Slike stranica

blending required for its completion four or five centuries, and the rate of progress varied in different parts of the peninsula. The Milings maintained their separate identity longest, perhaps till the eve of the Ottoman conquest; but even in the thirteenth century Slavonic tribes still lived apart from the Greeks and preserved their old customs in the region of Skorta in the mountainous districts of Elis and Arcadia 1 We may say that by the fifteenth century the Slavs had ceased to be a distinct nationality; they had become part of a new mixed Greek-speaking race, destined to be still further regenerated or corrupted under Turkish rule by the absorption of the Albanians who began to pour into the Peloponnesus in the fourteenth century. That the blending of Slavonic with Greek blood had begun in the ninth century is suggested by the anecdote related of a Peloponnesian magnate, Nicetas Rentakios, whose daughter had the honour of marrying a son of the Emperor Romanus I. He was fond of boasting of his noble Hellenic descent, and drew upon himself the sharp tongue of a distinguished grammarian, who satirized in iambics his Slavonic cast of features.2 But the process of hellenization was slow, and in the tenth century the Peloponnesus and northern Greece were still regarded, like Macedonia, as mainly Slavonic.3

1 See Finlay, iv. 21, 22. It is re

[ocr errors]

γαρασδοειδὴς ὄψις ἐσθλαβωμένη

evidently one verse of an epigram on Nicetas. The meaning of γαρασδοειδής is a well-known puzzle. Finlay's proposal, γαδαροειδής (from γάϊδαρος, an ass), is unlikely, and the explanation of Sathas (see Gregorovius, op. cit. "with the countenance of a Zoroastrian" (Zapáodas), is extremely far-fetched. I suggested that the Slavonic proper name Gorazd may underlie yapaodo (Gorazd, e.g., was the name of one of the pupils of the apostle Methodius); this would suit the context (English Historical Review, vi., Jan. 1891, p. 152).

markable that in the Chronicle of
Morea it is only in connexion with
Slavonic regions that the word δρόγγος,
“defle,” is used: ὁ δ. τῶν Σκλαβῶν
4605, ὁ δ. τοῦ Μελιγγοῦ 4531, cp. 2993,
ὁ δ. τῶν Σκορτών 5026. But notwith-
standing, the etymology is not the
Slavonic dragu,
wood," as G. Meyer
would have it (op. cit. 135); Spóyyos
is the
drungus, the Byzantine military
term, which is derived from Germanic
(Eng. throng). See J. Schmitt's ed. of
Chronicle of Morea, p. 605. There are
very few Slavonic words in Modern
Greek. Miklosich has counted 129
("Die slavischen Elemente im Neu-
griechischen," S.B. of Vienna Acad.
Ixiii., 1869).


2 Const. Porph. Them. 53 Euphμov ἐκεῖνον τὸν περιβόητον γραμματικὸν ἀποσκώψαι εἰς αὐτὸν τουτοὶ τὸ θρυλούμενον ἰαμβεῖον

3 See the tenth-century scholiast on Strabo 7. p. 1251 (ed. Amsterdam, 1707), and, for Elis, 8. p. 1261 (äπаνта γὰρ ταῦτα Σκύθαι νέμονται). The complicated question of race-blending in Greece requires still a thoroughgoing investigation, as Krumbacher observes

We can designate one part of the Peloponnesus into which the Slavonic element did not penetrate, the border-region between Laconia and Argolis. Here the old population seems to have continued unchanged, and the ancient Doric tongue developed into the Tzakonian dialect, which is still spoken in the modern province of Kynuria.'

It is interesting to note that on the promontory of Taenaron in Laconia a small Hellenic community survived, little touched by the political and social changes which had transformed the Hellenistic into the Byzantine world. Surrounded by Slavs, these Hellenes lived in the fortress of Maina, and in the days of Theophilus and his son still worshipped the old gods of Greece. But the days of this pagan immunity were numbered; the Olympians were soon to be driven from their last recess. Before the end of the century the Mainotes were baptized.2

§ 2. The Conversion of Bulgaria

Christianity had made some progress within the Bulgarian kingdom before the accession of Boris. It is not likely that the Roman natives of Moesia, who had become the subjects of the Bulgarian kings, did much to propagate their faith; but we can hardly doubt that some of the Slavs had been converted, and Christian prisoners of war seem to have improved the season of their captivity by attempting to proselytize their masters. The introduction of Christianity by captives. is a phenomenon which meets us in other cases, and we are

(B.Z. 10. 368). Meanwhile consult A. Philippson, "Zur Ethnographie des Peloponnes," i. and ii., in Petermanns Mitteilungen aus Justus Perthes' geographischer Anstalt, vol. xxxvi., 1890.

1 The Tzakonian dialect perplexed philologists and was variously taken for Slavonic (Kopitar, Hopf, Philippson) and Albanian (Sathas). But the studies of Deffner (cp. his Zakonische Grammatik, 1881) and Thumb ("Die ethnographische Stellung der Zakonen," in Indogermanische Forschungen, iv. 195 sqq., 1894) have demonstrated that the Tzakones and their language are Greek. The name


presents difficulties. Thumb holds that the loss of 7 was a rule in the Tzakonian dialect, and suggests the etymology : εἰς Λακωνίαν, 'ς Ακωνία(ν), Σακωνία, Τσακωνία (comparing σέρβουλον : τσέρβουλε). The chief town in the Tzakonian district is Leonidi. Its extent is exhibited in the ethnographical map in Philippson, op. cit. The Téкwves are mentioned in Constantine, Cer. 696.

2 In the reign of Basil I. See Constantine, De adm. imp. 224; Hopf, 129.

3 E.g. the Goths (Wulfilas) and the Iberians.

not surprised to learn that some of the numerous prisoners who were carried away by Krum made efforts to spread their religion among the Bulgarians, not without success. Omurtag was deeply displeased and alarmed when he was informed of these proceedings, and when threats failed to recall the perverts to their ancestral cult, he persecuted both those who had fallen away and those who had corrupted them.1 Amongst the martyrs was Manuel, the archbishop of Hadrianople. The most illustrious proselyte is said to have been the eldest son of Omurtag himself, who on account of his perversion was put to death by his brother Malamir.

The adoption of Christianity by pagan rulers has generally been prompted by political considerations, and has invariably a political aspect. a political aspect. This was eminently the case in the conversion of Bulgaria. She was entangled in the complexities of a political situation, in which the interests of both the Western and the Eastern Empire were involved. The disturbing fact was the policy of the Franks, which aimed at the extension of their power over the Slavonic states on their south-eastern frontier. Their collision with Bulgaria on the Middle Danube in the reign of Omurtag had been followed by years of peace, and a treaty of alliance was concluded in A.D. 845. The efforts of King Lewis the German were at

1 Theodore Stud. (Parva Cat. lxiii. pp. 220 sqq.) relates that the Bulgarian ruler, whose name, unfortunately, he does not mention (and the date of this catechesis is unknown), issued a decree that all Christians should eat meat in Lent on pain of death. Fourteen resisted the order.

One was put to death, and his wife and children given as slaves to Bulgarian masters, as an example; but the others held out, and were also executed. The khan has been supposed to be Krum; cf. Auvray's note, p. 647. Theophylactus (Hist. mart. 192) relates that one of Krum's captives, Kinamon, was assigned to Omurtag, who became greatly attached to him, and tried to induce him to apostatize. As he was obstinate, he was thrown into a foul prison, where he remained till after Omurtag's death.

2 Cont. Th. 217. Menologion Basilii, Migne, P.G. 117,

According to the
Pars ii., Jan. 22,
276, Krum put

Manuel to death, cutting off his arms from his shoulders, then cleaving him in twain with a sword, and throwing the remains to wild beasts. It is added that Krum's act caused such disgust among the Bulgarians that they strangled him with ropes. All this is evidently a sensational and impudent invention. For the persecution of Tsok, see above, p. 359.


Theophyl. op. cit. 193 sqq. Malamir released the captive Kinamon from prison at the request of his brother Enravôtas. Kinamon converted Enravôtas, who was put to death by Malamir as an apostate. Malamir, according to this narrative (197), died three years later; this would give 848-849 for the death of Enravôtas. We have an earlier instance of apostasy on the part of a royal Bulgarian in Telerig, the refugee who accepted baptism at the court of Leo IV. (Theoph. 451).

this time directed to destroying the independence of the Slavonic kingdom of Great Moravia, north of the Carpathians. Prince Rostislav was making a successful stand against the encroachments of his Teutonic neighbours, but he wanted allies sorely and he turned to Bulgaria. He succeeded in engaging the co-operation of Boris, who, though he sent an embassy to Lewis just after his accession, formed an offensive alliance with Rostislav in the following year (A.D. 853). The allies conducted a joint campaign and were defeated.1 The considerations which impelled Boris to this change of policy are unknown; but it was only temporary. Nine years later he changed front. When Karlmann, who had become governor of the East Mark, revolted against his father Lewis, he was supported by Rostislav, but Boris sided with Lewis, and a new treaty of alliance was negotiated between the German and Bulgarian kings (A.D. 862).2

Moravia had need of help against the combination of Bulgaria with her German foe, and Rostislav sent an embassy to the court of Byzantium. It must have been the purpose of the ambassadors to convince the Emperor of the dangers with which the whole Illyrian peninsula was menaced by the Bulgaro-German alliance, and to induce him to attack Bulgaria.3


The Byzantine government must have known much more. than we of the nature of the negotiations between Boris and Lewis. In particular, we have no information as to the price which the German offered the Bulgarian for his active assistance in suppressing the rebellion. But we have clear evidence that the question of the conversion of Bulgaria to Christianity was touched upon in the negotiations. As a means of increasing his political influence at the Bulgarian court, this matter was of great importance to Lewis, and Boris did not decline to entertain the proposition. The interests of the Eastern Empire were directly involved. Bulgaria was a standing danger; but that danger would be seriously enhanced if she passed under the ecclesiastical supremacy of Rome and threw in her lot with Latin Christianity. It was a matter of supreme urgency to detach Boris from his connexion with Lewis, and the representatives

1 Ann. Bert., s.a.
3 Zlatarski, 61.

2 Cp. Zlatarski, 59.


Cp. Ann. Bert., s.a. 864; Zlatarski, 60.

of Rostislav may have helped Michael and his advisers to realize the full gravity of the situation. It was decided to coerce the Bulgarians, and in the summer of A.D. 863 Michael marched into their territory at the head of his army, while his fleet appeared off their coast on the Black Sea.1 The moment was favourable. Bulgarian forces were absent, taking part in the campaign against Karlmann, and the country was suffering from a cruel famine. In these circumstances, the Emperor accomplished his purpose without striking a blow; the demonstration of his power sufficed to induce Boris to submit to his conditions. It was arranged that Bulgaria should receive Christianity from the Greeks and become ecclesiastically dependent on Constantinople; 2 that Boris should withdraw from the offensive alliance with Lewis


and only conclude a treaty of peace. In return for this alteration of his policy, the Emperor agreed to some territorial concessions. He surrendered to Bulgaria a district which was uninhabited and formed a march between the two realms, extending from the Iron Gate, a pass in the StranjaDagh, northward to Develtos.* It has been supposed that at the same time the frontier in the far west was also regulated, and that the results of the Bulgarian advance towards the Hadriatic were formally recognized.5

The brilliant victory which was gained over the Saracens

1 The meaning of this expedition has been first satisfactorily explained by Zlatarski, 62 sqq. The source is

Simeon (Cont. Georg. 824).

2 The consent to accept Christianity was perhaps unexpected. Photius, Εp. 4. p. 168 εἰς τὴν τῶν χριστιανῶν παραδόξως μετενεκεντρίσθησαν πίστιν.

3 This treaty was maintained for many years to come.

Cont. Theoph. 165 dédwкev épημnv οὖσαν τηνικαῦτα τὴν ἀπὸ Σιδηρᾶς, ταύτης δὲ τότε ὅριον τυγχανούσης ̔Ρωμαίων τε καὶ αὐτῶν ἄχρι τῆς Δεβέλτου, ἥτις οὕτω καλεῖται Ζάγορα παρ' αὐτοῖς ἐρήμη is the antecedent of rs). The credit of having explained this passage belongs to Zlatarski, op. cit. 65 sqq. Hitherto Zionpâ had been explained of the so-named Balkan pass (Veregava, see above, p. 339, n. 2), but the district stretching from the Balkans to Develtos was already Bulgarian. Zlatarski has seen that Zidnpâ marks

the southern point of the region in question, and identifies it with a pass called Demir Kapu, "Iron Gate," in the north-western hills of the StranjaPlanina, north of Losen-grad, which is near Kovchat. He places the western point of the surrendered district at the Sakar Planina. The other region, between the Eastern Balkans and the Erkesiia, was also called Zagora ("behind the mountains ").

5 Zlatarski, 70 sqq. Ochrida and Glavinitsa were Bulgarian in the reign of Boris (Vita Clementis, c. 17. p. 24, ed. Miklosich Kephalenia Glavinitsa). Zlatarski carefully discusses the whereabouts of this place and concludes that (distinct from the region of Cape Glossa, on the bay of Avlonia, which was called Glavinitsa) there was an inland fortress Glavinitsa, between the rivers Voiusa (ancient Aous) and Ozum (ancient Apsus), near Mount Tomor; and he would

« PrethodnaNastavi »