The Chronicle of Monemvasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece Author(s): Peter Charanis Source: Dumbarton

Oaks Papers, Vol. 5 (1950), pp. 139+141-166 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291076 Accessed: 30/07/2010 08:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers.

http://www.jstor.org

THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA AND THE QUESTION OF THE SLAVONIC SE'~TTL IEMENTS IN GREECE
PETER CHARANIS

Fragmente aus den Orient. Thomas (Stuttgart. A. 1877). Others have looked at 1 (Athens. See. Bees.MONG the short Byzantinechronicles. note 2. 655ff. Lambros (Lampros). is still fundamental on the question of the Slavs in Greece. 5 (St. the other to that of the Iberikon.in his 'ITroptKa' MEXAfTia7a (Athens.. the most interesting because of the notices which it contains concerning the establishment of Slavonic settlements in Greece. The most curious because. 247. both monasteries of Mount Athos. A. 1:301. Catalogue of the Greek Manuscriptson Mount Athos (Cambridge. 85 (Leipzig. its author. 98-109. especially in the Peloponnesus. To "lrept r7T TErs KTCoJ( MovE/C3alas" XpOVLOV. the one belonging to the monastery of Koutloumousion. Opponents of the theory of Fallmerayertried to discount the importanceof this chronicle. See A. 1749). and the date of its composition. 2nd edition by Georg M. 1898). ' Lampros.4 According to Lampros. Petersburg. in 'IaroptKatIIpayLaTeLat (Athens. SXaviKat ev ratZ 'EXXAVLKa(Z XJpaLt iEroLtKcoEl. despite the importance of its contents. Jacob Ph. Those who have dealt with the problem of these settlements have used it. 417f. p. . chronology. either discounting its importance or emphasizing it unduly. The chronicle was first published in 1749 by Joseph Pasinus and his collaborators in their catalogue of the manuscripts of the royal library of Turin. neither its author nor the date of its composition is known. P. and significance of these settlements. it has been the subject of two rather lengthy monographs wherein the attempt was made to determine its sources. Vasiliev's work. It is the object of this paper to reexamine the question of the trustworthiness and the date of the composition of this chronicle.' Notwithstanding its brevity. 37-105. Vizantiiskij Vremennik. 6 pp. P. for instance. in Bvtavrts.2but the results have not been entirely conclusive. Lampros. Nathalie Scheffer. the manuscript of the Iberikon was written in the sixteenth century. To 7repi KTrlewu MovefJfacutas XpovtKov. note 25. Hopf. and K. cit. their attitude depending upon their view concerning the magnitude. 1895-1900). 411. that of Koutloumousion probably in the sixteenth.3Pasinus' edition was the only edition available until 1884 when S. 1 (Turin. Paparrhegopoulo. K."in Ersch and Gruber. 106ff. from a manuscript written in the sixteenth century. 1858).5 In 1909 these three versions were re\ t Fallmerayerwas the first to call attention to this chronicle and used it to bolster his fantastic theory that the ancient Greek race disappearedcompletely. together with two other versions which he found in two manuscripts. during the Middle Ages. "Geschichte Griechenlandsvom Beginn des Mittelaltersbis auf unsere Zeit. Lampros reissued it. 508. although written fiftytwo years ago. the trustworthinessof its information. Codices manuscriptibibliothecae regii TaurinensisAthenaei.. op. p. it more impartially.that concerningthe Foundation of Monemvasia is perhaps the most curious and interesting. 1867). 1909). "The Slavs in Greece" (in Russian). pp. although there are some indications which point to the seventeenth. I read it with the aid of Mrs.Allgemeine Encyclopidie der Wissenschaftenund Kunste. Fallmerayer. 2:86. N. 97-128. Vasiliev. S. 1884).

Lampros. Bees. Among these various versions there are substantial differences. who re6 7 8 Bees. Between the Iberikon version on the one hand and the Koutloumousion and Turin versions on the other there are a number of other differences. 245 ff. The difference in contents between the Iberikon on the one hand and the Turin and Koutloumousion versions on the other was the principal argument used by Lampros in support of his opinion that these versions represent two different traditions of which the Iberikon was the original and the earliest.must have been written sometime between 806 and 1083.142 PETER CHARANIS printed by N. 119. was still patriarch. The Roman version consists of these later notices and includes none of the contents of the Iberikon. 128. who died in 806. 61-73. And. since the Iberikon version ends with the subjugation of the Slavs in the region of Patras during the reign of Nicephorus I when Tarasius. The Koutloumousion and Turin versions on the other hand include.p. There is no mention of any event beyond the reign of Nicephorus I. . especially the latter. op. was a reproduction of the Iberikon version with additional notices added by a later scribe. in the sixth century.. besides the main contents of the Iberikon. while of the later notices found in the Turin and the Koutloumousion versions and missing in that of the Iberikon the earliest refers to the raising of the see of Lacedaemon to the status of a metropolis in 1083. a number of other notices which deal primarilywith events and persons connected with the metropolitan sees of Monemvasia and Lacedaemon.8 As for the Turin and Koutloumousion versions. (Athens. including Greece. Bees with some corrections. Lampros thought that they must have been written toward the end of the thirteenth century. A. A. but most of them refer to the second half of the thirteenth century and the first half of the fourteenth. Moveyaatlaa.the Iberikon . found in a manuscript belonging to the Collegio Greco in Rome. Lampros.6and three years later a fourth version.. 118. To 7rEpt KTt'oeosMovexpaatras XpovtLKov. "Ibid. Lampros came to the conclusion that the original version . but these are of minor significance. the settlement of the Slavs in the Peloponnesus. while the other. pp. Chronologically these later notices cover the period from 1083 to about the middle of the fourteenth century. represented by the Turin and Koutloumousion manuscripts. Neos KO&d roV XpOVtKOV in Necq 'EXXAvotYvi'1ow. cit. was published by Lampros. 9 1912).9 The conclusions of Lampros were rejected by N. and their subjugation to the authority of the emperor during the reign of Nicephorus I. The Iberikon deals primarily with the Avar and Slavic invasions of the Balkan peninsula. pp.

Bees' edition. since the Iberikonis much more precise and complete in its notices.producingthus the versionrepresented the Turinand the Koutloumousion And by manuscripts. been appendedto the originalchroniclelater.because one of the notices refersto the year 1340while the manuscripts in which the chronicle has been found belong to the sixteenth century. In his accountof the subjugation the Slavsnear Patrasduringthe of reign of NicephorusI. op. the other. The peculiarityof this versionis that it includesnone of the contentsof the Iberikon. according only in the Turinand Koutloumousion to Lampros. Bees rejects the notion that the Iberikonis the original and earliestversion. cit. 250.In publishing had the Roman version. '1 Lampros. 68: NtKrrodpov To VraXaLov roV EXOVTOS When Bees publishedhis study. for certain notices of the chronicledefinitelyrefer to the fourteenthcentury.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 143 examinedthe problemin detail..noticeswhich. Lamprosremarkedthat its peculiarityconfirmedhis earlierview that the laternoticesof the Turinand Koutloumousion versions form a section independentof the part which constitutesthe Iberikonversion. 75. p.10 is Lampros' Nor view that these additionswere appendedto the originaltowardthe end of the thirteenthcenturyany more acceptable. p.Lamprosfailed to notice one important detail.it containsonly the later notices which are found versions."Indeed. Ibid. but surely there must be a mistake. Lamprossays that this is a manuscript of the thirteenth century."14 Thisdetailis of chronological importance 0 (viov) }ravpa'KLov. it is quite probable that it representsthe original redactionof the chronicle. that with the later notices.He believes that the whole chroniclewas composedsometimebetween 1340 and the sixteenth century.l3Indeed.for among them there are chronologicalnotices that refer to the fourteenth century. Bees rightlyobservedthat it is impossible to accept the view of Lamprosthat the originalversionwas writtenbefore 1083 simply because the additionsfound in the other versionsbegin with that year.lends supportto the argumentof Lamprosthat these two parts were originally independentand that later someoneput them together. 98-99. . 12 Ibid. the Iberikonversion. p. the existence of two manuscripts the one containingthe part with the earliernotices.. On determiningthe date of the compositionof the originalchronicle.thinksthat it is a simplevariationof the othertwo. that is. 98.'2 Bees. p.Neos Kw&8t roU)XPOVLKOV Movetx/a(crta. pp. while the Turin and Koutloumousion versions are imperfect copies of it with the laternoticesadded. and considersthe differencesamong them as accidental.In otherwords. the Romanversionwas not yet known.who had Staurakios son.. the authorof the chroniclerefersto that emperoras "the as Old.

1885). 1 Amari. 2nd edition (Catania.l7 chroniclewhich constitutesthe Iberikonversion was composedduring or not much after the reign of NicephorusPhocas. p. of course." o Michele rTv AaKovwV 8itaKTroV SltaCrwtovre. ma parmi assai dubbio che il castello durasse fino all' undecimo secolo.144 PETER CHARANIS because it places the compositionof the chronicleafter the reign of NicephorusPhocas (963-969)."19Since the publication of Amari's di work.In describingthe depredations the Avarsand Slavsin of the Peloponnesus 584. cit. Kougeas.. op. 1912). note XV: "Confrontando le quali testimonianze. nuova serie.lswho called attentionto anotherexpressionof the chroniclewhich also helps to determinethe date of its composition. p. 16Bees' edition. Kougeas. the authorof the chroniclewritesthat manyof the in Greeksfled and found refuge in Calabriaand Sicily. . Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia. op. 696.l6 and as is well knownthe firstmentionof the Tzaconesis made by Constantine PorphyroThese observations Kougeasto concludethat that part of the led genitus. pp. where. Those who went to Calabriacame fromPatrasand settledin the regionof Rhegium. 17 Constantine Porphyrogenitus. 'E7rL TOV KaXovLrevov XpovLKov "Hepi Tr ri7 KrTL7aEW Movqe/3aCL'a?". 477. "Notizie storiche e geographiche della citta e valle di Demona.of greatimporstill tance.This fact has led Amarito declarethat the town Demenaexisteduntil the tenthcentury. 478. io credo provata la esistenza di Demana castello infino al decimo secolo. '9 Bees' edition." in Archivio storico Siciliano.2" if the Lacedaemonians lived in Demena at the time of the compositionof the chronicle. 8 Kougeas. di Demana provincia dall' undecimo in poi. Luigi Vasi..those who went to Sicily came fromLacedaemon.and preservetheir own Laconiandialect. 1829). This is the referenceto the Tzacones. p.18 There is anotherexpression the chroniclewhich lends supportto the in view of Kougeas. 1-15. and this would place the compositionof the chroniclenot later than the end of the tenth centuryor the beginning of the eleventh.20 all of the referencesto the town belong to the ninth and tenth centuries. cit. De cerimoniis.although who had fled to Sicily still But that is doubtful. 1:609 ff.Demenaas the name of a part of Sicily and that of a town located in that region in the northeastern but region is well known.but moreimportant is the natureof its sourcesand the credibility 15 S. e certo che a meta del duodecimo fosse abbandonato o avesse mutato nome. 1 (Bonn. 1:612.in Neo' 9 (Athens. On Demena see also Sac. This was pointed out by S. 1933). 67: 0o KaLi7r' EaXarwv TtaKwvortaLrwvoAdarOrlcrav.possiblyuntil the eleventh. 66: ot Kal eT ET L diarv Ev avr7 ev TOrdT KaXov/Aevw AeluEva KaL AqJevLTraL iLVT AaKeSaLLOVrT)V KaravotLaCo'levoL Kat TrjV iaav Amari.Storiadei Musulmani Sicilia. whereit is said that this namehad been lately given to them. 'EXAAXvo/ruvowv.it means that Demena still existed. of The date of the composition a documentis. anno X (Palermo. says the chronicle"theystill live in a place called Demena. are called Demenitae instead of Lacedaemonitae. e avvisandomi che nei diplomi notati dal n? VII al XIV si tratti anco della provincia.

however. 78. The contents of the chronicle of Monemvasia have been carefully analyzed by both Lampros and Bees.23But there are a number of notices for which Lampros was not able to find the source. For the latter deals with no less a problem than the fate of the Greek people. were solved by Bees. as Bees remarks. its contributions are of less general import than those of the first part. He observed. devoted his attention primarily to the second part of the chronicle. that Skleros had previous experience with the Peloponnesus and that was the reason for his appointment by Michael I. who offered evidence. Theophylact Simocatta. 109 if. a conclusion which was then sound. he came to the conclusion.rept KTtrc-Eo MovEr/Lalaa XpovtKov. It is not improbable. . 104 f. cit. especially of the fourteenth century. 117: ovSatAov ylvTra Aodyos w7rcpTOV 22 erv/Lov rTv MavtarTcv. that this reference had already been cited by Vasiliev in the same connection. p. cit. p. however valuable this part of the chronicle may be for the history of the Peloponnesus in the fourteenth century.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 145 of its contents. Lampros scrutinized the Iberikon version very carefully and was able to establish most of its sources. op. that the name of the first metropolitan of Patras. where it is said (Bonn. cit. however. Suffice it to say that Bees has come to the conclusion that it is worthy of trust and "valuable for the history of the Peloponnesus and indeed of Lacedaemon."22 But.24 Lampros also observed that nowhere else was he able to find the etymology of Maniatae. particularly those inhabiting the Peloponnesus.. during the early Middle Ages. who according to the chronicle was appointed and raised to the status of metropolitan during the reign of Nicephorus I. following the liberation of Patras from the Slavs. The latter. while making some additions to what Lampros had said concerning the sources of the Iberikon version. for nowhere in the chronicle Bees. p. op. These two problems. independent of the chronicle. Bees' reference about Skleros is to Scriptor incertus de Leone Bardae F. op. and of this part there will be no question here. that is. Vasiliev.. It must be pointed out. that both of these personages existed and had served in the capacities mentioned by the chronicle. On the basis of the works of the Byzantine writers available to him which relate the same events related by the chronicle. Athanasius. Evagrius. Lampros. p. 422. the part which constitutes the Iberikon version. He made the same observation with respect to the statement of the chronicle that the Byzantine commander who liberated Patras from the Slavs was named Skleros and belonged to an Armenian family. for instance. is found nowhere else. p. 24 Bees. p. 2Lampros.. 336) that Leo Skleros was appointed strategus of the Peloponnesus by Michael I. To wrep KTrciaoe Movetiarla' XpovIKov. and Theophanes. since it preserves some names and notices of things absolutely unknown from other sources. To .25This statement is puzzling. that the author of the chronicle drew his information primarily from Menander.

On page 132 of his article. 1915). Ef$7yo0VevoL KacrTpwv). 422. But Demena. lib. ricordato nelle memorie del nono secolo e abbandonato di certo nel duodecimo. as time went on. the Lacedaemonians who settled in Sicily came to be known. We shall speak more of this document later.. V. As for the etymology of Tzacones it is now generally accepted that it D AaKcovec. o Permanenti. His reference is to Vasiliev's important article on the Slavs in Greece which we have already cited (above. On page 610. note 2. this article (p. cap. as has been pointed out above. arT TovTrV &teIetvav facX 7rUTcrLTOlt LVIII. Theophanes Continuatus used 8tajufev because it was precisely the verb which he needed. then the name Demena may have been derived from Demenitae. 1:609 f. 1921). 130-134. this writer then mentions the settlement of other Spartans in Sicily. op. Amantos. with the aid of Vasiliev himself. no particular significance should be attached to it. p. Amari explains: il participio presente del verbo 8sltateo (permaneo. cit.29 It is quite probable that to this writer Demenitae 27Amari. pp. AetLeVTrag avrov3 6 /iaKpos eirE Xpdvos.146 PETER CHARANIS is there any question of the Maniatae. in 'A0cepwoa o is derived from the phrase CEir. non al territorio ma agli abitatori. too. adopera il verbo analogo a cosl fatta voce (Teofane continuato. See C.: Quanto al Val Demone. trattando delle citta di Puglia rimase sotto il dominio di Constantinopoli. After speaking of those elements among the Laconians who settled in the mountains of Cynuria in the Peloponnesus and in the course of time barbarized their name into Tzacones. si e riferita ai demonii dell' Etna. Apparently Lampros. TraaKcvca-Sclavonia. The chronicle says: "Some sailed to the island of Sicily and they are still there in a place called Demena and are called Demenitae instead of Lacedaemonitae. si aggiunga dell' impero bizantino. 85:108. 12 (Athens. wKrocav eKEtca Kat 'EXXAvo/wvy. Hopf. che l'uso volgare par abbia contratto in Ton Demenon. perduro) al genitivo plurale farebbe rrv slaiEvo'vTcwv. /fapf/aplravras Kal avTroVS rovouaa. a corruptionof Lacones. the name by which. nella fede. 5) and I have found no statement such as .27If this opinion is correct.26understood Maniatae by the Demenitae of the chronicle. probably because neither he nor Hopf knew anything about the Sicilian town of Demena.XarSLaKrlv (Athens. senza dubbio. op. according to the chronicle. as did also Hopf.. Sembrami piu probabile che i nomi della provincia e del castello fossero nati insieme dall' appellazione presa per awentura dagli abitatori di tutta quella regione: Perduranti. How it got its name is not absolutely clear. Amari thinks that it was named after the inhabitants and supposes that the name was applied to the region and to the town at about the same time. n. Vasiliev among those who derive the term Tzacones from the Slavic zakon and accordingly consider the Tzacones as Slavs. 29 in Neos Avo ava'opal Lampros. cioe. then the theory of Amari might be plausible."28 A writer of the early fifteenth century understood Demenitae to be a barbarousform of Lacedaemonians. /pyrrporoXtrov Moveqfaoaias 7rpos Tv 'rarpLapXrlv. and adds that they.. I have carefully checked. 286: IIpoKoKeldavrEs 8e et5 MeCa-vrnv. l'etimologia si e riferita ai boschi (Vallis Nemorum). 297: Kat rTO TOLOVTorw e appunto e una delle varianti con che questa ci e pervenuta Tondemenon che si riferisce. cit. altri piui saviamente l'ha tratto da un forte castello. Amantos includes A.N. but he did not say that. tenuto spiraglio d'inferno (Vallis Doemonum). To us this etymology seems very improbable./wv. Had he said that because the inhabitants of these cities remained faithful they came to be known as 8talevovres. PerocchB un cronista greco del nono secolo. was a Sicilian town well known in the tenth century. 28 See note 19 for the Greek text. note 1). barbarized their name and came to be known as Demenitae.

Introduction d l'e'tude du dialect Tsakonien (Paris. rfyovv flaoaCLELa' MavptKlov. from several conversations that I have had with this distinguished Russian-American scholar. Among the several other notices of the chronicle for which neither Lamprosnor Bees was able to find anothersource. Kal 01 8e Ta?s IaTrpCv JLtaL(ovo y) peLv TrV TroAthL cTWKLaOry ev 'Opo'pj. Movov 8e /LEpOvS lIeAo7rovv 'aov a7ro KoplvOov Kal KaOapeVovToTs.evfTrj E8a()os KaTaXt7rovTes AE'Elva Tf VTrj)(T V or Aiy1tv. 0tlY' CTOVS. I know. Byz.30 whole passageis reproducedbecause it is necessary as a referencein the discussionof its source: 'Ev eTEpa 8e e6caf3ox eeoipE Kal "HlTrEpov Kal 'ATTLK"V Kal a aTro raavaT Kal Tr7v 'EAAa8a T7V ?ecaaaLav EV3otav.there are two which are of capital importancefor the historyof Greece. Koukoules. ol 8? 'ApydoL ev Tfj v1ra? T7' Kahov/uEvZ Kal ve Kop o T'8? KOPLOtlOL EV KaTov. 1934). and southernItaly during the Middle Ages. But on this popular etymology of Demenitae from Lacedemonitae. Sicily. Pernot. N. 26:317-327. EV aVTrj TLrl OLVpKeaav Xpdvoi aTrO TOV /XL)pi . pp. Following is the passage where the first of these The notices is found. restricting himself to a summary of the conclusions of other scholars. TO) JLEpEL VO TOV POYCAatcov paocAc'O 'ApLevlas. 26:107. 30 Bees' edition. E'cEXp MaXEov TOV 'Ovovs OkAa/3prvov airo T77jS /LKpas a\.evwv TOls KAX7pwlv av/fpal3\v el v'E7roL EOXE/JtK rapeCXev. ev avT'r Tr TroXiEL KaTW)K(auaV TOV L8iov Ot 8e T('V OpE. 321-324. while Vasiliev makes here no categorical statement on the problem.TE Trj /paXLeA ET0S 'ETOVS TrjS TOV KOaCJLOV KaTao-Kevrj7 . . Indeed. aAAos dAaXX 8Lq avTOL Ev aVTr. 65-70. Zeitschrift. E1s 8e TWV TOLOVTWV Op/AWcELvoS /ixV TO) U6Xa3rvy Ta olKeta 8E TOV i7rovoLagouo. ToaaKwoves. see Ph. Kat OV^TOSol SLaKoaloLo Apfapo T7v IHeXorovvrlaov KaTaoyXdovre OKTWKaL8EKa z7TE T) TrV i'Po/ualov O7rEp l'V EKTOV Ka KaTOtLKc. TaaxKwva Kal TadrKw s. On Tzacones see further G. in Byz. 27 in (Leipzig. TOV TTeph V1TOKEItEVOi. Hatzidakes.pUETWKraav.TOT'E LKEELaS e7reXVUvaav ot ol AaKOVE3 ev 18iav TO KaaL eLS ETLaLV l Kal Tr?v aVT7 TWV Ka EV To7r Kalov/Evw AaKovwv8(oltdKTOV 7r(ALV OXvpav Lat7ropevoLevwv Kat eyAqE raVL arVTl AaKE8oatovT7wV KaTovouiaoJuevot StaotogoVTeS. term actually used by the chronicleinstead of the classical Lacedaemonians. that he considers the term Tzacones to be certainly related to that of Lacones. Ot e ETr' EoXaTwv TgaKwvlaL rovoadaOro-lav. rraTpwov Trl KaXaafppv TCV olt IYV e\v X pa To 'P?)yytov.Demenitae inof stead of Daemonitae. Kal O 8o 8V(YparTov TOrOV Trapa TOV T)'S OaXacoarla TaVT7]v OVO'LdCaVTeS /LETa Kal La TO alyLaXov eVpo'vTEr Kal olKOOOlr(TCavTE Tr-7/ elaooov v VOoelS Mov?lpaaCav Ltav EXELV TWV Eav aVTW aVTov eTa-tKOTrov. Zeitschrift. Byzantinische Zeitschrift.and consequentlyDemena from Lacedaemon.avTS \/. For the Tzaconian dialect see H.t[xaTw Kat Kal aypOLKLKOL KaTWKltO?oraV Ev V TOL 7rapaKetLEEvotS EKEloe TpaXtvois TOTO. faTpLap -TpaT17y7O IIHAorovvfrvov cTpaTrqyWV ev aVT. 1927). The Iberikon version. For a different etymology. OL 8or Kal ev I\Aororovvlao0w e0/op/IaravTe3 KaTpKjacav crTaprl(aav. Dolger.What he thought happenedwas the droppingof the firsttwo syllablesfrom Lacedaemonitae and the simplification the spelling of what remained. 7raorav TV Te 7rakatav Tavr-Tv etAov 7roXAu eK/3aXOvTes r avTOv EyevE7v Kal eXqvlLKa eOvr Kal KaTa0O0epavTes Xelpa5 8VVOe`vreT'TFS K(VYELV. TO TpaXV Kal OvapaTov KaTCEreJTreTo.we do not insist. OErp ?/V TCETapToV CTO TOV avaTOalKOV TTS paaoSelag T'7 NLK7O'0pov TOV 7raXaLOv TOV EXOVTO5 (vOiV) 'TaVpaKoVKL. e Te Kalt aTvlae CEl TEXOOSKal apXrOEv OlKjTopaOLaTrOKaTaarT7val TOVTo LaOcvy Trpoep77/L'vos flaacetAL would justify Amantos' opinion.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 147 a appearedto be a corruptionof Lacedaemonitae.The form Demona insteadof Demena occursseveral times in the sources.

HIadpaLt TrapEaxeTo. aytas KK)rTOla'(. that is. Some sailed to the island of Sicily and they are still there in a place called Demena. the prerogatives of a metropolis. At first glance the notice concerning the invasion of Greece seems to have been taken . and a member of the family called Skleroi came into hostile blows with the Slavic tribes. 805]. Those who belonged to the tenders of herds and to the rustics of the country settled in the rugged places located along there and have been lately called Tzaconiae. destroying and driving out the noble and Hellenic nations. t TZ TaTrpelS KeXeuELt avO rov TOVTOVS F OS TO 7rrT)KaVTa 'AOavatntos Trovo/a. having inquired about the colony where the people of Patras lived. they settled in it themselves. The city of Patras emigrated to the territory of Rhegium in Calabria. and to Christianize the barbarians themselves. avoLKosoojL7aL Laav P/3/3apo ALO KaL alvaiaVaO TV rv !ETOLKETLCrav ov taTpipLovctLv OL Eadc(ETL ad7rKaTEcTar7'Ue ErTa txL7rTpO7rdOAe 8LKata WroaE TrE (K paOpov TaS Kal KaL TOV LlOV aVTOv 7rotL/vo0. which was the fourth year of the reign of Nicephorus the Old who had Staurakios as son. Here is a translation: In another invasion they [the Avars] subjugated all of Thessaly and Greece. 587] from the creation of the world. built there a strong city which they called Monemvasia because there was only one way for those entering. When the aforementioned emperor Nicephorus heard these things he was filled with joy and became anxious to renew the cities there.148 NLKr)(fOPoS Kal PETER CHARANIS La ?OETOTO7Kal TaS EKEiLE 7roAXEt avaKaLvITaL Kalt a oL XapS T7rXAfoOelS Opovrto0 KaTr7Sa(f KcaT EKKA7ULtas av'TOvs TOVS /3ap/3apovs XpLiTCavoVSrotroat. the Avars have held it for two hundred and eighteen years. and the Corinthians to the island called Aegina. He also granted to Patras. They made an incursion also in the Peloponnesus. because of its ruggedness and inaccessibility remained free from the Slavs and to that part a strategus [governor] of the Peloponnesus continued to be sent by the emperor of the Romans. Others found an inaccessible place by the seashore.D. . Attica and Euboea. Those among the former [the Greeks] who succeeded in escaping from their blood-stained hands dispersed themselves here and there. And he rebuilt their city [Patras] and the holy churches of God from the foundations when Tarasius was still patriarch. . he had them reestablished by his order together with their own shepherd [bishop]. PX Kat aPXLe7rtKo07r's TOV7 OeoV 'AVWKoSdET't T7\V Tro'AV aVTliV Kalt Tas TrarptapXoVVro1 Tapaauov . on their ancient soil. Having thus conquered and settled the Peloponnesus.. conquered and obliterated them completely. Old Epirus. and preserve their own Laconian dialect. and enabled the ancient inhabitants to recover their own. from Corinth to Malea. call themselves Demenitae instead of Lacedaemonitae. One of these governors. And for this reason. Now to examine the sources of this all-important passage. to the year 6313 [A. which was a bishopric before this. a native of Lesser Armenia. and settled in it with their own bishop. to rebuild the churches that the barbarians had destroyed. The Lacones too abandoned their native soil at that time. And only the eastern part of the Peloponnesus. whose name at that time was Athanasius. which was the sixth year of the reign of Maurice. Nqv Trpo TOVTOV Pxp/laTLrtovau-r. They were subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anyone else. and.D. from the year 6096 [A. the Argives to the island called Orobe. conquered it by war.

as Pasupposes. 410. . Leunclavius. aTroXXavvTre a7ravra rTWv 7roXXv Vy 8itplpOVTwV.30 That the latterwas the case will be presentlydemonstrated. 247. namesthe variousregionsof Greeceinvadedby the Avarsand Slavs. Avares a finibus Thraciae pelluntur et partes Graeciae atque Pannoniae occupant.. and the country of the Thessalonians.Menander speaksof an invasionof Greeceduringthe reign of Tiberiusbut..the synodicalletter of the patriarchNicholas (1084-1111) to the emperorAlexiusComnenus. and captured the cities.. tr. Here is his text as cited by Vasiliev. 61: OVTOL (ol 'APapot). was famous also for the invasion of an accursed people. ex variis Europae Asiaeque bibliothecis eruti (Frankfurt. 3 Evagrius. Kal rTi 7roSa paXelv ios /tle ev avTr 'P(o/Latov avSpa. 278 f. Juris Graeco-Romani." XJohn of Biclar who was in Constantinople from 558 to 575 says in his chronicle that the Slavs devastated parts of Greece. p.37 most commentators the chronicle As of consideredit to be a productof a late period they showed no hesitationin 31 Ibid. called Slavonians. cit. p. The statementof the chroniclethat the Avarsheld the Peloponnesus for . and made themselves masters of the whole country. uTpaTrvJLaTov KaTa Tr?v 'Eav SC. Chronica Minora (1893). like Evagrius. but does not mention any of these parts. VI. Indeed nowhereelse amongthe known sourcesis there any mentionof the exact region of Greece invadedby the Avarsand Slavs. II.he does not name the exactregionsthat were Nor invaded. . 10: ol 'A/papEtL 81 tE'XPt roV KaXovtLevov TE TE /LaKpov TetXOVS cXaacravT. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. . and reduced the people to slavery. 432: "That same year. op. 1596). Bishop of Ephesus.O Tt8EptoS *. . tomi duo . 7 J. and settled in it by main force. being the third after the death of king Justin." These invasions are placed by John during the reigns of Justin and Tiberius. StaKor0tot 'PwoaiKiS 8 us ?Trpac/3EErat Batavov. 1851).or that he had before his eyes a source. and devastated and burnt. from587 to 805 .32 as the chronicle but. StyyrlSdva 'AyXtaAov Kai rTv 'EXXAaa mrraav KaLerepas TroXELt Kai KaL 7rvp7roXovvT6s. Avares Thracias vastant et regiam urbem a muro longo obsident. 4 (Paris.r .now lost..ots KaraToXOVTwv T9V HIeorow7. quas depopulates vacuas reliquere. The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John.while from Evagriussimplysays "allGreece. and took numerous forts. The chronicle of John was published by Mommsen in Mon. S EKa OKTW XpOVOvt oX. note 25.34 does the accountof John of Ephesusadd very much more. 1860).31 This was the view adopted by Paparrhegopoulo. p.who is mentionedin the chronicleas one of its sources. cit. parrhegopoulo which gave an accountof the exact regionsof Greeceinvadedby the Avars and the Slavs. apXi?j . 48): OTr ViTO KXaap/3l7vKal aravraxoe raVTaxc raXXXwv aVTr E7TrrpTr/LEV(V r TV KEpaioEV?qvrI TrS 'EXXAAao KLVV(3vov. John. who overran the whole of Greece. note 5: "Sclavini in Thracia multas urbes Romanorum pervadunt..: Trv 'A8adpwv . Germ.ovraov. Miiller. qcpoVpta e. vol.is knownalso from two hundredeighteenyears anothersource. oXw Sv8varOat a7roTeJoFLVvlyv. tam canonici quam civilis. 252 (frag. KaOws O Evayptos AyeEt Cv Tl) TE/TL avrov Aoyo Tr CKKXraIaarTtLK T laropiaS * 2Paparrhegopoulo."33 both Lamprosand Bees refrained an expressing opinionon this point. Hist. op. p. Bishop of of Ephesus.35 It can either be that the authorof the chronicletook Evagrius'expression "all Greece"and broke it up on the basis of some local tradition.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 149 from Evagrius. and all Thrace. and dwelt in it as though it had been their own without fear.7rOXLOpKroaav Katl vspa7ro8aoavro. by R.that is. Payne Smith (Oxford. edited by Bidez and Parmentier..

117. accepts the letter of patriarch Nicholas as the source of the chronicle. 8 Lampros. p..39Actually. The notice concerning the subjugation of the Slavs in the territory of Patras and the recovery of that city by the Byzantines as well as its promotion to the status of a metropolis during the reign of Nicephorus I has been thought to be derived either from the letter of the patriarch or from the But De administrando imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. note 53. Bees. p. 82). a well-known fact. but he had already expressed the view that the composition of the chronicle must be placed in the period between 806 and 1083. "the noble and Hellenic nations. and he says that in this conflict the Slavs were aided by Africans and Saracens.. then the chronicle was composed either during or after the patriarchate of Nicholas. That Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus is. 217 ff. but it is still disputed whether they settled there in the sixth century. during the reign of Maurice. Accordingly he dismissed the question. In this account Constantine seems to describe an attack of the Slavs against Patras after that city had been resettled with Greeks. op. To 7rept 9 KTrYeW Move/za3laaca XpovLKOv. . Besides. for if the patriarchal letter served as a source in the composition of the chronicle." as the chronicle puts it. Bees. 83. 1840). op. he represents the city of Patras and the surrounding territory as being already in the hands of the Greeks.. cit.38But Paparrhegopoulo entertained no doubts at all that what the chronicle says about the length of time that the Avars and the Slavs held the Peloponnesus was taken from the letter of the patriarch.40 neither in the patriarchal letter nor in the account of Porphyrogenitus41 is there question concerning the rebuilding of the city of Patras by Nicephorus and its resettlement with the descendants of those who had emigrated to the territory of Rhegium in Calabria at the time of the invasion of the Avars and Slavs. p. note 25. too (op.that concerning the invasion of the Peloponnesus by the Avars and the dispersion of the ancient inhabitants of the peninsula. saying that he thought it superfluous to deal with it. between the account of the chronicle and that of Porphyrogenitus there are some other important differences. De administrando imperio (Bonn. p. 40 41 Constantine Porphyrogenitus. since Paparrhegopoulo had already dealt with it at length. p. cit. See below. of course. the author of the chronicle drew his information from an entirely different source. It remains now to consider what is perhaps the most important notice of the entire passage . Paparrhegopoulo. Porphyrogenitus does not give the name of the Byzantine general who subdued the Slavs. Lampros himself was somewhat puzzled. as it will be presently seen.150 PETER CHARANIS accepting the letter of the patriarch as the source of the chronicle. cit. however. In view of these important differences. 247. it is absolutely clear that the account of the chronicle is independent of that of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

the Byzantine as As possessionsin the Balkanpeninsula. That there is confirmation.a . 17 (Athens. where Menander writingaboutthe sameincident. 'ITropta TOV'E XrvLKoiv 'Evovm. 1925). Menander.but. 15: 472."as they use it. the Greek scholar Amantoswrote. The statementof the chronicleconcerningthe invasionof the Peloponnesus by the Avars and the Slavs could be said to have the supportof Evagrius.and John of Ephesus if "Hellas.. oder er iibertrug den antiken Namen des eigentlichen Griechenlands auch auf die thrakischmakedonischen Provinzen des Romerreichs.say simply that the Avars devastatedall Hellas.and consequently withoutany confirmation.is consideredby is those who belittle the value of the chronicleto be the sourceof the chronof icle." is thus also that he explained the passage in Evagriusand referredto Theophanes.except the in letter of the patriarch Nicholas.43 in the Accordingly.Menander. however. was am wahrscheinlichsten. Johnof Ephesuscannotbe cited as conand firmingthe statementof the chroniclethat Avarsand Slavs settled in the in that statementremains Peloponnesus the sixthcentury.but to Illyricum a whole. Karolides (Athens.The three importantsourcesof the Avarand Slavonicinvasionsof the last quarterof the sixth century. so far as the synodical settlementof the Slavs in the Peloponnesus concerned.Aafot in Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbiicher. 215.who. I (Athens. since that letter. it carrieslittle weight as a confirmation the chronicle. With the ex- 43 Paparrhegopoulo. "By Hellas the archaistMenandermeans the Byzantine It regionsup to the Danube. worksof Evagrius. Accordingly this notice in the chronicle has been treated with caution or rejected outright. includingmodernBulgaria. 1944).Menander. 155. Italy. 1939). The questionremainsopen becausethe referencein the chroniclefinds no definite confirmation the known sources. cit.uses the term"Illyricum" and Evagriushave used "Greece. But neither Evagrius. .will be seen in what follows. III. Amantos. Amantos. 158 f. 281 ff. nor John of Ephesus nor any other known source that treats of the Avar and Slavonic invasions of the Balkan peninsula during the sixth and seventh centuries makes the slightest allusion to the dispersion of the and the emigration of some of them to Sicily. 'von ganz Hellas und andern Stidten und Burgen zu reden. 91) interpreted the passage of Evagrius as follows: "Nur unkenntniss der Geographie konnte den Syrer Evagrios verandassen nachst den bekannten Stadten Singidon und Anchialos noch. that is. Hopf (op. is taken." supportof his view.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 151 or at a later epoch. Oi eU rTV 'EXdaa." 43 Constantine I.42 late as 1939. In a more recent study Amantos has sought to reinforce his interpretations of the term Hellas.the worksof Evagrius. as it should. p. But "Hellas" been has those who do not accept the authorityof the chronicleto interpretedby refernot to Greeceproper. especially note 2. nor Menander. edited by P. and Peloponnesians elsewhere as a result of the Avar invasion. See 'Iouropta Tro BvCavrLvov Kparovs. John of Ephesus and . to refer to Greece proper. also Charanis' review of this book in Byzantion.' entweder dachte er sich unter Hellas eine Stadt oder Burg.

' Kougeas.for it is confirmed no less an authoritythan Arethasof Caesarea. by Kougeas.. for instance.46 writtenin 932. ./epovS TapaTryO's HeIXorovvorov KaTre7rE/T7rET MaXeas TOV TOVTWoV ToV KaOapEVovrTOS.152 PETER CHARANIS none of the scholarswho have treatedthe question ceptionof Fallmerayer. but without much emphasis. At ev iTOLS s 'EXAAX7LKvs Xaoypa/tlas aXOXIoX TiO 'ApeOa XaoypanitKal 4 (Athens. The most complete work on Arethas is e^SjaELt. 1913).who have dealt with the problemof the Hellenizationof Sicily and southernItaly duringthe early MiddleAges. "The Byzantinization of Sicily. further N. TOV TE Aaov p aErplas 'Aplevlas. 1913/14).in Aaoypapla. This article in a somewhat compressed form was reprinted in White's Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge.45 to however. Alt erSLpoLai rTWv aXoAta TO) BovXyapwv rro TOV Tadpov vpe?wv Kal Ta aXer7tKa 1 337-370.. 74-86. 1928). KXavryvOv (TpaTrlyWv T Kal lEAXorovvr9t0o Kat EK3aXOVTWV E\viTa eXX'rVtKa v O]VI Kal KaTacPOetpdvTrV. chapter 3. (Athens. from the Calabrian city of Rhegium to the ancient city of Patras. op. 'EpevvaL T7r{pL Tr 'ApeOa KaLtapedas.OS Kal v SKX\Opiv. "On the Question of the Hellenization of Sicily and Southern Italy during the Middle Ages. a manuscriptwhich was text. 42 (1936). pp. 7roXe?IKwg Ta OLKela 7rapecrXev.not only this notice but a Contrary the generalimpression. cit. of the Slavonic settlementsin Greece have put much reliance upon it. T-j IleXorTOVVfo. On the historical accuracy of the scholia of Arethas see 45 See. Kougeas. Massachusetts. A'. 52 (1946).as far as the presentwriterhas been able to ascertain. 1 ff. For it had been driven away or rather forced to migrate by the " Vasiliev (op. numberof other elementsof the passage that we have translatedabove is by worthyof the greatesttrust. arT TrsKKaXavpovv 7ro'XEw oi'TPrytdov cvJKotl0r7 'EVvyaoev6Or MOvovs TroXEAd/Lp EocraXla Tlj 7rpWTPT Kal E'oppr0a7dVTr)v lyovv f/LECrTWKlirOV7r TOV YKXav7)vv yap EVTrEpa KaL TrpoaCET AlvlaUl TE Kal AoKpois Kal Tr Ev-ola lu>OTErpoi-t TE 'ETrtKVrLLU8OItS Kal. 236-269. apXLe7rtoK07r?js TOVTOV 7rape(aXeTO. Lynn White. Followingis Arethas' T Tf TapTo ' iT?L TYjS paaotLEias aVro' JIaaTp'v 7T Iy 1horovv7rov Ts TraTpl(0o rjLwv JLAETOtKta T(V ElS TO a pXaLov roAXtLAYa IHarpTpV. 'Oo'Xats Kal 8\ Kal TiV cyyevr 7raXaai 'H7relpw Kal 'ATTLK ITovS NtLKcdo'pov. TE KaL & VL(TCvV TiWV&rovorpagolevo Els TEX. pp. KaTroKLtIOevTWO 8 avTiv airo f3aultXEag MavptKiov JaTroKopivOov &TOvU /S EXpt TETapTOV KaL p'fXp' 'EK c) ov TO)V avaToXtKov ELS. A. Here is a translation: In the fourth year of his reign [reign of Nicephorus] took place the transfer of Patras of the Peloponnesus. p. Kara TOVS LAaovS XpdVovS.v TOlS a7roKaTaTr-tval KEAEV'crE avTOV BaaLtXeU yap dpXs O fcprtlaevos avapaOW\v T\V teETOLKlav ov SlarTpLfttv KaL KEal -p Ti E1C iaEL (a?TOKaTEC'T7rf' s Tp0roroXesW tKata Tati IlaTpats 7rpo XPr7jLaTiLovaUrs. our country.44 Nor is it cited by any of the scholars. In an article which I devoted to the problem of the Hellenization of Sicily and southern of Italy during the early Middle Ages I have made use of the material found in the chronicle Monemvasia." The American Historical Review. in which was included a scholiumwritten by Arethas which containsthe brief himself in the marginof the Dresden manuscript chronicle of patriarchNicephorus (806-815).This fact was made known by S. a7ro Trjy /ILKpas opiLwtevo 'V VeLt. Kougeasin a note publishedin 1912. 'O KaLtapetas 'ApeOas Kal Tro pyov avrov (Athens. in 'EXXqvLKaa. Kal . 411. 474 f. See Charanis." in American Historical Review. Bees. 1938). cit. auvf/3aXav aJpXrIEv oiKj]TOpotV Ti :K. 412) uses it.avrviv elXE.

p. It takes only a superficial comparison of Arethas' scholium with the passage of the chronicle cited and translated above to see the close relationship between the two. and Theophylact Simocatta 47 would be explained. For the mentioned emperor. They [the Slavs] dwelt there from the sixth year of the reign of Maurice to the fourth year of that of Nicephorus at whose time the governor for the Peloponnesus was sent to the eastern part of the Peloponnesus. Evagrius. leaving out a number of notices included in the chronicle. a native of Lesser Armenia. Nor could Arethas draw his information from the chronicle.. Arethas focuses his attention on his native city of Patras and consequently his scholium is much compressed. from Corinth to Malea. It seems improbable that the author of the chronicle of Monemvasia referred to these various works separately. This fact is important for it shows that the author of the chronicle did not draw his information from Arethas' scholium. and 932. In some instances the one repeats the other verbatim. There is some evidence that a historical work covering the period from at least the middle of the sixth century to the second decade of the ninth century existed. Attica and Euboea and the Peloponnesus. drawing this notice from one. KTtEcgO ' . Most probably he had before his eyes one work. conquered them in war and obliterated them completely and enabled the ancient inhabitants to recover their own. If. clashing with the Slavic tribes.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 153 nation of the Slavs when they invaded the First and Second Thessaly and in addition the country of the Aeniantes and that of the Locrians. and some other source which is now lost. Menander. because that part was free of Slavs. pp. both the Epiknemidian and Ozolians. One of these governors. In 1936 the Bulgarian scholar Dujcev published a fragment Certain notices of the chronicle can be traced to Theophanes (see Lampros To Trept Move?/ar[asp XpoVtKoV. cit. 111-113. Bees. the year during which Patras was rebuilt and raised to the status of a metropolis. 81) but this may mean simply that Theophanesdrew his informationfrom the same source as the chronicle. and that from another. now lost. driving away and destroying the noble Hellenic nations. the prerogatives of a metropolis. as seems probable. Theophylact Simocatta. for when he wrote his scholium the chronicle did not yet exist.a source which was written sometime between 805. this source was a chronicle whose author had drawn his information from Menander. the year during which Arethas wrote his scholium. having inquired where the colony was. which was a bishopric before this. reestablished the people on the ancient soil and granted to Patras. and from that one work he compiled his own notices. the reason why some of the notices of the chronicle of Monemvasia are easily traceable to Evagrius. op. These observations lead but to one conclusion: both Arethas and the chronicle drew their information from the same source. and a member of the family called Skleroi. and also ancient Epirus.

.. . According to Theophanes. 336: AovTa rTv E7rTrXeyOpevov Kat 7rotrLcrevavrov 0 Lampros (To 7trep KT(TEWoSMoveXflatCIas XpovLKov. 171 ff).Trj Kat XOLtTOv Kafr4povg (TVLLKoKTOv Te KaC OpaKlCr]iov5 Ap/. To translate: KacrET7rcTre Kat v7roKeLrOOaLTrj v Ilarpwv LrIrTpoTroXep "And he also built from the foundations the city of Lacedaemon.eviov arTO Kat avOL Travt. note 2). who came to the conclusion that it is an extract of a contemporary work whose author was a historian of the first order. p. 11 (Brussels."which went as far as Leo the Armenian. and that this work was a "continuation"of another "of the type and in the style of a Malalas.. William of Tyr (Hist.rTLcvvaxeOTraL E7To'TK0o7rrV 8Sa6fopWv TOTroV TE Kat eEcOrtrev. In any case these Cabeiroe have nothing HIeXoTrovvrlo'ov.r-v or6XEWv E. 55) mentions the Cabeiroe among the troops of Thomas the Slavonian at the time of his revolt against Michael II.48It is not impossible that this work was the source of the chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas. as suggested by both Lampros and Vasiliev. p. the same who wrote the fragment of the Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio. mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De administrando imperio. It is also possible. drew the other important notice for which neither Lampros nor Bees was able to find another source. The notice concerns the reconstruction of the city of Lacedaemon by Nicephorus I and its settlement with a mixed population.154 PETER CHARANIS which deals with the last expedition of Nicephorus I in Bulgaria. p. besides the chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas." a name which may give the clue to the identification of the Cabeiroe. 417 if. Rerum Transmarin. but who were the Cabeiroe? Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn. p. P. people of the region of Cobar. It is significant that the only other place. p. 201: 221) calls the Oxus "Cobar. the people settled in Sclavina by Nicephorus were Christians.'" in (Bonn..e.. that the Cabeiroe were remnants of the Cabaroe. was doubtless also the source from which the author of the chronicle of Monemvasia. 1936). 417) that Theophanes used this source. but the Cabeiroe of Bryennius are people of the Oxus regions and by no means Christians. 657.50 Thracesians. whatever its nature. settled it with a mixed people. the inhabitants of Khwarizin. where a Skleros is mentioned as governor of the Peloponnesus at the beginning of the ninth century is the Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio. 33) has Saberoe (Saberoe is the reading of the manuscript. 1842). The same suggestion is made by Vasiliev (op. Nicephorus Bryennius (Bonn. p. "9Scriptor Incertus de Leone Bardae F. 113.5'Armenians and others whom 8 Henri Byzantion. p. This fragment was immediately studied by Henri Gregoire. but for some unexplained reason the editor changed it to Cabeiroe) and as Genesius generally represented the better tradition one should read Saberoe in Theophanes Continuatus. p.ova 7r6oTvEK fadOpov KaL avT.49 This lost historical work. Caferoe. brought from other parts of the empire. 29) mentions the Cabeiroe as among the troops of Mahmud of Ghazna (eleventh century). TOV' YKXAlpov. Here is the text: Tijv Se Xaov AaKeSaicL. the Iberikon version. cit. published together with the chronicle of Leo Grammaticus cJTpaT?ryOv es Gregoire. note 1) was not able to identify the Caferoe and raised the question whether they were not the same as the Cabeiroe.L. Migne. i. Gregoireshows also (ibid.rv dveyetpag Kat Kat evotKtcrLa ev av. "Un Nouveau Fragment du 'Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio. but Genesius (Bonn.

For Kt3vpp. Kof/3ap. 1The Thracesianswere so called because they dwelled in the Thracesiantheme. 1943).Byzantinoturcica.The transplanting peoples from one region to another for reasonsof state was frequentlyresortedto in Byzantiumbefore and after the reign of NicephorusI. 5 (Athens. But even if they were Armenians. Moravcsik. On the Cabeiroe see further G. not even the Turinand the by Koutloumousion versionsof the chronicleof Monemvasia.i.made it againa bishopric and put it underthe jurisdiction the metropolis Patras. But the Thracesian theme was deeply Hellenized. were certainly Hellenized.they doubtless belonged to the Hellenized element of that very importantpeople. If NicephorusrebuiltPatrasthereis no reasonto doubtthe otherstatement of the chroniclethat he also rebuilt Lacedaemon..52NicephorushimselfrepeopledPatras with Greekswhom he had broughtfrom Calabria. becauseArethas restricted remarks his nativecity of Patras. But the silence of the other sourcesby no means lessens the of trustworthiness this passage. and that work is now lost.in view of the testimonyof both Arethasand the chronicle. It doubtlesscame from the work whence the authorof the chronicledrew all his information.of is silent on this point .Caferoe is doubtless the result of a confusion. and the people involved in the transfer. .THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 155 he broughttogetlierfromvariousplacesand cities. as an abbreviationfor KtlvpaiTraL see V. for the Armeniactheme contained an important Greek element. 1926/ 1927). may be meant. 132.e. The author of the chronicle or may have had before him an abbreviatedform of Kibyraeotae (KLf3vpp. p.if not Greeks. And Arethas. 15: 471 f. Besides. In that case they may have been Greeks. "Die byzantinischen Ranglisten.) which he did not understand.The rebuildingof both Patrasand Lacedaemonwere measuresdoubtlesstaken by Nicephorusin orderto keep the Slavonictribesthat still remainedin the Peloponnesus in check. and it is not unlikely that the Kibyraeotaeare meant." of of No sourceknownsays anywhereanythingabout the reconstruction and the repeoplingof Lacedaemon NicephorusI.who states that in 810 Nicephorus ordered the settlementof Christiansfrom every provinceof the empirein the regions known as Sclavinias. indeed almost Greek. there is nothing in this passage which is inconsistentwith of Byzantinepractices.a silence which is not hard to understand course.its emigrahis to tion duringthe reign of Mauriceand its reconstruction duringthe reign of NicephorusI. 52For examples of such transfersof population see Charanis'review of Amantos 'tIop'a rov BvCavTLvoi Kparovs. There may also be a confusionin the case of the Armenianin that Armeniacs.but in the light of what the chronicleof Monemvasia initely to do with the Caferoe of the Chronicle of Monemvasia. Sprachresteder II. 120." in Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbiicher.Where these Sclavinians were located cannotbe defdetermined. people of the Armeniactheme. Benesevic. in Byzantion. That Nicephorussought to breakthe power of the Slavs by transplanting to their midst peoples from other regions of the empire is confirmed by Theophanes. Tiirkvolkerin den ByzantinischenQuellen (Budapest. Consequently it is impossible to determine the racial origin of those who were transferredto Lacedaemon.About this action there can be no doubt.

But. Patras was rebuilt and settled with Greeks in 805. Still he must have used another source too. de Boor (Leipzig.but if the Sclaviniaof Theophanesis taken to refer to Greece. According to Arethas' scholium. as the synodical letter of the patriarch was written later than either Arethas' scholium or the chronicle. Xptcrrtavov aTrotKICto-a K 7ravTO' Oe/aros to Greece. Alexandrianera). NLK4o'poS . This would mean that the Slavs. .156 PETER CHARANIS says it may very well be that one of them was in western and central Peloponnesus.and Hopf concedes (op. the rebuilding of Lacedaemonmust have taken place in 810. 98-99) that Peloponnesusmay have been included among the regions in which the new settlementswere established. cit. as is related by ConstantinePorphyrogenitus. the year during which Arethas wrote his scholium.53 It would be interesting to know how and when the original source used by the chronicle and Arethas disappeared. The statement of the patriarch that the Avars held the Peloponnesus for two hundred and eighteen years until they were defeated at the time of Nicephorus I appears also in the chronicle. this number must have been in the original source whence the patriarch also took it. of course. cit. and.Tarasiusdied in 806.M. 1883). Chronographia. Hopf also places the siege of Patras by the Slavs in 807 or not long after. appears neither in the chronicle nor in Arethas' scholium.made an effort to regain the city and called A the Arabs to their aid.) may have been caused by an attempt to establish Greek colonies in their midst and refers to the quoted passage from Theophanes in support of his suggestion. Hopf suggests that the siege of Patras by the Slavs as described by Porphyrogenitus(De administrandoimperio. (A. of how St. 217 ff. It is quite possible. No date is given about the rebuilding of Lacedaemon. it is not impossible that the patriarch drew his information from either the one or the other.edited by C. Therefore. following their first defeat and the resettlementof Patras by Greeks. it was known also at the end of the tenth century or the beginning of the eleventh. that all this was in the introduction of the chrysobull which Nicephorus I granted to the metropolitan of Patras when he raised the see of Patras to the status of a metropolis.the attack of the Slavs against the newly built city of Patras must have convinced Nicephorus that the Hellenic element in the Peloponnesusneeded reinforcement. Moreover. siege of Patrasby the Slavs after that city had been resettled by Greeks would explain the statement of Porphyrogenitus that at the time of this siege Patras was inhabited by Greeks.. for his story. if the opinion put forward in this study about the date of the composition of the Iberikon version of the chronicle of Monemvasia is correct.for it says that Patraswas rebuilt when Tarasiuswas still patriarch. but more especially to the Peloponnesus.hence his order to settle there Christiansbrought from the other parts of the empire. related also by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Andrew routed the Slavs. a date also confirmedby the chronicle of Monemvasia. It is not impossible that it served also as a source for the synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas to Alexius I. 5 Theophanes. eTCE. E7rtT5a 2KXAavtvia yevEaOatL rporeTa$ev.. 422) interprets Sclavinia here to refer . It was known in 932. Vasiliev (op. 1: 486: Tov'r TrO . and this number of years could be computed also from Arethas' scholium. 6302..

219) Nicephorus granted to the church of St. 1926). Lampros recognized the value of the document and promised an exhaustive commentary. prostagmata et sigillia patriarcaux. 33 (Paris. 152. 5: 161) is not genuine. brief historicalsummarieswere often included in imperial chrysobullsgranted to cities.. who. See for instance the chrysobullthat AndroniusII granted to the metropolisof Monemvasiain 1301.but never carriedout his promise. "This document was published by Lampros in 1915 without indicating the author. Concerning this dispute between Corinth and Monemvasia see Binot. "L'Histoireet la legende de deux chrysobulles d'Andronic II en faveur de Monembasie." Echos d'Orient. Vatic. Andrew of Patras the defeated Slavs together with their families and property. 37 (Paris. a puis6 aux meilleures sources: il cite pele-mele et sans ordre apparent. vol.54 Not until the first half of the fifteenth century is there anothertrace which seems to indicate that the source. The one published by Miklosichand Miiller (Acta et diplomatagraeca.remainedfaithfulto the union and becamea cardinal. note 1.56 question was raised concerningthe circumstance under which these bishoprics had come underthe jurisdiction Monemvasia whetherthese circumof and stancesstill justifiedtheirretentionby Monemvasia whetherthey should or not be returnedto Corinth. Palat.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 157 and the patriarch Nicholas. ' op. meriterait un commentaire approfondi.. p.55 petiThe tion was occasionedby a disputebetween the metropolitan Monemvasia of and the metropolitanof Corinth concerningthe jurisdictionover certain The episcopalsees in the Peloponnesus. il recourt a d'anciens manuscrits. Rome. S'il est vrai que la prudence doit presider a l'interpr6tation de cette lettre." The editors of Byzantinische Zeitschrift (24: 269) announced the publication of this text with the following remark: "Ediert aus Cod. of Cyril. and written by no other than Isidore of Kiev." Echos d'Orient. La valeur demonstrative de la requete est ind6niable. 318). Mercatiidentified the authorof this document as Isidore of Kiev and showed that it was composed in 1429: G.or at least a corruptedform of it.to which they originallybelonged. de 1429. existed.. It is not unlikely that in the introductionof the document there was a brief summary of the history of Patras and its relation to the Slavs down to the ressettlement of the city by Greeks. "La Liste episcopale du synodicon de Monembasie. chrysobulles. 1933).in" According to ConstantinePorphyrogenitus(De administrando imperio. In writing this petition Isidore made full use of officialand unofficialdocuments. Scritti d'Isidoro il (Avo avabopatl in ir-rpoiroXtrov rov 7rarptapXrv. G. op. p. 8. 310 ff. a des histoires et meme a des lettres de Guillaume de Villehardouin. apparently in the capacity of serfs.12: 272Moveli3at'as rrpo? Apostolica Vaticana (Studi e Testi. see Laurent. See V. 286 f. Binon. used by Arethasfor his scholiumand by the authorof the Iberikonversion of the chronicleof Monemvasia. 226 die fiir die Geschichte des Peloponnes Zeitalter der Palaiologen wichtigen Texte.ruwv. 151 f.In the later period. qui est un plaidoyer plus qu'une page d'histoire. . N'os 'EXk'voIv. p. cit. p. . 1938). . may have drawnhis information fromit. This chrysobullhas been recently reedited by St. Mercati. after the council of Florence. Laurent. and confirmed the grant by a sigillum. Binot (op. 46. Since then the value of this document has been generally recognized.who was acquaintedwith that chrysobull. Cardinale Ruteno et codici a lui appartenuti che si conservano nella biblioteca . cit. p. 287) writes concerning the document: "La seconde. namelyMaineand Zemena. elle constitue un document historique de premiere qualite. disert et habile. Son auteur.This was a petitionaddressed still to patriarchJoseph II in 1429 by the metropolitan Monemvasia. cit." As for the metropolitan of Monemvasia for whom this document was written.

7rTVtOV8 Xeyovatv. But the Unigurs. E7rtT7/8Ev/La. 7rapa . Belisarius.fapfaplaavTaS . However. TO IIEXpL oVOlaTrog. 8Eo EVyEVE0TepoL TOVTODV Kal avTOVS TOVVO/ aVTOV3. KOTTLYapoV. 7 vr70clov vr]qX\ov Trpog Movela3rtaiav Kal . TOV 7TpOKaTELXrq)OT(6V KaL lOVWVavev MoveqaclataS ?LETaXaXOV TOTE iLr78jelaV EOX77KOq adXX' ovoE TOV T77 OlKKrTLV. o fLaKpOSECiTE Ou o Ae/AEtVLTaS XpOVO<. OirTTryapot 7raVav Kat T. bo0OdavaTTe7rapa Tas or(rv TW7VEraprTaTwV EEov' EKEtVO yvvaltv aJxa KaL TEKVOLt. 87 'VTL TOV papPfaplKOv pEV/aTo. who. OvS 8?\ Kal aJvExatlOTt BEXLAcaploS. T7rapTLaTwv TO !LEv OCaovo-vp4ETrW8Ec KoptvOov 4aOdTcavTre. Here is his text concerning the capture of Corinth by the Avars and the foundation of Monemvasia: a AVOZv TOiWV 0EWPOVJpovVWV AwXUTo TF KoptvOov FLwTa T'V TV tPwOatv ErtKpdTetaV T7S T rTV Yiepwv 'IOVoTtVLavoV TOV /LeyaXov. KaTacrparrLT yrl-a/LEvo Oivvyapot oM MaKE8ovtav Kat OETTaXlaV Kat 'EXAA8aaKal Ta EVTOSOep?lo0rvXwv X77arLEvoI 7raVTa Kat eEXPt 8e etXov 7rapaXptLAa 7ro'Xv Kal avTro3ol .s Trpo$evovg e'yKaTOLKItetv avrT TOV 7rXdvrlTa TOVTr)V VTro08oxei . When the lower and common element among the Spartans heard of this conquest. OV EKELVO TWV AaK&vOv 7TraaLv Kal. TOVTO 8O TOtg efjrepLeXtrtLfLevols Trj AaKesoatov Ka TraveoTrrKdaOtV aVrTaPKWto TrpopvyoVTE' Xapdapats Kal TOi. O6 8G aVTo Kal TOV EKEL(TE tloV LyEV IIAEXOTOvva'ov. one took place during the reign of Justinian the Great. One of these tribes overran by one attack upper Mysia. aVrovs. (Xov povv Evl' el(OTE TraVTr r Kal i oXw 7ro8. V7rCTOV ET7LKEKIEVOV T^r AaKwvItK. iy avTrovs v7retpvaav ovoAa.KaT avrov yap TpLwv oKVOtKWV yEVOV TOV ITarpov 8laTrrpacravTrv. ravaging Macedonia and Thessaly and Greece and the territory beyond Thermopylae.S 3apadpot EKaTaSEvKOTES. afterwards fortified the isthmus there. "Ef/pov TraVTa tEXpt TCrVT7r1KOvorTavTitov Kat arTrptla. UOWOVTE's ETLTO TCaKova. deceiving them by a stratagem. For in his time three Scythian tribes.KeIVOv 7rXdavrrTas. called Cotrigurs. while the Utigurs invaded all of Thrace and the Chersonese on the Hellespont and all the territory within the Hebrus as far as the suburbs of Constantinople. HOVi TOtVVV EVEcopcEt. e'. Utigurs. KopLtviov avroL o 8ElaavT et r a oca Karl (o/)IoLV atTOts yevrTac. and Unigurs. )rvyd8ag Kal AaKesaL/ioviovs ytyvea19Oat Kat daaa )vyda'l Kal KoptvIto. a conquest which .. on account of it. TVyXaVOV.) TOV EL7rt(cK07rov oa0)V . crossed the Danube. Following is a translation: Of the two known captures of Corinth after the Roman domination of the Peloponnesus. and Dalmatia as far as the Ionian sea. Kal aVTiWv vavS.s Kat Havvovlav op ?paKr7v KO'X7rov eidoov KaTcrpatLev. c7rtAnlal[oL opeat.tKeAlaav 7rpoSoKelXaVTe. r7v Ka Kool?v aKo dayeXaolov T-7V EKElVOLt KO ravrTe ttowafl.158 PETER CHARANIS eluding histories and letters. arrived as far as Corinth and straightway and with one blow captured the city. AaKwvcv eavTov'S VTrofap/3aptiovTES TO rVOtLOV E. Pannonia. He was particularly anxious to prove that the capture of Corinth first by the Avars during the reign of Maurice and then by the Latins as a result of the fourth crusade had no relation to the elevation of Monemvasia to the status of a metropolis. O' 8' avi5 TvyXavov Ejy7r0opKOv a. atu .yOVTE.1V EAXX-r/srovr Xeppovrlaov KaL rTaevrT EVl 7rpoaCrTetV. 7\XrlpUCaaVTE EKEicE. tKavw's VTrEpK6f[JLeVOVKal Kal aTroTOtov E7rl/LAyKEcc KaL T7gS )aAadTT7r] ' (fItXOV1'KOVV ( 71TpOS\ TOV atOEpa 7reptLEXrltjA'vov 7rpoaaJLtaXXatOaL 7rapafavetv avrov TraCt (OXE8ov /LaXXov 8ooKev Kal 7ravTaxoOev OpOLpot Kp77rLVO1S Kal af3]dTOLt Kal TOlS V7T' ovpavov a/faToV TE Kal averiXetprvTOV. iLLaS E7r vrTTpov ETCtXCrE. VoXXOV IapOeVtovEKE'VOV Tatc EKEtvov Kal TOt'. Koptvp\ax ja0T1Exa T\ apKavo\ Era Ta Tr T TrrayXaXeTra Kal Ka Tt/S Aa7lTrpsg TV7Xr7 Kal Tw7OV eKelva ov aLaOdvTes evSaL/ovov. 8E els pKr]7rav MIeaorjvorv. checked and cut them to pieces. v etr /ai TO opo. OvTTL7dpOV1s Kat Ovvtypovs Kat AaAaxrlav Kal T' /lXpt TOV'TOVS ovdoluaov. 'Idovov EV TO EZEv TOV'TW yEvoS MvaTav T7tV daV K 1'a.

Remigio Sabbadini. And they still preserve that ancient name of Lacones." in I1 libro e la Stampa. The Spartans who went to Sicily were principally merchants. Those on the other hand who were engaged in commerce went to Gytheion .12) in speaking of the same port: rvOtov.57 But where the two texts differ most radically is in the date of. the text of Isidore has a number of new elements. as they were. (8. the emigration of the Argives to hand.e. as it were. And this raises the question whether Isidore did not use a different and a less accurate source than the one used by Arethas and the author of the chronicle. "La traduzione guariniana di Strabone. speeded towards Sicily. the events which they both relate took place. How was it possible then for the Lacedaemonians who were themselves refugees at the same time as the Corinthians to be the succorers and receivers of the latter or for their bishop to settle them in it [the Peloponnesus]. See ErtvdEov. while the story of the emigration of the Laconians is substantially the same as that of the chronicle. It was neither inhabited until then. Tr. settled in the neighborhood and in the course of time they too barbarized their name and came to be called Demenitae. But the nobler. they fled in sufficient numbers into the high mountains which envelop Lacedaemon.. 14. settling wanderers? A comparison of the text of Isidore with that of the Iberikon version of the chronicle of Monemvasia reveals certain important differences between the two. the settlement of the Corinthians in the island of Aegina. caves.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 159 was common [i. but speaking barbarously they call themselves Tzacones instead of Lacones. mentioned by Isidore as the port whence the Spartansleft for Sicily. Isidore is known to have possessed a codex of Strabo. and the circumstance under which. straightway.On the other 67 One is tempted to wonder whether Gytheion. For they saw that this peninsula was high and long and cut off from every side and situated well above the sea. n. any being under the sun with the exception of those only who happened to occupy it first. 3 (1909). It was surrounded by steep and impassable cliffs which made it inaccessible to. the brilliantly fortunate.with their wives and children and. ertvetov 8e r. Isidore puts the invasion of Greece and the consequent dispersion of order to display his learning.and otherswhich do not appearin the text of Isidore. especially mount Parthenion. and crept into its gullies. a wanderer.that was the seaport of the Spartans . differs . having learned of the great difficulties of the Corinthians and fearing lest the same thing might happen to them. was actually in his source or whether he did not add it himself in His wording. rivaling the sky in height and seeming to touch it. as for instance the emigration of the people of Patras to Calabria.. boarding their ships.S TapT7r Orobe. and the more prosperous among the Spartans. they disembarked at Messene.3. proceeded with all haste to Monemvasia.s. There are a number of elements which are in the chronicle. nor did it have the name of Monemvasia. and hollows and thus drew themselves away from the barbarous flood. Parthenion is named as one of the mountains into which the peasants among the Spartansfled. (rvOEtov). important] to them. and disembarking in Messene. a small peninsula located in Laconia. and unassailable by.rov I owe this informationto my friend Milton Anastos.iv Srrapnartav EKEtVO very little from the wording of Strabo.

however. op.60 Procopius calls the barbarians who were responsible for that invasion Huns. and Greece. while the other was led against Constantinople by Zabergan himself. The latter group. that at the Chersonese by Germanus."The three regions where.4. for the invasion which the latter describes is made up of elements drawn not only from different sources. Vasiliev (op. B. Bury. 408) calls them Bulgars. one of these groups he sent against Greece. ov8ev TL aLar/yVTrov 8ta 7raopaaeitELdlEVoL T7Vv 8apacav.59 but. and Dalmatia as far as the Ionian sea. who used a clever stratagem. and. bypassed Thermopylae. according to Isidore."says Procopius. 11. cf. calls them Huns. including the Chersonese. the barbariansoperated in this invasion were Illyricum to the Ionian sea.40 where invasions of the Slavs are recorded. they plundered Illyricum from the Ionian sea to the suburbs of Constantinople. The statements of Isidore that one of the three groups into which the Cotrigurs were divided overran Mysia. cit. Agathias definitely states that the Cotrigurs were stopped at Thermopylae and were not able to penetrate into Greece. Pannonia. but belonging to different invasions. De bello persico. according to Procopius. were devastated by the Agathias.14.. stormed the Thracian Chersonese. According to Agathias. p.58 But between Agathias' account and that of Isidore there are a number of very important differences. that under Zabergan by Belisarius. /TrE T. These are precisely the regions which. Certainly there are elements in the account of Isidore which seem to refer to the great invasion of 539 as related by Procopius.160 PETER CHARANIS the Peloponnesians in the reign of Justinian. and that which had been sent against Greece by the garrison at Thermopylae. De bello gothico III. Thrace. according to Isidore's account. Zabergan divided his forces into two groups. Malalas (p. And as for Greece the two texts are contradictory. 1923). 301 ff. History (Bonn.. p. with one section charged with the capture of the Chersonese. cit.61 Breaking into the Balkan peninsula. they swarmed over Greece and captured the city of Corinth. and that as a consequence of this invasion Justinian fortified the Isthmus of Corinth finds no confirmationin Agathias. 8 tlSpvrOaL ETraytjevWv'PcoLatov. The three groups were separately defeated. overran the country. ol 8e ava T'/v 'EXAaSa 7rporepov EcraXA/ivot. like Procopius. cit. the other he directed against the Thracian Chersonese. 217. 2: 304 ff. other Byzantine writers refer to them as Bulgars. 1828). Obviously Agathias was not directly Isidore's source.. 1 Theophanes. III. The invasion which he describes has certain elements in common with that undertaken by the Cotrigur chief Zabergan in 558 as related by Agathias. fpovpav Tbv EKEtO-e . History of the Later Roman Empire (London. 9 Agathias. p. "almost all the Greeks except the Peloponnesians.. J. 330. and "destroyed. p.W IoO/mp 7rYpoafl0aXAovTr. invading Greece. op.fLV8ieye Tn'V apXIv ras @epplo7rv'Aa3 0 Procopius. 437). was in turn also divided.

290): 'AAXa Xot7rov 'v TI TrS AaTtvLKtK abraXXd4avTa rTrv Moveq/3aauav SovXaEc' sT LrtrpoTroXtv TEIirja6at. This explanation would account for the error in the date of the foundation of Monemvasia but not for the confusion of the different invasions of the sixth century. Avo avacopa t 7rpo7roATov Movelu3aaoac 7rpos TOV rrarptapXrv (p. a source where the confusion of the invasions and the wrong date of the foundation of Monemvasia already existed. a petition in which every effort was made to glorify Monemvasia. who from the point of view of the church was not quite acceptable. and a history of the Avar invasion and then drew a composite account of the invasion as a result of which Monemvasia was founded? Not likely. wanted to place the foundation of Monemvasia in the reign of Justinian. that of the Cotrigurs of 558. 6 KVp'AvSpo'tKcoS. but Michael VIII. aoyLTaTwv TWV Trj?S EKK\rflas [r'p aXo]. And neither Agathias nor Procopius mentions the Unigurs in connection with the invasions which both of them describe. 'O 7Lvr EVCe/3 2 IIaatoXaoywv. Similarly. and Unigurs. Procopius does not say in this passage that the barbarians took Corinth or that Justinian fortified the isthmus as a result of this invasion. histories. However. The text is based on good sources and is on the whole accurate. but it is not entirely free from errors. did not know that the liberator of Monemvasia was not Andronicus II. and that of the Avars during the reign of Maurice. the motive for placing the invasion as a result of which Monemvasia was founded in the reign of Justinian was that Isidore wanted to associate the foundation of Monemvasia with the reign of Justinian the Great. and to associate it with Andronicus II. It seems rather that he willfully committed the error because he wanted to dissociate the promotion of Monemvasia to the rank of a metropolis from Michael VIII. Besides the confusion of the invasions there is another serious error: it is the attribution of the liberation of Monemvasia from the Franks and its promotion to the status of a metropolis to Andronicus II.62 It is hard to believe that Isidore. Did Isidore read Procopius.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 161 Cotrigurs. whose piety and subservience to the church were well known. who in the whole text displays exceptional knowledge of documents. Kal Ttl OVTO V. That he used a source other than Agathias and Procopius is shown by his stateLampros. More likely he drew his information from one source. How is Isidore's confusion to be explained? It is quite possible that Isidore. 0 8WTEpOS TOV . Kgal asppO. for some motive. and letters that relate to Monemvasia. Utigurs. It must be remembered that the text in which this account of Isidore occurs was a petition addressed to the patriarch in defense of the rights of the see of Monemvasia. hence the invasion as a result of which Monemvasia was founded had to be in the reign of Justinian. that of the Bulgars of 539. Agathias. There seems to be little doubt that Isidore confused three different invasions.

"More probably they are the Huns of Procopiuswho invaded the empire in 539. knownin the fifteenthcenturyand was accepted Before the publication of Arethas' scholium and Isidore's text. and Procopiushas Huns. the was the only sourceknown which said definitely chronicleof Monemvasia in that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesus the sixth century.an accountwhich must have been originallydrawnfrom the same sourcethat Arethasand the authorof the chronicleused. II." in Ungarische Jahrbiicher. Nor does Agathiasor Procopius attributethe invasionof Greece to the Unigurs. Menander (op. Julius Moravcsik.and by his attributionof the invasionof Greeceto the Unigurs. "Zur Geschichte der Onoguren.however. Also Moravcsik. called also Bulgariansby other sources. "Les Sources byzantines de l'histoire hongroise. See also Moravcsik. note 4. 666-673. for virtually every Procopius. there were certain Bulgars who were also . But with the publication of Arethas' scholium and Isidore's text this skepticism has no longer any foundation. Unigurs (o3vwyapot.162 PETER CHARANIS ment that Justinianfortifiedthe isthmus of Corinth as the result of the captureof Corinth.To these elementsbelongs Isidore'saccountof the dispersionof the Peloponnesians. amongthe latterfled and settled elsewhere.that the tradicannotbe determined. vol.63 there is nothingin that accountthat but would explain Isidore'sstatementthat the isthmuswas fortifiedafter the Indeed nowheredoes Procopiussay captureof Corinthby the barbarians.goes back indirectlyto the source of Arethasand the authorof the chronicle. p. 1930). Ovov TrVrOivvoyouppow fovXyadpov. that elements of this people joined the Cotrigursin their great invasion of 558. 1934).that Isidore used a sourcewhich had alreadydeviated from the true traditionin so far as the chronologyand the order of the events were concernedbut which containedelementsof whose historicalaccuracythere can be no doubt. 69-79. they exterminated many of the ancient inhabitants. 64 The ovoyoipot)were known to the Byzantines ovVvovyovpot.therefore." The Annualof the BritishSchool of Athens. in the fifth and sixth centuries. therefore. 32 (1931/32). 308. It seems quite probable." Byzantion.That the isthmusof Corinthwas fortifiedby Justinianis known from anotherwork of Procopius. 10 (Berlin and Leipzig. De aedificiis. "On the Date of the Fortificationsof Corinth. IV.This fact may have justifiedto with which this chroniclewas regardedby most some extentthe skepticism scholars. 67. 9 (Brussels. II: 189. but no known source speaks of an invasion of the empire by them in the sixth century. It is not unlikely.tyovpot. Megaw. Byzantinoturcica.2. that Corinthwas takenby the barbarians.but whetherthat sourcestill existedat the time Isidorewrote accountdoes prove. p. in settling and that many there. It is likely that Justinian fortified the Isthmus not long after the invasionof 539. Isidore's and tion of the dispersionof the Peloponnesians the emigrationof some to in Italy as a resultof the invasionsof the barbarians the sixth centurywas as a fact by the educated. See J. Bury. cit. Moravcsik considers this people as the ancestors of the later Hungarians.64 Agathiashas Cotrigurs. Megaw gives no exact date.. op. In a text of the early eighth century we read 3 called ohvrovyo/pot.. oV'. Isidore'saccount. cit. B. On these fortificationssee H. but Procopiusdoes not say so.that. 202) calls the followers of Zabergan"Huns. however. In other words.

p. remarkedthat the scholium of Arethas refutesthe view of Lampros"according which what is said in the chronto icle about the emigrationand dispersionof the Peloponnesians the time at of Mauriceand theirreturnat the time of Nicephoruswas consideredto be tales and made up additions"of later writers. I.and it can now be affirmedin unmistakableand unambiguousterms that the chronicleof Monemvasiais and absolutelytrustworthy constitutesone of the most precioussourceson the Avarand Slav penetrationof Greeceduringthe reign of Maurice. op. op. 476. 1928).It is no longerpospopulation sible either to interpretthe term "Greece" used by Evagriusand Meas nanderto meananythingelse than Greeceproper. .or to discussthe question of the hellenization Sicilyand southernItaly in the seventhcenturywithof out some referenceto the Greeksettlementswhich the Peloponnesians who fled beforethe Avarsand Slavsestablishedthere.on whose authority mustbe said that Slavssettledin the Peloponnesus the it in Lampros. iii-xiv. 104.It can no longerbe doubtedthat Slavssettled in the Peloponnesus duringthe of Maurice. cit.67 With the objections of Lamprosdisposed of there remainsvirtuallynothing in the chroniclethat cannot be confirmedby other sources. To 7Tepl KTtraEw Moveplact'a XpOVLKOV. 213-214.Kougeas. Hopf thought that the chronicle had been written in the sixteenth century. 17 Kougeas. .that. History of the Byzantine Empire. and in publishing Arethas'scholium. .But it by no meansfollows that the Greekelementcompletelydisappeared from the Peloponnesus and that the modernGreeksare Christians Slavonicdescent in whose veins of flows "nota single drop of real pure Hellenic blood.66 That was because neither Lamprosnor Bees was able to find another source that confirmed the chronicle. they exterminated of the ancient reign part and forced othersto disperseand emigrate. said that "the basis of the chronicle . Vasiliev." Years later virtually the same view was expressedby Bees. The discovery of Arethas' scholiumrenderedthe opinionof both Lampros Bees obsolete. is historical writing and old. "Fallmerayer. by in 1884.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 163 notice containedin the chronicleis confirmed anothersource. 66 Bees. had already called the account of the chronicle concerning the emigration of the Peloponnesians a myth."but at somelaterdate. I (Madison. Wisconsin. cit. 128.Lampros. cit. there were introduced into the original version "mythical accounts about the emigration and return of the 65 Peloponnesians. From this observationthere follow certain inescapableconclusions."68 For the source. p.... 1830). in settling. Hopf (op. Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea wahrend des Mittelalters (Stuttgart. perhapsat the time the Turinand Koutloumousion versions were written. 85: 107-108) p. a confusion with the Greek colonizations of Sicily and Italy in ancient times or possibly with the Albanian migration of the fourteenth century. as quoted by A.

Die Slaven in Griechenland (Abhandlungen der PreussischenAkademie Klasse.. . is This distribution as follows:2 Corinth24. Triphylia44.Constantinople of most in the accomplishment this end Nithe emperors who contributed cephorusI musthenceforthbe given firstplace. where the reviewermakes some contributions his own.however.of course. 14 f. The the otherby Dion. Elis 35. and among hellenized. 1941). Nr. der Wissenschaften.says also that they did not penetratethe easternpart of it.Jahrgang1941. Dion. T'v 'EXaXSa. which was settledand remainedsettledby Greeks. is the distribution of the toponymsin the Peloponnesuswhich Vasmer considersas Slavic. When under Irene. Zakythinos. 317. Ot1 (Athens. after.5 workof Amantosis actuallya reviewof of Vasmer'sbook. These figuresconfirm what the chronicleof Monemvasia says. but more especially under Nicephorus. Amantos. Missenia43. Philosophisch-historische 2 Ibid.. but doubtless savedthe Greekracein Greeceitself. 1945).gives the formerits significance. Arcadia94. latter.1A book of 350 pages. Vasmeraccepts the nesus was view that Slavs settled in the Peloponnesusas early as the sixth century. Ibid. 12) (Berlin.in Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbiicher. The one was by C. Achaia95. 1Max Vasmer. There is one chapthe distribution ter dealing with the literarysources. Additionalpublications Among these publicationsthe work by Max Vasmeris no doubt the most significant. it is devoted primarilyto the exof amination the etymologyof toponymsin Greecein an effortto determine and extent of the Slavonicsettlements. Amantos.Aa/ot o 210-221.But this is not all.that the easternpartof the Peloponleast affected by the Slavonicpenetration. :Xcaol ev 'EAXa$& 4C. POST SCRIPTUM When this work was composedI did not have access to a numberof publicationswhich had appearedin Europeduringthe war or immediately have appearedsince. Very interesting.the authorityof the in was reestablished the Peloponnesus a whole. fromotherparts like those who were broughtfrom Calabria.3 work two studies dealingwith Shortlyafter the publicationof Vasmer's 4 the samegeneralsubjectappearedin Greece.164 PETER CHARANIS sixth century.17 Oi S.othersless pure. The most important step in the realizationof this end was the resettlementof certainparts of the with new elementsbrought such as Patrasand Lacedaemon. Zakythinos. Argolis18.but no mentionis made of the chronthe or icle of Monemvasia of the scholiumof Arethas. of the empire. (1944).elementssome of which were pure Greek. Laconia 81. the as imperialgovernment Hellenic elementwhich had remainedtherewas powerfullyreinforcedand the Slavonicinfluencebegan graduallyto decline. Peloponnesus.

).6It is a I good book. It may be noted.in the oral richnessof the Peloponnesianpeople. its meaning. the Savior of Greece from the Slavs (810 A.a source. variousversions. 1947). 1949). disposed to acknowledgea historicalvalue in certain of its parts."In the long review which I devoted to this book I tried to show why these conclusionsare not acceptable.deals with the problemof the etymologyof the termTsacones. however.he denies that Slavs as settled in Greece towardthe end of the sixth century. Kyriakides.whose "original core must be sought. Despite its legendarypresentation. 01 . 10 (1949). .based upon the sourcesand the most scholarlyof modernworks.by Greece they mean not Greeceproper. 1947).S.10 The study of 6 See the post scriptum to my article.9 The questionof the Slavonicsettlementsin the Peloponnesuswas also treatedby the well-knownGreekscholar. A. P.and by far the longer. constitutea solid historicalcore. Zakythinos himself seems to have changed his views in another study which he has if publishedmore recently. The other. Of the work of Zakythinos have written at length elsewhere. P.Ad/3ot ev IleEXoTrovvtaO (Salonica. The one is a study of the chronicleof Monemvasia. "Nicephorus I.its sources. againstVasmer. Zakythinos. 92-94. Movqe/aaula XpovtKdO (Athens. Pagoulatos. 9 Byzantinoslavica. For a detailed and criticalaccount of this book I refer the reader to the long review which I devoted to it. "La population de la moree byzantin.D. Accordingly. 23 f." and consequently"the informationaccording to which the Peloponnesuswas subjecteddefinitelyby the Slavs in the year 588. He writes: "Nevertheless. 8 Sp.date of its composition. 7Dion.the informationconcerning the emigrationen masseand the internalmovementof the population.8 This book consistsof two parts. o S. 3emeAnnee (Athens. 01 TacrxtovexKai TO7repl KTrUrWo rr. To both the chronicleof Monemvasia the scholiumof ArethasZakythand inos devotes considerable discussionand comes to the conclusionthat they were drawnfrom the same source. on the other hand. See also Byzantinoslavica.'we are." L'Hellenisme Contemporain. we have some diffiin admitting that the chronicle of Monemvasia'constitutesone of culty the most precioussourcesof the historyof the Byzantineempire.but the possessionsof the empirein the Balkanpeninsula. far from the written tradition. Bvgavrtval Me'Trat. lacks any significance.THE CHRONICLE OF MONEMVASIA 165 These contributions almostwholly philologicalin character are and do not affect our study here."7 The chronicleof Monemvasiawas the subject of a dissertationsubmitted for the doctorateto the Faculty of Philology of the Universityof Athens and published in 1947. 86-92. 94-96. its and nature.however. 1 (1946). 10 (1949).that Amantosstill holds to the theorythat when Evagriusand Menanderspeak of the devastations of Greeceby the Avarsand Slavs towardthe end of the sixth century. 2emeserie." Byzantina-Metabyzantina. Kyriakides.

"3 The essay on the history of the Peloponnesus which Georg Stadtmiiller contributed to a general work dealing with that peninsula which was published in Athens during the war. Von Soldaten fur Soldaten. Geschichte. a study of the sources. 5 Paul Lemerle. n. 1946). 7roXAtLK'] 1A. the well-known Greek financier and politician who in recent years has shown considerable interest in the history of Byzantium and has made some important contributions. 1945). On the basis of these two sources he builds an extremely ingenious hypothesis by means of which he seeks to invalidate as historical sources both the chronicle of Monemvasia and the scholium of Arethas. 254-259. 13 N. Philippes et la Mace'doine orientale a lI'epoque chretienne et byzantine (Paris. And finally the capital work on Philippi and eastern Macedonia published by Paul Lemerle. 1944). He contents himself with posing the problem.166 PETER CHARANIS Kyriakides is. Xa/ tKat e7rtSpoual elts TVr 'EXAXaSaKaL }j . Zeitschrift. To this book of Kyriakides I have devoted a special study. to a considerable extent. Landschaft.15 That Slavs established themselves in the Peloponnesus he does not doubt. "Beitrage zur Deutung als Slavisch Erklarter Ortsnamen. 116. Georgakas. BvCavtrvat MEXATat. and (2) the famous synodical letter of the patriarch Nicholas (1084-1111) to the emperor Alexius Comnenus. which came out in 1946. but expresses no definite view as to the date of their coming. is a useful summary of the question as that question is treated in Greece. 42-159. He mentions neither the chronicle of Monemvasia nor the scholium of Arethas. B'." Four other works on the subject of the Slavonic settlements in Greece need to be mentioned: A book by Alexander N. for the German soldiers. this book. Georgakas in which the author takes issue with Vasmer on the etymology of certain toponyms. p. I show there that the arguments he uses to bolster his conclusions have no validity. Herausgegeben von einem Generalkommando (Athens. Diomedes. At' TOVBvCaVTrov (Athens. Kinststdtten. 351-381.14 Stadtmiiller accepts the view that Slavonic settlements were established in the Peloponnesus during the reign of Maurice and that the power of the Slavs there was not broken until the beginning of the ninth century. 4 Der Peloponnes. On two of these sources the author lays particular stress: (1) the passage in the De Administrando of Constantine Porphyrogenitus concerning the revolt of the Slavs and their attack upon Patras during the reign of Nicephorus I. Diomedes.l2 A study by D. X (1949). Lemerle's discussion of the question of Slavonic settlements in Greece is relegated to a long footnote and his treatment is not systematic. citing some of the sources and discussing the position of modern Greek scholars. 3. 41 (1942). D." Byzant. " Byzantinoslavica.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful