In Russian
Contents Huns
Contents Tele
Contents Alans
Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
Kipchaks In Europe
Gmyrya L. Caspian Huns = Suvars
  Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Türkic folks, Hungarians, and Slavs in Byzantine annals
C. Porphyrogenitus (905 – 959)
De Administrando Imperia
952 AD.
Gk. text ed. Gy. Moravcsik, Transl. R.J.H. Jenkins
Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Harvard University, Washington DC, 1967, ISBN 0-88402-021-5, © 1967


http://homepage.univie.ac.at/ilja.steffelbauer/DAI.pdf (English and Greek)
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG.../De%20administrando%20imperio.pdf‎ (Greek)

PDF files

C. Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperia, Harvard University
Pp. 1-85 Pp. 86-170 Pp. 171-251 Pp. 252-347 Full
3 MB 3 MB 2 MB 4 MB pp. 1-116, 12 MB

Posting Introduction

This posting is a mirror.

It is hard to miss that the substance of the story is who expelled whom and and who pays tribute to whom. The word “expelled” is the most popular word in the narrative, used in 22 instances, at times interspersed with “drove them to” and “desolated”. Those barbarian barbarians, and Roman and Greek barbarians could not even be ameliorated by new religions of love and compassion, they were rather inspired by them. Before the 21st c., neither autocracies nor democracies made any difference, just yesterday the Amerindians and Kosovars were as jealously exterminated and expelled as were the victims of the ancient world and the dark Middle Ages. Just the opposite, the religions, democracies, and autocracies provided a rhetorical cover and inducements for the scourge. Uncounted scholars had read the book uncounted times, many remember it by heart, and keep digging in, discovering new facts of the long gone history. The Greeks dig in for the Greek history, Italians for the Roman history, Serbs for the Serbian history, but who digs for the Türkic history, of the Kangar, Bulgar history, the Avar history, and the other peoples' histories who lack the political machine? Who is interested in the histories of earlier aborigines or nomadic peoples? Kangars became Slavs, Bulgars became Hungarians and Slavs, and the self-focused Hungarian and Slavic histories are not interested in the earlier peoples' histories, and even less in the Kangar, or Bulgar, or Bechen, or Avar, or Hunnic component of the Hungardom or Slavdom. The history remains pretty much parochial. They suffer an institutional blindness to their Türkic past, their Türkic traditions, their Türkic religion, their Türkic languages, their Türkic culture. Ironically, their neighbors know more of their neighbors' prehistory than they do of their own, so far better sources on the Hungarian prehistory come from their non-Hungarian neighbors, and better sources on the Slavic prehistory come from their non-Slavic neighbors. Unfortunately, any parochial history is not a history, it is a man-made legend, а tale to fool public for selfish ends.

Few real historians had an outsider's glance at the Türkic component, primarily as a sidekick to the mainline, or to read into the names of the Türkic demons, or to recreate a place or a period. They did build a skeleton resembling a Gothic cathedral with stained glass blown off, a structure of gaping breaches. In the end, most frames that surround the breaches are contained in the “De Administrando Imperia”. The terminology of DAI, however, was established way before the DAI. From the first mentioning of the term Σκλάβωι, it was synonymous with the Avars. Up untill and inclusive of the Cronica di Monemvasia, the terms Avars and Σκλάβωι were interchangeable. Only after the fall of the Avar Kaganate in 805 the term Σκλάβωι started to be applied outside of the Avar context, but the local Avar leadership continued well into the 10th c., it is clearly visible from the contents of the DAI, and mechanically applying the term Σκλάβωι retroactively, a popular treatment in the Slavic and western historiography, is an anachronism. Historical records unambigiously attest to that: Michael the Syrian calls the leader of the Sclevene a Kagan; John of Biclar and Evagrius call Sclevenes occupying Greece Avars; Evagrius undoubtedly refer to invasions by Avars, not Slavs, and none of them are confusing one with the other. The problem is not of discerning Slavs under the terms Avars and Σκλάβωι, it is rather a problem of discerning numerous Türkic non-Avars under the terms Avars and Σκλάβωι. The Avars captured a leadership over numerous Türkic and non-Türkic tribes, and like the Slavs, numerous Türkic tribes that were overshadowed by the term Avar regained their status and in some cases their names. It were the Σκλάβωι, not the Slavs, who remained the most important danger for the Byzantine empire.

List of annalistic materials related to the De Administrando Imperia:

Annals of Fulda (T.Reuter, 1992//Ninth-Century Histories, Vol II, Manchaster University Press, ISBN 0-7190-3458-2).
Annals of St-Bertin (L.Nelson, 1991//Ninth-Century Histories, Vol. I, Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-3426-8).
Anonymus, Notary of King Béla, The Deeds of the Hungarians (M.Rady and L.Veszpremy, 2010//Anonymus and Master Roger, CEU Press, ISBN 978-9639776951).
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio (G.Moravcsik,.R.Jenkins, 1967, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, ISBN 0-88402-021-5).
Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, Chronica de Gestis Hungarorum (D.Dercsényi, 1970, Corvina, Taplinger Publishing. ISBN 0-8008-4015-1).
Leo VI, Taktika (G.Dennis, 2010, Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 978-0-88402-359-3).
Liudprand of Cremona, Retribution` (P.Squatriti The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona, 2007//The Catholic University of Press, ISBN 978-0-8132-1506-8).
Cronica di Monemvasia (L.M.Hoffmann, 2014//Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle. Brill Online, ISBN 9789004184640, 20101111
Regino of Prüm, Chronicle (S.MacLean, 2009//History and Politics in Late Carolingian and Ottonian Europe: The “Chronicle”of Regino of Prüm and Adalbert of Magdeburg, Manchester University Press; ISBN 978-0-7190-7135-5).
Royal Frankish Annals (B.Scholz, B.Rogers, 1972//Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard`s Histories, The University of Michigan Press; ISBN 0-472-06186-0).
Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text  (S.Cross, O.Sherbowitz-Wetzor, 1953, Medieval Academy of America. ISBN 978-0-915651-32-0).
Simon of Kéza, The Deeds of the Hungarians (L.Veszpremy, F.Schaer,J.Szűcs, 1999, CEU Press, ISBN 963-9116-31-9).
al-Tabarī, History Vol. XXXVIII (F.Rosenthal, 1985//The Return of the Caliphate to Baghdad`, State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-87395-876-4).

Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page in blue. Page breaks in continuous text are indicated by //. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers. A few curious ethnological morsels, usually skipped over, are highlighted. The Cyrillic texts, and Greek and English spelling may need verification against the original.

C. Porphyrogenitus
De Administrando Imperia
Publisher`s notes


GREEK TEXT EDITED by Gy. Moravcsik
New, Revised Edition
Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies Trustees for Harvard University Washington, District of Columbia 1967
All rights reserved by the Trustees for Harvard University The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, D.C.
Second Impression, 1985
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Emperor of the East, 905-959.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus
De administrando imperio.
(Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae; v. 1) (Dumbarton Oaks texts; 1)
Translation of: De administrando imperio.
English and Greek.
Includes index.
1. Byzantine Empire—History—Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, 913-959.
2. Byzantine Empire—History— To 527.
3. Byzantine Empire—History—527-1081.
4. Education of princes. I. Moravcsik, Gyula, 1892-1972.
II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series.
DF593.C6613 1985 949.5 85-6950 ISBN 0-88402-021-5

Foreword to the First Edition 3
Foreword to the Second Edition 5
General Introduction 7
Critical Introduction 15
1. Manuscripts 15
2. Editions 23
3. Translations 26
4. Mutual Relationship of Manuscripts and Editions 27
5. Method followed in the present Edition 34
List of Signs 41
Text and Translation 43
Προοίμιον 44
Proem, 45
1. Περί των Πατζινακιτών, καί πρδς πόσα συμβάλλονται μετά τοϋ βασιλέως 'Ρωμαίων είρηνεύοντες 48
1. Of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinaks), and how many advantages accrue from their being at peace with the emperor of the Romans 49
2. Περί των Πατζινακιτών καί των 'Ρώς 48
2. Of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinaks) and the Russians (Ruses) 49
3. Περί των Πατζινακιτών καί Τούρκων 50
3. Of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinaks) and Turks (Hungarians) 51
4. Περί των Πατζινακιτων καί ‘Ρώς καί Τούρκων 50
4. Of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinaks) and Russians (Ruses) and Turks (Hungarians) 51
5. Περί των Πατζίνακιτών καί των Βουλγάρων 52
5. Of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinaks) and the (Danube) Bulgarians 53
6. Περί των Πατζινακιτων καί Χερσωνιτών 52
6. Of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinaks) and Chersonites 53
7. Περί των άπό Χερσώνος άποστελλομένων βασιλικών έν Πατζινακία 54
7. Of the dispatch of imperial agents from Cherson to Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) 55
8. Περί των άπό της θεοφυλάκτου πόλεως άποστελλομένων βασιλικών μετά χελαν- δίων διά τε τοΰ Δανουβίου καί Δάναπρι καί Δάναστρι ποταμού έν Πατζινακία... 54
8. Of the dispatch of imperial agents with ships of war from the city protected
of God to Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) along the Danube and Dnieper and Dniester river 55
9. Περί των άπύ 'Ρωσίας έρχομένων 'Ρώς μετά τών μονοξύλων έν Κωνσταντινου- πόλει 56
9. Of the coming of the Russians (Ruses) in 'monoxyla’ from Russia to Constantinople . 57
10. Περί της Χαζαρίας, πώς δει πολεμεϊσθαι καί παρά τίνων 62
10. Of Chazaria, how and by whom war must be made upon it 63
11. Περί τοϋ κάστρου Χερσώνος καί τοϋ κάστρου Βοσπόρου 64
11. Of the city of Cherson and the city of Bosporus 65
12. Περί της μαύρης Βουλγαρίας καί της Χαζαρίας 64
12. Of black Bulgaria and Chazaria 65
13. Περί τών πλησιαζόντων έθνών τοϊς Τούρκοις 64
13. Of the nations that are neighbors to the Turks (Hungarians) 65
14. Περί της γενεαλογίας τοϋ Μουχούμετ 76
14. Of the genealogy of Mahomet 77
15. Περί τοΰ γένους τών Φατεμίτών 78
15. Of the tribe of the Fatemites 79
16. Έκ τοΰ κανόνος, οδ έθεμάτισεν Στέφανος ό μαθηματικός περί της τών Σαρακηνών έξόδου, έν ποίω χρόνω της τοΰ κόσμου συστάσεως έγένετο, καί τίς ό τα σκήπτρα
της βασιλείας 'Ρωμαίων διέπων 80
16. From the canon which Stephen the astrologer cast from the stars concerning the Exodus of the Saracens (Moslems), in what year of the foundation of the world it took place, and who then held the sceptre of the empire of the Romans 81
17. Έκ τοϋ Χρονικοΰ τοΰ μακαρίου Θεοφάνους 80
17. From the Chronicle of Theophanes, of blessed memory 81
18. Δεύτερος άρχηγός τών ’Αράβων, Άβουβάχαρ, έτη τρία 82
18. The second chief of the Arabs, Aboubachar, three years 83
19. Τρίτος άρχηγός ’Αράβων, Οΰμαρ 82
19. The third chief of the Arabs, Oumar 83
20. Τέταρτος ’Αράβων άρχηγός, Ούθμάν 84
20. The fourth chief of the Arabs, Outhman 85
21. Έκ τοϋ Χρονικοΰ Θεοφάνους• ϊτος άπό κτίσεως κόσμου ,ςροα'84
21. From the Chronicle of Theophanes: the year from the creation of the world 6171 85
22. Έκ τοϋ Χρονογράφου τοΰ μακαρίου Θεοφάνους περί τών αύτών καί περί Μαυίου καί τής γενεάς αύτοΰ, οπως διεπέρασεν έν 'Ισπανία. 'Ρωμαίων βασιλεύς ’Ιουστινια¬νός ό 'Ρινότμητος 92
22. From the Chronicle of Theophanes, of blessed memory, concerning the same events and concerning Mauias and his clan, how it crossed over into Spain. Emperor of the Romans, Justinian Rhinotmetus 93
23. Περί Ίβηρίας καί 'Ισπανίας 98
23. Of Iberia and Spain 99
24. Περί 'Ισπανίας 102
24. Of Spain 103
25. Έκ τής ιστορίας τοΰ οσίου Θεοφάνους τής Σιγριανής 102
25. From the history of the holy Theophanes of Sigriane 103
26. Ή γενεαλογία τοΰ περιβλέπτου £ηγός Οϋγωνος 108
26. The genealogy of the illustrious king Hugh 109
27. Περί τοΰ θέματος Λαγουβαρδίας καί τών έν αύτη πριγκιπάτων καί άρχοντιών .. 112
27. Of the province of Lombardy and of the principalities and governorships therein 113
28. Διήγησις, πώς κατφκίσθη ή νΰν καλουμένη Βενετία 118
28. Story of the settlement of what is now called Venice 119
29. Περί τής Δελματίας καί τών έν αύτή παρακειμένων εθνών 122
29. Of Dalmatia and of the adjacent nations in it 123
30. Διήγησις περί τοΰ θέματος Δελματίας 138
30. Story of the province of Dalmatia 139
31. Περί τών Χρωβάτων καί ής νϋν οίκοΰσι χώρας 146
31. Of the Croats (Χρωβάτος) and of the country they now dwell in 147
32. Περί τών Σέρβλων καί ής νΰν οίκοΰσι χώρας 152
32. Of the Serbs (Σέρβλων) and of the country they now dwell in 153
33. Περί τών Ζαχλούμων καί ής νϋν οίκοΰσι χώρας 160
33. Of the Zachlumi and of the country they now dwell in 161
34. Περί τών Τερβουνιωτών καί τών Καναλιτών καί ής νΰν οίκοΰσι χώρας 162
34. Of the Terbouniotes and Kanalites (Konavle, Croatia) and of the country they now dwell in... 163
35. Περί τών Διοκλητιανών καί ής νϋν οίκοΰσι χώρας 162
35. Of the Diocletians and of the country they now dwell in 163
36. Περί τών Παγανών, τών καί Άρεντανών καλουμένων, καί ής νϋν οίκοΰσι χώρας 164
36. Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in 165
37. Περί τοϋ έθνους τών Πατζινακιτών 166
37. Of the nation of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinaks) 167
38. Περί της γενεαλογίας τοϋ έθνους τών Τούρκων, καί δθεν κατάγονται 170
38. Of the genealogy of the nation of the Turks (Hungarians), and whence they are descended .. 171
39. Περί τοϋ έθνους τών Καβάρων 174
39. Of the nation of the Kabaroi (Κάβαροι) 175
40. Περί τών γενεών τών Καβάρων καί τών Τούρκων 174
40. Of the clans of the Kabaroi (Κάβαροι) and the Turks (Hungarians) 175
41. Περί της χώρας της Μοραβίας 180
41. Of the country of Moravia 181
42. Γεωγραφία άπδ Θεσσαλονίκης μέχρι τοΰ Δανούβεως ποταμοΰ καί τοΰ κάστρου Βελεγράδας, Τουρκίας τε καί Πατζινακίας μέχρι τοΰ Χαζαρικοΰ κάστρου Σάρκελ καί της 'Ρωσίας καί μέχρι τών Νεκροπύλων, τών δντων εις την τοΰ Πόντου θάλασσαν πλησίον τοϋ Δανάπρεως ποταμοΰ, καί Χερσώνος όμοϋ καί Βοσπόρου, έν οίς τά κάστρα τών κλιμάτων είσίν, εΐτα μέχρι λίμνης Μαιώτιδος, της καί θαλάσσης διά τό μέγεθος έπονομαζομένης, καί μέχρι τοΰ κάστρου Ταμάταρχα λεγομένου, προς τούτοις δέ καί Ζιχίας καί Παπαγίας καί Κασαχίας καί ’Αλανίας καί Άβασγίας καί μέχρι τοΰ κάστρου Σωτηριουπόλεως 182
42. Geographical description from Thessalonica to the Danube river and the city of Belgrade; of Turkey (Hungaria) and Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) to the Chazar city of Sarkel and Russia and to the Nekropyla, that are in the sea of Pontus, near the Dnieper river; and to Cherson together with Bosporus, between which are the cities of the Regions; then to the lake of Maeotis, which for its size is also called a sea, and to the city called Tamatarcha; and of Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals), moreover, and of Papagia and of Kasachia and of Alania and of Abasgia (Άβασγία) and to the city of Sotirioupolis 183
43. Περί της χώρας τοΰ Ταρών 188
43. Of the country of Taron 189
44. Περί της χώρας τοΰ Άπαχουνης καί τοϋ κάστρου τοΰ Μανζικίερτ καί τοΰ Περκρί καί τοΰ Χλιάτ καί τοΰ Χαλιάτ καί τοΰ Άρζές καί τοΰ Τιβί καί τοΰ Χέρτ καί τοΰ Σαλαμας καί τοΰ Τζερματζοΰ 198
44. Of the country of Apachounis and of the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) and Perkri and Chliat and Chaliat and Arzes and Tibi and Chert and Salamas and Tzermatzou 199
45. Περί τών Ίβήρων 204
45. Of the Iberians 205
46. Περί τής γενεαλογίας τών Ίβήρων καί τοϋ κάστρου Άρδανουτζίου 214
46. Of the genealogy of the Iberians and of the city of Ardanoutzi 215
47. Περί τής τών Κυπρίων μεταναστάσεως έχει ή ιστορία τάδε 224
47. Of the migration of the Cypriotes the story is as follows 225
48. Κεφάλαιον λθ’ τής άγίας έκτης συνόδου, τής έν τώ Τρούλλω τοΰ μεγάλου παλατίου γεγονυίας 224
48. Chapter 39 of the holy sixth synod, held in the Domed Hall of the Great Palace 225
49. Ό ζητών, δπως τή τών Πατρών έκκλησία οί Σκλάβοι δουλεύειν καί ύποκεϊσθαι έτάχθησαν, έκ τής παρούσης μανθανέτω γραφής 228
49. He who enquires how the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) were put in servitude and subjection to the church of Patras, let him learn from the present passage 229
50. Περί τών έν τώ θέματι Πελοποννήσου Σκλάβων, τών τε Μηλιγγών καί Έζεριτών καί περί τών τελουμένων παρ’ αύτών πάκτων, όμοίως καί περί τών οίκητόρων τοΰ κάστρου Μαΐνης καί τοΰ παρ’ αύτών τελουμένου πάκτου 232
50. Of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) in the province of Peloponnesus, the Milingoi and Ezeritai, and of the tribute paid by them, and in like manner of the inhabitants of the city of Maïna and of the tribute paid by them 233
51. Περί τοΰ, τίνι τρόπω γέγονεν τό βασιλικόν δρομώνιον, καί περί τών πρωτοκαρά-
βων τοΰ αύτοΰ δρομωνίου, καί οσα περί τοϋ πρώτο σπαθαρίου της φιάλης 246
51. Why the imperial galley came to be made, and of the steersmen of this same galley, and all about the protospatharius of the basin 247
52. Ή γενομένη άπαίτησις τών ιππαρίων έν τώ θέματι Πελοποννήσου επί 'Ρωμανοΰ δεσπότου, καθώς προείρηται 256
52. Demand made for horses in the province of Peloponnesus in the time of the sovereign Bomanus, as stated above 257
53.. Ιστορία περί τοΰ κάστρου Χερσώνος  258
53. Story of the city of Cherson ...  259
Index of Proper Names.. 288
Glossary... 314
Grammatical Notes .. 333
Index of Sources and Parallel Passages .. 337
Cod. Parisinus gr. 2009. fol. 12v (facsimile) facing page 16




In publishing this critical edition and translation of the text of the treatise De Administrando Imperio, compiled exactly one thousand years ago by the emperor Constantine VII, we feel that we should explain how our work began.

The editor of the Greek text started to work on it as long ago as 1926; but the carrying out of other academic projects interfered during many years with completing the collection of his material, and bringing it into final shape for publication. Then, the latter years of the world war made completion and publication alike impossible. Fortunately, however, the ms. survived the siege of Budapest; and immediately after the war efforts were again made to finish the work, and the question arose of bringing it out.

The first draft of the English translation was made independently. But while its publication was under consideration, chance brought it into relation with the publication of the Greek text. In the pursuit of our common purpose, we established contact with one another, and agreed that text and translation should be published together, believing that an edition of a Greek text is in­complete without a translation, and having in mind that, apart from the old Latin versions and those in the Russian and Croat languages, there is still no complete translation of the treatise in existence.

From the beginning of 1947 we have worked together, through the medium of correspondence, to bring text and translation into line with one another, and have thus been able to subject the work of each to the revision of the other. Doubtless both parts of the work have benefited from this revision. Certain deficiences came to light in the Greek text, and the editor owes some corrections to the translator, who has also contributed a few conjectural emendations to the apparatus. At the same time, the translator wishes to own a special debt to the editor, whose long study and deep knowledge of the text have assisted in solving many difficulties of interpretation; and though the translator takes responsibility for everything printed in the English version, he is happy to make this cordial acknowledgment to his senior colleague.

Edition and translation are complementary. For all that, their purposes are not quite identical; and it has been necessary that a few corruptions and errors which stand in the text of Constantine should be corrected in the version. We have therefore printed in italic those few words or phrases of the trans­lation which do not correspond exactly with the text. References to the present edition are cited by chapter and line of the chapter; in such citations the letter “Ρ” stands for “Proem” (Προοίμιον), i. e., the introductory passage which precedes chapter 1.

Fifty years ago two scholars, the Hungarian R. Vari and the Englishman J. B. Bury, were already concerning themselves with the preparation of a new edition of Constantine. In bringing to fulfillment what they were compelled to abandon, we dedicate this work to the memory of both.

Budapest — London 15th of March, 1949.
Gy. Moravcsik — R. J. H. Jenkins


This re-edition of the Text and Translation of D.A. /., which appeared in Budapest eighteen years ago, is published by the Harvard University Center for Byzantine Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D. C., and is the first of a series of texts to be brought out by this institute. We wish to thank Dumbarton Oaks for its generosity; and also that large number of scholars whose suggestions have enlarged our apparatus and improved our translation.

Despite minor corrections, it has been possible to preserve the earlier pagination and alignment of the Greek text: so that the Commentary1, which was arranged for use with the first edition, may equally well be used with the second.

Washington, D. C.
November, 1966 Gy. M. — R. J.

1 Const. Porph. De Adm. Imp. Vol. II, Commentary (University of London, The Athlone Press, 1962).


The emperor Constantine YII Porphyrogenitus1 (905—959) was the second and only surviving son2 of the emperor Leo YI, surnamed the Wise, (866—912) by his mistress and later fourth wife, Zoe Carbunopsina.3 Constantine’s early life was clouded by a series of misfortunes for which he himself was in no way responsible. His constitution was sickly, and he was indeed invalid throughout his life.4 His father’s birth was doubtful; and he was himself born out of regular wedlock, although his legitimacy was afterwards grudgingly recognized. From his eighth to his sixteenth year he was the pawn by turns of his malignant uncle Alexander, of his mother, of the patriarch Nicholas and of the lord admiral Romanus Lecapenus. After the seizure of power by the last of these in the year 920, he was for the next twenty four years held in a degrading tutelage, cut off from all power and patronage, and, though married to the usurper’s daughter Helen, demoted successively to second, third and perhaps fifth place in the hierarchy of co-emperors. It was not until January of the year 945, at the age of nearly forty, that, with the aid of a clique of guards officers devoted to his house, he was able to expel the Lecapenid usurpers and seat himself in sole majesty on the throne that was rightfully his.

1 Sources in A. Rambaud, L'Empire grec au dixieme siede, (Paris, 1870), pp. 1—4. For date of birth, see Vita Euthymii, (ed. de Boor, Berlin, 1888), pp. 116—-118; R. J. H. Jenkins, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19 (1965), pp. 108, 109.
2 His elder brother, Basil, son of his father’s third wife Eudocia, died in infancy; see De Cer., (ed. Bonn.), I, p. 643.
3 For her family, see Theoph. Cont., (ed. Bonn.), p. 370; D 4.1., 2279; Vita Euthy­mii, p. 58; and G. Kolias, Leon Choerosphactis, (Athens, 1939), p. 18.
4 Theoph. Cont., pp. 212, 379, 459, 464, 465.

For the next fourteen years he governed, or seemed to govern: for the substance of power appears to have been in the hands of the Augusta Helen, of the hetaeriarch Basil Peteinos, of the eparch Theophilus, of the sacellarius Joseph Bringas, and of the proto-vestiary Basil, the emperor’s illegitimate brother-in-law.5 These made or marred — for the traditions are conflicting6 — the internal administration. The church was scandalized by the impieties of the worldly patriarch Theophylact; he, dying in 956, was succeeded by the ascetic Polyeuctus, who soon showed that stiff-necked king Stork might be worse trouble than disreputable king Log. But abroad the imperial forces, under the leadership of Bardas Phocas and his two sons, and of the proto­vestiary Basil, continued, with occasional setbacks, that glorious career which had begun with the accession of Michael III and was to terminate only with the death of Basil II. The sole major disaster recorded of the reign was the failure of a costly but ill-led expedition against Crete in 949.7

During these years the emperor devoted himself with tireless zeal to the minutiae of every department of administration, and to the punctilious observance of every kind of imperial ritual.8 His greatest personal contributions to the prosperity of his empire were externally, in the sphere of diplomacy,9 and internally, in the encouragement of higher education.10 His relaxations were the pursuits which had always lain next his heart, and which, during the long years of his enforced seclusion, he had been able to cultivate without interruption: art, literature, history and antiquities.11 He found domestic happiness in the society of his three daughters, whom he tenderly loved;12 nor is there evidence that his relations with his wife were other than uniformly affectionate, despite a difference of temperament.13 With his only son Romanus he was not so fortunate. To fit the youth for his future lofty station, he lavished on him a wealth of minute instruction14 which was probably excessive. The boy is said to have grown up weak and even vicious; but the accounts are conflicting, and he died at the age of 24.

By the age of fifty-four the emperor was old and worn out. His fourteen years of power had been years of ceaseless toil, and his infirmities grew fast upon him. A quarrel with the patriarch Polyeuctus, whom he seems to have had in mind to depose,15 occasioned a journey to the monks and hermits of the Bithynian Olympus; and from them he learnt the mournful tidings of his own approaching dissolution.

5 Cedrenus, (ed. Bonn.), II, p. 326.
6 Γ. Hirach, Byzantinische Studien, (Leipzig, 1876), pp. 286ff.
7 Leo Diac., (ed. Bonn.), p. 7; Cedrenus, II, p. 336.
8 Theoph. Cont., pp. 447, 449.
9 Theoph. Cont., pp. 448, 455;DeCer., I, pp. 570ff.; Liutprand, Antapodosis, VI, 5.
10 Theoph. Cont., p. 446.
11 See A. Strânsky, ‘Costantino VII Porfirogenito, amante delle arti e collezio- nista’, in Attidel V Congresso Intemazionale di Studi Bizantini, (Rome, 1940), Π, pp. 412ff.
12 Theoph. Cont., p. 459.
13 Theoph. Cont., p. 458.
14 Theoph. Cont., p. 458.
16 Cedrenus, Π, p. 337; Theoph. Cont., pp. 463ff.

He dragged himself back to the City guarded of God; and there, on the 15th of November, 959, he died.16 In person, he was tall, broad-shouldered and erect in bearing, with a long face, an aquiline nose, blue17 eyes and a fair complexion. Of stainless morals, deep piety and unremitting devotion to duty, he was an emperor after the hearts of his people, who testified their affection by a spontaneous outburst of grief at his funeral.

The favorable and the unfavorable traditions concerning the character of Constantine VII provide no mutually incompatible elements.18 They show him to have been a weak and retiring personality, artistic, studious and laborious. If he drank wine to excess, it was his antidote to shyness. If he had fits of severity, even of cruelty, they were the obverse of his diffidence. His love of learning was inherited from his father, and was confirmed by seclusion. His lack of self-confidence was inveterated by his long durance in the hands of the Lecapenids. Yet in those years he was amassing a wealth of historical and antiquarian knowledge which bore fruit in those encyclopedic manuals and historical studies to which we owe the chief part of our knowledge of the machinery and organization of the mediaeval empire of East Rome.

His achievements in the cultural field were indeed immense. Of his patronage of the manual arts this is no place to speak. But of his encourage­ment of learning and research a word must be said. Himself deeply versed in classical learning,19 his liberal intelligence comprehended both the theoretical and the practical aspects of knowledge, the knowledge which was good in itself, and the knowledge which was necessary to enable the practical man to arrive at a correct decision in the affairs of life.20 To the latter branch, which was principally concerned with the study of history,21 he devoted especial attention; and from among the graduates of his university, of which he was, after the Caesar Bardas, second founder, he chose his higher bureaucrats and churchmen.22 To this practical education he naturally subjected his son Romanus also. If such knowledge was important for the governed in the conduct of their individual, everyday lives, how much more important was it for him who should govern all!23 How essential was it that decisions which would affect the whole world should be dictated by the utmost practical wisdom, sharpened by the widest experience and knowledge of every similar decision or parallel set of circumstances in the past!

16 The symptoms recorded (Theoph. Cont., p. 464) do not seem to support the later allegation that he was poisoned.
17 Theoph. Cont., p. 468, if that is what χαροποιούς means here; but cf. Genesis 49, 12, where the reference is to wine-induced brightness, and may in Theoph. Cont. covertly refer to the emperor’s φιλοινία.
18 Rambaud, op. cit., pp. 41, 42.
19 Zonaras, (ed. Bonn.), Ill, p. 483.
20 Theoph. Cont., p. 446; D.A.I., P6ff.
21 Theoph. Cont., p. 211.
22 Theoph. Cont., pp. 446, 447; Cedrenus, II, p. 326.
23 D.A.I., le.

This belief in the practical value of learning and education, which is set out at full in the preface to the De Administrando Imperio and repeated in many subsequent parts of the book, was, of course, derived through Plutarch24 from Aristotle; and the method of education through the early inculcation of precept, which is illustrated in a long series of mediaeval manuals of gnomic wisdom, goes back ultimately to the Ad Demonicum25 of the Pseudo-Isocrates, which, with the Latin Distieha of Cato, formed the basis of primary education throughout later mediaeval and renaissance Europe. But to Constantine may be given the credit for its revival at Byzantium; for, to teach practical wisdom, the material for such teaching is required, and was in his time extremely scanty. With tireless zeal he set about the enormous task of creating such material, and set about it in three ways: first, by diligent search for and collection of books, of which the supply was quite inadequate26; second, by the compilation of anthologies and encyclopedias from such books as existed but were too tedious or prolix for any but a scholar to read27; third, by writing or causing to be written histories of recent events and manuals of technical instruction on the various departments of business and administration.28 A school of historians wrote beneath his eye, sometimes at his dictation.29 Documents from the files of every branch of the administration, from the foreign ministry, the treasury, the offices of ceremonial, were scrutinized and abstracted.30 Provincial governors and imperial envoys wrote historical and topographical reports on the areas of their jurisdiction or assignment.31 Foreign ambassadors were diligently questioned as to the affairs of their respective countries.32 From every quarter the tide of information rolled in, was coordinated and written down. Learning became the key to worldly advancement.33

24 Plutarch, De Virtute Morali, (ed. Bemardakis, Leipzig, 1891), pp. 154, 155. For this technical usage of σοφία and φρόνησις cf. D.A.I., P7; Romanus was of course to be σοφός as well as φρόνιμος, but practical wisdom is the end of our treatise.
25 Cf. Ad Demonicum, p. 9 C, (βουλευόμενος παραδείγματα, κτλ.), with D.A.I., 46167 (άξιον γάρ, φίλτατε υιέ, κτλ.); ibid. p. 11 Ε (ώσπερ έκ ταμιείου προφέρης), withibid. 1313 (ώς έκ πατρικών θησαυρών προφέρειν).
26 De Ger., I, p. 456; Theoph. Cont., p. 212; Prooemium ad Excerpta de Legationibus (M. P. G., vol. CXIII), c. 633.; Exc. de leg., ed. de Boor, I, p. 1.
27 ibid. pp. 633, 636.
28 Theoph. Cont., pp. 3, 4; D.A.I., P26 (έσοφισάμην κατ’ έμαυτόν). For Constan­tine’s own works, see Rambaud, op. cit., p. 73, and for those compiled under his aegis, ibid., pp. 78ff.; also Moravcsik, in Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini, (Rome, 1939), I, pp. 514—516, and id., Byzantinoturcica, (Budapest, 1942), I, pp. 207ff. (2nd ed. pp. 358ff.).
29 Rambaud, op. cit., p. 65.
30 Bury, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XV, 1905, pp. 539ff.
31 Theoph. Cont., p. 448.
32 Bury, op. cit., pp. 553, 556.
33 Theoph. Cont., p. 447.

The principle laid down by the illiterate Basil I34 found its ultimate fulfillment in the educational reforms of his scholarly grandson. This is the true glory of the Porphyrogenitus. Among the great emperors who enriched the middle-Byzantine heritage between AD 843 and 1204, none is to be compared with Constantine VII for depth of scholarship, catholicity of interest or fineness of taste. Of the last, his Life of his grandfather is a unique memorial. It was Constantine who amassed the libraries from which his successors acquired their learning. With him Byzantium, rapidly approaching the apex of its military glory, as rapidly approached the apex of its intellectual achievement, an achievement fostered by a princely patron of the arts whose like the world scarcely saw in the thirteen centuries which divided Hadrian from Lorenzo the Magnificent.

The De Administrando Imperio,35 to give this nameless treatise the Latin title attached to it by Meursius,36 was written and complied, as we know from internal evidence, between the years 948 and 952.37 It is a manual of kingcraft addressed to the youthful Romanus, the emperor’s son, and is in form, like numerous other contemporary manuals on various subjects, avowed­ly didactic. It aims at teaching the youth to be a wise sovereign, first by a knowledge of past and present affairs, and second by giving him a summary of the experience of others in circumstances analogous to those likely to surround himself; so that, knowing what policies have succeeded or failed in the past, he may himself be able to act prudently and successfully in the future. The matter of this teaching is a political and historical survey of very wide extent, suitable to the training of one who is to rule the world. The preface divides it into four sections: the first, a key to foreign policy in the most dangerous and complicated area of the contemporary political scene, the area of the “northerners and Scythians”; the second, a lesson in the diplomacy to be pursued in dealing with the nations of this same area; the third and longest, a comprehensive historical and geographical survey of most of the nations surrounding the empire, starting with the Saracens (Moslems) to the south­east, fetching a compass round the Mediterranean and Black Seas, and ending with the Armenian states on the eastern frontier; the fourth, a summary of recent internal history, politics and organization, within the borders of the empire.39 Upon the whole, these divisions are adhered to in the text as we have it.40

34 Basilii Imp. Paraenesis ad Leonem flium (M. P. G., vol. CVII), p. XXI (περί παιδεύσεως; cf. D.A.I., ch. 1); and ibid., p. XLIX (περί μελέτης γραφών: cf. Theoph. Cont., p. 314).
35 For full bibliography, see Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, I, pp. 215—221 (2nd ed. pp. 367—380).
36 Johannes van Meurs (1579—1639); see below, p. 23.
37 Bury, op. cit., pp. 522ff.
38 D.A.I., 113, (διδάξαι).
39 ibid., 1*14 24*
40 Bury, op. cit., p. 574.

The method of compilation has been elucidated in detail in the General Introduction to the Commentary41. These findings can here be very briefly summarized. The work as we have it now is a rifaeimento of an earlier work which corresponds to chapters 14—42 in the present arrangement. This earlier work was a historical and antiquarian treatise probably entitled Περί εθνών, which the emperor had compiled during the 940’s as a companion volume to his Περί θεμάτων. As the Περί θεμάτων described the origins, anti­quities and topography of the imperial provinces, so the Περί εθνών told the traditional, sometimes legendary, stories of how the territories surrounding the empire came in past centuries to be occupied by their present inhabitants (Saracens, Lombards, Venetians, Slavs, Magyars, Pechenegs). These chapters, then, are the earliest parts of D.A.I. The remaining parts of the book (except for a few chapters — 23—25, 48, 52, 53 and perhaps 9 and 30 — of source- material included by oversight) are notices of a different kind: they are political directives, illustrated by contemporary or nearly contemporary examples. Chapters 1—8, 10—12, explain imperial policy towards the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and Turks (Hungarians). Chapter 13 is a general directive on foreign policy from the emperor’s own pen. Chapters 43—46 deal with contemporary policy in the north-east (Armenia and Georgia). Chapters 49—52 are guides to the incorporation and taxation of new imperial provinces, and to some parts of civil and naval administration. These later parts of the book are designed to give practical instruction to the young emperor Romanus II, and were probably added to the Περί εθνών during the year 951—952, in order that the whole treatise might mark Romanus’ fourteenth birthday (952). The book as it now stands is there­fore an amalgam of two unequal parts: the first historical and antiquarian, the second political and diplomatic.

The sources of the various sections, where these are known, are noted in the apparatus to the present volume. But the peculiar construction of the book, with its diversity of styles and often careless expression, calls for a note of explanation regarding the English translation. The chief value of the treatise to the modern historian lies in its third section, which provides information not found elsewhere about the origins and early history of many nations established on the borders of the Byzantine empire in the tenth century of our era. This information, valuable as it is, is oft'en given in a style so careless as to leave many statements open to more than one interpretation. Chapter 39 is a notable instance of this;42 but there are several others. Now, these state­ments have been, are and probably will continue to be the subject of contro­versy between scholars of many nations; and it is therefore our duty as trans­lators, at whatever cost to elegance or even in a few cases to sense, to render as closely as possible what the text says rather than what we are disposed to think it means to say. Interpretations may be left to a commentary. If there­fore our rendering is in some cases ambiguous, so is the original. If it often halts, so does the text. If it is often inelegant and uncouth, it is no more so than the Greek. Where our author is plain and even elegant, we have tried to preserve his idiom; where he has left his sources to tell their own stories in their own styles, we have left them too.

41 See D.A.I. Vol. II, Commentary (London, 1962), pp. 1—8; also Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica (2nd ed.) I, pp. 361—367.
42 1). A. /., 393_5, 7_10.

With all its inaccuracies and shortcomings,43 the De Administrando Imperio, for the bulk and variety of its information on so much of foreign relations and internal administration, must be allowed to be one of the most important historical documents surviving from mediaeval Byzantium, even surpassing the great Book of Ceremonies compiled by the same indefatigable author. Its very omissions, the lack of any historical account of Bulgaria or of an up-to-date appreciation of the Saracen power, have their own historical lessons to teach us: for these two longstanding menaces to the empire had at length yielded, the one to the diplomacy of Romanus I, the other to the hammer of Gourgen. The first-hand information comes mainly from Italy, from the Balkans and Steppes, and from Armenia. In Armenia the advance of the Roman arms and the retreat of the Saracens involved a complicated Roman diplomacy in the numerous and jealous principalities beyond the eastern frontier. In a divided and enfeebled Italy, during the interim between the empires of Charlemagne and Otto, Byzantium was for the last time in its history a strong military and diplomatic influence. The only hint of anxiety comes from the north, where the watchful eyes of the foreign ministry observed intently the ever shifting kaleidoscope of the political scene, as Magyar and Slav, Russian and Pecheneg, Chazar and Alan made their complicated moves between the Caucasus and the Carpathians.

There is no doubt that the De Administrando Imperio was a secret and confidential document. It tells too much about the principles of imperial for­eign policy and diplomacy, especially in the first thirteen chapters, to be safe for publication. Knowledge of these early chapters would have been worth untold sums in blackmail to the Pechenegs (Patzinaks). Moreover, in the Armenian chapters there are several traces of information got through secret service channels,44 which the government must have been most reluctant to divulge. Nor is it probable that the outspoken criticisms which the emperor passes on his father-in-law and colleague48 were intended for general reading. These criticisms betray the justifiable resentment of a prince deprived of his throne by an interloper during a quarter of a century; but his strong regard for the imperial dignity would have debarred him from publishing this resentment to the world at large. This confidential character of the book, confirmed, if confirmation be required, by its manuscript history and by the circumstance that later writers betray no knowledge of it,46 enhances its value. It is no partial document of propaganda, fudged up to impress domestic or foreign circles. Much of it is an honest appreciation of the contemporary political situation, compiled from information upon which the government based its day-to-day foreign policy. And, as such, it is unique.

48 Bury, op. cit., p. 574.
44 e. g·! D.A.I. 4313-1β, 4661_β4·
45 ibid., 13l4”-175> 5İ184-186·
46 See below, p. 32.



The De Administrando Imperio is preserved in four mss.1 Three of these contain the full text, the fourth a part only. These mss. are:

P = codex Parisinus gr. 2009: codex on vellum, of 211 numbered leaves.2 There are also some additional leaves, 4 at the beginning of the ms. (3 vellum, 1 paper), and 7 at the end (4 paper, 3 vellum). The leaves are of sizes varying between c. 23.8 cm — 24 cm χ 15 cm. The first three of the additional leaves are blank. On the recto of the fourth is a Greek table of the contents of the codex, in a later hand;3 on the verso of the same leaf is gummed a small slip of paper, inscribed with the table of contents in Latin.4 On the first numbered page begins the first Greek text, which covers 4 pages (fol. lr—2V); it is entitled: Επιστολή Πυθαγόρα πρός Λαΐδα (“Letter of Pythagoras to Laïs”), and is followed, still on fol. 2V, by a table which relates to it. The “Letter” and table have been published from this ms. by P. Tannery.6 At fol. 31 begins the text of D.A. I, and it finishes at fol. 21 lr. This text originally constituted an independent codex, with which the “Letter of Pythagoras” was subsequently bound up, as is clear from the facts, a) that the numeration of the quatemios eiuadem de vita et morbo, victoria et clade aliisque rebus, inventione et amissione, lucro et damno, bona via et mala. Constantini Imperatoris ad Romanum filium Porphyrogeni- tum Imperatorem. Est liber de administrando imperio, quem edidit Meursius.

1 See Gy. Moravcsik, “Η χειρόγραφος παράδοσις τοϋ De administrando imperio’, Έπετηρίς 'Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, 7 (1930), pp. 138—152.
2 See Η. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque Natio- nale, vol. II (Paris, 1888), p. 178.
3 “Κωνσταντίν(ου) βασιλέ(ως) 'Ρωμαί(ων) πρός 'Ρωμαν(όν) τον ίδιον υιόν καί συμβασιλέα έθνογραφία κ(αί) χωρογραφία κ(αί) ποικίλη τις ιστορία τείνουσα πρός όρθήν διοίκησιν τ(ής) 'Ρωμαί(ων) βασιλεί(ας) No. 21.”
4 “Codex 1783. Membr. 13. saec. Epistola Pythagorae ad Laidem cum laterculo
5 ‘Notices sur des fragments d’onomatomancie arithm6tique’, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothique Nationale et autres bibliotheques, vol. XXXI. 2. partie, (Paris, 1886), pp. 231—260; cf. Κ. I. Dyobuniotes, Όνοματομαντεία’, Εις μνήμην Σπυρί­δωνος Λάμπρου, (Athens, 1935), pp. 491—494.

Ms. 1240 begins only at fol. 3r; and b) that the beginning of D.A. /., that is to say, the first page (fol. 3r) of the original codex, is so much worn, and the handwriting so indistinct, as to require its mending in brown ink by a later hand. In any case, the “Letter of Pythagoras” is copied in a different, and in all probability a later, hand. The subsequent history of the codex gives us, as we shall see, some clue as to when the “Letter” became attached to the ms. of D.A.I.

The text of D.A.I. ends in the middle of fol. 21 lr. The rest of this page and its verso, which, as it was the last page of the original codex, is very much the worse for wear, contain a number of notes in different and, in some cases, later hands. Of especial interest as casting light on the origin of the codex is that written on the then blank fol. 211v by the actual copyist of D.A. /., in the same red ink which he employed for the initial letters and headings of the chapters. Some of the letters in this note are so much worn and so dim as to render them now almost illegible. The text of this metrical epilogue is as follows: βίβλος καίσ[αρ]ος 2Ίωάννου τοΰ Δούκα 3γραφή(σα) χερσίν 4οίκογενούς οΐκέτου 5Μιχα(ή)λ όνόματι 6τοϋ 'Ροϊζαΐτου f, which makes it quite clear that the ms. at one time belonged to the library of the Caesar John Ducas, and that the copyist was his own confidential secretary, Michael.6 Unfortunately there is no date, but the name of the Caesar John Ducas, references to whom in Byzantine sources occur between the years 1059—1081, proves that the ms. was copied towards the end of the XI century. This is confirmed by a dated note in a later hand on the same page, which contains a reference to the year 1098/9.7

Concerning the adventures of the codex during the Byzantine age we have no other information, apart frçm the evidence of marginal notes to be described lower down; it emerges again only towards the beginning of the XVI century, when it was copied in 1509 by Antony Eparchus, very probably in the island of Corfu (see ms. V below). By the middle of the century our ms. was in Italy, whither it had been brought perhaps through the agency of Janus Lascaris.8 The first mention of it in Italy is in the catalogue of the library of Cardinal Niccolo Hidolfi.9 On the death of Hidolfi in 1550, it passed,

6 See G. Kolias, "Ο καισαρ ’Ιωάννης Δούκας άντιγραφεύς τοΰ cod. Par. Gr. 2009 τοϋ De administrando imperio’, Έπετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, 14 (1938), pp. 300—305; Gy. Moravcsik, ‘La provenance du manuscrit byzantin du “De admini­strando imperio”’, Bulletin de la Societe Historique Bulgare, 16—18 (1940), pp. 333—337; B. Leib, ‘Jean Doukas, C6sar et moine’, Analecta Bollandiana 68 (1950), pp. 163—180. — In the deciphering of the text I was given valuable assistance by Prof. F. Dölger (Mu­nich) and Dir. V. Laurent (Paris), to whom I express my sincere gratitude.
7 See Gy. Moravcsik, Έπετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, 7 (1930), p. 141, but cf. V. Laurent, Erasmus, 3 (1950) p. 766.
8 See B. Knös, Un ambassadeur de Vhellenisme — Janus Lascaris — et la tradition greco-byzantine dans l’humanisme français, (Uppsala-Paris, 1945), pp. 213, 216.
9 “Num. 21. Constantini Romanorum Imperatoris ad Romanum filium descriptio gentium et locorum, ac varia historia ad rectam administrationem tendens.” See B. Mont- faucon, Bibliotheca bibliotheearum. manuscriptorum nova II (Parisiis, 1739), p. 777.
Cod. Parisinus gr. 2009. fol. 12v

Manuscripts along with others of his books, into the possession of Pietro Strozzi, and later, in 1560, into the collection of Catherine de Medici. At this period some chap­ters from it were transcribed by Andrea Darmari (see ms. M below). From Catherine’s library it passed in 1599 to the Bibliotheque Royale in Paris, where it was numbered 2661.10 Now, since the relevant entry in the catalogue of Ridolfi’s library is simply a Latin rendering of the Greek note on the recto of the fourth fly-leaf at the beginning of our ms. (see above), and since this entry notes D.A.I. only, we conclude that the “Letter of Pythagoras” was attached to our ms. subsequently to its being placed in the Bibliotheque Royale. This conclusion is confirmed by the circumstance that the present sumptuous binding of gilt red morocco bears the cypher of King Henry IV (1589—1610).

This manuscript, some pages of which have been published in facsimile,11 I have studied by means of photographic reproductions in the Library of the Hungarian National Museum, and also by examination of the original in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris in 1936 and in 1948.

The text of D.A.I. was, as we have seen, copied by a certain Michael Roïzaıtes. Only in two passages (fol. 31v—32Γ — 1422 συμψευδομαρτυροϋντος —156 πολέμους καί, and 35v—36Γ = 206 καί την νήσον — 2113 γενέσ&αι)12 has another hand relieved him. The text is written in single columns, and the columns vary in dimension between c. 16—17 cm. deep X 11—12 cm. across. The medium is the usual dark brown Byzantine ink, save that initial letters and headings of chapters are in red, a detail which goes back to the original copyist. The script is a mixture of uncial and minuscule; γ, S, ε, ζ, η, κ, λ, μ, ξ, π are written both ways indifferently; uncial forms of β, φ, ω are un­common, and very rare are uncial forms af α, v, σ, ψ. Here and there we find a cursive ■&, while τ occasionally rises above the height of the other letters. Rough breathing is still angular in shape, but the smooth breathing is always round. The writing is either on the ruled lines or under them, but never above them. Ligature abbreviations are frequent; short-hand abbreviations and abbreviations by suspension occur rarely, and mostly at the ends of lines. The copyist is fond of special ligatures for ατ, σσ, ττ, of kinds which occur in other contemporary mss.

10 See H. Omont, ‘Un premier catalogue des manuscrits grecs du cardinal Ridolfi’, Bibliotheque de I’lHcole des Chartes, 49 (1888), pp. 309—323; J. Haury, Sitzungsberichte der phüos.-philol. und der hist. Classe der bayer. Akademie der Wiss. 1895. I, pp. 142—143, 147; V. Gardthausen, Sammlungen und Gataloge griechischer Handschriften, (Leipzig, 1903), p. 18; F. Dölger, ‘Der Titel des sog. Suidaslexikons’, Sitzungsberichte der Bayeri- schen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Abt. 1936. Heft 6., (München, 1936), pp. 36—37.
11 See Ârpâd es az Ârpâdok, szerk. Csânky Dezsö, (Budapest, 1908): fol. lllr = p. 46/7., fol. 112v = p. 168/9., fol. 113r = p. 174/5., fol. 11SV = p. 140/1.; cf. Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, vol. II, (Budapest, 1943), p. 51 (2nd ed. pi. Π, no. 4). See also the facsimile on the opposite page.
12For the principles which have been applied to the transcription of the mss. variants, see below p. 37.

In the orthography the most notable points are these: iota subscript is never found, iota adscript once only (53382 τώι). As regards peculiarities of accentuation, we may note that proper names ending in -ΐτα,ι in many cases carry the paroxytone accent in nom. and gen. plural (e. g. 22 Πατζινακίται, 814 Πατζινακιτων, 53535 Χερσωνίται, 5365 Χερσωνίτων); while the genitive plural of paroxytone racial names in -ος is sometimes perispomenon (e. g. 2843 Φραγγών, 322 Σερβλών). The word έπεί is occasionally accented with double stroke: έπεί'(e. g. 4822, 499, 4913). With regard to misspellings due to pronun­ciation, it is particularly noticeable that the copyist makes the same error consistently through a series of particular words or forms. Characteristic ex­amples of such regularly repeated misspellings are: αι for ε at the end of 2nd person plural verbs (e. g. 827 έκαθέζεσ&αι, 5370 μάθεται, 53477 ύποδείξαται); et for η commonly in the words ειτις = ήτις (e. g. 136, 2664, 29234), ειπερ = ήπερ (e. g. 3849, 50192) and είς = ής (e. g. 31x, 35x, 43187); and in the augmented forms of the verb αιτώ (e. g. 29l67 είτίσατο = ήτήσατο, 4229 είτήσαντο = ήτήσαντο, 50209 είτήσατο = ήτήσατο); η for ει almost invariably in the infinitive forms -ειν and -εΐν (e. g. 18 πηδαλιουχήν, 479 διαπεσήν), and quite often also in the words ή and ή = zl (e. g. 1387, 29148, 4116), δη = δει (e. g. 1319, 13146), and in the verb υπήκω = ύπείκω (e. g. 3838, 5029, 5081). Some confusion is seen in the use of ει and η in the different forms of the verbs λαμβά­νω and λείπω (e. g. P31 λείψεται = λήψεται, 25M συνελείφθη = συνελήφθ-η, 29203 άπολείψεσθ-αι = άπολήψεσθ-ε, 2126 ύπελήφθ-ησαν = ύπελείφθησαν, 2630 καταληφθ-είς = καταλειφθ-εις, 4622 κατελήφθ-η = κατελείφθ-η). ω is found consistently for 0 in the -ονται termination of the 3rd person plur. pres. ind. pass. (e. g. 9m κατέρχωνται, 3129 περισώζωνται, 3764 εύρίσκωνται); and often also in the termination -ov of nom. neut. partic. act. (e. g. 967 εχων, 1399 κατελ- θων, 3758 άποβλέπων). From verbs beginning with 0 the temporal augment is usually absent (e. g. 1351 διορίσατο, 2671 μετονομάσθη, 3046 όρμισαν). Fromthepointofviewofthehistory ofByzantinepronunciationitissignificantthatinourcodexwefrequentlymeetwithυ for01 (e. g. 202 στυχήσας = στοιχή- σας, 454 μυχευθήσης = μοιχευθ-είσης, 51120 ήνυξαν = ήνοιξαν), andviceversa(e. g. 935 προιμναν = πρύμναν, 2652 δμνοίοντες = δμνύοντες, 53191 φροιαττό- μενος = φρυαττόμενος). This proves that at the period when the work was copied, the pronunciation of these two sounds was still identical (a modi­fied u). An odd feature, which we meet here and elsewhere, is the frequent interchange between the forms ημείς and υμείς (e. g. 27 35 4315 5369). As regards consonants, we note uncertainty in the writing of double consonants (e. g. P27 άντιτάσεσθαι, 159 φοσάτον, 4223 έναλλασόμενοι, 919 ίουννίου, 2822 νησσών, 4539 σήμμερον); and the substitution of μθ, μπ for νθ, νπ (e. g. 13107 συμπεμ- θεριασαι, 269 έμ Παλαιστίνη, 2776 έμπρώτοις); and of χν for γχν (e. g. 2997 σπλαχνησ&εΐς = σπλαγχνισθ-είς).

These details also throw light on contemporary pronunciation. There is a curious use of v for γ before γ, κ, χ (e. g. 2773 Κόνκορδα, 2938 ένκρύμματα, 43113 διαγονγγύζοντες, 52n κονχυ- λευταί); moreover, while on the one hand the accusative sing, in a of 3rd declension substantives and the -θ-η or -η of the 3rd pers. sing. aor. pass, indie, add a v before a word beginning with a vowel (e. g. 1332 βασιλέαν, 2649 ρίναν, 2665 θυγατέραν, 53317 νύκταν, 3233 έγεννήθην, 43177 άπεστάλην), on the other hand the v of the acc. sing, of μέγας (e. g. 929, 416, 46151), and of the 1st pers. sing. aor. pass, indie, drops off before words beginning with a con­sonant (e. g. 2728 ένομίσθ-η, 29168 έδιώχ&η, 53g47 ήναγκάσθη).

In the ms. we note several words erased, amended, completed or correct­ed. A detailed study of the original may identify traces of at least six different hands in the text and, besides, of five other hands which have added marginal notes. There is no doubt that the copyist himself made some erasures and corrections; but from the styles of the handwriting and from other evidence it can be established that many alterations have been made by hands in the XIY and later centuries. In one place a marginal gloss bears a date which proves it to have been written in 1361/2 (168). To determine the chronology of certain other alterations we may argue from the fact that in V, which was copied from P, we often find the true text as it was before correction, which proves that at least these alterations in P were done by a hand posterior to the date when Y was copied, that is, posterior to 1509 (e. g. P19 εθνών P V: έθ-ών Py || 38^ ο Άλμούτζης P V: Σαλμούτζης Py |j 3849 Άλμούτζη P Y: Σαλμούτζη Py).

In the margins of the ms. are notes, some of which are from the hand of the original copyist, but others, as the style of handwriting demonstrates, from those of later readers, principally of the XIV and XVI centuries. Some of these notes are in Latin. In the marginal notes, too, we may distinguish at least six hands. Those which go back to the hand of the copyist are mainly chapter-headings and citations of the contents, which were added to the text either by collaborators of the imperial author or by later scribes and readers. At least one of these original notes is not contemporary with the work itself, as is proved beyond doubt by its reference to the Abbot John Tomices as holder of the office of Syncellus, an office which, as we know, was conferred on him about the year 979;13 this note, therefore, was written about three decades after the treatise was compiled.

A list of these original comments, and the passages to which they refer, is as follows: lx Πε(ρί) τών Πατζινακιτών || 2X Πε(ρί) τών Πα- τζινακιτών (καί) τών 'Ρώς || 3Χ Πε(ρί) τών Πατζινακιτ(ών) (καί) Τούρ- κ(ών) II 4Χ Πε(ρί) τών γ'έθ-ν(ών) || 51 Πε(ρί) τών Πατζινακιτ(ών) (καί) τ(ών) Βουλγάρων || 6Χ Πε(ρί) τών Πατζινακιτ(ών) (καί) Χερσωνιτών || 7χ Πε- (ρί) τ(ών) άπό Χερσώνος άποστελλομ(ένων) βασιλικ(ών) έν Πατζινακία || 8χ

13 Ν. Adontz, ‘Tomik le moine’, Byzantûm, 13 (1938), pp. 148—149.

Πε(ρί) του άποστελλομ(ένου) βασιλικ(οΰ) έκ τ(ής) πόλ(εως) διά τ(ών) ποτ(α)μ(ών) || 823 Πε(ρί) τοΰ κληρικού Γαβριήλ || 91 Πε(ρί) τοΰ πώς κατέρχωντ(αι) οί 'Ρώς έν Κωνσταντινουπό(λει) || 922 Πε(ρί) τών λεγομ(ένων) καταράκτ(ων) || 939 Πε(ρί) τοΰ β'φραγμ(οΰ) [| 943 Πε(ρι) τοΰ γ'φραγμ(οΰ)

II  945 Πε(ρί) τοϋ δ'φραγμ(οΰ) || 957 Πε(ρί) τοΰ ζ φραγμοΰ || 961 Πε(ρί) τοΰ ς φραγμού || 964 Πε(ρί) τοΰ ζ'φραγμοΰ || 972 Πε(ρί) της νήσου καί τοΰ δρυός καί τών θυσιών || 9114 Πε(ρί) τ(ών) Ουζω(ν) || lOj Πε(ρί) τής Χαζαρίας || 1İ! Πε(ρί) τής Χερσώνο(ς) και τ(ής) Βοοσπόρου || 1373 Πε(ρί) τοΰ λαμπρού || 16χ Τδ θεμάτιν τών Σαρακιν(ών) (καί) ποοον χρό(νον) έξήλθ(ον) II 2116 Διέρε(σΐς) τών Αράβων || 2137 ε'άρχηγδ(ς) ’Αράβων || 2149 Ούτος παρεκάθησε(ν) την Κωνσταντινούπο(λιν) || 229 /ίρη'|| 2240 Πε(ρί) τής νήσσου τής Κρήτης || 2261 /ίσπη'|| 316 Διά τί λέγωνται Χρ(ω)- βάτοι Κ 3310 Πόθ(εν) λέγω(ν)ται Ζαχλούμοι || 34Χ Πε(ρί) έτέρ(ων) εθνών || 3618 Πε(ρί) τοΰ άγίου άπο(στόλου) Λουκά καί Παύλου || 3715 "Οτι η'άρχο(ν)- τες είσί(ν) έν Πατζιν(α)κία || 3733 "Οτι (καί) εις μ'μέρη ή Παζινακί(α) || 3810 "Οτι οί Τούρ(κοι) εις ζ'διαιρούνται || 421 Πε(ρι)ήγη(σις) γεωγρα(φική) τής σκυθ-ικής γής || 43136 Ούτο(ς) έστί(ν) ό π(ατ)ήρ Νικο(λάου) μαγίστρου τοΰ Τορνίκη || 44Χ Πε(ρί) τ(ών) κά(στρων) τ(ής) ’Ανατολής || 45j Πε(ρί) τών Ίβήρων || 4556 Ούτο(ς) (έστίν) δ Τζιμισχ(ής) έπικληθείς || 45100 Πε(ρί) τοΰ κά(στρου) τοΰ Άβνίκου || 45103 Οδτο(ς) (έστίν) Ζουρβανέλ(ης) ό π(ατ)ήρ τοΰ Τορνίκη τ(οΰ) άβα του άρτ(ίως) συγκέλλου || 46Χ Πδθ(εν) γεγόνα(σιν) οί "Ιβηρες || 47Χ Πε(ρί) τ(ών) Κυπρίων || 50235 Ποιου τιμήματ(ος) ήν τοΰ (πρωτοσπαθαρίου) άξίωμα || 5İJ Πε(ρί) τοΰ δρομωνίου || 5310 05το(ς) (έστίν) ό τοΰ μεγάλου Κωνσταντ(ίνου) π(ατ)ήρ.

The marginal notes appended by later hands consist principally of repetitions of words or names occuring in the text; but there are a few which are worth noting from the point of view of their content. These are: 3X Πατζινάκαι οί Δακες πρότερον Ρ5 (cf. Suidas s. v. Δάκες, ed. Ada Adler,

II, p. 2.) || 5ί Πατζινάκαι οί Δάκες, Βούλγαροι οί Μυσοί Ρ5 |] 168 νΰν δέ (έστιν) ('ωο'(ΐνδικτιώνος) ιε'ως είναι άπδ τότ(ε) εως νΰν χρόνοι ψμ'Ρ3 || 2169 Περί τοΰ Άλήμ τοΰ γαμβρού τοΰ Μουάμεθ Ρ2 j| 2174 Πόλεμος Άλήμ καί Μαβία Ρ8 || 28^ Μαδαμα(ύκον) τδ νΰν Μαλαμόκ(ον) Ρ8 || 29258 Τραγούριον Ρ7 ]| 30115 ’Αλβούνου Ρ7 Άλμπόνα Ρ8 || 32u Σέρβλια Ρ6 τα νΰν Σέρβοια έν τη Βεροία Ρ8 || 3212 Σέρβλοι διά τί δούλοι ρωμαϊκ(ώς) Ρ5 || 3620 Φάρα νήσος ή Λέζενα Ρ8 || 3621 Βράτζης νήσος τα Πράτζα Ρ8 || 4024 Έτέλ πο(ταμδς) κ(αί) Κουζοΰ Ρ8.

Marginal notes and textual emendations are especially frequent in the chapters dealing with the Arabs (14—22), a fact which, like the gloss of the year 1361/2, mentioned above, suggests that this section of the treatise was at some time or another an object of peculiar interest to Byzantine readers.

The original text has not merely been subject to emendations and alter­ations by later hands, but has also been touched by the hand of time. We have said that the writing on the first and last pages of the originally indepen­dent ms. was so much worn and faded that it had to be rewritten.

Traces of such rewriting are observable in other parts of the codex as well. Apart from these ravages of time, some leaves (fol. 59, 63, 75, 80) have received such material damage through clipping of the margins that the text itself is impaired and some letters are missing.

Y = codex Vaticanus—Palatinus gr. 126: codex on paper of 271 number­ed leaves; 3 additional leaves at the beginning, 1 at the end. Leaves measure 21.2 X 15.4 cm. Ms. contains several works. After D.A.I., which covers fol 2r to 127r, come works of Tzetzes, Theophrastus, Bessarion and Nicolas Secun- dinus, though these have been copied by other hands.14 At the end of the text of D.A.I., at the bottom of fol. 127r, are two notes in the hand of the copyist: δόξα τω θ·(ε)φ τω λόγον καί γνώσιν τοϊς άν(θ·ρώπ)οις δωρουμένω: ,αφθ': ΐου- ν(ίω) ε'11 έτελειώθ(η): ,αφνδ'7 μαΐω ις'71. έγώ Αντώνιος ό Έπαρχος παΐς ών κατά τό;αφθ'ον ετος έγραψα τό άνωθ-(εν) βιβλίον (“Glory be to God who giveth under­standing and knowledge to men: finished, 5th June 1509. — 16 May, 1554:

I,  Antony Eparchus, then a boy, wrote this book in the year 1509.”) It was, then, the well-known humanist of Corfiot origin, Antony Eparchus (1491— 1571), who copied the ms.—apart from a single passage at fol. 16v (= 13192_197), which is in another hand — in the 18th year of his age; three years before, in 1506, he had completed his ms. copy of the Gospels.15 The ms. passed into the possession of John Egnatius (1473—1553),16 probably very soon after it was copied, since Egnatius in the book which he published in 1516 refers to it as being already in his library.17 It should seem that the second note, dated 16th May 1554, was penned when Eparchus, after the death of Egnatius, came across his own copy among the relics of the deceased.

14See H. Stevenson, Codices manuscripti Palatini graeci bibliothecae Vaticanae, (Romae, 1885), p. 60.
15 See E. Legrand, Bibliographic hellenique au 15e et 16e siecles, I, (Paris, 1885), pp. CCX—CCXXVII; L. Dorez, ‘Antoine Eparque’, Melanges d’archeologie et d'histoire,
13  (1893), pp. 281—364; M. Vogel—V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber desMittel- alters und der Renaissance, (Leipzig, 1909), p. 35.
16Stevenson, op. cit., p. 302; A. Firmin-Didot, AldeManuce et I'hellinisme a Venise, (Paris, 1875), pp. 449-452.
17 “... hie (sc. Constantinus) â literis, optimisque disciplines non abhorrens, quas pene extinctas ab interitu uindicauit, librum Romano filio reliquit. in quo snmmam totius imperii, sociorum omnium foedera, hostium uires, rationes, consilia explicuit. quem nos in bibliotheca nostra tanquam thesaurum seruamus, in quo multa de Venetis etiam nostris imperator ipse disserat.” See J. B. Egnatius, De Caesaribus libri III a dictatore Caesare ad Constantinum Palaeologum, hinc ά Carolo Magno ad Maximilianum Caesarem, (Venetiis, 1516) (sine numeris pag.); cf. Romanorum principum 11. Ill, ex reeognitione Des. Erasmi Roterodami, (Basileae, 1518), p. 850.

The codex next passed to the Bibliotheca Palatina at Heidelberg, where it appears in the catalogue compiled by Fr. Sylburg about the year 1584.18 From Heidelberg it was trans­ferred in 1623, along with other mss., to the Vatican Library in Rome.

In the margins of V, as of P, there is a number of notes in Greek and Latin, which are the additions of later readers. An exceptionally large pro­portion of these notes is appended to the chapters dealing with Venice (27, 28), which obviously were of particular interest to Italian readers. Some of these are worth our attention: 2769 μαστρομήλης ό καπετάνιος || 2773 Κονκόρδια || 27g0 Κόγραδον vide ne Γράδον || 2782 'Ριβαλένσης || 2783 Λικέντζιά || 2786 Μαδοΰκον || 2787 Βρουνδουλον (sine acc.) || 2 788 Λαύριτον || 2793 'Ρίβαλτον || 2822 Άεΐβολας || 29^ Τράγουρις || 2 9263 Κάτερα.

I have studied this ms. partly by means of photographic reproductions in the library of the Hungarian National Museum, and partly by examination of the original in the Vatican Library in 1927 and in 1936.

F = codex Pwrisinm gr. 2967: codex on paper, of 241 numbered leaves and 11 additional leaves. Leaves measure 32 X 21.5 cm. Apart from the text of D.A. which covers fol. lr to 80v, ms. includes several other works, such as compositions of Photius, Themistius, Choricius, Polybius and Apollodorus.19 The first part of D.A.I. (fol. lr to 16v) was copied by Antony Eparchus, as appears from a comparison of the script with that of V; the remainder (fol. 17r to 80v), together with the excerpts of ν. add. τοϋ έκ Μακεδονίας Ρ3: Βασιλείου τοΰ έκ Μακεδονίας V.

6. In two passages of the text of P (2253, 2257: correction of the word Αράβων) we recognise unmistakably the handwriting of Antony Eparchus (s= P4).

These examples prove indisputably that the youthful Antony Eparchus copied V from P in 1509. For all that, V is not a faithful, verbal transcript of P. The text of V, as compared with P, shows many significant variants, a large proportion of which has crept into the editions (Me, Ba, Be). It is unnecessary to detail all the errors of V; some examples are:

1.The copyist of V often omits words or phrases, e. g.: 915 καί άπέρχον- ται om. V (F Me) || 1349 βασιλέως om. V (F Me Ba Be) || 2149_50 τοΰ Μουάμεθ- έκράτησεν της αρχής τών ’Αράβων, ούκ έκ τοΰ γένους ήν om. V(F Me) II 2557_59 έν τω Βαγδάδ, έστιν δέ έκ της τοΰ Μουάμεθ· γενεάς, ήτοι τοΰ Μουχούμετ . ό δέ δεύτερος καθίζεται om. Υ (F Me) || 4057 έποίησεν υιόν τον Έζέλεχ om. V (F Me) || 45u χρηματισθήναι om. V (F Me Ba Be) || 5090_91 Ίστέον, δτι ή τοΰ Χαρσιανοΰ στρατηγίς τοΰρμα ήν το παλαιόν της τών Άρμενιάκων στρατηγίδος om. Υ (F Me) || 50152 καί om. V (F Me Ba Be) II 5172_74 ο τοΰ πρωτοσπαθαρίου ’Αρσενίου καί μαγγλαβίτου πατήρ. Ουτοι δέ, δ τε ό πρωτοσπα&άρίος ό Ποδάρων καί ό πρωτοσπαθάριος Λέων ό Άρμένης om. V (F Me) || 53343—344 Καί λέγει τη παιδίσκη. “Πώς εύρες τό πράγμα τοϋτο;” om. Υ (F Me).

2.The copyist of V read or transcribed some words incorrectly, e. g.: 969 φθάζειν Ρ: φ·9·άνειν V (F Me Ba Be) || 2 550 κροτηθέντος P (Ba Be): κρατη&έντος V (F Me) || 2787 Βρουνδον P (Ba Be): Βροΰδον V (F Me) II 3042 άρεσθέντες Ρ: έρασθέντες V (F Me Ba Be) || 3294 έχοντας P (Be): έχοντες V (F Me Ba) || 38^ προ ρηθέντες Ρ: προειρημένοι V (F Me Ba Be) || 407 Κάβαροι P (Ba Be): Βάκαροί V (F Me) || 40Μ Σφενδοπλόκος P (Ba Be): Σφενδονοπλόκος V (F Me) || 42106 Σπαταλοΰ Ρ: ποταμοΰ V (F Me Ba Be) || 4326 έσκήπτετο P (Be): έσκέπτετο V (F Me Ba) II 4419 Άπελβάρτ P (Ba Be): Άπελκάρτ V (F Me) || 50148 Βαασακίου P (Me Ba Be): Καασακίου V (F) || 5l114 πλοκούς Ρ: πλοκάς V(F Me Ba Be) || 53271 Γυκίαν Ρ: γυναίκα V (F Me Ba Be) || 53403 βά- λεται Ρ: λάβετε Υ (F Me Ba Be) || 53525 πραγματείας Ρ: πράγματος V (F Me Ba Be).

3.The copyist of Y sometimes replaced the numerical cyphers of P by the verbal equivalents, or, conversely, rendered the numerals of P by numerical cyphers, e.g.: 936 a! Ρ: πρώτον V (F Me Ba Be) || 9^ δ'Ρ: τέταρτον V (F Me Ba Be) |] 953 ίζ P (Me Ba Be): ς'V (F) || 167 ιβ'Ρ: δωδέκατον V(F M Me Ba Be) || 2316 β'Ρ: δευτέρας V (F Me Ba Be) || 2628 a Ρ: πρώτον V (F Me Ba Be) || 29248 μιας Ρ: α'V (F Me Ba Be) || 3020 α Ρ: χιλίων V (F Me Ba Be) || 46„ γ'Ρ: τρεις Y (F Me Ba Be) || 52e δύο P (Me Ba Be): β'V F.

4.The copyist of V occasionally changed the word-order, e. g.: P40 ν.ίωνιοζ καί άνώλεθ-ρος Ρ: άνώλεθρος καί αιώνιος Υ (F Me Ba Be) || 7X__2 περί τών άπό Χερσώνος άποστελλομένων βασιλικών Ρ: περί τών άποστελλομένων βασιλικών άπό Χερσώνος V (F Me Ba Be) || ·*ιο5—100 εξέρχονται άρχον­τες Ρ: άρχοντες εξέρχονται V (F Me Ba Be) ||  διά τ0^ άγγέλου ο Θ(εό)ς Ρ: ό Θ(εό)ς διά του άγγέλου V (F Me Ba Be) ]| 178 έσθίοντα άπο καμήλου Ρ (Μ): άπο καμήλου έσθίοντα Υ (F Me Ba Be) || 292^ νησίον έστίν μικρο(ν) Ρ: μικρόν έστι νησίον V (F Me Ba Be) || 32g2 έν τοϋτο γενόμενος Ρ: γενόμενος έν τούτω V (F Me Ba Be) || 4G42 έστιν οχυρών πάνυ Ρ: άχυρόν έστι πάνυ V (F Me Ba Be) j| 4950 ναόν αΰτοΰ Ρ: αύτοΰ ναόν V (F Me Ba Be) || 50226 της αΰτοΰ Ρ: αΰτοΰ της V (F Me Ba Be).

5.The copyist of V occasionally made stylistic changes, e. g.: 161 5 καί τίς ό τά σκήπτρα τής βασιλείας 'Ρωμαίων διέπω(ν) Ρ (Μ): καί τίς ήν τότε ό βασιλ(εύς) 'Ρωμαί(ων) V (F Me Ba Be) || 2937_38 διαπερασάντων ποτέ τών 'Ρωμανών, ποιήσαντες ούτοι ένκρύμματα Ρ (Ba Be): διαπεράσαν- τες ποτέ οΐ 'Ρωμάνοι έποίησαν ουτοι έγκρυμα V (F Me) || παρά τών Πατζινακιτών ούκ έδέξαντο Ρ: μετά τών Πατζινακιτών οΰκ έποίησαν V(F Me Ba Be) (| 46110 βαλών αύτο εις κοντάριον Ρ: λαβών αυτό είς κοντάριον περιέΟ-ηκε καί V (F Me Ba Be) || 5067 τοΰ τελεΐν αυτούς Ρ: ίνα τελώσι τά V (F Me Ba Be).

6.The copyist of V occasionally inserted words which are missing in P, e. g.: 948 post άπαντα add. τά μονόξυλα τά V (F) || 961 ante δεύτερον add. είς τόν V (F Me Ba Be) || 9106 post Κίαβον add. ποταμόν V (F Me) || 18x post ’Αράβων add. άρχηγός V (F Me) || 29203 ante μέλλοντος add. τοϋ V(F) || 339 post βασιλέα add. 'Ρωμάνων V (F) || 4032 post έκεϊνο add. τό V (F Me Ba Be) || 426e post μέχρι add. τοΰ V (F Me Ba Be) ]| 50229 ante πατρίκιος add. ό V (F Me Ba Be) || 53^ post Χερσωνιτών add. χώρας V (F Me Ba Be) || 5 3308 ante παίδων add. τών V (F Me Ba Be) || 53390 post έθος add. μου V (F Me Ba Be) || 53480 post πόλεως2 add. αύτ/jv V (F Me Ba Be).

If we look more closely at the variants of V, we observe that they are only in part oversights or slips of the copyist, while others of them represent a deliberate attempt to emend the text. Antony Eparchus, like so many other humanists, was, it should seem, no slavish copyist, but showed some indepen­dence in his efforts to correct what he was copying. This is clear also from the fact that in many places he has emended not only misspellings in P, but also textual corruptions.

Comparison of the mss. makes it clear that F is copied immediately from V. This is proved not only by the circumstance that at the end of the text of F we discover the same chronological note which, as we saw, Antony Eparchus appended to V in 1509, but also by the fact that all the omissions, repetitions and variants of Y recur in F; that is to say, where P and V disagree, F invariably follows V to the letter. The copyist of F was faithful to the text of V, but here and there introduced noteworthy corrections of his own.

It is also beyond question that in his transcription into M of the section relating to the Saracens, Andrea Darmari copied from P. This is proved indisputably by the fact that where P and V disagree, M always agrees with P, and further that Darmari introduced into his text corrections and additions made by later hands in P. Numerous errors distort his text; and in two places the copyist has incorporated marginal notes from P as though they were chapter-headings.

As for the editions, Meursius, as he tells us himself, used V: but com­parison shows that in many places he has diverged from his original. These divergences are in most cases blunders on the part of Meursius, and only in a few instances can be regarded as deliberate attempts at emendation. Some of his blunders Meursius himself corrected in the “Notae breves” and “Errata” appended to his edition, but most of them perpetuated themselves in the later editions, Ba and Be.

Discrepancies between the text of Meursius and V are:

1. Meursius omitted many words and phrases, e. g.: 23 πρός άλλήλους om. Me || 13198 καί &9-ών om. Me || 2191_92 Μαυίου γέρων πρός τόν γέροντα τοϋ om. Me || 263 τοΰ om. Me (Ba) || 2612 έστέφ·9·η παρά τοΰ τότε πάπα. Καί om. Me|| 2779 κάστρου om. Me(BaBe) || 2916_17 καί καταμαθεΐν, τίνες κατοικοΰσιν έκεΐ-9-εν τοΰ ποταμοΰ, διαπεράσαντες om. MeII 29253 —254 °λ°ν καί ποιήσαι τά παλάτια αύτοΰ καί πάντα τά οικήματα τοΰ κάστρου om. Me|| 36n_12 'αβάπτιστοι’ ερμηνεύονται, τη τών Ρωμαίων δέ διαλέκτω om. Me|| 43170_171 αύτοΰ άναλαβέσ·9·αι καί είσαγαγεΐν om. Me|| 4466 τό κάστρον om. Me(BaBe) || 4653 τό om. Me(Ba) || 4963_65 καί άναστήσονται καί άπαγγελοΰσιν αυτό τοις υίοΐς αύτών, ίνα μή έπιλάθωνται τών ευεργεσιών, ών έποίησεν ό Θεός διά πρεσβειών τοΰ άποστόλου om. Me|| 53^ παρά τών Χερσωνιτών om. Me|| 53129 αύτούς om. Me(BaBe) || 53i72_i73τόπω πολεμήσαντες τόν Σαυρόματον ένίκησαν, έν φ om. Me|| 535q2 Ίστέον, δτι καί έτέρα βρύσις εστιν έκεΐσε άφθ-αν άναδιδοΰσα om. Me.

2.Meursius misread or miscopied several words, and his edition has also typographical errors, e. g.: 121 9·εοφυλάκτω (Ρ) V(FBe): θ-ευφυλάκτη Me(Ba) II910 αΐ λοιπαί Σκλαβινίαι (Ρ) V (F): οί λοιποί Σκλαβίνιοι Me(BaBe) || 1717 άποκτενόμενος (P) V(F): άποκτεινόμενος (Μ) Me(BaBe) || 2730 Λαγούβαρδοι (Ρ) V(F): Λογουβάρδοι Me(BaBe) || 3 722 Κουρκοΰται (P) V (F): Κουρκοΰταν Me(BaBe) || 405 Κουρτουγερμάτου (Ρ) V(F): Κουρτυγερμάτου Me(BaBe) || 4370 διατρίψας (Ρ) V(FBe): έπιτρίψας Me(Ba) II43110 άνεβλάστησεν (Ρ) V(F): έβλάστησε Me(BaBe) || 4973 τό τί (Ρ) V(FBaBe): τότε Me|| 505 τοΰ παρ’ αύτών τελουμένου πάκτου (Ρ) V (F): τών παρ’ αύτών τελουμένων πάκτων Me(BaBe) || 53113 ημείς (Ρ) V(FBaBe): ούδείς Me|| 5^ έκλεξάσθ-ωσαν (Ρ) V(F): έκλεξάτωσαν Me(BaBe) || 53428 ένεχθηναι (Ρ) V(FBe): ήνεχθ-ήναι Me(Ba).

3.Meursius in most cases replaced the numerical cyphers of V by the verbal equivalents, e. g.: 957 ζ (Ρ) Y (F): πέμπτοv Me (Ba Be) || 185 γ'(P) V(F Μ): τρία Me (Ba Be) || 2998 ρ'(Ρ) V (F): εκατόν Me (Ba Be) || 29^ ιε'(Ρ) V (F): δεκαπέντε Me (Ba Be) || 3050 p. (Ρ) V (F): χιλίων Me (Ba Be) || 3 733 μ'(Ρ) V (F): τεσσαράκοντα Me (Ba Be) || 4038 α'(P) V: πρώτος (F) Me (Ba Be) || 4939 γ'(Ρ) V (F): τρίτη Me (Ba Be) || 51,j β'(Ρ) V (F): δεύτερον Me (Ba Be) || 53295 ι'ή ιβ'(Ρ) V (F): δέκα ή δώΒεκα Με (Ba Be).

4. Meursius made occasional changes in word-order, e. g.‘. 2720 άποσταλήναι μοι (Ρ) V (F): μοι άποσταλήναι Me (Ba Be) \\ 2θ211 σφαγής αύτοΰ (Ρ) V (F): αύτοΰ σφαγής Me (Ba Be) || 2928β έκεΐσε κλύδωνα (Ρ) V(F): κλύδωνα έκεΐσε Me (Ba Be) || 32136 τών 'Ρωμαίων βασιλεύς (Ρ) V (F): βασιλεύς 'Ρωμαίων Me (Ba Be) || 4051 κύρια ονόματα (Ρ) V (F): ονό­ματα κύρια Me (Ba Be) || 45141 γενέσθ-αι δούλος (Ρ) V (F): δούλος γενέ- σθ-αι Me (Ba Be) || 50130_131 τών ’Ρωμαίων έξουσίαν (Ρ) V (F): έξουσίαν τών 'Ρωμαίων Me (Ba Be) || 51125 βασιλικδν δρομώνιον (Ρ) V (F): δρομώ- νιον βασιλικόν Me (Ba Be) || 5 3369 πληροφορήσαι έν όρκω (Ρ) Υ (F): έν δρκω πληροφορήσαι Me (Ba Be).

5. Meursius here and there inserts words missing in V, and hence in P also, e. g.: 9X ante 'Ρωσίας add. τής Me (Ba Be) || 963 post τούτου add. καί Me || 2229 ante ’Ιουστινιανόν add. τόν Me (Ba Be) || 22M ante τήν1 add. διά Me || 253 post Βρεττανίαν add. άλλα. Me|| 2528 postέσπερίου add. Λιβύης Me(BaBe) || 2563 postδτι add. έν τώ Me(BaBe) || 27^ anteτών add. διά Me(BaBe) || 4060 anteυιοί add. οί Me(BaBe) || 4373 postείς add. την Me(BaBe) || 4615 ante'Ρωμανίας add. τής Me(BaBe) || 504 postκάστρου add. τοϋ Me(BaBe) || 50229 anteβασιλέως add. τοΰ Me(BaBe) || 53288 postταΰτα add. τά Me(BaBe).

If we take into consideration that the ms. Y used by Meursius contains, as we have shown, innumerable errors, we can scarcely wonder that the first edition presents a sufficiently corrupted version of the original. It should, how­ever, be emphasized that Meursius, particularly in his notes, made a large number of emendations to the text, and of these emendations later editions have made use.

The edition of Bandur marks an advance on that of Meursius; Bandur, as he himself records, collated Meursius’ text with P, and was thus able to correct, both in his text and in his notes, a large number of errors originating partly in V and partly in Me. But Bandur did not make his collation with the necessary care, with the result that many omissions and blunders escaped his attention. How many errors of Meursius were corrected by Bandur, and how many Bandur transferred to his own edition, may be easily discerned if we look at the examples given above in our examination of the relationship of V and Me, and note the proportion of the number of errors found in V Me and Me only to the number of errors found in V Me Ba or V Me Ba Be, and in Me Ba or Me Ba Be. To the number of inherited blunders Bandur added a fresh crop of his own, e. g.: 68 πέπερι Ba (Be) || 2961 έξ om. Ba || 2982 έρμηνεύονται Ba (Be) |[ 3094 οί λοιποί Σκλαβίνιοι Ba (Be) )) 4012 Λιούντινα Ba (Be) || 4521 καί1 om. Ba (Be) || 46in Κωνσταντίνω (per comp. Ρ)] Κώνσταντι Ba (Be) || 46144 Κωνσταντίνος (per comp. P)] (Be) Κώνστας Ba || 5170 πρωτοσπαθ-άριος om. Ba (Be) || 5l2oo Λογουβαρδία Ba (Be) || 53218 έν τώ τοϋ Φαρνάκου στρατώ om. Ba (Be) || 5325! “ρχομένου Ba (Be) || 08455 τής1]την Ba (Be).

Bekker’s edition marks no considerable advance. He made no study of mss., and therefore made no use of fresh ms. material. He republished Bandur’s text, which he occasionally emended by his own conjectures. Although he recorded in his critical apparatus the variants between the mss. used by Meursius and Bandur, and between their respective editions, yet he merely copied this information out of Bandur’s notes, as is seen from the fact that he reproduces Bandur’s typographical errors. Bekker’s edition therefore repeats numerous errors of earlier editions, as appears in our examination above of the relationship between V Me and Ba; and he added to their number the slips and typographical errors of his own edition, e. g.: 2142 κροβάλλονται || 2616 τον] την || 2926 κάστρον2 om. || 3078 καί μόνον om. || 3 088 καί om. || 30io3_loş ordinemversuumpermutavit || 372 οί om. || 3718 Κουλπέη || 3749πλησίε- στερον || 37^ κόντευρα || 4544 τον1 om. || 45101 προσφασιζόμενος || 45145 Μασάτον/|| 46β9 πασας || 4719 έν om. || 4942 τάλλα || 4960 παραδόττες || 5079 την om. || 50213 Νικήτης || 51159 νήπιον τυγχάνειν τον βασιλέα, καθώς ειρηται, καί το om. j| 51174 τώ βασιλεΐ || 53267 τε1 om. || 53510 το χωρίον om.

In the light of our examination of the mutual relationship of mss. and editions, we may summarize as follows the history of the text of D.A.I.

Of D.A. as of the De Cerimoniis, only one ms. survives from the Byzantine age.55bis In view of the fact that none of the later Byzantine historians or chronographers makes use of the work, we must conclude that D.A.I., which was a confidential, indeed a most secret, document, was never published, but only preserved at the imperial court. There, probably, it was discovered by a member of the imperial family, the Caesar John Ducas, who between 1059 and 1081 had it copied for his library. But P is not an immediate copy of the original. Since P exhibits so many corruptions, and one marginal note refers to the year 979, we must postulate, between the archetype and P, yet another copy, probably made towards the close of the X century after the death of the author. Marginal notes and emendations make it clear that P continued to be read during the Byzantine age; from the note of 1361/2 and from other corrections we may conclude that the chh. on the Saracens were of peculiar interest at the period when the Ottoman Turks had crossed the Hellespont (1360) and were threatening the capital.

After this the history of P is obscure. We do not know where it went from the library of John Ducas or what was its fate, until it came into the hands of Antony Eparchus. Certain it is that during the Renaissance the interest of Venetian humanists was aroused by the chh. of the work dealing with Venice, as is clear from the marginal notes to V; and that it is owing to this circumstance, not merely that the copy from the library of the Byzantine

65 bis jjut See now C. Mango—I. Sevcenko, ‘A New MS of the De Cerimoniis', Dum­barton Oaks Papers, 14 (1960), pp. 247—249.

Caesar reached Italy, but also that, at the beginning of the XVI century, two other complete copies of the work were made there as well. Upon the copy of Antony Eparchus was based the first edition of Meursius, the errors of which Bandur endeavoured to correct by a collation with the Byzantine copy; but even so, many inherited errors were transmitted not only to his own edition but also to the final edition of Bekker, published more than a century ago.

The relationships of mss. and editions may be seen at a glance in the following tree:

(about 952)



It will be clear from our examination of the relationship of mss. and editions that all the known mss. of D.A. I. derive from a Byzantine copy of the XI century, P, which is thus the source of the whole textual tradition. On this ms. therefore, a new edition must be based.56 However, as we have emphasized, P exhibits additions, erasures and emendations which are partly the work of the copyist or a contemporary, and partly of various later hands. These last are again divisible into two categories: into those which were added to P before V and M were copied, and those which were added after V and M were copied. Insertions of the former class, which go back to the Byzantine age, are of unequal value: we find among them alterations which are mere arbitrary additions of later readers, such as the marginal note of 1361/2; but there are others, especially in the chh. dealing with the Arabs, which do emend errors which have occurred in the copying of P. Additions of the second category, dating from the post-Byzantine period and consisting of arbitrary alterations made by later readers, are of no value whatever; a characteristic specimen of these is the garbling from analogy of the original name ‘Almoutzis’ (see 3844, 3849). But, apart from the attentions of later hands, P has also, as we saw, sustained material damage; and to restore the occasionally faded or mutilated text we are compelled to have recourse to the copies of P, made when P was in better condition than it is to-day. For these reasons, then, to restore the original text of P, use must be made of its copies, V and M.

But even if the text of the Byzantine version preserved to us be purged of its later alterations and be restored, so far as may be, to its original state, the question remains whether P, thus restored, can be regarded as a faithful replica of the original text of Constantine. Since our new edition rests upon one ms. only, which cannot be checked by comparison with any other, the problem thus raised can be solved only by reference to internal evidence, that is, to the condition of the text as preserved in P and to the linguistic peculiarities of the work. There can be no doubt that copyist’s errors have crept even into P. It can be demonstrated that in some passages the copyist has omitted words, as is seen is cases where the text is mutilated or unintelligible (e. g. 14,919,1377,2261, 2671,4695). It is also certain that, in other passages, we have to deal with more serious corruptions (e. g. 13177, 2958) 29aae, 3833,4223, 53101), which can only be conjecturally emended.

56 See Gy. Moravcsik, ‘L’6dition critique du “De administrando imperio”’, Byzan- lion, 14 (1939), pp. 353—360.

In correcting the text of P, we have to take into account the fact that D.A. I. is compiled from various sources of which the language is not uniform. In some chapters we find vulgarisms whose removal would distort the genuine form of the work.57 But since, as we aaw above, the orthography of P is extremely faulty, there are many places where it ia not easy to determine which linguistic peculiarities are native to Constantine’s text and which are to be put down to the copyist. So, for example, we see in P forms which indicate the amalgamation of the participles of οΐδα and εΐδον (e. g. 45140, 4928, 4931, 53193, 53419, 53429), a phenomenon exemplified also in papyri and other demotic texts.58 Again, as is well known, in later Greek certain forms of indicative and subjunctive coincide in pronunciation; and since P often confuses the diphthong ει with the vowel η, these forms coincide and amalgamate in its text also. It is well known, too, that in the post-classical age the conjunction ίνα is followed by indicative as well as subjunctive; and since the orthography of P is not consistent, we sometimes find after ίνα indicative and subjunctive forms used alternately even in the same sentence (e. g. 138x—83, 53516). All these and other confusions in the orthography of P (e. g. absence of the temporal augment) often make it hard to determine when we have, or have not, the right to correct it.

Again, it is common knowledge that Constantine drew one part of his material from written sources which have come down to us independently. Such sources are, apart from citations of Holy Scripture, the Chronicles of Theophanes and George Monachus, the Ethnica of Stephanus of Byzantium, the Acts of the Synod in Trullo, etc. Elsewhere, passages of D.A. I. agree so closely with parallel passages of the De Thematibus, attributed to the same imperial author, and of the work known as Theophanes Continuatus, that for these passages we must postulate a common source. Some passages, then, of D.A. I. have come down to us immediately, and do not depend on P. We can thus compare the text of P with the text of the sources of the work, which sources may be used to restore the text of D.A. /.
A comparison of the text of P with that of the sources and of other parallel passages shows that the author sometimes followed his originals faithfully, but at other times modified their styles, and occasionally supplemented his sources with others of unknown origin. But for our appraisal of the text of Constantine it is of great importance to realize that the text of D.A. I. preserved to us, when compared with the text of its sources, gives evidence in several places of serious corruption.

57 See Gy. Moravcsik, Τά συγγράμματα Κωνσταντίνου τοϋ Πορφυρογέννητου άπό γλωσσικής άπόψεως5, Studi Bizantini e Neodlenici, 5 (1938), pp. 514—520.
58 See S. G. Kapsomenakis, Voruntersuehungen zu einer Grammatik der Papyri der nachckristlichen Zeit, (Munich, 1938), p. 91.

At first sight we might conclude that P is a faulty copy, and that these errors must be corrected from the sources. But this is not so. A more searching examination shows that these supposed corruptions were to be found already in some mss. of the sources themselves (e. g. 2530, 4249). It follows that, as Constantine or his collaborators copied the sources they used out of mss. which were themselves corrupt, it is incorrect to attribute these corruptions to the carelessness of the copyist of P or other copyists of D.A. I.; we must, on the contrary, suppose that these very corruptions stood even in the original ms. of Constantine. Recognition of this fact, and of its bearing on the restoration of the original form of D.A. /., enjoins upon us the preservation of these corruptions in our text; since, if we emend P, we shall be disturbing the true text as Constantine wrote it. Of course, in the many cases where direct evidence is lacking, it is very hard to pronounce whether a corruption is of pre- or post-Constantinian origin, that is to say, whether it has been introduced by the copyist or existed already in the mss. of the sources and was thence transferred to the original ms. of Constantine. In this difficulty we derive some assistance from the fact that, con-sidering the corruptions from the point of view of their nature and quantity, we note a great difference between those sections of D.A. I. which are based on contemporary information and those which the editor has derived from older, written sources. In the former sections we find fewer errors, mainly of a minor character; but in the latter, which had been subject to continual transcription over a period of a century or more, the corruptions are proportionately greater in numbers and importance. This principle cannot be used as an absolute criterion; we have in each case, according to the nature of the corruption, to judge whether the corruption in question is or is not anterior to the age of Constantine, and whether in consequence we may or may not retain it in his text.

In view of these facts, the principles applied to the new edition may thus be summarized:

The new edition is based on P, the text of which, however, in places where it is disturbed by material damage, erasures or alterations by later hands, is restored by reference to V and M. The critical text diverges from P when the text of P appears to be corrupt, that is to say, in places where it may be supposed that, owing to copyists’ errors or alterations by later hands, the text of P does not correspond to the original text of Constantine’s work. In such places we have taken into account the variants of the later transcripts (V, F, M) and editions (Me, Ba, Be) and the conjectural emendations of later researchers; and on the basis of these we have emended the text of P.

Besides, the critical text diverges from P in spelling also. Modern spelling has been adopted, which has involved the tacit correction of errors arising from itacism, of accentual errors (including the Byzantine system of enclitic accentuation) and of other irregularities. This has been done the more readily since in our description of P above we have pointed out its orthographical peculiarities. We have kept the forms of the codex for the ephelcusticon and for elision, although P is not consistent in their use. As regards numbers in the text, P uses verbal forms and cyphers indifferently, sometimes in the same sentence; we have substituted verbal forms for cyphers in the text only where consistency absolutely demanded it.

The apparatus criticus falls into two parts, and contains
1. references to sources and parallel passages (F);
2. variants of mss. and editions, and emendations and conjectures of scholars (F).

In the first section we have directed attention not merely to the immediate sources of Constantine but also to other, parallel passages which may assist the understanding of passages to which they are referred. But we have restricted ourselves to Greek sources only, because the enumeration of all parallels in the different Western and Eastern sources would have made the apparatus too bulky. In cases where there is no question of borrowing, but only of a common source, of similar sources of information, or simply of fortuitous concord, we cite the works in question with the symbol “cf.”.
In the second section, the following principles have been adopted. In each case where, for reasons already set forth, we diverge from the text of P, or where traces of emendations or erasures appear in the text of P, the fact is noted positively, i. e. we indicate the origin of the variant adopted in the text, and the reading of P, and if necessary, the readings of the later transcripts Y, F, M, and of the editions Me, Ba, Be. In all other cases, that is, where the form adopted in the text differs only in spelling from the form found in P, or when noteworthy variants are recorded in later transcripts or editions, we note negatively, that is, we confine ourselves to a reference to the variants in the transcripts or editions in question.

In its references to P, the apparatus records not only the corrections of the copyist himself (P1), but also the alterations and the marginal notes made by different later hands (P2—P9). By the symbol Px are noted the alterations or erasures which were made by an unrecognizable hand before V was copied, and by the symbol Py are noted the alterations or erasures which were made by another unrecognizable hand after Y was copied. We have left unnoted erasures or alterations which are of a purely orthographical character, or those which occur in words whose meaning is obvious, though we note all erasures and alterations met with in uncommon proper names. Unnoted also are traces of occasional attempts by later hands to amend faded writing, unless such traces suggest that the text has been altered.
Orthographical irregularities of P are noted in the apparatus only when they occur in uncommon proper names, words of foreign derivation, colloquial words, or where the handwriting of P admits of more than one reading; and lastly where the accent falls on a syllable other than that which generally carries it. Abbreviations of P are noted only where their interpretation is doubtful, or when numerals are denoted by letters.

Variants found in V, an immediate transcript of P, are noted in the apparatus only in cases where the parallel passages of P have suffered from material damage, erasures or alterations by later hands, or where V gives a variant which differs from the variant of P and which may serve to elucidate or emend the text. Variants found in F, a transcript of V, are noted only in exceptional cases, i. e. when F supplies some emendation of substance, or where the parallel passages of both V and P show trades of alteration. Variants found in M, a transcript of P, are noted only when erasure or alteration is found in the parallel passage of P.

We regard it as unnecessary to note in the apparatus all the omissions, all the blunders and all the alterations of later transcripts and editions, especially as in our description of mss. and editions we have already given several examples. The apparatus, therefore, notes only the variants which are in-formative from the point of view of the restoration or history of the text (including the discrepancies between our new text and the text of Be). Note that where reference is made to the text of the editions, the abbreviations noted above (Me, Ba, Be) are employed; but where we refer to emendations or conjectures in the notes or apparatus of the editions, we cite them under the names of the respective editors (Meursius, Bandur, Bekker).

If a source copied word for word by Constantine has come down to us independently, our apparatus notes variations therefrom, but not omissions and arbitrary alterations made by Constantine, who often modified the wording of his sources. Where, however, the author has inserted anything into the text of his source, this is noted in the apparatus.

In respect to these sources, it has been found necessary in two cases to examine their mss., and make use of the results of the new collation. The relevant passages of the edition of Theophanes Continuatus I have collated with V (= codex Vaticanus gr. 167), and of De Thematibus with C (= codex Parisinus gr. 854); the variants are noted in the apparatus. Special treatment had to be applied to the text of George Monachus; for, as C. de Boor has shown, the emperor Constantine made use of that variant of his text which is represented by codex P (= cod. Coislin. gr. 305). We have therefore considered in the apparatus those variants especially which occur in this codex of George Monachus.

In the apparatus ms. variants are noted in all cases in the original spelling, omitting only the horizontal strokes above proper names and the dots over the i and υ. Variant proper names are given an initial capital. Uncial numerical signs are replaced by the usual minuscule forms, and the horizontal stroke above them by the acute stroke universally employed to-day. Signs and technical details of the apparatus of our edition are generally in conformity with the rnling of the International Union of Academies.59

59 Emploi de,s svgnes critiques, disposition de Vapparat dans les editions savantes de textes grecs et latins. Conseils et recommandations par J. Bidez et A. B. Drachmann. Edition nouvelle par A. Delatte et A. Severyns, (Bruxelles-Paris, 1938).
Method of the Edition

Lastly, we have included in the apparatus moat of the emendations and conjectures of scholars known to us, though they are not all of equal value.80 This course is justified by the fact that the bibliography relating to D.A. I. is so rich and extensive that many individual conjectures are extraordinarily difficult to find. The work has in the past attracted so many different scholars, and their studies are published in so many different languages, that it is prac-tically impossible for one who is not a specialist to know them all.61 We hope that it will be of service to those who use this edition to find collected here all the resources of previous research directed towards critical examination of the text, and that they will be able to build further upon the foundations here laid; for research on D.A. I. is by no means exhausted yet, and the present edition aims at providing future research with a sure and reliable substructure.


60 I have also made use of some comments of Prof. Ph. Kukules (Athens) which he kindly communicated by letter, and for which I express my sincere gratitude.
61 See the complete bibliography by Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, vol. I, (Budapest, 1942), pp. 215—221 (2nd ed. pp. 367—379). — The studies published since are as follows: M. Vasmer, Die Slaven in Griechenland (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1941., Philos.-hist. Klasse No. 12., Berlin, 1941); A. Vogt, ‘Le protospathaire de la phiale et la marine byzantine’, Echos d’Orient, 39 (1941—42), pp. 329—332; M. Laekaris, ‘La rivalit^ bulgaro-byzantine en Serbie et la mission de L6on Rhabdouchos (917), (Constantin Porphyrog6nete, De adm. imp. chap. 32)’, Revue historique du Sud-Est Europeen, 20 (1943), pp. 202—207; H. G6groire, ‘L’origine et le nom des Creates et des Serbes’, Byzantion, 17 (1944—45), pp. 88—118; Κ. H. Menges, ‘Etymological notes on some Pâöânâg names’, Byzantion, 17 (1944—45), pp. 256—279; K. Czegl6dy, ‘A IX. szâzadi magyar tört6nelem föbb k6rd6sei’, Magyar Nyelv, 41 (1945), pp. 33—55; G. Vernadsky, ‘Great Moravia and White Chorvatia’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 65 (1945), pp. 357—359; J. De6r, ‘A IX. szâzadi magyar tört6net idörendj6hez’, Szâzadok, 79—80 (1945—46). pp. 2—30; J. Harmatta, ‘Szines lovu n6pek’( Magyar Nyelv, 42 (1946), pp. 26—34; G. Labuda, Pierwsze panstwo slowianskie. Panstwo Samona, Poznari, 1949. pp. 194—262. For bibliography since 1949, see Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinotvrciea (2nd ed.) I, pp. 367—379; D.A. I. vol. II, Commentary (London, 1962); Byzantinische Zeitschrift 55 (1962) and subsequent volumes.


F = Fontes et loci paralleli
V = Variae lectiones et coniecturae


P = cod. Parisinus gr. 2009 (cf. pp. 15—21.)
P1 = manus prima P2-® = manus recentiores Px = manus incerta (ante a. 1509) py = manus incerta (post a. 1509)
V = cod. Vaticanus-Palatinus gr. 126 (cf. pp. 21—22.)
V1 = manus prima V2 = manus secunda F = cod. Parisinus gr. 2967 (cf. pp. 22—23.)
F1 = manus prima F2 = manus secunda M = cod. Mutinensis gr. 179 [III F 1] (cf. p. 23.)


Me = editio Meursiana (cf. p. 24.)
Meursius = notae Meursii Ba = editio Banduriana (cf. p. 24.)
Bandurius = animadversiones Bandurii Be = editio Bekkeriana (cf. p. 24.)
Bekker = apparatus criticus Bekkeri edd. = editiones Me Ba Be Migne = editio a Migne curata (cf. p. 24.)
Bury = editio cap. 29—36 a J. Bury facta (cf. p. 25.)


Georg. Mon. = Georgius Monachus, ed. C. de Boor (Lipsiae, 1904)
Georg. Mon. BEPV = codices Β E Ρ V a C. de Boor collati De Them. = Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De Thematibus, ed. I. Bekken: (Bonnae, 1840); eD.A. Pertusi (Roma, 1952)
De Them.0 = cod. Parisinus gr. 854 a me collatus Theoph. = Theophanes, ed. C. de Boor (Lipsiae, 1883)
Theoph. codd• = codices a. C. de Boor collati Theoph. bcdefgbm — codices bodfghmaC.de Boor collati Theoph. Cont. = Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekkerus (Bonnae, 1838)
Theoph. Cont.v = cod. Vaticanus gr. 167 a me collatus

C. Porphyrogenitus
De Administrando Imperia



A wise son maketh. glad a father, and an affectionate father taketh delight in a prudent son. For the Lord giveth wit to speak in season, and addeth thereto an ear to hear; with Him is the treasure of wisdom, and from Him cometh every perfect gift; He setteth kings upon the throne and giveth unto them the lordship over all. Now therefore hearken unto me, my son, and being adept in this my teaching thou shalt be wise among the prudent, and be accounted prudent among the wise; the peoples shall bless thee, and the multitudes of the nations shall call thee blessed. Be instructed in what it behoves thee before all else to know, and lay hold skilfully upon the helm of the rule. Study the things that are now, and be instructed concerning the things that are to be, so that thou mayest amass experience with sound judgment, and thou shalt be most competent in thine affairs. Lo, I set a doctrine before thee, so that being sharpened thereby in experience and knowledge, thou shalt not stumble concerning the best counsels and the common good: first, in what each nation has power to advantage the Romans, and in what to hurt, and how and by what other nation each severally may be encountered in arms and subdued; then, concerning their ravenous and insatiate temper and the gifts they demand inordinately; next, concerning also the difference between other nations, their origins and customs and manner of life, and the position and climate of the land they dwell in, its geographical description and measurement, and moreover concerning events which have occurred at various times between the Romans and different nations; and thereafter, what reforms have been introduced from time to time in our state, and also throughout the Roman empire.

These things have I discovered of my own wisdom, and have decreed that they shall be made known unto thee, my beloved son, in order that thou mayest know the difference between each of these nations, and how either to treat with and conciliate them, or to make war upon and oppose. For so shall they quake before thee as one mighty in wisdom, and as from fire shall they flee from thee; their lips shall be bridled, and as darts shall thy words wound them unto death. Thou shalt appear terrible unto them, and at thy face shall trembling take hold upon them. And the Almighty shall cover thee with his shield, and thy Creator shall endue thee with understanding; He shall direct thy steps, and shall establish thee upon a sure foundation. Thy throne shall be as the sun before Him, and His eyes shall be looking towards thee, and naught of harm shall touch thee, for He hath chosen thee and set thee apart from thy mother’s womb, and hath given unto thee His rule as unto one excellent above all men, and hath set thee as a refuge upon a hill and as a statue of gold upon an high place, and as a city upon a mountain hath He raised thee up, that the nations may bring to thee their gifts and thou mayest be adored of them that dwell upon the earth. But Thou, 0 Lord my God, whose rule abideth unharmed for ever, prosper him in his ways who through Thee was begotten of me, and may the visitation of Thy face be toward him, and Thine ear be inclined to his supplications. May Thy hand cover him, and may he rule because of truth, and may Thy right hand guide him; may his ways be made straight before Thee to keep thy statutes. May foes fall before his face, and his enemies lick the dust. May the stem of his race be shady with leaves of many offspring, and the shadow of his fruit cover the kingly mountains; for by Thee do kings rule, glorifying Thee for ever and ever.

1. Of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinakitai ), and how many advantages accrue from their being at peace with the emperor of the Romans.

Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται)

“Pecheneg” is a Slavic form of the name “Bechen”, Gk. “Πατζινακ” (“Patzinak”), Lat. “Besen”, Hungarian “Besenyo”, Türkic “Bechen” - “In-Laws”. The selection of the translation for the name Πατζινακ has not been explained, it implies that the Slavic form is the English form, but at that it carries a message of preference for the alien form over the native form. The modern international name for the Bechens is Slavicized “Bosnyak”, perpetuated in the Bosnian country and people, and accepted as a self-designation by the people of Bosnia. In the modern translation, the selection of the 10th c. Slavic form conflicts with the narrative of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. In other translations, preference was given to the original Greek form Patzinak.

The hierarchical structure of the early Bosnyak people is well elucidated by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, it consisted of the leading Kangar horse nomadic tribes, their allied horse nomadic Bechen in-laws, and subordinated local sedentary population, predominantly Slavic. The future Croats (Horvat) tribe Charaboi was one of the Bechen in-laws tribes.

Kangar Anabasis 2000 BC - 1100 AD
Kangar Confederation ca. 659-750 Kangars and  Besenyo-Badjanaks-Bosniaks ca. 800-950
Kangar Bosnyaks and Charaboi Horvats ca.1100
Political map
Kangar Bosnyaks and Charaboi Horvats ca.1100
Demographical map

Hear now, my son, those things of which I think you should not be ignorant, and be wise that you may attain to government. For I maintain that while learning is a good thing for all the rest as well, who are subjects, yet it is especially so for you, who are bound to take thought for the safety of all, and to steer and guide the laden ship of the world. And if in setting out my subject I have followed the plain and beaten track of speech and, so to say, idly running and simple prose, do not wonder at that, my son. For I have not been studious to make a display of fine writing or of an Atticizing style, swollen with the sublime and lofty, but rather have been eager by means of every-day and conversational narrative to teach you those things of which I think you should not be ignorant, and which may without difficulty provide that intelligence and prudence which are the fruit of long experience.

I conceive, then, that it is always greatly to the advantage of the emperor of the Romans to be minded to keep the peace with the nation of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and to conclude conventions and treaties of friendship with them and to send every year to them from our side a diplomatic agent with presents befitting and suitable to that nation, and to take from their side sureties, that is, hostages and a diplomatic agent, who shall be collected together under charge of the competent minister in this city protected of God, and shall enjoy all imperial benefits and gifts suitable for the emperor to bestow.

This nation of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) is neighbor to the district of Cherson, and if they are not friendly disposed towards us, they may make excursions and plundering raids against Cherson, and may ravage Cherson itself and the so-called Regions.

2. Of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and the Russians ('Ρώς, Rus).

Russians ('Ρώς)

It goes without saying that there were no Russians during Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus time. During his time, Ruses lead an army composed of Varangians, Chud, Slovenes, Merya, and all the Kriviches. The Varangians, Slovenes, and the others who accompanied him (Oleg) were called Rus (Primary Chronicle, year 882/6390). The Laurentiev Chronicle later adds the tribes of the Chud, Ves, Muroma, Cheremis, Mordva, Perm, Pechora (Laurentiev Chronicle). The Russians belong to the Imperial Period, some 600 or 700 years later, and they have little, if any, in common with the Rus.

The distorted translation `Ρώς = Russian conflicts with the narrative of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.

The Pechenegs (Patzinaks) are neighbors to and march with the Russians (Rus) also, and often, when the two are not at peace with one another, raid Russia, and do her considerable harm and outrage.

2, 3, 4
The Russians (Rus) also are much concerned to keep the peace with the Pechenegs (Patzinaks). For they buy of them horned cattle and horses and sheep, whereby they live more easily and comfortably, since none of the aforesaid animals is found in Russia (Rus). Moreover, the Russians (Rus) are quite unable to set out for wars beyond their borders unless they are at peace with the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), because while they are away from their homes, these may come upon them and destroy and outrage their property. And so the Russians (Rus), both to avoid being harmed by them and because of the strength of that nation, are the more concerned always to be in alliance with them and to have them for support, so as both to be rid of their enmity and to enjoy the advantage of their assistance.

Nor can the Russians (Rus) come at this imperial city of the Romans, either for war or for trade, unless they are at peace with the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), because when the Russians (Rus) come with their ships to the barrages of the river and cannot pass through unless they lift their ships off the river and carry them past by portaging them on their shoulders, then the men of this nation of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) set upon them, and, as they cannot do two things at once, they are easily routed and cut to pieces.

3. Of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and Turks (Τούρκοι, Turkoi, Hungarians).

Turks (Τούρκοι)

It is accepted that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus calls the “Turkoi” the early Magyar-Türkic confederation lead by Kende (a head of the Magyar confederation) and Arbat (Arpad, Bulgarian süründi prince from a sideline of the dynastic Dulo clan). Essentially, the Constantine's term Turkoi relates to the Kubar tribes, headed by Arbat. The reason for such designation must be historical, originated in the association with the Western Türkic Kaganate, which brought the term “Turkoi” to the Byzantine not as an ethnic name, but as a name of the polity. The designation “Turkoi” for the Kubars may indicate a link between the Kubars and Barsilia, denoting the “White”, or ruling Barsilians.

Instead of the literal and misleading replacement “Turkoi” - “Turk”, the translation should have used the term “Hungarians” for Hungarians, a common designation for the early Magyar-Türkic confederation used in the historical literature. A tendency to use the ethnonym “Magyar” for the confederation, also used in the historical literature, may be applicable only to the period preceding the formation of the Magyar-Kubar confederation, in other words to the period preceding the Magyar flight to the Atelkuzu.

The tribe of the Turks (Hungarians), too, trembles greatly at and fears the said Pechenegs (Patzinaks), because they have often been defeated by them and brought to the verge of complete annihilation. Therefore the Turks always look on the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) with dread, and are held in check by them.

4. Of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and Russians (Rus) and Turks (Hungarians).

So long as the emperor of the Romans is at peace with the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), neither Russians (Rus) nor Turks (Hungarians) can come upon the Roman dominions by force of arms, nor can they exact from the Romans large and inflated sums in money and goods as the price of peace, for they fear the strength of this nation which the emperor can turn against them while they are campaigning against the Romans. For the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), if they are leagued in friendship with the emperor and won over by him through letters and gifts, can easily come upon the country both of the Russians (Rus) and of the Turks (Hungarians), and enslave their women and children and ravage their country.

4, 5, 6
5. Of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and the (Danube) Bulgarians.

To the (Danube) Bulgarians also the emperor of the Romans will appear more formidable, and can impose on them the need for tranquillity, if he is at peace with the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), because the said Pechenegs (Patzinaks) are neighbors to these (Danube) Bulgarians also, and when they wish, either for private gain or to do a favor to the emperor of the Romans, they can easily march against (Danube) Bulgaria, and with their preponderating multitude and their strength overwhelm and defeat them. And so the (Danube) Bulgarians also continually struggle and strive to maintain peace and harmony with the Pechenegs (Patzinaks). For from having frequently been crushingly defeated and plundered by them, they have learned by experience the value and advantage of being always at peace with them.

6. Of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and Chersonites.

Yet another folk of these Pechenegs (Patzinaks) lies over against the district of Cherson; they trade with the Chersonites, and perform services for them and for the emperor in Russia (Rus) and Chazaria and Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals) and all the parts beyond: that is to say, they receive from the Chersonites a prearranged remuneration in respect of this service proportionate to their labor and trouble, in the form of pieces of purple cloth, ribbons, loosely woven cloths, gold brocade, pepper, scarlet or “Parthian” leather, and other commodities which they require, according to a contract which each Chersonite may make or agree to with an individual Pecheneg (Patzinak). For these Pechenegs (Patzinaks) are free men and, so to say, independent, and never perform any service without remuneration.

7, 8
7. Of the dispatch of imperial agents from Cherson to Patzinacia (Πατζινακία).

When an imperial agent goes over to Cherson on this service, he must at once send to Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) and demand of them hostages and an escort, and on their arrival he must leave the hostages under guard in the city of Cherson, and himself go off with the escort to Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) and carry out his instructions. Now these Pechenegs (Patzinaks), who are ravenous and keenly covetous of articles rare among them, are shameless in their demands for generous gifts, the hostages demanding this for themselves and that for their wives, and the escort something for their own trouble and some more for the wear and tear of their cattle. Then, when the imperial agent enters their country, they first ask for the emperor’s gifts, and then again, when these have glutted the menfolk, they ask for the presents for their wives and parents. Also, all who come with him to escort him on his way back to Cherson demand payment from him for their trouble and the wear and tear of their cattle.

8. Of the dispatch of imperial agents with ships of war from the city protected of God to Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) along the Danube and Dnieper and Dniester river.

In the region of (Danube) Bulgaria also is settled a folk of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), toward the region of the Dnieper and the Dniester and the other rivers of those parts. And when an imperial agent is dispatched from here with ships of war, he may, without going to Cherson, shortly and swiftly find these same Pechenegs (Patzinaks) here; and when he has found them, the imperial agent sends a message to them by his man, himself remaining on board the ships of war, carrying along with him and guarding in the ships of war the imperial goods. And they come down to him, and when they come down, the imperial agent gives them hostages of his men, and himself takes other hostages of these Pechenegs (Patzinaks), and holds them in the ships of war, and then he makes agreement with them; and when the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) have taken their oaths to the imperial agent according to their ‘zakana’ (law, Sl. zakon, Tr. jayɣu, jayɣan? djayɣan?), he presents them with the imperial gifts, and takes from among them as many ‘friends’ as he sees fit, and returns.

8, 9
Agreement must be made with them on this condition, that wherever the emperor calls upon them, they are to serve him, whether against the Russians (Rus), or against the (Danube) Bulgarians, or again against the Turks (Hungarians). For they are able to make war upon all these, and as they have often come against them, are now regarded by them with dread. And this is clear from what follows. For once when the cleric Gabriel was dispatched by imperial mandate to the Turks (Hungarians) and said to them, “The emperor declares that you are to go and expel the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) from their place and settle yourselves there (for in former days you used to be settled there yourselves) so that you may be near to my imperial majesty, and when I wish, I may send and find you speedily”, then all the chief men of the Turks (Hungarians) cried aloud with one voice, “We are not putting ourselves on the track of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks); for we cannot fight them, because their country is great and their people numerous and they are the devil’s brats; and do not say this to us again; for we do not like it!”

When spring is over, the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) cross to the far side of the Dnieper river, and always pass the summer there.

Far side of the Dnieper river

The far side of the Dnieper river, or its left bank, at around 900 AD housed two peoples, Black Bulgars and Polyans or Alans (Sl. field ~ pole > Polyans, Tr. field ~ alan > Alans). Bechens must have shared the winter pastures with the Black Bulgars and Polyans or Alans, or else the Polyans or Alans moved eastward to the Azov Sea banks, their traditional winter quarters. The Atilkuzu west of the Buh river was taken by the Hungarians, or a compact of Magyars and Kubar Bulgars. That leaves the steppe between the Buh in the west and Dnieper in the east as summer pastures of the Bechens or some of their tribes. The ranges of the Polyans or Alans along the course of Dnieper reached Kyiv and Vyshgorod, a fort within or outside of the Kyiv.

9. Of the coming of the Russians (Rus) in ‘monoxyla’ from Russia (Rus) to Constantinople.

The ‘monoxyla’ which come down from outer Russia (Rus) to Constantinople are from Novgorod, where Sviatoslav, son of Igor, prince of Russia (Rus), had his seat, and others from the city of Smolensk (<Σ>μιλινίσκαν, Smiliniskan, Tr. Shamlyn) and from Teliutza (Τελιούτζαν) and Chernigov (Τζερνιγώγαν, Tzernigogan) and from Yyshegrad. All these come down the river Dnieper, and are collected together at the city of Kiev, also called Sambatas (Σαμβατάς). Their (the Rus) Slav (Σκλαβίνιοι) tributaries, the so-called Krivichians and the Lenzanenes (Lachs, Pole or Czech Slavs) and the rest of the Slavonic (Σκλαβινίοα) regions, cut the ‘monoxyla’ on their mountains in time of winter, and when they have prepared them, as spring approaches, and the ice melts, they bring them on to the neighboring lakes. And since these lakes debouch into the river Dnieper, they enter thence on to this same river, and come down to Kiev (έκεϊνα), and draw the ships along to be finished and sell them to the Russians (Rus).

Slavs, Saklabs, Sakaliba, Saka, Scythians, Scandia, Seklers, Esgils, Scotts, Sakars, Sagadar, Sagays, Saha, and Σκλαβίνιοι

It takes an effort not to notice a recurrent element S'k in the names of the horsed nomadic tribes of the steppe. Except for Seklers, Esgils, and Scotts, all these names are generic, and there is all likelihood that Seklers, Esgils, and Scotts are allophones of the rest. Except for the Slavs and Scotts, all of them are classical Kurganians. The Scotts are Kurganians too, but not classical, they left the Eastern Europe in 6th-5th mill. BC, before the switch to the nomadic horse breeding. The Σκλαβόι (Sklaboi) is a Türkic agglutinative compound Sk + la + boi  = “of tribe Sk” or “of people Sk”, where Sk is a stem found in numerous Türkic tribal names, -la- is a Türkic adjectival and adverbial affix, thus Skla (Sakla, Sekla, Sikla, Sokla, Sukla) is something with Sk property or a property of Sk tribe; boi in Türkic is “tribe, people”.

In the written records, the initial name of the militant tribes that harassed Byzantine the most was Sklaboi and its allophone Sklavoi. Not until three centuries later appeared the name Slav, and instead of the militant horse riders, it applied to dependent tribes of sedentary subsistent agriculturists (Curta F. Making of the Slavs, 2001). The homegrown etymology industry came up with numerous self-aggrandizing appellatives, like slava “glory” and slovo “speech”; among the non-native etymologies is the Türkic süläü “word, speak”, which produced the Slavic slovo “speech” anyway. It appears that nobody paid attention to the amazing consistency of the ethnonymic element S'k among the people that sprouted the Slavs. That the Slavs are in some way an offshoot of the Scythians was brooding in the Slavonics for centuries (Latyshev, Reports of Ancient Greek and Latin Writers About Scythia and the Caucasus, 1893–1906), but it appears that nobody came up with the elementary thesis about the ethnonym Slav, it is a rudimentary contraction of Saklaboi, homegrown among the people who had a problem pronouncing words without a string of initial consonants, and its semantics is exactly the same as the Russian, French, Turkic, Hunnic or Chinese: the people belonging to the S'k masters, the dependents of the S'k. Under this scenario, the forms Sklaven and Slaven coexisted from early though undefined times, but they circulated in different spheres, the Sklaven as an allophone of the Sakalab, dealing with the external polities, and the Slaven is an endoethnonym for internal circulation. In all cases, the Sklavens and Slavens were generic umbrella terms, they did not define or reflect the language, and they consisted of numerous tribes, each with its own ethnonym. The Greeks did not need to change their traditional designation Σκλαβίνιοι to a new spelling, they carried it on with its imprint of the days and people past, and applied it to the people who at one time belonged to the Sakalabs, although initially they belonged to a different trunk.

Before 12th c., “no “Slavs” called themselves by this name, no group took on the label imposed by outsiders”, and “the first clear statement that “we are Slavs” comes from the twelfth-century Russian Primary Chronicle” (Citations from Curta F., above). Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus could not use the term “Slavs”, it did not exist in his time. With time, naturally, the umbrella ethnonym gained association with the predominant lingua franca, ethnic unity, shared history, and national pride. In the end, the Slavic languages gained a spectacular victory, replacing uncounted native languages and dialects.

The substance of the Chronicle of Fredegar's Wendish account describes the particular demography of the future Slavs. In the account, Avars are called Huns, and Wends are renamed to Slavs, although by the 768 the term “Slavs” was not in circulation yet. It reads: “Every year, the Huns (Avars) wintered with the Slavs (Wends), sleeping with their wives and daughters, and in addition the Slavs (Wends) paid tribute and endured many other burdens. The sons born to the Huns by the Slavs' (Wends) wives and daughters eventually found this shameful oppression intolerable; and so, as I said, they refused to obey their lords and started to rise in rebellion.” We read the same in the Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus' account about the Ruses: in the winter-time all the Ruses at once leave Kiev and go off to the Slavs (Σκλάβων), stay there throughout the winter, and leave in the month of April. These records are separated by about 300 years, or 12 generations, in the second case the Slavs are either Slavonic or Fennic. The same tells about the Rus traders Ibn Fadlan. In all three cases, the wives and daughters are of the  sedentary agriculturists.


The Russians (Rus) buy these bottoms only, furnishing them with oars and rowlocks and other tackle from their old ‘monoxyla’, which they dismantle; and so they fit them out. And in the month of June they move off down the river Dnieper and come to Vitichev, which is a tributary city of the Russians (Rus), and there they gather during two or three days; and when all the ‘monoxyla’ are collected together, then they set out, and come down the said Dnieper river. And first they come to the first barrage, called Essoupi, which means in Russian (Rus) and Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) ‘Do not sleep!’; the barrage itself is as narrow as the width of the Polo-ground; in the middle of it are rooted high rocks, which stand out like islands. Against these, then, comes the water and wells up and dashes down over the other side, with a mighty and terrific din. Therefore the Russians (Rus) do not venture to pass between them, but put in to the bank hard by, disembarking the men on to dry land leaving the rest of the goods on board the ‘monoxyla’; they then strip and, feeling with their feet to avoid striking on a rock, ***. This they do, some at the prow, some amidships, while others again, in the stern, punt with poles; and with all this careful procedure they pass this first barrage, edging round under the river-bank. When they have passed this barrage, they re-embark the others from the dry land and sail away, and come down to the second barrage, called in Russian (Rus) Oulvorsi, and in Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) Ostrovouniprach (Island Battle), which means ‘the Island of the Barrage’. This one is like the first, awkward and not to be passed through. Once again they disembark the men and convey the ‘monoxyla’ past, as on the first occasion. Similarly they pass the third barrage also, called Gelandri, which means in Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) ‘Noise of the Barrage’, and then the fourth barrage, the big one, called in Russian (Rus) Aeifor, and in Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) Neasit, because the pelicans nest in the stones of the barrage.

At this barrage all put into land prow foremost, and those who are deputed to keep the watch with them get out, and off they go, these men, and keep vigilant watch for the Pechenegs (Patzinaks). The remainder, taking up the goods which they have on board the ‘monoxyla’, conduct the slaves in their chains past by land, six miles, until they are through the barrage. Then, partly dragging their ‘monoxyla’, partly portaging them on their shoulders, they convey them to the far side of the barrage; and then, putting them on the river and loading up their baggage, they embark themselves, and again sail off in them. When they come to the fifth barrage, called in Russian (Rus) Varouforos, and in Slavonic (Σκλαβηνιστί) Voulniprach, because it forms a large lake, they again convey their ‘monoxyla’ through at the edges of the river, as at the first and second barrages, and arrive at the sixth barrage, called in Russian (Rus) Leanti, and in Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) Yeroutzi, that is ‘the Boiling of the Water’, and this too they pass similarly. And thence they sail away to the seventh barrage, called in Russian (Rus) Stroukoun, and in Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) Naprezi, which means ‘Little Barrage’. This they pass at the so-called ford of Vrar, where the Chersonites cross over from Russia (Rus) and the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) to Cherson; which ford is as wide as the Hippodrome, and, measured upstream from the bottom as far as the rocks break surface, a bow-shot in length. It is at this point, therefore, that the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) come down and attack the Russians (Rus). After traversing this place, they (the Rus) reach the island called St. Gregory, on which island they (the Rus) perform their sacrifices because a gigantic oak-tree stands there; and they (the Rus) sacrifice live cocks. Arrows, too, they peg in round about, and others bread and meat, or something of whatever each may have, as is their custom. They also throw lots regarding the cocks, whether to slaughter them, or to eat them as well, or to leave them alive. From this island onwards the Russians (Rus) do not fear the Pecheneg (Patzinak) until they reach the river Selinas (Danube delta). So then they start off thence and sail for four days, until they reach the lake which forms the mouth of the river, on which is the island of St. Aitherios. Arrived at this island, they rest themselves there for two or three days. And they re-equip their ‘monoxyla’ with such tackle as is needed, sails and masts and rudders, which they bring with them.

9, 10
Since this lake is the mouth of this river, as has been said, and carries on down to the sea, and the island of St. Aitherios lies on the sea, they come thence to the Dniester river, and having got safely there they rest again. But when the weather is propitious, they put to sea and come to the river called Aspros, and after resting there too in like manner, they again set out and come to the Selinas, to the so-called branch of the Danube river. And until they are past the river Selinas, the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) keep pace with them. And if it happens that the sea casts a ‘monoxylon’ on shore, they all put in to land, in order to present a united opposition to the Pechenegs (Patzinaks). But after the Selinas they fear nobody, but, entering the territory of (Danube) Bulgaria, they come to the mouth of the Danube. From the Danube they proceed to the Konopas, and from the Konopas to Constantia, and from Constantia to the river of Varna, and from Varna they come to the river Ditzina, all of which are (Danube) Bulgarian territory. From the Ditzina they reach the district of Mesembria, and there at last their voyage, fraught with such travail and terror, such difficulty and danger, is at an end. The severe manner of life of these same Russians (Rus) in winter-time is as follows. When the month of November begins, their chiefs together with all the Russians (Rus) at once leave Kiev and go off on the ‘poliudia’, which means ‘rounds’, that is, to the Slavonic (Σκλαβηνίας) regions of the Vervians and Drugovichians and Krivichians and Severians (Suvars, Σεβέρων, Σεβερίων; Marquart Serbs, Σερβίων) and the rest of the Slavs (Σκλάβων) who are tributaries of the Russians (Rus). There they are maintained throughout the winter, but then once more, starting from the month of April, when the ice of the Dnieper river melts, they come back to Kiev. They then pick up their ‘monoxyla’, as has been said above, and fit them out, and come down to Romania.

The Uzes (Guzes, Oguzes, Οΰζοι) can attack the Pechenegs (Patzinaks).

10. Of Chazaria, how and by whom war must be made upon it.

The Uzes (Guzes, Oguzes, Οΰζοι) can attack the Chazars, for they are their neighbors, and so can the ruler of Alania (Αλανίας).

10,11, 12, 13
Nine regions of Chazaria are adjacent to Alania, and the Alan can, if he be so minded, plunder these and so cause great damage and dearth among the Chazars: for from these nine regions come all the livelihood and plenty of Chazaria.

11. Of the city of Cherson and the city of Bosporus.

If the ruler of Alania is not at peace with the Chazars, but thinks preferable the friendship of the emperor of the Romans, then, if the Chazars are not minded to preserve friendship and peace with the emperor, he, the Alan, may do them great hurt by ambushing their routes and setting upon them when they are off their guard, in their passage to Sarkel and the Regions and Cherson. And if this ruler will act zealously to check them, then Cherson and the Regions may enjoy great and profound peace; for the Chazars, afraid of the attack of the Alans and consequently not being free to attack Cherson and the Regions with an army, since they are not strong enough to fight both at once, will be compelled to remain at peace.

12. Of black Bulgaria and Chazaria.

The so-called black Bulgaria can also attack the Chazars.

Black Bulgars (Kara Bulgars) are western Bulgars, west of Don river.

13. Of the nations that are neighbors to the Turks (Hungarians).

These nations are adjacent to the Turks (Hungarians): on their western side Francia; on their northern the Pechenegs (Patzinaks); and on the south side great Moravia, the country of Sphendoplokos (Svyatopolk), which has now been totally devastated by these Turks (Hungarians), and occupied by them. On the side of the mountains the Croats (Χρωβάτος) (Χρωβάτοι) are adjacent to the Turks (Hungarians).

The Pechenegs (Patzinaks) too can attack the Turks (Hungarians), and plunder and harm them greatly, as has been said above in the chapter on the Pechenegs (Patzinaks).

Fix, my son, your minds’s eye upon my words, and learn those things which I command you, and you will be able in due season as from ancestral treasures to bring forth the wealth of wisdom, and to display the abundance of wit. Know therefore that all the tribes of the north have, as it were implanted in them by nature, a ravening greed of money, never satiated, and so they demand everything and hanker after everything and have desires that know no limit or circumscription, but are always eager for more, and desirous to acquire great profits in exchange for a small service. And so these importunate demands and brazenly submitted claims must be turned back and rebutted by plausible speeches and prudent and clever excuses, which, in so far as our experience has enabled us to arrive at them, will, to speak summarily, run more or less as follows:

Should they ever require and demand, whether they be Chazars, or Turks (Hungarians), or again Russians (Rus), or any other nation of the northerners and Scythians, as frequently happens, that some of the imperial vesture or diadems or state robes should be sent to them in return for some service or office performed by them, then thus you shall excuse yourself: “These robes of state and the diadems, which you call ‘kamelaukia’, were not fashioned by men, nor by human arts devised or elaborated, but, as we find it written in secret stories of old history, when God made emperor the former Constantine the great, who was the first Christian emperor, He sent him these robes of state by the hand of His angel, and the diadems which you call ‘kamelaukia’, and charged him to lay them in the great and holy church of God, which, after the name of that very wisdom which is the property of God, is called St.Sophia; and not to clothe himself in them every day, but only when it is a great public festival of the Lord. And so by God’s command he laid them up, and they hang above the holy table in the sanctuary of this same church, and are for the ornament of the church. And the rest of the imperial vestments and cloaks lie spread out upon this holy table. And when a festival of our Lord and God Jesus Christ comes round, the patriarch takes up such of these robes of state and diadems as are suitable and appro-priated to that occasion, and sends them to the emperor, and he wears them in the procession, and only in it, as the servant and minister of God, and after use returns them again to the church, and they are laid up in it.

Moreover, there is a curse of the holy and great emperor Constantine engraved upon this holy table of the church of God, according as he was charged by God through the angel, that if an emperor for any use or occasion or unseasonable desire be minded to take of them and either himself misuse them or give them to others, he shall be anathematized as the foe and enemy of the commands of God, and shall be excommunicated from the church; moreover, if he himself be minded to make others like them, these too the church of God must take, with the freely expressed approval of all the archbishops and of the senate; and it shall not be in the authority either of the emperor, or of the patriarch, or of any other, to take these robes of state or the diadems from the holy church of God. And mighty dread hangs over them who are minded to transgress any of these divine ordinances. For one of the emperors, Leo by name, who also married a wife from Chazaria, out of his folly and rashness took up one of these diadems when no festival of the Lord was toward, and without the approval of the patriarch put it about his head. And straightway a carbuncle came forth upon his forehead so that in torment at the pains of it he evilly departed his evil life, and ran upon death untimely. And, this rash act being summarily avenged, thereafter a rule was made, that when he is about to be crowned the emperor must first swear and give surety that he will neither do nor conceive anything against what has been ordained and kept from ancient times, and then may he be crowned by the patriarch and perform and execute the rites appropriate to the established festival.”

Similar care and thought you must take in the matter of the liquid fire which is discharged through tubes, so that if any shall ever venture to demand this too, as they have often made demands of us also, you may rebut and dismiss them in words like these: “This too was revealed and taught by God through an angel to the great and holy Constantine, the first Chri-stian emperor, and concerning this too he received great charges from the same angel, as we are assured by the faithful witness of our fathers and grandfathers, that it should be manufactured among the Christians only and in the city ruled by them, and nowhere else at all, nor should it be sent nor taught to any other nation whatsoever.

And so, for the confirmation of this among those who should come after him, this great emperor caused curses to be inscribed on the holy table of the church of God, that he who should dare to give of this fire to another nation should neither be called a Christian, not be held worthy of any rank or office; and if he should be the holder of any such, he should be expelled therefrom and be anathematized and made an example for ever and ever, whether he were emperor, or patriarch, or any other man whatever, either ruler or subject, who should seek to transgress this commandment. And he adjured all who had the zeal and fear of God to be prompt to make away with him who attempted to do this, as a common enemy and a transgressor of this great commandment, and to dismiss him to a death most hateful and cruel. And it happened once, as wickedness will still find room, that one of our military governors, who had been most heavily bribed by certain foreigners, handed over some of this fire to them; and, since God could not endure to leave unavenged this transgression, as he was about to enter the holy church of God, fire came down out of heaven and devoured and consumed him utterly. And thereafter mighty dread and terror were implanted in the hearts of all men, and never since then has anyone, whether emperor, or noble, or private citizen, or military governor, or any man of any sort whatever, ventured to think of such a thing, far less to attempt to do it or bring it to pass.”
(But come, now, turn’, and to meet another sort of demand, monstrous and unseemly, seemly and appropriate words discover and seek out. For if any nation of these infidel and dishonorable tribes of the north shall ever demand a marriage alliance with the emperor of the Romans, and either to take his daughter to wife, or to give a daughter of their own to be wife to the emperor or to the emperor’s son, this monstrous demand of theirs also you shall rebut with these words, saying: “Concerning this matter also a dread and authentic charge and ordinance of the great and holy Constantine is engraved upon the sacred table of the universal church of the Christians, St. Sophia, that never shall an emperor of the Romans ally himself in marriage with a nation of customs differing from and alien to those of the Roman order, especially with one that is infidel and unbaptized, unless it be with the Franks alone; for they alone were excepted by that great man, the holy Constantine, because he himself drew his origin from those parts; for there is much relationship and converse between Franks and Romans. And why did he order that with them alone the emperors of the Romans should intermarry?

Because of the traditional fame and nobility of those lands and races. But with any other nation whatsoever it was not to be in their power to do this, and he who dared to do it was to be condemned as an alien from the ranks of the Christians and subject to the anathema, as a transgressor of ancestral laws and imperial ordinances. And that emperor Leo aforesaid, who also, as has been described above, unlawfully and rashly, without the consent of him who was then patriarch, took from the church the diadem and put it about his head and was summarily punished in full for his wicked attempt, dared to make light of and to disregard this commandment also of that holy emperor, which, as has already been made clear, is engraved on the holy table; and as he had once put himself outside the fear of God and His commandments, so also he contracted an alliance in marriage with the chagan (Kagan) of Chazaria, and received his daughter (Chichak, flower, the Empress Irene) to be his wife, and thereby attached great shame to the empire of the Romans and to himself, because he annulled and disregarded the ancestral injunctions; yet he, however, was not even an orthodox Christian, but an heretic and a destroyer of images. And so for these his unlawful impieties he is continually excommunicated and anathematized in the church of God, as a transgressor and perverter of the ordinance of God and of the holy and great emperor Constantine. For how can it be admissible that Christians should form marriage associations and ally themselves by marriage with infidels, when the canon forbids it and the whole church regards it as alien to and outside the Christian order? Or which of the illustrious or noble or wise emperors of the Romans has admitted it?” But if they reply: “How then did the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), the emperor, ally himself in marriage with the (Danube) Bulgarians, and give his grand-daughter to the lord Peter the Bulgarian?”, this must be the defense: “The lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), the emperor, was a common, illiterate fellow, and not from among those who have been bred up in the palace, and have followed the Roman national customs from the beginning; nor was he of imperial and noble stock, and for this reason in most of his actions he was too arrogant and despotic, and in this instance he neither heeded the prohibition of the church, nor followed the commandment and ordinance of the great Constantine, but out of a temper arrogant and self-willed and untaught in virtue and refusing to follow what was right and good, or to submit to the ordinances handed down by our forefathers, he dared to do this thing; offering, that is, this alone by way of specious excuse, that by this action so many Christian prisoners were ransomed, and that the (Danube) Bulgarians too are Christians and of like faith with us, and that in any case she who was given in marriage was not daughter of the chief and lawful emperor, but of the third and most junior, who was still subordinate and had no share of authority in matters of government; but this was no different from giving any other of the ladies of the imperial family, whether more distantly or closely related to the imperial nobility, nor did it make any difference that she was given for some service to the commonweal, or was daughter of the most junior, who had no authority to speak of.

And because he did this thing contrary to the canon and to ecclesiastical tradition and the ordinance and commandment of the great and holy emperor Constantine, the aforesaid lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) was in his lifetime much abused, and was slandered and hated by the senatorial council and all the commons and the church herself, so that their hatred became abundantly clear in the end to which he came; and after his death he is in the same way vilified and slandered and condemned inasmuch as he too introduced an unworthy and unseemly innovation into the noble polity of the Romans.” For each nation has different customs and divergent laws and institutions, and should consolidate those things that are proper to it, and should form and develop out of the same nation the associations for the fusion of its life. For just as each animal mates with its own tribe, so it is right that each nation also should marry and cohabit not with those of other race and tongue but of the same tribe and speech. For hence arise naturally harmony of thought and intercourse among one another and friendly converse and living together; but alien customs and divergent laws are likely on the contrary to engender enmities and quarrels and hatreds and broils, which tend to beget not friendship and association but spite and division. Mark, too, that it is not for those who wish to govern lawfully to copy and emulate what has been ill done by some out of ignorance or arrogance, but rather to have the glorious deeds of those who have ruled lawfully and righteously as noble pictures set up for an example to be copied, and after their pattern to strive himself also to direct all that he does; since the end which came upon him, I mean, the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), through these his headstrong acts is a sufficient warning to restrain anyone who is minded to emulate his evil deeds.

But now, with the rest, you must know also what follows, my well-loved son, since knowledge of it may greatly advantage you and render you the object of greater admiration. That is, once again, knowledge ‘of the difference between other nations, their origins and customs and manner of life, and the position and climate of the land they dwell in, and its geo-graphical description and measurement’, as they are more widely expounded hereafter.

14. Of the genealogy of Mahomet.

The blasphemous and obscene Mahomet, whom the Saracens claim for their prophet, traces his genealogy by descent from the most widespread race of Ishmael, son of Abraham. For Nizaros, the descendant of Ishmael, is proclaimed the father of them all. Now he begat two sons, Moundaros and Rabias, and Moundaros begat Kousaros and Kaïsos and Themimes and Asandos and various others whose names are unknown, who were allotted the Madianite desert and reared their flocks, dwelling in tents. And there are others further off in the interior who are not of the same tribe, but of Iektan, the so-called Homerites, that is, Amanites. And the story is published abroad thus. This Mahomet, being destitute and an orphan, thought fit to hire himself out to a certain wealthy woman, his relative, Chadiga by name, to tend her camels and to trade for her in Egypt among the foreigners and in Palestine. Thereafter by little and little he grew more free in converse and ingratiated himself with the woman, who was a widow, and took her to wife. Now, during his visits to Palestine and intercourse with Jews and Christians he used to follow up certain of their doctrines and interpretations of scripture. But as he had the disease of epilepsy, his wife, a noble and wealthy lady, was greatly cast down at being united to this man, who was not only destitute but an epileptic into the bargain, and so he deceived her by alleging: “I behold a dreadful vision of an angel called Gabriel, and being unable to endure his sight, I faint and fall”; and he was believed because a certain Arian, who pretended to be a monk, testified falsely in his support for love of gain.

At the time of the Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the term “Saracens” was firmly entrenched as an appellation for the “Arabs” and  “Molems”. However, the term precedes the advent of Islam by half a millennium, and initially was applied as a generic term for the desert nomads. Ptolemy in his Geographia calls Sarakene the nomads of the Sinai Peninsula and its surroundings, and calls Sarakenoi the tribes of the Northeast Arabia, without any linguistic or ethnic association. In the 3rd c. Hippolytus of Rome, Bardesanes, and Uranium Antonino mention Saracens north of the Euphrates, along with distinct Taeni mountaineers and the Arabs of the Arabia. The “Taeni” is a clear derivative of the Türkic tau/tag/tak “mountain”, e.g. Sarytau > Saratov ~ “Yellow Mountain”, Kaitak ~  “Mountain Kayi”, etc. The Sary is Türkic for “pale, yellow”, and is a frequent component of the Türkic ethnonyms: Siracae, Saragur, Seres, Sarir, Sary As/Saryg, Sary Yogur, Sary Uigur, etc.; the 3rd c. term Saracene, applied to the nomads of the S. Caucasus foothills north of the Euphrates appears to belong to the same host. It is well known from the Notitia Dignitatum that the Saracen cavalry served in the Roman army units, forming the Roman cavalry. When the name of the Saracenes was transposed on the Arabs, those Arabs instead of the horses rode camels. In the Diocletian time (r. 284 – 305), the Saracen horsed nomads were his adversaries in the Syrian deserts. And Suvars, who fought on both sides during the Sassanid Roman-Persian (Πέρσαι) wars, 224 to 651, were called Saracens. Ammianus Marcellinus popularized the word “Saracens” in the Greek and Latin literature, to be eventually confused with the “Arabs”, and with the Moslems after the start of the Moslem conquests in the 7th c.

After the word entered European languages, it started gaining various etymologies that still are floating around and numerously recited. Participation of the Türkic mercenaries and converts in the Islamic wars also tended to support the association of the terms Arabs and Saracens.

Another derisive epithet for the Arab Muslims was “Agarenes” , drawn from the Biblical account on the origin of the Hebrews and Arabs.

“Arians” in the lingo of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches was a name for monotheists. Bulgars were “Arians”, i.e. monotheists, hence the disclaimers on their faith and reference to “Arians”.


The woman being in this manner imposed on and proclaiming to other women of her tribe that he was a prophet, the lying fraud reached also the ears of a head-man whose name was Boubachar. Well, the woman died and left her husband behind to succeed her and to be heir of her estate, and he became a notable and very wealthy man, and his wicked imposture and heresy took hold on the district of Ethribos. And the crazy and deluded fellow taught those who believed on him, that he who slays an enemy or is slain by an enemy enters into paradise, and all the rest of his nonsense. And they pray, moreover, to the star of Aphrodite, which they call Koubar, and in their supplication cry out: “Alla wa Koubar”, that is, ‘God and Aphrodite’. For they call God ‘Alla’, and ‘wa’ they use for the conjunction ‘and’, and they call the star ‘Koubar’, and so they say ‘Alla wa Koubar’.

Qobar/Qubar in Tr. is 1st pers. verbal active voice of qob-/qub- “to rise”, in respect to the star, Qobar/Qubar is probably one of the designations for Venus.

15. Of the tribe of the Fatemites.

Fatem was a daughter of Mahomet, and from her are begotten the Fatemites. But these are not from Fatemi, from the country of Libya, but dwell in the district north of Mecca, away behind the tomb of Mahomet. They are an Arab nation, carefully trained to wars and battles; for with the aid of this tribe Mahomet went to war, and took many cities and subdued many countries. For they are brave men and warriors, so that if they be found to the number of a thousand in an army, that army cannot be defeated or worsted. They ride not horses but camels, and in time of war they do not put on corselets or coats of mail but pink-colored cloaks, and have long spears and shields as tall as a man and enormous wooden bows which few can bend, and that with difficulty.

16, 17
16.From the canon which Stephen the astrologer cast from the stars concerning the Exodus of the Saracens, in what year of the foundation of the world it took place, and who then held the scepter of the empire of the Romans.

The Exodus of the Saracens took place on the third day of the month of September of the tenth indiction, in the twelfth year of Heraclius (r. 610 – 641), in the year from the creation of the world 6130. And the horoscope of these same Saracens was cast in the month of September, on the third day of the month, the fifth day of the week. At this same time Mouameth was first chief of the Arabs, whom the Arabs call Mahomet, who was also their prophet, and he held rule over the Arabs nine years.

17.  From the Chronicle of Theophanes, of blessed memory.

In this year 6139, died Mouameth, chief and false prophet of the Saracens, having appointed in his stead Aboubacharos, or Boupaktor, his kinsman. And the deluded Jews at his first appearance had taken him for the Christ whom they expect, so that some of their leading men approached him and received his religion and forsook that of Moses who beheld God. But when they saw him eating camel’s flesh, they realized that he was not what they had thought him. But they taught him to do nefarious crimes against the Christians and continued in his company. These are they who taught him to accept some parts of the Law, both the circumcision and other matters, which the Saracens observe. The first to come after him, then, was Aboubachar, who had proclaimed him to be a prophet and was for that reason left behind to succeed him. And his heresy prevailed in the district of Ethribos, at first in secret ten years, and at last through war another ten years, and openly nine years.

17, 18, 19 
And he taught his subjects that he who has slain an enemy or is slain by an enemy enters unhindered into paradise, and said that it is a paradise of carnal eating and drinking and lying with women, and that a river of wine and honey and milk flows down it and the women are incomparable to look upon, not such as we know here but other, and he fabled that intercourse with them is of long duration and the pleasure continuous, and other matters replete with libertinism and folly; and they are to forgive one another and aid one another when wronged.

18.The second chief of the Arabs, Aboubachar, three years.

This Aboubachar first took the city of Gaza and all the territory round about it. And the same Aboubachar died after ruling as emir three years, and Oumar succeeded to the rule and governed the Arabs twelve years.

19.The third chief of the Arabs, Oumar.

This same Oumar marched against Palestine, and laid siege in it and blockaded Jerusalem for the space of two years, and took it by guile. For Spohronius, bishop of Jerusalem, one moved with divine zeal and excellent in sagacity, received from him a most sure undertaking concerning the churches throughout Palestine, so that the churches were neither destroyed nor sacked. When Sophronius saw him, he said: “Of a truth this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, that standeth in the holy place.” He demanded the temple of the Jews that Solomon built, to make it the place of worship of his blasphemy. And it is so to this day.

20, 21
20. The fourth chief of the Arabs, Outhman.

He took Africa by war, and arranged imposts with the Africans and returned. His general was Mauias, who pulled down the colossus of Rhodes and took the island of Cyprus and all its cities. He took the island of Arados also and burnt its city, and made the island desolate to this day. When he came to the island of Rhodes, he demolished the colossus in it, one thousand 360 years after it had been set up, and a Jewish merchant of Edessa bought it and loaded 900 camels with the bronze of it. This Mauias also made an expedition against Constantinople and ravaged Ephesus and Halicarnassus and Smyrna and the rest of the cities of Ionia, and after the death of Outhman was fifth chief of the Arabs for twenty-four years.

21.From the Chronicle of Theophanes: the year from the creation of the world 6171.

At the end of the life of Mauias, chief of the Arabs, the Mardaïtes entered the Lebanon and took possession of it from the Black mountain to the holy city, and made themselves masters of the summits of the Lebanon; and many slaves and natives ran to them for refuge, in numbers which shortly amounted to many thousands. On learning this, Mauias was greatly alarmed, and his counselors with him. And he sent envoys to the emperor Constantine, seeking for peace. Therefore, the emperor Constantine, the orthodox, son of Pogonatus, dispatched John surnamed Pitzikaudis. And when he arrived in Syria, Mauias received him with great honour, and it was agreed on both sides that a convention of peace should be drawn up in writing and sworn to, on the basis of an agreed annual tribute, the Agarenes (Arabs) to pay to the emperor of the Romans three thousand pieces of gold and 800 prisoners and 50 thoroughbred horses.

At this time the empire of the Arabs was divided in two parts. In Ethribos Ali held rule, but Mauias held Egypt and Palestine and Damascus. And the dwellers in Ethribos marched with the sons of Ali against Mauias. And Mauias armed himself against them and joined battle by the river Euphrates, and the party of Ali (future Shiites) was defeated, and Mauias took Ethribos and all the land of Syria. And his family held rule 85 years. And after him came forth the so-called Black-robed (scribes) out of Persia (Περσία), who hold rule to this day, and they fought with the clan of Mauias and utterly destroyed it. And they slew Marouam also, who was its head. And few of the party of Mauias were left, and they, together with one grandson of Mauias, were pursued by the Black-robed as far as Africa. Now this same grandson of Mauias with a few followers crossed over into Spain in the days of Justinian Rhinotmetus, not of Pogonatus. But this has not been written by our historians. For from the time of the capture of old Rome by the Goths, the Roman possessions began to be lopped off, and none of the historians has made mention of the region of Spain, nor of the clan of Mauias. But the history of Theophanes, of blessed memory, has the following account: And so Mauias, chief of the Saracens, died, who had been general 26 years, and had ruled as emir 24 years. And Izid, his son, held rule over the Arabs 6 years. On his death the Arabs of Ethribos were disturbed, and they arose and set up Abdelas, son of Zouber, to be their chief. When they heard this, the Arabs who dwelt in Phoenicia and Palestine and Damascus came to Ousan, the emir of Palestine, and appointed Marouam and set him up to be chief, and he held the rule 9 months. On his death, his son Abimelech succeeded to the rule and held it 22 years and 6 months.

And he overcame the rebels, and slew Abdelas, son and successor of Zouber. Meanwhile, the emperor Constantine, son of Pogonatus, died, having held rule over the Romans 17 years; and his son Justinian reigned in his stead.

The chief of the Arabs who was fifth after Mouameth to hold rule over the Arabs was not of the family of Mouameth, but of another tribe. And first he was appointed general and admiral by Outhman, chief of the Arabs, and was sent against the state of the Romans with a strong force and 1200 decked ships. He proceeded to Rhodes, and thence, after fitting out his expedition, came up to Constantinople, and lingered a long time, and laid waste the environs of Byzantium, but returned with his purpose unachieved. When he came to Rhodes, he pulled down the colossus that stood in it. It was a brazen statue of the sun, gilded from head to foot, 80 cubits in height and broad in proportion, as witness the inscription written on the base of its feet, running like this:

The Rhodian colossus, eight times ten
Cubits in height, Laches of Lindos made.

He took the bronze of it and carried it over into Syria, and put it up for sale to any who wanted it; and a Hebrew of Edessa bought it and brought it up from the sea laden on 980 camels. On the death of Outhman, then, this Mauias succeeded to the rule of the Arabs. And he ruled over the holy city and the regions of Palestine, over Damascus and Antioch and all the cities of Egypt. But Alim, who was son-in-law of Mouameth, having married his daughter called Fatime, ruled over Ethribos and all Arabia Tracheia. Now, in these days Alim and Mauias were roused up to war against one another, disputing over the rule, which of them should be lord of all Syria.

They encountered one another by the river Euphrates, and joined in fierce battle one against the other. But when the battle was at its height and many were falling on either side, the multitudes of the Agarenes (Arabs) of both parties cried out: “Why is this, that we slay and are slain, and our tribe perishes from among living men? But let two elders be chosen apart from both the parties, and whomsoever they prefer, let him have the rule,” Alim and Mauias were pleased at this saying of theirs, and, drawing off from their hands their rings, which are a token of rule of the Agarenes (Arabs), they gave them to the two elders, and placed their authority at the disposal of the two elders, confirming the matter by an oath and settling it so that whomsoever the elders might prefer, he should be lord and chief of all the Saracens. The two elders entered into the middle of the battle array of the two parties, and took their stand face to face in the space between the armies; the elder of Alim was a man devout according to the nation of the Saracens, one such as they call ‘cadi’ (judge), that is, faithful and sanctified; but the elder of Mauias was devout only in appearance, but in all else deceitful and arrogant and surpassing all men in mischief. The elder of Mauias said to the elder of Alim: “Do you speak first what you will, for you are prudent and devout, and far surpassing my years.” And the elder of Alim answered thus: “I cast Alim off from the rule, as I drew his ring from his hand and drew it on to my own finger; now will I cast off the ring of Alim from my finger and therewith cast him off from his rule also.” The elder of Mauias made answer again: “I drew Mauias into the rule, as I drew his ring on to my finger; now will I draw the ring of Mauias on to his finger.” And then they parted one from the other. So Mauias took all the dominion of Syria, since all the emirs had sworn to each other, saying: “Whatever the elders say, we will be obedient to their words.” And so Alim took his army and departed to the region of Ethribos with all his kin, and there ended his life.

21, 22
After the death of Alim, his sons, regarding their father’s counsel as nonsense, rebelled against Mauias, and joined fierce battle with Mauias, and being worsted fled from before his face, and Mauias sent after and put them all to death. And thereafter the rule over all the Arabs came into the hands of Mauias.

Now, this Mauias was grandson of Sophiam. And Mauias’ grandson was Masalmas, who made an expedition against Constantinople, and at whose request was built the mosque of the Saracens in the imperial praetorium. He was not chief of the Arabs; Souleiman was chief of the Saracens, and Masalmas held the rank of general. Souleiman came with his fleet against Constantinople, and Masalmas came overland, and crossed over at Lampsacus into the region of Thrace, carrying with him 80 thousand troops. And through the Providence of God both the fleet of Souleiman and the infantry army of Masalmas all retired with ignominy, being worsted and utterly overthrown by the fleet and soldiers of the emperor. And our state was at peace for many a long year, for this city was guided and guarded by Our Lady the ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, by whose inviolate and holy image Souleiman himself was awed and put to shame, and he fell from his horse.

22.From the Chronicle of Theophanes, of blessed memory, concerning the same events and concerning Mauias and his clan, how it crossed over into Spain. Emperor of the Romans, Justinian Rhinotmetus.

This is the beginning of his reign; and thereafter he was expelled by Leontius, and then in his turn came back again and expelled Leontius and Apsimarus, and held his triumph over them both in the hippodrome, and put them to death.

In this year Abimelech sent to Justinian to ratify the peace on. these conditions: the emperor to withdraw the Mardaïte legion from the Lebanon and check their incursions, and Abimelech to give the Romans daily a thousand nomismata and one thoroughbred horse and one Ethiopian slave, and the taxes of Cyprus and Armenia and Iberia to be held commonly and in equal shares by both parties. The emperor dispatched Paul the imperial agent to Abimelech, to confirm the terms agreed upon, and a confirmation was drawn up in writing and attested. The imperial agent was presented with gifts, and returned. And the emperor sent and took in the Mardaïtes, 12 thousand of them, thereby crippling the Roman power. For all the frontier cities now inhabited by the Arabs from Mopsouestia and as far as Armenia Quarta were defenseless and uninhabited because of the incursion of the Mardaïtes, by whose drawing away Romania has suffered terrible damage at the hands of the Arabs, and suffers it still. And in the same year the emperor went to Armenia and there took in the Mardaïtes of the Lebanon, thus destroying his brazen wall. Moreover, he broke the pledge of peace with the (Danube) Bulgarians, disturbing the treaty made by his own father.

It was also during the reign of Abimelech that the Arabs marched against Africa and took it, and placed in it a garrison of their troops. At that time Leontius had expelled Justinian from the rule over the Romans, and had exiled him to Cherson and had possessed himself of the empire. But after Apsimarus Tiberius had ousted Leontius from the throne and had possessed himself of the sceptre of the Romans, Abimelech, chief of the Arabs, died, and Oualid his son ruled nine years. In the same year Justinian returned once more to his throne, and during his slack and careless government the Agarenes (Arabs) obtained complete control of Africa. Then, the grandson of Mauias with a very few men crossed over into Spain, and, having collect­ed together all of his tribe, gained control of Spain even to this day, and that is why the Agarenes (Arabs) who dwell in Spain are called Mauiates.


Their descendants are the Agarenes (Arabs) who live in Crete. For when Michael the Lisper had got possession of the rule over the Romans, and the rebellion of Thomas broke out and lasted three years, then, while the emperor was engrossed with the troubles which had arisen, the Agarenes (Arabs) who lived in Spain saw their chance had come, fitted out a large fleet and started out from the region of Sicily and desolated all the islands of the Cyclades, and, coming to Crete and finding it rich and carelessly guarded, since none opposed or engaged them, they took it, and hold it to this day. Oualid was succeeded by Souleiman, who ruled three years. In his time Masalmas, the general of Souleiman, made an expedition with an army overland, and Oumar by sea, and by God’s aid they returned with shame, their purpose unachieved. Souleiman was succeeded by Oumar, who held the rule over the Arabs two years. Oumar was succeeded by Azid, who held the rule for four years. He was succeeded by Isam (Hisam, Hisham, 723 – 743), who held rule for 19 years. On his death Marouam held the rule six years. On the death of Marouam Abdelas became master of the rule over the Arabs, and held it 21 years. On his death Madis became chief of the Arabs, and held the rule nine years. When he had passed away Aaron became master of the rule over the Arabs, and held the rule 23 years.

In this year, that is to say, when the rule over the Romans *** Irene and Constantine, the year from the creation of the world 6288. In the same year Aaron, the chief of the Arabs, died in inner Persia (Περσία), that is called Chorasan, and Moamed his son succeeded to the rule, a stupid, unbalanced man in every way, against whom his brother Abdelas came in revolt out of that same country of Chorasan together with the powers that had been his father’s, and brought about a civil war. And thereafter those who dwelt in Syria and Egypt and Libya were split up under different governments, and destroyed the public weal and one another, in a welter of slaughter and rapine and outrage of every sort against themselves and their Christian subjects. Then it was that the churches in the holy city of Christ our God were desolated, and the monasteries of the two great Laurai, those of SS. Charito and Cyriac and of St. Sabas, and the other coenobite monasteries of SS. Euthymius and Theodosius. This anarchy, during which they murdered one another and us, lasted five years.

22, 23
Up to this point the history of the Arabs is set in order chronologically by St. Theophanes, who founded the monastery of the so-called Megas Agros and was uncle on the mother’s side of the great and pious and most Christian emperor Constantine, son of Leo (Leo VI), the most wise and virtuous emperor, and grandson of Basil, of blessed memory for his tenure of the sceptre over the empire of the Romans.

23. Of Iberia and Spain.

There are two Iberias: one, at the Pillars of Hercules, is so called from the river Iber, mentioned by Apollodorus in ‘Concerning the Earth’, II: “Within the Pyrenees is the Iber, a great river running towards the interior.” In this country are said to be many distinct nations, as Herodotus has written in the Xth book of his ‘History Relating to Herakles’: “This Iberian race, which, I say, lives on the shores of the strait, though one race, is distinguished by names according to its tribes: first, those who inhabit the western parts at the farthest verge are called Kynetes (and after them, if one travels northward, are the Gletes); then, Tartessians; then, Elbusinians; then, Mastienoi; then, Kelkianoi; and then, thereafter, the Rhone.(Notably, in Herodotus time, two peoples had ethnonyms cognate with Cauls and Kelts, the Gletes and Kelkianoi) Artemidorus, in book II of the ‘Geography’, says that the country is divided thus: “The interior between the Pyrenees mountains and the district about Gadara is denominated alternatively Iberia and Spain.


It has been divided by the Romans into two provinces *** the whole extending from the Pyrenees mountains as far as New Carthage and the sources of the Baetis, while the second province comprehends the area reaching to Gadara and Lusitania.” The form ‘Iberite’ is also found. Parthenius in ‘Leucadiae’: “Thou shalt coast along the ‘Iberite’ shore.” The other Iberia is over toward the Persians (Πέρσαι). The ethnic term is ‘Iberians’, like ‘Pierians’, ‘Byzerians’. Dionysius: “Nigh unto the Pillars the nation of great-hearted ‘Iberians’.” And Aristophanes, ‘Triphales’: “Learning that the ‘Iberians’, who anciently of Aristarchus”, and, “The ‘Iberians’, whom thou lendest me, to run to my aid.” And Artemidorus in part two of ‘Geography’: “Those of the ‘Iberians’ who live on the coast use the alphabet of the Italians.” Also, from genitive ‘Iberos’ is formed the feminine ‘Iberis’. “Α Greek woman, not an ‘Iberis’”, Menander, ‘Aspis’. The form ‘Iberic’ is also found: “The first sea is the ‘Iberic’ at the outset.” Iberia used to be divided in two, but now in three, as Marcian says in its ‘Circumnavigation’: “Now of old Iberia was divided in two by the Romans, but now in three: Baetic Spain and Lusitanian Spain and Tarragonese Spain.” From genitive ‘Iberos’ Apollonius derives a nominative, as ‘phylakos’ from genitive ‘phylakos’. In ‘Paronyma’ he says: “Nominatives are derived from genitives of more than two syllables which, like the derivative nominative, carry the proparoxytone accent, whether these are in simple or compound form. Simple are: martyr, martyros, nominative martyros', Charops, Charopos, nominative Charopos, ‘of king Charopos’; Troezen, Troezenos, nominative Troezenos, ‘son of Troezenos’; Iber, Iberos, nominative Iberos”; whence in Quadratus, ‘Roman Millennium’, V, occurs the dative plural ‘Iberoisin’, thus: “Though warring at once with the Ligurians and ‘Iberoisi’.”

23, 24, 25
Habro says the same in ‘Paronyma’. And “the goat-bearded ‘Iberos’ himself” is found in the ‘Effeminates’ of Cratinus. The Iberians are said to drink water, as Athenaeus says in ‘Deipnosophists’, II: “Phylarchus in book VII says that all the Iberians too drink water, though they are the wealthiest of mankind (for they possess very great quantities of silver and gold), and he says that they never eat but once in the day out of their parsimony, and wear the most magnificent clothes.

24. Of Spain.

Whence is the name Spain? From Hispanus, a giant so called. The Spains are two provinces of Italy: one is large, the other small. The country is referred to by Charax in ‘Chronicles’, X: “In Little, or Outer, Spain the Lusitanians again revolted, and the Romans sent against them their general Quintus.” And, of the two provinces together, the same author writes: “Quintus, the Roman commander-in-chief in both the Spains. He was defeated by Viriathus and made a truce with him.” He says the country is called Iberia, in ‘Greek History’, III: “Spain the Greeks originally called Iberia, not yet having learnt the title of the whole nation but calling it all after that part of the country which is near the river Iber and derives its name therefrom.” Afterwards, they say, the name was changed to Spain.

25.From the history of the holy Theophanes of Sigriane.

In this year Valentinian was not merely too weak to recover Britain and Gaul and Spain, but also lost western Libya as well, the so-called land of the Africans; it happened like this. There were two generals, Aetius and Boniface, whom Theodosius had sent to Rome at the request of Valentinian. Boniface was given the command over western Libya, and Aetius out of jealousy slanderously accused him of meditating rebellion and working to seize Libya. This he communicated to Placidia, the mother of Valentinian. But he wrote also to Boniface, saying: “If you are sent for, do not come, for you have been slanderously accused, and the emperor and empress are trying to get you into their hands by a trick.” This message Boniface received and, trusting in Aetius as in a true friend, did not go when he was sent for. Then the emperor and empress accepted Aetius as a loyal servant. At that time the Goths and many very large nations were settled in the regions of the far north down as far as the Danube. Of these the most notable are the Goths, Visigoths, Gepedes and Vandals, who differ from one another in name only and in nothing else, and speak one and the same tongue; and all are of the misbelief of Arius. These in the time of Arcadius and Honorius crossed the Danube and settled in the territory of the Romans. The Gepedes, from whom were later divided off the Lombards and Avars (Αβαρείς), lived in the territories about Singidunum and Sirmium. The Visigoths, under Alaric, after taking Rome, went off to the Gallic provinces and possessed themselves of those regions. The Goths first held Pannonia, but afterwards were permitted by Theodosius the younger, in the 19th year of his reign, to dwell in the territories of Thrace, and after remaining 58 years in Thrace they obtained permission of Zeno to possess themselves of the western kingdom, with their leader the patrician and consul Theodoric. The Vandals, joining up with the Alans and Germans, who are now called Franks, crossed the river Rhine, and, under the leadership of Gogidisclus, settled in Spain, the first country of Europe from the side of the western Ocean.

It is inconceivable that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus did not know that Avars spoke Türkic, and Goths, Visigoths, Gepids and Vandals spoke Germanic languages. Except for the Gepids, Byzantine had diplomatic relations with all of them, and with Gepids at least trade relations. He could not not to know that Avars were refugees from the First Türkic Kaganate. The problem must be with the interpretation of the translation.


Now, Boniface, fearing the emperor and empress of the Romans, crossed over from Libya into Spain and came to the Vandals, and finding that Gogidisclus was dead and that his sons Gottharus and Gezerichus held the rule, he incited them by a promise to divide western Libya in three parts, so that each of them, with himself, should rule over a third part, but should unite to repel any enemy whoever he might be. These terms being agreed upon, the Vandals crossed the strait and settled in Libya, from the Ocean as far as Tripolis by Cyrene. The Visigoths, advancing from Gaul, took possession of Spain also. Now, some Roman senators who were friends to Boniface exposed to Placidia the falsity of Aetius’ accusation, and showed her also the letter of Aetius to Boniface, which Boniface had sent them. Placidia, much amazed, forbore to injure Aetius, but dispatched to Boniface a message recalling him to his duty, together with promises on oath. Now, on the death of Gottharius Gezerichus had become sole chief of the Vandals. Boniface, then, on receipt of the message, marched against the Vandals, with a large force which had come to him from Rome and Byzantium under the command of Aspar. Battle was joined with Gezerichus and the army of the Romans was defeated. So Boniface, accompanied by Aspar, came to Rome and dispelled suspicion by exposing the truth. But Africa fell beneath the Vandals. It was then that Marcian, the future emperor, who was a soldier in the service of Aspar, was taken alive by Gezerichus.

There are three commanders of the faithful in the whole of Syria, that is, in the empire of the Arabs, the first of whom has his seat at Bagdad and is of the family of Mouameth, or Mahomet; the second has his seat in Africa, and is of the family of Alim and Fatime, daughter of Mouameth, or Mahomet, whence the Fatemites are so called; the third has his seat in Spain, and he is of the family of Mauias.

Originally, when the Saracens made themselves masters over all Syria, the commander of the faithful had his seat at Bagdad. He was absolute ruler over Persia (Περσία) and Africa and Egypt and Arabia Felix.

25, 26
He had beneath him mighty emirates, or military provinces, as follows: first, the emirate of Persia (Περσία), or Chorasan; second, the emirate of Africa; third, the emirate of Egypt; fourth, the emirate of Philistiem, or Rambleh; fifth, the emirate of Damascus; sixth, the emirate of Homs, or Emesa; seventh, the emirate of Aleppo; eighth, the emirate of Antioch; ninth, the emirate of Harran; tenth, the emirate of Emet; eleventh, the emirate of Esibe; twelfth, the emirate of Mosul; thirteenth, the emirate of Tikrit. But after Africa was torn away from the dominion of the commander of the faithful at Bagdad and had become self-governing and had proclaimed an emir of its own, then Persia (Περσία) was the first emirate, as it had been before, and Egypt became the second, and the rest thereafter in the order given above. But now, again, owing to the impotence of the commander of the faithful at Bagdad, the emir of Persia (Περσία), or Chorasan, has become independent; and he has usurped the style of commander of the faithful, wearing the koran on tablets about his neck like a necklace. And he says he is from the family of Alim. Moreover the emir of Arabia Felix used always invariably to be beneath the dominion of the emir of Egypt. But he too has become independent, and he too has usurped the style of commander of the faithful; and he too says he is of the family of Alim.

26.The genealogy of the illustrious king Hugh.

The elder Lothair, king of Italy, grandfather of the illustrious king Hugh, was by descent of the family of the elder Charles, a man much celebrated in song and story and author of heroic deeds in war. This Charles was sole ruler over all the kingdoms, and reigned as emperor in great Francia. And in his days none of the other kings dared call himself a king, but all were his vassals; and he sent much money and abundant treasure to Palestine and built a very large number of monasteries. Well, this Lothair took his forces and marched against Rome and assaulted and got possession of it, and was crowned by the pope of that time. And when he was on his way back to his domain, that is, to Papia, he got as far as the city of Piacenza, thirty miles distant from Papia, and there he died; he begat a son called Adalbert, who took to wife the elder Bertha, and begat on her the aforesaid king Hugh. Now, after the death of the elder Lothair, Lewis, kinsman of Lewis, came from great Francia and took possession of Papia.

He was not crowned. And afterwards he came to Verona, a city 120 miles from Papia, and on his arrival there the folk of that same city rose up against him and seized and blinded him. Then the rule was seized by Berengar, grandfather of the present Berengar, and he entered Rome and was crowned. After this, a large body of the folk made a declaration to Rodolf, who was in Burgundy, saying: “Come here, and we will give the kingdom over to you and will kill Berengar.” So he came from Burgundy to the region of Papia, and one half of the folk sided with Berengar, and the rest with Rodolf. They fought and Berengar was victorious in the first battle, and they fought again and Rodolf gained the victory. And the army of Berengar fled, and Berengar, left alone by himself, made as though he were dead, and fell down among the dead and covered himself with his shield, but left his leg protruding. One of Rodolf’s soldiers came up and stabbed him in the leg with a spear, but he never stirred a muscle; and when he did not stir, he let him alone, supposing him in truth to be a corpse. And the army of Rodolf did not know that he was Berengar. When the battle was over, Berengar got up and came to his palace alone, and again got possession of his throne and fought with Rodolf and gained the victory over him. Thereafter they came to terms with one another and divided the country in two; and one of them took one part of the country, and the other the other. But Rodolf was subject to the counsel and authority of Berengar. After this, again, three marquises came from Burgundy to Papia with intent to expel its possessors and possess it themselves; they were Hugh Tagliaferro, and Boso (Βόζος, Burgundian marquis), and Boso’s brother Hugh, the most noble king aforesaid. And he came with a large army. When Berengar heard of it, he made ready and advanced to meet him in battle, and began to blockade and to reduce them by hunger, and gave orders to his army not to kill any, but if they should take any of them prisoner, to cut off his nose and his two ears and let him go; and so they did. When they saw this, the three chiefs aforesaid took the holy gospels in their hands and came barefoot to Berengar and begged his pardon and swore that they would never more come there so long as he should live; and then he let them depart to their own country.

26, 27
But afterwards, when Berengar had gone to Verona, he was slain by Flambert, whose child he had held at the font, and then Rodolf became possessed of the whole kingdom. And after that the folk of the whole country sent a message to Burgundy, to the aforesaid king Hugh, saying: “Come, and we will give the country over to you.” And when he came, the folk raised him up, and brought him away to the palace and made him king again. But to Rodolf they said: “Depart with your treasure, either to your country or elsewhere, as you will.” So he went off to Burgundy, to his country, and there ruled over a large folk. And when he died, the aforesaid king Hugh went off to Burgundy and took to wife the widow of Rodolf, who was also called Bertha. And her daughter, Adelesa by name, he gave to Lothair his son, who is now king of Italy. Now, she who came up to Constantinople and was joined in marriage to Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), the son born in the purple of Constantine, the Christ-loving sovereign, was the daughter of the same illustrious king Hugh, and she was called Bertha after the name of her grandmother, I mean the elder Bertha, who after the death of Adalbert her husband reigned ten years; but she, the young Bertha, changed her name to Eudocia, after that of the grandmother and sister of Constantine, the Christ-loving sovereign.

27. Of the province of Lombardy and of the principalities and governorships therein.

In ancient times the whole domain of Italy, both Naples and Capua and Beneventum, Salerno and Amalfi and Gaeta and all of Lombardy, was in the possession of the Romans, I mean, when Rome was the imperial capital. But after the seat of empire was removed to Constantinople, all these territories were divided into two governments, and therefore two patricians used to be dispatched by the emperor in Constantinople; one patrician would govern Sicily and Calabria and Naples and Amalfi, and the other, with his seat at Beneventum, would govern Papia and Capua and all the rest. They used to remit annually to the emperor the sums due to the treasury.

All these countries aforesaid used to be inhabited by the Romans. But in the time of the empress Irene (797 – 802, d 803) the patrician Narses was sent out and was governing Beneventum and Papia; and pope Zacharias, the Athenian, was governing Rome. It happened that fighting had been going on in the region of Papia, and the patrician Narses had expended on the army the tribute collected for the treasury, and the regular revenue was not remitted by him. Narses sent back a reply, saying: “I expect, rather, that money should be sent to me from your side, since I have exhausted all the revenues incoming from here upon the fighting that has broken out; but, on the contrary, it is you who are demanding revenues from here.” When the empress Irene heard this she was angry and sent him a spindle and distaff, and wrote to him: “Take these, your proper instruments; for we have judged it fit that you should spin, rather than that as a man at arms you should defend and guide and do battle for the Romans.” On hearing this the patrician Narses wrote in reply to the empress: “Since I am thus judged by you fit to spin and twist like a woman, I will twist you hanks with spindle and distaff such as the Romans shall never be able to unravel so long as they endure.” Now, at that time the Lombards were dwelling in Pannonia, where now the Turks (Hungarians) live. And the patrician Narses sent to them fruits of all kinds and made them this declaration: “Come hither and behold a land flowing with honey and milk, as the saying is, which, I think, God has none to surpass; and if it please you, settle in it, that you may call me blessed for the ages of ages.” The Lombards heard and obeyed and took their families and came to Beneventum. The inhabitants of the city of Beneventum did not allow them to come inside the city, and they settled outside the city, near the wall and by the river, where they built a small city, which for that reason is called Civita Nova, that is, New City, and it stands to this day. But they began to come inside the city also and into the church, and having by a stratagem gained the upper hand of the inhabitants of the city of Beneventum, they made away with them all and took possession of the city. For they carried swords inside their staves, and in the church they wheeled round and attacked all together and, as has been said, killed everyone.

The Tale of Two Irenes

The life of the Khazar princess Chichak (Tr. Flower) is an unsung saga. A sister of the sitting Khazar Kagan from from the Ashina clan was married to the Byzantine emperor Constantine V (718 – 775, r. 741-775), a son of the Byzantine emperor Leo III Isaur. Chichak, a sister of Kagan Bihar (Busir, Ibuzir Glavan, ca.690-715), was brought to Constantinopole, baptized as Irene (Eirene, Gk. Peace) and in 732 married the 14-years old Constantine V.  At that time, Chichak may have been even younger than Constantine, as she would not give birth for eighteen years, and probably was born in 620s; her presumed father Kagan Barjik died in 731, the dynastic compact must have been negotiated by her father, and a year must be allowed that for negotiations, preparations, and travel.

After 9 years, in 741, as the co-empress Irene, Chichak became an Empress Irene. That coincides with the Artabasdos' usurpation, 741–743. After another 9 years, in 750, Chichak bore a first and only son Leo (Leo VI), the future Byzantine Emperor Leo IV “Leo The Khazar” (r. 751 – 780). As a wife of the Byzantine emperor Constantine V, Chichak disappeared from the records. Her husband Constantine V next year married his second wife Maria, who died within a year, and in 769 he legitimized his third wife Eudokia by making her Augusta, two of his sons from her the Caesars, and a third son a Nobilissimus. At that time Chichak would have been in her late 40s. Miraculously, at the same time from the household of a patrician Constantine Sarantapechos pops up another Irene, who in 771 the aging 53-years old Constantine V married to his co-reigning son form Chichak, the 21-years old Leo IV “Leo The Khazar”. The new Irene started as the co-empress Irene; in 771, when Chichak would have been 51 years old, the co-empress Irene gave birth to the future Constantine VI, she became a full Empress in 775, when Chichak would have been 55 years old, but lost her husband in 780. The new Irene became a regent for her nine-year old son Constantine, and initiated a contemplated marriage between her and 32/38 years old Charlemagne (742/748? – 814). In 800,  Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, both she and Charlemagne were contending Holy Roman Emperors, the marriage would have made a political sense. Then she initiated negotiations for a marriage between her son Constantine and Charlemagne daughter Rotrude from his third wife. Her designs came to naught, and by 797, when Chichak would have been 77 years old, she already titled herself Basilissa (βασίλισσα) “empress” and Basileus (βασιλεύς) “emperor”. After another 5 years, in 802 she was retired; Chichak would already have been 82 years old. The new Irene was made a saint of the Greek Orthodox Church for restoring the use of icons in the Greek Orthodox Church.

The Artabasdos' usurpation adds a sprinkle to the Chichak story. The name Artabasdos is screamingly Türkic, meaning a “Head of the Center” or “Head of the Central Command”, and his service as a military Governor of Armenia does not conflict with that. Seeing an example of a Türkic princess becoming an Empress of the Roman Empire, an enterprising Türkic commander could be inspired to become an Emperor of the Roman Empire. Which he did, for a short while.


And thereafter they marched out and subdued all that land, both the province of Lombardy and Calabria and as far as Papia, except for Otranto and Gallipoli and Rossano and Naples and Gaeta and Sorrento and Amalfi. The first city, ancient and mighty, was Capua, the second, Naples, the third, Beneventum, the fourth, Gaeta, the fifth, Amalfi. Salerno was settled in the time of Sicardus, when the Lombards divided the principalities. From the division of Lombardy until to-day, the 7th indiction, the year 6457 from the creation of the world, it is 200 years. There were two brothers, Sicon and Sicardus. Sicon governed Beneventum and the districts of Bari and Sipontum, and Sicardus governed Salerno and Capua and the district of Calabria. Naples was anciently the praetorium of the patricians who came out, and the governor of Naples had Sicily beneath him as well, and when the patrician arrived in Naples, the duke of Naples would go off to Sicily. Capua was a very large city indeed, and was captured by the Vandals, or Africans, who demolished it. When it was lying a deserted city, the Lombards settled in it. When the Africans came against them once more, bishop Landulf built a city at the bridge over the river and called it New Capua, and it still survives. From the foundation of this Capua, it is 73 years. Naples and Amalfi and Sorrento have always been subject to the emperor of the Romans.

‘Mastromilis’ means in the Roman tongue captain-general of the army.

Before the Venetians crossed over and settled in the islands in which they live now, they were called Enetikoi, and used to dwell on the mainland in these cities: the city of Concordia, the city of Justiniana, the city of Nonum and very many other cities.

When those who are now called Venetians, but were originally called Enetikoi, crossed over, they began by constructing a strongly fortified city, in which the doge of Venice still has his seat to-day, a city surrounded by some six miles of sea, into which 27 rivers also debouch. There are other islands also to the east of this same city. And upon these same islands also they who are now called Venetians built cities: the city of Cogradon, in which is a great metropolitan church with many relics of saints laid up in it; the city of Rivalensis, the city of Lulianon, the city of Apsanon, the city of Romatina, the city of Licenzia, the city of Pinetai, which is called Strobilos, the city of Biniola, the city of Boes, in which is a church of the holy apostle Peter, the city of Ilitoualba, the city of Litoumangersis, the city of Bronion, the city of Madaucon, the city of Ebola, the city of Pristinai, the city of Clugia, the city of Brundon, the city of Phosaon, the city of Lauriton.

27, 28
There are other islands also in the same country of Venice.

On the mainland, also, in the land of Italy, there are cities of the Venetians, as follows: the city of Capre, the city of Neokastron, the city of Phines, the city of Aikylon, the city of Aeimanas, the great trading station of Torcello, the city of Mouran, the city of Rivalto, which means ‘highest point’, where the doge of Venice has his seat; the city of Oaverzenzis.

There are also trading stations and forts.

28.Story of the settlement of what is now called Venice.

Of old, Venice was a desert place, uninhabited and swampy. Those who are now called Venetians were Franks from Aquileia and from the other places in Francia, and they used to dwell on the mainland opposite Venice. But when Attila (Άτίλα, Άττίλας), the king of the Avars (Αβαρείς), came and utterly devastated and depopulated all the parts of Francia, all the Franks from Aquileia and from the other cities of Francia began to take to flight, and to go to the uninhabited islands of Venice and to built huts there, out of their dread of king Attila. Now when this king Attila had devastated all the country of the mainland and had advanced as far as Rome and Calabria and had left Venice far behind, those who had fled for refuge to the islands of Venice, having obtained a breathing-space and, as it were, shaken off their faintness of heart, took counsel jointly to settle there, which they did, and have been settled there till this day. But again, many years after the with­drawal of Attila, king Pippin arrived, who at that time was ruling over Papia and other kingdoms.

Unbeknown to the most, the last Avar Kagan's name was Attila.


For this Pippin had three brothers, and they were ruling over all the Frank and Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) regions. Now when king Pippin came against the Venetians with power and a large army, he blockaded them along the mainland, on the far side of the crossing between it and the islands of Venice, at a place called Aeibolas. Well, when the Venetians saw king Pippin coming against them with his power and preparing to take ship with the horses to the island of Madamaucon (for this is an island near the mainland), they laid down spars and fenced off the whole crossing. The army of king Pippin, being brought to a stand (for it was not possible for them to cross at any other point), blockaded them along the mainland six months, fighting with them daily. The Venetians would man their ships and take up position behind the spars they had laid down, and king Pippin would take up position with his army along the shore. The Venetians assailed them with arrows and javelins, and stopped them from crossing over to the island. So then king Pippin, at a loss, said to the Venetians: “You are beneath my hand and my providence, since you are of my country and domain.” But the Venetians answered him: “We want to be servants of the emperor of the Romans, and not of you.” When, however, they had for long been straitened by the trouble that had come upon them, the Venetians made a treaty of peace with king Pippin, agreeing to pay him a very considerable tribute. But since that time the tribute has gone on diminishing year by year, though it is paid even to this day. For the Venetians pay to him who rules over the kingdom of Italy, that is, Papia, a twopenny fee of 36 pounds of uncoined silver annually. So ended the war between Franks and Venetians. When the folk began to flee away to Venice and to collect there in numbers, they proclaimed as their doge him who surpassed the rest in nobility. The first doge among them had been appointed before king Pippin came against them. At that time the doge’s residence was at a place called Civitanova, which means ‘new city’. But because this island aforesaid is close to the mainland, by common consent they moved the doge’s residence to another island, where it now is at this present, because it is at a distance from the mainland, as far off as one may see a man on horseback.

29. Of Dalmatia and of the adjacent nations in it.

The emperor Diocletian was much enamored of the country of Dalmatia, and so he brought folk with their families from Rome and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia, and they were called ‘Romani’ from their having been removed from Rome, and this title attaches to them until this day. Now this emperor Diocletian founded the city of Spalato and built therein a palace beyond the power of any tongue or pen to describe, and remains of its ancient luxury are still preserved to-day, though the long lapse of time has played havoc with them. Moreover, the city of Diocleia, now occupied by the Diocletiana, was built by the same emperor Diocletian, for which reason those of that country have come to be called by the name of ‘Diocletians’. The territory possessed by these Romani used to extend as far as the river Danube, and once on a time, being minded to cross the river and discover who dwelt beyond the river, they crossed it and came upon unarmed Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) nations, who were also called Avars (Αβαρείς). The former had not expected that any dwelt beyond the river, nor the latter that any dwelt on the hither side. And so, finding these Avars (Αβαρείς) unarmed and unprepared for war, the Romani overcame them and took booty and prisoners and returned. And from that time the Romani formed two alternating garrisons, serving from Easter to Easter, and used to change their men about so that on Great and Holy Saturday they who were coming back from the station and they who were going out to that service would meet one another. For near the sea, beneath that same city, lies a city called Salona, which is half as large as Constantinople, and here all the Romani would muster and be equipped and thence start out and come to the frontier pass, which is four miles from this same city, and is called Kleisa to this day, from its closing in those who pass that way. And from there they would advance to the river. This exchange of garrisons went on for a number of years and the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) on the far side of the river, who were also called Avars (Αβαρείς), thought it over among themselves, and said: “These Romani, now that they have crossed over and found booty, will in future not cease coming over against us, and so we will devise a plan against them.” And so, therefore, the Slavs (Σκλάβωι), or Avars (Αβαρείς), took counsel, and on one occasion when the Romani had crossed over, they laid ambushes and attacked and defeated them.

The aforesaid Slavs (Σκλάβωι) took the Roman arms and standards and the rest of their military insignia and crossed the river and came to the frontier pass, and when the Romani who were there saw them and beheld the standards and accoutrements of their own men they thought they were their own men, and so, when the aforesaid Slavs (Σκλάβωι) reached the pass, they let them through. Once through, they instantly expelled the Romani and took possession of the aforesaid city of Salona. There they settled and thereafter began gradually to make plundering raids and destroyed the Romani who dwelt in the plains and on the higher ground and took possession of their lands. The remnant of the Romani escaped to the cities of the coast and possess them still, namely, Decatera, Ragusa, Spalato, Tetrangourin, Diadora, Arbe, Vekla and Opsara, the inhabitants of which are called Romani to this day.

These Σκλάβωι are traditionally translated as Slavs, and in the case of the “Σκλάβωι who were also called Avars (Αβαρείς)” the interpretation is “Slavic subjects of Avars”. However, under a thesis that  Σκλάβωι is a generic umbrella supraethnic term for all Avar subjects, these Σκλάβωι are not necessarily the Slavs, but could be any group that fall under the generic umbrella ethnic term Saka, Saklab, Scythians, etc. Such interpretation opens the gate for etymologizing the “Slavic” names of the Dniper cataracts as Türkic expressions, at least for the names that did not find a Slavic interpretation.

 Such interpretation also opens the gate for reinterpretation of the annalistic accounts of the “Slavic” settlement in Greece. What is presumed to be “Slavic” may be generic supraethnic occupation, and the ethnicity of the colonists may only be detected by their economies, horse husbandry vs, sedentary agricultural. A major factor in such reinterpretation is the concept of the settlement ot polity. While within the sedentary societies territory is the essence of the polity, in the animal husbandry societies the essence of the polity is people, including and at times most important, the dependent people.

Since the reign of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans (r. 610 – 641), as will be related in the narrative concerning the Croats (Χρωβάτος) and Serbs (Σέρβλων), the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats (Χρωβάτων), Serbs (Σέρβλων), Zachlumi (Bosnia,  “beyond the hills”), Terbouniotes (Trebinje), Kanalites (Konavle, Croatia), Diocletians and Arentani (Bechens, Pagans), who are also called Pagani ***. But when the Roman empire, through the sloth and inexperience of those who then governed it and especially in the time of Michael from Amorion, the Lisper, had declined to the verge of total extinction, the inhabitants of the cities of Dalmatia became independent, subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anybody else, and, what is more, the nations of those parts, the Croats (Χρωβάτος) and Serbs (Σέρβλων) and Zachlumites, Terbuniotes and Kanalites and Diocletians and the Pagani, shook off the reins of the empire of the Romans and became self-governing and independent, subject to none. Princes, as they say, these nations had none, but only ‘zupans’ (čoban, village elder's assistant), elders, as is the rule in the other Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) regions. Moreover, the majority of these Slavs (Σκλάβωι) were not even baptized, and remained unbaptized for long enough.

But in the time of Basil, the Christ-loving emperor, they sent diplomatic agents, begging and praying him that those of them who were unbaptized might receive baptism and that they might be, as they had originally been, subject to the empire of the Romans; and that glorious emperor, of blessed memory, gave ear to them and sent out an imperial agent and priests with him and baptized all of them that were unbaptized of the aforesaid nations, and after baptizing them he then appointed for them princes whom they themselves approved and chose, from the family which they themselves loved and favored. And from that day to this their princes come from these same families, and from no other. But the Pagani, who are called Arentani (Bechens, Pagans) in the Roman tongue, were left unbaptized, in an inaccessible and precipitous part of the country. For ‘Pagani’ means ‘unbaptized’ in the Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) tongue. But later, they too sent to the same glorious emperor and begged that they too might be baptized, and he sent and baptized them too. And since, as we said above, owing to the sloth and inexperience of those in power things had gone the wrong way for the Romans, the inhabitants of the cities of Dalmatia also had become independent, subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anybody else. But after some time, in the reign of Basil the glorious and ever-memorable emperor, Saracens from Africa, Soldan and Saba and Kalphus, came with 36 ships and reached Dalmatia and took the city of Butova and the city of Rossa and the lower city of Decatera. And they came also to the city of Ragusa and blockaded it fifteen months. Then in their strait the Ragusans made a declaration to Basil, the ever-memorable emperor of the Romans, saying this to him: “Have pity on us and do not allow us to be destroyed by them that deny Christ.” The emperor was moved with compassion and sent the patrician Nicetas, admiral of the fleet, surnamed Ooryphas, with one hundred ships of war.

When the Saracens learnt of the arrival of the patrician admiral of the fleet with his squadron, they quitted the city of Ragusa and took to flight and crossed over into Lombardy and laid siege to the city of Bari and took it. Then Soldan built a palace there and was for forty years master of all Lombardy as far as Rome. On this account, therefore, the emperor sent to Lewis, king of Francia, and to the pope of Rome, asking their cooperation with the army which he, the emperor, had sent. The king and the pope acceded to the emperor’s request, and both of them came with a large force and joined up with the army sent by the emperor and with the Croat and Serb and Zachlumian chiefs and the Terbouniotes and Kanalites (Konavle, Croatia) and the men of Ragusa and all the cities of Dalmatia (for all these were present by imperial mandate); and they crossed over into Lombardy, and laid siege to the city of Bari and took it.

The Croats (Χρωβάτος) and the other chiefs of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) were carried over into Lombardy by the inhabitants of the city of Ragusa in their own vessels. The city of Bari and the country and all the prisoners were taken by the emperor of the Romans, but Soldan and the rest of the Saracens were taken by Lewis, the king of Francia, who carried them off to the city of Capua and the city of Beneventum. And no one saw Soldan laughing. And the king said: “If anybody truly reports to me or shows me Soldan laughing, I will give him much money.” Later, someone saw him laughing and reported it to king Lewis. He summoned Soldan and asked him, how he had come to laugh? And he said: “I saw a cart and the wheels on it turning round and therefore I laughed because I too was once at the top and am now lowest of all, but God may raise me up again.

And thereafter Lewis would summon him to his table and would eat with him. And the nobles of Capua and Beneventum used to go to Soldan and ask him questions about the treatment and care of cattle and other matters, because of his age and experience. And Soldan, who was cunning and crooked, said to them: “I would like to say a thing to you, but I fear to be betrayed by you to the king and I shall lose my life.” But they swore to him, and he took heart and said to them: “The king is minded to banish all of you to great Francia, and if you disbelieve it, wait a little, and I will satisfy you.” And he went off and said to Lewis: “The nobles of this place are evil, and you cannot be master of this country unless you destroy the powerful men who oppose you; but do you bind the first men of the city and send them off to your country, and then the rest will be submissive to you, as you desire.” When he had won him to carrying out his advice, and the king had instructed that chains of iron should be made for their banishment, Soldan went off and said to the nobles: “Do you still not believe that the king is sending you into banishment, and that all remem­brance of you will vanish from among men? Yet, if you will be perfectly satisfied, go and see what all the smiths are making by order of the king. And if you do not find them making the chains and fetters, know that all I have told you is lies; but if I speak truth, look to your safety and reward me for my valuable and salutary advice to you.” The nobles obeyed the word of Soldan, and when they had seen the chains and fetters, they were comple­tely satisfied, and thereafter began to devise the destruction of king Lewis. The king, in ignorance of all this, went out hunting. But when he came back, his nobles had taken possession of the city and did not allow him to enter. King Lewis, seeing himself thus opposed by the nobles, went back to his own country. The nobles said to Soldan: “What, then, would you have us do for you, in return for the salvation wrought for us by you?” And he requested them to dismiss him to his own country, which they did, and he went off to Africa, to his own country. But, mindful of his ancient malice, he made an expedition and came with a force to Capua and to Beneventum, to lay siege to and subdue them. The rulers of these cities sent envoys to king Lewis in Francia, asking him to come and help them fight against Soldan and the Africans.

But king Lewis, when he heard of it, having learnt how Soldan had acted in persuading the nobles that, “the king purposes to send you in chains to banishment in Francia”, declared in answer to them: “I repent my former conduct towards you, when I saved you from your enemies, and you returned me evil for good; and as I was cast out by you, now I rejoice at your destruction.” Then, having failed with king Lewis, they sent envoys to the emperor of the Romans, asking that he should give them aid and deliver them out of this danger. The emperor promised to aid them. But when the diplomatic agent had left Constantinople on his homeward way, bringing back to them who had sent him fair tidings of the alliance with the emperor, he was still short of the city when he was captured by the scouts of Soldan. For Soldan had obtained previous intelligence of the sending of a mission of supplication to the emperor of the Romans and had made efforts to capture their diplomatic agent, which he did. From his captive he learnt of the service he had performed, and that in a few days the succours of the emperor of the Romans would arrive. So Soldan said to this same diplomatic agent: “If you do what I tell you, you shall be awarded freedom and very great gifts; but if not, you shall lose your life and your death shall be cruel.” The man promised to carry out his orders, and Soldan said to him: “I order you to stand close to the wall and to summon those who sent you and say to them: ‘For my part, I have carried out the service laid upon me, and have importuned the emperor of the Romans on your behalf; however, know that my journey was vain, and that the emperor has altogether spurned the supplication you made, and do not expect succour from the emperor’.” When he had promised to perform this gladly, they conducted him close to the city, where, disregarding all that Soldan had said, neither fearing his threats nor seduced by his promises, but setting the fear of God in his heart, he communed thus with himself: “It is expedient that I alone should die, and not by my word entrap and betray so many souls to their death.” So, when he was near the wall and had summoned the nobles, he thus addressed those who were in authority over that city: “I, my lords, have discharged my office and will announce to you what was declared by the emperor of the Romans; but I adjure you by the Son of God and the salvation of all the city and of your very souls, to reward, instead of me, my children and her who is hoping to receive me back, my wife; for as you deal with them, so shall your reward be from God, the just and righteous rewarder, who shall judge the quick and the dead.”

When he had so spoken, he fortified them with these words: “For my part I shall be destroyed by Soldan and the threat of death is upon me; but do you stand fast and be not faint­hearted, but endure a little while, and in a few days shall arrive the salva­tion which has been sent to you by the emperor of the Romans.” When he had so spoken, the servants of Soldan who had charge of him, hearing his unexpected message, gnashed with their teeth upon him, and each outran the other to be the author of his murder. But after he was made away by them, Soldan, dreading the powers of the emperor that were coming upon him, withdrew to his own country. And from that time until this day the men of Capua and the men of Beneventum have been under the authority of the Romans in perfect servitude and subjection, for that great benefit which was done to them.

The city of Ragusa is not called Ragusa in the tongue of the Romans but, because it stands on cliffs, it is called in Roman speech ‘the cliff, lau’; whence they are called ‘Lausaioi’, i. e. ‘those who have their seat on the cliff’. But vulgar usage, which frequently corrupts names by altering their letters, has changed the denomination and called them Rausaioi. These same Rausaioi used of old to possess the city that is called Pitaura; and since, when the other cities were captured by the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) that were in the province, this city too was captured, and some were slaughtered and others taken prisoner, those who were able to escape and reach safety settled in the almost precipitous spot where the city now is; they built it small to begin with, and afterwards enlarged it, and later still extended its wall until the city reached its present size, owing to their gradual spreading out and increase in population. Among those who migrated to Ragusa are: Gregory, Arsaphius, Victorinus, Vitalius, Valentine the archdeacon, Valentine the father of Stephen the protospatharius. From their migration from Salona to Ragusa, it is 500 years till this day, which is the 7th indiction, the year 6457. In this same city lies St. Pancratius, in the church of St. Stephen, which is in the middle of this same city.

The city of Spalato, which means ‘little palace’, was founded by the emperor Diocletian; he made it his own dwelling-place, and built within it a court and a palace, most part of which has been destroyed. But a few things remain to this day, e. g. the episcopal residence of the city and the church of St. Domnus, in which lies St. Domnus himself, and which was the resting-place of the same emperor Diocletian. Beneath it are arching vaults, which used to be prisons, in which he cruelly confined the saints whom he tormented. St. Anastasius also lies in this city.

The defense-wall of this city is constructed neither of bricks nor of concrete, but of ashlar blocks, one and often two fathoms in length by a fathom across, and these are fitted and joined to one another by iron cramps puddled into molten lead. In this city also stand close rows of columns, with entablatures above, on which this same emperor Diocletian proposed to erect arching vaults and to cover over the city throughout, and to build his palace and all the living-quarters of the city on the top of those vaults, to a height of two and three stories, so that they covered little ground-space in the same city. The defense-wall of this city has neither rampart nor bulwarks, but only lofty walls and arrow-slits.

The city of Tetrangourin is a little island in the sea, with a very narrow neck reaching to the land like a bridge, along which the inhabitants pass to the same city; and it is called Tetrangourin because it is long-shaped like a cucumber. In this same city lies the holy martyr Lawrence the archdeacon.

The city of Decatera means in the language of the Romans ‘contracted and strangled’, because the sea enters like a contracted tongue for 15 or 20 miles, and the city is on this marine appendix. This city has high mountains in a circle about it, so that the sun can be seen only in summer, because it is then in mid-heaven, and in winter it cannot be seen at all. In the same city lies St. Tryphon entire, who heals every disease, especially those who are tormented by unclean spirits; his church is domed.

The city of Diadora is called in the language of the Romans ‘iam era’, which means, ‘it was already’: that is to say, when Rome was founded, this city had already been founded before it; it is a big city.

29, 30
Vulgar usage gives it the name Diadora. In the same city lies in the flesh St. Anastasia, the virgin, daughter of Eustathius, who was on the throne at that time; and St. Chrysogonus, monk and martyr, and his holy chain. The church of St. Anastasia is a basilica like the church of the Chalcopratia, with green and white columns, and all decorated with encaustic pictures in the antique style; its floor is of wonderful mosaic. Near it is another church, a domed one, Holy Trinity, and above this church again is another church, like a triforium, domed also, into which they mount by a spiral staircase.

Under the control of Dalmatia is a close-set and very numerous archipelago, extending as far as Beneventum, so that ships never fear to be overwhelmed in those parts. One of these islands is the city of Vekla, and on another island Arbe, and on another island Opsara, and on another island Lumbricaton, and these are still inhabited. The rest are uninhabited and have upon them deserted cities, of which the names are as follows: Katautrebeno, Pizouch, Selbo, Skerda, Aloep, Skirdakissa, Pyrotima, Meleta, Estiounez, and very many others of which the names are not intelligible. The remaining cities, on the mainland of the province, which were captured by the said Slavs (Σκλάβωι), now stand uninhabited and deserted, and nobody lives in them.

30.Story of the province of Dalmatia.

If knowledge be a good thing for all, then we too are approaching it by arriving at the knowledge of events. For this reason we are giving, for the benefit of all who come after us, a plain account both of these matters and of certain others worthy of attention, so that the resulting good may be twofold.

They, then, who are inquiring into the taking of Dalmatia also, how it was taken by the nations of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι), may learn of it from what follows; but first of all its geographical position must be told.

In olden times, therefore, Dalmatia used to start at the confines of Dyrrachium, or Antibari, and used to extend as far as the mountains of Istria, and spread out as far as the river Danube. All this area was under the rule of the Romans, and this province was the most illustrious of all the provinces of the west; however, it was taken by the nations of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) in the following manner. Near Spalato is a city called Salona, built by the emperor Diocletian; Spalato itself was also built by Diocletian, and his palace was there, but at Salona dwelt his nobles and large numbers of the common folk. This city was the head of all Dalmatia. Now, every year a force of cavalry from the other cities of Dalmatia used to collect at, and be dispatched from Salona, to the number of a thousand, and they would keep guard on the river Danube, on account of the Avars (Αβαρείς). For the Avars (Αβαρείς) had their haunts on the far side of the river Danube, where now are the Turks (Hungarians), and led a nomad life. The men of Dalmatia who went there every year would often see the beasts and men on the far side of the river. On one occasion, therefore, they decided to cross over and investigate who they were that had their abode there. So they crossed, and found only the women and children of the Avars (Αβαρείς), the men and youths being on a military expedition. Falling suddenly upon them, therefore, they made them prisoner, and returned unmolested, carrying off this booty to Salona. Now when the Avars (Αβαρείς) came back from their military expedition and learnt from their losses what had happened, they were confounded, but know not from what quarter this blow had come upon them. They therefore decided to bide their time and in this way to discover the whole. And so, when according to custom the garrison was once more dispatched from Salona, not the same men as before but others, they too decided to do what their predecessors had done. So they crossed over against them, but finding them massed together, not scattered abroad as on the previous occasion, not merely did they achieve nothing but actually suffered the most frightful reverse. For some of them were slain, and the remainder taken alive, and not one escaped the hand of the enemy. The latter examined them as to who they were and whence they came, and having learnt that it was from them that they had suffered the blow aforesaid, and having moreover found out by enquiry the nature of their homeland and taken a fancy to it as far as they might from hearsay, they held the survivors captive and dressed themselves up in their clothes, just as the others had worn them, and then, mounting the horses and taking in their hands the standards and the rest of the insignia which the others had brought with them, they all started off in military array and made for Salona.

And since they had learnt by enquiry also the time at which the garrison was wont to return from the Danube (which was the Great and Holy Saturday), they themselves arrived on that same day. When they got near, the bulk of the army was placed in concealment, but up to a thousand of them, those who, to play the trick, had acquired the horses and uniforms of the Dalmatians, rode out in front. Those in the city, recognizing their insignia and dress, and also the day, for upon this day it was customary for them to return, opened the gates and received them with delight. But they, as soon as they were inside, seized the gates and, signaling their exploit to the army, gave it the cue to run in and enter with them. And so they put to the sword all in the city and thereafter made themselves masters of all the country of Dalmatia and settled down in it. Only the townships on the coast held out against them, and continued to be in the hands of the Romans, because they obtained their livelihood from the sea. The Avars (Αβαρείς), then, seeing this land to be most fair, settled down in it. But the Croats (Χρωβάτος) at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats (Βελοχρωβάτοι) are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas (Κλουκάς) and Lobelos () and Kosentzis () and Mouchlo (Μουχλώ)  and Chrobatos (Χρωβάτος, Kangar tribe Chor ~ Charavon, Charvat < Chor-bat = Prince-Ruler, Harvat, Croat), and two sisters, Touga (Τοϋγα) and Bouga (Βοϋγα), who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars (Αβαρείς) in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats (Χρωβάτος) prevailed and killed some of the Avars (Αβαρείς) and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them. And so from that time this land was possessed by the Croats (Χρωβάτος), and there are still in Croatia some who are of Avar (Αβαρείς) descent and are recognized as Avars (Αβαρείς). The rest of the Croats (Χρωβάτος) stayed over against Francia, and are now called Belocroats (Βελοχρωβάτοι), that is, white Croats, and have their own prince; they are subject to Otto, the great king of Francia, or Saxony, and are unbaptized, and intermarry and are friendly with the Turks (Hungarians). From the Croats (Χρωβάτος) who came to Dalmatia a part split off and possessed themselves of Illyricum and Pannonia; they too had an independent prince, who used to maintain friendly contact, though through envoys only, with the prince of Croatia (Χρωβατίας).

For a number of years the Croats (Χρωβάτος) of Dalmatia also were subject to the Franks, as they had formerly been in their own country; but the Franks treated them with such brutality that they used to murder Croat (Χρωβάτος) infants at the breast and cast them to the dogs. The Croats (Χρωβάτος), unable to endure such treatment from the Franks, revolted from them, and slew those of them whom they had for princes. On this, a large army from Francia marched against them, and after they had fought one another for seven years, at last the Croats (Χρωβάτος) managed to prevail and destroyed all the Franks with their leader, who was called Kotzilis. From that time they remained independent and autonomous, and they requested the holy baptism from the bishop of Rome, and bishops were sent who baptized them in the time of Porinos their prince. Their country was divided into 11 ‘zupanias’, viz., Chlebiana, Tzenzina, Imota, Pleba, Pesenta, Parathalassia, Breberi, Nona, Tnina, Sidraga, Nina; and their ban possesses Kribasa (Κρίβασαν), Litza and Goutziska (Γουτζησκά). Now, the said Croatia (Χρωβατίας) and the rest of the Slavonic (Σκλαβίνικα) regions are situated thus: Diocleia is neighbor to the forts of Dyrrachium, I mean, to Elissus and to Helcynium and Antibari, and comes up as far as Decatera, and on the side of the mountain country it is neighbor to Serbia (Σερβλία). From the city of Decatera begins the domain of Terbounia and stretches along as far as Ragusa, and on the side of its mountain country it is neighbor to Serbia. From Ragusa begins the domain of the Zachlumi and stretches along as far as the river Orontius; and on the side of the coast it is neighbor to the Pagani (Bechens, Pagans), but on the side of the mountain country it is neighbor to the Croats (Χρωβάτος) on the north and to Serbia (Σερβλία) at the front. From the river Orontius begins Pagania (Παγανία) and stretches along as far as the river Zentina; it has three ‘zupanias’, Rhastotza (Ράστωτζα) and Mokros (Μοκροϋ) and that of Dalen (Δαλέν). Two of these ‘zupanias’, viz., Rhastotza and that of Mokros, lie on the sea, and possess galleys; but that of Dalenos lies distant from the sea, and they live by agriculture. Neighbor to them are four islands, Meleta, Kourkoura, Bratza (Βράτζα) and Pharos, most fair and fertile, with deserted cities upon them and many olive-yards; on these they dwell and keep their flocks, from which they live. From the river Zentina begins the country of Croatia and stretches along, on the side of the coast as far as the frontiers of Istria, that is, to the city of Albunum, and on the side of the mountain country it encroaches some way upon the province of Istria, and at Tzentina and Chlebena becomes neighbor to the country of Serbia (Σερβλία).

30, 31
For the country of Serbia (Σερβλία) is at the front of all the rest of the countries, but on the north is neighbor to Croatia (Χρωβατίας), and on the south to (Danube) Bulgaria. Now, after the said Slavs (Σκλάβωι) had settled down, they took possession of all the surrounding territory of Dalmatia; but the cities of the Romani took to cultivating the islands and living off them; since, however, they were daily enslaved and destroyed by the Pagani (Bechens, Pagans), they deserted these islands and resolved to cultivate the mainland. But they were stopped by the Croats (Χρωβάτος); for they were not yet tributary to the Croats (Χρωβάτος), and used to pay to the military governor all that they now pay to the Slavs (Σκλάβωι). Finding it impossible to live, they approached the glorious emperor Basil and told him all the above. And so that glorious emperor Basil ordered that all that was then paid to the military governor they should pay to the Slavs (Σκλάβωι), and live at peace with them, and that some slight payment should be made to the military governor, as a simple token of submission and servitude to the emperors of the Romans and their military governor. And from that time all these cities became tributary to the Slavs (Σκλάβωι), and they pay them fixed sums: the city of Spalato, 200 nomismata (gold 900 g; 1 nomismata = 4.5 g of gold, Roman pound est. 328.9 g); the city of Tetrangourin, 100 nomismata (gold 450 g); the city of Diadora, 110 nomismata; the city of Opsara, 100 nomismata; the city of Arbe, 100 nomismata; the city of Yekla, 100 nomismata; so that the total amounts to 710 nomismata, exclusive of wine and various other commodities, which are in excess of the payments in cash. The city of Ragusa is situated between the two countries of the Zachlumi and of Terbounia; they have their vineyards in both countries, and pay to the prince of the Zachlumi 36 nomismata, and to the prince of Terbounia 36 nomismata.

31.Of the Croats (Χρωβάτος) and of the country they now dwell in.

The Croats (Χρωβάτος) who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats (Χρωβάτος), also called ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey (Hungaria) and next to Francia, and have for Slav (Σκλάβωι) neighbors the unbaptized Serbs (Σέρβλων). ‘Croats (Χρωβάτος)’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’.

These same Croats (Χρωβάτος) arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the Romans Heraclius (r. 610 – 641) before the Serbs (Σέρβλων) claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius, at that time when the Avars (Αβαρείς) had fought and expelled from those parts the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from Rome and settled there, and who were therefore called ‘Romani’ from their having been translated from Rome to those countries, I mean, to those now called Croatia (Χρωβατία) and Serbia (Σερβλία). These same Romani having been expelled by the Avars (Αβαρείς) in the days of this same emperor of the Romans Heraclius, their countries were made desolate. And so, by command of the emperor Heraclius these same Croats (Χρωβάτος) defeated and expelled the Avars (Αβαρείς) from those parts, and by mandate of Heraclius the emperor they settled down in that same country of the Avars (Αβαρείς), where they now dwell. These same Croats (Χρωβάτος) had at that time for prince the father of Porgas (Ποργά or Βορκά). The emperor Heraclius sent and brought priests from Rome, and made of them an archbishop and a bishop and elders and deacons, and baptized the Croats (Χρωβάτος); and at that time these Croats (Χρωβάτος) had Porgas (Ποργά or Βορκά) for their prince.

This country in which the Croats (Χρωβάτος) settled themselves was originally under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and hence in the country of these same Croats (Χρωβάτος) the palace and hippodromes of the emperor Diocletian are still preserved, at the city of Salona, near the city of Spalato.

These baptized Croats (Χρωβάτος) will not fight foreign countries outside the borders of their own; for they received a kind of oracular response and injunction from the pope of Rome who in the time of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans (r. 610 – 641), sent priests and baptized them. For after their baptism the Croats (Χρωβάτος) made a covenant, confirmed with their own hands and by oaths sure and binding in the name of St. Peter the apostle, that never would they go upon a foreign country and make war on it, but rather would live at peace with all who were willing to do so; and they received from the same pope of Rome a benediction to this effect, that if any other foreigners should come against the country of these same Croats (Χρωβάτος) and bring war upon it, then might God fight for the Croats (Χρωβάτος) and protect them, and Peter the disciple of Christ give them victories.

And many years after, in the days of prince Terpimer (Τερπημέρης), father of prince Krasimer (Κρασημέρης), there came from Francia that lies between Croatia and Venice a man called Martin, of the utmost piety though clad in the garb of a layman, whom these same Croats (Χρωβάτος) declare to have wrought abundant miracles; this pious man, who was sick and had had his feet amputated, so that he was carried by four bearers and taken about wherever he wanted to go, confirmed upon these same Croats (Χρωβάτος) this injunction of the most holy pope, that they should keep it so long as their life should last; and he himself also pronounced on their behalf a benediction similar to that which the pope had made. For this reason neither the galleys nor the cutters of these Croats (Χρωβάτος) ever go against anyone to make war, unless of course he has come upon them. But in these vessels go those of the Croats (Χρωβάτος) who wish to engage in commerce, travelling round from city to city, in Pagania (Παγανία) and the gulf of Dalmatia and as far as Venice.

The prince of Croatia has from the beginning, that is, ever since the reign of Heraclius the emperor (r. 610 – 641), been in servitude and submission to the emperor of the Romans, and was never made subject to the prince of (Danube) Bulgaria. Nor has the (Danube) Bulgarian ever gone to war with the Croats (Χρωβάτος), except when Michael Boris, prince of (Danube) Bulgaria, went and fought them and, unable to make any headway, concluded peace with them, and made presents to the Croats (Χρωβάτος) and received presents from the Croats (Χρωβάτος). But never yet have these Croats (Χρωβάτος) paid tribute to the (Danube) Bulgarians, although the two have often made presents to one another in the way of friendship.

In baptized Croatia (Χρωβατία) are the inhabited cities of Nona, Belgrade, Belitzin, Skordona, Chlebena, Stolpon, Tenin, Kori, Klaboka.

Baptized Croatia musters as many as 60 thousand horse and 100 thousand foot, and galleys up to 80 and cutters up to 100. The galleys carry 40 men each, the cutters 20 each, and the smaller cutters 10 each.

The Russian academic translation gives 6,000-strong cavalry. A nomadic 60,000-strong cavalry army represents a tribe numbering 250,000 to 300,000 people, or 1 soldier per 4-5 person family. The Russian translation represents a tribe numbering 25,000 to 30,000 people. The 100,000 foot soldiers come from sedentary farming dependent population, with larger families, thus supplying 1 infantryman per 5-7 person family; that makes the Slavic and other dependents 500,000 - 700,000 people for a total population of 750,000 - 1,000,000 people. These numbers appear grossly exaggerated. With the present Croatian population of 4 mln, that would be 15% population growth per century, a terribly low factor. Allowing for very low 30% population growth per century would apprise the total population in the 10th c. at 250,000 people, or keeping the same proportion between the nomads and agriculturists, about 60,000 nomads and 200,000 farmers, more realistic numbers. The army would be 12-15,000-strong cavalry and 30-40,000 infantry. The Russian translation appears to be more accurate.

This great power and multitude of men Croatia possessed until the time of prince Krasimer. But when he was dead and his son Miroslav, after ruling four years, was made away with by the ban Pribounias (Πριβουνίας), and quarrels and numerous dissensions broke out in the country, the horse and foot and galleys and cutters of the Croat dominion were diminished. And now it has 30 galleys and *** cutters, large and small, and *** horse and *** foot.

31, 32
Great Croatia, also called ‘white’, is still unbaptized to this day, as are also the Serbs (Σέρβλων) who are its neighbors. They muster fewer horse and fewer foot than does baptized Croatia, because they are more constantly plundered, by the Franks and Turks (Hungarians) and Pechenegs (Patzinaks). Nor have they either galleys or cutters or merchant-ships, for the sea is far away; for from those parts to the sea it is a journey of 30 days. And the sea to which they come down after the 30 days is that which is called ‘dark’ (Black Sea).

32.Of the Serbs (Σέρβλων) and of the country they now dwell in.

The Serbs (Σέρβλων) are descended from the unbaptized Serbs (Σέρβλων), also called ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey (Hungaria) in a place called by them Boïki (Βοΐκι, Moravia-Bavaria, Boii), where their neighbor is Francia, as is also Great Croatia, the unbaptized, also called ‘white’; in this place, then, these Serbs (Σέρβλων) also originally dwelt. But when two brothers succeeded their father in the rule of Serbia, one of them, taking one half of the folk, claimed the protection of Heraclius (r. 610 – 641), the emperor of the Romans, and the same emperor Heraclius received him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia, which from that time has acquired this denomination. ‘Serbs (Σέρβλων)’ in the tongue of the Romans is the word for ‘slaves’, whence the colloquial ‘serbula’ for menial shoes, and ‘tzerboulianoi’ for those who wear cheap, shoddy footgear. This name the Serbs (Σέρβλων) acquired from their being slaves of the emperor of the Romans. Now, after some time these same Serbs (Σέρβλων) decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. But when they had crossed the river Danube, they changed their minds and sent a request to the emperor Heraclius, through the military governor then holding Belgrade, that he would grant them other land to settle in. And since what is now Serbia (Σερβλία) and Pagania (Παγανία) and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites (Konavle, Croatia) were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and since these countries had been made desolate by the Avars (Αβαρείς) (for they had expelled from those parts the Romani who now live in Dalmatia and Dyrrachium), therefore the emperor settled these same Serbs (Σέρβλων) in these countries, and they were subject to the emperor of the Romans; and the emperor brought elders from Rome and baptized them and taught them fairly to perform the works of piety and expounded to them the faith of the Christians.

And since (Danube) Bulgaria was beneath the dominion of the Romans *** when, therefore, that same Serbian (Σέρβλους) prince died who had claimed the emperor’s protection, his son ruled in succession, and thereafter his grandson, and in like manner the succeeding princes from his family. And after some years was begotten of them Boïseslav (Βοϊσέσθλαβος. Boisesthlabos, < Boii), and of him Rodoslav, and of him Prosigois (Προσηγόης), and of him Blastimer (Βλαστίμηρος); and up to the time of this Blastimer the (Danube) Bulgarians lived at peace with the Serbs (Σέρβλων), whose neighbors they were and with whom they had a common frontier, and they were friendly one toward another, and were in servitude and submission to the emperors of the Romans and kindly entreated by them. But, during the rule of this same Blastimer, Presiam (Πρεσιάμ), prince of (Danube) Bulgaria, came with war against the Serbs (Σέρβλων), with intent to reduce them to submission; but though he fought them three years he not merely achieved nothing but also lost very many of his men. After the death of (Serbian) prince Blastimer his three sons, Muntimer (Μουντιμήρος) and Stroimer (Στροΐμηρος) and Goïnikos (Γοΐνικος ~ Tr. Güynük), succeeded to the rule of Serbia (Σερβλία) and divided up the country. In their time came up the prince of (Danube) Bulgaria, Michael Boris (Μιχαήλ Βορίσης), wishing to avenge the defeat of his father Presiam (Πρεσιάμ, r. 836 - 852), and made war, and the Serbs (Σέρβλων) discomfited him to such an extent that they even held prisoner his son Vladimer (Βλαδίμηρος, allophone of forms Vladimir, Budimir, Balamir, Malamir > Balamber, Bulumar, Balamer > Balamber, Baldimer), together with twelve great boyars. Then, out of grief for his son, Boris (Μιχαήλ Βορίσης) perforce made peace with the Serbs (Σέρβλων). But, being about to return to (Danube) Bulgaria and afraid lest the Serbs (Σέρβλων) might ambush him on the way, he begged for his escort the sons of prince (Serbian) Muntimer, Borenas and Stephen, who escorted him safely as far as the frontier at Rasi. For this favor Michael Boris gave them handsome presents, and they in return gave him, as presents in the way of friendship, two slaves, two falcons, two dogs and eighty furs, which the (Danube) Bulgarians describe as tribute. A short while after, the same three brothers, the princes of Serbia (Σερβλία), fell out, and one of them, Muntimer, gained the upper hand and, wishing to be sole ruler, seized the other two and handed them over to (Danube) Bulgaria, keeping by him and caring for only the son of the one brother Goïnikos, Peter by name, who fled and came to Croatia, and of whom we shall speak in a moment.

Bulgarian rulers 681 - 1000 Serb rulers 768–960
Name Reign Name Alt. names Reign Name Reign Name   Reign    
Asparukh Dulo 681–700 Pagan   767–768 Petar Dulo 927–969 Višeslav   c. 768–814    
Tervel Dulo 700–721 Telerig   768–777 Boris II Dulo 970–971 Radoslav   c. 814–822    
Kormesiy Dulo 721–738 Kardam   777–803 Roman Dulo 977–991 (997) Prosigoj   c. 822–836    
Sevar Dulo 738–753 Krum Dulo   803–814 Samuel  Cometopuli 997–1014 Vlastimir Blastimer c. 836–850    
Kormisosh Vokil 753–756 Omurtag Dulo   814–831     Mutimir Muntimer c. 850–891    
Vinekh Vokil 756–762 Malamir Dulo   831–836     Pribislav Pribeslav 891–892    
Telets Ugain 762–765 Presian I Dulo   836–852     Petar Peter 892–917    
Sabin 765–766 Boris I Dulo Michael 852–889     Pavle   917–921    
Umor Vokil 766 Vladimir Dulo Balamir, Malamir, Baldimer 889–893     Zaharija   921–924    
Toktu 766–767 Simeon I Dulo   893–927     Časlav   933–960    


The aforesaid brother Stroïmer, who was in (Danube) Bulgaria, had a son Klonimer (Κλονίμηρος), to whom Boris gave a Bulgarian wife. Of him was begotten Tzeeslav (Τζεέσθλαβος), in (Danube) Bulgaria. Muntimer, who had expelled his two brothers and taken the rule, begat three sons, Pribeslav (Πριβέσθλαβος) and Branos (Βράνος ~ Tr. Boran > Sl. braniti, Branko, Branislav “defense”) and Stephen, and after he died his eldest son Pribeslav succeeded him. Now, after one year the aforesaid Peter, son of Goinïkos, came out of Croatia and expelled from the rule his cousin Pribeslav and his two brothers, and himself succeeded to the rule, and they fled away and entered Croatia. Three years later Branos came to fight Peter and was defeated and captured by him, and blinded. Two years after that, Klonimer, the father of Tzeeslav, escaped from (Danube) Bulgaria and he too came and with an army entered one of the cities of Serbia (Σερβλία), Dostinika, with intent to take over the rule. Peter attacked and slew him, and continued to govern for another 20 years, and his rule began during the reign of Leo (Leo VI, 866 – 912), the holy emperor, of most blessed memory, to whom he was in submission and servitude. He also made peace with Symeon (893–927), prince of (Danube) Bulgaria, and even made him god-father to his child. Now, after the time that this lord Leo had reigned, the then military governor at Dyrrachium, the protospatharius Leo Rhabduchus, who was afterwards honored with the rank of magister and office of foreign minister, arrived in Pagania (Παγανία), which was at that time under the control of the prince of Serbia (Σερβλία), in order to advise and confer with this same prince Peter upon some service and affair. Michael, prince of the Zachlumi, his jealousy aroused by this, sent information to Symeon, prince of (Danube) Bulgaria, that the emperor of the Romans was bribing prince Peter to take the Turks (Hungarians) with him and go upon (Danube) Bulgaria. It was at that time when the battle of Achelo had taken place between the Romans and the (Danube) Bulgarians. Symeon, mad with rage at this, sent against prince Peter of Serbia (Σερβλία) Sigritzis Theodore (Σιγρίτζη Θεόδωρον) and the late Marmaïs (Μαρμαήν) with an army, and they took with them also the young prince Paul, son of Branos whom Peter, prince of Serbia (Σερβλία), had blinded. The (Danube) Bulgarians proceeded against the prince of Serbia (Σερβλία) by treachery, and, by binding him with the relationship of god-father and giving a sworn undertaking that he should suffer nothing untoward at their hands, they tricked him (Peter of Serbia) into coming out to them, and then on the instant bound him and carried him off to (Danube) Bulgaria, and he died in prison.

Paul, son of Branos, took his place and governed three years (917–921). The emperor, the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), who had in Constantinople the young prince Zacharias, son of Pribeslav, prince of Serbia (Σερβλία), sent him off to be prince in Serbia (Σερβλία), and he went and fought, but was defeated by Paul; who took him prisoner and handed him over to the (Danube) Bulgarians and he was kept in prison. Then, three years later, when Paul had put himself in opposition to the (Danube) Bulgarians, they sent this Zacharias (921–924), who had previously been sent by the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) the emperor, and he expelled Paul and himself took possession of the rule over the Serbs (Σέρβλων); and thereupon, being mindful of the benefits of the emperor of the Romans, he broke with the (Danube) Bulgarians, being not at all wishful to be subjected to them, but rather that the emperor of the Romans should be his master. And so, when Symeon sent against him an army under Marmaïm (Μαρμαήν) and Sigritzis Theodore (Σιγρίτζη Θεόδωρον), he sent their heads and their amour from the battle to the emperor of the Romans as tokens of his victory (for the war was still going on between the Romans and the (Danube) Bulgarians); nor did he ever cease, like the princes also that were before him, to send missions to the emperors of the Romans, and to be in subjection and servitude to them. Again, Symeon sent another army against prince Zacharias, under Kninos (Κνήνος) and Himnikos (Ήμνήκος) and Itzboklias (’Ητζβόκλια(ς)), and together with them he sent also Tzeeslav (Τζεέσθλαβος). Then Zacharias took fright and fled to Croatia, and the (Danube) Bulgarians sent a message to the ‘zupans’ that they should come to them and should receive Tzeeslav (Τζεέσθλαβος) for their prince; and, having tricked them by an oath and brought them out as far as the first village, they instantly bound them, and entered Serbia (Σερβλία) and took away with them the entire folk, both old and young, and carried them into (Danube) Bulgaria, though a few escaped away and entered Croatia; and the country was left deserted. Now, at that time these same (Danube) Bulgarians under Alogobotour (Άλογοβότουρ, ’Αλοβογότουρ) entered Croatia to make war, and there they were all slain (ca. 925) by the Croats (Χρωβάτος). Seven years afterwards Tzeeslav (Τζεέσθλαβος) escaped from the (Danube) Bulgarians with four others, and entered Serbia (Σερβλία) from Preslav (Πρεσθλάβου), and found in the country no more than fifty men only, without wives or children, who supported themselves by hunting. With these he took possession of the country (ca 932) and sent a message to the emperor of the Romans asking for his support and succor, and promising to serve him and be obedient to his command, as had been the princes before him.

The demographic consequence of the Bulgarian retribution of the 925 was that Bulgars exterminated the ruling strata of the Serb society, culling off the entire nomadic genetic inheritance of the nomadic Serbs who trekked from the banks of Itil of the 2nd c. AD (Ptolemy) to the Bohemia and Moravia in the 6th c. AD, and split in two in the 7th c. AD. For a short while they belonged to the Shambat state (Samo), until the evacuation in 653 of the Shambat rulers back to the Kurbat's Great Bulgaria, which left its large area to the Avar Kaganate, and induced a rise of the local elites. Within two generations, the joint Serb-Slavic unions had to flee, probably joining refuges from the Shambat domination. After the split, the migrating branch settled in the Balkans, joining the Bulgarian Balkan settlements left over from the Hunnic period. During the period when Krum united the northern (Avaria) and southern (Danube Bulgaria) western Bulgars, both branches belonged to the Krum Bulgaria (803–814). The campaign of 925 dissolved the Serb-Slavic compact in the Balkans, and left the Slavic remains of the Serb peasantry widely dispersed. In demographic terms, the southern proportion of the original Serb nomadic tribes, who initially possibly constituted 5-30% of the  6th c. AD Serb-Slav population, has shrunk to a fraction of a one percent. Their legacy, however, is continuing in the admixture of the R1a and R1b Y-chromosomes that they managed to introduce into the Slavic substrate in the 6th-9th cc.


And thenceforward the emperor of the Romans continually benefited him, so that the Serbs (Σέρβλων) living in Croatia and (Danube) Bulgaria and the rest of the countries, whom Symeon had scattered, rallied to him when they heard of it. Moreover, many had escaped from Bulgaria and entered Constantinople, and these the emperor of the Romans clad and comforted and sent to Tzeeslav (Τζεέσθλαβος). And from the rich gifts of the emperor of the Romans he organized and populated the country, and is, as before, in servitude and subjection to the emperor of the Romans; and through the co-operation and many benefits of the emperor he has united this country and is confirmed in the rule of it.

The prince of Serbia (Σερβλία) has from the beginning, that is, ever since the reign of Heraclius the emperor (r. 610 – 641), been in servitude and submission to the emperor of the Romans, and was never subject to the prince of (Danube) Bulgaria.

In baptized Serbia (Σερβλία) are the inhabited cities of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik, Salines; and in the territory of Bosona, Katera and Desnik.

33.Of the Zachlumi and of the country they now dwell in.

The country of the Zachlumi was previously possessed by the Romans, I mean, by those Romani whom Diocletian the emperor translated from Rome, as has been told of them in the story of the Croats (Χρωβάτος). This land of the Zachlumi was beneath the emperor of the Romans, but when it and its folk were enslaved by the Avars (Αβαρείς), it was rendered wholly desolate. Those who live there now, the Zachlumi, are Serbs (Σέρβλων) from the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius (r. 610 – 641). They were called Zachlumi from a so-called mount Chlumos, and indeed in the tongue of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) ‘Zachlumi’ means ‘behind the mountain’, since in that territory is a great mountain with two cities on the top of it, Bona and Chlum, and behind this mountain runs a river called Bona, which means ‘good’.

The family of the proconsul and patrician Michael, son of Bouseboutzis (Βουσεβούτζης), prince of the Zachlumi, came from the unbaptized who dwell on the river Yisla (Visla, Vistula) and are called Litziki (Lichiks ~ Litsikaviks < Lestkoviches = Lest/Lesh + k + patronymic suffixovich (~ avic)); and it settled on the river called Zachluma.

33, 34, 35
In the territory of the Zachlumi are the inhabited cities of Stagnon, Mokriskik, Iosli, Galoumainik, Dobriskik.

34.Of the Terbouniotes and Kanalites (Konavle, Croatia) and of the country they now dwell in.

The country of the Terbouniotes (Τερβουνιατών) and the Kanalites (Konavle, Croatia) is one. The inhabitants are descended from the unbaptized Serbs (Σέρβλων), from the time of that prince who came out of unbaptized Serbia (Σερβλία) and claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius (r. 610 – 641) until the time of Blastimer (Βλαστίμηρος), prince of Serbia (Σερβλία). This prince Blastimer married his daughter to Kraïnas (Κραΐνας), son of Belaes (Βελάης), ‘zupan’ of Terbounia. And, desiring to ennoble his son-in-law, he gave him the title of prince and made him independent. Of him was begotten Phalimer (Φαλιμέρης), and of him Tzouzimer (Τζουζήμερις). The princes of Terbounia have always been at the command of the prince of Serbia (Σερβλία). Terbounia (Τερβουνια ~ Tr. tura “fortified dwelling, fortress”) in the tongue of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) means ‘strong place’; for this country has many strong defenses.

The demographic consequence of the Bulgarian retribution of the 925 was that Bulgars exterminated the ruling strata of the Serb society, culling off the entire nomadic genetic inheritance of the nomadic Serbs who trekked from the banks of Itil of the 2nd c. AD (Ptolemy) to the Bohemia and Moravia in the 6th c. AD, and split in two in the 7th c. AD. For a short while they belonged to the Shambat state (Samo), until the evacuation in 653 of the Shambat rulers back to the Kurbat's Great Bulgaria, which left its large area to the Avar Kaganate, and induced a rise of the local elites. Within two generations, the joint Serb-Slavic unions had to flee, probably joining refuges from the Shambat domination. After the split, the migrating branch settled in the Balkans, joining the Bulgarian Balkan settlements left over from the Hunnic period. During the period when Krum united the northern (Avaria) and southern (Danube Bulgaria) western Bulgars, both branches belonged to the Krum Bulgaria (803–814). The campaign of 925 dissolved the Serb-Slavic compact in the Balkans, and left the Slavic remains of the Serb peasantry widely dispersed. In demographic terms, the southern proportion of the original Serb nomadic tribes, who initially possibly constituted 5-30% of the  6th c. AD Serb-Slav population, has shrunk to a fraction of a one percent. Their legacy, however, is continuing in the admixture of the R1a and R1b Y-chromosomes that they managed to introduce into the Slavic substrate in the 6th-9th cc.
The “Slavs” in Terbounia and Kanalia spoke a non-Slavic language: Terbounia can be etymologized in Latin turre + bonum ~ tower + good, in English tower + boon, and in Türkic tura + bun ~ tower + base, main, but not in Slavic, where tower is bashnya, and a Türkic loanword terem. Neither the Lat. nor Tr. origin can be excluded, but since Constantine VII knew Lat., his attribution of the etymology to Slavic tends to exclude Lat. too. In any case, a Türkic borrowing from Lat. must be excluded, whereas the Lat. borrowing from Tr. is logical,  Tr. tura >  Lat. turre.

Subordinate to this country of Terbounia is another country called Kanali. Kanali means in the tongue of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) ‘waggon-load’ (kang Tr. “waggon”, -ly conjoin affix, “waggoners”), because, the place being level, they carry on all their labors by the use of wagons.

In the territory of Terbounia and Kanali are the inhabited cities of Terbounia, Ormos, Rhisena, Loukabetai (Raöki), Zetlibi.

35. Of the Diocletians and of the country they now dwell in.

The country of Diocleia was also previously possessed by the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian translated from Rome, as has been said in the story about the Croats (Χρωβάτος), and was under the emperor of the Romans.

But this country also was enslaved by the Avars and made desolate, and repopulated in the time of Heraclius (r. 610 – 641) the emperor, just as were Croatia and Serbia and the country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of Kanali. Diocleia gets its name from the city in this country that the emperor Diocletian founded, but now it is a deserted city, though still called Diocleia.

In the country of Diocleia are the large inhabited cities of Gradetai, Nougrade, Lontodokla.

36.  Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in.

The names of Türkic tribes that start with Ar- are few, and the closest to the Greek rendition Άρεντανοί appears to be the name of the tribe Argu (maybe a distortion or contraction of Arguz), who in 11th c., according to M.Kashgari, still lived in their traditional area and had three cities, one of which, a fort Čigil (Chigil) in the Argu lands, was reportedly established by the Alexander the Macedonian. Argu and Chigils were known for their zealous adherence to Buddhism and later to the Buddhism-syncretic Manichaeism. In that respect, they differed from the bulk of the Türkic tribes, who were open to differing religious views, and tended to syncretize competing religions. During the Eastern Hunnic times, the Argu area was in the sphere of the Eastern Hunnic Empire. In addition to the Argu area centered in Talas, there is an Argu district in the Badakshan province, Afghanistan.

A viable etymological alternate is a lit. “men, warriors” arän (arən), more suitable as a generic for “troops” than an ethnic name, but in a particular situation the second can easily germinate from the first. In that case, the suffix -an/-än is a Türkic plural suffix, and -tani is a Greek inflection.

A third version derives the name of the tribe Argu from the silver-rich river Argun (Ergune, 51°N, 120°E), the spurs of Tien Shan between the Tocharian princedoms Kucha and Argi (Yantsi, Karashar) had a Sogdian name Arkui or Argu “Silvery”, in Türkic they were called Kumush-tag “Silver mountains” and Ai-kumush-tag “Lunar-silver mountains”, in Chinese In-shan “Silver mountains”. Along the river Argun all horses were skewbald, a trademark of the Alat tribes. In this wersion, Argu belong to the Alats, the core population of the modern Kazakhstan.

The appellation Pagani is clearly a Christian religious term, from the Latin paganus, which switch from being an innocent “villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant” to intentionally demeaning “heathen”, used to drum up religion-motivated animal hate. As such, it can't be an endonym. The term Arentani could come from the same quarter, alluding to Arius and monotheistic views of the population vs. the the Christian trinity.

The country in which the Pagani now dwell was also previously possessed by the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian translated from Rome and settled in Dalmatia. These same Pagani are descended from the un­baptized Serbs, of the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius (r. 610 – 641). This country also was enslaved by the Avars and made desolate and repopulated in the time of Heraclius the emperor. The Pagani are so called because they did not accept baptism at the time when all the Serbs were baptized. For ‘Pagani’ in the tongue of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) means ‘unbaptized’, but in the tongue of the Romans their country is called Arenta, and so they themselves are called Arentani by these same Romans.

In Pagania are the inhabited cities of Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza. Also, they possess these islands: the large island of Kourkra, or Kiker, on which there is a city; another large island, Meleta, or Malozeatai, which St. Luke mentions in the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ by the name of Melite, in which a viper fastened upon St. Paul by his finger, and St. Paul burnt it up in the fire; another large island, Phara; another large island, Bratzis. There are other islands not in the possession of these same Pagani: the island of Choara, the island of Ies, the island of Lastobon.

37. Of the nation of the Pechenegs (Πατζινακΐται, Patzinaks).

Originally, the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) had their dwelling on the river Atil (Itil), and likewise on the river Geïch (Γεήχ, Yaik, with Scythian prosthetic anlaut g-), having common frontiers with the Chazars and the so-called Uzes (Oguzes). But fifty years ago (952 - 50 = 900AD) the so-called Uzes (Ούζοι) made common cause with the Chazars and joined battle with the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and prevailed over them and expelled them from their country (Itil-Yaik interfluvial), which the so-called Uzes (Ούζοι) have occupied till this day. The Pechenegs (Patzinaks) fled and wandered round, casting about for a place for their settlement; and when they reached the land which they now possess and found the Turks (Hungarians) living in it, they defeated them in battle and expelled and cast them out, and settled in it, and have been masters of this country, as has been said, for fifty-five years to this day (952 - 55 = 897AD).

The whole of Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) is divided into eight provinces with the same number of great princes. The provinces are these: the name of the first province is Irtim (Ήρτήμ ~ Ίαβδιερτίμ); of the second, Tzour (Τζούρ); of the third, Gyla (Γύλα ~ Χαβουξιγγυλά); of the fourth, Koulpei (Κουλπέη); of the fifth, Charaboï (Χαραβόη); of the sixth, Talmat (Ταλμάτ ~ Βοροταλμάτ); of the seventh, Chopon (Χοπόν); of the eighth, Tzopon (Τζοπόν). At the time at which the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) were expelled from their country (Itil-Yaik interfluvial), their princes were, in the province of Irtim (Ήρτήμ ~ Ίαβδιερτίμ), Baitzas (Βάϊτζας); in Tzour (Τζούρ), Kouel (Κούελ); in Gyla (Γύλα ~ Χαβουξιγγυλά), Kourkoutai (Κουρκοΰται); in Koulpei (Κουλπέη), Ipaos (Ίπαός); in Charaboï (Χαραβόη), Kaïdoum (Καϊδούμ); in the province of Talmat (Ταλμάτ), Kostas (Κώστας); in Chopon (Χοπόν), Giazis (Γιαζι); in the province of Tzopon (Τζοπόν), Batas (Βατας). After their deaths their cousins succeeded to their rule. For law and ancient principle have prevailed among them, depriving them of authority to transmit their ranks to their sons or their brothers, it being sufficient for those in power to rule for their own lifetime only, and when they die, either their cousin or sons of their cousins must be appointed, so that the rank may not run exclusively in one branch of the family, but the collaterals also inherit and succeed to the honor; but no one from a stranger family intrudes and becomes a prince. The eight provinces are divided into forty districts, and these have minor princelings over them.

Four clans of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), that is to say, the province of Kouartzitzour (Κουαρτζιτζούρ < Küverchi Chur ~ Kubar Prince) and the province of Syroukalpeï (Συρουκάλπεη ~ Κουλπέη) and the province of Borotalmat (Βοροταλμάτ ~ Ταλμάτ) and the province of Boulatzopon (Βουλατζοπόν < Boila Zupan), lie beyond the Dnieper river towards the eastern and northern parts that face Uzia (Οΰζία) and Chazaria and Alania and Cherson and the rest of the Regions. The other four clans lie on this side of the Dnieper river, towards the western and northern parts, that is to say that the province of Giazichopon (Γιαζιχοπόν) is neighbor to Bulgaria, the province of Kato Gyla (Γύλα ~ Χαβουξιγγυλά ~ Gr. Lower + Tr. Gyla) is neighbor to Turkey (Hungaria), the province of Charaboï (Χαραβόη) is neighbor to Russia (Rus), and the province of Iabdiertim ((Ίαβδιερτίμ ~ Ήρτήμ) is neighbor to the tributary territories of the country of Russia (Rus), to the Oultines (Χαραβόη < Kara Boi ~ Western Boi, Sl. Ugol, Oglos for “corner”, aka Bessarabia, Budjak, Atilkuzu, modern Moldova) and Dervlenines (Δερβλενίνοι, Sl. Drevlianians) and Lenzenines (Λενζανήνοι, < Luchesk, modern Lutsk) and the rest of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι). Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) is distant a five days journey from Uzia (Οΰζία) and Chazaria, a six days journey from Alania, a ten days journey from Mordia (Μορδία, Mordva ~ Mordovia), one day’s journey from Russia (Rus), a four days journey from Turkey (Hungaria), half a day’s journey from Bulgaria; to Cherson it is very near, and to Bosporus closer still.

Kangars and  Besenyo-Badjanaks-Bosniaks ca. 800-950

At the time when the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) were expelled from their country (Itil-Yaik interfluvial), some of them of their own will and personal decision stayed behind there and united with the so-called Uzes (Ούζοι), and even to this day they live among them, and wear such distinguishing marks as separate them off and betray their origin and how it came about that they were split off from their own folk: for their tunics are short, reaching to the knee, and their sleeves are cut off at the shoulder, whereby, you see, they indicate that they have been cut off from their own folk and those of their race.

On this side of the Dniester river, towards the part that faces Bulgaria, at the crossings of this same river, are deserted cities: the first city is that called by the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) Aspron (Άσπρον ~ Akkurgan “White Fort”), because its stones look very white; the second city is Toungatai (Τουνγάται ~ Toun kath ~ Peaceful fort); the third city is Kraknakatai (Κρακνακάται ~ Krakna kath ~ Guard fort); the fourth city is Salmakatai (Σαλμακάται ~ Salma kath ~ Patrol fort); the fifth city is Sakakatai (Σακακάται ~ Saka kath ~ Saka city, Saka settlement, alt. Pillar/Stilt fort); the sixth city is Giaioukatai (Γιαιουκάται ~ Giaiou kath ~ Military (Iaiou) fort, with , with Ogur prosthetic anlaut g-). Among these buildings of the ancient cities are found some distinctive traces of churches, and crosses hewn out of porous stone, whence some preserve a tradition that once on a time Romans had settlements there.

During the Early Middle Ages in the Middle Asia the most productive was the topoformant -kand (-kent, -kanz) with Sogdian allophones -kev (-kath) meaning “city, settlement”, widely used by the Sogdian and Türkic population of the Middle Asia. After the Arab conquest the productivity of the topoformant -ked (-kath) dropped to naught, but the form -kand (-kent, -kanz) started to be used even more. After disappearance of the Sogdian language many toponyms with formant -kath were replaced by -kand (-kent). That is the form cited by Mahmud Kashgari in the 11th c. The Kangar form -kath was typical in the western part of the Middle Asia. The Aral area had its own Sprachbund, found in Sogdian, As-Tokharian, Eastern Hunnic, Alanic, and Bechen/Bosnyak languages. However, since the “Bechens/Bosnyaks” consisted of two distinct ethnoses, that of the Kangars and Bechens/Bosnyaks proper, and the language of the “Bechens/Bosnyaks” was Kipchak, the Aral dialect was probably of the Kangars, hence the Aral area pronunciation of the word kent as kath.


37, 38
The Pechenegs (Patzinaks) are also called ‘Kangar’ (Κάγγαρ), though not all of them, but only the folk of the three provinces of Iabdierti (Ίαβδιερτίμ ~ Ήρτήμ ~ Distinguished by Accomplishments) and Kouartzitzour (Κουαρτζιτζούρ ~ Blue Chur) and Chabouxingyla (Χαβουξιγγυλά ~ Umber Γύλα, Umber Ulug Bek), for they are more valiant and noble than the rest: and that is what the title ‘Kangar’ (Κάγγαρ ~ persistent, resolute, courageous, brave упорный, решительный, мужественный, храбрый) signifies.

38. Of the genealogy of the nation of the Turks (Hungarians), and whence they are descended.

The nation of the Turks (Hungarians) had of old their dwelling next to Chazaria, in the place called Lebedia (Λεβεδία) after the name of their first voivode, which voivode was called by the personal name of Lebedias (Λεβεδίας), but in virtue of his rank was entitled voivode, as have been the rest after him. Now in this place, the aforesaid Lebedia, there runs a river Chidmas (Χιδμάς), also called Chingilous (Χιγγιλούς). They were not called Turks (Τούρκοι) at that time, but had the name ‘Sabartoi asphaloi’ (Σάβαρτοι όίσφαλοι), for some reason or other. The Turks (Hungarians) were seven clans, and they had never had over them a prince either native or foreign, but there were among them ‘voivodes’, of whom first voivode was the aforesaid Lebedias. They lived together with the Chazars for three years (speculative reading, interpreted from 3 to 300 years, till 860s), and fought in alliance with the Chazars in all their wars. Because of their courage and their alliance, the chagan-prince (Bek, Ulug Bek) of Chazaria gave in marriage to the first voivode of the Turks (Hungarians), called Lebedias, a noble Chazar lady, because of the fame of his valor and the illustriousness of his race, so that she might have children by him; but, as it fell out, this Lebedias had no children by this same Chazar lady. Now, the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) who were previously called ‘Kangar’ (Κάγγαρ) (for this ‘Kangar’ was a name signifying nobility and valor among them), these, then, stirred up war against the Chazars and, being defeated, were forced to quit their own land and to settle in that of the Turks (Hungarians). And when battle was joined between the Turks (Hungarians) and the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) who were at that time called ‘Kangar’ (Κάγγαρ), the army of the Turks (Hungarians) was defeated and split into two parts.

Sabartoi asphaloi (Σάβαρτοι όίσφαλοι)

The ethnic part of the compound Sabartoi asphaloi names Suvars, whose name has numerous known allophones: Aksungur, Aksuvar, Chuvash, Sabar, Sabaroi, Sabartoi, Sabir, Saban, Savar, Savart (still living in Azerbaijan), Severyan (Sl. annals), Sevordik (in Armenia), Sevruks (Siberian Tatar folklore), Shüanär (endonym of Georgian Svans in Svanetia), Sibir, Suar (Chuvash, Tatar form), Subar, Subartu, Subartuan, Suwar, Zubur, As-Savardia (Belazuri, 9th c.), Zuad (Hungarian Anonym “Gesta Hungarorum” ca 1200s , Shimon Kezai 1280s). Situation with numerous allophones was caused by the antiquity of the term ascending to the span from the Assyrian tablets of the 23rd-20th cc. BC to the 1246 AD during Mongol conquest, and the spectrum of languages and nations Suvars encountered during the ages. The latest attested form of the name Suvar is dated to the 1246 AD destruction of the Suvar capital Nur-Suvar, in contemporary Tatar called Sham-Suar.

The etymology of the name Suvar is transparent: su “water, river”, ar “man, warrior”, e.g. “River People”. The word su has allophonic forms suv (suw) and hu, hence the allophonic names Suar, Suvar, Suwar, Huar. The form Huar was reportedly an endonym of the Khazars, the Chazars of the “De Administrando Imperia”.

The determinant part asphaloi is a matter of various optimistic speculations: Gk. Asphalo “free”, also “strong, firm, reliable”, also “brave”, also “unfettered”, (in modern Greek respectively the totally phonetically unrelated dorean, ischyrí, statherí, axiópisti, gennaía, adesmefti); Arabic asphal “lower” ~ Lower Suvars, supposedly referring to the Lower Zab river, the left tributary of the Tigers, or just the steppe Suvars as opposed to the mountain Suvars, or just northern Suvars in respect to southern Suvars; the Semitic asphalt “tar, petroleum” may be a most reasonable speculation, since Suvars controlled the area of Baku that supplied this strategic material to the neighboring buyers, this version corroborates the attested Suvar dominion. Various publications present each of these speculations as accurate knowledge.

A. Mukhamadiev deduction (citation from the book, page 70):

...Asphals-Savarts of Constantine VII are the Ephtalites-Suvars but at а first glance the form of the compound is not clear. The trick is that in the word Ephtalite the plural ending -it was dropped (Ephtalit > Ephtal > Ethtal > Asphal), while in the second word Suvar the plural ending -it has been added. This means that we see a single term with the necessary plural ending at the end: Askel (Iskil)-Suvars (a la As-Tokhars, with a single ending -lar or archaic -it > As-Tokharlar or As-Tokharit). The Iskils are known to be one of the tribes of the ancient Bulgars. Apparently it was a prestigious appellation for the tribes, in this case Suvars, with the origin ascending back to antiquity (And it is much more, with the Chinese annals defining Iskils/Esegs/Seklers as the most potent tribe of the Huns, see Yu.Zuev The Strongest Tribe - Ezgil).

The ancient writers, in particular Herodotus, noted that to conduct trade with the Scythians, a merchant must have seven interpreters for seven Scythian languages. The Eskolots spoke one of these languages​​, according to Herodotus their contains a meaning of royal. Notably, the ethnonym Aces, or Ises was quite widespread in the ancient world, and at different latitudes. Such spread of this ethnonym apparently is due to its origin coming from the notable Türkic os, us, or uza, i.e. higher, senior in the sense of “supreme”1. The word Eskolot after es- contains a possessive affix -k-, the word il (ail), and the plural suffix -at. The "History” of the Byzantine author Simocatta also gives the name of one of the Bulgar tribes in plural form Barselt.

Thus, the word Eskolot, in our case Ephtalite (since the Hunnic alphabet has not have a letter f, it is Iskalit), formed according to all the rules of ancient Türkic language, can be translated as ails (tribes) of the supreme rules, in other words, the supreme ails.


One part went eastwards and settled in the region of Persia (Περσία), and they to this day are called by the ancient denomination of the Turks (Hungarians) ‘Sabartoi asphaloi’; but the other part, together with their voivode and chief Lebedias, settled in the western region, in places called Atelkouzou (Ἀτελκούζου ~ Tr. (Land of) Father's people), in which places the nation of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) now lives. A short while afterwards, the then chagan-prince (Bek, Ulug Bek) of Chazaria sent a message to the Turks (Hungarians), requiring that Lebedias, their first voivode, should be sent to him. Lebedias, therefore, came to the chagan (Kagan) of Chazaria and asked the reason why he had sent for him to come to him. The chagan (Kagan) said to him: “We have invited you upon this account, in order that, since you are noble and wise and valorous and first among the Turks (Hungarians), we may appoint you prince of your nation, and you may be obedient to our word and our command.” But he, in reply, made answer to the chagan (Kagan): “Your regard and purpose for me I highly esteem and express to you suitable thanks, but since I am not strong enough for this rule, I cannot obey you; on the other hand, however, there is a voivode other than me, called Almoutzis (Almush), and he has a son called Arpad (Arbat); let one of these, rather, either that Almoutzis or his son Arpad, be made prince, and be obedient to your word.” That chagan (Kagan) was pleased at this saying, and gave some of his men to go with him, and sent them to the Turks (Hungarians), and after they had talked the matter over with the Turks (Hungarians), the Turks (Hungarians) preferred that Arpad (Arbat) should be prince rather than Almoutzis (Almush) his father, for he was of superior parts and greatly admired for wisdom and counsel and valor, and capable of this rule; and so they made him prince according to the custom, or ‘zakanon’ (law, Sl. zakon, Tr. jayɣu, jayɣan? djayɣan?), of the Chazars, by lifting him upon a shield. Before this Arpad (Arbat) the Turks (Hungarians) had never at any time had any other prince, and so even to this day the prince of Turkey (Hungaria) is from his family. Some years later, the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) fell upon the Turks (Hungarians) and drove them out with their prince Arpad. The Turks (Hungarians), in flight and seeking a land to dwell in, came and in their turn expelled the inhabitants of great Moravia and settled in their land, in which the Turks (Hungarians) now live to this day. And since that time the Turks (Hungarians) have not sustained any attack from the Pechenegs (Patzinaks). To the aforesaid nation of the Turks (Hungarians) that settled in the east, in the regions of Persia (Περσία), these Turks (Hungarians) aforesaid who live toward the western region still send merchants who look them up, and often bring them back official messages from them.

Sabartoi asphaloi (Σάβαρτοι όίσφαλοι) vs. Hungarians vs. Magyars

Arpad ~ Arbat could not be a first ever prince of Suvars, since Suvars had a long prior history of princely lines. Another interpretation that Suvars never had a suzerain above them is also inapplicable, since Suvars were members of the Western Türkic Kaganate subordinated to the Kaganate's Kagan, and later to the successor Khazar Kagan.

Arpad ~ Arbat could be a first ever prince of Magyars, if Magyars did not have princes before. This is quite possible, because the term “prince” refers not only to the position, but also to the dynastic line, and the Ugro-Finns did not have their own dynastic lines. Thus, Arpad ~ Arbat was a first leader from a dynastic line, a scion of Dulo clan. In this case, the “Turks” are not Hungarians, but solely Magyars.

Hungarians is a collective name for the Kubar-Magyar confederation, a supra-ethnic term.

Physically lifting a candidate during coronation is a Türkic coronation ritual.

Inhabitants of great Moravia

The “inhabitants of great Moravia” were Serbs, the “expelled the inhabitants” correlates with the split of the Serbs into northern and southern groups.


38, 39, 40
The place of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), in which at that time the Turks (Hungarians) lived, is called after the name of the local rivers. The rivers are these: the first river is that called Barouch (Βαρουχ ~ Bulg. Buri chai, Scythian Borysthenes (Herodotus)), the second river that called Koubou (Κουβοΰ ~ Bug, Buh = Tr. Winding, Κου = kuu = Tr. White > Winding White river), the third river that called Troullos (Τροΰλλος ~ Dniestr, Gr. Tyr), the fourth river that called Broutos (Βρούτος ~ Prut, Pruth < Tr. burut = exude gas, smell (fart, hydrogen sulfide)), the fifth river that called Seretos (Σέρετος ~ Seret, Tr. serit = melt).

39. Of the nation of the Kabaroi (Κάβαροι).

The so-called Kabaroi (Κάβαροι) were of the race of the Chazars. Now, it fell out that a secession was made by them to their government, and when a civil war broke out their first government prevailed, and some of them were slain, but others escaped and came and settled with the Turks (Hungarians) in the land of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), and they made friends with one another, and were called ‘Kabaroi’ (Κάβαροι). And so to these Turks (Hungarians) they taught also the tongue of the Chazars, and to this day they have this same language, but they have also the other tongue of the Turks (Hungarians). And because in wars they show themselves strongest and most valorous of the eight clans, and are leaders in war, they have been promoted to be first clans. There is one prince among them, I mean, among the three clans of the Kabaroi (Κάβαροι), who is even to this day.

Kavars, Kubars, Kawars (Κάβαροι)

Identification of Kubars with Khazars is dubious, analogous to the Fennic Merya and Slavic Slovenes both being Rus, the ethnonym Kubar has few chances to be related to the ethnonym Khazar. The leadership of Almush and Arbat of the Dulo dynastic line connects Kubars with the Bulgars, within the Bulgar hierarchy Arbat should have been appointed as a viceroy to the Lebedia's subjects, statutorily the Lebedia's Magyars were the Arbat`s subjects. The form Kavar is composed of two parts, qov- “drive, expel” + er “people”, i.e. “refugees, exiles”, probably it dates to the tumultuous events of the 850s. The location of the city Kubar, aka Batavyl, aka Khorysdan, aka Korostel, the present Putivl, points to the Suvar domains centered in Karadjar (Chernihiv), and associated with the Suvar dynastic clan of Baryn. That is consistent with the appellation Sabartoi asphaloi for the Kavar part of the Hungarians. Both Suvars and Bulgars constituted non-ethnically Khazar Khazar elite, thus the political identification of the Kubars with Khazars. Probably, Arbat`s mother was a Baryn princess, outside of the Bulgar maternal dynastic clan, which made him ineligible for succession and eventual exile. The numerous toponyms and the western annals under year 881 corroborate the DAI and Hungarian chronicles on Kubars. Alternate etymologies for the term Kavar suggest a Tr. “rebellious” and Hu. “mix”, both dubious. Whether “exiles” or  “rebels”, the Kavar three clans were likely united not by common ethnicity, but a common political situation.

40. Of the clans of the Kabaroi (Κάβαροι) and the Turks (Hungarians).

The first is this aforesaid clan of the Kabaroi (Κάβαροι) which split off from the Chazars; the second, of Nekis (Νέκη(ς) ~ Hu. Nyék “border, fence”); the third, of Megeris (Μεγέρη(ς) ~ Hu. Megyer ~ Magyar, Kazakh tribe Majar); the fourth, of Kourtougermatos (Κουρτυγερμάτου ~ Κουρτυ = Kur/Chur“prince, head” + Γερμάτου =  diyarmat (Bashkir tribe Yurmat) “tireless” = Hu. Gyarmat); the fifth, of Tarianos (Ταριάνο(ς)); the sixth, Genach (Γενάχ ~ Hu. Jeneg > Jenő, Tr. ene “rank, minister”); the seventh, Kari (Καρή = Tr. ker “big, colossal”); the eighth, Kasi (Κασή ~ Hun. Keszi < Tr. Kishi = “people”, kesi “branch”, Bashkir tribe Kese-Tabyn). Having thus combined with one another, the Kabaroi (Κάβαροι) dwelt with the Turks (Hungarians) in the land of the Pechenegs (Patzinaks).

Kavar and Hungarian clans

The Hungarian tribal names are attested in numerous toponyms numbering over 300.
Nyék “border, fence”: this name is held as FU (Finno-Ugrian)
Megyer ~ Magyar FU “man”: this name may be FU or Türkic
Kur/Chur, Tarianos ~ Tarhan, Genach, Kari, Kasi “people”: these five names are held as Türkic. The alternate suggestion for Kourt Tr. “blizzard, snow drift”, Hu. “horn” are semantically unsuitable.

Oddly enough, all Hungarian tribal names find Türkic etymology, allophones, or parallels, and that includes Magyars (Vasary 1985/7; Fodor 1975, 1982; Ligeti 1963, 1964, 1978, 1986; Di Cave 1995; Golden 1990, 1990; Marcantonio 2000). The Hungarian elite`s proper names, including Arpad/Arbat and Almysh, and the nobility titles Kündü and Gulya, are also Türkic (e.g. sf. Arpad and Moscow main boulevard Arbat, named after a Türkic noble). It is clear that DAI lists the administrative division of the early Hungary, not its demography. The Hungarian Türkic elite did not include Magyar leaders, and since the FU language became the lingua franca of the polity, demographically the Türkic layer was a minor component. The Magyars demographically were not a predominant component either, as attested by the Y-DNA Hg N, present only in trace fraction. They could constitute one of the largest components, if the other components were a considerable mass of numerous diverse ethnicities, and their political predominance substantially magnified their demographical position. Hungarians did not include the existing power structure into the new alignment, it had to survive on its own and pop up later, as the events developed.


After this, at the invitation of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving and glorious emperor, they crossed over and fought (Danube Bulgaria's) Symeon and totally defeated him, and drove on and penetrated as far as Preslav, having shut him up in the city called Moundraga (Dristra, now Silistra, Bulgaria); and they went back to their own country. At that time they had Liountikas (Λιούντικα(ς)), son of Arpad, for their prince (Hu. Levente. Which of four Arpad sons, Taskatzous, Ielech, Ioutotzas, Zaltas was Liountikas?). But after Symeon was once more at peace with the emperor of the Romans and was free to act, he sent to the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) and made an agreement with them to attack and destroy the Turks (Hungarians). And when the Turks (Hungarians) had gone off on a military expedition, the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) with Symeon came against the Turks (Hungarians) and completely destroyed their families and miserably expelled thence the Turks (Hungarians) who were guarding their country. When the Turks (Hungarians) came back and found their country thus desolate and utterly ruined, they settled in the land where they live to-day, which is called after the above name of the rivers, as has been said. The place in which the Turks (Hungarians) used formerly to be is called after the name of the river that runs through it, Etel  (Ἀτελκούζου, Atilkuzu ~ Tr. (Land of) Father's people) and Kouzou (Tr. kiji, kichi ~ Tr. people), and in it the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) live now. But the Turks (Hungarians), expelled by the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), came and settled in the land which they now dwell in. In this place are various landmarks of the olden days: first, there is the bridge of the emperor Trajan, where Turkey (Hungaria) begins; then, a three days journey from this same bridge, there is Belgrade, in which is the tower of the holy and great Constantine, the emperor; then, again, at the running back of the river, is the renowned Sirmium by name, a journey of two days from Belgrade; and beyond lies great Moravia, the unbaptized, which the Turks (Hungarians) have blotted out, but over which in former days Sphendoplokos used to rule.

Such are the landmarks and names along the Danube river; but the regions above these, which comprehend the whole settlement of Turkey (Hungaria), they now call after the names of the rivers that flow there. The rivers are these: the first river is the Timisis (Τιμήσης ~ Temesh), the second river the Toutis (Τούτης), the third river the Morisis (Μορήσης ~ Maros, Rum. Mures), the fourth river the Krisos (Κρίσος ~ Koros, Rum. Krish), and again another river, the Titza (Τίτζα ~ Tisza).

Neighbors of the Turks (Hungarians) are, on the eastern side the Bulgarians, where the river Istros, also called Danube, runs between them; on the northern, the Pechenegs (Patzinaks); on the western, the Franks; and on the southern, the Croats. These eight clans of the Turks (Hungarians) do not obey their own particular princes, but have a joint agreement to fight together with all earnestness and zeal upon the rivers, wheresoever war breaks out. They have for their first chief the prince who comes by succession of Arpad’s family, and two others, the gylas (Γύλα) and the karchas (Καρχάς), who have the rank of judge; and each clan has a prince.

Gylas (Γύλα ~ Gula, Gyula) and karchas (Καρχάς) are not proper names, but dignities.

Gula, Gyula, Gylas (Γύλα)  - is the traditional Türkic title, known from the Hunnic times till the late Middle Ages, the full title is Ulug Bek, with allophones Ulug/Ulu/Gulu/Gula/Gyula Bek/Bei (sf. Ulubek, Khazar's Bek), meaning Great Bek, Great Prince, and functioning as a Prime Minister and a Superior Judge of the country. In Hungarian context, the title follows the Bechnek invasion (ca 800 – 850) and the formation of the Hungarians precipitated by the Bechnek invasion (ca 830 – 895 Atelkuzu, migration to Hungary 895). A Hungarian embassy of Gula and Karchas, connected with Arpad (Arbat) family, visited Constantinople in ca. 948 – 950 (Skylitzes, J.B.Bury p. 563), attesting to Türkic (Bulgarian) titles at Arpad court. The prosthetic anlaut consonant reflects the Ogur dialect. The speculation on the allophone Dyula found in Hungarian and Slavic texts, with its Tr. etymology “torch”, uses the distorted phonetical form with nonsensical etymology.

Karchas, Horcha (Καρχάς) - is the title of a regular judge, a relatively minor dignitary, according to the De Administrando Imperia. The closest suitable title with the same semantics is Kazy, with known allophone Kady. This is a traditional Islamic title for a judge, a country may have Kadys in low single digit numbers. Although Bulgars formally adopted Islam in 922, the system of Islamic jurisprudence has existed in Bulgaria since 700 – 750s, and the institute of Kady by 948 – 950 was firmly established. The Greek Karchas appears to be another allophone or a distortion of the allophone of the originally Arabic term Kazy. The existence of the Islamic jurisprudence system was attested in the Khazar Kaganate, where each of the four religious denominations had their own autonomous jurisprudence system long before the fall of the Kaganate. Prior to Islam, Türkic states did not have an institute of judges, every head of a tribe was a tribal judge, and the Ulug Bek ~ Prime Minister was a Superior Judge of the country.

The political autonomy of all members of the alliance is a typical Türkic state structure, attested across Eurasia and millennia. Sedentary states, with their sedentary mentality and sedentary, easily subjugated peasantry, could not grasp the reality that mobile subjects are not subjugatable, they can vote with their feet as is due in any democracy, and the Kubars, who escaped from the Khazar domination, are the best example.

Arpad, the great prince of Turkey (Hungaria), had four sons: first, Tarkatzous (Ταρκατζοΰς, Hu. Tarkachu, Tr. to spearhead; if this is a distortion of the title Tarkhan, his name could be Liountikas, Λιούντικας; 8 toponyms); second, Ielech (Ίέλεχ, Hu. Üllä?, ~ Tr. jel-/yel- “gallop, race”, from jel/yel “wind”; Tr. “prince”?; an uncle of Arbat and father of two Magyar leaders; a Suvar name?; 16 toponyms); third, Ioutotzas (Ίουτοτζας, Hu. Ütash/Ütosh ~ Tr. “gourmand”?; 2 toponyms); fourth, Zaltas (Ζαλτάς, Hu. Zoltan/Zolta < Sultan < Arab “ruler” 2 toponyms).

The eldest son of Arpad, Tarkatzous (Ταρκατζοΰς,), had a son Tebelis (Τεβέλης, Tr. Camel ), and the second son Ielech (Ίέλεχ) had a son Ezelech (Έζέλεχ, Hu. “gourmand”), and the third son Ioutotzas (Ίουτοτζας) had a son Phalitzis (Φαλής, Hu. Falichi/Fais “gluttonous”), the present (952 AD) prince, and the fourth son Zaltas (Ζαλτάς) had a son Taxis (Ταξίς Hu. Takshon, Tr. “unsatiable”).

The name etymologies, cited from the Russian academic publication DIA, eds. G.G.Litavrin, A.P.Novoseltsev, Moscow, Science, 1991, are clearly derisive and in places non-Türkic, they probably reflect homegrown or folk or Russian-cooked etymologies. While the trustworthy information on the Hungarians was received directly from the Hungarian ambassador Bulchu ca. 948 – 950, he could not undermine the Hungarian ruling elite by intimating derisive appellations.

All the sons of Arpad are dead, but his grandsons Phalis (Φαλής, Φαλίτζιν) and Tasis (Τάσής) and their cousin Taxis (Τάξις) are living.

Tebelis (Τεβέλης) is dead, and it is his son Termatzous (Τερματζούς) who came here recently as ‘friend’ with Boultzous (Βουλτζούς, Hu. Bulchu, Vulosudis of Skylitzes), third prince and karchas of Turkey (Hungaria).

The karchas Boultzous (Βουλτζούς) is the son of the karchas Kalis (Καλής; Tr. “to remain”; 16 toponyms), and Kalis is a proper name, but karchas is a dignity, like gylas, which is superior to karchas.

41. Of the country of Moravia (Μοραβία).

The prince of Moravia, Sphendoplokos (Σφενδοπλόκος ~ Svyatopluk), was valiant and terrible to the nations that were his neighbors. This same Sphendoplokos had three sons, and when he was dying he divided his country into three parts and left a share apiece to his three sons, leaving the eldest to be great prince and the other two to be under the command of the eldest son. He exhorted them not to fall out with one another, giving them this example by way of illustration: he brought three wands and bound them together and gave them to the first son to break them, and when he was not strong enough, handed them on to the second, and in like manner to the third, and then separated the three wands and gave one each to the three of them; when they had taken them and were bidden to break them, they broke them through at once. By means of this illustration he exhorted them and said: “If you remain undivided in concord and love, you shall be unconquered by your adversaries and invincible; but if strife and rivalry come among you and you divide yourselves into three governments, not subject to the eldest brother, you shall be both destroyed by one another and brought to utter ruin by the enemies who are your neighbors.” After the death of this same Sphendoplokos they remained at peace for a year, and then strife and rebellion fell upon them and they made a civil war against one another and the Turks (Hungarians) came and utterly ruined them and possessed their country, in which even now they live. And those of the folk who were left were scattered and fled for refuge to the adjacent nations, to the Bulgarians and Turks (Hungarians) and Croats and to the rest of the nations.

42.  Geographical description from Thessalonica to the Danube river and the city of Belgrade; of Turkey (Hungaria) and Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) to the Chazar city of Sarkel and Russia (Rus) and to the Nekropyla, that are in the sea of Pontus, near the Dnieper river; and to Cherson together with Bosporus, between which are the cities of the Regions; then to the lake of Maeotis, which for its size is also called a sea, and to the city called Tamatarcha (Ταμάταρχα ~ Tamiyat Tarkhan); and of Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals), moreover, and of Papagia (Παπαγία) and of Kasachia (Κασαχία) and of Alania and of Abasgia (Άβασγία) and to the city of Sotirioupolis (Σωτηριούπολις).

From Thessalonica to the river Danube where stands the city called Belgrade, is a journey of eight days, if one is not travelling in haste but by easy stages. The Turks (Hungarians) live beyond the Danube river, in the land of Moravia, but also on this side of it, between the Danube and the Save river. From the lower reaches of the Danube river, opposite to Distra, Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) stretches along, and its inhabitants control the territory as far as Sarkel, the city of the Chazars, in which garrisons of 300 men are posted and annually relieved. Sarkel among them means ‘white house’ (Sary Kel), and it was built by the spatharocandidate Petronas, surnamed Camaterus, when the Chazars requested the emperor Theophilus (829 – 842) that this city should be built for them. For the then chagan (Kagan) and the pech (chagan-prince, Bek, Ulug Bek) of Chazaria sent envoys to this same emperor Theophilus and begged that the city of Sarkel might be built for them, and the emperor acceded to their request and sent to them the aforesaid spatharocandidate Petronas with ships of war of the imperial navy, and sent also ships of war of the captain-general of Paphlagonia (Παφλαγονία).

This same Petronas arrived at Cherson and left the ships of war at Cherson, and, having embarked his men on ships of burden, went off to that place on the Tanaïs river where he was to build the city. And since the place had no stones suitable for the building of the city, he made some ovens and baked bricks in them and with these he carried out the building of the city, making mortar out of tiny shells from the river. Now this aforesaid spatharocandidate Petronas, after building the city of Sarkel, went to the emperor Theophilus (829 – 842) and said to him: “If you wish complete mastery and dominion over the city of Cherson and of the places in Cherson, and not that they should slip out of your hand, appoint your own military governor and do not trust to their primates and nobles.” For up till the time of Theophilus the emperor, there was no military governor sent from here, but all administration was in the hands of the so-called primate, with those who were called the fathers of the city. The emperor Theophilus (829 – 842) took counsel in this matter, whether to send as military governor so-and-so or such-an-one, and at last made up his mind that the aforesaid spatharocandidate Petronas should be sent, as one who had acquired local experience and was not unskilled in affairs, and so he promoted him to be protospatharius and appointed him military governor and sent him out to Cherson, with orders that the then primate and everyone else were to obey him; and from that time until this day it has been the rule for military governors in Cherson to be appointed from here. So much, then, for the building of the city of Sarkel. From the Danube river to the aforesaid city of Sarkel is a journey of 60 days. In this land between are many rivers: the two biggest of them are the Dniester and the Dnieper. But there are other rivers, that which is called the Syngoul (Συγγούλ ~ Ingul, Pantikapes) and the Hybyl and the Almatai and the Kouphis and the Bogou (Βογοϋ ~ Boh, Buh, Bug, Southern Bug, Hipanis) and many others. On the higher reaches of the Dnieper river live the Russians (Ruses), and down this river they sail and arrive at the Romans. Patzinacia (Πατζινακία) possesses all the land as far as Russia (Rus) and Bosporus and as far as Cherson and up to Sarat (Siret), Bourat (Pruth) and the 30 places. The distance along the sea-coast from the Danube river to the Dniester river is 120 miles. From the Dniester river to the river Dnieper is 80 miles, the so-called ‘gold-coast’.

After the mouth of the river Dnieper comes Adara, and there is a great gulf, called Nekropyla, where it is utterly impossible for a man to pass through. From the Dnieper river to Cherson is 300 miles, and between are marshes and harbors, in which the Chersonites work the salt. Between Cherson and Bosporus are the cities of the Regions (modern Inkerman), and the distance is 300 miles. After Bosporus comes the mouth of the Maeotic lake, which for its size everybody calls a sea. Into this same Maeotic sea run rivers many and great; on its northern side runs the Dnieper river, from which the Russians (Ruses) come through to Black Bulgaria and Chazaria and Syria (Μορδία, Mordia, Mordva ~ Mordovia read as Συρίαν ~ Syria). This same gulf of Maeotis comes opposite to, and within about four miles of, the Nekropyla that are near the Dnieper river, and joins them where the ancients dug a ditch and carried the sea through, enclosing within all the land of Cherson and of the Regions and the land of Bosporus, which cover up to 1,000 miles or even rather more. In the course of many years this same ditch has silted up and become a great forest, and there are in it but two roads, along which the Pechenegs (Patzinaks) pass through to Cherson and Bosporus and the Regions. Into the eastern side of the Maeotic lake debouch many rivers, the Tanaïs river that comes down from the city of Sarkel, and the Charakoul (Χαράκουλ ~ Kara Kul ~ Black Trough ~ Chernaya Protoka, a channel of Kuban river), in which they fish for sturgeon, and there are other rivers, the Bal (Tr. swamp) and the Bourlik (Tr. bur “evaporate” + lik noun suffix), the Chadir and other rivers very numerous. From the Maeotic lake debouches a mouth called Bourlik (Tr. bur “evaporate” + lik noun suffix, Burlik refers to bad smell, i.e. H2S hydrogen sulfide typical in the area. Less likely, Borlı ~ Chalky.) and flows down into the sea of Pontus where Bosporus is, and opposite to Bosporus is the city called Tamatarcha (Ταμάταρχα ~ Tamiya Tarkhan); the width of the strait of this mouth is 18 miles. In the middle of these 18 miles is a large, low island, called Atech. After Tamatarcha, some 18 or 20 miles from it, is a river called Oukrouch (Ούκρούχ Kuban?), which divides Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals) and Tamatarcha, and from the Oukrouch (Ούκρούχ) to the Nikopsis river (Nichepsiha west of Tuapse), on which stands a city with the same name as the river, is the country of Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals); the distance is 300 miles. Beyond Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals) is the country called Papagia (Παπαγία) , and beyond the country of Papagia is the country called Kasachia (Κασαχία), and beyond Kasachia are the Caucasian mountains, and beyond the mountains is the country of Alania. Off the sea­board of Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals) lie islands, the great island and the three islands; and, closer to shore than these, are yet other islands, which have been used for pasturage and built upon by the Zichians (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals), Tourganircli and Tzarbaganin and another island; and in the harbour of Spalaton another island; and at Pteleai another, where the Zichians (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals) take refuge during Alan incursions. The coastal area from the limit of Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals), that is, from the Nikopsis river, is the country of Abasgia (Άβασγία), as far as the city of Sotirioupolis; it is 300 miles.

Kasachia (Κασαχία)  - the term Kasachia (Κασαχία) and stipulation about its location allows to understand the ethnic meaning of the mysterious Slavic term Kosog (sg.), Kosogi (pl.) of the Slavic annals, which locate them in the vicinity of the Taman peninsula, river Kuban, and city Tamiya Tarkhan, the Sl. Tnutarakhan, and the term Zich (Zichia, Zichian) of the DAI. Unless there is a chance phonetic coincidence, the name Kasachia refers to the Kazak people, aka Cossack, Kazakh, etc., which means either Kui-Sak, Tr. “White Sak”, or in another version “Free, Unaffiliated, Freelancing”. Either version is credible, since the Kazaks lived in the area called Saksin “Saka land” and a calque of the name “White Sak” is attested in the Arab literature as Sakaliba “White Sakas”, and at the same time Kazaks are known for their independence, freelancing, and military organization. The appearance of the term Kazak in the De Administrando Imperia predates the first known Kazak mercenaries in the Bulgarian service (1229) by almost 300 years, and the appearance of this term in the Eastern European politics by 500 years. In later times, after the Russian occupation of the N.Caucasus, a prominent entity in the N.Caucasus were the Terek Kazaks, Russian Terskie Kazaki north of the rivers Kuban and Terek, who were used by the Russians as mercenary Cossacks. That provides a tentative connection between the Kazaks of the 950s, middle Age Kazaks of the Caucasus, and the modern N.Caucasus Terek Kazaks, and their role in history. In this case, the term Zich is a contracted form of Kasach (Κασαχία).

The location of the Papagia and Kasachia described in the DAI corresponds to the today's Balkaria and Karachai, the ethnically aggregated administrative compounds were concocted by Stalin in 1936 during his ethnic engineering spree, and the spree of the 1943 genocide deportations.


43. Of the country of Taron (southwestern Armenia west of lake Van).

But concerning the northern Scyths (Σκύθαι ~ Bechens, Khazars, Bulgars, Suvars) sufficient has been made plain to you, beloved child, knowledge of which shall be all ways advantageous and useful to you in time of need; but also it is right that you should not be ignorant of the parts towards the rising sun, for what reasons they became once more subject to the Romans, after they had first fallen away from their control.

The late Krikorikios (Κρικορίκιος = Ταρωνίτης, Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid, Great Ishkan of Taron, b. - c.930; famous in Russian translation), then, prince of Taron (Ταρών, Taron, Taurun,, Tauraun, Armenian principality, Tauraun = Tau Tr. “mountain” + run/raun?), at first bent and submitted himself before the emperor of the Romans, but from the first he seemed double-faced, and while in word he pretended to esteem the friendship of the emperor, in fact he acted at the pleasure of the chief prince (κατάρχων ~ Caliph) of the Saracens (Σαρακηνών, Sarakinón, Caliph, Caliphate, Moslems), and on various occasions led armies that came out of Syria against provinces subject to the emperor of the Romans, and everything that the Romans were planning in secret against their Saracen (Σαρακηνών) adversaries he would divulge to Syria (Συρίαν), and would always keep the commander of the faithful (άμερμουμνής ~ Arabic amir al-mümınin ~ Caliph) informed secretly through his letters of what was going on among us; and while he wished to appear a partisan of the Roman cause, he was found, on the contrary, to prefer and favor the cause of the Saracens (Moslems). However, he continually sent presents, such as appear valuable to the barbarians of those parts, to Leo (Leo VI “the Wise”, 886 – 912), the glorious among emperors, and got in return more and better from the pious emperor, who also frequently urged him by letter to visit the imperial city and behold the emperor and partake of the bounties and honors bestowed by him. But he, fearing lest this might vex and offend the commander of the faithful (Caliph, Caliphate), would trump up excuses, and falsely allege that it was impossible for him to leave his own country deprived of his assistance, lest it might be plundered by the Saracens (Caliphate).

Now, this same prince of Taron (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) one day captured in battle the sons of Arkaïkas (Άρκάικα, Arm. Princeling), that is to say, the cousins of the patrician Krikorikios (Κρικορίκιον, Κρικορικίου), father of the protospatharius Asotios (Άσωτίου), and he held them by him as prisoners. On their behalf the then prince of princes Symbatios (Συμβάτιος, Smbat ~ Shambat, Tr. name) sent letters to the same emperor (Leo VI ), of most blessed memory, begging him to send to the Taronite (Ταρωνίτην) and make efforts to recover these nephews of his, the sons of the said Arkaïkas (Άρκάικα), so that they might not be sent to the commander of the faithful (Caliph, Caliphate); for the patrician Grigorios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) was a relative of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος),the prince of princes. The emperor Leo (Leo VI ), of most blessed memory, acceded to this request of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), and sent the late Sinoutis (Σινούτης), the eunuch, who was then chief clerk to the foreign ministry, to the prince of Taron upon this business, and also to Adranasir (Άδρανασήρ), the curopalate of Iberia, on some other matters of business; and he furnished him with presents suitable to both. But when a calumnious charge was laid before the said glorious emperor against the said Sinoutis (Σινούτης) by Theodore, the Armenian interpreter, there was sent out as imperial agent in his stead the proto­spatharius Constantine Lips, keeper of the imperial plate, — he who is now patrician proconsul and commander of the great company, — with orders instructing him to take over the presents dispatched to the prince of Taron, Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), and himself to proceed to Taron, and to order Sinoutis (Σινούτης) to go on to Adranasir (Άδρανασήρ), the curopalate of Iberia, as he had been instructed to do. The said protospatharius arrived at Taron and gave to Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) the gifts and letters of the emperor which had been sent to him, and took up the bastard son of the Taronite (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), who was called Asotios (Άσωτίου), and brought him to the imperial city; and the emperor honored him with the rank of proto­spatharius and richly entertained him, and then sent him back to his father in the conduct of the same protospatharius (Constantine Lips). The same Constantine (Constantine Lips) took thence Apoganem (Άπογάνεμ), brother of Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), prince of Taron, and brought him to the emperor (Leo VI ), of blessed memory, together with the two sons of Arkaikas (Άρκάικα); and him too the emperor honored with the rank of protospatharius and many times bounteously entertained him, and sent him back again, in conduct of the same Constantine (Constantine Lips), to his country and his brother.

After this the said Constantine (Constantine Lips) spent some time in Chaldia (Χαλδία, between river Choroh and Trapezund, populated by Greeks, Lazes, and Armenians), and was then commissioned by imperial mandate to go to Taron (Ταρών) and take Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), prince of Taron, and come to the imperial city; and this he did. When this same Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) had entered the city protected of God, and had been honored with the rank of magister and military governor of Taron, he was also given for his residence a house called the house of Barbaros (Βάρβαρος), now the house of Basil the chamberlain. He was, moreover, honored with an annual stipend of ten pounds in gold (3.3 kg) and a further ten pounds in miliaresia (silver), making twenty pounds (6.6 kg) in all. After some sojourn in the imperial city, he was escorted back again to his country by this same protospatharius Constantine (Constantine Lips).

After this, Apoganem (Άπογάνεμ) came once more to the emperor, of blessed memory, and was advanced by him to the rank of patrician; and he was also permitted to take to wife the daughter of the said Constantine (Constantine Lips), and on this ground he asked for a house as well and he too received the house of Barbaros (Βάρβαρος), without a golden bull. After receiving the emperor’s bounty, he then returned to his country, with intent to come again and complete the celebration of his marriage; but no sooner was he escorted back to his country than he ended his life, a few days afterwards. His brother Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) sent letters asking that he might come to the imperial city and receive from the hands of the holy emperor the stipend granted to him and sojourn for some while in the city protected of God. Thereupon he proceeded to demand for his residence the house which had been set aside for his brother, and the emperor, of blessed memory, handed it over to him, both because he had lately submitted himself and in order to excite in other princes of the east a similar eagerness for submission to the Romans; but he issued no golden bull making a deed of gift of this house to him.

Several years later, when the emperor Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos, 920 – 944), of blessed memory, had laid hold upon the sceptre of the empire of the Romans, this same Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) reported that he had not the means to keep the house of Barbaros, but demanded that he should receive in its stead a suburban estate in Keltzini, either that of Tatzates or some other, whichever the emperor directed, in order that, when the Agarenes (Arabs) should make an incursion into his country, he might be able to send thither his personal relatives and substance. The emperor, who did not possess an accurate knowledge of the facts, and supposed that the Taronite (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) held the house of Barbaros in virtue of an imperial golden bull of Leo (Leo VI ), of blessed memory, gave him the suburban estate of Grigoras in Keltzini and, of course, took back the house; but he too issued no golden bull in his favor in respect of the suburban estate.

Thereupon Tornikis, nephew of the Taronite (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) and son of the late Apoganem (Άπογάνεμ), wrote to this same emperor: “The house of Barbaros was presented to my father by the emperor Leo, of most blessed memory, but after my father’s death, because I was under age and an orphan, my uncle, in virtue of his authority, took possession of his house, always promising me that when I should come of age, I should take over the paternal house; and now, as I have learned, my uncle has given this house to your imperial majesty, and has received in exchange for it the suburban estate of Grigoras in Keltzini.

And because of these imperial gifts bestowed on the prince of Taron, envy towards him was implanted and grew up in Kakikios, prince of Basparaka (Βασπαρακά, Βασπαρακανίτης, east of lake Van), and Adranasir (Άδρανασήρ), the curopalate of Iberia, and Asotikios, the prince of princes, who wrote to the emperor grumbling at the cause whereby the Taronite (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) alone enjoyed an imperial stipend, while all of them got nothing. “For what service — they said — is he performing more than we, or in what does he help the Romans more than we do? Either, therefore, we too should be stipendiary as he is, or else he too should be excluded from this largess.” The emperor Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), of blessed memory, wrote back to them, that the stipend in favor of the Taronite had not been granted by him, that it should now lie with him to cut it off, but by the emperor, of most blessed memory; nor was it right that what had been done by former emperors should be undone by their successors. However, he wrote to this same Taronite (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) informing him that the said parties were vexed and offended. He replied that he could provide neither gold nor silver, but promised to give, over and above the gifts regularly sent, tunics and bronze vessels up to ten pounds in total value, and these he did give for three or four years. But thereafter he reported that he could not provide this tribute, and demanded either that he should receive the stipend gratis as in the time of the emperor Leo (Leo VI ), of most blessed memory, or else that it should be cut off. And so, that it might not cause offence to Kakikios and the curopalate and the rest, the said emperor Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), of blessed memory, cut it off. But to console him, as it were, he afterwards honored his son Asotios (Άσωτίου), when he came to Constantinople, with patrician rank and entertained him munificently before sending him home.

On the death of the magister Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), Tornikios (Τορνίκιος), son of Apoganem (Άπογάνεμ), reported that he heartily desired to come and behold the emperor; whereupon the emperor sent the protospatharius Krinitis (Κρινίτης), the interpreter, who brought the said Tornikios (Τορνίκιος) to Constantinople, and the emperor advanced the same Tornikios (Τορνίκιος) to the honour of patrician rank. He put forward his claims to the house of Barbaros, and, having heard that his uncle had resigned his ownership of it on receipt of a suburban estate in Keltzini, declared that his uncle had no power to effect an exchange in respect of his paternal inheritance, and demanded that he should be given either the house or the suburban estate, failing which, he was for resigning both to the emperor, so that his cousins might not have them. Therefore the emperor, since the old Taronite (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) was now dead, resumed the suburban estate but did not give the house in exchange for it, because, as has already been stated above, no golden bull (golden bill) had been issued in respect of any of these transactions.

After this, the late Pankratios (Παγκράτιος), eldest son of that magister Krikorikios the Taronite (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), came to the imperial city and was advanced by the emperor to the dignity of patrician and was also made military governor of Taron. He asked that he might also be given a wife from among the ladies related to the imperial family, and the emperor gave him to wife the sister of the magister Theophylact. And after his marriage he made a will, in which he stated: “If children are born to me of this woman, they are to have all my country for their ancestral inheritance.” Thereupon he asked the emperor that he might be given the suburban estate of Grigoras (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid) for the patrician lady, his wife, to reside there, and after her death this suburban estate should revert to his imperial majesty. The emperor sanctioned this too, and after presenting him with many gifts, sent him with his wife away to his country. Now, the sons of the magister Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), this same patrician Pankratios (Παγκράτιος) and the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), greatly vexed and oppressed their cousin, the patrician Tornikios (Τορνίκιος), who, finding their aggressiveness unendurable, wrote to the emperor to send a trustworthy servant and take over his country, and conduct himself and his wife and their child to the emperor. The emperor sent the protospatharius Krinitis (Κρινίτης), the interpreter, to take him and conduct him to the city protected of God, in accordance with his demand. But when Krinitis (Κρινίτης) arrived in that country, he found that Tornikios (Τορνίκιος) had already departed this life, having devised before his end that all his country should be subject to the emperor of the Romans, and that his wife and his child should go to the emperor; and to her, on her arrival, the emperor gave for her residence the monastery in Psomathia (Ψωμαθεύς) of the protospatharius Michael, formerly collector (tax collector) of Chaldia (Χαλδία). The said Krinitis (Κρινίτης) was sent back again by the emperor to take over the country of Apoganem (Άπογάνεμ), that is, the portion of the patrician Tornikios (Τορνίκιος). But the sons of the Taronite (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), the cousins of the deceased, sent back thence a demand that they should give up Oulnoutin (Ούλνούτιν, city) and retain the country of their cousin, for they were quite unable to live if the emperor were to occupy their cousin’s country as his own. The emperor, yielding to his own goodness of heart, fulfilled their request and gave them the country of Apoganem (Άπογάνεμ), their cousin, and himself took Oulnoutin(Ούλνούτιν) with all its surrounding territory.

The whole country of Taron was divided in two, one half of it being held by the sons of the magister Krikorikios (Grigor Krikorikios Bagratid), the other half by their cousins, the sons of the patrician Apoganem (Άπογάνεμ).

44. Of the country of Apachounis and of the city of Manzikiert and Perkri and Chliat and Chaliat and Arzes and Tibi and Chert and Salamas and Tzermatzou.

Before the time of Asotios (Άσωτίου), prince of princes, father of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), prince of princes, whom the emir of Persia (Περσία) Aposatai (Άποσάται) beheaded and who had two sons, Asotios (Άσωτίου), who was prince of princes after him, and Apasakios (Άπασάκιος), who was afterwards honored with the rank of magister, these three cities, Perkri (Περκρί) and Chaliat (Χαλιάτ, Χλιάτ) and Arzes (Άρζές), were under the control of Persia (Περσία).

The prince of princes had his seat in great Armenia, at the city of Kars (Κάρς), and held both these three cities aforementioned, Perkri (Περκρί) and Chaliat (Χαλιάτ, Χλιάτ) and Arzes (Άρζές), and also Tibi (Τιβί) and Chert (Χέρτ) and Salamas (Σαλαμας).

Apelbart (Άπελβάρτ) possessed Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) and was beneath the dominion of Asotios (Άσωτίου), the prince of princes, the father of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), the prince of princes. The same Asotios (Άσωτίου), prince of princes, gave to this same Apelbart (Άπελβάρτ) also the city of Chliat (Χαλιάτ, Χλιάτ) and Arzes (Άρζές) and Perkri (Περκρί): for the aforesaid Asotios (Άσωτίου), prince of princes, father of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), prince of princes, held all the countries of the east. On the death of Apelbart (Άπελβάρτ) his son Abelchamit () possessed his domain, and on the death of Abelchamit his eldest son Aposebatas (Άποσεβατάς) possessed his domain. He, after the murder of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), prince of princes, by Aposatai (Άποσάται), the emir of Persia (Περσία), took possession, in absolute sovereignty, as an independent potentate, both of the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) and of the rest of the cities and the countries; and he submitted himself to the emperor together with his other two brothers, Apolesphouet (Άπολεσφούετ) and Aposelmis (Άποσέλμης), after their cities and their countries had on various occasions been overrun and ravaged and destroyed by the commander-in-chief (Byzantine commander of center tamgas ~ units), and they paid the emperor of the Romans tribute in respect of their cities and their territories.

But from the time of the aforesaid Asotios (Άσωτίου), prince of princes, father of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος) and grandfather of the second Asotios (Άσωτίου) and of the magister Apasakios (Άπασάκιος), until the lifetime of the second Asotios (Άσωτίου), prince of princes, these three cities were under the dominion of the prince of princes, and the prince of princes received tribute from them. Moreover, the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) with the country of Apachounis (Άπαχουνής) and Kori and Charka was under the dominion and control of the same prince of princes, up till the time when Aposebatas (Άποσεβατάς), emir of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ), and his two brothers Apolesphouet (Άπολεσφούετ) and Aposelmis (Άποσέλμης) submitted themselves to the emperor and paid tribute in respect of their cities and their territories; and since the prince of princes is the servant of the emperor of the Romans, being appointed by him and receiving this rank from him, it is obvious that the cities and townships and territories of which he is lord also belong to the emperor of the Romans.

When Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), prince of princes of great Armenia, was captured by Aposatai (Άποσάται), the emir of Persia (Περσία), and by him beheaded, Aposebatas (Άποσεβατάς), with his seat at the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ), took possession of the city of Chaliat and the city of Perkri and the township of Arzes.

The second brother of Aposebatas (Άποσεβατάς), Apolesphouet, (Άπολεσφούετ) and his nephew and step-son Achmet (Άχάμετ) took possession of the city of Chliat and the city of Arzes and the city of Altzike (Άλτζικέ, on north bank of lake Van), and they too submitted themselves to the emperor of the Romans and came beneath his dominion and paid tribute in respect of their cities and their territories, as did the eldest brother Aposebatas.

The third brother of Aposebatas and Apolesphouet, Aposelmis, was in possession of the city of Tzermatzou (Τζερματζοΰ) with its territories, and he too submitted himself to the emperor of the Romans and paid tribute, as did his eldest brother Aposebatas and his second brother Apolesphouet.

On the death of Aposebatas, Abderacheim, son of Aposebatas, possessed the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) with its territories and all its domain, and on the death of Abderacheim, Apolesphouet, second brother of Aposebatas and uncle of Abderacheim, possessed the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) and all the countries aforesaid, and on his death the third brother, that is, the brother of Aposebatas and Apolesphouet, Aposelmis, possessed Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) and all the countries aforesaid.

Aposebatas had a son Abderacheim, and another, Apelmouze.

Apolesphouet had a step-son and nephew, Achamet, for he had no son, but had instead of a son Achamet, his step-son and nephew.

Aposelmis had a son Apelbart, who now possesses Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ).

On the death of Aposebatas, he left Abderacheim his son to be emir, but his other son, Apelmouze, was a mere infant, and hence was passed over as unfit to enter into the authority of his father and brother.

Aposebatas, the eldest brother, had his seat at the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) and possessed, as has been said, these countries, Apachounis and Kori and Charka, and paid tribute in respect to them to the emperor of the Romans; and on his death his son Abderacheim ruled, and he too paid the aforesaid tribute, his brother Apelmouze being, as was said above, quite an infant.

On the death of Abderacheim, since his brother Apelmouze was passed over as an infant, the possession of the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) and of the aforesaid countries beneath it fell to the second brother of Aposebatas, the aforesaid Apolesphouet, uncle of Abderacheim and of his brother Apelmouze, who had been passed over because of his infancy.

On the death of Apolesphouet, the third brother of Aposebatas, that is, Aposelmis, took possession of the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) with the territories aforesaid. The aforesaid Achamet, who was nephew and step-son of Apoles­phouet, took possession, by consent and will of Apolesphouet, of Chliat and Arzes and Perkri: for Apolesphouet, having, as was said above, no son, made Achamet, his nephew and step-son, heir of all his substance and of his cities and territories.

On the death of Aposelmis, his son Apelbart possessed the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) with its surrounding territory. But Achmet possessed the three cities, the city of Chliat andthe city of Arzes and the city of Altzike.

44, 45
This Achmet (Άχάμετ) too was servant of the emperor, as has been said above, and paid tribute on his own behalf and on behalf of his uncle Apolesphouet. But Apelbart by guile and deceit slew him and took these three cities, the city of Chliat andthe city of Arzes and the city of Altzike (Άλτζικέ); and these the emperor should get back, as they are his property.

All these cities aforesaid and the aforesaid countries have never been beneath the dominion of Persia (Περσία) or beneath the dominion of the commander of the faithful (Caliph), but were, as has been said, in the days of the lord Leo (κυροΰ Λέοντος, Leo VI ), the emperor, beneath the dominion of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), the prince of princes, and afterwards came beneath the dominion of the three brothers, the aforesaid emirs, Aposebatas and Apolesphouet and Aposelmis; and in their days were brought into servitude and made tributary and fell beneath the dominion of the emperors of the Romans.

If these three cities, Chliat and Arzes and Perkri, are in the possession of the emperor, a Persian (Πέρσαι) army cannot come out against Romania, because they are between Romania and Armenia, and serve as a barrier and as military halts for armies..

45. Of the Iberians (Ίβήρων).

The Iberians (Ίβήρων), I mean, those who belong to the curopalate, pique themselves upon their descent from the wife of Uriah (Ούριου), with whom David (Δαυίδ), the prophet and king, committed adultery: for they say they are descended from the children she bore to David and are related to David, the prophet and king, and consequently to the most holy Mother of God (Jesus Crist, Virgin Mary) also, inasmuch as she (Virgin Mary) was by descent of the seed of David. For this reason also the great ones of the Iberians take in marriage their female relatives without impediment, believing that they are preserving the ancient ordinance; and they say that they originate from Jerusalem and were warned by an oracular dream to migrate thence and to settle over toward the region of Persia (Περσία), that is to say, in the country where they live now. They who were warned by the oracle and came out of Jerusalem were the former David and his brother Spandiatis (Σπανδιάτης), which Spandiatis had received from God a boon, as they pretend, that in battle the sword should not touch him in any member of his body save only in the heart, which he used to protect by a sort of covering in battles.

 On this account the Persians (Πέρσαι) were dismayed at and feared him, and he overcame them and mastered them and settled his Iberian kinsmen in the difficult territories now possessed by them; whence by degrees they expanded and increased and grew into a great nation. Thereafter, when the emperor Heraclius (Ηράκλειος, 610 – 641) marched against Persia (Περσία), they united and campaigned with him, and as a result, through the dread inspired by Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, rather than by their own strength and power, they subdued a great number of cities and countries of the Persians (Πέρσαι). For once the emperor Heraclius had routed the Persians (Πέρσαι) and had forcibly brought their empire to an end, the Persians (Πέρσαι) were easily defeated and mastered, not by the Iberians only, but by the Saracens (Moslems) as well. And because they originated, as they themselves say, from Jerusalem, for this reason they are very loyal to it and to the sepulcher of our Lord Jesus Christ, and from time to time they send large sums of money to the patriarch of the holy city and to the Christians there. Now, the aforesaid David, the brother of Spandiatis (Σπανδιάτης), begat a son Pankratios (Παγκράτιος), and Pankratios begat a son Asotios (Άσωτίου), and Asotios begat a son Adranasi (Άδρανασέ), who was honored with the rank of curopalate by Leo (Leo VI), the Christ- loving emperor of the Romans. But Spandiatis, the brother of the aforesaid David, died childless. And from their migration from Jerusalem to the country now inhabited by them it is 400 years, or rather 500 up to the present day, which is the 10th indiction (Sept. 951 — Aug. 952), the year from the creation of the world 6460, in the reign of Constantine and Romanus (Romanos II The Purple-born), Christ-loving emperors of the Romans, born in the purple.

The Christ-loving and glorious emperor Leo (Leo VI), born in the purple, hearing that the Saracens (Moslems) had arrived in the place called Phasiane (Φασιανήν) and had made the churches there into fortresses, sent the patrician Lalakon, military governor of the Armeniakoi (Άρμενιακών), together with the military governor of Koloneia and the military governor of Mesopotamia and the military governor of Chaldia (Χαλδία), and they destroyed these fortresses and liberated the churches and ravaged all Phasiane (Φασιανήν), at that time in the possession of the Saracens (Moslems). And again afterwards he sent the magister Katakalon (Κατακαλόν), the commander-in-chief, who arrived at the city of Theodosioupolis and ravaged the territory all about it, and gave up the country of Phasiane (Φασιανήν) and the cities around it to the like destruction, and returned after inflicting thereby a great blow upon the Saracens (Moslems).

And in the reign of the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), the emperor, the magister John Kourkouas (Κουρκούας), marching against the city of Tibi (Τιβί), utterly devastated in his passage the whole country of Phasiane (Φασιανήν), since it was in the possession of the Saracens (Moslems). Moreover, the patrician Theophilus also, brother of the aforesaid magister John, when he was for the first time military governor of Chaldia (Χαλδία), plundered this country of Phasiane (Φασιανήν), because then too it was controlled by the Saracens (Moslems). For by the time that terms had been agreed with the Theodosioupolitans, no village had been left standing in the country of Phasiane (Φασιανήν), or about the city of Abnikon (Άβνίκιον) either. And the Iberians always maintained loving and friendly relations with the men of Theodosioupolis and Abnikon (Άβνίκιον) and Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) and with all Persia (Περσία), but in Phasiane (Φασιανήν) they never acquired any territories.

The lord Leo (Leo VI ), the emperor, and the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) and our own imperial majesty several times asked for the city of Ketzeon (Κετζέον), so that we might take it over and introduce garrisons, in order to stop Theodosioupolis from being revictualled thence, assuring the curopalate and his brothers that, after Theodosioupolis had been taken, they should have this city back; but the Iberians did not consent to do this, out of their love for the Theodosioupolitans and in order that the city of Theodosioupolis might not be taken, and declared in answer to the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) and to our imperial majesty, saying: “If we do this, we shall become dishonored in the eyes of our neighbors, such as the magister the ruler of Abasgia (Άβασγία) and the Basparakanite (Βασπαρακά, Βασπαρακανίτης) and the potentates of the Armenians, and they will say that ‘the emperor holds the Iberians, the curopalate and his brothers, for faithless and does not trust them, and that is why he has taken over the city from them’; but let the emperor rather send a lieutenant-general or some imperial agent, and let him take up his quarters in the city of Ketzeon and let him watch.” And they were instructed by imperial mandate, to this effect: “What is the use of our sending either lieutenant-general or imperial agent ? Even if he enters, whether he be lieutenant-general or imperial agent, he will enter with ten or a dozen men and will take up his quarters in the lodgings which you will provide for him; and since the roads leading to the city of Theodosioupolis are many, he cannot from the city see the caravans entering the city of Theodosioupolis; and caravans may enter Theodosioupolis by night, and they none the wiser.

And so, then, because the Iberians did not wish that Theodosioupolis should be taken, but rather that it should be revictualled, for this reason they did not obey and give up the city of Ketzeon, although they received a sworn promise in writing that after the capture of Theodosioupolis this city should revert to them.

The Iberians never consented to raid or take prisoners in the environs of the city of Theodosioupolis or in its territories, or in the city of Abnikion (Άβνίκιον) or the territories about it, or in the city of Manzikiert (Μανζικίερτ) or the area controlled by it.

Whereas regarding the territories of Phasiane (Φασιανήν) the curopalate persists in his demand for all Phasiane (Φασιανήν) and the city of Abnikon (Άβνίκιον), and alleges that he has golden bulls of the emperor the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), of blessed memory, and of our imperial majesty, copies of which he sent us by the hand of Zourbanelis (Ζουρβανέλης) the protospatharius, his ‘azat’ (free people), we examined these and found that they gave him no help.

The Türkic name As (As-guzai, Ishguza) for Scythians became a generic name “aznat, aznavar” for free people in Persia, with allophones in Armenian and Georgian, “azat” and “aznaur” respectively. The Persian peasantry was enslaved, it was not free.

For, first, the golden bull (golden bill) of our father-in-law embodies a promise of this same curopalate, as he assured him on his oath and inscribed it with his own hand, that he will abide in loyalty to our imperial majesty, and fight against our foes and protect our friends, and subdue the east to our imperial majesty, and reduce cities and do great works for our comfort; and on the part of our father-in-law a promise was made to him that, if he continues in this loyal servitude and gratitude, he shall remain unshaken, both he and those of his family, in his rule and dominion; and the emperor will not move the boundaries of his territories, but will be content with the agreements made by former emperors and will not push beyond them; nor will he stop the curopalate from destroying Theodosioupolis and the rest of the cities of the enemy, whether he lays siege to them with his own unaided strength or with the assistance of this our army. Such are the main points contained in the golden bulls, and from them the curo­palate gets no help: for that of our father-in-law lays it down that we will not disturb him from the ancient boundaries of his country, and that, if he can, whether by himself or with our army, he shall lay siege to and destroy Theodosioupolis and the rest of the cities of the enemy, but not so as to hold them in absolute sovereignty and lordship; while that of our own imperial majesty includes a provision that all the places of the Agarenes (Arabs)))) which both he and his nephew, the magister Adranase (Άδρανασέ), may be able by their own power to reduce, or shall in future reduce, he shall hold as sovereign lord.

And since by his own power he subdued neither Theodosioupolis nor Abnikion (Άβνίκιον) nor Mastaton (Μαστάτον), he has no right to hold them, lying as they do on this side of the Erax or Phasis (Φασις, Έραξ, upper Aras/Arax) river; because the city of Abnikon (Άβνίκιον), on the one hand, has hitherto been independent and self-governing, under its own emir, and several times the army of our imperial majesty has raided it, yes, and the protospatharius John Arrhabonitis (Άρραβωνίτης), the military governor, and the patrician Theophilus, who is now military governor of Theodosioupolis, and the rest of the military governors have taken great plunder and many prisoners in it, and burnt its villages, while the curopalate has never raided it at all. And when these villages had been utterly devastated by our imperial majesty, the Iberians crept in and took possession of them, and tried thereafter to possess themselves of the city. But the emir, after being several times warned by the patrician and military governor Theophilus, and seeing that he had no hope of survival from any quarter, submitted himself and consented to become the servant of our imperial majesty, and gave his son as a hostage. Mastaton (Μαστάτον), on the other hand, belonged to the Theodosioupolitans; and when the magister John had besieged Theodosioupolis seven months, because he was unable to take it he sent some men and took this same city of Mastaton (Μαστάτον) and introduced into it the protospatharius Petronas Boilas (Βόιλας), who was then captain-general of Nicopolis. And the magister Pankratios (Παγκράτιος), who had joined the campaign of this same magister at Theodosioupolis, when the latter was about to retire, begged him to give him this city, and made him an oath in writing that he would retain it and never give it up to the Saracens (Moslems). He, as the said Pankratios (Παγκράτιος) was a Christian and servant of our imperial majesty, trusted to his oath and gave it him, and he gave it back again to the Theodosioupolitans. And when Theodosioupolis was taken, the Iberians crept in and took possession of Mastaton (Μαστάτον); for these reasons they have no authority to demand either this city of Mastaton (Μαστάτον) or that of Abnikon (Άβνίκιον). But since the curopalate is our faithful and upright servant and friend, at his request let the frontier of Phasiane (Φασιανήν) be the river Erax or Phasis (Φασις, Έραξ, upper Aras/Arax), and let the Iberians possess the parts on the left hand side towards Illyria, and all the parts on the right towards Theodosioupolis, whether cities or villages, be beneath our imperial majesty, the river, that is to say, forming the frontier between the two, just as in his lifetime John Kourkouas (Κουρκούας), of blessed memory, when asked about this, declared that it was best for the river to be the frontier. Strict justice does not allow the curopalate any authority to exercise control either on this side of the river or on the other, since all these villages of the Theodosioupolitans were enslaved and burnt by the armies of our imperial majesty, and never without our army did the Iberians come out and raid Theodosioupolis, but always maintained friendship with them and traded with them; and while they said they wished Theodosioupolis to be taken, in their hearts they by no means desired its capture. However, our imperial majesty, for our love of the curopalate, as has been said, has consented that the river Erax, or Phasis (Φασις, Έραξ, upper Aras/Arax), shall be the frontier between the two, and they must be content with retaining this much, and demand nothing more.

46. Of the genealogy of the Iberians and of the city of Ardanoutzi (Άρδανούτζη).
(Chapter on subjugation of Kayi emirs)

Pankratios (Παγκράτιος) and David the Mampalis, which means ‘all-holy’, were sons of the elder Symbatios (Συμβάτιος) the Iberian, Ardanoutzi (Άρδανούτζη) fell to the inheritance of Pankratios (Παγκράτιος), and other country fell to David. Pankratios (Παγκράτιος) had three sons, Adranaser (Άδρανασήρ), Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) and the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος), and he divided his country among them, and Ardanoutzi fell to his son Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος), who, dying childless, left it to his brother Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis. The patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis, married his daughter to the late magister Kourkenis (Κουρκένιος), who, having grown great, revolted, and deprived his father-in-law Asotios (Άσωτίου) of Ardanoutzi (Άρδανούτζη), and gave him in exchange Tyrokastron and the river region of Atzaras, which forms the frontier of Romania at Kolorin. Now, the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis, had to wife the sister of the magister George, rider of Abasgia (Άβασγία). And when the magister Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) and the magister George, ruler of Abasgia (Άβασγία), fell out with one another, the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου) took the side of the ruler of Abasgia (Άβασγία), and for that reason Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος), gaining the upper hand, deprived him even of what he had given him in exchange for Ardanoutzi (Άρδανούτζη), and expelled him, and he departed to Abasgia (Άβασγία). On the death of the magister Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος), Ardanoutzi (Άρδανούτζη) was left to his wife, the daughter of the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος), as her father’s heiress. Now when Asotios (Άσωτίου) the curopalate and the magister George, ruler of Abasgia (Άβασγία), and the magister Pankratios (Παγκράτιος), brother of the aforesaid curopalate, were dividing up the country of the magister Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) by force of arms, they came to an accommodation and each took what was next to him.

And Ardanoutzi (Άρδανούτζη) lay next to Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), son of the aforesaid David. Then all of them seized on the widow of the magister Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος), that is, the daughter of the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος), and said to her: “You, as a woman, cannot possess the city.” Then Symbatios (Συμβάτιος) gave the woman territories in exchange for the city, and took the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη).

These Iberians are related to one another in the following manner. The mother of David and the mother of Adranase (Άδρανασέ) the curopalate, father of the present curopalate Asotios (Άσωτίου), were the children of two brothers, that is to say, they were first cousins. Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), the son of David, had to wife the daughter of the magister Pankratios (Παγκράτιος), father of Adranasi (Άδρανασέ) who is now magister, and after her death Adranasi (Άδρανασέ) married the sister of Symbatios (Συμβάτιος), son of David.

The city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη, Ardanuç/Artanuji/Artvin) is very strongly defended, and has moreover a considerable suburban area like a provincial city, and the commerce of Trapezus and of Iberia and of Abasgia (Άβασγία) and from the whole country of Armenia and Syria comes to it, and it has an enormous customs revenue from this commerce. The country of the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη), the ‘Arzyn’ (Άρζΰν), is both extensive and fertile, and it is a key of Iberia and Abasgia (Άβασγία) and of the Mischians (Μισχιοί ~ Mesketi, Meshians ~ Türkic Masgut people?).

Mesketia ca 1900 AD

The emperor the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), of blessed memory, sent the patrician Constantine, the lord admiral, who was at that time protospatharius and lictor, with a tunic of the magistracy in order to make Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) the Iberian a magister. When the patrician Constantine, the lord admiral, had reached Nicomedeia, the monk Agapios of Kyminas came on the scene, who had at that time been visiting the holy city to fulfill a vow. In his passage through Iberia he had come to the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη). The patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος), at feud with his son-in-law Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος), had spoken thus to the monk Agapios: “I adjure you, by God and by the power of the honorable and life-giving Cross, to go to Constantinople and tell the emperor to send and take over my city, and have it beneath his dominion.

The monk Agapios came to Constantinople and related to the emperor all that the patrician /219/ Asotios, called Kiskasis, had said to him. The aforesaid patrician Constantine, the lord admiral, who was at Nicomedeia on the aforesaid business of appointing Kourkenios the Iberian to be magister, received by command of the emperor a missive of the patrician Symeon, the head of the imperial chancellery, which said: “Our holy emperor commands that you leave all you are engaged upon and go in haste to the patrician Asotios, called Kiskasis, and take over his city of Ardanoutzin, since he has declared to our holy emperor, by the mouth of the monk Agapios, that a trustworthy and familiar servant should be sent to take over his city of Ardanoutzin; go, then, to Chaldia and take some capable officers, whom you know to be brave and trustworthy, and enter and take possession of this city.” The patrician Constantine, the lord admiral, went to Chaldia and took capable lieutenant-generals and officers and men to the number of 300, and entered Iberia and fell into the hands of David, of blessed memory, brother of Asotios who is now curopalate, who said to him: “Whither have you been sent by the emperor and what task are you to perform, that you bring so many men along with you ?” For they suspected that, now Adranase the curopalate was dead, the emperor must be about to honor Kourkenios with the rank of curopalate; because, in the mean time, the sons of the curopalate Adranase had, after their father’s death, had certain quarrels with their cousin. And since Kourkenios had dispatched his chief man with a large gift to the emperor, requesting that he might be made curopalate or magister, the four brothers, that is, the sons of Adranase the curopalate, assumed that the patrician Constantine came thither to create Kourkenios curopalate. But the patrician Constantine put them off by saying: “Because I am about to honor Kourkenios with the rank of magister I bring with me so many men.” And the patrician Constantine went off to the country of Kourkenios and honored him with the rank of magister, and, bidding him farewell, said: “I am going to David the magister.” For this same patrician Constantine had for David also a mandate and presents from the emperor. And he entered Ardanoutzin, the city of the patrician Asotios, called Kiskasis, and gave him the imperial mandate addressed to him, which contained nothing about the city of Ardanoutzin, but was about other matters.

But /221/ Constantine said to him: “Although the mandate contains nothing about the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη), none the less the monk Agapios came to the emperor and reported to him all that you had bidden him about the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη), and therefore the emperor has sent me, to take over the city and introduce into it the men I bring along with me.” And since, as has been said above, the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος), was at feud with his son-in-law Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος), he had made up his mind the rather to give his city to the emperor. The patrician Constantine had with him standards and he gave one to the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος). He put it upon a pike and gave it to the patrician Constantine, saying: “Set it up on top of the wall, that all may know that from this day this city belongs to the emperor.” The patrician Constantine did so and set the standard on top of the wall and made the customary salutations of the emperors of the Romans, so that it became known to all that the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος), had made a present of the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη) to the emperor. Now, the elder David made no offer of his country to the emperor, notwithstanding it marched with the county of Akampsis (Άκαμψη(ς), Chaldia) and with Mourgouli (Μουργούλη, Chaldia, Murgul-su river). So then the patrician Constantine reported to the emperor in two dispatches, the one containing the news of how he had honored Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) with the rank of magister, and of how Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) had accepted the magistracy and saluted the emperor; and the other containing news about the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη), and of how he had taken it over from the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος), and that the patrician Asotios and his son-in-law the magister Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) had a great quarrel and feud with one another, and that the emperor should send succour for the garrisoning of this city, and that, should it be possible, the commander-in-chief should also come. When the Iberians, the magister Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) and the magister David, brother of the curopalate Asotios (Άσωτίου), saw what was done, they wrote to the emperor: “If your imperial majesty approves this and enters our country, then we put off our servitude to your imperial majesty and make common cause with the Saracens (Moslems), since we shall have fighting and hostilities with the Romans and shall, perforce, move an army against the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη) and its country, and against Romania itself.

The emperor, having learnt of these things through the letters of the aforesaid princes and having heard them from their envoys, and being terrified lest perchance they might make common cause with the Saracens (Moslems) and lead out the armies of Persia (Περσία) against Romania, denied it, saying: “I did not write to the protospatharius Constantine, the lictor, about this city and its country, telling him to take it over, but out of his own folly, so to say, he has done this.” So spoke the emperor in his desire to give them all satisfaction; and this same protospatharius Constantine, the lictor, received a mandate couched in terms of insult and menace: “Who instructed you to do this? Come you, the rather, out of the city and take Asotios (Άσωτίου), son of the late Άδρανασήρ (Άδρανασέ) the curopalate, and conduct him hither, so that we may honour him with his father’s rank of curopalate.” On receipt of these orders, the patrician Constantine abandoned the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος), in his city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη), and himself took leave and departed to the elder David and gave him the mandate which he had for him, and returned and entered Iberia and found, met together in one place, the magister Kourkenios (Κουρκένιος) and the magister David, brother of Asotios (Άσωτίου) the curopalate. And they began to quarrel with and to heap abuse upon the patrician Constantine, saying: “You are a sly and evil fellow in not revealing to us, concerning the city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη), that you were about to take possession of it”, and, “It is not the emperor’s policy to possess himself of it, for we ourselves reported to the emperor on this affair and have received a reply that the emperor knows nothing whatsoever about this affair, but that you have done this out of love of the patrician Asotios (Άσωτίου), called Kiskasis (Κισκάσης, ’Ασώτιος).” The patrician Constantine made a reasonable defense to these charges, and took Asotios (Άσωτίου), son of Άδρανασήρ (Άδρανασέ) the curopalate, and conducted him to Constantinople, and he was honored by the emperor with the dignity of curopalate (events of 923? - 937?).

But what of events which have taken place at various times between the Romans and different nations ? For it is worth while, my dearest son, that record of these things also should not escape you, in order that, should the same things come about on similar occasions, you may by foreknowledge find a ready remedy..

47. Of the migration of the Cypriots the story is as follows.

When the island was captured by the Saracens (Moslems) and remained uninhabited seven years (population was relocated), and the archbishop John came with his folk to the imperial city, a dispensation was made by the emperor Justinian (Justinian II, 685-695, 705-711) in the holy sixth synod (691-692) that he, with his bishops and the folk of the island, should take over Cyzicus (city) and should make his appointments (ordination) whenever a bishopric should fall vacant, to the end that the authority and rights of Cyprus might not be interrupted (for the emperor Justinian himself also was a Cypriot, as from the Cypriots of olden days the tale has persisted unto this day); and so it was ordained in the holy sixth synod that the archbishop of Cyprus should appoint the president of (a priest from) Cyzicus, as it is recorded in the 39th chapter of the same holy sixth synod.

But after seven years, by God’s will the emperor was moved to populate Cyprus again (in 698, by Tiberius III Apsimar, 698-705), and he sent to the commander of the faithful of Bagdad (άμερμουμνής ~ Arabic amir al-mümınin ~ Caliph) three of the illustrious Cypriots, natives of the same island, called Phangoumeis, in charge of an imperial agent both intelligent and illustrious, and wrote to the commander of the faithful (άμερμουμνής ~ Arabic amir al-mümınin ~ Caliph) asking him to dismiss the folk of the island of Cyprus that were in Syria to their own place. The commander of the faithful (άμερμουμνής ~ Arabic amir al-mümınin ~ Caliph) obeyed the emperor’s epistle, and sent illustrious Saracens (Moslems) to all the parts of Syria and gathered together all the Cypriots and carried them over to their own place. And the emperor, for his part, sent an imperial agent and carried over those who had settled in Romania, that is, at Cyzicus and in the Kibyrrhaiote and Thrakesian provinces, and the island was populated.

48. Chapter 39 of the holy sixth synod, held in the Domed Hall of the Great Palace.

Whereas our brother and fellow-minister John, president of the isle of the Cypriots, because of the barbarian assaults and to the end that they might be free from slavery to the infidel and be subject unfeignedly to the sceptre of his most Christian majesty, hath with his own folk migrated from the said isle to the province of Hellespont, by the providence and mercy of God and by the labor of our Christ-loving and pious emperor; we do resolve: that the privileges accorded unto the throne of the aforesaid by the fathers inspired of God at their sometimes meeting in Ephesus shall be preserved uninjured; that the new Justinianoupolis shall have the right of the city of the Constantinians; and that the most pious bishop who is set over it shall preside over all the bishops of the province of Hellespont, and shall be appointed by his own bishops, according to the ancient custom (for our fathers inspired of God have resolved that the practices in each church are to be preserved), the bishop of the city of the Cyzicenes being subject to the president of the said Justinianoupolis in like manner as are all the rest of the bishops under the said most pious president John, by whom as need shall arise the bishop also of the same city of the Cyzicenes shall be appointed.

But now that we have thus accurately formulated and set before you the matters concerning foreign nations, it is right that you should be certainly informed about reforms introduced, not only in the affairs of our city, but at various times over all the empire of the Romans, to the end that knowledge of things closer at hand and domestic may abide with you preeminently and may show you more worthy of affection to your subjects.

In the time of Constantine (Constantine IV "Bearded", 668 – 685), son of Constantine (Constans II Πωγωνάτος, 641 – 668), called Pogonatus, one Callinicus fled from Helioupolis (Baalbek) to the Romans and manufactured the liquid fire which is projected through the tubes, by the aid of which the Romans gutted the fleet of the Saracens (Moslems) at Cyzicus, and gained the victory.

49. He who enquires how the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) were put in servitude (δουλεύειν ~ servitude ~ в порабощение) and subjection (ύποκεΐσθαι ~ subjection ~ подчинение) to the church of Patras, let him learn from the present passage.

According to Cronica de Monemvasia, Avaro-Slavs occupied and ruled Peloponnese (except for Patras) for 218 ​​years (fr. 587 to 805 AD) (Cronica di Monemvasia. p. 15. 134-140). The anonymous Chronicle narrates the Avaro-Slavic conquest and colonization of mainland Greece, covering a period from 587 to 805 AD. The term Σκλάβωι is traditionally interpreted for Slavs, and the DAI and Cronica de Monemvasia ethnological and social depictions are traditionally interpreted as Slavic, and then either accepted or disclaimed as legendary or untrustworthy. A reading of the term Σκλάβωι as Türko-Slavic, Avars being one polity af many that led the Türko-Slavic compacts, render the legendary or untrustworthy material true, by bringing into focus nomadic military and social practices. During the early periods of 6th - 8th cc., when the role of the Slavic and other farning element was secondary, the term Σκλάβωι should be rendered according to the ruling ethnicity of the polity, in the case of Peloponnesus, the Avars. The end of the Σκλάβωι domination of the Peloponnesus precisely follows the fall of the Avar Kaganate. It were Francs who brought about liberation of the Peloponnesus from the Avar rule. The Byzantine activities during the Avar domination are some background noise. Demographically, Slavs were a predominant component of the Avar state and colonozation, but Avar remained a ruling elite and main military force till the last days in the 805 AD. Unfortunately, non-Slavic historians with rare exceptions follow the Slavic historical interpretations.

Nicephorus (Nikephoros I The Logothete, 802 – 811) was holding the sceptre of the Romans, and these Slavs (Σκλάβωι) who were in the province of Peloponnesus decided to revolt, and first proceeded to sack the dwellings of their neighbors, the Greeks  (Γραικών), and gave them up to rapine, and next they moved against the inhabitants of the city of Patras and ravaged the plains before its wall and laid siege to itself (805 AD), having with them African Saracens (Moslems) also.

The “unprovoked” attack was a typical retaliation for insubordination, undertaken by the local ruling Avar forces against their local subjects who failed to pay taxes due from the subject population. The history of Byzantium is full of such incidents, normally undertaken by the local ruler responsible for collection, it is a routine matter for both sides. Byzantines used the same tactics against non-paying “rebels”. The autonomy of the local (wing or province) administration was decisive in maintaining an integrity of the state. The timing of the retaliatory raid in the Peloponnesus coincides with the fall of the Avar central power, which in the eyes of the Peloponnesians freed them from paying taxes to the colonial power. Such retalitory raids did not involve the forces of the subjects, in this case Slavs, nor a mobilization of the tribal cavalry troops, because the abrupt cavalry raids against stationary soft targets were usually successful with fast raids and unpredictability of the targets. The term “Slavic revolt” can`t be taken literary, Byzantines did not control Peloponnesus for 218 ​​years, and neither Avars, nor Slavs could revolt against the non-existing Byzantine rule. Ironically, the literary interpretation is a historical staple.

A speculation on the “restoration” of the Byzantine rule over Peloponnesus in the 805, and subsequent “Slavic revolt” does not hold water. The Byzantines had nerither the time to mobilize a reconquesta campaign, nor a time to wage a war, nor to impose taxes on the Avar population that ostensibly provoked a “Slavic revolt”, nor to start enforcing the Byzantine taxation, all that in the same 805 year. But mounting an Avar retaliatory raid, even with the assistance of the Fatimid marines, was a matter of a couple of weeks.

The popular speculations on the African Saracens is not much better, in light of a standing alliance between the Avars and Caliphate against Byzantium. The Arab army and fleet were manned and commanded by Türkic mercenaries, the Fatimid fleet partolled the shores of Sicily, Italy, and Dalmatia, and the Avar plundering campaign was in line with the Fatimid objectives. The Avar-Caliphate coordination should be expected.

The term Γραικών for Greeks is an oddball in the DAI lexicon, it carries a flavor of a non-Byzantine source.

And when a considerable time had gone by and there began to be dearth of necessaries, both water and foodstuffs, among those within the wall, they took counsel among themselves to come to terms of composition and to obtain promises of immunity and then to surrender the city to their yoke. And so, as the then military governor was at the extremity of the province in the city of Corinth, and it had been expected that he would come and defeat the nation of the Slavenes (Σκλάβωι), since he had received early intelligence of their assault from the nobles, the inhabitants of the city resolved that a scout should first be sent to the eastern side of the mountains and spy out and discover if the military governor were in fact coming, and they instructed and gave a signal to their envoy, that if he were to see the military governor coming, he should on his way back dip the standard, so they might know of the coming of the military governor, but if not, to hold the standard erect, so they might for the future not expect the military governor to come.

The location of the Byzantine military stratig in the territory of the thema Hellada under Byzantine suzerainity, and the Patra unpreparedness for military confrontation corroborate the impossibility of the “Slavic revolt”. Patra was a clear soft target, to set an example for non-behavior, and ensure continuation of the Avar Σκλάβωι control. Patra agreed to keep paying taxes to the Avars. The Avar troops removed the siege. The Corinth stratig was sitting out the siege in Corinth, it was clearly an inner affair of the Avars. The timeframe of the events did not even allow him to request and recieve instrictions from the Constantinopole.

So the scout went off and found that the military governor was not coming, and began to come back, holding the standard erect. But, as it pleased God through the intercession of the holy apostle Andrew, the horse slipped and the rider fell off and dipped the standard, and the inhabitants of the city, seeing the signal given and believing that the military governor was coming undoubtedly, opened the gates of the city and sallied forth bravely against the Slavenes (Σκλάβωι); and they saw the first-called apostle, revealed to their eyes, mounted upon a horse and charging upon the barbarians, yea, and he totally routed them and scattered them and drave them far off from the city and made them to flee. And the barbarians saw and were amazed and confounded at the violent assault upon them of the invincible and unconquerable warrior and captain and marshal (centurion, 100 troops), the triumphant and victorious first-called apostle Andrew, and were thrown into disorder and shaken, and trembling gat hold upon them and they fled for refuge in his most sacred temple.

The anecdote of the Avars or Slavs seeking safety in a church belongs to the same hogwash as the horse-mounted apostle Andrew. Even allowing Slavic infantry or laborers participating in the siege, the first option for the nomads and peasants is to scatter, not to be cornered in a building. Even the most bent historical versions remain highly controversial about the Slavs` status prior to the 805 AD siege, the time of the Skleros` appointment as a strategos, and the fortification of the Patras after a long period of its decline.


Now when the military governor  (from a distance of 100 km of hilly road) arrived on the third day after the rout and learnt of the victory of the apostle, he reported to the emperor Nicephorus upon the onset of the Slavenes (Σκλάβωι) and the foraging and enslaving and destroying and the plundering and all the other horrors which in their incursion they had inflicted on the regions of Achaea (northern Peloponnesus); and also upon the siege of many days and the sustained assault on the inhabitants of the city; and in like manner upon the visitation and aid in battle and the rout and the total victory won by the apostle, and how he had been seen revealed to their eyes charging upon and pursuing the rear of the foe and routing them, so that the barbarians themselves were aware that the apostle had visited us and was aiding us in the battle, and therefore had fled for refuge to his hallowed temple. The emperor, learning of these things, gave orders to this effect: “Since the rout and total victory were achieved by the apostle, it is our duty to render to him the whole expeditionary force of the foe and the booty and the spoils.” And he ordained that the foemen themselves, with all their families and relations and all who belonged to them, and all their property as well, should be set apart for the temple of the apostle in the metropolis of Patras, where the first-called and disciple of Christ had performed this exploit in the contest; and he issued a bull concerning these matters in that same metropolis.

These things the older and more ancient narrated, handing them down in unwritten tradition to them who lived in the after time, so that, as the prophet says, the coming generation might know the miracle wrought through the intercession of the apostle, and might rise up and declare it to their sons, that they might not forget the benefits done by God through the intercession of the apostle. And from that time the Slavenes (Σκλάβωι) who were set apart in the metropolis have maintained like hostages the military governors and the imperial agents and all the envoys sent from foreign nations, and they have their own waiters (τραπεζοποιούς) and cooks and servants of all kinds who prepare foods for the table; and the metropolis interferes in none of these matters, for the Slavenes (Σκλάβωι) themselves collect the necessary funds by apportionment and subscription among their unit. And Leo (Leo VI), too, the ever-memorable and most wise emperor, issued a bull containing a detailed account of what these same persons who are ascribed to the metropolitan are liable to provide, and forbidding him to exploit them or in any other way to hurt them unjustly at his whim.

From the contents of the Chapter 49 can be drawn that the nomadscleared from the Peloponnesus soon after 805 AD, and the Slav peasants remained there in the same status as under the Avar rule, a tax-paying, corvee-serving, domestic slaves, etc. dependent population, given to the church to be administered. The impositions were of a communal type, with a collective responsibility, which implied some kind of communal hierarchy. There is clearly no military capabilities among the leftover Slavs.


50. Of the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) in the province of Peloponnesus, the Milingoi (Μηλιγγών) and Ezeritai (Έζεριτών), and of the tribute (πάκτων ~ tribute ~ дань) paid by them, and in like manner of the inhabitants of the city of Ma'ina and of the tribute paid by them.

The Slavs (Σκλάβωι) of the province of Peloponnesus revolted (840-841) in the days of the emperor Theophilus (829 – 842) and his son Michael (Michael III "Drunkard"), and became independent, and plundered and enslaved and pillaged and burnt and stole. And in the reign of Michael, the son of Theophilus, the protospatharius Theoctistus, surnamed Bryennius, was sent as military governor to the province of Peloponnesus with a great power and force, viz., of Thracians and Macedonians and the rest of the western provinces, to war upon and subdue them. He subdued and mastered all the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) and other insubordinates of the province of Peloponnesus, and only the Ezeritai and the Milingoi were left, towards Lacedaemonia (Levrot river) and Helos. And since there is there a great and very high mountain called Pentadaktylos (Taiget), which runs like a neck a long distance out into the sea, and because the place is difficult, they settled upon the flanks of this same mountain, the Milingoi in one part, and in the other part the Ezeritai. The aforesaid protospatharius Theoctistus, the military governor of Peloponnesus, having succeeded in reducing these too, fixed a tribute of 60 nomismata (gold 270 g) for the Milingoi, and of 300 nomismata (gold 1350 g) for the Ezeritai, and this they used to pay while he was military governor, as this report of it is preserved to this day by the local inhabitants. But in the reign of the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) the emperor, the protospatharius John Proteuon, military governor in this same province, reported to the same lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) concerning both Milingoi and Ezeritai, that they had rebelled and neither obeyed the military governor nor regarded the imperial mandate, but were practically independent and self-governing, and neither accepted a head man at the hand of the military governor, nor heeded orders for military service under him, nor would pay other dues to the treasury.


Archont vs Zupan

Constantine VII is consistent in discriminating terms Archont and Zupan. It was widely noted that the head of the Milingoi and Ezeritai is called Archont and not Zupan. The term Zupan belongs to the Middle Asian tribes of the Kangar circle: Uars/Wars (Avars), Kangars (Kangar and Bechenek/Bosnyak tribes), and Serbs. The implication is that the Milingoi and Ezeritai did not belong to the Kangar circle, and definitely not to the Avars. That leaves numerous possibilities: Agathyrsi, Huns, Bulgars, Savirs, Seklers, Scythians, and other lesser tribes.

The whole story does not fit the conclusion of the Chapter 49 on the weakness and meeknes of the Slavs. The supposition that Milingoi and Ezeritai are Slavs is baseed on the confusion of the term Σκλάβωι. First, to mount campaign, the strategos had to assemble an army from three themes, and then mount a war, indicating that the enemy was quite formidable. Second, two small tribal groups mounted a strong resistance to the Byzantine army and stopped it. Third, a pact was concluded with the enemy, which is a de facto recognition of them not beeing Byzantine subjects. The pact was a peace treaty that recognized Byzantine supremacy and established a fee for peace. Fourth, it required military service from the tribes, qualifying the tribes as military aptitudinal and a mercenary source. Fifth, the tribes did not accept intervention in their affairs, and did not accept an appointed gogernor. Six, the tribes were not imposed a per household assessment, as was done for the subjects of the empire, were not entered into the fisk books of the genicon (tax service). Sixth, they lived on the mountain slopes, unsuitable for peasantry, but suitable for pastures. Seventh, they were not imposed in-kind tax with self-delivery, as stipulated for the Slavs. Eighth, soon they rebelled, forcing a second campaign against them (842-850 ).There is a drastic difference in the treatment of these Σκλάβωι tribes and the Slavs, these Σκλάβωι were not a priory presumed to be statutory bondsmen.

The size of the price of peace can be assessed in terms of nomadic product, the horses. At Byzantine prices of about 1pound of gold per horse, 270 g of gold is a price for 3/4 of one horse, and 1350 g of gold is a price for about 4 -5 horses. Considering that an average family had about 6 horses per year for sale, for a whole tribe under normal conditions such a payment was no more than a symbolic burden. The tax on peasantry, including the Slavic peasantry, was much higher. In comparison, the collective tax on cities was in the same range, 100-300 numismata, or 1.5-5.0 kg of gold.


While his report was on its way, it happened that the protospatharius Krinitis Arotras (Κρινίτης) was appointed military governor in Peloponnesus, and when the report of the protospatharius John Proteuon, military governor of Peloponnesus, arrived and was read in the presence of the emperor, the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), and was found to contain news of the revolt of the aforesaid Slavs (Σκλάβωι) and of their reluctant obedience, or, more properly, their disobedience to the imperial commands, this same protospatharius Krinitis (Κρινίτης) was instructed, since they had gone so far in revolt and disobedience, to march against them and defeat and subdue and exterminate them. And so, beginning his war upon them in the month of March and burning down their crops and plundering all their land, he kept them to defense and resistance until the month of November, and then, seeing that they were being exterminated, they begged to negotiate for their submission and pardon for their past misdoings. And so the aforesaid protospatharius Krinitis (Κρινίτης), the military governor, fixed upon them tributes greater than they had been paying: upon the Milingoi 540 nomismata (gold 2430 g) on top of the 60 nomismata (gold 270 g) which they had paid before, so that their total tribute was 600 nomismata (gold 2700 g), and upon the Ezeritai another 300 nomismata (gold 1350 g) on top of the 300 nomismata (gold 1350 g) they had paid before, so that their total tribute was 600 nomismata (gold 2700 g), which this same protospatharius Krinitis (Κρινίτης) exacted and conveyed to the Treasury of the Bedchamber guarded of God. But when the protospatharius Krinitis (Κρινίτης) was transferred to the province of Hellas and the protospatharius Bardas Platypodis was appointed military governor in Peloponnesus, and disorder and strife were aroused by this same protospatharius Bardas Platypodis and by protospatharii and nobles who took his part, and they expelled the protospatharius Leo Agelastos from the province, and straight away themade an attack upon this same province, then these same Slavs (Σκλάβωι), both Milingoi and Ezeritai, sent to the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), the emperor, requesting and praying that the increments to their tribute should be forgiven them, and that they should pay what they had paid before. And since, as has been said above, the Slavesians (Σκλαβησιάνων) had entered the province of Peloponnesus, the emperor, fearing lest they might join forces with the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) and bring about the total destruction of this same province, issued for the lattera golden bull providing that they should pay as before, the Milingoi 60 nomismata (gold 270 g), and the Ezeritai 300 nomismata (gold 1350 g). Such, then, is the cause of the increase of the tribute of the Milingoi and Ezeritai, and of its remission.

That paragraph is interpreted that the Slavesians (Σκλαβησιάνων) are Slavic troops under Byzantine command, and Slavs (Σκλάβωι) are regular Slavic settlers. The soldiers, Slavesians (Σκλαβησιάνων), refused to serve in Lombardy, and instead were allowed to supply 100 horses and a centenarium. The  centenarium is interpreted as
1. A fort or fortified house
2. A commander for 100 cavalry squadron
3. A hundred of  –
3.1 nomismata (gold 450 g)
3.2 pounds of gold
3.2 pounds weight of something that mercenary soldiers could give
3.3 a granary for hundred pounds weight of grain, or hundred bushels, or the like
Considering that mercenary soldiers had only what they were paid, the monetary defrayal is excluded, leaving a labor for a building, or a commander. The mercenaries had to supply 100 horses, implying that they were breeding their own horses, and thus were running a horse farm production. That is in line with the practice of self-supporting military units in the Byzantine Empire. In all sedentary states, the state horse farms were run exclusively by the horse nomadic subjects, which points that the Slavesians (Σκλαβησιάνων) were nomadic mercenaries. The Slavesians' refusal to serve in Lombardy points to the same, the mercenary contracts were specific in their terms and conditions, and did not allow engagement of the mercenaries outside of the contractual terms. An unlawful order of the provincial prefect incited a revolt of the mercenaries, and their retribution, they “entered the province of Peloponnesus”. That also points that the Slavesians (Σκλαβησιάνων) were nomadic mercenaries from outside of the Peloponnesus. Their status, highlighted by the special term Slavesians (Σκλαβησιάνων), was that of the federati, an independent allied community. They could not be assessed a levy, and even if they were, Byzantine could not collect without opening a war. Confusion of the nomadic Slavesians with the sedentary Slavs is a blunder. The Slavesians were a military force that could be a threat and could bring military complications.

The Slavs (Σκλάβωι), on another hand, were sedentary farming communities, ruled by their traditional hierarchy. They could be assessed a levy, and that levy was collectable, because they relied on their fields for subsistence, and the fields could be destroyed, in fact the Slavs (Σκλάβωι) were subdued by “burning down their crops and plundering all their land”, and duty was imposed. The revolting Slavs (Σκλάβωι) could be a menace, but they could not be a threat and could not bring military complications. They could be readily pacified by restoring their payments. The danger was that the mercenaries could join the peasant rebels, turning a local revolt into a real war.

In the end, the Byzantines resolved the situation diplomatically, by concluding two separate agreements, one with the Slavs, the other with the nomadic mercenaries, yielding to their demands.

On the ethic side, the Slavesians (Σκλαβησιάνων) were Türkic horse nomads, they could have been the Avars, Bechens,, Bulgars, or fragments of previously coherent tribes of Scythians, Seklers, Huns, etc. The Slavs (Σκλάβωι) were some Slavic tribes, possibly headed by the descendents of the nomadic leaders who grew to become the Slavic traditional elite.


The inhabitants of the city of Ma'ina are not of the race of the aforesaid Slavs (Σκλάβωι), but of the ancient Romans, and even to this day they are called ‘Hellenes’ by the local inhabitants, because in the very ancient times they were idolaters and worshippers of images after the fashion of the ancient Hellenes; and they were baptized and became Christians in the reign of the glorious Basil. The place where they live is waterless and inaccessible, but bears the olive, whence their comfort is. This place is situated on the tip of Malea, that is, beyond Ezeron towards the coast. Seeing that they are perfectly submissive and accept a head man from the military governor, and heed and obey the commands of the military governor, they have paid from very ancient times a tribute of 400 nomismata (gold 1800 g).

The province of Cappadocia was of old a county of the province of the Anatolikoi.

The province of Kephallenia, or the Islands, was of old a county of the province of Lombardy, but became a province in the time of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving sovereign.

The province of Calabria was of old a duchy of the province of Sicily.

The province of Charsianon (Χαρσιανόν) was of old a county of the province of the Armeniakoi.

In the time of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving sovereign, the following hundreds (βάνδα) were transferred from the province of the Boukellarioi to the province of the Cappadocians, viz., the garrison of Bareta, the garrison of Balbadona, the garrison of Aspona and the garrison of Akarkous; and from the province of the Anatolikoi to the province of the Cappadocians were transferred the following hundreds (βάνδα), viz., the garrison of Eudokias, the garrison of Haghios Agapitos, the garrison of Aphrazeia; and these seven hundreds (βάνδα), that is, the four of the Boukellarioi and three of the Anatolikoi, became one county, now called the Kommata.

In the time of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving sovereign, the following hundreds (βάνδα) were transferred from the province of the Boukellarioi to the province of Charsianon, viz., the garrison of Myriokephalon, the garrison of Timios Stauros and the garrison of Berinoupolis, and they became the county now called Saniana. And from the province of the Armenialcoi to the province of Charsianon were transferred the following hundreds (βάνδα), viz., the garrison of Komodromos, the garrison of Tabia, and were added to the said county of Charsianon. From the province of the Cappadocians to the province of Charsianon the following hundreds (βάνδα) were transferred, viz., the county of Kasi in toto and the garrison of Nyssa with Caesareia.

In past times the province of Chozanon was beneath the Saracens (Moslems) and in like manner the province of Asmosaton also was beneath the Saracens (Moslems). Chanzit and Romanopolis were frontier passes of the Melitenians. And from the mountain of Phatilanon all beyond belonged to the Saracens (Moslems); Tekis belonged to Manuel. Kamacha was the extreme county of Kolonia, and the county of Keltzini was under Chaldia (Χαλδία). Mesopotamia was not a province at that time. But Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving and ever-memorable emperor, brought the late Manuel out of Tekis upon a promise of immunity, and brought him to Constantinople and made him protospatharius. This same Manuel has four sons, Pankratoukas, Iachnoukas, Moudaphar and John. Pankratoukas the emperor made commander of the Hicanati and thereafter military governor of the Boukellarioi, and Iachnoukas he made military governor of Nicopolis, and to Moudaphar and John he gave crown land at Trapezus, and he honored them all with dignities and conferred on them many benefits. And he made Mesopotamia a province and appointed the late Orestes, the Charsianite, to be military governor of it, and then gave the county of Kamacha to be under the province of Mesopotamia, and thereafter put the county of Keltzini also beneath the province of Mesopotamia. All these being now beneath the dominion of the Romans, in the time of the sovereign Romanus Romanopolis and Chanzit were added to the province of Mesopotamia.

In the time of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving sovereign, Larissa was a county of Sebasteia, and Kymbalaios was a county of Charsianon, and Symposion was a desert adjacent to the region of Lykandos. And in the reign of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving sovereign, Eustathius Argyrus was recalled from banishment and appointed military governor of Charsianon, while Melias was still a refugee at Melitene, as was Baasakios with his two brothers Krikorikios and Pazounis, and also the late Ismael the Armenian; these wrote to the emperor and to the aforesaid Argyrus, asking that they might receive a promise of immunity in form of a golden bull and might come out, and that Baasakios and his brothers might have their seat at Larissa and Baasakios be named frontier warden of Larissa, which was done; and that Ismael should be frontier warden of Symposion, which was done; and that Melias should be made lieutenant-general of Euphrateia, of the Trypia, and of the Desert, and that was done.

But since the Melitenians came out and did away /241/ with that Ismael, Symposion remained deserted. And when Baasakios was accused of plotting treachery and exiled, Larissa became once more a county under Sebasteia, and Leo Argyrus, son of Eustathius, was appointed military governor there, he who afterwards became magister and commander-in-chief. But Melias had his seat at Euphrateia, and when Constantine Dux had been appointed in Charsianon, this Melias aforesaid came down and took possession of the ancient city of Lykandos and built it up and fortified it and took his seat there, and it was named a frontier pass by Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving emperor. After this he crossed from Lykandos to the mountain of Tzamandos and there built the city which is there now, and similarly this too was designated a frontier pass. And he took possession of Symposion also and made it into a county. And in the first reign of Constantine the Christ-loving sovereign, when his mother Zoe was associated with him, Lykandos became a province, and the first military governor to be nominated was the patrician Melias, who was, of course, at that time frontier warden of Lykandos. And this same Melias, both for the loyalty that was in him toward the emperor of the Romans and for his many and infinite feats of daring against the Saracens (Moslems), was afterwards honored with the rank of magister.

Abara used to be a county under the province of Sebasteia, but in the time of the sovereign Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) it became a frontier pass.

By old-established rule the captain-general of the Mardaïtes (Μαρδαϊτών) of Attalia (Άτταλείας) was appointed of course by the emperor; and therefore by Leo (Leo VI), the emperor, of most blessed memory, Stauracius, surnamed Platys, was appointed captain-general, who gave splendid service for several years, but disposed things ill at his ending. For when the protospatharius Eustathius, of the imperial chancellery, was sent as deputy military governor to the province of the Kibyrrhaiotai, certain jealousies and broils arose between them: and sometimes Stauracius Platys, who relied upon the patrician Himerius, the foreign minister, as one who had been his intermediary with the emperor, would fall foul of the deputy Eustathius and indeed flatly oppose him in matters where he saw him acting or giving orders beyond his competence; and sometimes, on the other hand, the deputy Eustathius would be at odds with Stauracius and would devise many assaults and artful accusations against him. For this reason the aforesaid Eustathius reported unfavorably on Stauracius, saying: “The province of the Kibyrrhaiotai cannot have two military governors, me, that is, and Stauracius, captain-general of the /243/ Mardaïtes; for while I give one set of orders and try to administer them, the captain-general of the Mardaïtes will do something different, and being his own master acts wildly as he sees fit.

He reported other false charges besides, and concocted many artful accusations against him, composing some that had an air of probability and inventing others that were calumnious and wild. These things he wrote down, relying of course upon the patrician Himerius, the foreign minister. And at that time the patrician Himerius was more friendly with Eustathius than with Stauracius, though afterwards the two fell out and became full of enmity and replete with fury. The emperor, then, received this report of Eustathius and, acceding to the request of the patrician Himerius, gave the authority of this captain-general to the protospatharius Eustathius, the deputy. But when the emperor, of blessed memory, exchanged the things below for the things above, Alexander his brother took the position of senior emperor, and as he superseded all who had been appointed to any commands by the emperor his brother, of blessed memory, being thereto persuaded by malicious and foolish men, so he superseded the aforesaid Eustathius also, and made another in his stead. For the late Chase, who sprang from the race of the Saracens (Moslems) and continued a true Saracen in thought and manners and religion, the slave of the patrician Damian, this protospatharius Chase had at that time great freedom of intercourse with the lord Alexander the emperor, as had also the protospatharius Niketas, the brother of Chase, who was made military governor of the Kibyrrhaiotai by this lord Alexander the emperor; this Niketas, then, brother of the aforesaid Chase, made a request to the emperor, saying: “As I am your old friend, it is fitting you should do me a favor; and I have a thing to request of your imperial majesty, and it is right that you should grant it to me.” The emperor being taken by surprise and asking in his turn what this request might be and promising to grant it whatever it was, the aforesaid Niketas made his request, saying: “I request that your imperial majesty should make my son captain-general of the Mardaïtes of Attalia”; and the emperor, acceding to his request, on the occasion of a procession introduced into the Chrysotriclinus the son of the protospatharius Niketas, the spatharocandidate Abercius, and appointed him captain-general of the Mardaïtes of Attalia, just as Leo (Leo VI) the emperor, of blessed memory, had previously appointed Stauracius, surnamed Platys. It is the old rule, established from the beginning, as was said at the start, that the captain-general of the Mardaïtes is appointed by the emperor.

In the time of the emperor Theophilus (829 – 842), Scholasticius the door-keeper was chamberlain, and in the time of Michael (842 – 867), son of Theophilus, the patrician Damian was chamberlain and after him, in the same reign, Basil (Basil I “the Macedonian”, 867 – 886), the Christ-loving emperor, was chamberlain. In the time of Basil (Basil I “the Macedonian”, 867 – 886), the Christ-loving sovereign, there was no chamberlain during all his reign. In the time of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving sovereign, the patrician Samonas was chamberlain, and after him, in the time of the same emperor, the patrician Constantine. In the time of Alexander (912 – 913) the emperor, the patrician Barbatus was chamberlain; and in the time of Constantine, the Christ-loving sovereign, the patrician Constantine, mentioned before in the time of the sovereign Leo (Leo VI), was chamberlain again; and in the time of the sovereign Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), the patrician Theophanes; and in the second reign of Constantine, the patrician Basil.

In the time of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving and ever-memorable emperor, lived the late Ktenas, an aged cleric of great wealth, who was precentor of the New Church and was skilled in singing as was no other at that time. This same Ktenas besought the patrician Samonas, who was at that time chamberlain, to intercede for him with the emperor so that he might be made protospatharius and wear the shirt and go in procession to the Lausiacus and take his seat as protospatharius and receive a stipend of one pound, and in respect of this remuneration might give the emperor forty pounds. But the emperor could not bring himself to do this, saying that it was out of his power, and “to the great disgrace of my imperial majesty if a cleric becomes protospatharius”. On hearing this from the patrician Samonas, this same Ktenas added to the forty pounds a pair of earrings valued at ten pounds, and a silver table with animals on it in gold relief, also valued at ten pounds. And the emperor, besought by the request of the patrician Samonas, the chamberlain, took the forty pounds of gold and the pair of earrings and the table with its gold on silver relief work, so that the total gift of the same Ktenas amounted to sixty pounds. Then the emperor made him protospatharius, and he received a stipend on that occasion of one pound. After being honored with the rank of protospatharius this same Ktenas lived two years and then died; and he received a stipend of one pound for each of the two years.

51. Why the imperial galley came to be made, and of the steersmen of this same galley, and all about the protospatharius of the basin.

Until the reign of Leo (Leo VI), the glorious and most wise emperor, there was no imperial galley for the emperor to embark in, but he used to embark in a scarlet barge; except that, in the time of the Christ-loving sovereign Basil (Basil I “the Macedonian”, 867 – 886), when this same emperor visited the hot baths of Prousa, and again when he went to inspect the bridge of Rhegion that was, of course, being built by his mandate and providence, he embarked in a galley, and another galley followed behind. And the rowers who embarked in it were taken from the imperial barge and from the sailors of the Stenon. For of old the Stenon too had up to ten ships of war of the imperial navy. But since the emperor, of blessed memory, on most of his progresses always went to Pegai because of the palace he had built there, and in like manner to Hebdomon and to Hiereia and to Bryas, he used to embark in a barge, according to the old rule. But when he was going on a longer progress, to the hot baths of Prousa, for example, and to inspect the bridge of Rhegion, he would embark, as was said above, in a galley, and another galley would follow, so that more nobles could embark with the emperor, and the rest in the second galley. But the glorious and most wise Leo (Leo VI), the emperor, who was rather more hospitably inclined towards magisters and patricians and familiars of senatorial rank, and who always wished them to share his pleasure in this, reckoned that the barge was inadequate for the reception of a larger number of nobles, and constructed a galley, and would invariably embark in it wherever he desired to go. And there would go with him whomsoever he might desire of the nobles, both of magisters and patricians. For in the barge it used to be the rule that none other embarked with the emperor except the colonel of the watch and the lord admiral and the foreign minister and the commander of the company and the private secretary and the secretary of the pleas and, when he was present in Constantinople, the commander-in-chief also, and the chamberlain and the master of the wardrobe and of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber whomsoever the emperor commanded. For this reason, then, Leo (Leo VI), the glorious and most wise emperor, constructed the galley, and, some while after, he constructed another galley as well, which was known as the ‘second’ and christened ‘Attache’.

For this emperor, of blessed memory, would go on distant /249/ progresses, to Nicomedeia, for instance, to Olympus, to Pythia, and therefore lie had the two galleys specially made for the service and recreation of himself and his nobles. For when he went out on a short progress, he used often to leave one of the complements behind in the hippodrome to guard the palace; because the brigade of the Axithmos, according to the old rule which has grown into force, goes out on active service under the commander-in-chief and they, this complement, stay behind in the hippodrome and do not go out on progress with the emperors in the ordinary way.

From time immemorial the protospatharius of the basin has been an imperial appointment; and this protospatharius of the basin used to control and have beneath him all the oarsmen of the imperial barges, both scarlet and black, except for the barges of the Augusta: for the barges of the Augusta, both scarlet and black, were controlled by and under the authority of the master of the Augusta’s table. In the reign of Leo (Leo VI), the glorious and most wise emperor, when the new galleys were constructed by imperial mandate, this same protospatharius of the basin had beneath his authority the oarsmen of these galleys also. Now, the aforesaid protospatharius of the basin would by ancient rule go down every day in the afternoon and take his seat in the basin (for which reason he was called the protospatharius of the basin), and would judge cases arising between the oarsmen, both of the barges and of the galleys, over whom he had authority, and would give sentence and administer according to the law. And whenever he found anyone acting beyond his competence or wronging another or remiss in his own work, he would punish him with a sound cudgelling. And, as has been said, all the oarsmen of the galleys and of the emperor’s barges, both scarlet and black, were beneath the hand and the supervision of the protospatharius of the basin. But the barges of the Augusta, both scarlet and black, were beneath the hand and the supervision of the master of the Augusta’s table, though of course the master of the table accounted for these barges not to the Augusta, but to the emperor. In the time of Leo (Leo VI), the glorious and most wise emperor, the protospatharius John, surnamed Thalasson, was protos­patharius of the basin, and after him the protospatharius Podaron, and after him the protospatharius Leo Armenius, father of the protospatharius Arsenius, the lictor.

These, the protospatharius Podaron and the protospatharius Leo Armenius, had been chief oarsmen of the patrician Nasar, the lord admiral, and in the time of Basil (Basil I “the Macedonian”, 867 – 886), the Christ-loving sovereign, were /251/ promoted from the navy and became chief oarsmen of the barge of the emperor; and in the reign of Leo (Leo VI), the glorious and most wise emperor, when he constructed the galleys, he made them steersmen for their bravery and seamanship. And when a crisis arose, the emperor seconded the oarsmen of the two galleys, together with the two steersmen of the first galley, to ships of war of the navy, giving them much needful equipment, such as shields, leather targes (shields), very fine coats of mail and everything else that naval personnel require to take with them; and the patrician Eustathius, the lord admiral, took them with the imperial fleet and went off against the enemy. All this the emperor did because the patrician Eustathius, the lord admiral, was intending to engage the enemy. And in their stead the imperial galley was steered by Michael the elder and the late Michael the clever, who were at that time chief oarsmen. And pending the return of the imperial oarsmen, those who rowed the galleys were Stenites from the complements of the Stenon. But when they returned from the campaign, they resumed the same employment that they had been in before. Then the emperor, to reward, as it were, the protospatharius Podaron because of the bravery he had shown and because he had approved himself above all others in the battle and had received a personal testimonial from the patrician Eustathius, the lord admiral, that there was in the navy none other like him for bravery and energy and the other virtues, and particularly for affection and upright loyalty toward the emperor, gave to him the authority of the protospatharius of the basin. But because he was illiterate, by order of the emperor a judge from the hippodrome used to go down and take his seat with him in the basin and judge the oarsmen. But the barges of the Augusta, as has been said before, were in the control of the master of the Augusta’s table. After this, the emperor appointed Podaron and Leo Armenius to be vice-admirals of the imperial navy, and as steersmen of his galley he appointed the late Michael the elder, who was at that time chief oarsmen of the galley, and had been second oarsman of the barge of Basil (Basil I “the Macedonian”, 867 – 886), the Christ-loving sovereign, and the other Michael, surnamed Barkalas, who had previously served in the navy as chief oarsmen of the lord admiral, the patrician Eustathius, when he carried the Turks (Hungarians) across and defeated Symeon, prince of Bulgaria. Now this Symeon, prince of Bulgaria, on learning that the navy had arrived in the river, and that the navy was about to carry over the Turks (Hungarians) against him, constructed mantlets or wicker fencing, very strong and tough, so that the Turks (Hungarians) might not be able to cross over, and by this device the Turks (Hungarians) were at first prevented from crossing.

So the aforesaid Michael Barkalas and two other sailors took up their shields and swords, and leaping down from the warship with a brave and powerful rush, cut down the mantlets or wicker fences and opened the passage for the Turks (Hungarians). The Turks (Hungarians), who watched this Barkalas and exceedingly admired his bravery because he, by himself, advancing in front of the two sailors, was first to cut down the fencing, said in their admiration that this man ought to be named patrician and be head of the navy. So the emperor, on hearing of the bravery of Barkalas, made him second oarsman in the imperial galley. Thereafter, when Podaron and Leo became vice-admirals, Michael the elder and this Barkalas were appointed steersmen of the galley.

The aforesaid Leo Armenius, father of the late protospatharius Arsenius, the lictor, died a vice-admiral of the navy; but the protospatharius Podaron was after some years appointed military governor in the province of the Kibyrrhaiotai.

When Podaron became vice-admiral, the protospatharius Theophylact Bimbilidis was appointed protospatharius of the basin, who was nephew of the protospatharius John, surnamed Thalasson, and he lasted during a few years of the first reign of Constantine the Porphyrogenitus, the Christ-loving sovereign. On his death, since Michael the elder aforesaid was grown very old indeed and had given many long years of service as steersman, he was honored with the rank of protospatharius and was also appointed protospatharius of the basin. And when the emperor embarked on the galley in the basin and set out either upon a progress or somewhere else, that good old man, ever memorable for his seamanship, would take his stand amidships of the galley, inspiring und urging the oarsmen of the galley to pull and row more bravely and manfully, and at the same time instructing the steersmen of the day how to manage the rudders and steer the imperial vessel when the winds were blowing distemperately. Well, he died; and, owing to the infancy of the emperor and the indiscretion of the patrician and chamberlain Constantine, the late Theodotus, at that time chief oarsmen, was made steersman, and was at sundry times honored with the ranks of candidate, strator, spatharius, spatharo- candidate, and afterwards protospatharius and protospatharius of the basin; he was son-in-law of the aforesaid Michael the elder. For by ancient rule a steersman of the emperor had never been made, or honored with the rank of protospatharius, or even of spatharocandidate, but was either a candidate or a strator, or at the most, a spatharius.

And in the time of Leo (Leo VI), the glorious and most wise emperor, this Michael alone was honored with the rank of spatharius and subsequently of spatharocandidate. But owing, as has been said, to the infancy of the emperor and to the indiscretion of the patrician Constantine, the chamberlain, steersmen became spatharocandidates, and this Michael a protospatharius . But when the emperor lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) ascended into the palace and, somehow or other, possessed himself of the throne, he superseded Theodotus because of his affection for Constantine, the Christ-loving sovereign and emperor, and not only that but he punished him with flogging and tonsuring and dismis­sed him to perpetual banishment, in which he came to the end of his life; but his colleague in the steersmanship, the late Constantine Loricatus, the emperor lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) let be, because Loricatuswas affectionately dispo­sed towards him through fear and had renounced, by an oath written in his own hand, his affection and love toward the emperor Constantine; him the emperor lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos) first honored with the rank of spatharocandidate, and, after making him first steersman and appointing him protospatharius of the basin, honored him shortly afterwards with the rank of protospatharius. Now, this man, by means of a memorial to the cleric John, whom God had allowed to become rector, put before the emperor, of blessed memory, the lord Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), this suggestion: “The protospatharius Theophylact, master of the Augusta’s table, since he is an appointment and a support of the mother of the emperor and of the emperor himself, must necessarily be in sympathy with his own masters and benefactors. Besides, what need is there for the men of the barges of the basin to be divided between two authorities? For the master of the Augusta’s table, governed by his affection towards the emperor and the Augusta, may mislead the sailors of the barges of the Augusta, who are under his control, and perhaps even the oarsmen of the galleys, and they will plan a rising against your imperial majesty.” With these words he won over that evil and crooked rector, and through him the emperor. For it is easy for a light head and indiscreet heart to be seduced and fall towards every malicious word and hint. He spoke and won them over, and, having won them over, was given the authority over the barges of the Augusta also. And since then it has become the rule for the steersman of the imperial galley to have charge of and exercise authority over all the oarsmen, both of the imperial galleys and of the barges of the Augusta, and to be also protospatharius of the basin.

In the time of Leo (Leo VI), the Christ-loving and ever-memorable emperor, a demand was made from the provinces of the west, through the protospatharius Leo Tzikanes, the ex-military governor, for ready money from those who opted against military service.

And again, in the time of the same Christ-loving and ever-memorable Leo, ready money was demanded from the provinces of the west, through the magister John Eladas, who was then patrician.

And again in the time of the sovereign Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), who desired the Peloponnesians to do military service in Lombardy, the protospatharius John Proteuon being then military governor in Peloponnesus, these same Peloponnesians opted against military service, but to give instead a thousand horses, with saddles and bridles, and one hundred pounds in ready money, and these they supplied with great readiness.

52. Demand made for horses in the province of Peloponnesus in the time of the sovereign Romanus (Romanos I Lekapenos), as stated above.

The metropolitan of Corinth, four horses; the metropolitan of Patras, four horses; all the bishops of the province, two horses each; the protospatharii, three horses each; the spatharocandidates, two horses each; the spatharii, the strators, one horse each; the imperial and patriarchal monasteries, two horses each; the archiepiscopal, metropolitan and epis­copal monasteries, two horses each; the monasteries without means, one horse between two. Holders of imperial dignities, sailors, purple-fishers, parchment-makers did not provide horses.

A demand was made for five nomismata per head from the whole military force of Peloponnesus in respect of this military service, and from those absolutely without means of five nomismata from every two, and from this was made up the aforesaid one hundred pounds in coined money (See note p. 50/235).

53. Story of the city of Cherson.

When Diocletian was emperor in Rome (284 – 305), and Themistus, son of Themistus, was chief magistrate and primate in the country of the Chersonites, Sauromatus (Σαρμάται,Σαυρομάτος, Σαυρομάτας) the Bosporian, son of Criscoronus (Κρισκόρονος), gathered together the Sarmatians (Σαρματών) who dwelt on the Maeotic lake and marched against the Romans, and, having occupied the country of the Lazi and defeated those who were there, arrived as far as the Halys river (Kızılırmak, 41.7°N 35.6°E, Turkey). The emperor Diocletian, learning this, that the country of the Lazi and the Pontic land were being laid waste, sent thither an army with intent to oppose the Sarmatians (Σαρματών).

The Sarmats dwelling on the Maeotic lake during Diocletian time were Onogurs and Bulgars, who are positively known to be Türkic. However, under a force-fed Scytho-Iranian Theory, they were being promulgated in the 20th c. as Iranians. Apparently, V.Abaev and Vs. Miller could not get hold of DAI, at least it would start a cerebral process.

The commander of the army was Constans the tribune, and Constans, having reached the Halys with the army, sat down there and prevented the Sarmatians (Σαρματών) from crossing the Halys. And being unable himself to oppose them, Constans resolved in his own mind that in no other way could he expel the Sarmatians (Σαρματών) except perhaps if some of the neighbors of the Bosporians and of the Maeotic lake were sent out to make war upon them and plunder their families, in order that Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) might hear of it and retire from the war; and to communicate this in a message to the emperor, so that the emperor should send to the Chersonites and rouse them against the Sarmatians (Σαρματών), their neighbors, and to attack their families, so that Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), when he heard of it, might speedily retire from the war. Hearing this, the emperor Diocletian at once sent to the Chersonites bidding them to join him in the war and to go and plunder the country of the Bosporians and Sarmatians (Σαρματών) and take their families captive. The chief magistrate and primate of the country of the Chersonites was at that time Chrestus, son of Papias, and the Chersonites willingly obeyed the words of the emperor and therefore set about devising in what manner they might be able to capture the city of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), Bosporus, and the forts of the Maeotis. They gathered together the men of the neighboring forts and constructed military waggons and placed in them the so-called arbalests, and they arrived at the city of the Bosporians and, after laying an ambush while it was night, a handful of them joined battle at the city; and having fought at the wall from dawn till the third hour, they made a show of flight, not having exposed the arbalests they had made, that were in their waggons.

Those in Bosporus of course supposed that the Chersonites had been beaten owing to their small numbers and were in flight, and, with complete confidence in themselves, they sallied forth to pursue them. But the Chersonites, as it appears, retiring gradually, destroyed the pursuing Bosporians with the arbalests, and the Chersonites besides who lay in ambush started up and surrounded the Bosporians and put them all to the sword, and, returning, captured Bosporus and in like manner also the forts on the Maeotic lake and all the families of the Sarmatians (Σαρματών) (Σαρματών); and they took up their quarters in Bosporus, putting none to the sword thereafter save those who had fought, and they held on to Bosporus and guarded it. After some days interval, Chrestus, son of Papias, said to the women of the Sarmatians (Σαρματών): “We ourselves had no need to make war upon you, but since Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) has gone off to ravage the country of the Romans, we, being for this reason hidden by the emperor of the Romans, whose subjects we are, have made war on you. So now, if you would live in your city, come, let us send envoys to your lord Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), so that he may conclude peace with the Romans in sight of our envoys and withdraw from those parts, and we will leave you and go off to our city; but only when Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) so escorts our envoys hither and sends us with his own men the news of the peace, then so will we leave you and withdraw; but if Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) so much as tries to proceed by any trickery, believing he may cut us off here and attack us, and we get to know of it through our scouts, we will put all of you, both small and great, to the sword and so withdraw hence. And what good will Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) get of it hereafter, if all his family and the city are destroyed?” Hearing this, the women of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) made preparations to carry it out with alacrity. And with the Bosporians the Chersonites sent to Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) five envoys of their own, to inform him of what had been done and said. Well, when the envoys reached Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), in the region of the Halys river, they reported to him all that had been done against the Bosporians by the Chersonites. He was in great perturbation, and, pretending to desire, as it appears, that the envoys of the Chersonites should take rest after their journey, said to them: “Since you are fatigued, I desire you to rest yourselves a few days and then I will do all that you have said; *** go hence to the men of Rome and learn of them and be persuaded that my words to you are truth and that I do not lie.

The Chersonites went off to Constans together with envoys of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), and learnt what had gone on between them, and reported to Constans all that had been done by them in the country of the Bosporians and at the Maeotic lake, and how they had captured the families of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), and that Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) had through this necessity been brought to make peace. On hearing this, Constans was quite cast down, and said to the Chersonites: “And what good, then, is your alliance to me, now that I have made agreements to give them so much gold?” The Chersonites said to him: “Be not cast down, my lord: if you wish, we will dissolve the agreement for your payment.” Constans said to them: “How is it possible?” The Chersonites said to him: “Do you, for your part, thus declare to Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος): ‘The agreements already made between us hold good; and now, since on your account I too have incurred expenses and great losses on my way hither from Rome with the army, do you, for your part, pay me these, and I will give you back all your families and your city’.” Constans was overjoyed and sent this message to Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος). Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), when he heard it, was exceedingly downcast, and sent to Constans a message saying: “I will neither pay nor take anything at all; do you but send me the Chersonites, that I may withdraw hence.” The Chersonites said to Constans: “Do not dismiss us until you get back all the prisoners.” Then Constans sent a message to Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) saying: “Send me all whom you hold prisoners, and I will dismiss the Chersonites.” Sauromatus, when he heard it, unwillingly and against his desire dismissed all the prisoners whom he held, to the last one of them. So then Constans, having got back all those who had been taken in the forays, kept with him two envoys of the Chersonites and sent the others to Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), and Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) received them and sent them on ahead out of the country of the Lazi, together with some of his own men, to whom might be handed over Bosporus and their families.

Страна Лазов

Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) himself put his march with his nation in train, so that the Chersonites might honestly hand over the families and withdraw. The Chersonites, having received their own envoys in Bosporus and having learnt all that had been done by Constans and Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), handed over to Sauromatus’ (Σαυρομάτος) agent both Bosporus and the forts of the Maeotis and all the families, unharmed, and came in peace to the country of the Chersonites.

Constans, too, on the withdrawal of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) from the Roman territories, himself set out for Rome, and reported to the emperor all that had been done by the Chersonites; and he brought their two envoys also, whom the emperor saw and bounteously entertained and thanked most gratefully, and then said to them: “What will you that I should grant to you and your city in return for this affection and alliance?” They said to the emperor: “We, my lord, wish for nothing else, but request this one thing only, that your majesty should grant us pledges of freedom and immunity from tribute.” The emperor gladly acceded to their request and ungrudgingly granted them these pledges of freedom and of immunity from tribute, and sent them to the country of the Chersonites with very many gifts besides, as true subjects of the empire of the Romans. Constans too was grandly entertained by the emperor Diocletian for his brave support in the war of the Sarmatians (Σαρματών), and became noble and illustrious and after a short while was proclaimed emperor of the Romans (337 – 350), when Diocletian had retired to Nicomedeia.

On the death of Constans, his son Constantine (Constantius II, 337 –  361) became emperor at Rome, and when he came to Byzantium, and certain of those in Scythia revolted against him, he called to mind what had been said by his father Constans concerning the affection of the Chersonites and their alliance, and he sent envoys to the country of the Chersonites, with instructions that they should go to the country of the Scythians and fight those who had revolted against him. The chief magistrate and primate of the Chersonites was at that time Diogenes, son of Diogenes, and the Chersonites gladly obeyed the imperial mandate and with all zeal constructed the military waggons and the arbalests and arrived at the Ister river and, having crossed it, arrayed themselves against the rebels and routed them. The emperor, learning of the victory won by them, bade them go back to their country, but their primates he invited to the city of Byzantium and, after thanking them most gratefully, he said to them: “Since now too you have labored loyally on our behalf, as in the time of the pious forbears of our divine majesty, see, we too do ratify the pledges of freedom and immunity from tribute already granted to you in the city of the Romans by our imperial government; and for our part we give you besides a golden statue with imperial cloak and clasp and a golden crown, for the beautifying of your city, and thereto our charter of freedom and immunity from tribute for you and for your sailors; and, for the purity of your affection, we give you also golden rings expressing the likenesses of our pious selves, wherewith you are to seal reports and petitions which shall from time to time be sent from you to us, and thus make your envoys known to us; and besides, in addition to these, we grant you annually cord and hemp, iron and oil, for the manufacture of your bows, and we give you for your sustenance a thousand military rations, so that you may be bowmen (as they are called): so that all these provisions and regular grants we shall send you every year from here to the country of the Chersonites.

The Chersonites, receiving these rations, divided them out among themselves and their sons and so made up the brigade, and that is why, even to this day, their sons are “enrolled in the brigade”, to fill up the number of their parents’ levy. Diogenes and those with him were then honored with a multitude of supplies and gifts by Constantine, the emperor beloved of God, and came to the country of the Chersonites, bringing back the gifts conferred by his divine majesty.

Some years after these events had taken place, Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), grandson of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) the son of Criscoronus (Κρισκόρονος) who had attacked Lazike, gathered together a warlike power from the Maeotic lake and rose against the Chersonites, desiring, it appears, to avenge the insult of the captivity done to his grandfather by them in the time of Diocletian the emperor. The Chersonites, Byscus, son of Supolichus, being at that time chief magistrate and primate of Cherson, learnt of this and on their side arrayed themselves in opposition and met Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) outside, in the region of Kapha (Καφάς. Καφά, Tr Kap “gate”, modern Theodosia), so-called, and they fought with him, and, God aiding the Chersonites, defeated Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) and drove him off; and they set up boundary-stones in that same Kapha (Καφάς) by name, in the place where they had fought and defeated Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), and there this same Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) and those that were left with him swore oaths in due form that they would never more pass for purposes of war beyond the boundary-stones set up between them, but that each of them should keep to his own places on his side of the boundary-stones set up. And so they withdrew, Sauromates to Bosporus, and the Chersonites to their own homes.

When this had been done, once more after some years another Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) rose up and with him a multitude of men from the Maeotic lake, and they drew up their force against the Chersonites, and, crossing over the boundary-stones set up in Kapha (Καφάς) by the first Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) with an oath that none of the Bosporians should ever attempt to pass beyond them for purposes of war, this Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) passed beyond them, as desiring to avenge and recover the land forcibly taken from him.

In those times the chief magistrate and primate of the country of the Chersonites was Pharnacus (Φάρνακος), son of Pharnacus, and the Chersonites on their side arrayed themselves against Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), and they met one another in the region of the aforesaid Kapha (Καφάς), and each side took up position on the mountains. Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), being of huge stature, had confidence in himself and boasted insolently over the Chersonites, confiding also at the same time in the infinite multitude that was with him. But Pharnacus was of small stature compared to Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), and, seeing the multitude of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), resolved with his own army that he should fight in single combat with Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), to avoid the destruction of an infinite multitude. This resolution having been made, Pharnacus made a declaration to the multitude of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), saying: “What need is there of the destruction of so great a throng? For you have not resorted to war of your own choice, but Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) has bidden you to it. Do you, then, urge him to fight in single combat with me, and if by God’s aid I overpower him, do you withdraw unharmed to your own homes, and he and his city shall have fallen beneath me; but if he overpowers me, in this case also you withdraw to your own homes, and he shall have become master over mine.” The throng of the Sarmatians (Σαρματών) accepted this with joy, and told Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) to fight in single combat with Pharnacus. So Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), learning that Pharnacus was quite small in stature, while he himself was gigantic, was delighted at this, for he trusted in his own strength and in his armor, by which he was completely protected. This being so resolved upon, Pharnacus said to his army: “When I go down with God’s aid to the single combat, and you see that Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) has his back towards you and his face towards his own men, while I have my face towards you and my back towards the enemy, do you all raise one shout, saying simply ‘Ah! Ah!’, and after the shout, do not repeat it.” And so, when both had gone down to the plain for the single combat, and were maneuvering about one another, and Pharnacus had taken the ground of Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) and Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) that of Pharnacus, the army of Pharnacus gave one shout, ‘Ah! Ah!’. Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος), hearing this shout, turned about in the action to see what cry was raised in the army of Pharnacus.

And as Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) turned his face to the rear, the plating of his helmet opened a crack, and at once Pharnacus charged upon him and smote Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) with his lance and slew him. When Sauromatus (Σαυρομάτος) had fallen, Pharnacus got down from his horse and cut off his head, and, having won the battle, dismissed the multitude of the Maeotis, but took prisoner them of Bosporus and took away their land and set up boundary-stones in Kybernikon, beyond the country of the Chersonites, leaving to the Bosporians land up to forty miles only, and these boundary-stones remain to this day, and the said first boundary-stones in Kapha (Καφάς) are laid aside. Pharnacus, keeping by him some few of the Bosporians to do agricultural work, in pity dismissed all the rest, to go to the countryof the Bosporians, and they, dismissed by Pharnacus, erected a column to him in Bosporus for the beneficence and mercy which he had shown towards them. From that time, then, the rule of the Sauromati in Bosporus was ended.

The fall of the Bospor kingdom was attributed to the arrival of the Huns, but archeological tracing extends the time of its demise by the Justinian I "The Great" time (527 – 565), well after the fragmentation of the Western Hun Empire, and shortly preceeding the rise of the Bulgars (Hunno-Bulgars) and establishing the Bulgar capital Banja in the place of Phanagoria.

The anecdote of the single combat is a topos, it is similarly repeated in other cases.

These events, then, fell out so; but when (380s) Lamachus was chief magistrate and primate of the country of the Chersonites and Asander was king of the country of the Bosporians, the Bosporians, being replete with much malice against the Chersonites and wholly unable to rest from wickedness, were still eager how they might pay back the recompense of the captivities upon the Chersonites. And so, learning that Lamachus had an only daughter, Gykia, while Asander had sons, they set about contriving the conclusion of a marriage alliance, in order that thereby they might safely gain a footing in the country of the Chersonites and take vengeance on it. And so they sent envoys to the country of the Chersonites, with this request: “If we know that sincere love exists between us, and if our relations one toward another are without guile, let us make for ourselves a marriage alliance, and do you give us the daughter of Lamachus, your first man, to be bride of the son of Asander our lord, or else receive him on your side as son-in-law, and we shall know that we have faith one toward another when the king’s son is among you.” The Chersonites said to them: “We cannot consent to giving our daughter to you; but if from among the sons of Asander your king you would like to give us a son-in-law, we accept, but on such terms that the son of Asander who comes to us to be allied in marriage shall no longer have in his power ever at any time or season to attempt to return to the country of the Bosporians for the purpose of visiting or greeting his father, and if he shall resolve to do this, surely he dies that hour.”

The envoys were dismissed and reached the country of the Bosporians and reported this, and Asander once more sent envoys, saying to the Chersonites: “If you speak truly, and assure me that Lamachus consents to yoke his daughter with my eldest son, that same son will I send there to you, to be joined in marriage.

Lamachus in these days, as it appears, prided himself upon much wealth, in gold and silver, male and female slaves, and cattle of various kinds and many estates, and his mansion occupied ground far and wide in four wards, as far as to below the so-called Sosae, in which it had its own gate in the wall and four main gateways for ingress and egress, together with other small side-entrances, so that when his cattle entered the city, each herd of beasts, stallions and mares, cows and heifers, sheep and asses, came in through its own gate, and went to its own stabling. The Chersonites, therefore, begged Lamachus that this son of Asander might be his son-in-law. Lamachus granted their request, and the son of Asander came to Cherson and married Gykia. And after the space of about two years, Lamachus died; the mother of Gykia had died before him. So, after the lapse of a year, when the anniversary of her father’s burial was near, Gykia, wishing to keep bright the memory of her father, begged the leading men of the city, the chief magistrate and primate of Cherson being Zethus, son of Zethon, that they would kindly consent, together with all the populace, to receive from her wine and loaves of bread and oil, flesh and game and fish, and anything else needed to make merry, to the end that upon this day of the commemoration of Lamachus all the citizens, with their wives and children and all their families, should feast and rejoice, each in his own ward, and dance in the streets and completely abstain from any work; and she promised the citizens upon oath that each year of her life she would in the same way give them the means of merry-making at this same commemoration of Lamachus. This being so arranged and confirmed by her upon oath, her husband, the son of Asander, who was plotting in secret and looking for an occasion of treachery, when he heard what Gykia had said and confirmed on oath, admired and congratulated Gykia upon the sworn convenant (covenant), as one showing a truly filial spirit towards her parents, and consented himself also, as it appears, to rejoice and pour a libation on this covenanted occasion.

Afterwards, when the commemoration and merry-making had gone by, he made a declaration to those in Bosporus, through his confidential slave, and said to them: “I have found a means whereby we shall take Cherson without trouble; do you, therefore, send to me at intervals ten or twelve serviceable young fellows, in addition to the rowers of the ship, on the pretext that you are sending me presents, and let your ships that come hither put in at Symbolon and wait there, and I will escort and convey on horseback to the city the youths who come and the presents that are sent.” And so, in this manner, over a period of two years the Bosporians came, a few at a time, bringing the presents in order that the plot might not become known to the city, and the son of Asander conveyed them on foot from Symbolon, and then again a few days later, in sight of all, towards evening he would, as it appears, send them off outside the city, of course at as late an hour as he could. They would go out of the city a distance of three miles, and then, when it was pitch dark, would turn about and come to the so-called Limon (Λιμών, Tr. liman, a bay of an estuary), and thence he would convey them by boat to Sosae, and, through the side-gate which he had in the wall, would introduce them into his mansion; none being privy save three Bosporian slaves of his, who were his only confidants, one of whom used to go to Symbolon and give the word for the ships to depart, another would turn the Bosporians about and convey them to Limon, and the other would carry them by boat from Limon to Sosae and return them to the mansion of Lamachus; and by the agency of these three slaves he maintained them in his magazines, without even Gykia’s being aware of the plot; and he expected, as has been said, on the anniversary of the commemoration of Lamachus, while all the city was making merry or had gone to sleep, to start up in the night with the Bosporians and his own slaves, and burn the city and put everyone to the sword. Now when, during the space of two years, as many as two hundred Bosporians had been collected in Gykia’s mansion, and the commemoration of Lamachus was then already approaching, it fell out that a girl slave of Gykia, a chamber-maid, of whom she was exceedingly fond, committed some fault and was banished from her company and shut up. The room in which the girl slave was shut up had beneath it the Bosporians who were being kept there. It happened that, while the girl slave was sitting and spinning flax, the weight fell off her spindle and rolled and dropped into a very deep crevice by the wall.

Getting up to recover it, she saw it lying in a very deep crevice, and, being unable owing to the depth to pluck it out, she was forced to pluck up a brick from the floor by the wall in order to recover it, and she saw through the crevice down below in the basement room the multitude of men who were there. When she had seen, she deftly put the brick back again in its place in order not to reveal herself to those below, and sent in secret one of the servants and invited her mistress to come to her, for there was something needful for her to hear and see. Gykia, pricked on by God, went to the slave girl, and when she entered the room alone and closed the door, the girl slave fell at her feet and said: “Lady, yours is the power over your unworthy slave: but I would show to my mistress a matter strange and unlooked-for.” Gykia said to her: “Fear not: speak and show what this is.” The girl slave led her to the wall and, deftly raising the brick, said to her: “Do you see, lady, through the crevice the throng of Bosporians in hiding below?” Gykia looked and was astonished at the affair, and said: “This is a serious plot!” And she said to the girl slave: “How did you find out this matter?” The girl slave said: “Surely, lady, by the will of God, the weight fell off my spindle and rolled and dropped into this crevice, and as I was unable to recover it I was forced to pluck up the brick, and then I saw them.” She bade the girl slave put the brick back deftly in its place, and then she caught her in her arms and embraced her and kissed her in earnest, and said to her: “Fear nothing, child; your fault is forgiven you, for God willed you to err, so that He might reveal the plot to us; see, now, that you do all you can to keep the matter close, and do not venture to entrust it to anybody at all.” And for the future she kept her wholly with herself as her confidante, even more than at first. Then Gykia summoned two of her relations, who were very much in her confidence, and said to them in private: “Go and collect together on their own in secret the primates and nobles of the city, and let them choose out three men in whom they confide, men who can keep a secret and do a deed, and let them all upon oath assure these men that they will satisfy me in what I am about to ask of them, and let them send them to me in secret, and I will confide to them a thing necessary and advantageous for the city; only do with speed what I tell you.”

Her relations went off and told this in secret to the /279/ primates, and they immediately chose out three men, in whom they knew they could confide, and all on their oaths assured them that, if they should covenant with Gykia to do or to give anything, they would not go back on their words, but would carry out to the end what they promised to her. These men went in secret to Gykia, who received them and said to them: “Are you able to satisfy me on oath concerning these things that I am about to ask of you, that you will do them?” They said to her: “Yes, lady, we will readily satisfy you concerning what you are about to require of us, that your words shall be carried out to the end.” Then Gykia said to them: “Satisfy me that if I die, you will bury me in the middle of the city, and I will tell you my secret; see, I do not require anything at all burdensome of you.” The men, on hearing this, with all readiness satisfied her upon oath, saying: “If you die, we will bury you in the middle of the city and will not carry you outside the walls.” Gykia believed their oaths, and said to them: “In view of the satisfaction you have given me, I on my part will now discover my secret to you; see now, I would have you know that my husband, who has the congenital vice of his city, that of plotting and envy against us, has introduced secretly into my mansion a throng of Bosporians, a few at a time, as many as two hundred souls, armed, and maintains them, I being in ignorance of the affair; but now God has found an occasion to reveal it to me. This, then, is his plan, that, so it appears, when at the commemoration of my father I provide the merry-making to the city and you have made merry and are gone to sleep, he will start up in the night with the Bosporians that are with him, and with his own slaves, and will set fire to your houses and put you all to the sword. See, now, my father’s commemoration approaches, and I must, in accordance with my oath, give you as usual the means of merry-making, for I have all ready therefore. Do you, then, all run up joyfully and ask for and take everything eagerly, so that he may not yet realize that we have got to know of the affair, and a civil war suddenly break out. Resolve, therefore, to make merry publicly as usual, though moderately, and to dance in the squares, but let each of you make ready in his house timber and faggots and dry torches, so that when you break off the merry-makings and dances you may appear to go off to take your rest, and I for my part will break them off rather early and order my doors to be made fast, and then you, very quietly, with your male and female slaves and all your households, must at once bring along the timber and faggots and torches and pile them up in my doorways and side-gates and all round the house, pouring oil also upon the timbers so that they may catch the sooner, and when I come out and give you the word, set fire to them at once, and yourselves stand by armed around the house, so that where you see any jumping out of the house through a window, you may put them to the sword. Go now, and tell this secret, and make ready all that I have told you.”

When they heard these things from the three men, the citizens hastily did all in accordance with the word of Gykia. When the commemoration day was upon them, Gykia, with an appearance of enjoyment, sent for the men of the city and told them to take the means of merry-making. And her husband, too, helped in this and begged that more wine should be given them for the merry-making. The citizens gladly took everything and began to make merry, as they had been ordered, and danced all the day; but when evening had come the citizens began to break off, and to go off to their houses to take their rest. And they made merry with all their households. Gykia in her house urged all her people to drink freely in order that they might get drunk and sleep the sooner, only enjoining upon her chamber-maids to be sober, and she herself abstained from wine. For she had found a purple goblet and gave it to her chamber-maid, who was in the secret, and instructed her to pour water into it for her. Her husband, seeing the purple goblet, did not suspect that she was drinking water out of it. When evening had come, and the citizens, as I have already said, had broken off the merry­making, Gykia said to her husband: “We have made merry; come, now let us too take our rest.” Hearing this, her husband was only too glad, and hastened to go to sleep; for he could not have said this himself, in case he might give his wife a hint of the plot he was hatching. So Gykia ordered the gates to be made fast and all the windows, and the keys to be brought to her as usual. When this was done, she said aside to her confidential chamber-maid, the one who knew of the plot: “You, with the rest of the chamber-maids, are deftly to remove all my jewelry and gold, and anything else of use that you can carry in your bosoms, and make yourselves ready, so that when I give you the word, you may follow me.” They did as she bade them, and were ready. Her husband was of course lying down in order to take a hasty nap and to get up again in a short while for his treachery against the city; but Gykia avoided going to sleep until all their house-hold was sleeping, and her husband was soundly off after his deep potations.

Gykia, seeing him asleep, deftly made fast the bed-chamber with the key, shutting her husband in, came down from the house with her chamber­maids, went quietly out of the side-gates and locked them, and at once gave the word to them of the city to light the fire quickly all round the house. The fire was lit and the house caught, and if any of those within managed to jump or throw himself out, he was slain by the citizens. The whole house, with those in it, was gutted to the foundation, and God preserved the city of the Chersonites from the treacherous Bosporians. When the citizens wished to dig into her gutted house and to clear the site for building, Gykia would not allow it, but rather bade all the city bring, each one of them, and empty out on that spot all their ordures, so that her whole dwelling might be buried deep in them, inasmuch as it had served for treachery against the city; and so unto this day the place has been called the Spy-tower of Lamachus.

All these things having so fallen out, the Chersonites, seeing the infinite benefits that Gykia had, under God, conferred upon them, and that she had not spared anything of her own at all, but had put first the salvation of the city, erected in payment for this service she had done them two bronze statues to her honor in the city square, representing her as young in years, as then, at that time, she was, and therein showing her ineffable benefits and affection toward the citizens, in that at her tender age she had shown such wisdom for the preservation, under God, of her own father­land. For upon one column they set her soberly adorned and discovering to the citizens the tale of her husband’s treachery, and upon the other they represented her in action and fighting against the betrayers of the city; and thereto, upon the base of her statue, they also inscribed all the benefits which she had, under God, conferred upon the citizens. And if any would be a lover of virtue, he regularly scours from time to time the base of the same, so that what is there written may be read and there may be a reminder of what she did, and a refutation of the treacherous Bosporians.

And after some years, when the chief magistrate and primate of the country of the Chersonites was Stratophilus, son of Philomusus, Gykia, who had most excellent wit, desired to put the Chersonites to the proof and to know whether in fact they would fulfill the sworn promise and bury her in the middle of the city; and having concerted with her girl slaves, she made herself as one who was weary of life and had died. Her girl slaves laid her out on the bier and sent a message to the citizens, saying: “Our lady has died, and do you point out to us in what place she is to be buried.” The Chersonites, when they heard that Gykia was dead, turned the matter over in their minds and were no longer eager to fulfill the oath that she should be buried in the middle of the city, and they took her up and bore her outside the city to bury her. But when the bier was set down at the tomb, Gykia sat up and looked about on all the citizens and said: “Is this your sworn promise ? Is this your truth in all your dealings ? Woe to him, then, who puts faith in a Chersonite citizen!” The Chersonites, seeing the mock she had made of them, were greatly ashamed of their conduct in breaking their word, and earnestly besought her to be appeased and to pardon their transgression and to rail upon them no more. And so they gave their word to her with a renewal of their oaths that thereafter they would not bury her outside the city, but in the middle of the city, and so they did. And while she was still alive, they set up her coffin in the spot that she chose, and erected yet another bronze statue and gilded it and set it upon her tomb for greater assurance.

Outside the city of Tamatarcha (Ταμάταρχα ~ Tamiya Tarkhan) are many wells yielding naphtha.

In Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals), near the place called Pagi, which is in the region of Papagia (Παπαγία) and is inhabited by Zichians, are nine wells yielding naphtha, but the oils of the nine wells are not of the same colour, some of them being red, some yellow, and some blackish.

In Zichia (Adygs, Adyghe, Circassians, Kosogs of the Slavic annals), in the place called Papagi (Balkaria-Karachai), near which is a village called Sapaxi, which means ‘dust’, there is a spring yielding naphtha.

There is there yet another spring yielding naphtha, in the village called Chamouch. Chamouch is the name of the man of olden times who founded the village: for this reason that village was called Chamouch. These places are distant from the sea a journey of one day without changing horses.

In the province of Derzene (in Armenia, between Keltsin and Theodosipol (Erzurum)), near the village of Sapikion and the village called Episkopion, is a well yielding naphtha.

In the province of Tziliapert (north of Derzina), below the village of Srechiabarax, there is a well yielding naphtha.

If ever the men of the city of Cherson revolt or decide to act contrary to the imperial mandates, then all Chersonite ships at Constantinople must be impounded with their cargoes, and Chersonite sailors and passengers must be arrested and confined in the gaols; and then three imperial agents must be sent: one to the coast of the province of the Armeniakoi (modern Turkey), another to the coast of the province of Paphlagonia, and another to the coast of the province of the Boukellarioi, in order to take possession of all Chersonite ships, and to impound the cargo and the ships, and to arrest the men and confine them in public prisons, and to report upon these matters and as they may be instructed. Moreover, these imperial agents must forbid the Paphlagonian and Boukellarian merchant-ships and coastal vessels of Pontus to cross to Cherson with grain or wine or any other needful commodity or merchandise. Then, the military governor too must be instructed to sequestrate the ten pounds granted by the treasury to the city of Cherson and also the two pounds of tribute (mercenary payment), and then the military governor must withdraw from Cherson and go to another city and take up residence there.

If the Chersonites do not journey to Romania and sell the hides and wax that they get by trade from the Pechenegs (Patzinaks), they cannot live.

If grain does not pass across from Aminsos and from Paphlagonia and the Boukellarioi and the flanks of the Armeniakoi, the Chersonites cannot live.


Passages are cited by chapter and line in the chapter. P, in such citations, stands for “Proem”.

Abbreviation: Byzantinoturcica = Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica II. Sprachreste der Türkvölker in den byzantinischen Quellen, Budapest, 1943 (2nd ed., Berlin, 1958).

Άβάρα (ή), county and frontier pass in the province of Sebasteia 50/167.
’Αβαρείς cf. Άβαροι.
’Άβαροι, Avars 29/17, 20, 33, 37, 31/18; "Αβαρείς 25/22, 30/21, 30, 60, 66, 71, 31/11; Άβάρων (gen.) 28/7, 30/21, 27, 68, 70, 31/15, 19, 32/24, 33/7, 35/6, 36/7; cf. Σκλάβοι. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica pp. 59—61 (2nd ed. pp. sı—3),
Άβασγία, Abasgia 42/13, 109, 45/77, 46/17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 44, 48.
Άβιμέλεχ, chief of the Arabs 21/43, 22/9, 1Γ, 15, 27, 33.
Άβνικι ώται cf. Άβνίκιον.
Άβουβάχαρ, chief of the Arabs 17/12, 18/1, 3, 4; Βουβάχαρ 14/25;
Άβουβάχαρον, τόν καί Βουπάκτωρα 17/3-4.
’Αγάπιος, monk 46/54, 59, 62, 72, 102.

’Αγαρηνοί, Agarenes 21/15, 41, 75, 82, 22/36, 39, 41, 44, 43/93, 45/126.
’Αγέλαστος, protospatharius: Λέων ό ’Αγέλαστος 50/58.
'Αγία Σοφία, church in Cons­tantinople 13/36, 113.
'Αγία Τριάς, church in Diadora 29/282.
'Άγιος Αγαπητός, garrison in the province of Cappadocia: τοποτη- ρησία τοϋ Αγίου ’Αγαπητού 50/98.
’Αγρός: ή μονή τοϋ καλουμένου μεγάλου Άγροϋ, monastery 22/78.
Άδαρά (τά), place near the mouth of the river Dnieper 42/68.
Άδέλβερτος, son of king Lothair I and father of king Hugh 26/15, 70.
Άδέλεσα, wife of king Lothair II 26/65.
Άδρανασέ, 1. curopalate, son of Asotios (pf. Άσώτιος 4.): Άδρανασέ (acc.) 46/83; Άδρανασέ (gen.) 46/36, 85, 89, 147, 164;
Άδρανασήρ curopalate of Iberia 43, 48/39, 47, 111; Άδρανασή (acc.) 45/35.
2. magister, son of Pankratios (cf. Παγκράτιος 4.): Άδρανασέρ 46/6.
3. magister, nephew of Adranase (cf. ’Αδρανασέ 1.): Άδρανασέ 45/126; Άδρανασή 46/41; Άδρανασή (gen.) 46/40.
Άδρανασέρ, Άδρανασή, Άδρανασή ρ cf, Άδρανασέ.
Άδρανούτζι cf. Άρδανούτζι.
Άεφόλας, place near Venice: εις τόπον λεγόμενον — 28/22.
Άε t μάνας, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/92.
Άειφόρ, barrage of the river Dnieper: τόν τέταρτον φραγμόν, τόν μέγαν, τον έπιλεγόμενον 'Ρωσιστί μέν Άειφόρ, ΣκλαβηνιστΙ δέ Νεασήτ, διότι φωλεύουσιν ol πελεκάνοι είς τα λιθάρια τοϋ φραγμοΰ 9/45—47.
Άέτιος, Roman general 25/6, 8, 13, 15, 42, 43, 45.
Άζίδ, 1. chief of the Arabs: Ίζίδ 21/37.
2. chief of the Arabs: Άζίδ 22/53.
Άθήναιος, author 23/40.
Αθηναίος, Athenian 27/16.
Αίγυπτος (ή), Egypt 14/13, 21/18, 68, 22/68, 25/65, 68, 77, 83.
Αιθέριος cf. "Αγιος Αιθέριος.
Αίθίοψ, Ethiopian 22/13.
Αϊθριβος (ή), district of Arabia 14/28, 17/14, 21/17, 19, 22, 38, 70, 105.
Αϊκυλον, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/92.
Αίτίκιοι cf. Βενέτικοι.
Άκαμψη(ς), county in the province of Chaldia: τοΰρμα τοϋ Άκαμψή 46/119.
Άκαρκοΰς, garrison in the pro­vince of Cappadocia: τοποτηρησία Άκαρκοΰς 50/95.
Άκουϊλεγία (ή), city in Italy 28/5, 8.
Άλανία, Alania 10/4, 5, 11/3, 37/38, 46, 42/13, 102.
Άλαvo t, Alans 11/11, 25/29, 42/107; Άλανός (ό) 10/6.
Άλάριχος chief of the Goths 25/23.
Άλβουνο(ν), city on the frontier of Croatia: τοϋ κάστρου Άλβούνου 30/115.
’Αλέξανδρος, emperor 50/197, 205, 207, 229.
Άλή, chief of the Arabs 21/18, 20, 22; Άλήμ 21/69, 72, 79, 87, 92, 94, 94, 97, 104, 106, 25/59, 82, 85.
Άλήμ, cf. Άλή.
Αλικαρνασσός (ή), Halicarnassus 20/11.
Άλλά, god of the Saracens: άνα- φωνοΰσιν έν τη προσευχή αύτών οΰτως'“Άλλά οόά Κουβάρ”, ο έστιν 'ό θεός καί Αφροδίτη’. Τόν γάρ θεόν 'Άλλά’ προσονομάζουσι, τό δέ 'ούά’ άντί τοϋ 'καί’ συνδέσμου τιθέασιν, καί τό 'Κουβάρ’ καλοΰσι τό άστρον, καί λέγουσιν ούτως’ “Άλλά ούά Κουβάρ.14/32—36. — Cf. W. Eichner, Die Nachrichten iiber den Islam bei den Byzantinem, (Glückstadt, 1936), pp. 196, 200—205.
Άλματαί (ό), river between the river Danube and the city of Sarkel 42/59.
Άλμούτζης, voivode of the Turks (= Magyars) 38/43 [Σαλμούτζης P], 88/44; Άλμούτζη (acc.) 38/49. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 69 (2nd ed. p. 63).
Άλογοβότουρ, general of the Bulgarians 32/127. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 69 (2nd ed. p. 64).
Άλτζικέ (τό), city in Armenia 44/57, 109, 114.
"Αλυς (ό), river in Asia Minor 53/7, 11, 12, 64.
Άλωήπ, deserted city in Dalmatia: — 29/291.
Άμάλφη (ή), city in Italy 27/5, 10, 50, 52, 67.
Άμανΐται cf. Όμηρΐται.
Άμινσός, city in Asia Minor: άπό Άμινσοΰ 53/533.
Αναστασία, Saint 29/276, 279.
Αναστάσιος, Saint 29/245.
Ανατολικοί, provincial soldiers, province: θέμα των Ανατολικών 50/96; ή των Ανατολικών στρατηγίς 50/84; τών Ανατολικών 50/99.
Άνδρέας, Saint, apostle 49/26, 37.
Άντίβαρις (ή), city on the frontier of Dalmatia 30/9, 97.
Αντιόχεια (ή), Antioch, emirate 21/68; 25/71.
Άπασάκιος, magister, son of Symbatios (of. Συμβάτιος 1.) 44/9, 36.
Άπαχουνής (τό), district in Armenia 44/1. 40, 87.
Άπελβάρτ, 1. ruler of the city of Manzikiert 44/17, 19, 23.
2. ruler of the city of Manzikiert, son of Aposelmis 44/79, 107, 112.
Άπελμουζέ, son of Aposebatas 44/74, 82, 91, 93, 96.
Άπογάνεμ, protospatharius, patrician, brother of Krikorikios 43/55, 72, 101, 136, 178, 184, 188.
Άπολεσφούετ, ruler of the city of Manzikiert, brother of Aposebatas 44/30, 43, 55, 61, 65, 69, 72, 76, 95,98, 101, 102, 103, 112, 122.
’Απολλόδωρος, author 23/3.
’Απολλώνιος, grammarian 23/30.
Άποσάται, emir of Persia 44/8, 27, 51.
Άποσεβατάς, emir of the city of Manzikiert 44/26, 42, 52, 55, 59, 61, 64. 66, 68, 69, 72, 74, 81, 85, 95, 99, 121.
Άποσέλμης, ruler of the city of Manzikiert, brother of Aposebatas 44/62, 72, 79, 99; ’Αποσέλμη (gen.) 44/30, 44, 106, 122.
’Απρίλιος, April 9/110.
’Άραβες, Arabs 16/10, 10, 11, 18/1, 5, 19/1, 20/1, 12, 21/3, 17, 37, 38, 49, 50, 52, 66, 110, 115, 120, 22/19, 22, 27, 33, 53, 57, 58, 59, 63, 77, 25/57; Αραβικός 15/5.
Αραβία, Arabia: ή ευδαίμων ’Αραβία 25/65, 82; ή τραχεία Αραβία 21/70.
’Άραδος (ή), island 20/5.
’Άρειος, presbyter of Alexandria 25/19.
’Άρέντα cf. Παγανοί.
Άρεντανοί, Arentani 29/57, 80, 36/1, 13; cf. Παγανοί.
Άρζές (τό), city in Armenia 44/3, 11, 15, 21, 54, 57, 102, 109, 114,
Άρζΰν (τό), territory of the city of Ardanoutzi 46/47.
Άρίσταρχος, Athenian general 23/21.
’Αριστοφάνης, dramatist 23/20.
Άρκάδιος, emperor 25/20.
’Αρκάϊκας, uncle of Krikorikios, prince of Taron: Άρκάϊκα (gen.) 43/28, 33, 57.
Άρμένης, protospatharius, vice- admiral: Λέων ό Άρμένης 51/72, 74, 104, 129; Λέων 51/126.
Αρμενία, Armenia 22/14, 23, 44/128; ή μεγάλη ’Αρμενία 44/13, 51; τετάρτη Αρμενία 22/20.
Άρμενιάκοι, provincial soldiers, province: θέμα των Άρμενιάκων 50/105, 53/518; ή των Άρμενιάκων στρατηγίς 50/91; των Άρμενιάκων 45/46, 53/534.
’Αρμένιοι, Armenians 43/42, 45/78; Αρμένικός 46/44.
Αρμένιος, frontier warden: ’Ισμαήλ ό Αρμένιος 50/140; ’Ισμαήλ 50/144, 147.
Άροτρας cf. Κρινίτης 2.
Άρπαδής, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 38/44, 45, 40/53; Άρπαδή (acc.) 38/49; Άρπαδή (gen.) 38/53, 57, 40/13, 48, 56, 60. — Cf. Byzantinoturcicapp. 74—75 (2nd ed. pp. 71—2).
Άρραβωνίτης, protospatharius and military governor: ’Ιωάννης o Άρραβωνίτης 45/133.
Άρσάφιος, Ragusan 29/231.
’Αρσένιος, protospatharius and lictor 51/72, 130.
Άρτεμίδωρος, author 23/11, 22.
’Άσανδος, son of Moundaros 14/7.
Άσανδρος, king of the Bosporiane 53/235, 240, 245, 249, 251, 256, 269, 270, 287, 302.
Άσμοσάτο(ν), province: τό τοϋ Άσ- μοσάτου θέμα 50/112.
’Ασπάλαθος (ή), city in Dalmatia 30/15, 133; ’Ασπάλαθον (τό) 29/8, 51; ’Ασπαλάθου (gen.) 30/14, 31/30; τοϋ ’Ασπαλάθου κάστρον, δπερ 'παλά- τιον μικρόν’ ερμηνεύεται 29/237.
’Άσπαρ, Roman general 25/50, 51, 54.
Άσπίς, comedy of Menander 23/25.
"Ασπονα, garrison in the province of Cappadocia: τοποτηρησία Άσπονας 50/95.
Άσπρον (τό), deserted city upon the Dnieper river: κάστρον πρώτον τό όνομασθέν παρά των Πατζινακιτών ’Άσπρον διά τούς λίθους αύτοΰ φαίνε- σθαι καταλευκούς 37/60—61. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 78 (2nd ed. p. 76).
Άσπρος, river between the river Dniester and the mouth of the Danube: είς τόν ποταμόν τόν έπι- λεγόμενον ’Άσπρον 9/91.
Άσωτίκιος cf. Άσώτιος 2.
Άσώτιος, 1. prince of princes of Armenia (I) 44/7, 18, 20, 21, 35.
2. prince of princes of Armenia (II), son of Symbatios (cf. Συμβάτιος 1. ) 44/9, 36, 37; Άσωτίκιος 43/112.
3. protospatharius, patrician, bastard son of the Taronite Krikorikios 43/29, 51, 132, 164.
4. son of Pankratios (cf. Παγκρά- τιος 2.) 45/34, 35.
5. curopalate, brother of David (cf. Δαυίδ 3.) 46/25, 37, 80, 130, 146, 154, 163.
6. patrician, son of Pankratios (cf. Παγκράτιος 4.) 46/13, 19, 125; Άσώτιος, ό καί Κισκάσης 46/7, 10, 10, 16, 57, 64, 70, 106, 109, 117, 150; Άσωτίου, τοϋ καί Κισκάση (gen.) 46/23, 31, 98, 124, 162.
Άτελκούζου, district inhabited by the Turks (= Magyars) and the Pechenegs: είς τόπους τούς έπονομα- ζομένους — 38/30; Ό δέ τόπος. . . ονομάζεται κατά τήν έπωνυμίαν τοϋ έκεΐσε διερχομένου ποταμοΰ Έτέλ καί Κουζοΰ 40/24. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 79 (2nd ed. p. 77).
Άτέχ, island near Tamatarcha: νη- σίον. ., τό λεγόμενον — 42/95.
Ατζαρά(ς), river region in Iberia: ποταμία τοϋ Άτζαρά 46/14.
Ατήλ, river in the country of the Pechenegs: είς τόν ποταμόν — 87/2. — Cf.Byzantinoturcica p. 80 (2nd ed. p. 78).
Αττάλεια (ή), city in Asia Minor 50/170, 214, 217.
Άττίλας, king of the Avars (=r Huns) 28/6, 11, 11, 17. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 81 (2nd ed. p. 79).
Άφραζεία, garrison in the province of Cappadocia: τοποτηρησία Άφρα- ζείας 50/98.
’Αφρική (ή), Africa 20/2, 21/28, 22/28, 36, 26/52, 59, 65, 68, 74, 29/90, 158.
Άφρικοί, Africans 27/63, 29/163; των Ούανδήλων, 'ήτοι τών Άφρικών 27/62; Άφρικούς Σαρακηνούς 49/9; cf. ’Άφ- ροι.
’Αφροδίτη, Aphrodite 14/32, 34; ef. Άλλά.
’Άφροι, Africans 20/3, 25/5; cf. Άφρι- κοί.
Άχαΐα (ή), Achaea 49/43.
Άχάμετ, ’Άχαμτ cf. Άχμετ.
Άχελώ, river in Thrace: είς Άχελών 32/91.
’Άχμετ, nephew and step-son of Apolesphouet and ruler of his cities 44/56, 108, 110; Άχάμετ 44/76, 77, 100, 104 [’Άχαμτ variant in P].
’Άψανον, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/82.
Άψίμαρος cf. Τιβέριος.
Βαασάκιος, frontier warden 50/139, 142, 134, 148.
Βαγδάδ (τό), Bagdad 25/57, 64, 75, 78, 47/16.
Βαγιβαρεία (ή), Bavaria 30/62.
Βάϊτζας, prince of the Pechenegs: Βάϊτζαν (acc.) 37/21. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 84 (2nd ed. p. 84).
Βαιτική (ή), part of Iberia 23/29.
Βαΐτις (ό), river in Iberia 23/16.
Βαλβαδώνα, garrison in the province of Cappadocia: τοποτηρησία Βαλβαδώνας 50/94.
Βάρβαρος, owner of a mansion in Constantinople 43/67, 76, 91, 97, 102,
Βαρβάτος, patrician and chamberlain 50/230.

Βάρδας cf. Πλατυπόδης.
Βαρέτα, garrison in the province of Cappadocia: τοποτηρησία Βαρέτας 50/94.
Βάρις (ή), city in Italy: Βάρεως (gen.) 27/56, 29/101, 112, 115.
Βαρκαλά ς, chief oarsman, steers­man of the imperial galley 51/120, 127; Βαρκαλοϋ (gen.) 51/124; Μιχαήλ ό Βαρκαλάς 51/117; Μιχαήλ, ου τό έπίκλην ό Βαρκαλάς 51/109.
Βάρνα (ή), city in Bulgaria: Βάρνας (gen.) 9/100, 100.
Βαρουφόρος, barrage of the river Dnieper: είς τόν πέμπτον φραγμόν, τόν έπονομαζόμενον 'Ρωσιστί μέν Βαρουφόρος, Σκλαβηνιστί δέ Βουλ- νηπράχ, διότι μεγάλην λίμνην άποτελεΐ 9/57—59.
Βαρούχ (ό), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) and Pechenegs 38/68.
Βασίλειος, 1. emperor (I) 22/81, 29/70, 88, 94, 30/126, 128, 50/76, 225, 225, 51/7, 75, 108.
2. patrician and chamberlain 43/67, 50/233.
Βασπαρακά, district in Armenia: Βασπαρακά (gen.) 43/111; Βασπαρακανίτης (ό) 4δ/77.
Βασπαρακανίτης cf. Βασπαρακά.
Βατας, prince of the Pechenegs: Βατδν (acc.) 37/24. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 86 (2nd ed. p. 87).
Βέκλα (ή), city in Dalmatia 29/52, 287, 30/136.
Βελάης, zupan of Terbounia: Βελάη (gen.) 34/8.
Βελέγραδα, 1. city on the river Danube: ή Βελέγραδα 40/29, 32, 42/2, 16; τό Βελέγραδον 32/20 [Βελάγραδον Ρ].
2. city in Croatia: τό Βελέγραδον 31/69
Βελέγραδον cf. Βελέγραδα.
Βελίτζιν (τό), city in Croatia 31/69.
Βελοχρωβάτοι cf. Χρωβάτοι.
Βενεβενδός (ή), city in Italy 27/4, 11, 15, 37, 38, 43, 51, 56, 29/119, 128, 160, 214, 285.
Βενετία (ή), Venice 27/77, 89, 94, 28/2, 3, 6, 10, 13, 14, 22, 44, 31/45,
Βενέτικοΐ, Venetians 27/80, 91, 28/4, 20, 22, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 41, 43; των νϋν καλουμένων Βενετίκων, πρώ­τον δέ Ένετικών [Αίτικίων Ρ] 27/75— 76; τούς Βενετικούς..., έκαλοϋντο Ένετικοί [Αίτίκιοι Ρ] 27/71—72.
Βερβιάνοι, tributaries of the Russians: Βερβιάνων^βη.) 9/107.
Βεργώνια (ή), Burgundy 26/24, 26, 42, 57, 61, 63.
Βεριγγέρης cf. Βεριγγέριος.
Βεριγγέριος, 1. Berengar, king of Italy (I): Βεριγγέριος 26/22, 25; Βεριγγέρης 26/28, 30, 35, 36, 45, 51; Βεριγγέρη (gen.) 26/27, 29, 41, 54.
2. Berengar, king of Italy (II): Βεριγγέρη (gen.) 26/22.
Βερινούπολις, garrison in the province of Charsianon: τοποτηρησία Βερινουπόλεως 50/104.
Βερούλλια (τό), city in Pagania 86/14.
Βερούτζη cf. Λεάντι.
Βέρτα, 1. wife of Adalbert, king of Italy: ή μεγάλη Βέρτα 26/16, 70.
2. wife of Hugh, king of Italy 26/64.
3. daughter of Hugh, king of Italy 26/69: μετωνομάσΟη δέ Εύδοκία 26/71.
Βερώνα (ή), city in Italy 26/19, 54.
Βικτωρΐνος, Ragusan 29/232.
Βινίολα, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/84.
Βιτετζέβη (τό), tributary city of the Russians 9/20.
Βόιλας, protospatharius and captain-general of Nicopolis: Πετρωνας ό Βόϊλας 45/146. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica pp. 91—92 (2nd ed. pp. 93—4).
Βοϊσέσθλαβος, prince of the Serbs 32/34.
Βόνα, 1. city in the country of the Zachlumi: Βόνα (τό) 34/14.
2. river in the country of the Zachlumi: ποταμός καλούμενος Βόνα, δ έρμηνεύεται 'καλόν’ 34/15.
Βονιφάτιος, Roman general 25/6, 7, 11, 13, 32, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 51.
Βόρενα (ς), son of Muntimer, prince of the Serbs: Βόρενα (acc.) 32/52.
Βορίσης, prince of the Bulgarians: 32/49, 64; Μιχαήλ ό Βορίσης 31/62, 32/45, 54. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 93 (2nd ed. p. 96).
Βοροταλμάτ, province of the Pechenegs: τό θέμα —· 37/35; cf. Ταλμάτ. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 94 (2nd ed. p. 97).
Βόσονα, territory in Serbia: είς τό χωρίον — 32/151.
Βοσποριανοί, Bosporians 53/4, 15, 23, 31, 38, 39, 62, 65, 74, 183, 228, 229, 235, 236, 253, 255, 300, 309, 311, 317, 319, 323, 342, 381, 387, 445, 468.
Βόσπορος (ή), city on the Maeotic lake 11/2, 37/49, 42/8, 62, 72, 73, 82, 85, 92, 92, 53/27, 35, 40, 42, 43, 99, 102, 104, 177, 223, 232, 233, 292.
Βουβάχαρ cf. Άβουβάχαρ.
Βουγά (ή), cbieftainess of the Croats S0/65. —· Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 94 (2nd ed. p. 97).
Βουκελλάρ i o i, provincial soldiers, province: θέμα των Βουκελλαρίων 50/93, 102, 53/519; των Βουκελλα­ρίων 50/99,53/533; είς τούς Βουκελλα- ρίους 50/123; Βουκελλαρικός 53/524.
Βουλατζοπόν, province of the Pechenegs: τό θέμα — 37/36; cf. Τζοπόν. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 94 (2nd ed. p. 98).
Βουλγάρα cf. Βούλγαροι.
Βουλγαρία, Bulgaria 5/8, 8/5, 9/97, 101, 30/119, 31/60, 62, 32/29, 40, 45, 50, 60, 63, 65, 74, 80, 90, 99, 124, 137, 139, 148, 37/41, 48, 59, 51/112, 112; ή μαύρη Βουλγαρία 12/1, 42/77; ή μαύρη λεγομένη Βουλγαρία 12/3. — Cf. Byzantinoturcicapp. 95—96 (2nd ed. pp. 98—100).
Βούλγαροι, Bulgarians 5/2, 3, 6, 10, 8/20, 13/147, 161, 22/25, 31/65, 32/36, 56, 88, 91, 95, 104, 105, 109, 114, 120, 126, 129, 40/41, 41/24; Βούλγαρος (ό) 13/149, 31/61; Βουλ­γάρα (ή) 32/64. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica pp. 96—101 (2nd ed. pp. 100—106).
Βουλνηπράχ cf. Βαρουφόρος.
Βουλτζοϋς, prince and karchas of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/64, 66. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 102 (2nd ed. p. 107).
Βουπάκτωρ cf. Άβουβάχαρ.
Βουράτ (τό), place on the frontier of Patzinacia 42/63.
Βουρλίκ, 1. (ό) river on the eastern side of the Maeotic lake 42/89.
Βουσεβούτζης, prince of the Zach­lumi: Βουσεβούτζη (gen.) 33, 17.
Βουσεγραδέ, city in Russia: τοϋ Βουσεγραδέ 9/7.
Βούτοβα (τά), city in Dalmatia 29/92 [Βούγοβα Ρ].
Βράνος, son of Muntimer, prince of the Serbs 32/67, 72, 94, 100.
Βράτζα (ή), island off Dalmatia: 30/110; ό Βράτζης 36/21.
Βράτζης cf. Βράτζα.
Βρεβέρη (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/92.
Βρεττανία, Britain 25/3.
Βρόνιον, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/86.
Βροϋνδον, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/87.
Βρούτος (ό), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) and Pechenegs 38/70.
Βρύας (ό), imperial palace near Con­stantinople 51/17.
Βρυέννιοι cf. Θεόκτιστος.
Βυζάντιον (τό), Byzantium 21/56, 25/49, 53/125, 137.
Βύζηρες, Byzerians 23/19.
Βύσκος, primate of the Chersonites 53/168.
Γαβριήλ, 1. archangel 14/21.
Γαλουμαήνικ (τό), city in the territory of the Zachlumi 33/21.
Γεζέριχος cf. Γηζέριχος.
Γεήχ, river in the country of the Pechenegs: είς τόν ποταμόν — 37/3. — Cf.Byzantinoturcica p. 104 (2nd ed. p. 109).
Γελανδρί, barrage of the river Dnieper: τόν τρίτον φραγμόν, τόν λεγόμενον Γελανδρί, δ έρμηνεύεται Σκλαβηνιστί 'ήχος φραγμού’ 9/43—45.
Γενάχ, clan of the Turks (= Magyars): έκτη — 40/5. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 104 (2nd ed. p. 109).
Γερμανοί, Germans: Γερμανούς, τούς νΰν καλουμένους Φράγγους 25/29.
Γεωγραφούμε να, work of Arte- midoras 23/12, 23.
Γεώργιος, magister, ruler of Abas- gia 46/16, 18, 26.
Γηζέριχος, chief of the Vandals 25/35, 47, 50, 54 [Γεζερίχου P],
Γήπαιδες, Gepedes 25/17, 21.
Γιαζής, prince of the Pechenegs:
Γιαζή (acc.) 37/24. — Cf. Byzantino­turcica p. 107 (2nd ed. p. 112).
Γιαζιχοπόν, province of the Pechenegs: τό θέμα — 37/41; cf. Χοπόν. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 107 (2U<1 ed. p. 112).
Γιαιουκάται (τό), deserted city on the river Dniester 37/64. — Cf. Byzantitioturcica p.107 (2nd ed. p. 113).
Γλήτες, Iberian tribe 23/10.
Γογίδισκλος, chief of the Vandals 25/31, 34 [recte: Γοδίγισκλος].
Γοδίγισκλος cf. Γογίδισκλος.
Γοΐνικος, prince of the Serbs 32/44, 61, 69.
Γονθάριος, Γόνθαρις, Γοτθάριος cf. Γότθαρος.
Γότθαρος, prince of the Vandals 25/35; Γοτθαρίου (gen.) 25/46 [recte: Γόνθαρις, Γονθάριος],
Γότθοι, Goths 21/32, 25/15, 17, 24.
Γουτζησκά (ή), district of Croatia 80/94.
Γράδεται (τό), city in Diocleia 35/13.
Γραικοί, Greeks 49/6.
Γρήγορας, possessor of a suburban estate in Keltzini 43/98, 108, 159 [Γρηγορίου P],
Γρηγόριος, 1. Ragusan 29/231.
2. cf. Άγιος Γρηγόριος, Γρηγορας, Κρικορίκιος 1.
Γρικορίκιος cf. Κρικορίκιος 1.
Γυκία, daughter of Lamachus, primate of the Chersonites 53/239, 271, 272, 273, 288, 289, 314, 319, 321, 334, 339, 342, 354, 366, 368, 372, 377, 408, 409, 415, 423, 427, 435, 437, 446, 453, 472, 478, 482.
Γύλα (τό), 1. province of the Pechenegs 37/18, 22; τοϋ κάτω Γύλα 37/41; cf. Χαβουξιγγυλά. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 279 (2nd ed. p. 332).
2. high title at Hungarians, judge, 40/49, 40/51
3. high title at Pechenegs, head of a province, prince; cf. Γύλα, cf. Χαβουξιγγυλά 87/70 — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 279 (2nd ed. p. 332)

Δαλέν, zupania of Pagania: τοϋ Δαλέν 30/106; τοϋ Δαλενοΰ 30/108.
Δαλματινοί cf. Δελματινοί.
Δαμασκός (ή), Damascus 21/18, 40, 68, 25/70.
Δαμιανός, 1. patrician and chamberlain 50/224.
2. patrician 50/204.
Δάναπρις (ό), Dnieper 8/34, 9/8, 14, 20, 23, 111, 37/36, 39, 42/7, 58, 60, 66, 68, 70, 76, 79; Δάναπρι (gen.) 8/3, 6.
Δάναστρις (δ), Dniester 9/89 [Δάναπριν Ρ], 37/58 [Δανάπρεως Ρ], 42/57, 65 [Δανάπρεως Ρ], 66; Δάναστρι (gen.) 8/3, 6.
Δανιήλ, prophet 19/9.
Δανούβιος (ό), Danube 8/3, 9/93, 98, 98, 25/16, 30/11, 22, 47; Δανούβιν (acc.) 25/20, 30/21, 32/18; Δανούβεως (gen.) 29/15, 42/2, 15, 18, 19, 20, 55, 64; ό ’Ίστρος, ό καί Δανούβιος λεγόμενος ποταμός 40/42.
Δαυίδ, 1. king 45/4, 5, 6, 7.
2. ancestor of the Iberians 45/14, 33, 37.
4. son of Symbatios (cf. Συμβάτιος 2.) 46/5, 29, 36, 38, 41; Δαυίδ ό Μάμπαλις, δ έρμηνεύεται ’πανάγιος’ 46/3.
Δειπνοσοφισταί, work of Athenaeus 23/40.
Δεκάτερα (τά), city in Dalmatia 29/50 [τάδε κάστρα Ρ], 92, 30/97, 98; τό κάστρον των Δεκατέρων έρμηνεύεται τη 'Ρωμαίων διαλέκτφ 'έστενωμένον καί πεπνιγμένον’ [πεπληγμένον Ρ] 29/263—264.
Δελματία, Dalmatia 29/1, 3, 5, 56, 61, 86, 91, 110, 285, 30/1, 6, 8, 18, 19, 23, 57, 66, 76, 79, 120, 31/3, 56, 82/24, 36/5.
Δελματίνοί, Dalmatians 30/51 [Δαλ- ματινών Ρ],
Δερβλενίνοι, tributaries of the Russians: Δερβλενίνοις (dat.) 37/44.
Δερζηνή, province: θέμα Δερζηνής 53/507.
Δεσνήκ (τό), city in Serbia 32/151.
Δεστινίκον (τό), city in Serbia 32/150.
Διάδωρα (τά), city in Dalmatia 29/51, 275, 30/135; τό κάστρον των Διαδώρων καλείται τη 'Ρωμαίων δια- λέκτω 'ίάμ £ρα’, δπερ ερμηνεύεται ‘άπάρτι ήτον’ 29/272-273.
Διογένης, 1. father of Diogenes, primate of the Chersonites 53/131.
2. primate of the Chersonites 53/131, 159.
Διόκλεια (ή), 1. city 29/11, 35/11 [Διόκληα Ρ],
2. district 30/95, 35/3, 9, 12 [Διόκληα everywhere P.]
Διόκληα cf. Διόκλεια.
Διοκλητιανοί, Diocletians 29/57, 64, 35/1; Άλλά καί τό κάστρον Διόκλεια, τό νϋν παρά των Διοκλητιανών κατε- χόμενον ό αύτός βασιλεύς Διοκλητι- ανός ώκοδόμησεν, οθεν καί τήν επω­νυμίαν 'Διοκλητιανοί’ καλεΐσθαι οί τής χώρας έκείνης έπανειλήφασιν 29/11—14.
Διοκλητιανός, emperor 29/3, 8, 12, 238, 242, 252, 80/15, 10, 31/12, 28, 33/4, 35/4, 10, 36/4, 53/2, 8, 21, 120, 122, 166.
Διονύσιος, author 23/20.
Δίστρα (ή), city on the river Danube: Δίστρας (gen.) 42/21.
Διτζίκη cf. Λιτζίκη.
Διτζίνα (ή), river in Bulgaria 9/101, 101.
Δοβρισκίκ (τό), city in the terri­tory of the Zachlumi 38/21.
Δολόηχος cf. Λοδόϊκος 1.
Δόμνος, Saint 29/241, 242.
Δοστινίκα (ή), city in Serbia 32/76.
Δούξ, military governor: Κωνσταν­τίνος οΔούξ 50/153.
Δρεσνεήκ (τό), city in Serbia 32/150.
Δρουγουβΐται, tributaries of the Russians: Δρουγουβιτών (gen.) 9/108.
Δυρράχιον (τό), Dyrrachium 30/9, 96, 32/25, 82.
"Εβδομον (τό), suburb of Constantinople 51/16.
‘Εβραίοι, Jews 17/4; 'Εβραίος (ό) 21/64.
"Εδεσσα, Edessa: Έδεσσηνός (ό) 20/9, 21/65 [Έμησινός Ρ],
Έζέλεχ, grandson of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/57. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 114 ((2nd ed. p. 121).
’Εζερΐται, Ezeritai 50/2, 15, 21, 23, 28, 50, 61, 68, 70.
Έζερόν (τό), district of Peloponnesus: τοϋ Έζεροϋ 50/79.
Είρήνη, 1. empress 27/14, 23.
Έλβυσίνιοι cf. Έλευσίνιοι.

’Ελευσίνιοι, Iberian tribe 23/10 [recte: Έλβυσίνιοι],
’Ελισσός(ό), fort of Dyrrachium 30/96.
Έλκύνιον (τό), fort of Dyrrachium 80/96.
'Ελλάς (ή), province: θέμα 'Ελλάδος 50/54.
"Ελληνες, Greeks 24/9, 00/73, 75; Έλληνίς (ή) 23/25.
Ελληνικά, work of Charax 24/9.
Έλληνίς cf. "Ελληνες.
Έλλησπόντιοι cf. 'Ελλήσποντος.
Ελλήσποντος, Hellespont: Έλλη-σπόντιοι (ol) 48/14; Έλλησπόντιος (ό) 48/4.
"Ελος (τό), district of Peloponnesus 50/16.
Έμεσα cf. Έδεσσα, Χέμψ.
Έμετ (τό), emirate 25/72.
Ένετικοί cf. Βενέτικοι.
Έπισκοπεΐο (ν), village in the province of Derzene: τοϋ χωρίου, τοϋ όνομαζομένου Έπισκοπείου 58/508.
Έραξ cf. Φάσις.
Έσιβή (ή), emirate: τήν Έσιβή 25/73.
Έσσουπή, barrage of the Dnieper river: είς τον πρώτον φραγμόν, τόν έπονομαζόμενον Έσσουπή, δ ερμηνεύεται 'Ρωσιστί καί Σκλαβηνιστί 'μή κοιμάσαι’ 9/24—26.
Έστιουνήζ, deserted city in Dalmatia: — 29/292.
Έτέλ cf. Άτελκούζου.
Βύδοκία cf. Βέρτα 3.
Εύδοκιάς (ή), garrison in the province of Cappadocia: τοποτηρησία τής Εύδοκιάδος 60/97.
Εύθ-ύμιος, Saint 22/74.
Ευρώπη, Europe 25/32.
Ευστάθιος, 1. king (?) 29/277.
2. protospatharius, of the imperial chancellery 50/173, 178, 180, 182, 191, 193, 196, 201.
3. patrician and lord admiral 51/85, 87, 96, 110.
4. cf. Άργυρός 1.
Εύφράτεια (ή), district 50/145, 152.
Εύφράτης (ό), Euphrates 21/21, 73.
’Έφεσος (ή), Ephesus 20/11, 48/9.
Ζαλτάς, son of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 4Ό/55, 59. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 119 (2Dd ed. p. 129).
Ζαχαρίας, 1. pope 27/15.
2. son of Pribeslav, prince of Serbia 82/101, 106, 118, 119.
Ζαχλοϋμοί, Zachlumi 29/57, 64, 30/101, 139, 141, 32/21, 87, 33/1, 3, 296
Ζα/λοϋμα, river in the country of the Zachlumi: είς τόν ποταμόν τόν έπονομαζόμενον Ζαχλοϋμα 33/19. 6, 8, 17, 20, 35/8;
Ζαχλοΰμος (ό) 29/109; Ζαχλοϋμοί δέ ώνομάσθησαν άπό όρους ουτω καλουμένου Χλούμου, καί όίλλως δέ παρά τη τών Σκλάβων διαλέκτω έρμηνεύεται τό Ζαχλοϋμοί ήγουν 'όπίσω τοϋ βουνοϋ’ 33/10—12.
Ζέντινα (ή), river on the frontier of Croatia: τής Ζεντίνας 30/105, 113; Τζέντινα (ή) 30/116.
Ζετλήβη (τό), city in Terbonnia 34/20.
Ζήθος, primate of the Chersonites 53/276.
Ζήθων, father of Zethus, primate of Cherson 53/276.
Ζήνων, emperor 25/28.
Ζιναρός, descendant of Ishmael 14/4 [recte: Νίζαρος].
Ζιχία, Zichia 6/5, 42/12, 97, 99, 99, 103, 109, 53/495, 499.
Ζιχοί, Zichians 42/105, 107, 53/496.
Ζουβέρ, father of Abdelas, chief of the Arabs 21/39, 45.
Ζουρβανέλης, protospatharius: Ζουρ-βανέλη (gen.) 45/103.
Ζωή, empress, mother of Constantine VII 50/161.
'Ηβόλα, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/86.
Ήλιούπολις (ή), city in Syria 48/29.
Ήλιτούαλβα, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/85.
Ήμέριος, patrician and foreign minister 50/176, 190, 191, 194.
Ήμνήκος, general of Symeon, prince of the Bulgarians: Ήμνήκου (gen.) 32/118. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 122 (2nd ed. p. 132).
Ημότα (τά), zupania of Croatia 30/91.
Ηράκλειος, emperor 16/7, 29/54, 31/9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21, 33, 59, 82/9, 10, 19, 146, 33/10, 34/5, 35/7, 36/7, 8, 45/22, 24, 26.
Ηρακλής: Ή καθ’ Ήρακλέα ιστορία, work of Herodotus (= Herodorus) 23/6; Ήράκλειαι στήλαι 23/2. 'Ηρόδοτος, author 23/5 [recte: Ήρόδωρος].
Ήρόδωρος cf. 'Ηρόδοτος.
Ήρτήμ, province of Patzinacia: τό θέμα — 37/17, 21; ef. Ίαβδιερτίμ. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 124 (2ntl ed. p. 133).
’Ητζβόκλια(ς), general of Symeon, prince of the Bulgarians: Ήτζβόκλια (gen.) 32/118. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 122 (2n(i ed. p. 133).
Θαλάσσων, protospatharius of the basin: ’Ιωάννης, ου τό έπίκλην Θαλάσσων 51/70, 136.
Θεμίμης, son of Moundaros 14/6,
Θε μ ιστός, 1. father of Themietus, primate of the Chersonites 53/3.
2. primate of the Chersonites 53/3.
Θεοδόσιος, 1. Saint 22/74.
2. emperor (II) 25/6; Θεοδόσιος ό νέος 25/25.
Θεοδοσιούπολις (ή), city in Armenia 45/52, 70, 71, 74, 87, 89, 89, 91, 94, 96, 116, 122, 128, 134, 144, 148, 154, 160, 169, 170; Θεοδοσιουπολΐται (οί) 45/62, 64, 73, 143, 153, 166.
Θεοδοσιουπολΐται cf. Θεοδοσιούπολις.
Θεόδοτος, chief oarsman, steersman, protospatharius of the basin 51/150, 164.
Θεόδωρος, 1. Armenian interpreter 43/41.
2. cf. Σιγρίτζης.
Θεόκτιστος, protospatharius and military governor 50/21; Θεόκτι-στος, ου τό έπίκλην ό των Βρυεννίων 50/10.
Θεός, God Ρ/39, 13/32, 35, 36, 38, 43, 46, 50, 51, 53, 55, 59, 77, 84, 91, 97, 98, 139, 140, 21/119, 22/51, 72, 27/34, 29/126, 192, 199, 203, 31/41, 45/15, 46/59, 47/15, 48/8, 49/25, 64, 51/174, 53/170, 200, 208, 334, 345, 351, 383, 445, 453, 460, 465; cf. Κύριος, Παντοκράτωρ, Χριστός.
Θεοτόκος, the Mother of God 21/125, 45/7.
Θεοφάνης, 1. historian 17/1, 21/1, 35, 22/1; ό έν άγίοις Θεοφάνης 22/78; ό δσιος Θεοφάνης της Σιγριανής 25/1.
2. patrician and chamberlain 50/232.
Θεόφιλος, 1. emperor 42/26, 28, 40, 44, 47, 50/7, 10, 222, 223.
2. patrician and military governor 45/59, 134, 140.
Θεοφύλακτος, 1. magister 43/155.
2. protospatharius and master of the Augusta’s table 51/175.
3. cf. Βιμβιλίδης.
Θεσσαλονίκη (ή), Thessalonica, province 32/11, 42/], 15.
Θευδέριχος, patrician and consul, chief of the Goths: Θευδερίχου (gen.) 25/27.
Θρ ςίκες, Thracians 50/12.
Θρ<£κη (ή), Thrace 21/118; 25/26, 27.
Θρ ακήσιοι, provincial soldiers, province: τό Θρακησίων 47/25.
Θωμάς, rebel 22/42.
Ίαβδιερτίμ, province of the Pechcnegs: τό θέμα — 37/43; τοϋ Ίαβδιηρτί 37/69; cf. Ήρτήμ. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 124 (2n(ied. p. 134).
Ίαχνούκας, military governor 50/121, 123.
’Ίβηρ (ό), river 23/2, 4, 24/11.
’Ίβηρες, Iberians 23/19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 40, 41, 45/1, 2, 8, 20, 28, 64, 73, 79, 91, 95, 138, 154, 159, 168, 46/1, 35, 128; ’Ίβηρ (ό) 23/24, 30, 36, 36, 46/4, 52, 67; Ίβηροι (οί) 23/37, 38; ’Ίβηρος (ό) 23/36, 39; Ίβηρίς (ή) 23/25, 25; Ίβηρίτης (ό) 23/17, 18; Ίβηρικός 23/6, 26, 26.
Ίβηρία, Iberia 22/14, 23/1, 2, 14, 19, 27, 28, 24/9, 10, 43/39, 4S, 112, 46/44, 48, 56, 79, 153.
Ίβηρίς, Ίβηρίτης, ’Ίβηροι cf."Ιβηρες.
’Ίγγωρ, prince of Russia 9/5.
Ίεκτάν, ancestor of the Homerites 14/9.
Ίέλεχ, son of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/54, 57. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 125 (2nd ed. p. 136).
Ίερεία (ή), place near Constantinople with imperial palace 51/16.
Ιεροσόλυμα cf. Ιερουσαλήμ.
'Ιερουσαλήμ (ή), Jerusalem 19/3, 45/10, 13, 29, 38; Ιεροσολύμων (gen.) 19/4.
Ίζ£δ, cf. Άζίδ 1.
’Ίης, island off Dalmatia: νήσος — 86/22.
Ίησοϋς cf. Χριστός.
’Ιλλυρία, Illyria 45/159.
’Ιλλυρικόv (τό), Illyricum 30/76.
Ίοσλή (τό), city in the territory of the Zachlumi 83/21.
’Ιουδαίοι, Jews 14/16, 19/10; ’Ιουδαίος (ό) 20/8.
’Ιούνιος, June 9/19.
Ίουστίνιάνα, city of the Venetians . κάστρον — 27/73.
’Ιουστινιανός, emperor (II) 21/48 [Ίουστιανός P], 22/9, 29, 34, 47/6, 10; ’Ιουστινιανός ό 'Ρινότμητος 21/30, 22/4 [’Ιουστίνος Ρ],
Ίουστινιανούπολις (ή), city in the province of Hellespont 48/18; ή νέα Ίουστινιανούπολις 48/11.
Ίουτοτζας, son of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/55, 58. — Cf.>Byzantinoturcica p. 128 (2nd ed. p. 140).
Ίπαός, prince of the Pechenegs: Ίπαόν (acc.) 37/22. — Cf. >Byzantinoturcica p. 128 (2nd ed. p. 140).
Ίσάμ, chief of the Arabs 22/54.
Ίσίγοτθοι, Visigoths 25/17, 23, 40.
’Ισμαήλ, 1. son of Abraham 14/3, 4.
2. cf. ’Αρμένιος.
Ισπανία, Spain 21/29, 33, 22/3, 37, 38, 39, 44, 23/1, 14, 24/1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 25/4, 31, 33, 41, 61; cf. Σπανία.
"Ισπανός, giant 24/2.
Ίστρία, Istria 30/10, 114, 116.
’Ίστρος (ό), ister 40/35, 42, 53/133; cf. Δανούβιος.
’Ιταλία, Italy 24/3, 26/2, 66, 27, 4, 90; το ρηγατον ’Ιταλίας, ήτοι Παπίας 28/41.
’Ιταλοί, Italians 23/24.
’Ιωάννης, 1. archbishop 47/4, 48/3, 19.
2. son of Manuel protospatharius 50/121, 124.
3. cleric and rector 51/173.
4. cf. Άρραβωνίτης, ’Ελαδάς, Θαλάσσων, Κουρκούας, Πιτζηκαύδης, Πρωτεύων.
Ιωνία, Ionia 20/12.
Κάβαροι, Kabaroi, clan of the Turks (= Magyars) 39/1, 2, 7, 13, 40/1, 4, 7. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 132 (2nd ed. p. 144).
Καβερτζέντζης, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/95.
Κάγγαρ, name of the Pechenegs: καί Κάγγαρ ονομάζονται οί Πατζινακΐται 37/68; ώς άνδρειότεροι καί εύγενέστεροι των λοιπών’ τοϋτο γάρ δηλοΐ ή τοϋ Κάγγαρ προσηγορία 37/70—71; Πατζινακΐται, οί πρότερον Κάγγαρ επονομαζόμενοι (τοϋτο γάρ τό Κάγγαρ δνομα έπ’ εύγενεία καί άνδρεία έλέγετο παρ’ αύτοϊς) 38/20—21; Πατζινακιτών, των τηνικαΰτα Κάγγαρ έπονομαζομένων 38/25. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 132 (2nd ed. p. 145).
Καϊδούμ, prince of the Pechenegs 37/23. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 133 (2nd ed. p. 146).
Καινή cf. Καρχηδών.
Καισαρεία (ή), city in Cappadocia 50/110.
Κάϊσος, son of Moundaros 14/6.
Κακίκιος, prince of Basparaka 43/111, 130.
Καλαβρία, Calabria, province 27/10, 48, 58, 28/12, 50/88.
Καλής, father of the karchas Boultzous: Καλή (gen.) 40/66, 67. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 134 (2nd ed. p. 147).
Καλλίνικος, manufacturer of liquid fire 48/29.
Καλλίπολις (ή) city in Italy 27/48.
Καλπιανοί cf. Κελκιανοί.
Καλφοΰς, Saracen general: Καλφοϋς (gen.) 29/90 [Κλαφούς P].
Καματηρός, spatharocandidate: Πετρω-νας ό επονομαζόμενος Καματηρός 42/25; Πετρωνας 42/32, 39, 49; Πέτρωνα (acc.) 42/30.
Κάμαχα (ή), county in the province of Mesopotamia 50/116, 128.
Καναλή, district of Terbounia: 34/16; τοϋ Καναλή 34/19, 35/9; To δέ Καναλή έρμηνεύεται τη τών Σκλάβων διαλέκτω 'άμαξία’ 34/16—17.
Καναλΐται, Kanalites 29/57, 64, 109, 32/22, 34/1, 3.
Καππαδοκία, Cappadocia, province 50/83.
Καππαδοκοί, provincial soldiers, province: τό Καππαδοκών θέμα 50/93, 96; τό Καππαδοκών 50/108.
Κάπρε, city of the Venetians: κάστρον -— 27/91.
Κάπυα (ή), city in Italy 27/4 [Καπύη P], 11, 50, 57, 61, 66; Καπύη 29/118, 127, 160, 214; Κάπυ-av νέαν (acc.) 27/65 [Καπαντήν Ρ].
Καρή(ς), clan of the Turks (= Magyars): έβδομη Καρή 40/6. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 139 (2dn ed. p. 154).
Κάρουλος, Charlemagne, emperor of great Francia 26/5; >6 μέγας Κάρουλος 26/3.
Κάρς (τό), city in great Armenia 44/14.
Καρχηδών (ή), city in Spain: Καινή Καρχηδών 23/16.
Κασαχία, Kasachia 42/13, 101, 101.
Κασή, county in the province of Charsianon: τοϋρμα Κασης 50/110.
Κασή(ς), clan of the Turks (= Magyars): όγδοη Κασή 40/6. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 139 (2nd ed. p. 155).
Κατακαλών, magister and commander-in-chief: Κατακαλών (acc.) 46/51.
Καταυτρεβεν ώ, deserted city in Dalmatia: — 29/291.
Κάτερα (τό), city in Serbia 32/151.
Καυκάσια (τά), Caucasian mountains 42/102.
Καφάς (ό), frontier-town of the Chersonites and Bosporians 53/170, 172, 182, 189, 227.
Κελκιανοί, Iberian tribe 23/11 [recte: Καλπιανοί seu Κελτικοί ?].
Κελτζηνή (ή), city and county in the province of Chaldia 43/92, 98, 108, 142, 50/116, 129.
Κελτικοί cf. Κελκιανοί.
Κετζέον (τό), city near Theodosioupolis 46/68, 82, 93.
Κεφαλληνία (ή), province 50/85.
Κίαβος, city of the Russians: τόν Κίαβον 9/106, 111; τόν Κίοβα 9/15; τό Κιοάβα, τό έπονομαζόμενον Σαμ-βατάς 9/8—9.
Κιβυρραιώται, provincial soldiers, province: τό των Κιβυρραιωτών θέμα 50/174, 183; τό θέμα των Κιβυρραιωτών 51/132; τό Κιβυρ-ραιωτών 47/25; των Κιβυρραιωτών 50/207.
Κίκερ cf. Κούρκρα.
Κιοάβα, Κίοβα cf. Κίαβος.
Κισκάσης cf. ’Ασώτιος 6.
Κλαβώκα (τό), city in Croatia 31/70.
Κλαφούς cf. Καλφοΰς.
Κλεΐσα, frontier pass in Dalmatia: καλείται Κλεΐσα διά τό συγκλείειν τούς έρχομένους έκεΐθεν 29/30.
Κλονίμηρος, son of Stroimer, prince of the Serbs 32/63, 74.
Κλουγία, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/87.
Κλουκας, chief of the Croats 30/64. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 144 (2nd ed. p. 161).
Κνήνος, general of Symeon, prince of the Bulgarians: Κνήνου (gen.) 32/117. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 144 (2nd ed. p. 161).
Κόγκορδα, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/73.
Κογράδον, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/80.
Κολώνεια (ή), city and province 45/47, 50/116.
Κόμματα (τά), county in the province of Cappadocia 50/100.
Κορή (τό), district of Armenia 44/41, 87.
Κόρι (τό), city in Croatia 31/70.
Κόρινθος, Corinth: Κορίνθου (gen.) 49/14, 52/4.
Κοσέντζης, chief of the Croats 30/64. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 146 (2nd ed. p. 164).
Κοτζίλις, leader of the Franks: Κοτζίλιν (acc.) 30/87.
Κουαδρατος, author 23/36.
Κουαρτζιτζούρ, province of the Pechenegs: τό θέμα — 37/35; τοϋ — 37/69; cf. Τζούρ. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 147 (2nd ed. p. 165).
Κουβάρ, the star Venus 14/32, 33, 35, 36; cf. ’Αλλά.
Κουβοΰ (ό), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) and Pechenegs 38/69.
Κούελ, prince of the Pechenegs 37/21. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 147 (2nd ed. p. 166).
Κουζοΰ cf. Άτελκούζου.
Κουλπέη (τό), province of the Pechenegs 37/18, 22; cf. Συρουκάλπεη. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 248 (2nd ed. p. 294).
Κουρκένιος, 1. son of Pankratios (cf. Παγκράτιο; 4.) 46/7, 9.
2. magister, son-in-law of Asotios (cf. Άσώτιος 6.) 46/18, 20, 22, 25, 30, 52, 84, 87, 90, 92, 94, 121, 126, 129, 154; Κουρκένην (acc.) 46/11, 121; Κουρκένη (gen.) 46/58, 66, 107.
Κουρκούας, magister: ’Ιωάννης ό Κουρκούας 46/56, 162;’Ιωάννης 45/59, 143.
Κούρκουρα cf. Κούρκρα.
Κουρκοΰται, prince of the Pechenegs: 37/22. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 149 (2nd ed. p. 168).
Κούρκρα (ή), island off Dalmatia: ή Κούρκρα, ήτοι τό Κίκερ 36/16; τά Κούρκουρα 30/110.
Κουρτουγέρματο(ς), clan of the Turks (= Magyars): τέταρτη <τοϋ> Κουρτου-γερμάτου 40/5. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 150 (2nd ed. p. 169).
Κούσαρος, son of Moundaros 14/6.
Κοϋφις (6), river between the river Danube and the city of Sarkel 42/59.
Κραΐνας, son of Belaes, zupan of Terbounia 34/8.
Κρακνακάται (τό), deserted city on the river Dniester 37/62. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 153 (2nd ed. p. 173).
Κράριον, ford of the river Dnieper: πέραμα τοϋ Κραρίου 9/66.
Κρασημέρης, prince of the Croats: τοϋ Κρασημέρη 31/44, 76.
Κρατϊνος, dramatist 23/39.
Κρήτη (ή), Crete 22/40, 46.
Κρ ίβασα (ή), district of Croatia 30/93.
Κριβηταιηνοί cf. Κριβιτζοί.
Κριβιτζοί, tributaries of the Russians: Κριβιτζών (gen.) 9/108; Κριβηταιηνοί 9/9.
Κρικορίκιος, 1. magister, patrician and military governor, prince of Taron 48/7, 46 [Γρικορίκιον P], 50, 63, 64, 80, 91, 135, 151, 164,187;Κρικορίκου (gen.) 43/28, 56; Γρηγόριος 48/35; cf. Ταρωνίτης.
2. brother of Baasakios: Κρίκο-ρίκη (gen.) 50/139.
Κρινίτης, 1. protospatharius and interpreter 43/137, 170, 172, 177.
2. protospatharius 50/39, 47, 52, 53; Κρινίτης ό Άροτρας 50/34.
Κρικορίκιος (ό) [= Ταρωνίτης] 43/32, 51, 97, 101, 113, 119, 122, 146, 151, 180.
Κρισκόρονος, chief of the Sarmatians: Κρισκορόνου (gen.) 53/4 [Kp[-σκων. ’Όρου Ρ], 163.
Κρίσος (ό), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/40.
Κτένας, cleric, precentor, protospatharius 50/236, 238, 246, 253, 255.
Κυβερνικόν, place near Bosporus: έν Κυβερνικώ 53/224.
Κυζικηνοί cf. Κύζικος.
Κύζικος (ή), Cyzicus 47/6, 13, 24, 48/31; Κυζικηνοί 48/17, 20.
Κύιντος, Roman general 24/6, 6.
Κυκλάδες (αί), Cyclades 22/46.
Κυμβαλαΐος (τό), county in the province of Charsianon 50/134.
Κυμινάς: τοϋ Κύμινα, monastery 46/55.
Κύνητες, Iberian tribe 23/9.
Κύπριοι cf. Κύπρος.
Κύπρος (ή), Cyprus 20/4, 22/14, 47/9, 12, 16, 20; Κύπριοι (οί) 47/1, 11, 17, 22, 48/3; Κύπριος (δ) 47/10.
Κυρήνη (ή), Cyrene 25/40.
Κυριάκός, Saint 22/73.
Κύριος, The Lord P/3, 39, 13/43, 45/30.
Κώλωρι(ν), district on the Byzantine frontier: είς — 46/15.
Κωμόδρομος garrison in the province of Charsianon: ή τοϋ Κωμοδρόμου τοποτηρησία 50/106.
Κωνοπάς (6), river near the Danube 9/99, 99.
Κωνστάντια (ή) city on the coast of the Black Sea 9/99.
Κωνσταντινέων πόλις, Constantia, city in Cyprus 48/12.
Κωνσταντίνος, 1. emperor (I) 13/49, 141, 169, 53/124, 159; >6 μέγας Κωνσταντίνος 13/155; Κωνσταντίνος ό μέγας 13/32; άγιος Κωνσταντίνος 18/78; Κωνσταντίνος ό άγιος 13/117; ό μέγας καί άγιος Κωνσταντίνος 13/112; ό άγιος καί μέγας Κωνσταντίνος 40/30.
2. emperor (= Constans II Pogonatus): Κωνσταντίνος ό καί Πωγωνάτος καλούμενος 48/28; ό Πωγωνατος 21/11,39, 46.
3. emperor (IV): 21/9, 10, 46, 48/28.
4. emperor (VI) 22/62 [Κώνσταν-τος Ρ],
5. emperor (VII) Tit./l, 22/80, 26/67, 72, 45/40, 50/159, 230, 233, 51/137, 164, 169.
6. protospatharius, patrician, commander of the great company 43/55, 59, 61, 70, 74; Κωνσταντίνος ό τοϋ Λιβός 43/43.
7. patrician and chamberlain 50/229, 231, 51/149, 160.
8. protospatharius, patrician and lord admiral 46/50, 53, 65, 77, 91, 93, 96, 101, 108, 111, 113, 119, 140, 144, 149, 155, 162.
9. cf. Δούξ, Λωρικατος.
Κωνσταντινούπολις (ή), Constantinople 9/2, 3, 20/10, 21/55, 112, 117, 26/66, 27/7, 8, 29/27.
Κώνστας, 1. tribune and emperor (?) 53/10, 11, 13, 76, 80, 86, 91, 95, 106, 119; Κώνσταν (acc.) 53/71; Κώνσταντος (gen.) 53/103; Κώνστα (gen.) 53/124, 127; Κώνστα (dat.) 53/73, 88, 90.
2. cf. Κωνσταντίνος 4.
Κώστας, prince of the Pechenegs: Κώσταν (acc.) 37/23. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 156 (2nd ed. p. 176).
Λαγουβαρδία, Lombardy, province 27/1, 47, 54, 29/101, 103, 111, 115, 50/86, 51/200.
Λαγούβαρδοι, Lombards 27/30, 36, 53, 63; Λογγίβαρδοι 25/22.
Λαζική (ή), Lazike 53/163.
Λαζοί, Lazi 58/6, 8, 98.
Λακεδαιμόνια, Lacedaemonia 50/16.
Λαλάκων, patrician and military governor: Λαλάκωνα (acc.) 45/47.
Λάμαχος, primate of the Chersonites 58/234, 245, 257, 259, 268, 270, 272, 280, 285, 313, 315, 320.
Λαμάχου Σκοπή (ή), site in the city of Cherson 53/451.
Λάμψακος (ή), city in Asia Minor: έν Λαμψάκψ 21/118.
Λανδοΰλφος, bishop 27/64.
Λάρισσα (ή), county in the province of Sebaeteia 50/133, 143, 144, 149.
Λάστοβον (τό), island off Dalmatia 36/23.
Λαυρέντιος, Saint 29/262.
Λαυριτών, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/88.
Λαυσαϊοι cf. 'Ραούσιον.
Λαυσιακός (ό), hall in the imperial palace at Constantinople 50/241.
Λάχης, sculptor: Λάχης ό Λίνδιος 21/62 [recte: Χάρης],
Λεάντι, barrage of the Dnieper river: τύν 2κτον φραγμόν, λεγόμενον μέν 'Ρωσιστί Λεάντι, ΣκλαβηνιστΙ δέ Βε-ρούτζη, >6 έστιν 'βράσμα νεροΰ’ 9/ 61—62.
Λεβεδία (ή), place inhabited by the Turks (= Magyars) 38/4, 8. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 157 (2nd ed. p. 177).
Λεβεδίας, voivode of the Turks (= Magyars) 88/6, 13, 16, 18, 30, 34; Λεβεδία (acc.) 38/33 [χελάνδια P], — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 157 (2nd ed. p. 177).
Λενζανήνοι, tributaries of the Russians 9/10; Λενζενίνοις (dat.) 37/44.
Λενζενίνοι cf. Λενζανήνοι.
Λεόντιος, emperor 22/7, 7, 29, 31.
Λεσνήκ (τό), city in Serbia 32/150.
Λευκαδίαι, work of Parthenius 23/18.
Λέων, 1. emperor (IV) 13/61, 126.
2. emperor (VI) 32/78, 81, 40/8, 43/19, 36, 97, 102, 129, 44/119, 45/36, 44, 67, 50/86, 92, 101, 118, 133, 136, 156, 171, 218, 227, 232, 235, 51/192, 197; Λέων, ό σοφώ-τατος βασιλεύς 22/80, 49/72, 51/5, 34, 51, 69, 77, 157; ό σοφώτατος Λέων 51/22.
3. cf. ’Αγέλαστος, Άργυρός 2., Άρμένης, 'Ραβδούχος, Τζικάνης.
Λίβανος (ό), Lebanon 21/4, 5, 22/11, 24.
Λιβύη (ή), Libya 15/4, 22/68, 25/4, 8, 9, 33, 36, 39.
Λίγυες, Ligurians 23/37.
Λικέντζια, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/83.
Λιμών (ό), place near the city of Cherson 53/306, 311, 312,
Λίνδιος cf. Λάχης.
Λιούντικα(ς), son of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars): Λιούντικα (acc.) 40/12. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 157 (2nd ed. p. 178).
Λίτζα (ή), district in Croatia 30/93.
Λιτζίκη, unbaptized people dwelling on the river Visla: άπό των κατοι-κούντων άβαπτίστων είς τόν ποταμόν Βίσλας, τούς έπονομαζομένους Λιτζίκη 38/17—19 [Διτζίκη Ρ]; cf. Λενζανήνοι.
Λιτουμαγκέρσης, city of the Venetians: κάστρον —· 27/85.
Λίψ cf. Κωνσταντίνος 6.
Λόβέλος, chief of the Croats 30/64. — Cf.Byzantinoturc ica p. >157 (2nd ed. p. 178).
Λογγίβαρδοι cf. Λαγούβαρδοι.
Λοδόϊκος, 1. Lewis, king of Francia (II): Λοδοΐκου (gen.) 26/17; Λοδόΐχος 29/104, 117 [Δολοήχος Ρ], 122 [Δο-λοήχω Ρ], 126 [Δολοήχος Ρ], 136 [Δολόηχον Ρ], 152, 154, 162, 164, 169.
2. Lewis, king of Italy (III): Λοδόϊκος 26/17.
Λοδόΐχος cf. Λοδόϊκος 1.
Λοντοδόκλα (τό), city in Diocleia 35/13.
Λουκάβεται (τό) city in Terbounia 34/20.
Λουκάς, Saint, evangelist 36/18.
Λουλιανόν, city of the Venetians: κάστρον ·— 27/82.
Λουμβρικάτον (τό), city in Dalmatia 29/289.
Λουσιτανία cf. Λυσιτανία.
Λουσιτανοί, Lueitanians 24/5.
Λυκανδός (ή), city, county and province 50/135, 154, 157, 161, 162, 163.
Λυσιτανία, Lusitania 23/17 [recte: Λουσιτανία],
Λωθάριος, 1. king of Italy (I) 26/10; ό μέγας Λωθάριος 26/2, 17.
2. king of Italy (II) 26/65.
Λωρικατος, steersman and protospatharius of the basin: Κωνσταντίνος ό Λωρικατος 51/168.
Μαδαμαΰκο(ν), island near Venice: του Μαδαμαύκου 28/25.
Μαδαϋκον, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/86.
Μαδιανΐτις, desert: τήν Μαδιανΐτιν έρημον 14/7.
Μαδίς, chief of the Arabs 22/58.
Μάζαροι cf. Χάζαροι.
Μαΐνη (ή), city in Peloponnesus: του κάστρου Μα'ίνης 50/4, 71.
Μαιώτις (ή), Maeotic lake 42/9, 73, 75, 78, 86, 90, 53/5, 15, 28, 41, 74, 105, 164, 180, 223.
Μακεδόνες, Macedonians 50/12.
Μαλέας (ό), promontory in Peloponnesus: τοϋ Μαλέα 50/79.
Μαλθακοί, comedy of Cratinus 23/39.
Μαλοζεάται cf. Μέλετα.
Μάμπαλις cf. Δαυίδ 4.
Μανζικίερτ (τό), city in Armenia 44/2, 17, 29, 40, 43, 53, 67, 70, 73, 80, 86, 94, 99, 107, 45/97; Μανζικι-έρται (οί) 45/65.
Μανζικιέρται cf. Μανζικίερτ.
Μανουήλ, protospatharius 50/115, 118, 120>.
Μαρδαϊται, Mardaïtes 21/4,22/10,18,21, 24, 50/169, 184, 185, 214, 217, 220.
Μαρία, the Mother of God 21/124.
Μαρκιανός, 1. author 23/27.
2. emperor 25/53.
Μαρμαήν, general of Symeon, prince of the Bulgarians: Μαρμαήν (acc.) 32/93; Μαρμαήμ (gen.) 32/112. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 161 (2nd ed. p. 182).
Μαρουάμ, 1. chief of the Arabs 21/26,42.
2. chief of the Arabs 22/56, 56.
Μαρτίνος, missionary 31/45.
Μάρτιος, March 50/42.
Μάσαλμας, general of the Arabs 21/112, 116, 117, 22/50; Μάσαλμα (gen.) 21/121.
Μαστάτον (τό), city in Armenia 45/129, 142, 145, 155.
Μαστιηνοί cf. Μαστινοί.
Μαστινοί, Iberian tribe 23/10 [recte: Μαστιηνοί],
Μαυίας (-ου gen.), chief of the Arabs 20/3, 10, 21/3, 7, 12, 19, 20, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 67, 72, 79, 89, 91, 98, 98, 100, 101, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 22/2, 36, 25/62; Μαυιδται (οί) 22/39.
Μαυιδται cf. Μαυίας.
Μαϋρον, mountain in Lebanon: τοϋ Μαύρου ορούς 21/4.
Μαυροφόροι, Black-robed ( = Ab-basids) 21/24, 27.
Μεγέρη(ς), clan of the Turks (= Magyars): τρίτη τοϋ Μεγέρη 40/4. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 164 (2nd ed. p. 186).
Μεγυρέτους (τό), city in Serbia 32/150.
Μέκε, Mecca: τοϋ Μέκε 15/4.
Μελέτα, deserted city in Dalmatia: — 29/292.
Μέλετα (τά), island off Dalmatia 30/110; νήσος έτέρα μεγάλη τά Μέλετα, ήτοι τό Μαλοζεάται, ήν . . . ό άγιος Λουκάς μέμνηται, Μελίτην ταύ-την προσαγορεύων 36/16—18.
Μελίας, patrician and magister 50/138, 145, 152, 154, 162, 164.
Μελίτη cf. Μέλετα.
Μελιτηνή (ή), city in Asia Minor 50/138; Μελιτηνιαται (ol) 50/114, 147.
Μελιτηνιαται cf. Μελιτηνή.
Μένανδρος, dramatist 23/25.
Μεσημβρία (ή), Mesembria 9/102.
Μεσοποταμία, province 45/47, 50/117, 126, 128, 129, 131.
Μηλιγγοί, Milingoi 50/2, 15, 20, 23, 28, 48, 61, 68, 70 [Μιληγγοί variant in Ρ].
Μιληγγοί cf. Μηλιγγοί.
Μιλινίσκα (ή), city in Russia: τήν Μιλινίσκαν 9/6.
Μιρόσθλαβος, prince of the Croats: Μιροσθλάβου (gen.) 31/77.
Μισχιοί, Mischians 46/48.
Μιχαήλ, 1. emperor (II): Μιχαήλ ό Τραυλός 22/41, 29/61.
2. emperor (III) 50/7, 9, 223.
3. prince of the Zachlumi 32/87, 33/16.
4. protospatharius and collector 43/176.
5. chief oarsman, spatharocandidate, protospatharius of the basin 51/89, 106, 127, 138, 154, 158, 161.
6. cf. Βαρκαλάς, ΜιχαήλΒορίσης.
Μοάμεδ cf. Μουάμεθ 2.
Μοκρισκίκ (τό), city in the territory of the Zachlumi 83/21.
Μοκρός (ό), zupania of Pagania 30/106, 107.
Μόκρον (τό), city in Pagania 36/14.
Mομψουεστία (ή), city in Asia Minor 22/20.
Μοραβία, Moravia 41/1, 2, 42/19; ή μεγάλη Μοραβία 13/5, 88/58; ή μεγάλη Μοραβία, ή αβάπτιστος 40/33.
Μορδία, Mordia 87/46.
Μορήσης (ό), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/39.
Μουάμεθ, 1. prophet 17/2, 21/50, 51, 69; Μουχούμετ 14/1, 2, 11, 15/2, 5, 7; Μουάμεθ, δν οί ’Άραβες καλουσι Μουχούμετ 16/10; Μουάμεθ, ήτοι τοϋ Μουχούμετ 25/58, 60.
2. chief of the Arabs: Μοάμεδ 22/64.
Μουδάφαρ, son of Manuel proto-patharius 50/121, 124.
Μούνδαρος, son of Zinaros (= Nizaros) 14/5, 6.
Μουνδράγα, city in Bulgaria: κάστρον τό λεγόμενον — 40/11.
Μουντιμήρος, prince of the Serbs 32/43, 52, 59, 65.
Μουράν, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/93.
Μουργούλη (ή), county in the province of Chaldia: τη Μουργούλη 46/119.
Μούσελ (τό), emirate 25/73.
Μουχλώ, chief of the Croats 30/64. — Cf.Byzantinoturc ica p. 177 (2nd ed. p. 203).
Μουχούμετ cf. Μουάμεθ 1.
Μυριοκέφαλον (τό), garrison in the province of Charsianon: τοποτηρησία Μυριοκεφάλου 50/103.
Μωσής, Moses 17/8.
Ναπρεζή cf. Στρούκουν.
Ναρσής, patrician 27/15, 17, 19, 27, 32.
Νάσαρ, patrician and lord admiral 51/75.
Νέα ’Εκκλησία (ή), church in the imperial palace at Constantinople 50/237.
Νεάπολις (ή), Naples 27/4, 10, 49, 51, 58, 59, 60, 60, 67.
Νεασήτ cf. Άειφόρ.
Νέκη(ς), clan of the Turks (= Magyars): δεύτερα τοϋ Νέκη 40/4. — Cf. Byzantinoturc ica p. 182 (2nd ed. p. 210).
Νεκρόπηλα cf. Νεκρόπυλα.
Νεκρόπυλα (τά), gulf near the Dnieper river 42/5, 69, 79 [Νεκρόπηλα everywhere P].
Νεμογαρδάς, city in Russia; του Νεμογαρδάς 9/4.
Νεόκαστρον, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/92.
Νίζαροςοί-. Ζιναρός.
Νικήτας, 1. protospatharius and military governor 50/206, 208, 213, 216.
2. cf. Ώορύφας.
Νικηφόρος, emperor (I) 49/4, 41.
Νικομήδεια (ή), Nicomedeia 46/54, 65, 51/37, 58/123.
Νικόπολις (ή), city in Asia Minor 45/147, 50/123.
Νίκοψις 1. (ό) river on the frontier of Zichia and Abasgia 42/97, 109.
2. city on the frontier of Zichia and Abaegia 42/98.
Ν£να (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/93.
Νΐνος (ό), river Rhine 25/30 [recte: 'Ρήνος].
Νοέμβριος, November 9/105, 50/44.
Νόνα (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/92.
Νουγράδε (τό), city in Diocleia 85/13.
Νοϋνο(ν), city of the Venetians: κάστρον τοϋ Νούνου 27/74.
Νύσσα (ή), garrison in the province of Charsianon: τοποτηρησία Νύσσης 50/110.
Νώνα (ή), city in Croatia 31/69.
"Ολυμπος (ό), mountain in Bithynia 51/38.
Όμηρΐται, Homeritee: οί λεγόμενοι Όμηρΐται, τουτέστιν Άμανΐται 14/10.
Όνώριος, emperor 25/20.
Όρέστης cf. Χαρσιανίτης.
Όρμός (τό), city in Terbounia 34/20.
Όρόντιος (ό), river on the frontier of the Zachlumi and Pagani 30/101, 104.
Όστροβουνιπράχ cf. ΟύλβορσΙ.
Όστρωκ (τό), city in Pagania 36/15.
Ούαλεντιανός cf. Ούαλεντινιανός.
Ούαλεντινιανός, emperor (III) 25/3, 7, 10 [Ούαλεντιανός everywhere P].
Ούαλίδ, chief of the Arabs 22/33, 49.
Ούανδήλοι, Vandals 25/17, 29, 34, 39, 47, 48, 53, 27/62; cf. Άφρικοί.
Οΰγων, 1. Hugh, king of Italy 26/1, 3, 16, 44, 57, 63, 69.
2. Burgundian marquis 26/43.
Οΰζία, Uzia 37/38, 45. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 197 (2nd ed. p. 228).
Ούζοι, Uzes 9/114, 10/3, 37/4, 5, 8, 52. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 197 (2nd ed. p. 228).
Ού&μάν, chief of the Arabs 20/1, 13, 21/52, 66.
Ούιρίαθος, chief of the Lusitanians 24/8 [Ούριάθου P].
Ούκρούχ (ό), river on the frontier of Zichia 42/96, 97.
Ούλβορσί, barrage of the Dnieper river: είς τόν έτερον φραγμόν, τόν έπιλεγόμενον 'Ρωσιστί μέν Ούλβορσί, Σκλαβηνιστί δέ Όστροβουνιπράχ, δπερ έρμηνεύεται 'τό νησίον τοϋ φραγμού’ 9/39—41.
Ούλνούτιν (τό), city in Armenia 43/181, 185.
Ούλτΐνοι, tributaries of the Russians: Ούλτίνοις (dat.) 87/44.
Ουμαρ 1. chief of the Arabs 18/5,19/1, 2.
2. chief of the Arabs 22/51, 52, 53.Ούρίαθος cf. Ούιρίαθος.
Ούριας, Uriah the Hittite: Ούριου (gen.) 45/3.
Ούσάν, emir of Palestine: Ούσάν (acc.) 21/41.
Όψαρα (τά), city in Dalmatia 29/52, 288, 30/135.
Παγανία, Pagania 30/104, 31/56, 32/21, 84, 36/14.
Παγανοί, Pagani 29/65, 30/102, 122, 36/3, 5, 22; Άρεντανοί, οί καί Παγανοί προσαγορευόμενοι 29/57— 58; Οί δέ Παγανοί, οί καί τη 'Ρωμαίων διαλέκτφ Άρεντανοί καλούμενοι 29/79—80; Καί γάρ Παγανοί κατά τήν τών Σκλάβων γλώσσαν 'Αβάπτιστοι’ έρμηνεύεται 29/81—82;
Περί τών Παγανών, τών καί Άρεντανών καλουμένων 36/1—2;
Παγανοί δέ καλούνται διά τό μη καταδέζασθαι αυτούς τφ τότε καιρώ βαπτισθηναι, δτε καί πάντες οί Σέρβλοι έβαπτίσθησαν. Καί γάρ Παγανοί τη
τών Σκλάβων δια-λέκτω 'αβάπτιστοι’ έρμηνεύονται, τη τών  'Ρωμαίων δέ διαλέκτω ή χώρα αύτών Άρεντα καλείται, έξ οΰ κάκεϊ-νοι παρά τών αύτών 'Ρωμαίων Άρεντανοί καλούνται 36/9—13.
Πάγη (ή), place in Zichia: πρός τόν τόπον της ΙΙάγης 53/495.
Παγκράτιος, 1. Saint 29/235.
2. son of David, ancestor of the Iberians (cf. Δαυίδ 2.) 45/34, 34.
3. patrician and military governor, son of Krikorikios, prince of Taron (cf. Κρικορίκιος 1.) 43/150, 164.
4. magister, son of Symbatios (cf. Συμβάτιος 2.) 46/3, 5, 6.
5. brother of Asotios (cf. Άσώτιος 5.) 45/147, 153, 46/27, 39.
Παγκρατούκας, military governor 50/121, 122.
Παζουνής, brother of Baasakios: Παζουνή (gen.) 50/140,
Παλαιστίνη (ή), Palestine 14/14, 16, 19/2, 6, 21/18, 40, 41, 67, 26/9. Πανία cf. Πανωνία.
Παννονία, Paraıonia 25/24, 27/31, 30/77.
Παντοκράτωρ, The Almighty P/31. Πανωνία, Panonia 24/13 [recte: Πανία].
Πάπαγι, place in Zichia: έν τω τόπω τω καλουμένω — 53/499.
Παπαγία, Papagia 42/12, 100, 100, 53/496.
Πάπια, Papia 26/13, 14, 18, 20, 26, 42, 27/11, 15, 17, 48, 28/18, 41; cf. ’Ιταλία.
Παπί ας, father of Chrestus, primate of the Chersonites: Παπίου (gen.) 53/25, 44.
Παραθαλασσία (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/92.
Παρθένιος, author 23/18.
Πάρθοι, Parthians: Παρθικός 6/9 [πάρδικα Ρ].
Παρώνυμα, 1. work of Apollonius 23/31.
2. work of Habro 23/38.
Πατζινάκαι cf. Πατζινακΐται. Ώατζινακία, Patzinacia 7/2, 4, 7, 8/4, 37/15, 45, 42/3, 21, 62. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 212(2naed.p. 247.)
Πατζινακΐται, Pechenegs 1/1, 17, 25, 2/1, 2, 6, 9, 17, 22, 3/1, 3, 5 [Πατζινάκαι P], 4/1, 3, 9, 6/1, 5, 6, 11, 6/1, 2, 11, 7/8, 8/5, 9, 14, 16, 26, 30, 34, 9/50, 67, 71, 94, 96, 114, 13/4, 9, 11, 31/87, 37/1, 2, 6, 8, 20, 34, 50, 60, 68, 38/20, 24, 31,  56, 61, 66, 39/6, 40/7, 15, 17, 25, 25, 43, 42/85, 53/531; Πατζινακίτης (ό) 6/10, 9/78; cf. Κάγγαρ. —· Cf. Byzantinoturcica pp. 213— 214 (2nd ed. pp. 247—249).
Πάτραi (al), city in Peloponnesus 49/1, 7, 57, 52/5.
Παΰλος, 1. Saint, apostle 36/19, 20.
2. imperial agent 22/15.
3. grandson of Muntimer, prince of the Serbs 32/94, 99, 103, 105, 107.
Παφλαγονία, Paphlagonia, province 42/32, 53/518, 533; Παφλαγονικός 53/523.
Πελοπόννησος, Peloponnesus, province: θέμα Πελοποννήσου 49/5, 50/1, 6, 11, 14, 65, 52/2; Πελοποννήσου (gen.) 50/22, 35, 52/12; έν Πελοποννήσω 50/34, 55, 51/201.
Πελοποννησαΐοι (οί) 51/200, 202.
Πενταδάκτυλος, mountain in Lacedaemonia: δρος .. . καλούμενον - 50/17.
Περί γης, work of Apollodorus 23/3.
Περίπλους, work of Marcianus 23/28.
Περκρί (τό), city in Armenia 44/2, 11, 15, 21, 54, 102, 126.
Πέρσαι, Persians 23/19, 45/18, 25, 26, 28; Περσικός 44/126.
Περσθλάβος cf. Πρεσθλάβος.
Περσία, Persia 25/65, 67, 76, 79, 46/138; Περσίς (ή) 21/24, 22/63, 38/27, 62, 44/8, 11, 27, 51, 117, 45/12, 22, 66.
Περσίς cf. Περσία.
Πεσέντα (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/92.
Πέτρος, 1. Saint, apostle 27/85, 31/36, 42.
2. prince of the Bulgarians 13/148.
3. prince of the Serbs 32/61, 69, 73, 77, 86, 89, 92, 95.
Πετρών ας cf. Βόϊλας, Καματηρός.
Πηγαί (αί), place near Constantinople with imperial palace 51/15.
Πίερες, Pierians 23/19.
Πιζούχ, deserted city in Dalmatia: — 29/291.
Πίνεται, city of the Venetians: κάστρον Πίνεται, δπερ λέγεται Στρόβιλος 27/83.
Πιπϊνος, king 28/17, 18, 20, 23, 27, 31, 33, 39, 47.
Πίταυρα, city of the Ragusaioi: κάστρον τό έπιλεγόμενον ■— 29/223.
Πιτζηκαύδης, imperial envoy: ’Ιωάννης δ έπίκλην Πιτζηκαύδης 21/11.
Πλαζέντα, city in Italy; το κάστρον — 26/13.
Πλακίδια, mother of the emperor Valentinian III 25/10, 43, 44.
Πλατύπόδης, protospatharius: Βάρδα τοϋ Πλατύπόδη (gen.) 50/54, 57.
Πλατύς, captain-general of the Mardaites of Attalia: Σταυράκιος 6
Πλατύς 50/171, 176, 218; Σταυράκιος 50/180, 182, 184, 192.
Πλέβα (ή), zupania of Croatia 80/91.
Ποδάρων, protospatharius of the basin, vice-admiral and military governor 51/71, 73, 94, 104, 126, 131, 133.
Ποντική (ή), northern coastal district of Asia Minor 53/9.
Πόντος (ό), Pontus 42/6, 91, 53/524.
Ποργάς, prince of the Croats: Ποργϊ (gen.) 31/21; Ποργα (acc.) 31/25.
Πόρινος, prince of the Croats:
Πορίνου (gen.) 30/90.
Πράξεις τών άποστόλων, Acts of the Apostles 36/17.
Πρεσθλάβος (ή), city in Bulgaria: Πρεσθλάβου (gen.) 40/10; Περσθ-λάβου (gen.) 32/130.
Πρεσιάμ, prince of the Bulgarians 32/39, 46. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 220 (2“a ed. p. 257).
Πριβέσθλαβος, prince of the Serbs 32/66, 68, 70, 101.
Πριβουνίας, ban of the Croats: Πριβουνία (gen.) 31/78.
Πριστήναι, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/86.
Προσηγόης, prince of the Serbs 32/34.
Προ Οσα (ή), city in Asia Minor 51/8, 18.
Πρωτεύων, protospatharius and military governor: ’Ιωάννης ό Πρωτεύων 50/27, 35, 51/201.
Πτελέαι (od), place in Zichia 42/107.
Πύθια (τά), city in Asia Minor 51/38.
Πυρηναία (τά), Pyrenees mountains 28/13, 15.
Πυρήνη (ή), Pyrenees mountains 23/4.
Πυρότιμa, deserted city in Dalmatia: — 29/291.
Πωγωνατος cf. Κωνσταντίνος 2.
'Ραβδούχος, magister and foreign minister: Λέων ό 'Ραβδούχος 82/83.
'Ραβίας, son of Zinaros (= Nizaros) 14/6.
'Ράμβλε cf. Φιλιστίημ.
'Ραουσαΐοι cf. 'Ραούσιον.
'Ραούσιον (τό), city in Dalmatia 29/231, 234, 80/138; 'Ραούσι 29/217; 'Ραούσιν 29/51; 'Ραουσίου (gen.) 29/93, 100, 114, 217, 80/99, 100.
'Ραουσαΐοι (οί) 29/94, 110, 222; "Οτι τό κάστρον τοϋ 'Ραουσίου ού καλείται 'Ραούσι τη 'Ρωμαίων δια-λέκτω, άλλ’ έπεί έπάνω τών κρημνών ίσταται, λέγεται 'ΡωμαϊστΙ 'ό κρημνός λαϋ’ ‘ έκλήθησαν δέ έκ τούτου Λαυσαΐοι, ή γουν 'οί καθιζόμενοι είς τόν κρημνόν’. Ή δέ κοινή συνήθεια . . . 'Ραουσαίους τούτους έκάλεσεν 29/ 217—222.
'Ράση (ή), place on the frontier of Serbia 82/53.
'Ράστωτζα (ή), zupania of Pagania 80/106, 107.
'Ρήγιον (τό), place near Constantinople: τοϋ 'Ρηγίου 51/9, 19.
'Ρήνος cf. Νΐνος.
'Ριβαλενσής, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/82.
'Ρίβάλτον, city of the Venetians: κάστρον 'Ρίβαλτον, δ ερμηνεύεται 'τόπος ύψηλότατος’ 27/93 ['Ριβαντόν Ρ],
'Ριβαντόν cf. 'Ρίβαλτον.
'Ρινότμητος cf. ’Ιουστινιανός.
'Ρίσενα (τά), city in Terbounia 84/20, 'Ροδανός, river Rhone?: f ή διορόδα- voçt 28/11.
'Ροδόλφος cf. 'Ροδοϋλφος.
'Ρόδος (ή), Rhodes 20/4, 7, 21/54, 57, 61.
'Ροδόσ&λαβος, prince of the Serbs 32/34.
'Ροδοϋλφος, king of Italy 26/23, 27 ['Ροδόλφου P], 29 [Ρουδοϋλφος P], 32, 35, 38, 40, 56, 60, 64.
'Ρουδοϋλφος cf. 'Ροδοΰλφος.
'Ρουσιάνο(ν), city in Italy: τοϋ 'Ρουσιάνου 27/49.
'Ρωμαϊκή χιλιάς, work of Quadratus 23/36.
‘Ρωμαίοι, Romans Tit./2, P/15, 22, 24, 1/2, 16, 2/16, 4/3, 4, 6, 8, 5/4, 7, 11/5, 13/107, 114, 119, 121, 136, 146, 175, 16/5, 21/14, 47, 53, 22/4, 12, 30, 32, 41, 61, 82, 23/14, 29, 24/5, 7, 25/20, 33, 42, 51, 27/5, 14, 26, 30, 68, 69, 28/36, 29/54, 58, 62, 65, 73, 79, 86, 87, 95, 116, 170, 177, 180, 186, 198, 207, 214, 217, 263, 272, 30/12, 59, 131, 31/9, 16, 27, 34, 60, 32/9, 12, 16, 23, 27, 30, 38, 88, 91, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 133, 136, 140, 141, 143, 147, 33/3, 6, 35/6, 36/12, 13, 37/66, 40/14, 42/61, 43/5, 8, 13, 13, 16, 86, 90, 116, 174, 44/33, 46, 48, 58, 63, 88, 124, 45/24, 36, 42, 46/115, 133, 166, 48/24, 29, 31, 49/4, 50/72, 131, 164, 53/6, 46, 47, 50, 118, 122, 141; 'Ρωμαϊκός 13/115, 151, 21/33, 22/18, 53/107; 'ΡωμαϊστΙ 29/218.
‘Ρωμανία, Romania 9/113, 22/22, 44/126, 127, 46/15, 135, 139, 47/24, 53/530.
'Ρωμάνοι, Romani 29/14, 20, 22, 27, 34, 37, 41, 45, 47, 49, 52, 80/121, 31/11, 13, 15, 32/24, 83/4, 35/3, 36/4 ['Ρωμαίων Ρ]; 'Ρωμάνοι προ-σηγορεύθησαν διά τό άπό 'Ρώμης μετοικισ&ήναι 29/5—6.
'Ρωμανόπολις (ή), frontier pass in the province of Mesopotamia 50/113, 132.
'Ρωμανός, 1. emperor (I) 13/147, 149, 170, 192, 82/100, 106, 43/89, 118, 131, 45/41, 55, 67, 75, 102, 46/49, 50/26, 28, 37, 61, 131, 168, 232, 51/162, 175, 199, 52/2.
2. emperor (II) Tit./3, 26/67.
Ρωματινά, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/83.
'Ρώμη, Rome 25/7, 23, 49, 51, 26/11,22, 27/6, 16, 28/12, 29/4, 6, 103, 105, 273, 30/89, 81/12, 13, 22, 33, 39, 32/27, 33/4, 85/4, 36/4, 53/2, 70, 84, 108, 124; ή μεγάλη ‘Ρώμη 21/32.
'Ρώς (οί), Russians 2/1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 17, 19, 4/1, 4, 11, 8/20, 9/1, 16, 16, 21, 30, 71, 79, 104, 106, 109, 13/25, 42/61, 77; 'Ρωσιστί 9/25, 40, 46, 58, 62, 64.
'Ρωσία, Russia 2/4, 8, 6/5, 9/1, 5, 67, 87/42, 43, 47, 42/4, 62; ή Ϊξω 'Ρωσία 9/3.
'Ρώσσα (ή), city in Dalmatia 29/92.
Σάβας, Saint 22/74.
Σάβας, Saracen general: τοϋ Σάβα 29/90.
Σάβας (ό), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars): Σάβα (gen.) 42/20.
Σακακάται (τό), deserted city on the river Dniester 87/63. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 225 (2nd ed. p. 264).
Σαλαμας (τό), city in Armenia 44/4, 16.
Σαλερινόν (τό), city in Italy 27/4, 52, 57.
Σαληνές (τό), city in Serbia 32/151.
Σαλμακάται (τό), deserted city on the river Dniester 37/63. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 226 (2nd ed. p. 264).
Σαλμούτζης cf. Άλμούτζης.
Σαλώνα (ή), city in Dalmatia 29/26, 30/14; Σαλώνα (acc.) 29/45, 233, 30/17, 30; Σαλώνας (gen.) 31/29; Σαλώνος (gen.) 30/20, 34, 46.
Σαμβατάς cf. Κίαβος.
Σαμωνας, patrician and chamberlain 50/228, 239, 246, 250.
Σαν ία να, county in the province of Charsianon: τοϋρμα ή νϋν Σανίανα λεγομένη 50/105.
Σαξία cf. Φραγγία.
Σαπαξί, village in Zichia: χωρίον έπονομαζόμενον Σαπαξί, δ έρμηνεύε-ται 'κον’.ορτός’ 53/500.
ΣαπΙκιο(ν), village in the province of Derzene: τοϋ χωρίου τοϋ [τά Ρ] Σαπικίου 03/507.
Σαρακηνοί, Saracens 14/3, 16/2, 6, 8, 17/2, 12, 21/36, 85, 88, 113, 115, 26/63, 29/89, 99, 117, 43/10, 14, 17, 25, 45/28, 45, 50, 55, 58, 61, 150, 4C/132, 138, 47/3, 22, 48/31, 49/9, 50/112, 113, 115, 165, 202; Σαρακηνός (ό) 60/202; cf. Άφρικοί.
Σαράτ (τό), place on the frontier of Patzinacia 42/63.
Σάρκελ (τό), city on the river Tanais 11/8, 42/4, 22, 29, 40, 54, 56, 88; 'Ερμηνεύεται δέ παρά αύτοϊς τό Σάρκελ 'άσπρον όσπίτιον’ 42/24. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 229 (2nd ed. pp. 268—269).
Σαρμάται, Sarmatians 53/5, 9, 12, 14, 19, 23; Σαυρόματοι 53/42, 45. 121, 203, 232; Σαυρόματος (ό) 53/3, 17, 20, 27, 46, 50, 53, 55, 59, 60, 62, 64, 72, 75, 76, 82, 86, 87, 91, 93, 96, 97, 99, 104, 104, 107, 162, 163, 169, 171, 173, 173, 177, 180, 183, 184, 188, 190, 193, 193, 194, 196, 198, 204, 205, 209, 215, 215, 216, 218, 221, 221.
Σαυρόματοι, Σαυρόματος cf. Σαρμάται.
Σεβάστεια (ή), city and province 50/134, 149, 167.
Σεβέριοι, tributaries of the Russians: Σεβερίων (gen.) 9/108.
Σελβώ, deserted citv in Dalmatia: — 29/291.
Σελινάς (ό), river, branch of the Danube 9/79, 92, 94, 97.
Σεπτέμβριος, September 16/6, 8.
Σερβλία, Serbia 30/98, 100, 104, 117, 117, 31/15, 32/7, 21, 43, 58, 76, 85, 92, 95, 96, 102, 102, 123, 130, 146, 84/6, 12, 35/8; ή βαπτισμένη Σερβλία 32/149; ή άβάπτιστος Σερβλία 34/6.
Σέρβλια (τά), place in the province of Thessalonica 32/11.
Σέρβλοι, Serbs 29/55, 57, 63, 31/9, 84, 32/1, 2, 6, 15, 17, 26, 36, 40, 47, 49, 51, 108, 137, 33/9, 36/10; Σέρβλος (ό) 29/109, 32/31; άβάπτιστοι Σέρβλοι 31/6, 34/4, 86/6; αβάπτιστοι Σέρβλοι, οί καί άσπροι έπονομαζόμενοι 32/2; Σέρβλοι δέ τη τών 'Ρωμαίων διαλέκτω 'δούλοι'προσαγορεύονται 32/12—13.
Σέρετος (ό), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) and Pechenegs 38/71.
Σέρμιον (τό), Sirmium 25/22, 40/31.
Σθλάβοι cf. Σκλάβοι.
Σιγγιδών, Singidunum: Σιγγιδώνα (acc.) 25/22.
Σιγριανή cf. Θεοφάνης 1.
Σιγρίτζης, general of Symeon, prince of the Bulgarians: Σιγρίτζη Θεόδωρον (acc.) 32/93; Σιγρίτζη Θεοδώρου (gen.) 32/112. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 234 (2nd ed. p. 275).
Σίδραγα (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/92.
Σίκαρδος, prince of the Lombards 27/52, 55, 57.
Σικελία (ή) Sicily, province 22/45, 27/9, 59, 61, 50/89.
Σίκων, prince of the Lombards 27/55, 56.
Σινούτης, eunuch, chief clerk to the foreign ministry, envoy 43/36, 41, 47.
Σιπενδός (ή), city in Italy 27/57.
Σκερδά, deserted city in Dalmatia: — 29/291.
Σκηρδάκισσα, deserted city in Dalmatia: — 29/291.
Σκλαβάρχοντες cf. Σκλάβοι.
Σκλαβηνίαι (at), Slavonic regions 9/10, 107, 28/19, 29/68, 30/94.
Σκλαβηνοι, Slavenes 49/15, 30, 41, 65, 70; Σκλαβήνικος 29/17; Σκλαβη-νιστί 9/25, 40, 44, 46, 58, 62, 65.
Σκλαβησιάνοι, Slavisians 50/59, 64.
Σκλάβοι, Slavs 9/9, 109, 29/40, 43, 69, 82, 224, 294, 30/120, 125, 129, 133, 31/6, 7, 33/11, 34/12, 16, 36/11, 37/45, 49/2, 50/1, 6, 14, 38, 60, 72; Σκλάβοι, οΐ καί ’Άβαροι καλούμενοι 29/33; Σκλάβοι, οί <καί> Άβαροι 29/37; Σθ-λάβοι 60/66; Σκλαβικός 30/7, 13; Σκλαβάρχοντες 29/113.
Σκόρδονα (τό), city in Croatia 31/69.
Σκύθαι, Scythians 48/2, 58/129; Σκυ9·ικός 13/25. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 236 (2nd ed. p. 279).
Σκυθία, Scythia 58/126.
Σλαβίνετζα (ή), city in Pagania 36/15.
Σμύρνη (ή), Smyrna 20/11.
Σολδανός, Saracen general 29/90, 102, 117, 120, 122, 128, 130 [Σουλδανός Ρ], 142, 150 [Σουλδανοΰ Ρ], 156, 163, 164, 175, 176, 180, 183, 191, 205, 209, 212.
Σολομών, Solomon 19/10.
Σουλδανός cf. Σολδανός.
Σουλεϊμάν, chief of the Arabs 21/115, 116, 120, 126, 22/49, 50, 52.
Σουπόλιχος, father of Byscus, primate of the Chersonites: Σουπολίχου (gen.) 58/168.
Σοϋσαι cf. Σώσοα.
Σοφία cf. 'Αγία Σοφία.
Σοφιάμ, progenitor of Mauias, chief of the Arabs 21/111.
Σπανδιάτης, ancestor of the Iberians 45/14, 14, 33, 37.
Σπανία, part of Iberia 28/29, 29 [recte: 'Ισπανία],
Σπαταλό(ν), harbour in Zichia: είς τόν τοϋ Σπαταλοΰ λιμένα 42/106.
Σρεχιαβαράξ (τό), village in the province of Tziliapert 58/511.
Σταγνόν (τό), city in the territory of the Zachlumi 38/21.
Σταυράκιος cf. Πλατύς.
Σταυρός cf. Τίμιος Σταυρός.
Στενίται, sailors of the Stenon 51/12, 91.
Στενόν (τό), the Bosphorus 51/13, 92.
Στέφανος, 1. Saint 29/236.
2. astrologer 16/1.
3. protospatharius, son of Valentine (cf. Βαλεντίνος 2.) 29/233.
4. son of Muntimer, prince of the Serbs 32/52, 67.
Στόλπον (τό), city in Croatia 81/69.
Στρατόφιλος, primate of the Chersonites 53/471.
Στρόβιλος cf. Πίνεται.
Στροΐμηρος, prince of the Serbs 82/44, 63.
Στρούκουν, barrage of the Dnieper river: πρός τόν έβδομον φραγμόν, τόν έπιλεγόμενον 'Ρωσιστί μέν Στρούκουν, Σκλαβηνιστί δέ Ναπρεζή, δ έρμηνεύεται 'μικρός φραγμός’ 9/64— 65.
Συγγούλ (ό), river between the Danube and the city of Sarkel 42/58.
Συμβάτιος, 1. prince of princes of Armenia 48/30, 34, 35, 44/7, 18, 22, 26, 35, 50, 119.
2. Iberian ruler of the city of Ardanoutzi: ό μέγας Συμβάτιος 46/4.
3. son of David (cf. Δαυίδ 4.) 46/29, 33, 38, 41.
Σύμβολο(ν), port near the city of Cherson: έν Συμβόλω 58/296, 309; τοϋ Συμβόλου 58/302.
Συμεών, 1. prince of the Bulgarians 82/80, 87, 92, 111, 117, 138, 40/9, 13, 17, 51/111, 112. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 248 (2nd ed. p. 293).
2. patrician and chief of the imperial chancellery 46/68.
Συμπόσιον (τό), frontier pass, desert adjacent to the region of Lykandos 50/135, 145, 148, 159.
Συρεντός (ή), city in Italy 27/49, 67.
Συρία, Syria 21/12, 23, 63, 73, 102, 22/68, 25/56, 64, 42/78, 43/11, 14, 46/45, 47/19, 21.
Συρουκάλπεη, province of the Pechenegs: τό θέμα — 37/35; cf. Κουλπέη. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 248 (2nd ed, p. 294).
Σφενδοπλόκος, prince of Moravia 13/6, 40/34, 41/2, 4, 19.
Σφενδοσθλάβος, son of Igor, prince of Russia 9/4.
Σχολαστίκιος, door-keper and chamberlain 50/223.
Σώσαι (αί), place near the city of Cherson 53/263 [Σουσών P], 306, 312.
Σωτηριούπολις, city on the frontier of Abasgia: κάστρον Σωτηριουπόλεως 42/14, 110.
Σωφρόνιος, bishop of Jerusalem 19/4, 8.
Τάβια, garrison in the province of Charsianon: τοποτηρησία Τάβιας 50/107.
Ταλιαφέρνος, Burgundian marquis: Ταλιαφέρνου (gen.) 26/43; cf. Οΰγων
2. Ταλμάτ (τό), province of the Pechenegs 37/18, 23; cf. Βοροταλμάτ. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 94 (2nd ed. p. 97).
Ταμάταρχα (τό), city opposite to Bosporus 42/11 [τα Μάταρχα Ρ], 92, 95, 97, 53/493. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 251 (2nd ed. p. 297).
Τάναϊς (ό), river Tanals 42/34, 87.
Ταξίς, grandson of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/59, 61. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 252 (2nd ed. p. 298).
Ταριάνο(ς), clan of the Turks (= Magyars): πέμπτη τοϋ Ταριάνου 40/5. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 253 (2nd ed. p. 299).
Ταρκατζοΰς, son of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/54, 56. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 253 (2nd ed. p. 300).
Ταρρακωνησία (ή), part of Iberia 23/29.
Ταρτήσιοι, Iberian tribe 23/10.
Ταρών (τό), Armenian principality 43/1, 7, 27, 38, 46, 47, 49, 56, 62, 63, 66, 110, 153, 186;
Ταρωνίτης (ό) [= Κρικορίκιος] 43/32, 51, 97, 101, 113, 119, 122, 146, 151, 180.
Ταρωνίτης cf. Ταρών,
Τάσής, grandson of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/61. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 253 (2nd ed. p. 300).
Τατζάτης, possessor of a suburban estate in Keltzini: Τατζάτου (gen.) 43/92.
Τεβέλης, grandson of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/63; Τεβέλη (acc.) 40/57. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 256 (2nd ed. p. 303).
Τεκής (τό), district in the province of Mesopotamia 50/115, 119.
Τελιούτζα (ή), city in Russia: άπο Τελιούτζαν 9/6.
Τενήν (τό), city in Croatia 31/70.
Τερβουνία, 1. Terbounia 30/99, 139,142, 32/22, 34/8, 11, 15, 19, 35/9; Τερβουνία δέ -rfj τών Σκλάβων διαλέκτω ερμηνεύεται 'ισχυρός τόπος’ 34/12.
2. city in Terbounia 34/20.
Τερβουνιωται, Terbouniotes 29/57, 64, 109, 34/1, 3.
Τερματζοΰς, great grandson of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/64. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 258 (2nd ed. p. 306).
Τερπημέρης, prinoe of the Croats: Τερπημέρη (gen.) 31/43.
Τετραγγούριν (τό), island and city off Dalmatia 29/51, 258, 30/134; Τετραγγούριν δέ καλείται διά τό είναι αύτό μικρόν δίκην άγγουρίου 29/260—261.
Τζαμανδός (ή), mountain and county in the province of Lykandos: δρος της Τζαμανδοΰ 50/157.
Τζαρβαγάνιν (τό), island off Zichia 42/105.
Τζεέσ&λαβος, prince of the Serbs 32/65, 75, 119, 121, 129, 140.
Τζένζηνα (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/91.
Τζέντινα cf. Ζέντινα.
Τζερματζοΰ (τό), city in Armenia 44/5, 62.
Τζερναβουσκέη (τό), city in Serbia 32/150.
Τζερνίγωγα, city in Russia: άπδ Τζερνιγώγαν 9/6.
Τζιβιτανόβα, city in Lombardy: ονομάζεται Τζιβιτανόβα, τουτέστιν νεόκαστρον 27/41.
Τζιβιτάνουβα, Venetian island: είς τόπον λεγόμενον Τζιβιτάνουβα, δπερ έρμηνεύεται 'νεόκαστρον’ 28/47—48.
Τζικάνης, protospatharius and military governor: Λέοντος Τζικάνη (gen.) 51/194.
Τζιλιάπερτ, province: θέμα τοϋ — 53/510.
Τζοπόν (τό), province of the Pechenegs 37/19, 24; cf. Βουλατζοπόν. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 94 (2nd ed. p. 98).
Τζουζήμερις, prince of Terbounia 34/11.
Τζούρ (τό), province of the Pechenegs 87/17, 21; cf. Κουαρτζιτζούρ. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 147 (2nd ed. p. 165).
Τιβέριος, emperor (III): Αψίμαρον 22/7; Άψιμάρου ... του Τιβερίου 22/31.
Τιβι (τό), city in Armenia 44/15; Τιβί (gen.) 44/4; Τιβίου (gen.) 45/57.
Τικρίτ (τό)> emirate 25/74.
Τιμήσης (ό), river in the country 0f the Turks (= Magyars) 40/39.
Τίμιος Σταυρός, garrison in the province of Charsianon: τοποτηρησία τοϋ Τιμίου Σταυροΰ 50/104.
Τίτζα (ή), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/40.
Τνήνα (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/92.
Τορνίκος cf. Τορνίκιος.
Τορνίκιος, patrician, son of Apoganem 43/136, 139, 139, 166, 179; Τορνίκης 43/100.
Τορτζελών (τό), city and trading station of the Venetians 27/93.
Τουγά (ή), chieftainess of the Croats 30/65. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 267 (2nd ed. p. 317).
Τουγγάται (τό), deserted city on the Dniester river 37/62. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 267 (2nd ed. p. 317).
Τουργανήρχ (τό), island off Zichia 42/105.
Τουρκία, Turkey (= country of the Magyars) 31/5, 32/3, 37/42, 47, 38/55, 40/28, 36, 53, 65, 42/3. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 269 (2na ed. p. 320).
Τούρκοι, Turks (= Magyars) 8/1, 2, 5, 4/2, 5, 11, 8/21, 24, 29, 13/2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 24, 27/31, 30/23, 75, 31/87, 32/89, 37/11, 38/1, 3, 9, 10, 16, 23, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 47, 48, 48, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 67, 89/6, 8, 10, 40/2, 6, 16, 16, 17, 19, 19, 23, 25, 33, 41, 45, 41/21, 25, 42/18, 51/111, 114, 115, 116, 120, 121. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 270 (2nd ed. pp. 321—322).
Τούτης (ό), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) 40/39.
Τραϊανός, emperor 40/28.
Τραπεζοϋς (ή), Trapezus 46/43, 50/124.
Τραυλός cf. Μιχαήλ 1.
Τριάς cf. 'Αγία Τριάς.
Τρίπολις (ή), city in Africa 25/40.
Τριφάλης, comedy of Aristophanes 23/21.
Τροίζην (ό), Troezen 23/35, 35; Τροίζηνος (ό) 23/35; Τροιζήνοιο (gen.) 23/35.
Τροΰλλος (ό), Domed Hall in the imperial palace 48/2.
Τροΰλλος (δ), river in the country of the Turks (= Magyars) and Pechenegs 38/70.
Τρυπία (τά), desert on the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire 50/146.
Τρύφων, Saint 29/269.
Τυρόκαστρον (τό), city in Iberia 46/14.
Ύβύλ (ό), river between the Danube and the city of Sarkel 42/59.
Ύδρεντός (ή), city in Italy 27/48.
Φαγγουμεΐς (οί), illustrious Cypriots 47/18.
Φαλεμβέρτος, murderer of king Berengar 26/55.
Φαλής, grandson of Arpad, prince of the Turks (= Magyars): Φαλής 40/61; Φαλίτζιν (acc.) 40/58. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 278 (2nd ed. p. 331).
Φαλιμέρης, prince of Terbounia 34/10.
Φαλίτζις cf. Φαλής.
Φάρα (τό), island off Dalmatia 36/20; Φάρος (ό) 30/110.
Φαρνάκος, 1. father of Pharnacus, primate of the Chersonites 53/187.
2. primate of the Chersonites 53/187, 192, 196, 204, 205, 208, 214, 215, 216, 218, 220, 222, 228, 230.
Φάρος cf. Φάρα.
Φασιανή (ή), district of Armenia 45/44, 50, 53, 58, 61, 63, 66, 100, 100, 158.
Φασις (ό), river in Armenia: ό Έραξ, ήτοι ά Φδσις 45/130, 158, 173.
Φατέμ cf. Φατιμέ.
Φατέμη, district of Libya: τοϋ Φατέμη 15/3.
Φατεμΐται, Fatemites 15/1, 3, 25/60 [Φατουμΐται Ρ],
Φατιλάνο (ν), mountain on the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire: τοϋ δρους τοϋ Φατιλάνου 50/114.
Φατιμέ, daughter of Mahomet, the prophet 21/70, 25/59; Φατέμ 15/2.
Φατουμΐται cf. Φατεμΐται.
Φιλιστίημ (ή), emirate: τήν Φιλιστίημ, ήτοι τό 'Ράμβλε 25/69.
Φιλόμουσος, father of Stratophilus, primate of the Chersonites 53/471.
Φινές, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/92.
Φοινίκη (ή), Phoenicia 21/40.
Φοσαών, city of the Venetians: κάστρον — 27/87.
Φραγγία, Francia 18/4, 28/5, 9, 29/105, 118, 162, 165, 80/72, 85, 31/5, 44, 82/5; ή μεγάλη Φραγγία 2Θ/6, 18, 29/134; Φραγγίας, της καί Σαξίας 80/74; Φραγγίαι (αί) 28/7, 19.
Φράγγοι, Franks 18/116, 119, 25/30, 28/4, 8, 43, 80/79, 81, 83, 87, 31/87, 40/44; cf. Γερμανοί.
Φύλαρχος, author 28/41.
Χαβουξιγγυλά, province of the Pechenegs: τοϋ — 87/70; cf. Γύλα. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 279 (2nd ed. p. 332).
Χαδήρ (ό), river on the eastern side of the Maeotic lake 42/89.
Χκδιγά, wife of Mahomet 14/12.
Χαζάρκ cf. Χάζκροι.
Χκζαρίκ, Chazaria 6/5, 10/1, 5, 8, 12/2, 13/61, 134, 87/38, 45, 88/3, 15, 32, 34, 42/27, 77. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 280 (2nd ed. p. 334).
Χάζαροι, Chazars 10/3, 7, 11/3, 5, 11, 12/3, 18/24, 87/4 [Μαζάρους P], 5, 88/13, 14, 22, 52, 89/2, 8, 40/3, 42/22, 27; Χαζάρκ (ή) 88/17, 19 [Χαζάρου Ρ]; Χαζαρ',κός 42/4. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica pp. 281—282 (2nd ed. pp. 335—336).
Χαλδία, province 48/61, 176, 45/48, 60, 46/74, 77, 50/117.
Χάλεπ (τό), emirate 25/71.
Χαλιάτ cf. Χλιάτ.
Χαλκοπρατεϊα: Χαλκοπρατείων ναός, church in Constantinople 29/279.
Χαμούχ, 1. village in Zichia 58/503, 505.
2. founder of the village called Chamuch 63/503.
Χανζίτ (τό), frontier pass in the province of Mesopotamia 50/113, 132.
Χαραβόη (τό), province of the Pechenegs 37/18, 22, 42. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 285 (2nd ed. p. 340).
Χαράκουλ (τό), river on the eastern side of the Maeotic lake 42/88. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica. p. 285 (2nd ed. p. 340).
Χαράν (τό), emirate 25/72.
Χάραξ, author 24/4.
Χάρης cf. Λάχης.
Χαρίτων, Saint 22/73.
Xάρκα (τό), district of Armenia 44/41, 87.
Χάροψ (ό), Charops 23/34, 34; Χάροπος (ό) 23/34; Χαρόποιο (gen.) 28/35.
Χαρσίανίτης, military governor: Όρέστης ό Χαρσίανίτης 50/127.
Χαρσιανόν (τό), province 50/90, 102, 106, 108, 109, 134, 137, 153.
Χασέ, protospatharius 50/202, 205, 206, 208.
Χέμψ (τό), emirate: τό Χέμψ, ήτοι τό ’Έμεσα 25/70.
Χερσών (ή), Cherson, city 1/26, 27, 27, 6/3, 7/1, 3, 6, 16, 8/8, 9/67, 11/1, 8, 10, 12, 22/30, 87/38, 49, 42/7, 32, 33, 41, 51, 53, 63, 70, 72, 81, 85, 53/1, 168, 271, 276, 294, 512, 525, 527, 528.
Χερσωνϊται, Chersonites 6/1, 4, 6, 9/67, 42/71, 53/2, 18, 22, 25, 25, 35, 37, 38, 61, 65, 67, 71, 77, 79, 81, 89, 90, 93, 95, 101, 102, 106, 108, 118, 127, 128, 130, 131, 154, 154, 160, 164, 167, 170, 177, 181, 187, 188, 191, 225, 235, 237, 238, 241, 242, 248, 257, 268, 445, 452, 471, 472, 478, 484, 515, 530, 535; Χερσωνίτης (ό) 6/10, 58/484; Χερσωνίτικος 58/514, 520.
Χέρτ (τό), city in Armenia 44/4, 16.
Χιγγιλούς cf. Χιδμάς.
Χιδμάς (ό), river in Lebedia: Χιδμάς, ό καί Χιγγιλούς επονομαζόμενος 88/8.
Χλεβένα (τό), city in Croatia 81/69.
Χλέβενα (ή), zupania of Croatia 30/116; Χλεβίανα (ή) 30/91.
Χλεβίανα cf. Χλέβενα.
Χλιάτ (τό), city in Armenia 44/3, 20, 57, 102, 108, 114, 125; Χαλιάτ 44/3, 11, 15, 53.
Χλούμ (τό), city in the country of the Zachlumi 33/14.
ΧλοΟμος, mountain in the country of the Zachlumi 33/11; cf. Ζαχλοϋμοί.
Χόζανον, province: τό τοϋ Χοζάνου θέμα 50/111.
Χοπόν (τό), province of the Pechenegs 37/19, 24; cf. Γιαζιχοπόν. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 107 (2nd ed. p. 112).
Χρηστός, primate of the Chersonites 63/25, 44.
Χριστιανοί, Christians 13/33, 77, 81, 86, 113, 125, 138, 142, 159, 160, 14/16, 17/10, 22/71, 32/29, 45/32, 151, 50/76; Χριστιανικός 13/145, 22/79, 48/6.
Χριστός, Jesus Christ Tit./2, 17/6, 22/72, 29/96, 31/42, 49/58; Ίησοϋς Χριστός 13/43, 46/31.
Χρονικά, work of Charax 24/4.
Χρονικών, work of Theophanes 17/1, 21/1; Χρονογράφος 22/1.
Χρονογράφος cf. Χρονικόν.
Χρυσόγονος, Saint 29/278.
Χρυσοτρίκλινος (ό), hall in the imperial palace at Constantinople 50/215.
Χρωβατία, Croatia 30/70, 78, 94, 113, 118, 31/14, 44, 58, 76, 32/62, 69, 72, 120, 125, 127, 136, 35/8; ή μεγάλη Χρωβατία, ή καί άσπρη έπο-νομαζομένη 31/83; ή μεγάλη Χρωβατία, ή άβάπτιστος, ή καί άσπρη προ-σαγορευομένη 32/5—6,; ή βαπτισμένη Χρωβατία 31/68, 71, 86.
Χρωβάτοι, Croats 13/7, 29/55, 56, 63, 113, 30/61, 68, 70, 71, 75, 79, 81, 82, 86, 103, 124, 31/1, 3, 8, 18, 20, 24, 24, 26, 29, 35, 40, 41, 46, 50, 52, 55, 61, 64, 64, 65, 80, 32/ 128, 33/5, 35/5, 40/44, 41/25; Χρω-βάτος (ό) 29/109; οί αβάπτιστοι Χρω-βάτοι, οί καί άσπροι έπονομαζόμενοι 31/4; Βελοχρωβάτοι 30/63; Βελοχρω-βάτοι, ήγουν άσπροι Χρωβάτοι 30/ 72—73; οί βαπτισμένοι Χρωβάτοι 31/31; Τό δέ Χρωβάτοι τη τών Σκλάβων διαλέκτω έρμηνεύεται, τουτέστιν 'οί πολλήν χώραν κατέχοντες’ 31/6—8.
Χρωβάτος, chief of the Croats 80/65.
Χώαρα (τά), island off Dalmatia 36/22.
Χωρασάν (τό), emirate 22/64, 66, 26/67, 79.
Ψωμαθεύς: ή τοϋ Ψωμαθέως μονή, monastery 43/177.
Ώκεανός (ό), Ocean 25/40; ό έσπέριος Ωκεανός 25/32.
Ώορύφας, patrician and admiral of the fleet: τόν... Νικήτα,... ου τό έπίκλην Ώορύφας 29/97—98.
Ώτ(ος), king of Francia, or Saxony: ’Ώτψ (dat.) 30/73.

The Glossary contains
1. words which occur in D.A.I. only (these are marked with an asterisk),
2. words peculiar to Byzantine civilization,
3. words of the Postclassical and Byzantine periods,
4. uncommon ancient words or ancient words used in an altered sense in the Byzantine period,
5. words of foreign origin.
Passages are cited by chapter and line in the chapter. P, in such citations, stands for “Proem”.
Abbreviation: Byzantinoturcica = Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica II. Sprachreste der Türkvölker in den byzantinischen Quellen, Budapest, 1943 (2nd ed. Berlin 1958).

άβαλε 53/483.
άβάπτιστος 13/116, 29/69, 71, 75, 81, 82, 30/74, 31/4, 6, 83, 32/2, 5, 33/18, 34/4, 36/5, 11, 40/33.
αγάπη 30/75, 41/14, 45/64, 73, 172, 46/161, 51/170, 53/243.
άγγελος 13/33, 50, 77, 79, 14/20.
άγγούριον 29/261.
αγιάζω 21/89.
άγιος, 9/72, 82, 88, 13/35, 36, 39, 48, 49, 59, 78, 84, 98, 112, 113, 118, 130, 131, 141, 168, 19/9, 21/5, 67, 125, 22/71, 73, 74, 74, 77, 27/81, 84, 29/23, 235, 236, 241, 241, 244, 245, 262, 269, 276, 277, 278, 279, 282, 30/48, 88, 31/36, 49, 32/79, 36/18, 19, 20, 40/30, 43/81, 45/32, 46/55, 69, 72, 47/6, 12, 13, 48/1, 49/26, 50/97.
άγράμματος 13/150, 51/100.
άγράριον (~ Latin agrariensis, agrarius?) 51/7, 12, 17, 25, 28, 48, 49, 50, 58, 63, 65, 67, 77, 102, 108, 178, 187, 190.
*άγραριώτης (~ Latin agrariensis, agrarius ?) 51/181.
αδιαίρετος 41/15.
άδιάκριτος 51/149, 159, 185.
άείμνηστος 29/89, 95, 49/72, 50/118, 235, 51/143, 192, 196.
αειπάρθενος 21/124.
άζάτος ( ~ Armenian azat): άζάτου (gen.) 45/103. — Cf. De thematibus, ed. Pertusi p. 75/7; N. Adontz, Byzantion, 13 (1938), p. 161.
άηδίζομαι 53/475.
άίθλησις 49/58.
αίρεσις 14/28, 17/14.
αίρετίζομαι 51/202, 53/490.
αιρετικός 13/138.
αιχμαλωσία 29/21, 116, 45/135, 49/42, 58/165, 238.
αίχμαλωτεύω 30/28.
αιχμαλωτίζω 29/226, 33/7, 35/6, 36/8, 45/95, 167, 53/24.
αιχμάλωτος 13/159, 21/16, 53/91, 92, 94.
αιών Ρ/48, 13/88, 88, 27/35, 36.
άκαθαίρετος 19/7.
άκαινοτόμητος 48/9.
άκαταγώνιστος 41/15, 49/35.
άκαταμάχητος 15/10.
ακέραιος 29/269.
άκμήν 29/142, 30/70.
άκολουθία 40/48.
άκρα 49/13, 50/78, 116.
άκυρώ 13/137, 53/366.
άλας (τό) 42/71.
άληδινός 6/9.
άλιεύω 42/89.
άλλάγιον 29/22, 32.
άλλόπιστος 13/116.
άλογον 7/12, 17, 29/129, 53/261, 265.
άμαξία 34/17.
άμερμουμνής (~ Arabic amir al-mümınin) 25/56,64, 80, 84,43/15,33, 47/16, 19, 20;
άμερμουμνη (gen.) 25/74, 78, 43/23, 44/118.
άμετασάλευτος 45/112.
*άμηραδία (~ Arabic amir) 25/67, 68, 68, 69, 69, 70, 70, 71, 71, 72, 72, 73, 73, 76;
άμηραδίας. . ., ήτοι στρατη-γίδας 25/66.
άμηραΐος (~ Arabic amir) 21/102. — Cf. Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 335u etc.
άμηράς (~ Arabic amir) 21/41, 25/75, 79, 82, 83, 44/8, 27, 42, 51, 82, 45/132, 139;
άμηράδων (pi. gen.) 44/121. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 71—72 (2nd ed. 66—69).
άμηρεύω (~ Arabic amir) 18/4, 21/36. — Cf.Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 336m etc.
άμφίασις 30/52.
άνά cf. Grammatical Notes,
άναβλαστώ 43/110.
άνάγλυφος 50/249, 252.
άνάγω 43/90, 123, 127, 135, 46/119, 159, 50/27, 182, 187, 53/522.
άναδείκνυμι (= proclaim) 53/122.
άναδρομή 40/31.
άναζεύγνυμι 53/107.
άνάθεμα 13/125.
άνα&εματίζω 13/54, 88, 140.
άναίδην cf. άνέδην.
άνακλίνομαι 53/434.
άνάκρασις 18/177 [άνάκρισην Ρ],
άνακύπτω 27/21.
άναμανθάνω 13/105, 30/40, 46/136, 49/51.
άναμέσον 21/85.
άνάμεστος 50/192.
άναμεταξύ 38/24, 50/175, 51/58.
άναπλάσσομαι 50/189.
άναρρύομαι 18/160.
άνατολή 27/79, 38/26, 62, 43/86, 44/23, 45/109.
άνατολικός 37/37, 40/41, 42/86, 49/18.
άνατροπεύς 13/142.
άναφορά 46/120, 50/33, 34, 193, 58/147.
άναφωνώ 14/32.
άναψηλαφώ 37/9.
άνδραγάΟημα 26/5.
άνδραγαθώ 51/94.
άνδρειώ: ήνδρειωμένος 15/8, 38/37, 46/75.
ανεγείρω 58/457.
άνέδην 7/9 [άναίδην Ρ], ανεκδίκητος 13/97.
ανέχομαι 13/97, 46/72, 50/244, 58/249, 258, 277; cf. Grammatical Notes, ανήκω 6/7, 51/76.
άνήλικος 43/103.
άνθραξ 18/64.
άνθύπατος 88/16, 48/44.
άνίσχυρος 22/20.
άννωνα (~ Latin αηηοηα) 58/152, 155.
άνταλλαγή 48/143.
άνταμοιβή 58/238.
Ανταποκρίνομαι 21/98.
άνταποστέλλω 48/179.
άνταρσία 22/42, 26/9.
άντεισέρχομαι 22/7.
άντιδηλώ 29/166, 46/74.
άντίληψις 51/176.
άντιμηνύω 27/19.
αντίπερα 42/21.
άντιπερώ 29/101, 51/115, 58/12; cf. Grammatical Notes, άντιπίπτω 29/138, 50/178.
άντισήκωσις 43/107, 46/14, 20.
άντιστρέφω 18/47.
άνυπόδετος 26/50.
άνυπότακτος 50/14.
άνυψώ Ρ/38.
άνώτερος 40/36.
άξία 18/86, 88/6, 43/53, 58, 66, 46/148, 51/140.
άξίωμα 37/27, 30, 40/52, 68, 43/152, 44/47, 50/125, 52/11.
άοίδιμος 18/189, 29/73, 83, 89, 80/127, 127, 40/8, 48/19, 42, 45/43, 50/76, 51/5, 22, 34, 52, 69, 78, 157.
άπά&εια 49/12.
άπαίτησις 51/193, 197, 52/1.
άπαιτώ 4/7, 50/52, 52/12.
άπαραποίητος 18/112.
άπαργυρίζω 49/74.
άπάρτι 29/273; cf. ίάμ έ'ρα.
άπαρτίζομαι 43/78.
άπεκδέχομαι 87/31.
άπεμπολώ cf. Grammatical Notes, άπηνώς 29/244.
άπιστος 13/106, 143, 45/79.
άπλίκτον (~ Latin applicalus) 44/128, 45/86 [άπλήκτον, άπληκτα Ρ].
άπλοϊκός 1/9.
άπλός cf. Grammatical Notes, άπό cf. Grammatical Notes, άποβιώ 17/2, 21/35.
άποβίωσις 43/160.
αποθεραπεύω 46/142.
άποκαθιστώ cf. Grammatical Notes, άποκεφαλίζω 44/7, 52, 53/222.
άποκηρύττω 18/54, 140.
άττοκινώ 9/20, 23, 80, 92.

άποκρημνίζω 9/29. _
άποκρισιάριος 1/19, 21, 29/70, 17Α *"> 180.
άποκτέννω 17/17, 21/45.
άποπεραίνομαι 9/103.
άπόρθητος 19/7.
άποσκαλώνω 9/90.
άποσκοπεύω 49/18.
άποσμήχω 53/467.
αποστασία 39/3, 60/37, 40.
άπόστολος 27/85, 31/36, 36/18, 49/26, 31, 37, 40, 46, 49, 52, 57, 62, 65.
άποσυνάγομαι 9/22, 28/44.
*άποσώστης 7/11.
άποτροφή 53/151.
άποχαιρετίζω 46/94.
άποχαρίζομαι 45/153, 46/116.
άπρόσοδος 50/77.
άπώλεια 29/151, 169, 53/197.
άριθμός 51/42, 53/156, 158.
άρκτικός 87/40.
άρκτωος 42/76.
άρματα (τά) (~ Latin arma) 32/113.
άρμενον 9/85.
αρνητής 29/96.
*άρχιδιάκων 29/232, 262.
άρχιεπισκοπή 52/8.
άρχιεπίσκοπος 31/23, 47/4, 12.
άρχιερεύς 13/56.
άρχοντία 27/2, 30/98, 100. — Cf. Nicephorus patriarcha, ed. de Boor p. 40ï3; De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn. p. 635s.
άρχοντόπουλος 32/94, 101. — Cf. Anna Comnena VII. 7., ed. Leib Π. p. 10812 etc.
άρχων 8/29, 9/5, 106, 13/90, 101, 29/66, 76, 79, 127, 136, 142, 149, 153, 154, 155, 165, 196, 30/73, 77, 78, 84, 87, 90, 141, 142, 31/21, 25, 43, 44,58, 60, 62, 76, 32/30, 33, 40, 42, 45,52, 58, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92,95, 96, 102, 102, 115, 118, 121, 135, 145, 146, 148, 33/9, 17, 34/5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 38/6, 37/20, 32, 33, 38/11, 15, 32, 38, 45, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 39/12, 40/13, 45, 48, 50, 58, 65, 41/2, 42/44, 43/7, 27, 38, 45, 56, 63, 86, 110, 111, 46/75, 78, 136, 49/16, 50/31, 58, 80, 51/20, 25, 27, 39, 111, 112; μέγας άρχων 37/16, 40/53, 41/6; άρχων τών άρχόντων 43/30, 34, 112, 44/6, 7, 9, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 50, 120. — Cf. Κ. Amantos, 'Ιστορία τοϋ βυζαντινοΰ κράτους II (Athânes, 1947), ρ. 428. άς 45/81, 82, 83.
άσάλευτος Ρ/33.
άσβεστος 42/38.
άσηκρήτις (~ Latin a secretis) 50/174.
άσήμιν 28/4-2, 50/248, 252.
άσπρος 30/72, 31/4, 83, 32/3, 6, 42/24.
άστεπτος 26/19.
ασύγκριτος 17/20.
ασυνάρτητος 22/65.
άσφαλίζομαι 1. (= give surety, confirm) 13/68, 22/15.
2. (make fast [the doors]) 53/398, 427, 438.
*άσφαλος 38/10, 28.
άτεκνος 45/37, 46/9.
άττικίζω 1/11.
αύγοΰστα (~ Latin augusta) 51/49, 50, 51, 65, 67, 68, 103, 176, 180, 180.
αύγουστιατικός (~ Latin augusta) 51/102, 181, 187, 190. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn. p. 42320.
αυθεντία 47/9.
αύθεντώς 44/28. — Cf. Eustathius metropolita, Opuscula, ed. Tafel p. 4051, 54>
αύτεξούσιος 30/77, 34/10, 45/131, 50/186.
αύτοδέσποτος 30/88, 45/131, 50/30.
αυτοκέφαλος 29/62, 66, 87, 44/28.
αυτοκρατορία 51/136.
αύτοκράτωρ 13/161, 21/9, 25/47, 50/198.
αύτόνομος 6/11, 30/88, 50/30.
αύτός 1. έπΐ τό αύτό 27/46, 46/153.
2. cf. Grammatical Notes, αύτουργός 29/211.
αύχένιον 9/85.
άφανισμός 3/4, 49/42.
άφατος 58/458.
άφέλεια 29/59, 85.
άφηνιάζω 29/65.
άφθα 58/494, 496, 501, 502, 508, 511.
άφίημι cf. Grammatical Notes.
άφυπνώ 53/437.
άχραντος 21/125.
βαγεύω (~ Latin vagor ?) 51/61.
βαλλιστάριος (~ Latin ballistarius) 53/152.
βαλλίστρα (~ Latin ballista) 53/151.
βαλτώδης (~ Slavic *bolto) 28/4. — Anna Comnena VIII. 3., ed. Leib. II. p. 135i4.
βάνδον (~ Latin bandum) 50/94, 97, 99, 103, 106, 109.
βαπτίζω 29/69, 72, 74, 76, 83, 84, 30/89, 31/24, 31, 34, 35, 68, 71, 86, 32/28, 149, 36/10, 10, 50/76; cf. Grammatical Notes,
βάπτισμα 30/88.
βάρβαρος 43/18, 49/32, 34, 48; cf. Index of Proper Names, βαρβαρικός 48/5.
βασανίζω 29/244.
βασιλεία 1. (rule, reign, kingdom, empire, throne) P/9, 36, 40, 22/6, 30, 32, 35, 82, 25/25, 28, 26/37, 29/54, 59, 65, 72, 88, 31/58, 32/78, 146, 43/90, 45/40, 55, 50/9, 25, 75, 136, 227, 51/5, 51, 77, 163, 53/119, 122, 233.
2. (= imperial majesty) 8/27, 43/107, 161, 45/68, 75, 102, 107, 109, 124, 132, 138, 142, 152, 161, 167, 172, 46/131, 132, 50/210, 214, 245, 51/183, 53/141.
βασίλειον 13/150, 27/6.
βασίλειος P/48, 13/26, 124, 152, 165, 51/147.
βασιλεύουσα 2/16, 43/21, 52, 63, 70, 81, 150, 47/5.
βασιλεύς Tit./2, 2, 4, P/5, 48, 1/2, 16, 4/3, 7, 9, 5/4, 7, 6/4, 7/13, 8/19, 25, 11/4, 5, 13/32, 45, 49, 51, 57, 61, 68, 77, 89, 101, 107, 109, 109, 114, 121, 126, 130, 146, 147, 149, 162, 21/10, 15, 46, 122, 22/4, 10, 14, 17, 23, 43, 80, 81, 25/12, 14, 33, 27/12, 68, 28/6, 11, 11, 36, 29/3, 7, 12, 54, 62, 70, 74, 83, 87, 89, 95, 97, 104, 106, 106, 108, 116, 170, 171, 174, 176, 180, 186, 188, 189, 198, 207, 212, 238, 242, 252, 30/15, 127, 128, 131, 31/8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, 28, 33, 59, 59, 32/9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 31, 38, 79, 88, 100, 107, 108, 110, 113, 116, 133, 13 β, 140, 141, 143, 143, 147, 147, 33/4, 6, 9, 34/5, 85/4, 5, 7, 10, 36/4, 6, 8, 40/8, 13, 28, 31, 42/26, 28, 29, 40, 44, 47, 43/8, 9, 12, 19, 22, 31, 36, 42, 50, 52, 57, 58, 73, 77, 82, 85, 89, 93, 95, 100, 102, 113, 118, 120, 129, 131, 137, 138, 139, 145, 146, 152, 154, 158, 162, 167, 169, 169, 174, 175, 175, 178, 183, 183, 44/30, 33, 44, 46, 48, 58, 63, 88, 110, 115, 119, 124, 126, 45/4, 6, 22, 24, 26, 36, 41, 44, 56, 67, 79, 81, 101, 114, 46/49, 61, 63, 67, 68, 72, 81, 83, 88, 97, 99, 103, 108, 112, 115, 117, 118, 120, 122, 127, 130, 142, 159, 160, 160, 165, 47/6, 10, 15, 21, 23, 48/8, 49/40, 50, 72, 50/7, 26, 36, 61, 65, 118, 122, 156, 164, 170, 171, 177, 194, 196, 199, 205, 208, 209, 211, 214, 218, 220, 222, 225, 228, 229, 235, 240, 243, 244, 249, 254, 51/6, 6, 8, 14, 21, 22, 29, 33, 34, 37, 44, 52, 63, 68, 69, 77, 78, 80, 86, 94, 98, 100, 104, 125, 141, 149, 155, 157, 162, 165, 169, 174, 176, 177, 180, 184, 192, 53/8, 17, 21, 26, 47, 108, 110, 112, 115, 120, 135, 159, 166, 247, 249; μέγας βασιλεύς 13/83, 141, 168, 22/79.
βασιλεύω Ρ/43, 48, 1/23, 13/33, 81, 188, 21/47, 25/54, 26/6, 71, 27/6, 8, 29/ 277, 82/82, 43/20, 53/2, 124, 236.
βασιλικά (τά) 30/16.
βασιλικοπλώϊμος 51/13.
βασιλικός 1/23, 8/11, 17, 24, 13/41, 165, 21/114, 29/111, 42/31, 43/96, 109, 114, 154, 50/29, 38, 125, 51/1, 6, 12, 46, 48, 53, 85, 88, 91, 105, 125, 188, 190, 52/8, 10, 53/142, 513.
βασιλικός (ό) 7/2, 3, 12, 8/2, 7, 10, 13, 16, 29/74, 43/43, 45/82, 84, 85, 47/18, 23, 49/66, 53/517, 523.
βασιλίς 27/14, 27.
βασίλισσα 27/23.
βδέλυγμα 19/8.
βερζίτικον (~ Bulgarian? Bersilian?) 42/88. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 88 (2nd ed. p. 89).
βήσσαλον (Latin bessalis) 29/246, 42/36, 53/329, 331, 340, 347, 348, [βήσαλον everywhere P].
βίγλα (~ Latin vigilia) 9/49, 50, 29/175, 51/29; cf. δρουγγάριος.
βλαττίον (~ Latin blatta) 6/8.
*βοάνος (~ Turkish ban ? boyan ?) 30/93; βοεάνου (gen.) 31/78. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 178 (2nd ed. p. 204).
*βοεάνος cf. βοάνος.
♦βοέβοδος (~ Slavic vojevoda) 38/5, 5, 7, 12, 12, 16, 29, 34, 43. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p- 91 (2nd ed. p. 93).
βοϊλας (~ Bulgarian boila): βοϊλαδων (pi. gen.) 32/48 [βολιάδων P]· Cf.· Byzantinoturcica p. 91 (2nd ed. p. · 93).
βουνός P/37, 38/12, 13, 14.
βραδύς: βραδέστερον 53/304, βράσμα 9/62.
βρύσις 53/501, 502.
βυρσάριον 53/531.
γειτνιάζω 1/25.
γενεαλογοϋμαι 14/2.
γενική 23/25, 30, 31.
γενικός 14/3.
γέννημα 58/534.
γεφύριον 29/259, 51/9.
γεωγραφία 42/1.
γίνομαι: γενάμενος 32/58, 50/56.
γλώσσα 29/82, 265, 39/8, 10. γνησιότης 53/145.
γοϋνα (~ Slavic guna) 32/56. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn. p. 381u, 18· γράμματα (τά) 4/10, 29/221, 43/15, 21, 31, 50, 80, 46/136.
γραφικός 14/17.
*γυλας (~ Hungarian yila~g’ila) 40/49, 51, 68.—Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 109. (2nd ed, p. 115).
γύναιοv 4/12.
γύρα 9/107,
γυρόθεν 9/75.
δαρμός 51/165.
δάσος 42/84.
δέησις: ό τών δεήσεων 51/31.
δειλανδρώ 29/206.
δεξιοϋμαι 32/88, 43/58, 162.
δέσμιος 29/165, 30/43, 32/48, 104, 43/30.
δεσμώ 32/98, 123.
δέσποινα 21/124, 53/337, 341, 344.
δεσποτεία 45/124, 127,
δεσπότης 26/68, 72, 44/28, 50/87, 92, 101, 131, 133, 136, 160, 168, 226, 227, 231, 232, 232, 51/8, 76, 108, 137, 164, 177, 199, 52/2, 53/79, 113.
δεσποτικός 13/38, 63.
*δευτεροελάτης 51/107, 125.
δευτερώ 53/212.
δέχομαι ( = be instructed, receive a reply) 45/83, 46/160, 50/39, 53/522, 526.
δηλοποιώ 8/25, 26/23, 27/33, 29/94, 43/16, 122, 46/72.
δήμος 13/171, 53/278.
δημόσιον 27/13, 18, 50/32, 53/527.
δημόσιος 22/69, 53/522.
δημοσίως 53/393.
δημοτελής 13/38.
διαβάζω 2/21.
διάβημα Ρ/32.
διαγογγύζω 43/113.
διαδέχομαι ( = supersede) 50/200, 201, 51/165.
διαίρω: διηρμένον 1/11.
διάκονος 13/46, 31/23.
διακράτησις 29/14, 45/165, 174.
διακρατώ 22/48, 32/85, 37/10.
διάλεκτος 25/18, 27/69, 29/80, 218, 264 272, 31/7, 32/12, 33/11, 34/12, 17 36/11, 12, 39/9.
διαμερίζομαι 27/7.
διαμεριμνώ 1/7. — Cf. Genesius, ed. Bonn. p. 64je; Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, Narratio de imagine Edessena, cap. VIII., ed. Migne, P. G. 113. c. 129d = E. Dobschütz, Christusbilder, (Leipzig, 1899), Beilage II. B, p. 49**.
διαπρέπω 50/172.
διασκορπίζω 32/138, 41/23, 49/33.
διάσωσις 32/51. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn. p. 683ls.
διασώστης 7/5, 7.
διαταγή 13/155, 169.
διάταξις 13/60, 111, 141, 158.
διατάσσομαι 43/173.
διατυπώ 48/22.
διαφόρως 43/11, 44/31.
διάχρυσος 50/248, 252.
*διβάρια (τά) 28/42.
διδάσκω cf. Grammatical Notes.
δίδωμι cf. Grammatical Notes.
διεγείρω 21/39, 71, 53/18.
διέγερσις 51/97.
διεκδικώ 27/26, 32/45.
διέπω 16/5, 25/35.
διερμηνεύω 13/200.
διευθύνω 27/26.
διήγημα 26/4.
διηρμένον cf. διαίρω.
δικαίωμα Ρ/44.
διογκω 1/11.
διορίζομαι 13/35, 51, 46/145, 49/54.
διχόνοια 31/78.
διωρία 22/44.
διώροφος 29/254.
δοκιμάζω 53/55, 472.
δομέστικος (~ Latin domesticus) 60/237;
δομέστικος τής ύπουργίας 43/43; δομέστικος τών σχολών 44/33, 45/51, 46/128, 50/151, 51/32, 43.
δοξάζω Ρ/48, 34/9.
δόρκα 26/31, 51/83. — Cf. Hesychiue s. ν. δόρκαι.
δουκατον (~ Latin ducatus) 28/47, 49, 50/88.
δουλεία β/4, 7, 12, 8/20, 13/27, 166, 29/25, 179, 185, 32/86, 34/18, 48/115, 46/69, 81, 48/6, 50/32, 51/61, 93.
δουλεύω 25/53, 32/116, 134, 49/2.
δούλη 53/337.
δουλικός 32/13.
δουλικώς 31/59, 32/147.
δουλοπρεπώς 32/143.
δούλος 21/6, 22/13, 28/36, 32/12, 16, 44/46, 110, 45/141, 151, 157, 50/204.
δουλώ 44/123.
δούλωσις 29/215, 30/132, 32/37, 79, 45/112, 46/132.
δούξ (~ Latin dux) 27/60, 77, 94, 28/45, 46.
δρομικός 29/279.
δρόμος cf. λογοθέτης, χαρτουλάριος.
δρομώνων 51/2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 20, 20, 22, 25, 35, 35, 39, 52, 54, 58, 63, 78, 81, 82, 89, 90, 106, 107, 125, 128, 142, 144, 145, 182, 189, 189.
δρουγγάριος (~ Latin drungarius) 51/ 110; δρουγγάριος τοϋ πλωΐμου 29/97, 99, 46/50, 53, 65, 77, 51/30, 75, 85, 87, 96; δρουγγάριος της βίγλης 51/29. δυσδιέξοδος 9/42, 103.
δυσκολία 45/20.
δύσκολος 50/19.
δυσκρασία 51/147.
δυσπείθεια 50/38.
δυσσεβής 14/2.
δυσωττώ 29/187, 50/239, 249.
δυτικός 13/4, 37/40, 38/29, 63, 40/43, 50/13.
δωροφορώ Ρ/38. έγγίζω 53/320.
έγγονος 22/37, 81, 40/61, 58/162; έγγων 32/32.
έγγραφος 21/13, 22/16, 43/87, 45/93, 149, 53/144.
έγγων cf. Ιγγονος. έγείρω 26/36, 29/252, 53/232, 491.
έγκάρδιος 43/136.
έγκολπίζομαι 53/431 [έγκαλωπήσασθαι Ρ], έγκριτος 13/145.
έγκρυμμα 29/38, 58/31.
έγχόρηγος 29/247.
*έγχυλιάζω 29/250.
έδράζω Ρ/32.
έθνικός 13/96, 31/40, 48/5.
είδησις 44/101, 48/25.
ειδωλολάτρης 50/74.
είδωλον 50/75.
είκονίζω 29/280.
είκονομάχος 13/138.
είλημα 29/254.
είληματικός 29/243, 252, 271, 282, 284.
είμί, εϊμι cf. Grammatical Notes.
είς cf. Grammatical Notes.
εΐσήγησις 13/124.
είσκομιδή 27/19, 21, 22.
είσκομίζω 27/18, 21, 50/52, 58/515, 521.
εισφέρω 53/307.
έκγόνη 13/148. — Cf. Malalas, ed. Bonn. p. 413e = Chronicon Paechale, ed. Bonn. p. 613ie.
έκγονος 21/28, 28, 111, 111.
έκδικώ 13/67, 53/166, 185.
έκεϊθεν (= beyond) 8/34, 28/21, 29/16, 18, 33, 30/21, 24, 62, 81/5, 32/3, 45/165, 50/79.
έκεΐνος (= μακαρίτης) 13/32, 32/93, 38/32, 42/27 , 43/7, 36, 101, 152, 45/14, 46/12, 50/118, 127, 140, 236, 51/89, 106, 150, 168.
έκθαμβος 49/34.
έκκλησία 13/35, 40, 48, 50, 54, 55, 59, 84, 98, 113, 127, 139, 144, 154, 172, 19/6, 7, 22/72, 27/42, 45, 37/65, 45/45, 49, 48/15, 49/1; cf. Index of Proper Names (Νέα ’Εκκλησία), έκκλησιαστικός 13/168. έκκοπή 43/120, 50/69.
έκκόπτω 43/129, 131.
έκ προσώπου cf. πρόσωπον.
έκστρατεία 49/53.
έκτιμώ 50/248, 249.
έκχύνω 53/448.
έλαιοφόρος 50/77.
έλαιών 30/111.
έλάτης 51/11, 48, 54, 58, 63, 81, 91, 102, 145, 182, 189. έλευθερία 29/181, 53/114, 116, 140, 144. έλευθερός 6/11. έλευθερώ 46/49, 48/5.
Ιλευσις 49/21, 51/91.
*έμβλήσκομαι 9/56. — Cf, έκβλήσκεσθαι Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 18410; έμβλησαν Phrantzes, ed. Papado-poulus p. 14126.
έμπορευτικός 31/88.
έμπόριον 27/93, 96, 31/55.
έμπορος 20/9.
έμπρησμός 50/9, 53/387.
έν cf. Grammatical Notes,
έναγώνιος 53/217, 463.
έναλλαγή 29/221.
έναποβλέπω 37/37.
έναπογράφω 13/112, 49/73.
έναποδέχομαι 38/41. — Cf. Ioannee Chrysostomus, Homilia in Genesim XLIV., ed. Migne, P. G. 54. c. 406 [= 447e]·
έναποδιώκω 31/11. — Cf. Μηναία τοϋ όλου ενιαυτού, ΣεπτέμβριοςΙΓ', Θεοτο-κίον, vol I. (έν ’Ρώμη, 1888), ρ. 150.
έναποκλείω 29/244, 53/516, 521.
έναπολαμβάνω 29/14.
έναπομένω 37/51, 51/43.
*έναπονεύω 29/60.
*έναποπλέω 9/57.
*έναποστέλλω 42/28.
έναποφέρομαι 29/7.
*έναποφράσσω 28/26.
*έναφικνοϋμαι 38/34.
ένδότερος 14/9, 22/63.
ένεγκαμένη 53/136. — Cf. Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, Narratio de imagine Edessena, cap. XXIV., ed. Migne, P. G. 113. c. 445d = ed. E. Dobschütz, Christusbilder, (Leipzig, 1899), Beilage II B, p. 75**; Cecaumenus, ed. Vasiljevskij — Jemstedt p. 39; Vita Niconis τοϋ Μετανοείτε, ed. Sp. Lampros, Νέος Έλληνομνήμων, 3 (1906), p. 135; Vita Theodori Studitae, ed. Migne, P. G. 99. c. 320a; Anna Comnena V. 3., ed, Leib II. p. 16S0.
ένζωδος 50/248.
ένθεν (= on this side) 29/19, 37/39, 58, 42/19, 45/130, 165.
ένθεσμος 13/162.
ένιαυσιαΐος 53/274, 315.
ένόρδινος ( ~ Latin ordo) 22/26.
ένορκώ 46/59.
ένστασις 29/154.
*ένταλματικώς 43/45.
ένυπόστατος 13/36.
ενώπιον P/44, 50/36. έξαδέλφη 46/38.
έξάδελφος 32/70, 37/25, 29, 29 40/61 43/29, 145, 165, 180, 181, 182 m 188, 46/86.
έξαποστέλλω 13/34, 29/74, 42/48 52 43/42, 134, 138, 163, 46/120.
έξάρτισις 9/16.
έξαρχος 53/10.
έξασφαλίζομαι 13/84, 45/70.
έξισχύω 11/13.
έξοδιάζω 27/17.
έξολόθρευσις 50/45, 66.
έξολο&ρεύω 41/18, 22, 50/41.
εξορία 50/137, 51/166.
εξόριστος 29/143.
έξουΦενώ 13/173.
εξουσιάζω 13/167, 29/196, 42/42, 51/50, 59, 189.
έξουσιαστής 45/77, 46/17, 18, 19, 26.
έξουσιαστικός 13/153.
έξουσιοκράτωρ 10/4, 11/3, 9. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn. p. 6794.
έξυφαίνω 27/30.
έπαίρω 13/52, 26/58, 46/11, 28, 53/327, 329, 340, 347, 430.
*έπαιχμαλωτίζω 30/122.
επάνω 29/218, 251, 254, 283.
έπαρχία 24/3, 48/4, 14.
έπέλευσις 49/35.
έπί cf. αυτός, πρός.
έπιβάτης 49/27, 53/515.
έπιγαμβρεία 53/240.
έπιγαμβρεύω 53/244, 251, 259, 269.
έπιθεσπίζω 31/51.
έπίκλην 21/11, 29/98, 50/10, 51/70, 109, 135.
έπικούτζουλον 50/241.
έπιληπτικός 14/19.
έπιληψία 14/18.
έπινίκια (τά) 32/114.
έπισκοπεΐον 29/240.
έπισκοπή 1. (= visitation) Ρ/41, 49/45, 49.
2. (= bishopric) 52/9.
έπίσκοπος 19/4, 27/64, 30/89, 31/23, 47/7, 8, 48/13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 52/5.
έπισυνάγω 9/8, 22/37, 49/71.
έπισωρεύω 47/22.
έπιτήρησις 51/19.
*έπιφορτω 21/65.
έπωφελής 48/3.
έρα cf. ίάμ.
έργαλεϊον 53/516.
έρημόκαστρον (~ Latin castrum) 27/62 29/290, 30/111, 35/11, 37/59, έρήμωσις 19/8.
έρμηνεύς 43/170.
έρμηνευτής 43/42, 137.
έστρωμένος cf. στρώννυμι.
έταιρειάρχης 51/31; μέγας έταιρειάρχης 43/44. έταιρίζομαι 25/29.
εύαγγέλιον 26/51.
ευδοκώ 49/25.
εύθεϊα 23/30, 31, 32.
εύκαιρος 22/47.
ευλαβής 21/88, 90, 93, 81/45, 47.
εύλογώ Ρ/8.
εύνοΰχος 43/37.
εύφραίνομαι 53/281, 316, 385, 394, 412, 415, 423.
εύφρασία 53/279, 284, 292, 385, 390, 396, 410, 411.
ευχαριστία 38/41.
εύχαριστώ 53/110, 137.
έφαπλώ 13/42.
έφορεία 51/64, 66.
έχθραίνομαι 50/192.
έχθρωδως 50/181.
έχω cf. Grammatical Notes,
έως cf. Grammatical Notes,
ζάκανον (~ Slavic zakon) 8/17, 38/52. — Cf.Suidas s. v. δατόν; P. Kretsch-mer, Archiv für slavische Philologie, 27 (1905), p. 232; S. B. Psaltes, Grammatik der byzantinischen Chroniken, (Gottingen, 1913), pp. 36—37.
*ζουπανία (~ Slavic zupan) 30/91, 105, 106.
ζουπάνος (~ Slavic Zupan) 29/67, 32/ 120, 34/8. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 121 (2nd ed. p. 131).
ζυγή 50/247, 251.
ζώ cf. Grammatical Notes, ζωοποιός 46/60.
ήνδρειωμένος cf. άνδρειώ.
ήτον cf. ίάμ ερα. — Cf. Grammatical Notes, ήττώ 5/9, 40/10.
θεϊκός 13/60.
θείος 13/133, 19/5, 26/51, 58/160.
θειότης 58/139.
θέλημα 53/345.
θέλησις 21/82, 37/51, 47/15.
θέμα 27/1, 47, 29/224, 293, 30/1, 12, 13, 116, 32/11, 87/15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 32, 35, 35, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 69, 48/12, 49/5, 14, 50/1, 6, 11, 13, 14, 27, 54, 59, 60, 64, 66, 93, 93, 96, 96, 102, 102, 105, 106, 109, 111, 112, 117, 126, 128, 129, 131, 167, 174, 183, 51/132, 193, 197, 52/2, 5, 53/507, 510, 517, 518, 519.

θεματίζω 16/1. — Cf. Cedrenus, ed. Bonn. p. 497lg.
θεμάτιν 16/8.
θεόπτης 17/8.
θεός cf. Index of Proper Names,
θεοστεφής Tit”/4.
θεοτόκος cf. Index of Proper Names,
θεοφιλής 48/13, 19, 53/159.
θεοφόρος 48/10, 16.
θεοφύλακτος 1/21, 8/1, 43/65, 83, 171, 50/53.
θέρμα (τά) 51/8, 18. — Cf. Ph. Kukules, ΈπετηρΙς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, 11 (1935), ρ. 202.
θηλυκόν 28/25.
θλίψις 32/49.
θρησκεία 17/7.
θριαμβεύω 22/8.
θυσιαστήριον 18/40.
ίάμ έρα (~ Latin iam era): ίάμ έρα, οπερ έρμηνεύεται ’άπάρτι ήτον’ 29/273.
Ιδιάζω: έν τοϊς ίδιάζουσιν 53/356.
*ίδιοκάβαλλος (~ Latin caballus) 53/506.
*ΐδιοκρατώ 25/75.
Ιδιόρρυθμος 25/79, 84, 29/66, 50/8.
ίδιος 26/17.
ιδιόχειρον 31/35.
Ιδιόχειρος 51/169.
ίερεύς 29/74, 31/22, 34.
Ιερός 13/41, 113.
ίκανατος 50/122.
Ινα cf. Grammatical Notes
Ινδικτιών (~ Latin indictio) 16/6, 27/54, 29/234, 45/40.
ίππάριον 51/202, 52/1, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
ιπποδρομία 22/8.
ίπποδρόμιον 9/68, 31/28.
ιππόδρομος 51/41, 44.
Ιστορία 13/31, 21/35, 23/6, 25/1, 33/5, 35/5, 47/2, 53/1.
ιστορικός (ό) 21/31, 33.
ίστώ cf. Grammatical Notes,
καβαλλαρικόν (~ Latin caballarius) 81/71, 79, 82, 85.
καβαλλικεύω (~ Latin caballico) 15/10.
καδής (~ Arabic qadl): οί'ους εκείνοι λέγουσι καδής, τουτέστιν πιστούς καί ηγιασμένους 21/89. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 133 (2nd ed. p. 145).
καθαμαξεύω 1/8.
καθεξής 25/77, 32/33.
καθιστώ cf. Grammatical Notes,
καθολικός 13/113.
καθομιλώ 1/12.
καθυπισχνοϋμαι 43/105.
καθυποτάσσω 15/8, 81/60, 32/148, 45/ 126, 127, 50/13, 22.
καθυπουργώ 1/22.
καινοτομώ Ρ/24, 18/175, 48/25, 49/69. κακιγκάκως 13/65, 40/19. — Cf. Ed. Kurtz, ByzantirUsche Zeitschrift, 3 (1894), pp. 152—155 ; 8 (1899), pp. 157—158.
κακοπιστία 25/19.
καλλιγραφία 1/10.
*καλοκαιρίζω 8/35.
καλοκαίριον 29/267.
καλύβιον 28/10.
καμάρα 29/243, 252.
καματερός 42/33.
καμελαύκιον; (~ Latin camellaucium) τά στέμματα, & παρ’ ύμών καμελαύκια όνομάζεται 13/29; τά στέμματα, άπερ ύμεϊς καμελαύκια λέγετε 13/34. — CİF. A. A. Papadopulos,
ΈπετηρΙς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, 5 (1928), pp. 293—299.
καμηλεύω 14/13. — Cf. Georgius Μο-nachus, ed. de Boor p. 69810; Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 33325.
καμίνιον 42/36.
κάμπος ( ~ Latin campus) 29/47.
κανδιδάτος (~ Latin candidatus) 51/151, 156.
κανίσκιον 46/87.
κάνναβος 53/150.
κανονίζω 22/77.
κανών 13/144, 167, 16/1.
καράβιον 29/91, 114, 42/34, 53/514, 520, 520.
κάραβος 53/296, 297, 306, 310, 312.
καρβάνιον (~ Persian kârvân) 45/88, 89.—Cf. Praecepta Nicephori, cod. Monac. gr. 452. fol. 127r.
*καρχάς (~ Hungarian qarxa > karxa) 40/49, 51, 65, 66, 67, 67, 68. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 139 (2nd ed. p. 155).

κασσίδιον (~ Latin cassis) 53/219.
καστέλλιον (~ Latin castellum) 27/96, 30/95, 53/28, 29, 41, 105.
κάστρον (~ Latin castrum) 7/6, 9/6, 8, 21, 11/1, 2, 26/13, 19, 21, 27/38, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 50, 64, 73, 73, 73, 74, 74, 76, 79, 80, 80, 82, 82, 82, 82, 83, 83, 84, 84, 85, 85, 86, 86, 86, 86, 87, 87, 87, 87, 91, 91, 91, 92, 92, 92, 93, 93, 95, 28/9, 29/8, 11, 26, 26, 29, 46, 49, 61, 86, 91, 92, 92, 93, 100, 101, 110, 112, 114, 115, 118, 118, 138, 153, 161, 175, 190, 197, 200, 217, 223, 224, 225, 227, 230, 235, 236, 237, 241, 245, 246, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 266, 266, 268, 272, 274, 274, 275, 287, 293, 30/14, 18, 19, 51, 98, 115, 121, 132, 133, 134, 134, 135, 136, 136, 138, 31/29, 30, 55, 55, 68, 32/76, 149, 33/13, 20, 34/19, 35/10, 12, 36/14, 16, 37/60, 61, 62, 62, 63, 63, 40/11, 42/2, 4, 8, 11, 14, 16, 22, 26, 29, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 54, 56, 72, 87, 93, 98, 110, 44/2, 10, 14, 15, 20, 28, 29, 31, 34, 38, 40, 45, 48, 53, 53, 54, 56, 57, 57, 60, 62, 70, 85, 93, 99, 105, 106, 108, 108, 109, 109, 113, 113, 114, 114, 116, 125, 45/45, 49, 52, 53, 57, 63, 68, 72, 74, 81, 82, 87, 88, 88, 92, 94, 96, 97, 97, 100, 109, 116, 123, 130, 139, 145, 149, 155, 160, 46/2, 32, 33, 34, 42, 46, 56, 61, 71, 73, 76, 97, 99, 102, 104, 105, 108, 113, 116, 123, 127, 134, 140, 146, 150, 157, 49/14, 17, 28, 29, 33, 44, 50/4, 71, 154, 158, 53/1, 493, 512, 527, 529.
*καταγνώμη 13/173.
κατάγομαι 14/4, 26/4, 31/5, 32/3, 34/4, 36/6, 38/2, 45/3, 5, 8, 29.
καταδέχομαι 13/146, 36/9, 46/130.
καταθαρρώ 53/36.
κατακολουθώ 13/155.
κατακυριεύω 25/63.
κατάλευκος 37/61.
καταληΐζομαι 28/7, 43/26. καταντώ 26/13, 46/56.
κατανύσσω 53/334.
καταπολαύω 2/15.
καταρτίζω 9/11.
κατάρτιον 9/85.
κατάρχων 43/10.
κατασκήνωσις 32/10, 20, 37/9, 40/37.
κατάστασις 13/115, 145; έν καταστάσει 58/100.
καταστρατεύω 25/48.
κατατολμώ 13/102,
καταφανίζω 40/20.
κατεπάνω 27/70, 42/31, 45/147, 50/169, 171, 184, 185, 195, 214, 217, 220. — Cf. A. Ν. Jannaris, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 10 (1901), pp. 204—207.
κατευοδώ P/40,
κατηχούμενα (τά) 29/283.
κατοικία 37/67, 42/22, 43/66.
κατονειδίζω 46/155.
κέλευσις 8/24, 29/111, 31/19, 43/62, 45/83, 46/96, 99, 101, 144, 152, 50/29, 51/10, 53, 53/131, 433, 513.
κεντηνάριον (~ Latin centenarium) 51/ 203, 52/15.
κερατάριον 28/26, 30.
κεφάλαιον 13/11, 45/118, 47/13, 48/1. κηρίον 53/531.
κλειδίον 53/438; κλειδίν 46/48.
κλεισούρα 29/29, 41, 44, 50/113, 156, 158, 168.
κλεισουράρχης 50/163; κλεισουριάρχης 50/144, 144.
κλεισουριάρχης cf. κλεισουράρχης.
κληρικός 8/23, 50/236, 245, 51/173.
κλιβάνιον (~ Latin clibanum) 15/12, 51/83.
κλίματα (τά), 1/28, 10/5, 8, 11/8, 10, 12, 37/38, 42/8, 72, 82, 86 [κλήματα everywhere Ρ]. — Cf. S. P. Sestakov, Πημητηηκη xpHCTiaHCKaro XepcoHa III, (Moskva, 1908), pp. 69—71; V. G. Vasiljevskij, WypHajit MHHHCTepCTBa Hapo^naro ripocB-femeHİH, 185 (1876), IiOHb, pp. 419—425 = Tpy/iw II. 1. (Sanktpeterburg), 1909, pp. 195—201; F. We stberg, Bn3aHTİüCKİH BpeMeH-hhktj, 15 (1908), pp. 255—257; E. Honigmann, Die sieben Klimata und die πόλεις έπίσημοι, (Heidelberg, 1929).
κογχυλευτής 52/11.
κοινόβιον 22/74.
κοινωφελής 13/166.
κοιτών 1. ( = resting-place, bed-chamber) 29/242, 53/438-
2. (== treasury) 50/53.
κοιτωνίτης 51/33.
κομμερκιάριος (~ Latin commerciariue) 43/176.
κομμέρκιον (~ Latin commercium) 46/45.
*κονδοϋρα 81/53, 73, 74, 74, 80, 81, 88 [κοντούρα variant in Ρ], κοντάριον 9/35, 46/110.
*κοντοβεύομαι 9/35. κοντός 58/220.
κοντούρα cf. κονδοϋρα.
κόντουρος 87/55. — Cf. Michael Psellus, ed. Sathas, Bibi. gr. medii aevi V, p. 532—536; O. Schissel, Olotta, 22 (1934), pp. 286—289; K. Amantos, Ελληνικά, 8 (1935), pp. 269—270; Ph. Kukules, ’Επιστημονική Έπετηρίς τής Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής τοϋ Πανεπιστημίου ’Αθηνών, 1935—1936, ρ. 119; Η. Grfegoire, Annuaire de ΓΙη-stitut de fhilologie et (Thistoire orientates et slaves, 5 (1937), p. 450.
κοπριά 53/449.
κοπώ 58/68; cf. Grammatical Notes,
κοσμήτης 29/251.
κοσμικός 1/7, 81/46, κόσμιον 58/431.
κουβικουλαρέα (~ Latin cubicularia) 53/321, 419, 429, 430, 439; κουβικουλαρία 53/417.
κουρά 51/165.
κουράν („ Arabic qur'an) 25/80. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 146 (2nd ed. p. 163).
κουροπαλάτης 43/39, 48, 111, 130, 45/2, 35, 70, 79, 99, 106, 119, 136, 156, 165, 172, 46/25, 27, 36, 37, 80, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 129, 147, 148, 154, 164, 165.
*κουροπαλατίκιν 46/88.
κουρσεύω (~ Latin cursor) 1/27.
κουφότης 51/185.
κοχλίας 29/284 [κοχλίας (gen.) Ρ].
κοχλίδιον 42/38.
κράββατος 53/481.
κραταιός 49/45.
κράτος 1. (= majesty) 48/6.
2. (= state) 53/115.
κρατώ (= cover space) 9/87, 42/82. — Cf. F. Dölger, Beitrâge zur Oesch-ichte der byzantinischen Finanzveruxdtung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, (München, 1927), p. 87—88; Seche byzantinische Praktika des 14. Jahrhunderts für das Atkoskloster Iberon, (München, 1949), p. 123.
κροτώ 25/50.
κρυφή: έν κρυφή 53/381.
κτηνοτροφ ώ 14/8.
κτίσις 1. (= building) 42/35, 37, 55.
2. (= creation) 16/7, 21/1, 22/62, 27/54, 45/40. χτίσμα 37/64.
κυκλόθεν 27/77.
κύκλω 29/267, 53/401, 403, 441.
κυλίω 29/124, 58/325, 346.
κυνηγώ 29/152, 82/132.
κυρία 1. (= lordship) Ρ/5.
2. (= lady, mistress) 53/333, 338, 370, 476.
κύριος Ρ/3, 39, 13/43, 21/84, 22/57, 59, 29/197, 45/30, 53/49, 246;κύρις 13/147, 149, 170, 32/81, 100, 45/67, 67, 75, 46/49, 50/28, 61, 205; κυρός 13/148, 192, 32/106, 44/119, 45/55, 101, 50/26, 37, 207, 51/162, 174; cf. Index of Proper Names,
κύριος: κύριον 6νομα 40/51, 67.
κυριότης 45/124, 127.
κύρις, κυρός cf. κύριος, κυρίως 42/42, 44/28.
κωπηλατώ 51/146.
λαλώ 29/147, 209, 46/58, 63, 53/406.
λανθάνω: έν τω λεληθότι 53/429.
λαξευτός 37/65.
λαϋ (~ Dalmatian lau): λέγεται 'Ρωμαϊστί 'ό κρημνός λαϋ’ 29/219. — Cf. P. Skok, Zeitschrift für Ortsnamen-forschung, 4 (1928), p. 214.
λαύρα 22/73.
λεηλασία 49/42, 50/8.
λείψανον 27/81, 29/10.
λεπτομερώς 49/72.
λέσα (~ Slavic lisa): λέσας, ήτοι πλοκούς 51/114, 119. — Cf. Cedrenus, ed. Bonn. II. p. 59120.
λιθάριον 9/47.
λίτρα 28/42, 43/68, 69, 69, 126, 50/242, 243, 247, 248, 249, 251, 253, 254, 256, 53/527.
λογάριον 51/193, 197, 203.
λογοθέτης: λογοθέτης τοϋ δρόμου 32/84, 50/176, 190, 51/30.
λόγω 7/10, 10.
μαγγλάβιον (~ Latin manuclavium) 51/61.
μαγγλαβίτης (~ Latin manuclavium) 46/51, 140, 144, 51/73, 130.

μαγίσδιον Arabic mas fid) 21/114, — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 161 (2Q1 ed. p. 182).
μαγιστρατον (~ Latin magistratus) 46/52, 88, 122.
μαγιστριανός (~ Latin magistrianus) 22/15, 17.
μάγιστρος (~ Latin magister) 32/83, 43/65, 135, 151, 155, 163, 187, 44/10, 36, 45/51, 56, 59, 77, 125, 143, 147, 148, 46/12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 39, 40, 52, 66, 92, 94, 95, 121, 126, 129, 129, 153, 154, 50/151, 166, 51/23, 28, 198.
μαθηματικός (ό) 16/2.
μακάριος 17/1, 21/35, 22/1, 81, 29/73, 32/78, 43/31, 36, 56, 72, 85, 89, 102, 118, 120, 129, 131, 45/101, 162, 46/49, 79, 50/171, 196, 199, 218, 51/14, 37.
μακαρίτης 51/174.
μακρόθεν 28/13.
*μακρόκενσον (~ Latin [pro]cessus) 51/37.
μάμμη 26/69, 72.
μανιάκιον 25/81.
μανίκιον (~ Latin manica) 37/56.
μαρκήσιος (~ Latin marchensis) 26/42.
μάρτυρ 23/34.
μάρτυρος 23/34.
μάρτυς (= martyr) 29/262, 278.
μαστρομίλης (~ Latin magister militum): μαστρομίλης έρμηνεύεται τη 'Ρωμαίων διαλέκτω 'κατεπάνω τοϋ στρατοϋ’ 27/69. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn, p. 69023.
μαϋρος 12/1, 2, 42/77, 51/49, 50, 64, 66.
μεγαλεπήβολος P/ll [μεγαλεπίβολος Ρ].
μεγαλοφυής Ρ/28.
μέγας (= old, elder) 21/32, 26/2, 3, 15, 17, 70, 46/4, 117, 151.
μεγιστάνες (οί) 30/17, 45/8.
μέναυλο(ς) (~ Latin venabulum): τοΰ μεναύλου 26/33. — Cf. Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 2213.
μέρος: έκ τοΰ κατά μέρος 53/300, 381.
μεσιτεύω 50/177, 240.
μέσον 9/27, 30, 34, 26/31, 29/236, 30/139, 42/19, 56, 70, 81, 94, 44/127, 46/131, 51/144.
μεσουρανώ 29/268.
μετά cf. Grammatical Notes, μετάμελος 32/18. μεταστασίματα (τά) 51/14.
*μεταφθείρω 29/220.
μέχρι cf. Grammatical Notes, μήκοθεν 28/50, 30/108, 31/88.
*μητρόθειος 22/79.
μητρόπολις 27/80, 49/57, 59, 65, 69, 52/9.
μητροπολίτης 49/73, 52/4.
μιαιφονία 22/76.
μιλιαρήσιον Latin miliareneis): μιλιαρησίων (pi. gen.) 43/68.
μίλιον (~ Latin milium) 9/53, 26/14, 20, 27/77, 29/30, 265, 42/65, 67, 70, 73, 80, 82, 94, 94, 96, 99, 110, 53/226, 305.
μισθαποδοσία 53/455. μισθαποδότης 29/202.
μισθωτεύομαι 14/11. — Cf. Georgius Monachus, ed. de Boor p. 698e.
μισοποιώ (~ Latin missus) 53/396, 397, 414, 422.
μνημόσυνον 29/144.
μνημόσυνος 53/408.
μοναστήριον 22/72, 26/9, 52/8, 9, 10.
μοναχός 14/22, 29/278, 46/54, 59, 62, 72, 102.
'μονή 22/78, 43/177.
μονοκράτωρ 26/5.
μονόξυλον 9/2, 3, 11, 17, 22, 32, 43, 51, 54, 60, 84, 95, 112.
μυστικός (ό) 51/31.
ναός 13/40, 19/10, 27/84, 29/236, 241, 270, 278, 279, 282, 283, 283, 49/38, 50, 56.
νεόκαστρον (~ Latin castrum) 27/41, 28/48; cf. Index of Proper Names,
νερόν 9/62.
νηπιότης 44/96.
νησίον 9/27, 41, 78, 27/72, 28/49, 50, 29/258, 285, 287, 288, 288, 289, 42/95, 103, 103, 50/85;
νησίν 42/ 103, 106, 106.
νοήμων 1/5.
νόμισμα 22/12, 30/134, 134, 135, 135, 136, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 50/23, 23, 48, 49, 50, 50, 51, 51, 68, 68, 82, 52/13, 14.
νόμψ 4/4.
νουνεχώς Ρ/9.
νωθρότης 29/59, 85.
ξενάλιον 7/9, 43/40, 46. —· Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn. p. 461# etc.

ξενιάζω 31/63, 64. — Cf. Ph. Kukules, Βυζαντινών βίος καί πολιτισμός Β', I. ρ. 12.
οδηγώ Ρ/43.
οϊγω cf. Grammatical Notes,
οΐδα cf. Grammatical Notes,
οίκοδομή 53/447.
οικονομία 47/5.
όλιγοστός 22/37, 53/32.
όλιγωρώ 14/21. — Cf. Georgius Monachus, ed. de Boor p. 699x; Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 334,.
όλοσχερώς 22/36.
όμάς 49/71.
όμόπιστος 13/161.
όμόφρων 50/57.
όμοφωνώ 40/15.
όμοχροώ 53/497.
ομοψυχία 41/14.
δπτασία 14/20.
δρασις 17/20.
όρθόδοξος 13/137, 21/10.
*όρθόπλωρα 9/48.
ορίζω 26/47, 29/141, 42/52, 43/45, 47/11; ώρισμένος 9/48.
ορισμός 31/32.
ορκίζω 29/199.
οροθεσία 53/172, 175, 176, 182, 225, 226, 227.
όσιος 25/1.
όσπίτιον (~ Latin hospitium) 42/24.
όστιάριος (~ Latin ostiarius) 50/223.
ούά (~ Arabic wa) 14/33; τό δέ 'ούά’ αντί τοϋ 'καί’ συνδέσμου τιθέασιν 14/34.
ουσία 51/41, 91. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn. p. 579!, 614j„ 6573, 6647 etc.
όφθαλμοφανώς 49/31, 47.
όφφίκιον (~ Latin officium) 51/46.
όχθη 9/37.
όχλησις 28/38.
όχυροποιώ 50/155.
όψης (~ Latin obses) 7/5, 6, 10, 8/13, 14, 45/142;
ομήρους, ήτοι δψιδας 1/21.
όψις: έπ’ δψεσι 53/51. — Cf. Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 10a8 etc.; Preieigke, JVörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden II. p. 217.
παγιδεύω 29/194.
παγιώ 22/25, 53/286, 289. — Cf. Menander fr. 3., Excerpta de legationibus, ed. de Boor I, p. 1812a; Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 364g.
παιδάριον 4/12.
παιδίον 8/31, 30/27, 32/52, 60, 131, 43/168, 174, 46/38.
παιδοποιώ 38/19.
*πακτιώτης (~ Latin pactum) 9/9, 109. — Cf.A. Eck, Annuaire de l'Instüut de phüologie et d'histoire orientales, 2 (1934), pp. 343—349.
πακτιωτικός (~ Latin pactum) 9/21.
πάκτον (~ Latin pactum) 21/14, 27/18, 28/39, 40, 30/133, 31/65, 32/57, 43/128, 44/33, 39, 44, 59, 63, 87, 89, 112, 50/3, 5, 48, 49, 51, 63, 67, 69, 82, 53/78, 80, 82, 528. — Cf. I. Dujöev, Annales de Vlnetitut Kondakov, 10 (1938), p. 147—150.
πακτώ (~ Latin pactum) 44/123.
παλαιόκαστρον (~ Latin castrum) 37/64.
παλάτιον (- Latin pahtium) 26/36, 59, 29/9, 102, 237, 239, 253, 31/28, 48/2, 51/16, 42, 162.
πάμφαυλος 29/188.
πανάγιος 46/4.
πανοικί 53/399, 415.
πάνσεπτος 49/38.
παντοκράτωρ cf. Index of Proper Names,
πάντοτε 25/83, 45/64.
πάπας 26/12, 27/16, 29/105, 107, 31/33, 39, 49, 51.
παραβασία 53/486.
παράβασις 13/97.
παραβάτης 13/92, 124, 142.
παραβλάπτω 2/4, 12, 13/10.
παραδειγματίζω 13/88.
παράδεισος 14/30, 17/17, 18.
παράδοσις 13/168, 37/66.
παραθαλάσσιον 42/108.
παραθύρων 53/427.
παρακαθίζω 19/3, 26/46, 28/21, 28, 29/93, 112.
παρακλάδιον 9/93.
παράκλησις 45/157, 50/250, 53/270.
παρακοιμώμενος 43/67, 50/222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 230, 239, 250, 51/32, 149, 160.
παρακύπτω 9/69.
παράληψις 30/6.
*παραμόνιμον 29/24. — Cf. παραμονή Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 376te.
παραπύλιον 53/265, 307, 401, 440.
παρά σαλεύω 45/120.
παραστέλλω 22/21.
παραστήκω 53/403.
παρασύρω 53/435.
πάραυτα 32/98, 108, 123.
παράφρων 14/29.
παρεμβολή 21/86.
παροξυνόμενος 23/33.
παρρησιαστικός 13/20.
πάσχα 29/22, 23.
πάτος 29/281, 53/228.
πατριάρχης 13/45, 58, 64, 70, 89, 45/32.
πατριαρχικός 52/8.
πατριαρχώ 13/128.
πατρικία (~ Latin patricia) 43/159.
πατρίκιος (~ Latin patricius) 25/27, 27/9, 9, 10, 15, 17, 27, 32, 59, 60, 29/97, 99, 33/16, 43/28, 35, 44, 133, 152, 164, 165, 166, 179, 188, 45/46, 58, 134, 140, 46/7, 10, 15, 19, 23, 31, 50, 53, 57, 63, 64, 68, 70, 76, 91, 93, 96, 97, 101, 106, 108, 109, 111, 113, 116, 119, 124, 125, 149, 149, 155, 162, 162, 50/162, 176, 190, 191, 194, 204, 224, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 238, 246, 250, 51/23, 28, 75, 85, 87, 96, 110, 123, 149, 160, 198.
πατρικιότης (~ Latin patricius) 43/73.
πατρικόν 46/24.
πατροπαράδοτος 13/157.
πεζικόν 31/72, 80, 82, 85.
πελεκάνος 9/47.
*πέλλα (Latin pala ?) 9/18.
πέπερις (-ıvï) 6/8.
πέραθεν 42/18.
περαίωσις 53/273.
πέραμα 9/66, 68, 28/21, 26, 37/59, 42/93.
περιήγησις Ρ/21, 13/199.
περίπλους 23/28.
περίστασις 13/51, 51/80.
περιτομή 17/11.
περίφημος 38/17.
περίχωρος (ή) 18/4, 30/11, 120, 43/186, 44/107.
πέταλον 53/220.
πετεινός 9/74, 77.
πετζιμέντα (τά) (~ Latin impedimentum) 9/56. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn, p. 474,.
πέχ (~ Turkish bag) 42/27. — Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 214 (2nd ed. p. 250).
πηγνύω cf. Grammatical Notes,
πηδαλιουχώ 1/8, 51/147.
πινακίδιον 25/80.
πιστικός 53/309, 354, 355, 358.
πίστις (= faith) 32/29.
πιστοποιώ 53/257, 359, 365.
πίστωσις 58/492.
πιττάκιον 46/67.
*πλαγίτικος 58/524. πλάνη 14/28.
πλάσσω: ό πλάσας (= Creator) Ρ/32.
πλατεία 53/394, 456.
πληθύνω 29/230.
πλημμυρώ 9/28.
πληροφορία 29/151.
πληροφορώ 13/80, 29/135, 144, 58/360, 369, 371, 372, 375, 378.
πλοκός 51/114, 119, 122.
πλώϊμον 29/98, 100, 46/50, 54, 65, 77, 51/30, 75, 76, 85, 87, 96, 97, 105, 110, 113, 113, 124, 131; cf. δρουγγάριος.
πλώιμος 42/31, 51/82, 84.
πλώιμος (ό) 51/12, 117, 122, 52/11, 53/144.
πλώργ 9/34.
πνεύμα 29/270.
πνεϋσις 51/147.
πόλις 1. ( = Constantinople) 1/22, 2/16, 8/1, 13/81, 21/125, 29/172, 32/101, 139, 48/65, 83, 133, 138, 171, 46/60, 63, 164, 50/119, 51/32, 53/514; cf. βασιλεύουσα.
2. άγια πόλις (= Jerusalem) 21/5, 67, 22/72, 45/32, 46/55.
πολιτεία 1. (= state, polity) P/23, 13/175, 21/53, 123.
2. (= township) 44/48, 54.
*πολύδια: τά πολύδια, δ λέγεται γύρα 9/107. — Cf. Κ. Nevolin, <t>HHHCKİii B-fecTHHKTj, 20 (1847), No. 8., pp. 1-10 ( = CÖOpHHKİJ COMHHeHİÎİ, S. Peterburg, 1870, pp. 521—527); N. Lavrovskij, JKypHam. MhhHC-TepcTBa HapoaHaro npocBteıneııifl, 166 (1873), Mapı-b, pp. 113—121; S. Gedeonov, BapnrH h Pycb II. (S. Peterburg, 1876), pp. 546—547; P. Jurcenko, ΜτεΗΪΗ bt> Ημπ. 06-mecTB’fe HcTopiw h JHpeBHOCTeii pOCCiftCKHX-b npH Mockobckomt. yHHBepcHTerb, 1877, II., pp. 1—14; S. Vvedenskij, H3Bİ3CTİH OömecTBa apxeOJIOrİH, HCTOpİH M 3THOrpa<j)İH npw Ka3aHCK0Mi> YHHBepcHTerb, 22 (1906), pp. 149—163; L. Niederle, Slavia, 7 (1928—29), pp. 979—980;
N. Popov, Byzantinoslavica, 3 (1931), pp. 92—96; D.A.I.  Commentary, pp. 59—60.

πολυέραστος 13/195.
πολυήμερος 49/43.
πολύς: τό πολύ 51/156. έ
πολυώδυνος 9/103.
πόρτα (~ Latin porta) 30/53, 54.
πορφυρογέννητος Tit./4, 26/67, 45/41, 43, 51/137.
ποταμία 46/14.
πραγματεία 2/18, 46/43, 46, 53/525.
πραγματεύομαι 6/3, 14/13, 45/169, 53/ 532.
πραγματευτής 38/63.
πραΐδα (~ Latin praeda) 29/21, 35, 30/30, 45/135, 50/8.
πραιδεύω (~ Latin praedor) 2/3, 5/12, 10/6, 13/10, 29/47, 31/86, 44/32, 45/60, 95, 132, 137, 168, 53/95.
πραιτώριον (~ Latin praetorium) 21/114, 27/58.
πράνδιον (~ Latin brandeum) 6/8. — Cf. Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 232, Eparchicon Biblion IX. 6., ed. Zepos p. 382.
πράσινος 29/280.
πρεσβεία 49/26, 62, 64.
πρεσβύτεροι 31/23, 49/60.
πριγκιπατον (~ Latin principaius) 27/2, 53.
προβάλλομαι (= appoint) 21/42, 29/76, 38/38, 42/43, 51, 54, 44/46, 50/33, 55, 127, 150, 153, 170, 171, 199, 217, 220, 51/104, 106, 127, 132, 133, 140, 172.
προβάλλω (= break out sc. of war) 40/46.
προβασιλεύω 43/121.
πρόβατον 2/6, 53/267.
προβιβάζω 43/73, 152.
προβολή 46/66, 51/176.
πρόγνωσις 46/169.
προγονικός 13/136, 43/158.
προγονός 44/56, 76, 77, 101, 104.
προεδρεύω 48/13.
πρόεδρος 47/13, 48/4, 17, 19.
προέλευσις 13/46, 50/215.
προεξάρχω 39/11.
προθυμοποιώ 51/144.
πρόκενσον (~ Latin processus) 51/18, 40, 45, 142.
προκτίζω 29/274.
προμνημονεύω 13/126.
προνόμιον 48/11.
προπάλαιος 50/74.
προπορεύομαι 51/122.
πρός cf. Grammatical Notes,
προσαναπαύω 9/83.
*προσαποκινώ 29/28.
προσαπολογοϋμαι 46/163.
προσευχή 14/33.
προσηγορία 1. (= denomination, title) 32/11, 87/71,
2. (= greeting) 58/253.
πρόσκρουσις 13/184.
προσκυνητήριον 19/11.
προσκυνητής 50/74.
προσονομάζω 14/34.
προσπαθώ 51/178.
προσρίπτω 30/82.
πρόσταγμα 13/38, 53.
πρόσταξις 29/145, 31/17, 82/134, 38/39, 46/67, 50/38, 81, 51/100.
προστρίβομαι 13/136.
προσυμφωνώ 6/6.
προσφεύγω 28/13, 31/10, 32/9, 31, 33/10, 34/5, 36/7, 41/24, 48/30, 49/38, 50.
πρόσφυγος cf. πρόσφυξ. πρόσφυξ 31/9;
πρόσφυγος 50/138.
πρόσωπον: ό έκ προσώπου 50/174, 178, 180, 196.
προτελευτώ 53/272.
πρόφημι 29/84.
προφήτης 14/3, 24, 16/10, 17/13, 19/9, 45/4, 6, 49/61.
πρωτελάτης 51/74, 77, 90, 106, 110, 151. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed Bonn, p. 577i-3 (πρωτοελάτης).
πρωτεύω 53/3, 25, 130, 168, 186, 235, 275, 470;
πρωτεύων 42/43, 46, 52, 53/136, 357, 363.
πρωτοασηκρήτις (~ Latin a secretis) 46/68.
πρωτοβεστιάριος (~ Latin vestiariue) 51/32.
πρωτοκάραβος 51/2, 80, 81, 105, 127, 139, 146, 150, 155, 161, 167, 171, 188.
πρωτόκλητος 49/30, 37, 57.
πρώτος 53/245.
πρωτοσπαθάριος 29/233, 32/82, 42/51, 43/29, 43, 49, 53, 54, 57, 70, 137, 169, 176, 45/103, 133, 146, 46/51, 139, 143, 50/10, 21, 26, 33, 35, 39, 47, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 120, 173, 195, 205, 206, 216, 240, 242, 245, 254, 255, 51/70, 71, 72, 72, 73, 74, 94, 129, 131, 134, 135, 139, 140, 152, 155, 161, 172, 175, 194, 200, 52/6 i πρωτοσπαθάριος τής φιάλης 51/3, 46, 47, 53, 55, 57, 64, 69, 99, 133, 14ΐ’
153, 171, 190.
πυκτεύω 29/177.
πυλεών 53/264, 398, 400, 427.
πϋρ: πϋρ ύγρόν 13/73, 48/30.
πώρινος 37/66.
ραίκτωρ cf. ρέκτωρ.
*ραπάτιν (~ Arabic rabad) 46/43. — Cf. E. Honigmann, Byzantion, 10 (1935), pp. 148—149.
ρεγεών (~ Latin regio) 53/262, 282. ρέκτωρ (~ Latin rector) 51/174, 184.
[ραίκτωρ everywhere P].
ρηγ&τον (~ Latin regatus) 26/6, 25, 55, 28/18, 41. — Cf. Eustathius, De Thessalonica a Latinis capta, ed. Bonn. p. 417*.
ρήξ (~ Latin rex) 26/1, 2, 3, 7, 7, 16, 45, 57, 59, 63, 66, 69, 28/17, 20, 23, 27, 31, 33, 38, 46, 29/105, 107, 117, 119, 122, 132, 133, 143, 146, 152, 152, 154, 162, 163, 165, 169; μέγας ρήξ 30/74.
ριζιμαΐος 9/27. — Cf. Praktikon a. 1301, ed. P. Dölger, Seeks byzantinische Praktika des 14. Jahrhunderts für das Athoskloster Iberon, (München, 1949), p. 52433; Narratio de Sancta Sophia, ed. N. Bânescu, Έπετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, 3 (1926), p. 150le.
ριπτάριον 28/32. — Cf. Leo, Tactica V. 3,. ed. Migne, P. G. 107. c. 711c etc.
ρόγα (~ Latin erogatio, roga) 43/68, 82, 114, 119, 128.
ρογεύω (~ Latin erogo) 7/17, 48/117, 50/242, 254, 256.
ροδωτός 15/12. — Cf. cod. Vindob. theol. gr. 244. f. 201r, eD.A. Delatte, Miscellanea Giov. Mercati III, (Koma, 1946), p. 496; Liddell-Scott, Greek-English Lexicon s. v.
ρούσιος 51/7, 49, 50, 63, 65.
σάββατον 29/23, 30/48.
σαγήνα (~ Latin sagena) 30/108, 81/52, 72, 73, 80, 81, 87. — Cf. Mauricius, Tactica, ed. SchefFer p. 347j.
σαγίον (~ Latin sagum) 18/41.
σαγίττα (~ Latin sagitta) 9/69, 75.
σαρκικός 17/18.
σεβάσμιος 49/50.
σεμνός 53/265. —· Cf· E. Dawes—N. H. Baynes, Three Byzantine Saints, (Oxford, 1948), pp. 74, 75.
*σέρβυλα: 'σέρβυλα* ή κοινή συνήθεια τά δουλικά φησιν υποδήματα 82/13; cf. τζερβουλιανός.
σηκω 38/52.
σημέντον (~ Latin segmentum) 6/8.
σιγίλλιον (~ Latin sigillum) 49/59, 72.
σιταρχώ 45/69, 91.
σίτησις 53/153.
σκαλώνω (~ Latin scala) 9/31, 48, 95. — Cf. Nicephorus Uranus, Tactica, eD.A. Dain, Naumachica (Paris, 1943), p. 785, etc.
σκάνδαλον 43/23, 123, 130.
σκαρμός (~ Latin scalmus) 9/18. — Cf. Leo, Tactica XIX. 5., eD.A. Dain, Naumachica, (Paris, 1943), p. 19i7.
σκαρφίον 9/77. — Cf. Journal of Hellenic Studies 30 (1910), p. 99.
σκαφίδιον 9/17.
σκέμμα 53/343.
σκληρύνομαι 30/80.
σκορπίζω 30/37.
σκουλκάτωρ (~ Latin sculcator) 53/57.
οκουτάριον (~ Latin scutum) 38/53, 51/83, 118.
σκυλίον 32/56.
σοϋδα (~ Latin suda) 42/80, 83. — Cf. Γ. Dölger, Der Titel des sog. Suidas-lexikons, Sitzungsberichte der Bayer. Akad. d. Wi.se., Philos.-hist. Abt. 1936. H. 6, München 1936; H. Gr6goire, Byzantion, 11 (1936), pp. 777— 778; 12 (1937), pp. 295—300; A. Dain, Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, 5 (1937), pp. 233—241; F. Dölger, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 38 (1938), pp. 36—57.
σπαθάριος 51/152, 156, 158, 52/7.
σπαθαροκανδιδατος (~ Latin candidatus) 42/25, 30, 39, 49, 50/216, 51/152,156, 158, 161, 170, 52/6.
σπαθίον 27/45, 51/118.
σπάνιος 7/9.
σπλαγχνίζομαι 29/97.
σταδιασμός P/21, 13/200.

σταυρός 37/65, 46/60, 50/104; cf. Index of Proper Names,
στεγνός 53/395.
στέμμα 13/26, 28, 34, 44, 59, 63, 126.
στενοχωρώ 26/47.
στενώ 29/264, 265.
στένωσις 53/66.
στερεά 27/90.
στεφανηφορώ 53/3, 24, 130, 167, 186, 234, 275, 470.
στέφω 13/68, 70, 26/12, 23.
στοιχώ 13/157, 20/2, 21/83, 22/15.
στόμιον 9/81, 86, 98, 42/67, 74, 90, 94.
*στρατηγεύω 45/60.
στρατηγίς 25/66, 50/83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 161.
στρατηγός (= military governor) 13/95, 101, 30/125, 128, 130, 131, 32/19, 42/43, 45, 47, 51, 54, 43/65, 153, 45/46, 47, 47, 48, 133, 134, 135, 140, 49/13, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 29, 39, 66, 50/11, 22, 29, 31, 34, 35, 47, 55, 80, 81, 123, 124, 127, 137, 150, 162, 183, 207, 51/132, 194, 53/526, 528;
στρατηγών 32/82, 50/24, 26, 51/201.
στρατηγών cf. στρατηγός, στράτωρ (~ Latin strator) 51/152, 156, 52/7.
στρώννυμι: έστρωμένος 51/203.
συγγενίς 13/165, 43/154, 46/9.
συγγραφή 29/56.
συγκλητικός 51/23.
σύγκλητος 13/57, 25/41;
σύγκλητος βουλή 13/171.
συγκοπή 29/281. — Cf. Scriptores ori-ginum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Preger I. p. 14522; Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Bonn. p. 14323.
συγχαίρομαι 51/24.
συγχώρησις 26/52, 51/173.
συγχωρώ 53/350. συκοφαντικώς 50/189.
συλλαλώ 38/48.
συλλειτουργός 48/3.
συμβίβασις 46/28, 49/11.
σύμβιος 29/201.
συμβίωσις 13/182.
συμπάθεια 50/46.
συμπαθώ 17/22, 50/62; cf. Grammatical Notes,
συμπενθερία 30/74.
συμπενθεριάζω 13/107, 114, 143, 148.
συμπλήρωμα 29/266.
συμπλήρωσις 42/108, 53/157.
συμφιλιοϋμαι 39/7.
σύμφωνον 45/114.
συμψευδομαρτυρώ 14/22. — Cf. Georgius Monachus, ed. de Boor II. p. 699j.
*συναλλάγιον 13/120, 134.
συναναστρέφομαι 14/16. συνάντησις 26/46.
σύνδεσμος 14/35.
συνδιατριβή 13/182.
συνδίδωμι 30/59; cf. Grammatical Notes,
συνδοσία 49/70.
συνδρομή 32/144.
συνειστρέχω 30/56.
συνεπαίρω 32/89, 123; cf. Grammatical Notes.
συνεπαμύνομαι 29/105, 162.
συνέργεια 22/51.
συνετίζω Ρ/13, 32.
συνήθεια 1. (= usage, colloquial) 29/275, 32/13.
2. (= regular grant) 53/153.
συνιστώ 13/120.
σύνοδος 47/6, 12, 14, 48/1.
συνοικέσιον 13/180.
συνομιλία 13/182.
συνορίτης 32/37.
σύνορον 30/9, 114, 32/53, 45/158, 161, 164, 173, 46/15.
συνορώ (-άω) 48/9.
συνορώ (-έω) 31/6, 37/4, 46/118.
συνταξιδεύω 45/23, 147, 50/31 [-ταξειδ-everywhere Ρ]
σύνταξις 53/290, 291.
συντάσσομαι 53/283.
συντεχνία 32/96.
σύντεκνος 26/55, 32/81.
συντιμώ 43/126.
συντομία: έν συντομία 46/70, 53/407 [έν συντόμως Ρ].
σύντομος: έκ συντόμου 53/434 [έκ σύντομον Ρ].
συρράπτομαι 50/188.
σύρω 9/15, 53.
σφάζω 21/76, 76.
σφοντύλιν 53/325, 345.
σφραγίζω 53/148.
σχέσις 38/40.
σ/ολαρίκιον 50/247, 252. — Cf. diploma, ed. Μ. I. Gedeon, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 5 (1896), p. 115e.
σχολή cf. δομέστικος.
σωφρονισμός 13/193.
*ταξατεύω (~ Latin taxatus) 46/127.
ταξατιών (~ Latin taxatio) 22/28.
ταξ&τος (~ Latin taxatus) 45/69.
ταξειδεύω, ταξείδιον cf. ταξιδεύω, ταξίδιον.
ταξεώτης 30/34, 47, 42/23.
ταξίαρχος (ταξιάρχης?) 49/36.
ταξιδεύω 51/43, 195, 200, 202, 53/530 [ταξειδ- everywhere Ρ].
ταξίδιον 30/28, 30, 40/16, 51/92, 52/ 13 [ταξειδ- everywhere Ρ].
τεκνώ 38/18.
τετραπέδικος 29/247. — Cf. Gregorius Nyssenus, Epistola XXV., ed. Migne, P. G. 46. c. 1097C.
*τζερβουλιανός: ή κοινή συνήθεια... φησιν. . . 'τζερβουλιανούς* τούς τά εύτελή καί πενιχρά υποδήματα φοροϋντας 32/14. — Cf. Praecepta Nicephori, ed. Kulakovskij, p. 120 = cod. Monac. gr. 452. fol. 109v (τζερβούλια); S. B. Psaltes, Grammatik der byzantinischen Chroniken, (Gottingen, 1913), p. 74; Ph. Kukules ’Επιστημονική ΈπετηρΙς της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής τοϋ Πανεπιστημίου ’Αθηνών 1935—1936, ρ. 124.
τζυκανιστήριον (~ Persian ĉougân, Türkic čoɣan “polo mallet”, fr. Türkic čöq- “bent, curved, knee-like”) 9/27. — Cf. Ph. Kukules, Έπετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, 13 (1937), ρ. 114; C. Diem, Asiatische Beiterspiele, (Berlin, 19422), pp. Ill, 260; A. Pagliaro, Un gioco persiano alia corte di Bizanzio, Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 5 (1939), pp. 521—524.
τίποτε 53/88, 374.
τοιοϋτος cf. Grammatical Notes,
τόλμημα 13/67.
τόνος 23/33.
τοξεία 28/32.
τοποτηρησία 50/94, 94, 95, 95, 97, 97, 98, 103, 103, 104, 107, 107, 110.
τοποτηρητής 51/105, 126, 130, 133.
τοϋρμα (cake) (~ Latin turma (company, team, group)) 46/118, 50/83, 85, 90, 100, 104, 107, 109, 116, 116, 128, 129, 134, 134, 149, 167.
*τουρμαρχάτον {~ Latin turma) 50/159.
τουρμάρχης (~ Latin turma) 45/81, 83, 84, 46/78, 50/146.
τρακτεύω (~ Latin tracto) 53/214.
τράπεζα 1. άγία τράπεζα 13/39, 49, 84, 131; ιερά τράπεζα 13/42, 113.
2. ό τής τραπέζης 51/51, 66, 68, 103, 175, 179.
τραπέζιον 50/248, 252.
τραπεζοποιός 49/68.
τριάς cf. Index of Proper Names,
τριβοϋνος (~ Latin tribunus) 58/10.
τριετία 32/41.
τριώροφος 29/255.
τροπαιοϋχος 49/36.
τροποϋμαι (= deceive) 14/20. — Cf.
Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 3347 etc.
τροπώ 2/23, 45/26, 49/48, 53/134.
τύπος 13/22, 67, 22/26, 27/19, 29/68, 37/26, 43/125, 50/169, 219, 51/17, 28, 43, 44, 56, 154.
ύλογραφία 29/280. — Cf. Theophanes, ed. de Boor p. 44325.
υπαρξις 49/56.
ύπατος 25/28.
υπεισέρχομαι 37/32, 45/138, 154.
ύπεράγιος 45/7.
υπερασπίζω Ρ/31, 45/108.
ύπερβόρειος 25/16.
ύπεργηρώ 51/138.
*ΰπερεξάρχων 45/78.
ύπερθαυμάζω 51/121.
υπερισχύω 30/67, 86, 37/6, 39/5.
υπερνικώ 5/9.
*υπερούσιος (= wealthy) 14/27.
*ΰπερπολεμω 27/26.
υπήκοος 17/16, 43/5, 12, 53/48, 118.
υπηρεσία 51/39.
υπηρέτης 13/46.
ύπόγεως 58/330.
ύπόθεσις 13/111, 29/129, 32/86, 43/38, 40, 46/67, 100, 159, 161.
ύποκάτωθεν 53/323.
ύποκλίνω 43/8.
ΰπόκρημνος 29/227.
ύποκύπτω 53/115.
ύπομάσθιον 30/81.
υπόσπονδος 26/8, 45/109.
ύπόστασις 43/95, 44/105. — Cf. F. Dölger, Beitröge zur Geschickte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, (München, 1927), p. 153.
ύποταγή 29/215, 30/131, 32/37, 79, 43/87.
υποτάσσω P/17, 1/6, 27/47, 29/72, 140, 161, 30/69, 79, 31/59, 32/27, 40, 110, 116, 142, 147, 43/8, 85, 44/29, 44, 58 , 63, 45/23, 141, 48/7, 49/12, 50/15, 41, 45, 80.
υπότροπος 27/45.
υπουργία 13/27, 51/140; cf. δομέστικος.
ύπόφορος 30/132, 37/43.
ύφαλος 9/69.
ύψω 29/126.
φαλκώνιον (~ Latin falco) 32/55.
φαμιλία (~ Latin famüia) 27/37, 29/4, 40/18, 49/55, 58/16, 20, 24, 41, 59, 75, 85, 99, 101, 105, 281, 436.
φενακίζω: πεφενακισμένος 14/29.
φέρω cf. ένεγκαμένη.
φημί: φησί(ν) 53/37, 66, 165, 291, 303, 384.
φθάζω 9/69, 29/207, 53/7, 388.
φιάλη 51/4, 57, 102, 142, 179; cf. πρωτοσπαθάριος της φιάλης.
*φιβλατοΰρα (~ Latin fibulatorium) 53/142.
φίλος (ό) (= ‘friend’ sc. diplomatic) 8/18, 9/69, 40/64, 45/108, 157.
φιλοτιμία 1/23, 43/109, 162, 53/161.
φιλοτιμοΰμαι 22/16, 51/93.
φιλοφρόνησις 31/66, 43/22.
φιλοφρονοϋμαι 43/53, 76, 133.
φιλόχριστος 26/68, 72, 29/70, 45/36, 41, 43, 48/8, 50/87, 92, 101, 118, 133, 136, 156, 160, 225, 225, 227, 231, 235, 51/7, 76, 108, 137, 164, 192, 196.
φιμοϋμαι Ρ/29.
φλάμμουλον (~ Latin flammula) 29/39, 42, 30/44, 46/109, 114, 49/21, 22, 25, 27 [φλάμου- everywhere Ρ].
φορβάς 53/266.
φορτίον 53/400.
φορτω 20/9.
φοσσατον (~ Latin fossaium) 11/12, 15/9, 9, 80/49, 55, 85, 32/94, 111, 117, 38/25, 43/12, 44/126, 128, 46/134, 138.
φοσσατικώς (~ Latin fossaium) 30/45.
φραγμός (= barrage) 2/19, 9/24, 26, 36, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 45, 47, 47, 53, 55, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65.
φράσις 1/11.
φρυάττομαι 53/191.
φύλακος 23/31.
φύλαξις 40/18, 51/41.
φύλαρχος 14/25.
φωλεύω 9/46.
φωταγωγός 29/257.
χαγάνος (~ Turkish qayan) 13/134, 88/15, 32, 34, 36, 39, 46, 42/27.— Cf. Byzantinoturcica p. 279—280 (2nd ed. pp. 332—334).
χαιρέκακος 50/200.
χαίρω 29/169, 53/291, 391;
χαίρομαι 53/206, 409, 424.
χαλινώ 51/203; cf. Grammatical Notes, χάραγμα 52/14.
χαρέριον (Arabic harir) 6/8. — Cf. Eparchicon Biblion IX. 6., ed. Zepos p. 382.
χαρίζομαι 13/53.
χάρισμα 45/15.
χαρτοποιός 52/11.
χαρτουλάριος (~ Latin chartularius): χαρτουλάριος τοϋ όξέως δρόμου 43/37.
*χειροβολίστρα 53/30, 34, 37, 133. — Cf. De cerimoniis, ed. Bonn. p. 670χ (χειροτοξοβολίστρων).
χειροτονία 47/8.
χειροτονώ 21/51, 47/12, 48/14, 20.
χελάνδιον 8/2, 8, 10, 12, 15, 29/98, 42/31, 31, 33, 51/13, 82, 119.
χλεύη 44/112, 53/485.
χοΰς Ρ/46.
χρεωποιοΰμαι 8/19. — Cf. Gregentius, Homeritarum leges, ed. Migne, P. G. 86,1. c. 612C.
χρήμα 4/6, 13/15, 26/8, 27/20, 29/121, 45/32.
χρηματίζω 13/109, 16/11, 20/3, 21/116, 43/11, 45/11, 13.
χριστιανικός, χριστιανός cf. Index of Proper Names,
χρονικόν 17/1, 21/1.
χρονογράφος 22/1.
χρόνος (= year) 1/19, 16/3, 21/93, 22/61, 25/26, 28/17, 40, 42, 29/32, 30/67, 79, 85, 31/43, 32/33, 68, 72, 74, 105, 128, 38/55, 41/19, 43/89, 50/172, 51/131, 53/162, 179, 285, 470.
χρυσοβούλλιον (~ Latin bulla) 43/76, 96, 99, 148, 45/101, 105, 118, 50/67.
χρυσοβούλλιος (~ Latin bulla) 43/87.
χρυσόβουλλον (~ Latin bulla) 50/141.
χρυσός cf. Grammatical Notes, χύμα 13/14.
χωρίον (= village) 32/122, 45/63, 136, 137, 161, 166, 53/500, 503, 504, 504, 507, 508, 510. — Cf. F. Dölger, Beitrâge zur GeschicMe der byzantinischen Fiiianzverwaltung besonders dee 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, (München, 1927), p. 126.
χωρόπολις 46/43. — Cf. Michael Attaliota, ed. Bonn. p. 148g.
ψευδοκατηγορία 25/42.
ψευδολογία 50/187.
ψευδοπροφήτης 17/3.
ψευδώνυμος 14/23.
ψυχάριον 9/52, 32/55.
ψωμίον 9/75.
ώρισμένος cf. ορίζω,
ώτίον 26/49.

Since D.A.I. contains many linguistic phenomena which diverge from classical usage and illustrate the mediaeval and modern development of the language, we think it necessary to summarize here the most noteworthy demotic characteristics of the language of D.A.I.

Words and names cited without indication of chapter and line occur in the Glossary and Index.

νδ ~ ντ: κονδοϋρα, σφοντύλιν.
Cf. Critical Introduction, pp. 18—19, 36, 37.

αντίπερα, άπάρτι, αύθεντως, θέρμα, κύρις, λάβε 27/24, μήκοθεν, πάραυτα, "Αβαρείς, Άρκάϊκα (gen.) Άρμενιάκοι, Άσπονας (gen.), Δανούβιν (acc.), Μάσαλμα (gen.), Πάρθικος, Πελοποννησαΐοι, 'Ραούσι(ν), Τάβιας (gen.), Τετραγγούριν, Χερσωνίτικος; cf. below, Substantives ending in -τν.
Cf. Critical Introduction, p. 18.

nom. -ας (-ας); acc. -α (-δ): Βόρενα, Λεβεδία, Λιούντικα, Νικήτα, Πέτρωνα, Ποργα;
nom. -δς; plur. gen. -άδων: άμηράδων, βοϊλάδων;
nom. -ης (·ής, -ής); acc. -η (-ή -ή), gen. -η (-ή): άμερμουμνή, Άδρανασή, Άδρανασή, Άλμούτζη, Άποσέλμη, Άρπαδή, Άρπαδή, Βεριγγέρη, Βουσεβούτζη, Γιαζή, Ζουρβανέλη, Καλή, Καρή, Κασή, Κισκάση, Κουρκένη, Κρασημέρη, Κρικορίκη, Μεγέρη, Νέκη, Παζουνή, Πλατυπόδη, Σιγρίτζη, Τεβέλη, Τερπημέρη;
nom. -ός (< -ιος): κυρός;
nom. -ις (< -ιος): κύρις, Δανούβιν (acc.);
nom. -ίν, -ιν (< -ίον, -ιον): άσήμιν, θεμάτιν, κλειδίν, κουροπαλατίκιν, νησίν, ^απάτιν, σφοντύλιν, Άρδανούτζι(ν), Ούλνούτιν, 'Ραούσι(ν), Τετραγγούριν, Τζαρβαγάνιν;
nom. -ί; gen. -ί: Τιβί;
nom. -ιμον; plur. nom. -ίματα: μεταστασίματα;
nom. -ις; gen. -ι: Δάναπρι, Δάναστρι.

nom. -ος, -η, -ον (~ -ος, -ον): έτοιμαι (plur. nom.) 53/433, όμοφύλαις (plur. dat.) 14/24;
nom. -ος (< -ής): άσφαλοι ( ï plur. nom.) 38/10, 28;
nom. -ός (< -οϋς): άπλός 23/33, χρυσός 42/67;
comparative: βραδέστερον 63/304, μειζοτέρω 53/258, μελανώτερα 53/498, πλησιέστερον 37/49, ταχέστερον 53/397, τάχιον 53/402, 416;
congruence: εύεργεσιών καί φιλοτιμιών, τών έπαξίων πάντων 1/23, γυναικών . . .παρόντων 17/20.

Numerals: έ'νας (< είς) ένα βήσσαλον 53/329.

αύτός (= this) passim, e. g.: 2/11, 5/5, 9/63, 13/75, 14/11, 27/73, 28/11, 29/245, 32/81, 40/27, 44/19;
ό αύτός (= the same, the said, the aforementioned) passim, e. g.: 8/9, 9/104, 16/8, 18/4, 31/8, 32/10, 38/19, 41/3, 42/32, 43/27, 44/20, 49/59, 50/39, 51/8, 53/173;
τό (= αύτό): διά τό 45/30, 53/156;
ό τοιοϋτος (= this, the said) passim, e.g.: 1/25,2/22, 4/7, 6/7, 8/14, 9/36, 11/9, 13/6, 118, 15/6, 29/32, 68, 246, 30/18, 132, 31/24, 47, 32/23, 144, 38/14, 34/13, 35/9, 38/51, 42/93, 43/88, 157, 44/38, 45/48, 155, 46/35, 140, 50/78, 195, 51/54, 53/216, 505, 523:
οίοσδήποτε: τό οίονδήποτε 13/82,
τοϋ οίουδήποτε 13/122,
τόν οίονδήποτε 25/38;
οίοσοΰν: ό οΐοσοϋν 13/89, 102;
ό δει να: τόν ό δείνα 42/48, 48;
τίς: τί δουλείαν 46/81.

άνά + gen.: 29/248, 248, 31/73, 74, 74, 41/5, 52/7;
άπό + acc.: 9/5, 6, 96, 106, 26/25, 42, 31/55, 32/74, 42/67, 87, 95, 46/44;
είς + acc. (= in, into, on, at, by, among, about) passim, e.g.: 6/4, 7/6, 9/10, 60, 13/174, 15/9, 16/9, 21/17, 22/63, 25/80, 26/24, 27/39, 28/22, 29/288, 30/16, 103, 31/29, 32/82, 38/5, 35/5, 37/21, 59, 38/30, 39/10, 40/46, 42/86, 44/14, 45/57, 165, 46/55, 50/78, 137, 51/92, 131, 53/214, 264;
έν + dat. (= to, into, at, upon) passim, e.g.: 1/21, 7/2, 8/4, 9/3, 13/98, 21/56, 22/37, 26/9, 27/7, 28/14, 29/118, 157, 30/76, 32/50, 120, 139, 42/34, 43/62, 171, 45/89, 46/60, 79, 50'53, 174, 51/26, 142, 53/52, 266, 311, 387, 414, 525;
[έν + acc. in P: 29/235, 245, 261, 268, 275, 32/92, 51/139; cf. S. G. Kapsomenakis, Voruntersuchungen zu einer Grammatik der Papyri der nachchristlichen Zeit, (München, 1938), pp. 111—112];
έως + acc.: 21/55, 22/48, 42/63;
μετά + acc. (= with): 25/23, 29/4, 30/75, 45/62, 65;
μέχρι + acc.: 37/13, 39/13, 42/53;
πρός έπί: πρός έπί τούτοις 53/149; cf. D. Tabachovitz, Museum Helveticum, 3 (1945), pp. 160—161.

Preρositiona1 adverbs:
with gen.: άναμέσον, άναμεταξύ, άντίπερα, έκεϊθεν, ένθεν, ένώπιον, έπάνω, κύκλω, λόγω, μέσον, μήκοθεν, νόμω, πέραθεν, ύποκάτωθεν.

-άω ~ -έω: άπεμπολοϋσιν 9/16, ϊζουν 30/121;
-ώ ~ -νώ: άντιπερνάν 51/115;
augment: άνάλωσεν 13/99, άντεπαρατάξαντο 53/134, 187, απέλασαν 32/25, έδιοίκει 51/60 [cf. Ρ: Ρ/35, 18/35, 51, 170, 21/20, 64, 25/5, 26/47, 64, 71, 27/13, 17, 31, 65, 29/28, 141, 233, 80/17, 46, 62, 82/42, 33/10, 34/9, 88/10, 89/7, 40/15, 41/22, 48/51, 45/19, 46/145, 47/11, 25, 49/47, 50/155, 162, 51/36];
reduplication: άποσταλμένω 49/20, βαπτισμένος 81/31, 68, 71, 86, 32/149, κατασκευασμένα? 58/34, κοπωμένοι 53/68, μεταμέλημαι 29/167, τελευτηκότος 46/146, χαλινωμένα 51/203 [cf. Ρ: 1/12];
aorist: άλωθείσης 47/3, άναπαήναι 58/68, 414, άνεχθήναι 58/277, άττέλθατε 53/69, έπιπέσαντες 80/28, εϊχαμεν 53/45, ήλθαν 39/5, καθευδήσαι 53/436, συμπαθηθηναι 50/62, συνεπαρεΐν 82/89, ύπέπεσαν 53/201;
είσαγάγω 21/100 [είσαγαγόν Ρ], έκβάλω 21/96 [έκβαλων Ρ]; cf. S. Β. Psaltes, Grammatik der byzantinischen Chroniken, (Gottingen, 1913), p. 244; N. Bânescu, Die Entwicklung des griechischen Futurums von der friihbyzantinischen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart, (Bukarest, 1915), pp. 72—74; L. Radermacher, Koine [Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philos.-hist. Kl. Sitzungsberichte, 224. Bd. 5. Abh.], (Wien, 1947), p. 64;
imperative: μη κοιμάσαι 9/25;
ας: ας άποστείλη 45/81, ας καθέζηται 45/82 [καθέζεται Ρ], ας θεωρη 45/83 [θεωρεί Ρ];
γίνομαι: γενάμενος 82/58, 50/56; διδάσκω -f- dat.: 1/13, 89/8;
δίδωμι: άντέδωκαν 82/55, δέδωκαν 45/92, παρέδωκαν 53/104, συνέδωκαν 30/59; είμί: ήτον 29/273; εΐμι: συνεξιοϋσι 61/44;
έχω: έχης είδέναι Ρ/26, έχεις άποκρούεσθαι 13/76, κλώσαι έχω 27/29, άποστέλλειν έχει 48/94, έχομεν γενέσθαι 45/76, είπεΐν έχουσιν 45/78, έχει εΐσελθεΐν 45/85, καθέζεσθαι έχει 45/86, έχειν έχομεν 46/133, κινησαι έχομεν 46/134; ήττώ 5/9, 40/10;
ΐημι: άφίομεν 58/52, 54, άφίησεν 26/34;
ίστώ (< ίστημι): άποκαθιστώντος 53/313, ΐστώσιν 21/42, καθιστά Ρ/5, παρα-στήκετε 58/403, συνιστάν 18/120;
οΐγω (< οϊγνυμι): άνοιγομένου 9/12;
οίδα: είδούσης 53/314, είδούσγ] 53/419, 429 [οίδα ~ είδον in Ρ: 45/140, 49/28, 34, 53/193; cf. S. G. Kapsomenakis, Voruntersuchungen zu einer Grammatik der Papyri der nachchristlichen Zeit, (München, 1938), p. 91]; cf. Critical Introduction, p. 36;
πηγνύω (< πήγνυμι): πηγνύουσι 9/74.

Use of the oases:
acc. instead of dat.: 26/60, 28/45, 29/140, 30/124, 81/84, 32/17, 43/122, 44/33, 45/ 75, 152, 46/8, 61, 63, 72, 104, 108, 117, 118, 139, 157, 49/13, 50/124,51/120,53/13, 99, 104, 188, 196, 220, 411, 441;
είς -f- acc. instead of dat. passim, e. g.: 9/16, 13/85, 21/103, 26/39, 46/59, 49/56, 58/155, 527.

μηδέν θαυμάσης 1/10, ούδέν ούκ έποίησαν 30/37, ού θέλω δοϋναι τίποτ’ ούν 53/88, μηδέν πτοηθής 53/350, βαρύ ύμΐν τίποτε ούκ έπιζητώ 53/374.

Use of the tenses:
ΐνα + pres, ind.: 13/54, 86, 87, 30/130, 31/41, 42, 48/94, 119, 157, 45/127 [cf P-13/82, 46/159, 46/62, 63/516]; cf. Critical Introduction, p. 35.
Ϊνα + pres, opt.: 13/125, 46/169;
Ϊνα + fut. ind.: 21/84 [cf. P: 29/140, 46/149, 47/20, 60/41, 213].

Genitivus absolutus:
instead of participium coniunctum: 8/7, 27/75, 28/20, 29/44, 89, 111 173 174 195, 196, 42/47, 43/64, 66, 175, 46/51, 56, 74, 77, 78, 93, 49/24, 27, 40, 60/163, 239 61/4o’ 162, 163, 198, 63/12, 71, 158, 346.

Nominativus absolutus:
14/17, 23, 24, 26, 26/8, 26/27, 28, 29/32, 31/15, 82/46, 38/48, 41/21, 46/113, 114, 115, 60/130, 61/52, 187.
337, 338, 339, 340


Exodus 3, 8:27/32—34 13, 19: P/41, 15, 16:18/100 33, 22: P/42—43
Leviticus 20, 24: 27/32—34, 26, 8: P/45
Numeri 13, 28:27/32—34
Deuteronomium 6, 3: 27/32—34, 14, 2: P/35, 28, 7: P/28—29
Reges I, 25, 21 : 29/167—168; II. 11, 3—5 : 45/3—4; IV. 1, 10—12 :13/98—99
Paralipomena I. 21, 3 : P/34; II. 23, 20 : P/5
Esdras 1, 2: P/36
Job 5,19: P/34—35; 9, 2: 29/143—144
Psalmi 5, 9: P/44—45, 9, 7: 29/167—168, 17, 34: P/36—37, 21, 31; 49/62—64, 32, 14: P/38—39, 39, 3: P/32, 44, 5: P/43, 54, 6:18/100 67, 20: P/40 71, 9: P/45-46 71,10: P/38 71, 11: P/38—39 71, 17: P/8, 77, 6—7 : 49/62—64 88,37: P/33 108, 15:29/143—144 118, 5: P/44-45, 118, 133: P/32
Proverbia 1, 5:1/5, 1, 7 :80/2 1,8:1/4; 2, 6: P/4; 6, 3:18/13 8,15: P/48; 10, 1: P/2; 17, 13 : 29/167—168; 17, 21: P/2—3; 23, 5:13/12
Sapientia Salomonis 3, 1: P/34—35; 4, 3: P/32—33; 19, 8: P/42-43
Sirach 1, 25: P/4
Isaias 10, 18: P/28—29; 33, 14: P/31; 49, 23 : P/45—46; 50, 4: P/3-4
Ezechie l40, 2: P/36—37
Daniel 9, 27:19/8—9
Zacharias 9,15: P/31
Evangelium Matthaei 1, 6:46/3—4 2,12:46/11, 5,14: P/37—38, 24,15:19/8—9, 27, 8:63/450—451
Acta Apostolorum 4,13:13/150, 7, 54 : 29/210 28,1—5:86/18—20
Epistola ad Galatas 1,15: P/35
Epistola ad Timotheum Π. 4,1: 29/203
Epistola Ioannis II. 8:29/203
Epistola Iacobi 1, 17: P/4—5
Apocalypsis 20,9:18/98—99
Evangelium Apocryphum
(ed. London, 1820)
p. 17:46/6—8
Aesopus (ed. Halm) fab. 103:41/7—19
Apollodorus (ed. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. Π B.) fr. 324; p. 119:28/2-4
Apollonius Dyscolus (ed. Schneider) p. 47:28/30—36
Aristophanes (ed. Kock, C. A. Fr. I.) fr. 550, 551; p. 531: 23/20—22
Artemidorus (ed. Stiehle, Fhilologus XI.)  fr. 21; p. 203:28/11—17 fr. 22; p. 203 : 23/22—24
Asinius Quadratus (ed. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. II A.) fr. 2; p. 448 : 28/36—38
Athenaeus (Dipnosophistae, ed. Kaibel) I. 44 b; p. 102, 15—19 : 28/40-44
Babrius (ed. Schneidewin) fab. 47:41/7—19
Charax (ed. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. II A.) fr. 3.; p. 483 : 24/9—13 fr. 26, 27; p. 488 : 24/4—8
Cratinus (ed. Kock, C. A. Fr. I.) fr. 101; p. 46:23/39
Dionysius Periegetes (ed. Müller, G. G. Μ. II.) v. 69; p. 108: 28/26—27 v. 282; p. 117 : 28/20
(Pseudo-) Draco (De metrie, ed. Herrmann) p. 99: 21/61—62
Habro (ed. Bemdt, Berl. Phil. Wochenschri XXXV.) p. 1454:23/38
Herodianus (ed. Lentz) I. p. 76, 29—30 : 28/18 I. p. 196, 22—29 : 23/30—36, 38, 39; II. p. 854, 1—9:28/30—36, 38, 39
Herodorua (ed. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. I.) fr. 2 a; p. 215:28/4—11
Herodotus IV. 3, 20: 42/80—83
Homerus Ilias II. 672: 28/35 Dias II. 867 : 28/35 Odyssea VIII. 492 :18/104
Marcianus (Periplus, ed. Müller, G. G. Μ. I.) II. 7; p. 544: 28/28—30
Menander (ed. Kock, C. A. Fr. ΠΙ.) fr. 79; p. 25 : 28/25
Partheniua (ed. Martini, Mythographi Graeei II. I. suppl.) fr. 10; p. 17:23/18
Plutarchus (ed. Bemardakis) De garrulitate c. 18; III. p. 325: 41/7—19 Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 174; II. p. 8—9:41/7—19
Ptolemaeus Geogr. ΠΙ. 6, 5:42/80—83
Simonides (ed. Diehl, A. L. Gr. II.2 5.) fr. 165; p. 143 : 21/61—62
Strabo XIV. 2, 5; p. 652 : 21/61—62
Thucydides I 22, 2 : 46/168—169
Achmes (Oneirocriticon, ed. Drexl) p. 212, 20 : 21/81—82
Basilius(Paraenesis, ed. Migne, P. G. 107.) c. XL D: 29/123—126
Cedrenus (ed. Bonn.) I. 717, 7—17 :16/6—9 I. p. 738, 3—739, 15 :14/2—28, 17/2—10 I. p. 739, 15—17, 22:17/10—11, 14—23 I. p. 744, 9—21:14/31—36 I. p. 746, 8—15 :19/2—11 I. p. 755, 1—5, 8—18 : 20/3—10, 21/51— 62, 64—65 I. p. 764, 18—20 : 20/11—12 I. p. 765, 11—15: 48/28—32; I. p. 765, 19—766, 6: 21/4—16 I. p. 770, 22—24 : 21/46—48 I. p. 771, 4—15, 18—21: 22/9—26 II. p. 129, 21—130, 13 : 42/20—55 II. p. 218, 22—219, 3: 29/56—69'II. p. 219, 4—220, 8 : 29/88—116 II. p. 220, 9—221, 7: 29/70—79, 88—116; II. p. 221, 8—225, 8 : 29/116—216 II. p. 254, 24—256, 1: 40/7—13
Concilia (ed. Mansi = Ralles-Potles) Canon XIV. IV. Cone. (VII. c. 364 = II. p. 251): 13/142—145 Canon XXXIX. VII. Cone. (XI. c. 961 = II. p. 395): 48/3—21 Canon LXXII. VII. Cone. (XI. c. 976 = II. p. 471): 13/142—145
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De cerimoniis (ed. Bonn. = ed. Vogt.) p. 5, 2—4 = I. p. 2, 15—17 :1/8—13 p. 456, 3—4:1/4 p. 456, 4—5:30/2 p. 690, 23 (scholion): 27/69—70
De thematibus (ed. Bonn.) p. 31,1—5 (= ed.Pertusi p. 73,IX. 3—6): 50/120—126 p. 61, 11—62, 18 (= ed. Pertusi p. 97, 18—98, 42): 29/88—116
Eparchicon biblion (ed. Zepos) IX. 6; p. 382: 6/8—9
Excerpta cod. Bruxellensis II 4836 (ed. Davreux, Byzantion X.) p. 99:16/6—9
Excerpta cod. Harl. 5624 (ed. Lampros, Νέος Έλληνομνήμων XV.) p. 358—359:17/2—10 p. 359:14/2—28,17/14—23 p. 362:14/31—36 p. 363:18/1—6
Georgius Monachus (ed. de Boor) p. 697, 13—699, 10:14/2—28 p. 699, 10 (apparatus): 14/28—31 p. 700,5—6:17/10—11 p. 706,1—13:14/31—36 p. 765, 8—14:13/61—66
Georgius Monachus (cont.)
(ed. Bonn. = ed. Istrin)
p. 905, 19—907, 5 = II. p. 56, 8—34. 13/147—149; p. 913, 6—8 = II. p. 60, 6—8:13/147; 149; p. 917, 11—18 = II. p. 62, 15—21.26/66—72; p. 853, 20—855, 7 = Π. p. 27, 20—28 11:40/7—13
Leo Grammaticus (ed. Bonn.) p. 152, 20—153, 3 :16/6—9 p. 153, 4—154, 7 :14/2—28 p. 160, 6—10 : 48/28—32 p. 267, 15—269, 4 : 40/7—13
Leo Sapiens (Tact., ed. Migne, P. G. 107.) XVni. 42; c. 956 C—D : 40/7—13 XVIII. 101, c. 969 A—B : 29/82—84 XVIII. 112—115; c. 972 D—973 B: 15/ 10—14
(De magistratibus, ed. Wuensch)
II. 13; p. 68, 23—24:6/9
Menander (ed. de Boor, Exc. de leg.) fr. 3; p. 177, 12—34: 29/123—126
Nicephorus (ed. de Boor) p. 32, 23—33, 6: 21/4—16 p. 36, 16—17: 22/22—26 p. 39, 12—14: 22/27—29 p. 53, 10—54, 1: 21/116—125
Nicolaus III Grammaticus (Synodalis epistola, ed. Migne, P. G.
119 = Ralles—Potles)
c. 877 D—890 A = V. p. 72:49/4—75
Notitiae epsicopatuum (ed. Parthey) No. 3, 754; p. 130 : 9/72
Procopius (ed. Haury) De bello Vand. I. 2-A; p. 320, 18—322, 4, 311, 5—313, 1, 317, 9—20, 322, 4—326, 4: 25/3—55
Socrates Hist. eccl. VII. 43 :13/98—99
Stephanue Alexandrinus (ed. Ueener) I. p. 3—16, II. p. 15—22:16/1—5
Stephanus Byzantius (ed. Meineke) s. v. Ίβηρίοα: 23/2—44; s. v. 'Ισπανίαι: 24/2—13; s. v. Τάφραι: 42/80—83
(Pseudo-) Symeon (ed. Bonn.) p. 695, 3—697, 2 : 29/116—216
Theodosius Melitenue (ed. Tafel) p. 105, 24—106, 21:14/2—28 p. 110, 14—18 : 48/28—32 p. 186, 30—188, 2: 40/7—13
Theophanes (ed. de Boor) p. 93, 31—95, 25: 25/3—55 p. 273, 14—27 : 29/123—126 p. 309, 15: 40/22—23 p. 333, 1—334, 19:14/2—28,17/2—10 p. 334, 17—27 :14/28—31,17/14—23 p. 336, 4—8, 14—16, 28—29:18/1—6 p. 337, 13—17 :18/1—6 p. 339, 15—24; 19/2—11 p. 343, 17—20, 24—28, 30—31: 20/2—5, 21/51—54 p. 344, 12—15 : 20/5—7 p. 345, 8—11, 16—18:20/3—5, 7—10, 21/54—57, 64—65 p. 346, 20—25:20/12—13, 21/65—69 p. 346, 20—347, 4: 21/16—23, 71—74 p. 347, 26—28 : 21/16—23, 71—74,106— 110; p. 353, 14—16 : 20/11—12 p. 354, 13—17 : 48/28—32 p. 355, 1—25: 20/12—13, 21/4—16 p. 356, 15—17 : 21/35—37 p. 360, 13—17 : 21/35—37 p. 360, 27—361, 3 : 21/38-^6 p. 361, 15—16, 26—28 : 21/46—48, 22/ 6—9; p. 363, 1—20 : 22/9—22 p. 364, 4—7 : 22/22—26 p. 368, 15 : 22/29—31 p. 369, 26: 22/29—31 p. 370, 6—8 : 22/27—29, 35—36 p. 371, 19 : 22/31—32 p. 374, 14—16, 25, 28 : 22/32—35 p. 374, 28—375, 13 : 22/6—9 p. 384, 15—19 : 22/48—49 P- 386, 20—27:21/112—113, 115, 22/ 48—51; p. 395, 13—396, 23 : 21/116—125 p. 396, 23—24 : 22/52—53 p. 398, 5 : 22/52—53 p. 401, 4—8, 13—14 : 22/52—54; p. 402, 19: 22/54—55 p. 403, 12—13, 24—25 : 21/23—30, 22/ 36—39, 53—55 p. 421, 7—10: 22/55—56 p. 424, 12—16: 21/23—30 p. 425, 13—15 : 21/23—30 p. 426,1—7 :21/23—30, 22/36—39 p. 429, 15: 22/56—57 p. 448, 28 : 22/57—59 p. 449, 1, 4—8: 22/57—59 p. 453, 25—30 :18/61—66 p. 461, 7, 10: 22/59—60 p. 465, 27—30:22/59—61 p. 484, 5—19 : 22/62—76
Theophanes continuatus (ed. Bonn.) p. 73, 13—76, 7 : 22/40-^8 p. 74, 21—22 : 27/33—34 p. 122, 19—12*1, 5: 42/20—55 p. 288, 18—289, 2 : 29/56—69 p. 289, 2—290, 23 : 29/88—116 p. 291, 1—292, 13: 29/70—79 p. 292, 14—294, 2:29/88—116 p. 294, 3—297, 23 : 29/116—216 p. 358, 7—359, 16: 40/7—13 p. 414, 1—415, 9:13/147—149 p. 422, 10—13 :13/147—149 p. 431, 11—19 : 26/66—72 p. 474, 1—7: 22/40-48
Theophylactus Simocatta (ed. de Boor) p. 243, 10—244, 17 : 29/123—126
Vita Sophronii (ed. Papadopulos-Kerameus) p. 144:19/8—9
Vita Theophanis (ed. de Boor) p. 30, 11—12: 22/77—78
Zonaras (ed. Bonn. III.) XIV. 19; p. 219, 7—10:20/7—10, 21/ 64—65; XIV. 20; p. 223, 16—224, 4 : 48/28—32; XIV. 20; p. 224, 11—225, 7 : 21/4—16; XV. 1; p. 252, 9—253, 6:21/116—125; XVI. 9; p. 425, 1—429, 6: 29/70—79, 88—216; XVI. 12; p. 442, 17—443, 18: 10/7—1
In Russian
Contents Huns
Contents Tele
Contents Alans
Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
Kipchaks In Europe
Gmyrya L. Caspian Huns = Suvars
  Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Рейтинг@Mail.ru “”ĉθδğŋɣşāáäēəð ï öōüūû Türkic Türkic –