. 26, Scriptores III, Zagrabiae 1894, 30 (= Thomas) does not write about the refugees of Salona who settled down in Ragusium. Actually, Thomas has the same Roman legend on the foundation of Ragusa based on the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea. See. Šišić, Letopis, 49 – 51. On the contrary, Katičić, Uz početke, 150 – 151, believed that Thomas’ story is based on the same source as Porphyrogenitus’ narration. 7

This is proposed by, Katičić, Uz početke, 133.

8

DAI I, 29.233 – 235.

9

Cf. T. Živković, Južni Sloveni pod vizantijskom vlašću (600 – 1025), Beograd 2002, 274 – 291.

10

T. Macan, U povodu istraživanja u dubrovačkoj katedrali, Dubrovački horizonti 15 (1983) 3 – 11;

J. Stošić, Prikaz nalaza ispod katedrale i Bunićeve poljane u Dubrovniku, Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovačkom području, Izdanja HAD 12 (1988) 15 – 38 (= Stošić, Prikaz nalaza).

190 11

FORGING UNITY

Rapanić, Marginalia, 47; I. Stevović, “Prospetto della citta di Ragusa”, Novi izvor za

najraniju istoriju vizantijskog Dubrovnika, ZRVI 29/30 (1991) 141 (= Stevović, Novi izvor). 12

J. Stošić, Slijed oblikovanja sakralnog središta u Dubrovniku, Dubrovački horizonti 29

(1989) 58. The same author thinks that this basilica could be dated most probably in the first half of the 9th century. 13

CIL III, 1743. For the archaeological evidence that Ragusa existed centuries before the

beginning of the 7th century, see, Lučić, Povijest, 17. 14

I. Marović, Arheološka istraživanja u okolici Dubrovnika, Anali 4 –5 (1956) 9 – 30 (= Marović,

Arheološka istraživanja). 15

Anonymi, 7; Ragnina 179.

16

Anonymi, 7 – 8.

17

Resti, 16.

18

Šišić, Letopis, 51, believed that Miletius wrote around the year of 1340; M. Medini, Starine

dubrovačke, Dubrovnik 1935, 25 (= Medini, Starine), thought that he had not lived before the beginning of the 13th century; whilst Foretić, Povijest, 11, assumed that Miletius was from the 11th century. 19

Ragnina, 174.

20

Katičić, Uz početke, 153 – 154.

21

Ljetopis, 70 – 71. Also, in the year of 1441, Philippi de Diversis 13, wrote: Sed ad rem iam venia-

mus et dicamus, quod cum urbs Ragusina, quae Epidaurum seu Lavusium antiquitus dicebatur… 22

On this legend see, Živković, Legenda, 9 – 32.

23

Tubero I, 87.

24

On this Charter, see, Živković, Crkvena organizacija, 143 – 149.

25

Cf. T. Živković, The Earliest Cults of Saints in Ragusa, ZRVI 44/1 (2007) 119 – 127

(=Živković, Cults). 26

Orbini, 180 – 181.

27

Marović, Arheološka istraživanja, 18.

28

Mavro Orbini Kraljevstvo Slovena, ed. F. Šanjek, Zagreb 1999, 555. Cf. Šišić, Letopis, 19 – 23.

29

Orbini, 182.

30

Zosimi comitis et ex advocati fisci Historia nova, ed. Mendelssohn, 1887, I, cap. 26, 31 and 37.

31

Anonymi, 4; Ragnina, 173; Tubero, 89 – 90. Only Resti, 17, had different opinion that the

foundation of Ragusa is not related to the mythical Slavic king Radoslav Belo. In addition, Resti somehow also calculated the year of the foundation of Ragusa as 568.

On The Foundation Of Ragusa: The Tradition vs. Facts 32

Stošić, Prikaz nalaza,16.

33

Cf. Rapanić, Marginalia, 47.

34

191

It also interesting to point out that the Ragusan authors write about John, the first

bishop/archbishop of Epidaurus, who escaped from Epidaurus to Ragusa. This is probably the traditional explanation of how Ragusa legally became a bishopric. Cf. Anonymi, 23; Ragnina, 173; Tubero, 90. Only Resti, 18, believed that the Pope Gregoy the Great transferred the seat of the bishopric from Epidaurus to Ragusa. 35

Lučić, O nekim problemima, 543.

36

Mansi IX, col. 1119.

37

Mansi X, col. 93.

38

Diplomatički zbornik kraljevine Hrvatske s Dalmacijom i Slavonijom I – II, ed. I. Kukuljevič

Sakcinski, Zagreb 1874, No 240 (= Kukuljević Sakcinski, Codex). 39

R. A. Markus, Carthage – Prima Justiniana – Ravenna: An Aspect of Justinian’s Kirchenpolitik,

Byzantion 49 (1979) 278. 40

Corpus iuris civilis, Novellae, ed. R. Schoell, Berolini 1912, Nov. XI, 94 (= Novellae).

41

Živković, Crkvena organizacija, 36.

42

Procopii BG, I, 7, 37.6 – 10.

43

Procopii BG, I, 16, 85.1 – 25.

44

Procopii BG, III, 29, 423.3 – 13.

45

G. Downey, The Composition of Procopius De aedificiis, Transactions and Proceedings of

the American Philological Association 78 (1947) 171 – 183. 46

Rapanić, Marginalia, 46. Goldstein, Bizant, 36 – 37.

47

Thomas, 30.

48

DAI I, 29.233 – 235.

49

W. Pohl, History in Fragments: Montesassino’s Politics of Memory, Early Medieval Europe

10/3 (2001) 354 – 355. 50

Chronicon Salernitanum, A Critical Edition with Studies on Literary and Historical Sources

on Language, ed. V. Westerbergh, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 3, Stockholm – Lund 1956, 88 – 89. 51

DAI I, 45.38 – 42.

52

It is interesting to point out the popular perception in Serbia about the duration of the Turkish

rule over Serbia, which is still present in modern times – that the Turks ruled Serbia for 500 years. In fact, the Turks ruled Serbia for less than 400 years (1459 – 1833). 53

DAI I, 27.53 – 55; 27. 66.

192

FORGING UNITY

54

See, DAI II, 88 (Commentary).

55

Anonymus, 3; Ragnina, 173; Resti, 26.

56

Živković, Cults, 124 – 126.

57

The earliest history of Amalfi, up to 1100, is given by U. Schwarz, Amalfi im frühen

Mittelalter (9 – 11. Jahrhundert). Untersuchungen zur Amalfitaner Überlieferung, Tübingen 1978; Also, A. O. Citarella, The Relations of Amalfi and the Arab World Before the Crusades, Speculum 42/2 (1967) 299 – 312. On the beginnings of Amalfi, see, M. Berza, Amalfi Preducale, Ephemeris Dacoromana 8 (1938) 349 – 444. 58

Already in 867 the Ragusans’ vessels transported the Slavic auxillaries to Italy; cf. DAI I,

29.113 – 115. Their war ships were assembled at Dyrrachium in 949; cf. De cerim. 664.9 – 10; cf. T. Živković, Da li su dubrovački ratni brodovi učestvovali u kritskoj ekspediciji 949. godine?, Zbornik za istoriju BiH 3 (2002) 9 – 15. 59

On Amalfi’s earliest trade, see, E. Ashtor, Gli ebrei nel commercio mediterraneo nell’alto

medievo (secc. X – XI), in: Gli orizzonti aperti. Profili del mercante medievale, ed. G. Airaldi, Torino 1997, 61. 60

J. Lučić, Dubrovčani na jadranskom prostoru od VII stoljeća do godine 1205, Rad JAZU 369

(1975) 36. 61

Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae II, ed. T. Smičiklas, Zagreb 1904

(= Codex II), 124 – 125. 62

Resti, 17.

XI

A NEW READING OF CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENITUS’ STATEMENT ON THE NUMBERS OF CROAT HORSEMEN, FOOT SOLDIERS AND SAILORS IN THE EARLY 10th CENTURY

Chapter 31 of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De administrando imperio contains valuable and unique information about the size of the Croat army, which could be dated, most probably in the first decades of the 10th century. It states the following: Baptized Croatia musters as many as 60 thousand cavalry and 100 thousand foot soldiers, and galleys up to 80, and cutters up to 100. The galleys carry 40 men each, the cutters 20 each, and the smaller cutters 10 each.1 Having in mind that at that time Croatia was a principality of modest in size,2 and probably not well populated because of the rough geographical features of the terrain,3 there is a very high probability that these figures are exaggerated. Such a high number of soldiers also opens the question about the overall reliability of the information given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the earliest history of the South Slavs. In the following account Constantine Porphyrogenitus gives his impression about the size of the Croat army in his own time: This great power and multitude of men Croatia possessed until the time of Prince Krasimer. But when he died and his son Miroslav, after ruling four years, was killed by Ban Pribounias, and quarrels and numerous dissensions broke out in the country, the cavalry and foot soldiers and galleys and cutters of the Croat dominion were diminished. And now it has 30 galleys and *** cutters, large and small, and *** cavalry and *** foot soldiers.4 The second testimony about the size of the Croat army in the 940s at first seems unclear, and the reader would think that the manuscript is illegible

194

FORGING UNITY

or damaged in several places, and that the editors marked certain places with the asterisks. However, after a closer reading of the earliest manuscript of the DAI (Codex parisinus gr. 2009), it becomes clear that the text is not illegible or damaged. It rather seems that the author of the DAI did not have precise information on the Croat army while he was compiling this passage, and that he was, most probably, still waiting for updated material on this topic. It is obvious if one notes the graphic marks which he put behind the word  where he was speaking of galleys (sagene) and cutters (kondoure).5 It is very interesting that Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ figures on the size of the Croat army were accepted in the earlier historiography almost without any criticism. F. Rački and K. Grot took these numbers without any doubt, thinking that they related to the middle of the 9th century and time of Duke Trpmir.6 Later on, F. Rački changed this chronological frame to the time of Duke Tomislav (c. 910 – c. 930), supporting his new views by suggesting that in Tomislav’s time Croatia included in its’ borders Pannonia (modern Slavonia), which would explain the extreme high number of horsemen, and principality of Pagania, which would explain the large fleet (180 ships of various size).7 The opinion of F. Rački was followed by L. Poparić, V. Klaić and F. Šišić. All these scholars did not have any doubt about the reliability of the Croat army figures given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.8 On the contrary, they supported the explanation for such powerful figures with the assumption that it was a natural consequence of Croatia’s territorial expansion towards the lands north of the river Sava, and southward to the principality of the Pagans. In that way, based on information which must not be taken as granted, they built up an even more serious hypothesis about the political relationships among various Slavic principalities without any critical judgment of the sources. Even the editors of the DAI, Gy. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins, following the results of the earlier Croat historiography, accepted these high numbers of the horsemen and foot soldiers and the explanation about the territorial expansion of Croatia in the time of Duke Tomislav which allowed such immense military power.9 However, some time ago, the Slovenian historian B. Grafenauer noted this passage of Porphyrogenitus’ work, and expressed serious doubts about the accuracy of these figures.10 He was soon followed by Serbian byzan-

On The Numbers Of Croat Horsemen, Foot Soldiers And Sailors ...

195

tologist B. Ferjančić, who wrote: these numbers are certainly exaggerated, since their acceptance would mean that Croatia had an army larger than the Byzantine Empire.11 The famous Croat historian N. Klaić, also shared Ferjančić’s opinion: these numbers are much exaggerated and inaccurate.12 Another Croat hisotrian, I. Goldstein, recently also wrote that Constantine’s statement: should be put in the frame of reality.13 The small number of historical sources related to the earliest medieval history of Croatia caused that the problem of Croatia’s military power in that time could not be observed through the study of several sources. That way it was up to historians to decide if they should accept these figures or not. The only possibility, which could offer a reliable explanation, is to re-examine the earliest manuscript of the DAI, dated from the last quarter of the 11th century. Through a closer inspection of the manuscript, it becomes obvious that most of the previous historiographic accounts on the issue of the size of the Croat army were based not on the reading of that manuscript, but only on the critical editions of the DAI. According to the manuscript, the disputed passage is:                ! +  " #$  %#  !14 Previous editors of the DAI, for example I. Bekker in 1840, give a Latin translation of the disputed words ! + as a sexaginta milia.15 On the other side, in the Greek text the abbreviation behind the number of 60 (!) is modified as &+&, most probably to be understood as a plural form of the abbreviation for thousand. However, the number 1,000 is usually written as letter alpha, but the noun thousand is never abbreviated in such a manner. Therefore, the modification &+& is just an editor’s attempt to explain an abbreviation, which he did not understand. Still, after it was introduced it became widely accepted even in the latest critical edition of the DAI by Gy. Moravcsik and R.J.H. Jenkins. Throughout the whole text of the DAI, Constantine Porphyrogenitus very often mentions numbers over a thousand, and because of that, it is very easy to establish whether the noun thousand/s is ever written in plural form as + ' or is it an abbreviation whose meaning remained unrecognized by the editors of the DAI. In chapter 15 of the DAI, 1,000 soldiers is written as:

196

FORGING UNITY

( %#)*16 Number 1,360 in chapter 20 is written as: % !.17 The expression many thousands in chapter 21 is: ) %# .18 In the same chapter 1,200 ships is: !,19 while 80,000 Arab soldiers is written down as: %#  !.20 Furthermore, in chapter 22 Porphyrogenitus mentions 12,000 of Mardaitai as: %#   !.21 Speaking of the number of the soldiers which were sent by the inhabitants of Salona to keep watch on the river Danube, Porphyrogenitus writes: %  +.22 The already mentioned chapter 31 contains information about 100,000 foot soldiers as: %#  !.23 In chapter 42 the distance of 1,000 miles is written as: + .24 Finally, there is a number of 1,000 horses in the chapter 51 as: + % .25 These examples from the DAI lead up to the conclusion that the noun thousand or its’ plural form thousands is never abbreviated in the DAI as + or + ' but that only the number 1,000 is written as alpha ( +). Therefore, the abbreviation ! + ' which relates to the number of the horsemen, should be understood in a different manner. Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentions some types of military units several times, which opens ground to an assumption that in the case of the abbreviation ! + we could expect the meaning of 60 military units of the specific type. In other words, the Croat army consisted of 60 cavalry units and not of 60,000 horsemen. For instance, in chapter 50 of the DAI, Porphyrogenitus writes about the transferring of a number of soldiers from different provinces of the Empire by using the term bandon, i.e. ,  # .26 In chapter 29, speaking of the troops which were sent by the inhabitants of Salona to keep watch at the Danube, Porphyrogenitus says that they were sending -. #/), which was understood, in Jenkins’ translation, as two alternating garrisons.27 The root of this word is - .0' which means to change, and in the beginning it was applied to mark the guard rotating on the Theodosian walls in Constantinople, but after some time, it began to denote a military unit of exact size.28 It seems that -.)' with the meaning of particular military unit, was well known from the beginning of the 10th century if not earlier, since the father of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Leo VI, was familiar with this term in his Taktika. Leo VI writes: ***  +***  1 2 3 - .4  )54 -.) . .

 $ -   6    0)

/  ' 7 #$  $ 8#   6 %  !  0)

***29

On The Numbers Of Croat Horsemen, Foot Soldiers And Sailors ...

197

Therefore, -.) was, at least from the beginning of the 10th century, a military unit consisting of 50 to 150 men.30 Even more important is the fact that Leo VI explicitly considers this type of unit as cavalry. Bearing in mind that Constantine Pophyrogenitus already used the term -.) in the chapter 29 of his work, or better to say its’ plural form -. ' as well as the fact that his father already described this type of unit, we can conclude that the abbreviation ! + has a meaning of 60 allagia. It is also possible to say that the abbreviation + should be read as -9:.9: ' taking into consideration that the scribe from 11th century was not completely sure in its meaning. Therefore, he wrote the ligature, which connects two alphas, in round form rather than sharp, transforming the original gamma in the simple insignificant ligature.31 It seems that the scribe was not sure in the meaning of this abbreviation and probably thought that it must be connected in some way with the noun thousand, but still, since he was uncertain, he simply followed the original text with a slight change. Still, the diacritic mark above two alphas is a clear signal that we have an abbreviated word in that part of the text. The most probable reconstruction of this abbreviation should be +. . If the reconstruction of the abbreviation ! + as 60 allagia is correct, then the number of the Croat horsemen must be between 3,000 and 9,000, and that the lower values are most probable (between 3,000 and 4,000). Things are quite different in the case of the foot soldiers, since the text of the DAI seems quite clear at first: " #$  %#  !. There are at least three possibilities which should be discussed concerning this issue. First, that the scribe inserted letter rho because he had the same letter for the values of cutters (kondoure). Second, that some other letter was in place of rho and that this figure did not seem logical to the scribe because he understood the previous information of the horsemen as 60,000 and he thought that the number of foot soldiers must not be smaller than the number of horsemen. Third, and the most probable, that he changed by mistake the original letter into rho. In that case, we should expect that the letter, which was originally in that place, was kappa (20).32 For instance, the same scribe in chapter 29 of the DAI writes ;))5 instead of