Journal articles on the topic 'Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus'

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the identification of the first inhabited cities in baptized Serbia at the beginning of the X century, mentioned by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Writings from that time are important documents which provide a picture of the reality, but it is also necessary to carefully study the old maps. Of particular note is the French geographer and cartographer, Guillaume Delisle (Guillaume de L?Isle), a member of the Royal Academy of Science, from the beginning of the XVIII century, whose map "Eastern Empire and neighboring regions of Constantine Porphyrogenitus" ("Imperio Orientalis et circumjacentium regionum sub Constantino Porphyrogenito et ejus praedecestoribus Descriptio") made on the data basis on Porphyrogenitus, so far not been used in the elucidation of uncertainty about the position of the first inhabited cities in christened Serbia. This map could be useful in researching of the networks of the cities, and territorial organization of Serbia and other Balkan countries.

The paper looks at two sets of data provided by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus? De administranndo imperio, one concerning information about Belgrade in the context of Serbian settlement in the Byzantine Empire under Heraclius, the other Belgrade itself.

The paper is dedicated to certain aspects of the treatise De administrando imperio, composed at the court of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in 948-952. It first examines the diplomatic basis of the information collected in the treatise, then the management of the information available from other sources and some common information found in it and in other contemporary works such as Theophanes Continuatus, Vita Basilii and De thematibus. It closes with a conclusion about the authorship of the treatise and its place in the context of the historiographical activity at the court of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the mid-10th century.

The paper presents an attempt of analysis of an isolated ethnogenetic motif of the Byzantine historiography: that the Rus were descendants of the Franks. This motif is present in three texts: in the the Chronography of Theophanes Continuatus, The Chronicle of Pseudo-Symeon, and in one copy of the second edition of the Chronicle of Symeon the Magister and Logothete. According to the treatise De administrando imperio by emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, representatives of the imperial family of the Roman Empire could marry only representatives of the noble kins of the Franks. Therefore, the only possible explanation of the appearance of the idea that the Rus had a prestige decadence from the Franks in Byzantine historical and political thought is an attempt to justify the marriage of the sister of the ruling Byzantine emperors Anna Porphyrogenita with the “archon” of the “northern barbarians” Vladimir Svaytoslavich. The logic of the inventors of this ethnogenetic construction is transparent: if the people of Rus descended from the Franks, Vladimir was also a descendant of the Franks and so could marry a Roman princess, Anna Porphyrogenita, in accordance with the “political testament” of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. This idea could have the greatest relevance only after the marriage of Vladimir and Anna between c. 987 and 990, and until the death of Anna in 1011/1012. The possible dates for the compilation of the three codices at our disposal, which contain the texts with this motif, don’t contradict with this time period, but, on the contrary, correspond to it optimally.

The article proposes a new version of the history of the famous Byzantine political treatise De Administrando Imperio. The text of this treatise was written after 952 and before November 959 personally by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus for his eldest son Romanus II. The emperor worked in tandem with an “Anonymous Collaborator”. The text of the treatise was based on the private notes and excerpts of emperor Constantine VII and various other historical and geographical data. Such a scheme of cooperation of Constantine VII himself and a second “Anonymous Collaborator” was described in the title of Vita Basilii Imperatoris. The same mode of compiling was mentioned in Constantine VII’s private letter to Theodoros the archbishop of Cyzicus. The original codex of the treatise was kept in the emperor’s palatial library, where one of the readers made a few marginalia on its pages; one of them is dated to after 979. Between 1059 and 1073 a scribe Michael Roizaite made a copy of this text for Caesar John Ducas. Apparently, John Ducas needed it as a handbook for future emperors Michael VII and Constantine X, whom he taught together with Michael Psellos.

The paper analyzes the information concerning the border between the Serbs and the Bulgarians in the 9th and the 10th centuries found in the work De administrando imperio by the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. It is made clear that there were no clearly established borderlines between the political entities in the Early Middle Ages, and that those political entities during that period functioned not on the basis of territorialy organized states, but of ethnic communities, whose authority rested upon the people, not the territory. The functioning of the early medieval Bulgarian Khanate is one of the best examples for that. Therefore, it is necessary that the information on the Serbian-Bulgarian border in the Porphyrogenitus? work be analyzed in a new and different light.

Introduction. The article aims to compare two texts concerning byzantine diplomatic practices of the mid 10th century. The first one is described in the 13th chapter of the treatise “De Administrando Imperio”, in which its author Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus gave some pieces of advice to his son Romanus II Porphyrogenitus how to line up rhetorical manipulation during the negotiations with ambassadors of different ‘barbarian’ nations. The second one is the description of conversation, which took place on September 17, 968 between emperor Otto I the Great’s ambassador bishop Liudprand of Cremona and patrician Christopher. It is described in Liudprand’s “Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana”. Methods. The classical comparative method is used to examine the veracity of two independent texts of different character describing the similar diplomatic trick. The author compares a program-ideological and simultaneously a propaedeutic treatises with a semiofficial report of a foreign senior ambassador. Analysis. In the 13th chapter of the treatise “De Administrando Imperio” its author Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus advised his son Roman II in negotiations with the ambassadors of the “barbarian” nations not to except the precedent of giving in marriage the granddaughter of the Byzantine emperor Romanus I Lecapenus Maria-Irina to Bulgarian ruler Peter, since Romanus I Lecapenus was a man of poor education and incompetent in the ancient sacred customs of the Roman Empire. In “Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana” by bishop Liudprand of Cremona during the confiscation of “purple clothes”, which he had bought, he referred to the fact that during his last visit to Constantinople, emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus had allowed him to take out even more expensive clothes without any obstacles. Contrary to this example, he received a reply from patrician Christopher, that emperor Constantine was a weak man and cherished the friendship of barbarians and foreigners with gifts, and ruling emperor Nikephoros II Phokas was a strong and warlike man, he didn’t allow such liberties for foreigners. In both cases, the same counter-argument was used to disavow precedent – a criticism of the bygone emperor in comparison with the current sovereign. This suggests that it was a common rhetorical device for Byzantine diplomats. These two cases allow to clarify the sophisticated ideology of “Tradition” and its “Split” as a corner-stone political idea of Eastern Roman Empire. Results. As a result of comparing the texts “De Administrando Imperio” (952–959) and “Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitano” (969) it becomes clear that Byzantine politicians in the mid 10th century used for disavowing diplomatic precedents the criticism of their own emperor, who agreed to some concessions in the past. His personality was declared inappropriate to the high standards of a Roman ruler in comparison with the current emperor. Such rhetoric was surprising for the peoples who considered a series of their rulers as a genealogical aggregate of relatives responsible for their predecessors as for themselves. Byzantine politicians calmly recognized imperfections of their bygone emperors, what allowed them to ignore the strongest diplomatic argument of the early Middle Ages – a historical precedent.

<p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt"><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">THE SOURCES OF CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENITUS CONCERNING THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF THE SERBS AND CROATS</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt"><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">There are eight chapters (29-36) in <em>De Administrando Imperio</em> by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus that contain known historical information on the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula. Commonly accepted knowledge in historiography tells us that Constantine Porphyrogenitus must have used references on the Serbs, the Croats, and other Slavs from </span><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">the archives of the Imperial Palace and the verbal accounts of Byzantine administrative personnel who were stationed in Dalmatia. However, our analysis of the earliest historical text on the Serbs and the Croats described in chapters 30, 31 and 32 of the <em>DAI</em> has established that oral tradition could not have been the source of the information on the Serbs or the Croats but rather that Constantine utilized a written source with its approximately dated to around 878.</span><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">The peculiar style of the source focuses on baptism (</span><em><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">Conversio Croatorum et Serborum</span></em><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">) and the close ties of the Serbs and the Croats with Rome. This style or literary genre – </span><em><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">De conversione</span></em><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt"> – did not exist in Byzantium but was well known during early medieval times in the West. The analysis of the aforementioned chapters of the </span><em><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">DAI </span></em><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">established a high degree of correlation with parts of the text known in historiography under the title – </span><em><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">De conversione</span></em><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt"> <em>Bagoariorum et Carantanorum</em>. </span><span style="line-height: 150%; font-family: 'MgOldTimes UC Pol Normal'; font-size: 11pt">The connection between <em>De conversione</em> <em>Bagoariorum et Carantanorum</em> and chapters 30, 31, and 32 of the <em>DAI</em> is easily recognised in the conception of the work, and in the annexed parts by the author. It is our conclusion that we can now take a different path in analysing data on the earliest history of the Serbs and the Croats; it is evident that Constantine Porphyrogenitus used the information collected by an anonymous author who had been employed, very likely, as a high commissioner of the Roman Church.</span></span></p>

The article discusses the issue of ethnic identity of the Diocletians referred to by the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his work De administrando imperio. Of all the tribes of the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast, only for them the emperor fails to point out that they belonged to the Serbs. Based on the analysis of various segments of the emperor?s narrative on the South Slavs, we come to the conclusion that he considered Diocletians to be Serbs also, although he nowhere explicitly recorded that.

Introduction. The article discusses information sources of the 10th – 11th centuries about the oil fields in the area of the Bosporus needed to produce the secret offensive weapon of the Byzantine Empire, i.e. the famous “Greek fire”. Methods. The study is comprehensive. Along with a review of written sources allowing to establish the chronology of the most active period of using the Byzantine “Greek fire”, their material evidence of the oil fields development on the banks of the Kerch strait and the subsequent transportation of Bosporus oil in the central regions of Byzantium were analyzed. Analysis. The treatise of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio contains a message about the oil fields in various areas of the Northeastern Black Sea including the Asian Bosporus which are traditionally considered as sources of raw materials for the famous secret weapons of the Empire – the so-called “Greek fire”. The unique nature of this information, in fact, has reliable archaeological evidence. During excavations of many settlements and fortresses of the Bosporus a sufficient number of examples of the local oil production and transportation to the central areas of Byzantium were found. In the late 9th – 11th centuries containers for the oil transportation were the so-called jugs with a high neck, the general chronology of which generally coincides with the period of the most active use of the “Greek fire” by the Byzantine fleet in fighting against numerous opponents of the Empire. Results. As the study shows, in addition to the military-strategic and political component, the interest of Byzantium in ensuring control over the territories of the Bosporus was probably due to the abundance of numerous sources of oil needed to manufacture the secret offensive weapon of the Empire – the famous “Greek fire”.

None of the many etymologies of the names of the Dnieper rapids in the Rus’ people’s language from the De administrando imperio treatise have so far been completely convincing. Perhaps the researchers used the wrong language key in addition to paying lesser attention to the possible connections of the The hydronyms of the Rus’ language with the rapids names which were in use in subsequent centuries. An analysis of these connections, as well as examples of the language of Old Rus’, suggests that the names used in the work of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus had Latin roots. The features of the geographical environment reflected in the hydronyms, the flora of the region quite confidently correlate with the indications of the Byzantine treatise and other sources. Some features of the Dnieper hydronyms may indicate Vulgar Latin forms, including those dating back to medieval Balkan dialects, rather than classic.

Abstract The paper traces a three-century-long tradition of a mistaken attribution of the Defence of Eunuchs by Theophylact of Ohrid. Since Peter Lambeck, chief librarian of the Hofbibliothek in Vienna, identified in 1671 the author of the treatise as Theodore Pedagogue, a poorly known tutor to the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the incorrect attribution was readily adopted and further disseminated by a series of scholars of the next generations. Although the issue of the authorship was successfully resolved as early as 1768 by Angelo Bandini, head of the Laurentian Library in Florence, the information remained unfamiliar to writers of the following centuries, leaving the entrenched error to persist until the late 1970s, on the eve of the first critical editions of the Defence (Gautier 1980, Spadaro 1981). The article follows the tangled history of the erroneous attribution, attempting to establish a kind of stemmatic regularity between several branches of the abortive tradition.

The aim of the article is to determine the legal foundations. The methodological basis of the study is analysis and synthesis, systems approach, genetic and comparative methods. Conclusions: The Byzantine law can be traced to the legislation of Basil I and Leo VI. However, jus gentium (law of nations) did not have sufficient representation in their codes. Therefore, the legal basis of Byzantine foreign policy consisted of customs and traditions that had been formed in diplomatic practice in ancient times.The system of international relations of Byzantium was hierarchical. The legal status of each participant in this system was determined by military power, political potential, tradition and religious identity. The relations between Byzantine and Kievan Rus’ can serve as a model of the application of international legal norms, which were based on the treaty of 944, which regulated the legal status of merchants, property rights, mutual military assistance and the use of territories on the coast of the Dnieper River estuary, Beloberezhye and the island of Saint Epherius (Berezan).

В рецензии анализируется концепция политии Рюриковичей Х в., предложенная старшим научным сотрудником Центра «Восточная Европа в античном и средневековом мире» Отдела истории Византии и Восточной Европы Института всеобщей истории РАН Алексеем Щавелёвым, разбирается ее хронология и пространственная структура, генеалогия ранних Рюриковичей и динамика их территориальной власти. Понятие «политии» вытесняет прежние нерелевантные для дохристианского времени понятия «Древняя Русь», «Киевская Русь», «Древнерусское государство». Основой для реконструкции политии Рюриковичей Х в. послужили не столько «Повесть временных лет», хронология которой вызывает все большую критику, сколько «Тактика» византийского императора Льва VI Мудрого, трактат «Об управлении империей» правителя Византии Константина VII Багрянородного, письма советника Кордовского халифа Хасдая ибн Шапрута и др. Эта полития появилась в результате стохастических флуктуаций этно-социальной, событийной и персональной истории. The Review deals with Concept of Rurikid’s Polity of the 10th c., proposed by Aleksei Shchavelev, Senior Researcher at the Center for Eastern Europe in the Ancient and Medieval World, Department of the History of Byzantium and Eastern Europe, Institute of General History, Russian Academy of Sciences, parses its Chronology and spatial Structure, the Genealogy of the early Rurikids and the Dynamics of their territorial Power. The Concept of “Polity” replaces the previous irrelevant for pre-Christian Times Notions “Ancient Russia”, “Kievan Rus”, and “Ancient Russian State”. As a Basis for Reconstruction of Rurikid Polity in 10th c. served not so much “Primary Chronicle”, which Chronology Causes all increasing Criticism, as “Tactics” by the Byzantium Emperor Leo VI the Wise, a Treatise “De administrando Imperio” by the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, letters of Adviser of Cordoba Caliphate’s Grandee Hasdai ibn Shaprut and others. This Polity emerged as a Result of stochastic Fluctuations in ethno-social, event and personal History.

<p>Ilias Anagnostakis and Anna Lambropoulou</p><p>An instance of the implementation of the Byzantine institution of asylum in the Peloponnese: the Slavs seek sanctuary in the Church of St Andrew of Patrai</p><p>The events which took place in the Peloponnese in the early ninth century (c. 800) are recorded in later sources, mostly of the tenth century. Following the establishment of the theme system of territorial administration and the securing of ecclesiastical order in the region, the emperor Nikephoros I, in implementing his new fiscal and economic policy, took steps to increase the number of inhabitants by systematically encouraging the settlement of new population groups from outside the area. It was within this general context and during this same period that the rebellion of the Slavs in Achaia, as described by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, needs to be viewed. Clearly, also, the phenomenon needs to be seen within the context of the specific social climate of the region where radical change was taking place and significant breaks with the past were occurring. During the repression of the rebellion the Slavs sought sanctuary in the church of the Apostle Andrew. As a result of this move, however, the rebels were given special treatment as they were viewed as having repented their actions. This was an occurrence whose more general implications are worthy of further study. Looked at from the broader ecclesiastical and political perspective, there are certain characteristic features to be noted in the attitudes towards asylum and the priority ascribed to ecclesiastical over civil law in Constantinople at the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth centuries. At the beginning of the ninth century, during the reign of Nikephoros I and while Tarasios was on the patriarchal throne (784-806), the flight of the defeated Slavs to the Church of St Andrew and the relative leniency that was shown them by the state suggest that here we are dealing with an instance of the workings of the institution of sanctuary in Byzantium. While the sources bring in a host of hagiographie and miraculous elements -the standard baggage of accounts of Christianisation and repentance-he flight of the Slavs to the church of the patron saint of the city constitutes, in our opinion, in instance of mass asylum. Moreover, it is interesting to observe that the respective terminology which was used in Porphyrogenitus' account and was in all likelihood included in the sigillion of Nikephoros I relies, in our view, directly on Byzantine legislative reforms concerning sanctuary.</p><p>This is the first recorded instance of mass asylum and resort to church sanctuary in the middle Byzantine period in the Peloponnese. An effort was made both on the part of the church and the state to find a compromise solution: the former sought recognition of the institution of sanctuary while the latter was concerned to maintain the authority of its judicial and penal organs. The Slavs, who had sought sanctuary in the church, while normally liable to the punishment reserved for insurrection, were in the end granted special treatment. A compromise was found: despite the Slavs' attempt to rebel against the Byzantine authorities, the institution of asylum was fully implemented with the imposition of a number of restrictions and sanctions against the Slav population. The economic side of this treatment, which was generally a feature of the institution of ecclesiastical asylum both in Byzantium and the medieval West, has been well investigated. Indeed, monasticism and land ownership in the region of Bithynia are thought to have developed thanks to the institution of monastic asylum and the geographical boundaries of asylum, and this appears to be the case in the Peloponnese, too, where we see privileges and sigillia being granted for new monasteries and metropoleis in the ninth century. It is particularly interesting to note that the limits of 'rural asylum', i.e. the legal delimitation of the concepts of asylum and imperial donations, are lumped together with the estates of the church or monastery. The transfer of the exploitation of cultivable land to the workers of the monastery or church very often led to the development of settlements in the area. Seen in this light, the introduction of the institution of asylum and its legal delimitation in the case of the ecclesiastical estates of Achaia are directly related to the settlements of the early ninth century. It is probable that in contrast to the case of Syria and Bithynia asylum was not the catalyst behind the gradual settlement of the region of Achaia. However, and more importantly, it did offer solutions to the problems arising from the settlements. In the case of Patrai groups of unruly and discontented peasant populations developed an allegiance to the metropolis and were subsequently integrated to the point that they became entitled to protection from every epinoia adikos ('unjust design').</p><p>Subsequent to the Patrai episode - as far as the evidence allows us to construe- the Empire turned its military operations to the unsubdued, mountainous and more southerly regions of the Peloponnese. By contrast, the Slavs of Achaia were granted sigillia guaranteeing protection from any unapproved measures or epinoia adikos of the metropolitan. The flight of the Slavs to the Church of St Andrew following the miraculous intervention of the Apostle Andrew and the repression of the revolt, as well as the special treatment that they then received at the hands of the Byzantine authorities on account of their seeking sanctuary in the church, can be seen to constitute a form of asylum that is entirely consistent with the political and social climate and with the concept of asylum of the age of Nikephoros I.</p><p> Further investigation of the sigillia and their authenticity and reliability as sources may help to improve our understanding of the implementation and development of the institution of asylum in Byzantium during the reign of Nikephoros I.</p><p> </p>

Investigations of thematic organization never yielded generally accepted results. The reasons behind this are closely tied to limitations regarding source material. On the one hand, there are certain chronological or thematic units poorly represented in the sources. On the other, there are cases well documented by the sources which can, however, overlook data logically expected to be mentioned. Still, Byzantine sources, including legal texts with their often anachronous clauses, have an understanding of thematic priorities which differs from our own, defined by our contemporary standards. Scholars investigating the institution of stratiotes constantly face such difficulties. An undesired but still rather common result of such problems accounts for the fact that researchers base their opinions on superficial lexis and terminology of Byzantine sources and disregard the connections between the main lines of development of the so-called middle Byzantine period (VII-XI centuries) and the changes in thematic organization. Today we can say that the first themes date from the VII century. From then on, the system was gradually developed. Although the original large themes were divided into smaller units during the VIII century, the principles of organization of subsequent themes - which appeared in the IX and X centuries - remained rather unchanged. Above all, that is quite evident from hierarchic lists (Taktika), dating from the first half of the IX to the first half of the X century (Taktikon Uspenskij, Philoteos' Kletorologion, Taktikon Beneshevich). Only in the late X century we encounter a new situation (Escorial Taktikon). In short, from then on we are dealing with quite a complex administrative organism. As for the social aspect, soldier are a part of society in which the so-called free peasants had their own land within the framework of village community property. This general picture is more or less reflected in various sources of different date : in the articles of the so-called Agrarian Law (end of VII - beginning of VIII century), in Theophanes' list of "crimes" of emperor Nicephoros I (802-811) and in data found in the Treaty on Tax Levying (X century). We are dealing with such social and economic foundations of the state which lasted, continually, at least from the end of the VII/the beginning of the VIII to the beginning of the X century, those which, when endangered by the crisis, the emperors attempted to defend by regular repetition of protective laws. All of the above leads us to the conclusion that it would be impossible to expect that the "birth" of this social order during the VII century brought about quick reform based on proclamations of generally valid laws. Secondly, general and common characteristics of the entire era changed in times of crisis, gradually and at first undetectably, so that the order of things marked by the crisis finally surfaced only in the X century. This development is understandable because many significant phenomena of social life were not necessarily defined by specific laws, regardless of the existence of a developed written legislative corpus. The foundations of the legislative order of the Empire did not come in the form of a written constitution or group of basic laws. Under such conditions, explanations of the social status of soldiers should not necessarily be sought among the early examples of pre-Macedonian legislature, just as, following such unsuccessful searches, one should not draw far-reaching conclusions. Since there was obviously no quick, focused and legislatively rounded-off reform at the moment of the appearance of the military order or social group in question, it would be dangerous to take either the "Ostrogorsky model" or the viewpoints which reject it as an absolute paradigm. After all, Byzantine practice was far more diverse then what we are often ready to admit. It is obvious that, in its initial phase - during the second half of the VII century - the thematic organization developed in times of long lasting demographic crisis and the first serious shortages of money reserves and natural goods. For the most part, the need for military corps could be met in no other way but by settling soldiers. Such soldiers-settlers comprise the kernel of the army and are distributed all across the land, as indicated by the names of the themes of the fist and second generation: Opsikion, Armeniakon, Anatolikon, Karavisianon, Voukelarion, Optimaton, Thrakesianon. Certain, although not numerous examples, uncover the diversity of the sources from which the newly the settled soldiers between the end of the VII and the first half of the IX century were recruited (Slavs in the theme Opsikion, the siege of the city of Tyana, extensive measures of emperor Nicephoros I, the case of the pretender to the throne, Thomas the Slav, and the case of the christianized Kouramites). Generally speaking, the settling of soldiers implies the existence of their more or less pronounced physical ties to the land. However, this does not have to implicate that they all had personal holdings or, to an even lesser extent, that they were all peasants. It only means that these soldiers used the land as the dominant source of income. For, according to De ceremoniis and Ibn-Khordadbih, their annual salary (????) amounted to 1 nomisma, and could not exceed the maximum of 12 (by exception 18) nomismata. Actually, these salaries should be seen as additional assets to the overall income of the soldiers. In that sense, some of the measures (crimes) of emperor Nicephoros I, as interpreted by the chronicle of Theophanes, are especially interesting. The first crime is the settlement of soldiers from all (Asia Minor) themes in the Sclavinias on the Balkans. Those designated for re-settlement had to sell their holdings, often lameting having to lease behind the graves of their parents, perhaps even more distant ancestors, too. Despite this "crime", there were not enough soldiers to satisfy the growing needs for military corps on both sides of the Empire. Thus the emperor recruited and equipped the poor from the sum of 18.5 nomismes which their neighbors had to pay to the state treasury. The measures of emperor Nicephoros show that in those days there were at least two type of stratiotes - soldiers who supported themselves from the income provided by their land holdings and those newly recruited or, perhaps, impoverished soldiers whose equipment was provided for by peasants, through the payments they made to the state treasury. The other solution was, apparently, if not temporary then rather rare, so that the general line of development lay closer to the first solution, both before and after the reign of Nicephoros. Already at the time of publishing of the Ecloga, that is during the reign of Leo III, ???????????? ????? was a common reality, just as it was in the much later Tactica of Leo VI. The described situation from the days of Nicephoros is very reminiscent of the way the military estate is defined in De cerimoniis, which speaks of soldiers with "houses", but also of poor soldiers who are in the service as a result of community support. This refers to soldiers who can be denoted, as they are in the famous novel by Constantine Porphyrogenitos, by epithets ??((((? and ?((((?. "House" is taken to mean the patrimony of an individual family, which provides material support for one soldier from its own ranks, as it clearly results from the Ecloga and the Taktika. That is why the expression ????????? - "one who participates in" (equipping a soldier) - appears already in the so-called Leges militares. Basically, we are dealing with the same phenomenon which in the later legislative texts of the Macedonian dynasty (X century) was given clearer articulation. All this implies that military service - ???????? - could be performed, in part or on the whole, through money payments. According to a considerable number of researchers, the fiscalization of the "stratia" should exclusively be taken as a feature of late Macedonian legislation. However, it is beyond doubt that this phenomenon also had a prior history. In the Vita of St. Euthymios the Younger we find mention of the fact that his mother, as a widow, inscribed the name of her then seven year old son on military lists in the early 830's. Apparently, such formal inscriptions of "soldiers" did happen as a means of evading money payments in substitution for military service. What is even more interesting, the fiscal duties imposed on widows or families came as a renewed ancient custom. One text by Theodore of Stoudion (March 801) implies that the empress Irene revoked this levy which existed in the days of earlier "Orthodox emperors". In the eyes of Theodore, those could only have been emperors from pre-Iconoclastic times. The striving of soldiers to gain property of farming land and the interaction between them and the tax paying population of farmers were always present, just as there were always clear demarcations between these two social groups. The soldiers with their property, on one side, and the peasants (and other civilians) with their property on the other, were precisely distinguished in the X century by the terms ???????????? ????? and (???????? ?????. These technical terms validated the statements found in the Tactica of Leo VI and the second Novel of Romanos I (934) regarding the two pillars of the state: the soldiers and the peasants. This, however, did not imply the introduction of new institutions but rather of new terminology with specific meaning introduced in times of precise agrarian codification. It is practically self evident that in the mentioned the living conditions of thematic soldiers between the VII/VIII and the X century, there were several options in articulating the social profile of a soldier. It is also evident what the relatively stable types of soldiers were based on. Firstly, already in the VIII century there is confirmation of the existence of soldiers with property, that is land holdings, the source of the greatest part of their income, whether as proprietors or as recruited members of certain families. In that respect, it is important to note that in one Taktikon from the 960's soldiers with personal property were marked as an ancient phenomenon, older even than the Macedonian legislation of the X century. The same applies to the distinction between ??????????, proprietor but not necessarily an active soldier, and ?????????????, one actually in military service. Moreover, the fact is that there did exist social differences between the numerous soldiers with land holdings. On the other hand, there were those among the soldiers who had no property what so ever or practically none to count with. They were recruited in different ways. Some soldiers from this category were recruited through collective contributions of the communities (beginning of IX century), while others received support from certain landowners (end of IX century). The first option appears in later years as well, as demonstrated by a case registered on the Peloponnesos in the first half of the X century, when the population was levied with collecting money in order to secure funding for the soldiers. It is certain that among the soldiers who traded their participation in such campaigns for financial contributions there were also those (former soldiers?) who had grown impoverished in the mean time and could not personally perform military service. The famous soldier Mousoulios from the Vita of Philaretos is a good example from the close of the VIII century. In order to monitor the process of impoverishment of soldiers, we would have to have more of this sort of information from various vitae. The X century legislation came only as a reaction to the crisis which at the beginning of the X century struck smaller and medium size landowners, both soldiers and civilians. This struggle to save the basic body of thematic soldiers had its climax in the days of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. In asserting the value of their property, the emperor could thus calmly claim that such a custom, although not formally written down, had already existed. Having become insufficient, this unwritten custom was codified and raised to the level of a written law. Parallel to the weakening of the military social stratum, there is a growing fiscalization of the stratia, which no longer necessarily had to represent military service but was rather seen as its financial support. The road was thus open for the appearance of a new mercenary army. On the other hand, parallel to the changes in military tactics, the wealthier soldiers finally gained a dominant role. In order to secure the service of such soldiers, in the days of Nicephoros II the minimal value of military land holdings was raised to 12 pounds of gold. This marked the beginning of the rise of lower military aristocracy. During the following, XI century, when the classical thematic organization no longer existed, thematic soldiers had already lost their importance and, save perhaps for minor exceptions, represented a thing of the past.

AbstractIn what is known as the List of addresses to the foreign rulers of De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae (II, 48) by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959), there is an address to a ruler called “king of Francia”. This paper is devoted to an attempt to find the answer to the question of who this “king of Francia” might have been. Judging from the fact that in that address both the Roman emperors and the ruler it concerns are given very exalted epithets, the address to the “king of Francia” designates a ruler who was, for various reasons, considered by the imperial chancery more distinguished and more important than other rulers of Western Europe. Current opinion holds that the ruler in question was Otto I and that the address reflects the then prevailing view in Constantinople of Otto as the most serious candidate for the crown of the Western Empire. According to the research of Constantine Zuckerman, the List of addresses, along with other “diplomatic chapters” of the Book of Ceremonies, was composed in 946. In September 944 the marriage was concluded between Romanus II, the son of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, and Bertha, natural daughter of Hugh, then king of Italy. Describing that event, contemporary Byzantine writers refer to Hugh as the “king of Francia”. This paper examines the possibility of linking this “king of Francia” with the one in the List of addresses, on the basis of information concerning King Hugh in another work by emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus - De administrando imperio.

Review Article: The de thematibus (''on the themes") of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Translated with introductory chapters and notes by John Haldon, L[Τranslated Texts for Byzantinists, v. 11],Liverpool University Press 2021