Taken from the ‘Encomium of St Demetrios’ written by the well-known fourteenth-century theologian Nicholas Kabasilas Chamaetos.

Παράθεση:

The city [Thessalonike] has many adronments bu the most important one and that which affords in the greatest distinction is its rhetorical force, a characteristic that is admired [there] more than in other cities. This city has such a special relationship with Hellenic speech and is so rich in this grace that on the one hand it is sufficient to secure its own happiness but in addition this city can also impart [this grace] to other cities, transplanting words like colonies founded by the rulers of ancient Athens. Consequently there is none, i think, of all the Hellenes in our empire who does not call this city his ancestor and the mother of his Muses, since by claiming such descent he appears respectable”

Eusthathios was was a native of Constantinople who became archbishop of Thessaloniki. When a Norman army from Sicily in 1185 besieged, captured and pillaged the city of Thessaloniki, Eustathios wasnt only an eye-witness but he played a courageous and noble part in sustaining the morale of the citizens and negotiating with count Alduin, the norman commander. Eustathios is probably the only classical scholar to have attained sainthood.

The account which he wrote of the Norman capture of Thessalonike survives in a single manuscript which had been translated twice into german and twice into italian. The english translation has been perfomed by Melville Jones.

According to Eusthathios account, one of the most remarkable passages describes how the latins “went round cutting off the long hair and beards of the Greeks, often with their swords, while some Greeks aped their shaven and crew-cut overlords by cutting their own hair and shaving their beards.”

At the same time Eustathios mentions that some latins entered into friendly discussion of religion with the Greek clergy, and how the well-intentioned but vacillating count Alduin gave Eustathios some books.

As anyone can notice from the numerous mentions of Eustathios’ account, Thessaloniki was inhabited by Greeks.

From greek newspaper ‘Kathimerini’. The mural dates from 1568 and anyone can see it in Moni Docheiareiou in Mt. Athos. The monastery of Docheiareiou appears to date back to the early years of the eleventh century.

From one side it says ‘Alexander King of the Hellenes’ and from the other ‘Augustus King of the Romans’

Tags: 1568, alexander, Greece, hellenes, mural

1. Comparative history of Slavic Literatures by Dmitrij Cizevskij 

 

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

2. A History of the Greek Language: From Its Origins to the Present By Francisco Rodríguez Adrados page 265

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

 3. East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 By Jean W. Sedlar, page 144

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

4. Central eastern Europe Crucible of World Wars edited by Joseph Slabey Rouček  page 62

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

5. Modern Linguistics By Simeon Potter, page 57

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

6. Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise By Viktor Meier, page 182

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

7. Languages and Their Status By Timothy Shopen, Center for Applied Linguistics

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

8. Russian by Neville Forbes, page 10

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

9. The National question in Yugoslavian: Origins, history, politics by Ivo Branac.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

10. Παράθεση:

During the ninth century, two Greek brothers from Thessaloniki (Salonika), Cyril and Methodius, were instrumental in the conversion of the Slavs

Encyclopedia of World Cultures - Page 239
by David H. Levinson - Social Science - 1991

11. Παράθεση:

An appeal to the Roman Emperor Michael at Byzantium in 863 brought two Greek brothers, Constantine and Methodius from Salonika.

A Handbook of Slavic Studies - Page 98 by Leonid Ivan Strakhovsky - 1949 -

12. Παράθεση:

Two Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, were sent. They prepared an alphabet for the hitherto unwritten Slav language; the script was called Glagolitic

The New Oxford Companion to Music - Page 1076 by Denis Arnold -1983

13. Παράθεση:

the ninth century of two Greek brothers from Salonika: Constantine — who took the name of Cyril shortly before his death at Rome in 869 — and Methodius

How the Bible Came to Us: Its Texts and Versions - Page 68 by Hugh Gerard Gibson Herklots - 1959

14. Παράθεση:

It was the result of the great missionary work in the Ninth Century of two Greek brothers from Salonika, Constantine —who took the name of Cyril shortly

Back to the Bible: A Literary Pilgrimage - Page 70 by Hugh Gerard Gibson Herklots - 1954

15. Παράθεση:

Turkey (RNS)—The relics of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Greek brothers venerated as “apostles of the southern Slavs” in the sixth century.

East Europe - Page 17 by Free Europe Committee, Free Europe - 1957

16. Παράθεση:

of the most famous Orthodox missions was that of the two Greek brothers from Salonica: St. Methodius and St. Cyril, who were monks of high education

The Two Faces of Greece: A Civilisation of 7.000 Years - Page 91 by Irene Economides - 1989

17. Παράθεση:

St. Cyril and his brother, St. Methodius, are called the “Apostles to the Slavs.” They were Greek missionaries among the Moravians and other Slavic tribes

Merit Students Encyclopedia by William Darrach Halsey - 1980

18. Παράθεση:

The brothers Cyril and Methodius … It was thus two Greeks, born in Salonica, who evangelized and ‘alphabetized’ the mass of the Slavs (apart from the Poles, the Czechs,

The European Inheritance - Page 304 by Ernest Barker - 1954

19.

Παράθεση:

Two other Greeks from Salonika, Cyril and Methodius

Reflections on Our Age - Page 169 by Unesco General Conference - 1949

20. Παράθεση:

The Russian alphabet, which is similar to the Greek, was invented by two Greek monks from Salonika, St. Cyril and St. Methodius;

Russian Authors - Page 28 by Elsa Z. Posell - 1970

21. Παράθεση:

by the 9th century Greek missionaries St. Cyril and St. Methodius and their disciples

The Encyclopedia Americana - Page 25 by Grolier Incorporated -1998

22. Παράθεση:

which the Greek brothers Cyril and Methodius employed

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East - Page 151 by Eric M. Meyers - 1997

23. Παράθεση:

Invited in 863 by its prince, Rostislav, Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius, Greek monks from Salonika, came to preach the gospel there

by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Incorporated, Warren E. Preece - Reference - 1972 Page 846

24. Παράθεση:

As a matter of fact, Constantine and Methodius were not Slavs, but two sons of a Greek official..

by Eastern Canada Centre of Slavists and East European Specialists, Association canadienne des slavistes - 1976 - page 73

25. Παράθεση:

Two Greek priests from Salonika, the brothers Cyril and Methodius, who knew Slavonic, were called from Byzantium.

Journal of Central European Affairs - Page 308, 1941

26. Παράθεση:

Moravia received Christian instruction from Cyril and Methodius, Greeks from Salonika, who for their translations created

The Encyclopedia Americana, published 1970

27. Quote

 Tito, the rise and the fall of Yugoslavia by Richard West

Tags: byzantine, cyril, cyrillic, cyrillos, greek, greeks, latin, methodios, methodius, monks, moravia, pope, salonica, slavs, thessalonica, yugoslavia

Theophylactus of Ohrid writes that the inhabitants of Ohrid are Bulgarians and speak Bulgarian
 

11th-12th c.

 

(a) from a letter to Anem: 
When you say that you have become a complete barbarian among the Bulgarians, you, my dearest, are saying what I dream /in my sleep/. Because just think how much I have drunk from the cup of vulgarity, being so far away from the countries of wisdom, and how much I have drunk from the lack of culture … Since we have been living for a long time in the land of the Bulgarians, vulgarity has become our close companion and fellow-inhabitant. 
 

 

 

 
 

Gr. CXXVI, Theophylacti epistola XXI, ed. Meursio; cf. Letters of Theophylactus of Ohrid, translated by metropolitan Symeon from Greek, Сб. БАН, кн. XXVII, Hist.-Philol. and Philos.-Polit. Branch, 15,

Sofia, 1931, pp.71-72; the original is in Greek
 

 

(b)  from a letter to the Empress Maria:
Since I went from Ohrid to the Queen of Towns, my holy Lady, I have encountered many sorrows, because of my numerous sins … And so I come among the Bulgarians, I, a true citizen of

Constantinople, a Bulgarian by some miracle. 
 

 
 

 
 

Ibidem, ep. I, ed. Laraio; cf. Letters, op. cit., pp.180 181; the original is in Greek
 

 

(c)  from a letter to the Bishop of Vidin:
And so, do not despair, do not lose heart, as though you were the only one to suffer … So you have Kumans invading your land? What are they, however, in comparison with the people of Ohrid, who come from the city to at­tack us? So you have cunning citizens? They are children in comparison with our Bulgarian citizens …
 

 

Ibidem, ep. XV, ed. Finetti, cf. Letters, op. cit., p. 18; the original is in Greek
 

 

(d) from a letter to the royal son-in-law, Bruiennius:
Because the clerics have paid twice as much as the laymen, both for the mills and for the strugi, as they are called in Bulgarian, which a Hellene would call brooklets, and which facilitate fishing, and for them too the clerics have been subjected to much greater payments than the others …
Allegedly so as not to put my high rank to shame, he collected from me personally so much, that, for mills which have long since been destroyed, he asked the full price, while for those in good condition - twice as much as from the Bulgarians. 
 

 
 

 
 
 

Ibidem, ep. XLI, ed. Finetti; cf. Letters, op. cit., p. 128; the original is in Greek 
 

 

 The Byzantine historian Scylitzes describes how Samuil, son of a Bulgarian noble, became ruler of all Bulgaria
                                                                       11th-12th c.

Immediately after the death of Emperor Ioannes the Bulgarians rose in revolt and four brothers were chosen to govern them: David, Moses, Aaron and Samuil, sons of one of the all-powerful comites of the Bulgarians and for this reason named Kometopouli…Of the four brothers, David was immediately killed by some Wallachian vagabonds between Castoria, Prespa and the so-called “Fair Oak Wood.” While besieging Seres, Moses was hit by a stone cast from the wall and died. Aaron was killed by his brother Samuil on July 14 in the place called Razmetanitsa, together with all his kin, because he was a sup­porter, so they say, of the Byzantines, or because he was trying to seize power for himself. Only his son Vladislav Ivan was saved by Samuil’s son Radomir Roman. Thus Samuil became the absolute ruler of all Bulgaria …

 
Georgii Cedreni compendium, op. cit., pp. 434-435; cf. ГИБИ, VI. p. 275; the original is in Greek
 

The Byzantine historian Scylitzes describes the wars between Bulgaria under Tsar Samuil and Byzantium

11th-12th c.

Samuil set out against Thessalonica and deployed the main part of his army in ambushes and traps, and he sent only a small part on an incursion to Thessalonica itself … Samuil camped on the opposite bank. Because of the torrential rains, the river rose and caused floods, so that no battle was expected at that moment. The magister, however, by inspecting the upper and lower reaches of the river, found a place through which he thought he could cross. In the night, having roused his troops, he crossed the river and attacked Samuil’s soldiers in their carefree sleep. A very large number of them were massacred, without anybody thinking of defense. Samuil himself and his son Roman were wounded, receiving grave wounds, and would have been taken prisoners, had they not mixed with the dead, lying as though dead. When night fell, they secretly fled towards the Aetolian Mountains and from there, across the peaks of these mountains, crossed the Pindus and took refuge in Bulgaria. And the magister, after freeing the Byzantines who had been taken prisoners, and strip­ping the Bulgarians who had fallen, looted the enemy camp and with very rich booty returned to Thessalonica with his troops…In 6508, indiction 13, /= 999/ the Emperor sent a strong army against the Bulgarian fortresses beyond the Haemus Mountains … The Byzantine troops captured Great and Little Preslav, as well as Pliska, and returned unscathed and victorious.The following year, the Emperor again set out against the Bulgarians via Thessalonica. He was joined by the governor of Berrhoea, Dobromir, who sur­rendered the town to the Emperor and was honoured with the dignity of anthypatus. The defender of Servia Nikola, who, because of his small stature was called by the diminutive name of Nikolitsa, put up valiant resistance and cheerfully endured the siege imposed on him. The Emperor, however, set himself the task of capturing the fortress and succeeded, taking Nikolitsa himself prisoner. He deported the Bulgarians from there and left a garrison of Byzantines. After all this he returned to the capital, taking Nikolitsa with him, whom he honoured with the title of patrician. But the inconstant Nikolitsa es­caped from there and returning secretly to Samuil, together with him began to besiege Servia. The Emperor, however, moved swiftly and lifted the siege from the town and Nikolitsa fled with Samuil… The Emperor went to Thessaly and rebuilt the fortresses destroyed by Samuil, while those which were in the hands of Bulgarians he captured by siege and resettled the Bulgarians in the so-called Voleron. After posting strong garrisons in all fortresses, he returned to the place known as Voden. Voden is a small fortress situated on steep cliffs where the waters of the Ostrovo Lake fall after running unseen below the ground and coming to the surface again at this place. As the inhabitants of this town did not surrender of their own free will, the Emperor took it by siege. He deported them also to Voleron, then installed a strong guard in the town and returned to Thessalonica.

…………….

In the following year, indiction 15 /= 1003/, the Emperor set out on a campaign against Vidin and captured it by force after full eight months of siege. While he was busy with the siege, Samuil with a swift movement suddenly fell on Adrianople on the very feast of the Assumption of the Virgin. With a sudden assault he also seized the fair annually held there and attended by a great crowd and, after collecting much booty, he returned to his country. And the Emperor, after fortifying Vidin very well returned to the capital without losses, having devastated and destroyed all the Bulgarian fortresses on his way. When he ap­proached the town of Skopje, he found Samuil calmly camping across the Axios river, which is now called Vardar. Relying on the river being in flood and thus impossible to ford, he had set up his camp in a negligent manner. But a soldier found a ford and led the Emperor through it. Shocked by his sudden appearance, Samuil hastily fled in confusion, and his tent and the entire camp were captured. And the town of Skopje was surrendered to the Emperor by Roman, the son of Peter, Tsar of the Bulgarians, and brother of Boris, called also Simeon after his grandfather and placed there as governor by Samuil. The Emperor received him and after honouring him for his decision with the title of patrician and prepositor, sent him as a strategus to Abydos.

Continuing from there, the Emperor set out for Pernik, whose defender was Krakra, a man excellent in military matters. He spent a considerable time there and lost no small number of soldiers in the siege. Finding the fortress im­pregnable and Krakra impervious to flattery or other promises and proposals, he returned to Philippopolis, whence he returned to Constantinople.

Georgii Cedreni compendium, op. cit, pp. 449-456; cf. ГИБИ, VI, pp. 278, 280, 283 285; the original is in Greek
 
 

The Byzantine historian Scylitzes describes the blinding of 15,000 captured Bulgarian soldiers by Basil II, the death of Samuil and the conquest of all Bulgaria

11th-12th c.

Every year the Emperor continued to invade Bulgaria and devastated and laid waste everything on his way. Samuil could not put up opposition in the open field, nor could he come out in an open battle against the Emperor, and he suffered defeats on all sides and began to lose his strength. For this reason he decided to dig trenches and block the Emperor’s road to Bulgaria … The Emperor was already losing hope of getting through when Nicephorus Xiphias, appointed it that time by him as strategus of Philippopolis, persuaded him to remain there and to keep up his constant assaults on the barrier, saying that he would go to see whether he could not do something advantageous and salutary. And so, having taken his soldiers …, all of a sudden, with cries and noise, he appeared on high ground in the rear of the Bulgarians. Terrified by his sudden appearance, they fled. The Emperor destroyed the abandoned palisade and began to pursue them. Many were slain and many more were captured. Samuil was barely saved from death by his son, who valiantly warded off the attackers. He put him on a horse and led him to the fortress called Prilep. And the Emperor blinded the captive Bulgarians, about 15,000 so they say, ordering each group of one hundred to be led by a soldier with one eye, and thus sent them to Samuil. When the latter saw them coming in rows of equal numbers he could not stand this suffering courageously and in silence, but became unwell, fainted and fell to the ground. Those present tried to restore his breathing with water and perfumes and succeeded in bringing him round a little. When he had recovered consciousness, he asked for cold water, but after taking a drink, he suffered a heart attack, and two days later he died. His son Gavril, called also Roman, who surpassed his father in might and force but was far inferior to him in wisdom and reason, took power over the Bulgarians. He was Samuil’s son by a slave girl from Larissa. He began to rule on September 15, indiction 13 /1014/. A year had not passed before he was murdered while out hunting by Aaron’s son, Ivan Vladislav, whom he had rescued from death when he was about to perish. Before these occurrences, at the time when Theophylactus Botaniates was sent as governor of Thessalonica, following Arianites, David Nestoritsa, a Bulgarian noble, was sent by Samuil with a large army against Thessalonica. Theophylactus met them with his son Michael, engaged in battle against them and utterly defeated them. He took much booty and many prisoners and brought them to the Emperor, who was besieging the barrier at the Gorge of Kleidion. Passing through the barrier, as we have already said, the Emperor advanced to Stroumitsa and captured the fortress, called Matzukion, situated near Stroumitsa. He also sent the Thessalonica duke Theophylactus Botaniates with his troops, ordering him to cross the hills at Stroumitsa, so as to burn the palisades on the roads to them and open a convenient road for him to Thessalonica. He set out, and the Bulgarians guarding these places let him pass everywhere unimpeded along the road. But when he was preparing to return to the Emperor after having fulfilled his orders, he fell into ambushes set up for this purpose and waiting in a long and narrow pass. When he entered it, sur­rounded from all sides and showered from above with stones and arrows, he fell dead without anyone being able to help him and without being able to make use of his hands, owing to the narrow and impassable place. A large part of the army perished with him. When this was reported to the Emperor, he was filled with great sorrow. It was because of this that he did not dare advance but turned back and arrived in Zagoria where the extremely strong fortress of Melnik stood, built on a rock and encircled on all sides by steep and very deep precipices. The Bulgarians from the area had gathered there and were not at all interested in the Byzantines. The Emperor sent to them one of his menservants, a eunuch named Sergius, an intelligent and eloquent man, to find out what their mood was. Once there, he succeeded by dint of much persuasion in con­vincing these people to lay down their arms and to surrender, together with the fortress, to the Emperor. The Emperor received them and conferred honours upon them, and leaving a sufficient garrison in the fortress, he returned to Mosynopolis. While he was there, they informed him also of Samuil’s death on October 24. The Emperor immediately left Mosynopolis and went down towards Thessalonica, and from there he went to Pelagonia, without devastating the lands on his way, and merely burning Gavril’s palaces in Buteli. Having sent troops, he captured the fortresses of Prilep and Stip. From there he reached the river called Cherna, which he crossed on rafts and inflated skins and returned to Voden , whence on January 9 /1015/ he went to Thessalonica. 
Georgii Cedreni compendium, op. cit, pp. 457 464, 464-476; cf. ГИБИ, VI, pp. 283-296; the original is in Greek
 

The English translation of the Latin text says “Macedonians. This is a strong, used to hard labour people. … Their leaders speak Greek and Bulgarian, and their main city is Phillipopolis. … They are faithful to those to whom they serve, and as I said, they are hired as seimeni. THe princes of Wallachia and Moldova used them a lot. They live in fearful (”strahoviti”) forests and mountains, they are natural enemies of the Turks who deprive them of everything they have and leave them [as little] as to be able to survive. Recently, in order to revenge, they are gathering in the forests and got used to attack and plunder whole caravans, destroying [even] pashas.”

Life in the small Venetian-held enclave of the Thermaïc Gulf had become far from pleasant either for the Venetians or for the Greeks. The situation in Thessalonica had reached such a pass that by March 1430 the Venetian Senate, in a bid to ensure an undisturbed occupation of the city, decided to agree to the establishment of a cadi within Thessalonica and the surrender of the castle of Chortiátis (see fig. 23) to the Turks . This, incidentally, lends support to our belief that Venetian control over the region extended eastwards as far as the summit of Chortiátis, northwards as far as the lake of Áyios Vasíleios, and south-eastwards as far as the peninsula of Cassandra.

However, Murad at that point decided to do away with the Venetian presence there once and for all, and marched on Thessalonica. The news burst like a thunderbolt upon the inhabitants; but a few more days were required for the arrival of confirmation, before the Venetians decided on defensive measures. On 17 March, the vice-admiral, Antonio Diedo, sailed into the harbour with three galleys to put some heart into the terror-stricken populace. Α count of the men on the walls revealed the alarming weakness of the defence: there was only one man to every two or three crenelles! Moreover the defenders possessed neither adequate armament nor the indispensable resources of morale.

At daybreak on Sunday 26 March, Murad’s army appeared on the horizon, though not drawn up for battle and with colours unfurled. For many Christians who accompanied the Sultan had told him that his mere appearence in front of the city would suffice for him to take it without a drop of blood being spilt. There were hopes, it would seem, of treachery and a peaceful surrender; and that Murad entertained such expectations is clearly shown by the fact that he immediately ordered a number of notable Christians from among his retinue to approach the wall and call upon the inhabitants to rise against the Venetians and surrecnder the city. But his emissaries were not given a chance to complete their speech before a shower of arrows forced them to withdraw.

Murad then disposed his great army around the walls and set in motion preliminaries for the great assault. Each day, long lines of camels and ox-carts could be seen bringing up siege-engines and other war-material. The preparations lasted three days; yet before giving the signal for a general assault, Murad made one more effort to secure the surrender of the city, but the Venetians would not hear of any such proposition. So as to feel quite sure of the attitude and behaviour of the inhabitants, the Venetians scattered amongst them the Getarii — a corps of adventurers of diverse provenance whom they employed as mercenaries. The Getarii had orders to dispatch on the spot anyone who showed the slightestsign of a disposition to surrender . Then it was a terrible piece of news filled the Venetians with alarm. Α Venetian corporal, who had managed to slip into the city — probably from the western land-walls over towards the harbour (see figs. 24 and 25) — made his way to the governors with the report that the Turks were waiting for six pirate vessels from the Vardar, which they intended to launch as fire-boats against the three Venetian galleys, knowing well that all the crews of the galleys were fighting on the battlements. Straightway the governors sent word to the vice-admiral, Antonio Diedo, to withdraw the galey-crews from the city, but they avoided communicating this disturbing news to the inhabitants. This move was to have disastrous results; for the inhabitants learnt of it a few hours later — in the unnerving darkness of the night — from the Turkish camp .

At midnight a number of Christians from Murad’s camp approached the walls and once more urged the garrisons to surrender, informing them that at dawn the Turks would launch a general assault not only against the land-walls but against the sea-walls at the same time. The news spread like lightning throughout the city and put the inhabitants in a turmoil. That night no one slept. Those who did not remain on the walls kept vigil in the churches, where full of humility and contrition they prayed to God and to St. Demetrius.

The fear and confusion of the citizens was further increased by their misunderstanding of the unavoidable transfer of Venetian troops from the land-walls to the sea-walls in a bid to meet the danger from that quarter. The Thessalonians concluded that the Venetians were getting ready to leave, with the result that a number of irresolute guards lost heart and left their posts to retire to their homes.

The sun had hardly risen when the Turks, with a deafening din and cries of ‘Ullah Allah!’, launched an attack at all points along the land-walls. “Their war-cry alone would have been enough to shake from its foundations an even greater and more populous city thanThessalonica”, so ran the Venetian war-report. Some carried planks, some ladders, and others pushed forward siege-engines; while from beyond them, archers put up such showers of well-aimed arrows that they prevented the defenders from showing their noses above the battlements. The general assault was under the command of Sinan Pasha, beylerbey of the Turkish European territories, ‘the general of the West’, as an eye-witness, John Anagnostes, calls him.

The intensity and vehemence of the attack increased as fresh waves of the enemy hurled themselves against the walls, taking the place of those who had become exhausted. Now, almost beneath the battlements, they threw stones up onto the ramparts with their bare hands, while some make set to work to undermine the base of the walls and breaches in them. The main weight of the fighting had fallen, as always, on the eastern wall, since it was unsound and comparatively easy to scale at that point (see fig. 26). In this sector — along the upper stretch of the wall from the Trigonion as far as the estate of the monastery of Chortaïtis (where the prison of Eptapyrgion stands today) — Murad had taken command in person so that he could survey his troops better from this vantage point, while keeping in view the interior of the city.

At the beginning the besieged, both men and women, put up a stout fight, but suffered heavy casualties. The accuracy of the enemy archers had compelled them to hurl their stones and other missiles blindly over the battlements. In this critical hour there were many defeatistswho completely Iost their nerve and crept away one by one, leaving the walls unmanned.

It was past nine o’clock in the morning when the first breakthrough occured somewhere near the Trigonion. At that point the battlements had been left well-nigh deserted, and the Turks were able to set up a ladder at the corner of a tower. One of them began to ascend, his sword between his teeth, to the top of the wall. Upon the battlements he came across a badly wounded Venetian; he cut off his head and threw it down at the feet of his comrades, urging them with triumphant shouts to climb up and follow him. The Turks burst into the city, some by means of ladders and others through breaches in the walls, and brandishing their swords, swept down through the streets towards the lower parts of the city. At the same time they broke through the walls at several points.

The Venetian governors and a few other officials just managed to make the harbour, “one in his mantle, the other in his undershirt”, as the Venetian report puts it. The losses suffered by the Venetians were considerable. From their three galleys alone they had lost 270 men, amongst whom were numbered the son of Paulo Contarini, the last duke of Thessaloniki; Leonardo Gradenigo, captain of one of the galleys; and many more besides.

Within a short while the streets, houses, churches and monasteries were flooded with the enemy both mounted and on foot. The air was filled with shouting and wailing, as the conquerors abandoned themselves to plundering and seizing slaves for themselves. Some 7.000 slaves were dragged off to the tents of the Turkish camp — an ill-assorted mass of men, women and children, bound together in lines.

In accordance with the unwritten custom of war in the East, three days were given over to plunder. Churches, monuments and other public buildings became the scene of frenzied searches for hidden treasure, as each and every stone was suspected of concealing some secreted hoard, and nothing went untouched. This was the prime reason for the widespread destruction of churches and monasteries in Thessalonica. The damage done to the church of St. Demetrius was particularly severe.

On the fourth day Murad put an end to pillage and restored order. He drove the soldiers from the houses which they had appropriated and which he now returned to their owners. He even set free a good number of eminent citizens, paying their ransom himself; others were ransomed by that pious Christian ruler of Northern Serbia, George Branković.

But those who were not lucky enough to be set free were carried off as slaves to all points of the compass.

Upon entering the city, Murad proceeded to worship in the ‘Acheropoeitos’ (see fig. 27), which was the first church he turned into a mosque to symbolize his victory. This act is commemorated by a Turkish inscription still to be seen today on the eighth column of the northern colonnade (counting from the sanctuary); it runs: “The Sultan Murad Khan took Thessalonica in the year of the Hegira 833″ (i.e. 1429-1430) (see fig. 28).

Thus ended the Venetian occupation of Thessalonica, which had cost ‘the Serene Republic’ 200.000 ducats, at a conservative estimate .

It is, incidentally, a most surprising fact that a number of arrows that had belonged to the defenders in this siege, were preserved right up to the beginning of the last century. Very short, and with their feathers moth-eaten, they were found inside chests in the magazines built into the fortress walls and in the ‘Barut-hane’ or Gunpowder Tower (formerly the Office of War Supplies). Also found were some helmets of blueserge of the kind the defenders wore, strengthened inside and out with metal strips laid in different directions. One wonders what has become of these relics of that historic era.

Α good number of the inhabitants of Thessalonica then embraced Islam. The same thing followed the capture of other cities, and one is led to ponder over the proportional extent of conversions in rural districts.

The capture of Thessalonica threw the Greek world into a state of great consternation. It was the prelude to the fall of Constantinople itself. It was not only the literary men of the time who sang a lament over this tragic event: the living folk traditions have carried the story of that fateful day through the centuries, adapting it to the mythological form of the folk medium.

One account, preserved to our day by Greek oral tradition, is that Thessalonica fell into Turkish hands as a result of treachery on the part of the monks of the monastery of Vlataeon (see fig. 29). Murad is said to have been on the point of abandoning the siege when these monks approached him and advised him to cut the water pipes leading from Chortiátis, so that the city would suffer severely from thirst. This he did, so the story goes. However, neither the chronicler who recorded the capture, John Anagnostes, nor the Venetian communiqué make any reference whatever to such treachery nor to the city’s shortage of water (see fig. 30). Nevertheless, Anagnostes does tell us that it was no secret in the city that the Venetians feared treachery on the part of the inhabitants. It is most likely, therefore, that after the collapse of the defence along the eastern wall, there were many amongst the defenders and inhabitants alike who were willing to come to terms with the Turks; and it could well be that such a situation gave rise to the legend about the treachery of the monks from the monastery of Vlataeon . We do know, atleast, from a firman issued by Bayezid II in 1486, that the monks payed a small tax levied on estates (vineyards, market-gardens, etc), and flocks, but there is no mention of any bygone treachery or of any kind of service they might have rendered to Sultan Murad II .

In conclusion, I should like to record a rather beautiful Turkish tradition connected with the capture of Thessalonica, and which was engraved on a marble slab over the Letaean gate (soe fig. 31). While Murad was asleep in his palace at Yenitsa, the story has it that, God appeared to him in a dream and gave him a lovely rose to smell, full of perfume. The sultan was so amazed by its beauty tlıat he begged God to give it to him. God replied, “This rose, Murad, is Thessalonica. Know that it is to you granted by heaven to enjoy it. Do not waste time; go and take it”. Complying with this exhortation from God, Murad marched against Thessalonica and, as it has been written, captured it .

History of Macedonia 1354-1833,IMXA,1973
Apostolos Vacalopoulos
pages 89-98

Back

Part 1

When Stephen Dušan ascended the Serbian throne in 1331, the boundary between Byzantium and Serbia in the region of Macedonia lay further north than Sérres, Melnik, Strumica, Prilep and Ohrid ; that is to say, beyond the present Greek frontier. Dušan was able to take over large portions first of Macedonia and later of Thrace, while the Byzantines were pre-occupied with the civil war between John V Palaeologus and John VI Cantacuzenus, each calling in against the other such traditional enemies of Byzantium as the Serbs, Bulgars and Turks.

The Serbian kral was able to proclaim himself ‘king and emperor of Serbia and Romania’, and in order to strengthen his military power he confiscated a good deal of ecclesiastical property in various parts of Maoedonia as well as Epirus , and assigned it to military men. The monasteries regained possesion of this property only at the end of the Serbian rule , which contemporary Byzantine documents represent as ‘illegal and tyrannical’ . Thus it was that Dušan became sovereign of a large dominion, which stretched southwards to embrace the northern regions mentioned above. Reaching almost as far as Christopolis (Kavála today), only Thessalonica and the surrounding district remained outside the Serbian domain. Athos constituted an independent state of monks under the suzerainty of the Serbian monarch , but Chalcidice generally — cut off as it was by the rugged mass of Mt. Cholomón — his power seems to have been virtually imperceptible and for all practical purposes non-existent. This immense state, however, began to disintegrate immediately after his death in 1355, and the powerful governors of the various provinces were soon coveting their independence. Finally, one of them, Vukašin, became co-regent with Dušan’s son, Stephen Uroš, and subsequently received from him the crown, to reign from 1365-1371. At the same time, Uroš himself delegated to the brother of Vukašin, John Uğlieša, the administration of north-east Macedonia with Sérres as capital, and gave him the title of ‘despot’ (1365-1371) . It is possible that under Uğlieša the boundaries of the state of Serres were expanded to the south and east for a few years (1364-1371) — after the Turks had overrun Thrace — to include Chalcidice, the Holy Mountain, and part of western Thrace as far as Lake Boroú . But these boundaries did not remain fixed and intact. Moreover, the Serbs did not succeed in establishing themselves along the coast of the Aegean either under Dušan or under his successors . Over Chalcidice in particular, Uğlieša seems to have exercised but a shadowy control, except for the Holy Mountain,with which he had close but formal relations, as suited his political designs towards the monks. Thus, after the collapse of the brief Serbian domin ation, the reactions of the monks against it as against the Slavs in general—were violently hostile, and the memories of that period remained painful to them for a long time after . It is true that during the fifteen years’ existence of the Serbian state of Sérres, there had been a steady infiltration of Serbian clergy into Athos, and the Protaton (council of igumens or abbots) was presided over by Serbs. This was the period of ‘Serboproti’ , well-known in the history of the Holy Mountain. But this does not mean that Greeks lost all control of Athos during this period of Serbian occupation. Many Macedonian cities remained in the pastoral care of Greek metropolitans . The Greeks had not yet given up the fight; several parts of Macedonia were in fact recovered from the Serbs, and the Slav conquerors could at no time feel their possessions secure.

PART 2

Cvijič recalls that Serbs from Raška were settled around Skopje, Véroia, and probably other parts of Macedonia . In fact, even Cantacuzenus records that “inVéroia there were a considerable number of Triballi settled there by the kral” . But a few years later he marched on the city, “where there had gathered a good number of those who had been settled in the villages” , and taking possession of it, he sent back the Serbian soldiery he found there to their kral and to their native land . Some of the peasants from the villages around no doubt returned to their homelands too. It is the same region where, according to Kameniates in the 10th century, there had already existed “ἀμϕίμεικτοί τινες κῶμαι”, that is to say villages with a mixed population of Greeks and Slavs: the so-called Dragouvitai and Sagoudatai. Consequently, on top of the older stratum of Slavs from the 10th century we have a fresh stratum of Serbs from the time of Dušan. But one cannot say if at that time (i.e. the 14th century) there were Greeks also living alongside Serbs; whether that handful of villages around Véroia continued to be ‘ἀμϕίμεικτα’ as Kameniates wrote; or whether the Slavs, speaking an easily assimilated idiom, had managed to absorb the Greeks. It is, moreover, possible that the Greeks, with their numerical superiority, absorbed the Slavs of those villages. An answer to this question may be discerned in what actually occurred at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th, when north of a line Yenitsá-Pélla-Kilkís there were a number of villages of which some were Moslem, others Christian, and others again of mixed religion. Of the Christian population the majority were Bulgars , whose numbers had been swelled by a further peaceful influx of their kinfolk, when free passage had been afforded them during Turkish times. To the south, in the middle of that extensive portion of the plain of Thessalonica known as Rumluk — i.e. land of the Romans (viz. Greeks) — there were some fifty villages, many surviving to this day, which, with few exceptions, had Greek names, and which preserved a strong Greek tradition in their language and in their folk culture .

Α limited degree of colonisation by Serbs seems to have taken place also in the southern part of Eastern Macedonia. And here it is interesting to observe that Lemerle, discussing the clashes between Greeks and Serbs in Eastern Macedonia, expresses the opinion that the Serbian armies had a firm grip on the region of Philippi, and that even throughout the Greek parts (”Ρωμαίων μὲν ὄντα, ὑπήκοα δὲ Τριβαλλοῖς ἐκ πολλοῦ”, as Gregoras writes) there had been some colonisation by Serbs here and there . This is very likely, and we can reinforce his opinion by quoting as evidence the observant and trusworthy traveller Belon, who notes that even in his own day (200 years later) with the exception of Serres, both Greek and Serb was spoken in the villages there. During the Turkish occupation, however, these people had been completely hellenized, or else were absorbed by the Bulgarians who filtered down from the north in search of work. The result of this continued assimilation of one group of Slavs by another was that, taken as a whole, they gained more and more territory, until the Bulgarian element became particularly pronounced, especially with the imperceptible movement of farmers and labourers southwards. Thus, in the end, such few Serbs as had survived in that part of Eastern Macedonia were completely absorbed either by the Greeks or by the Bulgarians. Doubtless there will be instances of the deliberate conversion of Greeks into Slavs, just as there was of Bulgarians into Greeks; although such cases are very difficult for us to pinpoint and determine with absolute certainty today.

At all events, we must take it as a fact that the Serbian rulers — and Dušan in particular — greatly facilitated the influx not only of Albanians and Albano-Vlachs by employing many ot them as mercenaries, but also of fresh Slavs — Serbs and Bulgars. These intermingled with the remnants of the old Slav colonists that had remained after their rapid christianization and hellenization in the 8th century and in the first half of the 9th .

The social conditions in Macedonia were no different from the corresponding conditions in other provinces in the Byzantine empire. The Serbian rulers had not changed the regime in the least. They had already adopted from the Byzantines the institution of Pronoia and imposed it in their own country. They too, as the Byzantines, distributed land to their soldiers and to monasteries. Α host of deeds of gift whether of despots or private individuals, have been preserved in the monasteries of both Northern and Southern Macedonia, and particularly of Mount Athos; and these provide us with valuable information about the economic and social conditions of rural life: on the farms of the monasteries and churches and their dependencies, in the villages, fields, vegetable-gardens and mills; also about the tenants (πάροικοι), the state of servitude, forced labour, as well as the productions and distribution of products .

History of Macedonia 1354-1833,IMXA,1973
Apostolos Vacalopoulos
pages 13-17

 

---

PART 3

The Greek inhabitants, not unnaturally, were on the defensive in the face of the Slav colonists in Greater Macedonia and perhaps at this point one should consider the size and the state of the Greek population within the empire of Stephen Dušan, and a little later under his successors in the Serbian state of Sérres.

If Dušan proclaimed himself ‘king and emperor of Serbia and Romania’, he had done so not only because he had the intention of extending his sway over Greek lands also, but because he was confronting in a practical way the indisputable fact that he found himself wedged between Greek populations. It is not surprising that this proclamation came after the occupation of Sérres, which he had finally succeeded in capturing after many abortive attempts . This was undoubtedly the reason why he was obliged to re-organise and split up his great dominion into two parts, as Gregoras informs us; the northern part comprised the Serbian territories over whom he ordained as governor his youngest son Uroš, while the ‘Greek lands’ of the south he governed directly in person . Α remnant of the Greek-speaking and racially Greek areas of Northern Macedonia (beyond the present Greek frontier) survived to our day in the form of Melnik, which lies isolated in the depths of a narrow ravine in the Pirin Mountains (Mt. Orvelos) surrounded by towering cliffs. The Byzantine emperors had taken an interest in this natural bulwark against invaders from the north, and had strengthened it with Greek colonists from Philippopolis. Their number was augmented by further immigrants from Crete, who found refuge on Byzantine soil after the failure of their insurrections at home against the Venetians . The Arab traveller Idris, writing in the 12th century, considered Melnik one of the principal towns in the land of the ‘Romans’, and spoke admiringly of its well-cultivated plains and the surrounding villages . The inhabitants of Melnik were pronouncedly conscious of their nationality, and for that reason in 1246, when the emperor of Nicaea, John III Ducas Vatatzes, was marching on their city, they were persuaded by Nicholas Manglavites to surrender the city to the emperor, affirming that “our land belongs to the rulers of the Romans …, we are of pure Romaic blood” exposed to the attacks of foreign peoples. After many vicissitudes it fell into the hands of kral Stephen Dušan, and on his death it passed to Uğlieša with the districts of Sérres and Nevrokop. Later on it seems to have passed into the hands of the lesser Serb rulers, Dragaš and Constantine Dejanovič; and in 1395 it fell to the Turks. Throughout the course of these centuries the people of Melnik have preserved unchanged their Greek character and their monuments of Byzantine ecclesiastical and secular architecture. It is worth the famous 14th century Byzantine house which survives to this day (fig. 1). But it is not only monuments such as these which emphasise the Byzantine character of the town; it lives on in the names of the old families: Mourtzouphlos, Ducas, Kouropalatis, Spandonis, etc..

Moreover, it is mentioned in the 14th century that Mysian (i.e. Bulgarian) settlers were dwelling along the narrows of the Strymon, in the district of Strumica beyond the present Greek frontier; but that there were also many Greeks to be found amongst them: “καὶ τοῖς ἡμῖν ὁμοϕύλοις ἀναμὶξ τὴν δίαιταν ἔχοντες” . In this connection, the charter, royal decrees (chrysobulls) and other documents of the famous monastery of Our Lady of Mercy near Strumica (founded in 1080) cite a great number of Greek names, which bear witness to the Greek character of the district. These inhabitants were mere pockets of Greek population which had survived the descent of the Slavs, and which existed in districts to the north of the present frontiers of Greece as far as the line formulated by Jireček, running beyond Štip and Sofia as far as the Balkan Range; that is to say, as far as the limits to which Greek civilization and language extended. Consequently, in those regions it was not only Illyrians and Thracians who were converted into Slavs but Greeks as well . In this context Cvijič states quite frankly: “The Byzantine cultural influences were much more powerful in the cities of the Southern Balkans, where they are preserved to this day. Here the Byzantine-Vlach culture had a firm hold on the people of the villages also; and one of the main reasons for this was that in the southern regions a far larger number of Greeks and Vlachs existed in the villages than is the case today …”

PART 4

Thus it was that the Serbian kral was forced to recognise in Macedonia just as in Thessaly the predominance of Greeks , not only in their regional distribution but in their political and social status. He was obliged to appoint Greek officers in his administration, fugitives from Byzantium during the feuds between JohnVI Cantacuzenus and Anna of Savoy. As Solovjev says, it is typical to find that the higher government offices are bestowed upon Serbs, while the posts of ‘heads’ (κεϕαλαὶ) — that is to say, the local political and social leaders — remain mostly in the hands of Greeks. In particular cases ‘heads’ bear the additional title of ‘judge general’ . This information is significant, when one bears in mind that these ‘heads’ represented the community of local inhabitants in its entirity. With the office of ‘head’ were associated certain administrative powers which connected him with the central authorities; but this link was a very loose one, as is invariably the case with popular authorities. In other words, the ‘head’ plays the same role as the elder of a Greek village.

In our discussion of the ephemeral Serbian state of Sérres, we ought to outline the system according to which the city was governed in the latter days of Byzantium. Just like Thessalonica (which we shall be dealing with later on), Sérres was administered by the most important local personages, who formed a single body referred to in Byzantine writings as the senate (σύγκλητος). And here I should like to express views differing from those of the eminent historian, Ostrogorskij. For I am of the opinion that this particular body was not instituted in Sérres between 1360 and 1365, even though there is mention of this institution for the first time in the acts of 1365 . The term ’senate’ is applied to the social authority which, especially after 1204, exercised a vigorous initiative in the larger towns of the Byzantine empire, a theme I have already touched upon in the ‘History of Modern Hellenism’. Accordingly, the term ’senate’ was the official designation of the communal authority at Sérres, and is reminiscent of the body of the same name at Constantinople, though it did not carry the same prestige. This provincial body coped with the needs of the community, and in conjunction with the community leader (i.e. the ‘head’) essentially ruled the district. Consequently, it played a leading role in the life of Sérres, especially during those troubled times; for these local officials had to make rapid decisions on matters of the moment. Sometimes, however, there is mention of several ‘heads’. It may be that the members of the senate were themselves ‘heads’ , that is to say the notables of the place. They are refered to by this name during the early years of the Turkish occupation also. The senate of Sérres, as of Thessalonica, was composed of twelve members, and this number figures likewise throughout the Turkish occupation .

The ecclesiastical courts constituted an inseparable element of Greek local self-government; and it is worth noting that it was the Greek language which predominated both in the administrative sphere and in the law-courts of the state of Sérres, which must mean that the officials were for the most part Greeks . We may assume, therefore, that the Greeks continued to play an active part in the administration of their villages after they had been taken over by Serbs. This newly established and shortlived Serbian state thus remained essentially Greek in its composition, and was destined in the years that followed to succumb to the influence of Greek cultural forces, just as did the corresponding state of Symeon Uroš Palaeologus in Thessaly.

The number of other Greek nobles and officials was undoubtedly large in Dušan’s state and that of his successors. The Greek clergy was particulany prominent, so that the strong imprint of Orthodoxy was maintained . Altogether there were more Greeks than Serbs among the more influential figures of the land. Thus, to cite an example, there is mention of an eparch, George Isares, who retained the same designation at the court of Stephen Dušan (chrysobull of Vatopediou, April 1348), and who, twenty years later at the court of Uğlieša, bears the title of Megas Primicerius (chief administrator). The son-in-law (through his daughter) of George Isares, George Stanisa, was a Serb, yet the sons of this Byzantine aristocrat were called Michael Angelos Isares and Theodore Comnenus Isares; presumably they had some relationship with the old dynasty of the Comneni. There is also mention of an Alexius Raoul, who went to the court of Dušan and most probably received from hinf the title of Megas Domesticus . We hear too of other Greeks in important posts: Megas Hetairiaches (general), Kyr-John Margarites , along with other officers of Sérres such as the Megas Primicerius Michael Avrampakas; the Megas Papias (supreme officer of the palace), Ducas Nestongos; the Katholikos Krites, Demetrius Comnenus Eudaemonoyannes; the Megas Tsaousios (commander of the bodyguard), Kyr-Kardames Palaeologus; the Katholikos Krites, Nicetas Pediasimus; and Kyr-Orestes styled Katholikos Krites and ‘ἐπὶ τοῦ στρατοῦ’, who built the tower of the castle of Sérres (see figs. 2 and 3). In fact, he figures with these two titles also under the despot Uğlieša in 1366.

It is impossible for us to be precise about the proportions of the two basic elements — Greek and Slav — which made up the population at that time; but there is no doubt that the Greeks were appreciably in the majority at least in the major towns’, as Ostrogorskij has it . We shall have an opportunity later to corroborate this fact, when we come to deal with the period of Turkish domination. Moreover, Ostrogorskij’s condescending reservation ‘at least’ may be omitted, since 200 years later, despite a continuous though nonetheless peaceful influx of Slavs in the meanwhile (especially of Bulgarians southwards), the perceptive and reliable Belon noted that in all the towns of Eastern Macedonia the Greek population was predominant. Furthermore, these Greeks spoke their own tongue, as we shall later demonstrate in the appropriate context. This predominance lasted until the beginning of the 20th century in all the towns and townlets of Macedonia, with the exception of Gevgelija where the Bulgarian element was in a slight majority, and Kilkis where it was much more so . In Sérres and the other large centres the Greek language prevailed both in the state administration and in the Church. From all this it can be seen that the brief Serbian rule did not bring any significant changes, even though the Serbs had effectively taken over control both of state and Church .

Even the mixed population of some country disctricts, which through war and other hardships had sought refuge in the towns, rapidly became thoroughly hellenized. Ostrogorskij has made a close study of the registers (πρακτικὰ) of the Byzantine census officials, who made a record of all the villages, property, names of proprietors and their families, the nature and size of their possessions, the number of beasts, the amount of tax they had to pay, etc; and he has come to the conclusion that the Slavonic names — of both individuals and families — are generally fewer in Chalcidice and the theme of Thessalonica than throughout the theme of Sérres and the Strymon (at least in the villages of the katepanikia of Zavaltía and Popolía that lie in the southern section of the Sérres-Strymon theme). For the central section of the theme we possess no praktikon, but Christian Greek names are everywhere in the vast majority , a fact which has a definite bearing on the composition of the population or, at least, on its thorough hellenization. As for the place-names, Ostrogorskij, speaking of the whole of Eastern Macedonia, asserts that Slavonic names are more common than Greek, though he admits that at that period, when nationality did not mean what it does today, Greek statesmen and writers did not change foreign place-names; and he notes that it is not certain if the inhabitants of certain districts with Slavonic place-names were in fact Slavs .

Kyriakides is quite categorical about the relationship between place-names and the composition of the population in this region of the Lower Strymon. He writes: “Leaving aside Chalcidice, about which we have, with the exception of a few place-names, no information from the writers as regards its colonisation by Slavs, I come to the Strymon, which is considered a Slavonic centre. From these documents it is quite clear that from Amphipolis to the northern end of Lake Achinós the majority of the villages on both sides of the river have Greek names …, that the names of all the inhabitants of all these villages are in every case Greek, except for a few which can be counted on the fingers of one hand” .

I think it is possible to close this chapter with the practical conclusions of Lemerle, which allow us to formulate a clear picture of the whole problem: “Eastern Macedonia was the scene of many contacts and clashes [between Slavs and Greeks] … Let us repeat that the region to the south of the great mountain chain [he means the ranges which form the present Greek-Bulgarian frontier] remained Greek, and that its role was three-fold in the Byzantine empire: it was a rampart and an outpost of Hellenism in the Balkan Peninsula, ensuring its diffusion throughout all that region; it formed a transition zone, an area where Byzantium and an important part of the Slav world interpenetrated each other, permitting a widespread assimilation of the latter by the former; and finally, it served as a link between the two largest towns of the empire, Constantinople and Thessalonica .

Thus the preservation of the old Slav colonies and the creation of new ones had been favoured first by the successive incursions of Bulgarians and more so of Serbs under Dušan and his successors, and later by their generally peaceful infiltration especially after the end of Serbian rule. But while the Greeks were engaged in their obstinate struggle to free their native land and drive out the conquerors from the north to beyond the great mountain ranges, the Ottoman Turks were making their first appearance in Europe (1354).

History of Macedonia 1354-1833,IMXA,1973
Apostolos Vacalopoulos
pages 17-26

Back

by Maridonna Benvenuti

©2001 Andrea Hicks

from Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire by Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Princeton University Press, 1977, ISBN 0-691-95252-2.

As the main source of wealth, the land was distributed by the Palaeologan Emperors to their followers and to civil and military officials in the form of pronoia. The original grants carried an obligation of service, military or other. Eventually the pronoia became hereditary and the holders did not necessarily fulfill their obligations. Furthermore, what had been primarily a grant of revenues often became a grant of territorial rights as well. Their revenues consisted of the taxes which the peasants had at first paid to the state, plus part of the surplus, paid as rent and collected in the form of part of the yield. The peasants became dependent peasants, as groups of families and villages were granted to the landlord. The Palaiologoi, the Kantakouzenoi and the Synadenoi among others, became The Great Magnates who had much larger properties that yielded immense revenues. The largest landlord, however, was the church.

http://www.maridonna.com/onomastics/lay.htm

by Maridonna Benvenuti

ã Andrea Hicks 2001

From Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire by Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Princeton University Press, 1977, ISBN 0-691-95252-2.

The Byzantine peasants of the 14th century were commonly identified by a given or baptismal name and some other form of identification: a occupational byname, patronym or matronym, a nickname , or toponymn.

Although the author’s data could define only a fragmentary pattern for peasant naming in the 14th century, baptismal names as might be expected fall into these categories: (1) those referring to God, Christ, and the Virgin; (2) saints; (3) those deriving from feasts, of which Christmas and Easter are the most important.

(4) “great” family names like Komene and Choniatissa; (5) names of obviously foreign origin. Children were habitually named after the paternal or maternal grandparents, after parents, or siblings as they are today.

In the 12th century records of Lavra, 87% of the heads of households were identified only by family relationships or rubric. In the 15th century villages of Gomatou, Pinsson and Drymosita, 7 % were identified by craft or profession; 12% were identified by a toponymn and 4% were mentioned by first name only. The other 77% was identified by nickname, or by a ‘proper’ name derived from a baptismal name or a stated relationship to someone else. I think the author means surname when saying ‘proper’ name. Her data has a couple of examples of inherited names which was just taking hold.

The heads of households were identified in a number of ways.

(1) They may have both a baptismal (given) and a second name (by-name).

Konstantinos the Pelekites

Demetrios the shoemaker from Voleron

Widow Anatolike, identifies a woman through a topomyn

(2) Identification may be made on the basis of relationship with others.

widow Kale, wife of Konstantinos the Pelekites

widow Theodora Pelekito

Ioannes, son of Chalkeus

Michael, brother of Nikolaos Chalkeus

Theodora, daughter of Kelliotes

(Argyre) “wife of Kelliotes”

Demetrios, son-in-law of Panagiotes:

Widows could also keep their father’s or grandfather’s names. In 1301 Zoe, daughter of Theodoros Tzykalas, was married to a man named Michael, but after his death she appears as ‘widow Zoe of Tzykalas’. Zoe’s daughter, Anna, who was also a widow retained her grandfather’s name and was known as Anna, widow of Tzykalas.

(3) It was possible to the have the head of the houseold identified by one name, the baptismal name. These men were extremely poor or had little property.

For the table with names check here:
http://www.maridonna.com/onomastics/macedonia.htm

Sources:

Monastery of Iveron, villages Gomatou, Melintziani, Ierissos, Kato Volvos, and Xylorygion, in 1301, 1320, 1341. Dölger, “Sech Praktika,” Praktika, A, P, V.

Monastery of Lavra, villages Gomatou, Ierissos, Selas, Gradista, and Metalin in 1300. Gomatous, Selas, Gradista, Metalin, Gournai, Aghia Euphemia, Sarantarea, Pinsson, Karvaioi, Skelochorion, Panaghia, Neochorion, Kyra Pegadia, Paschali, Genna, Loroton in 1321. Unpublished praktika of 1300 and 1321, College de France, nos. II, 91 and 109.

Monastery of Xenophon, village Stomion in 1300, 1320, 1338; villages Psalidofourna-Neakitou and Ierissos in 1320 and 1338. L. Petit, Actes de Xénophon, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 10 (1903), appendix 1, nos. 3, 7, 11.

Monastery of Zographou, villages of Ierissos and Symeon in 1300, 1320; villages Ano Volvos and Epano Antigonia in 1320. Regel-Kurtz-Korablev, Zographou, nos. XV,XVII. For the dates, cf. Ostrogorskij, Féodalité, 266-271.

Monastery of Chilandar, villages of Leipsochorion and Evnouchou in 1318. L. Petit, Actes de Chilabndar, I, Actes grecs, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 17 (1911), appendix I, no.38; on the date cf. Ostrogorskij, Féodalité,273.

Bompaire, J. Actes de Xéropotamou, Paris, 1964.

Guillou, A. Les archives de Saint-Jean Prodrome sur le mont Ménécée. Paris, 1955.

Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, on-line, Vol. III.B, Oxford Univ. , http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/names2.html

Lefort, J. Actes d’Esphiigménou. Paris, P. Lethielleux, 1973.

Lemerle, P. “un praktikon inédit des archives de Karakala (Janvier 1342) et la situation en Macédoine orientale au moment del’usurpation de Cantacuzène,” vol. 1, Athens, 1965, 278-298.

———- Actes de Kutlumus. Paris, P. Lethielleux, 1945.

Mošin, V. “Akti iz svetogorshkih arhiva,” Crpska kraljevska Akademija, Spomennik, 12 (Belgrade, 1939), 155-260.

Oikonomidès, N. Actes de Dionysiou. Paris, 1968.

Petit, L. Actes de Pantocrator, Vizantiiskj Vremennik, 10, 1903, appendix II.

Regel, W. , E. Kurtz, B. Korblev, Actes de Philothée, Vizantiiskij Vremennik, 20 (1913), appemdix 1.

Regel, W. Χρυσόβουλλα καì Γράματα της εν τω˛ Άγίω˛ όρει ίερâς καì σεβασμίς μεγίστης μονηˆς τουˆ Βατοπεδίον. St. Petersburg, 1898.

Unpublished Documents

Vatopedi

College de France; Praktikons of possessions in the Themes of Thessaloniki and Strymon, nos. 338 & 334. 1300-01; 14th C.

Lavra

College de France: Periorismos of the domains of Lavra in Macedonia, Theme of Thessaloniki, 1300 & 1321.

No. II, 91of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Thessaloniki 1300.

No. II, 109 of the.College de France: Praktikon of possessions of Lavra near Thessaloniki 1321.

No. 215 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions of Lavra in the Theme of Thessaloniki, 1409.

Nos. II, 35, 36 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon, 1317.

No. 138 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon, 1336

Nos. II, 103, 105 of the College de France: Praktika of possessions in the Theme of Strymon.

Iveron

No. 43 of the College de France: Praktikon of possessions in the Theme of Strymon. Probable date, 1320.

Two unpublished praktika given to Michael Saventzes and Nikolaos Maroules, preserved in the archives of the monastery of Xenophon.

Back