A the second plundering of that miserable city, subject to military violence, he had perished had he not *missed* his end: for I know not by what happy fate he was finally offered to me, together with Procopius on the edifices of Justinian and Agathias, having been liberated, *aichmalōtos* (prisoner), from the *lytros* (ransom). There is no need to institute here a lengthy eulogy of this emperor and excellent writer before you, since I have gathered at the end of this book several illustrious testimonies from the historians of that age regarding him, and you yourselves, by your singular erudition and highest keenness of judgement, will most easily recognize them—as they say, recognizing the lion by his claw—and will judge this work to be extremely useful to the republic of letters, since it contains an accurate description of almost the whole of Asia and the military forces distributed throughout it, and besides the fact that it contains much that is either unknown to other geographers or passed over by them in silence, it holds not a few things conducive to the knowledge of antiquity and history; add also the skill of the military art. The gravity of these matters he mixes with pleasant digressions and various authorities of ancient poets, as if with certain condiments, so that his reading, even when repeated thrice, never wearies. He uses at times the names of some military offices that are remote from the custom of the speech of the ancient Greeks; for which reason notes necessarily had to be added by me, through which I might bring some light to these very terms. If perhaps I have wandered from the mark in these, I both beg and deserve pardon, as they cause no small trouble even to the most learned men of our age. B Receive then, most noble and most ample men, Constantine, brought back from Orcus by me and given over equally to the light and to Latium; receive him, I say, as a witness of the immense joy which I conceived in my inmost heart from the great eagerness of your mind to aid studies, which you have most clearly declared by this most sumptuously produced edition of these inscriptions. And at the same time persuade yourselves that I, encouraged primarily by your example, shall henceforth make every effort so that neither the will nor (far be the envious envy of the word) the faculty for promoting literary affairs and adorning your academy may seem to have been wanting to me. Farewell, most noble and most ample men, and while you happily curate the state and its seminary, the academy, persevere through the fretting and raging of envy. Your most devoted, BONAVENTURE VULCANIUS. Leiden, A.D. 1588, the Calends of March.
DEDICATION BY FEDERICO MOREL OF THE SECOND BOOK OF THEMATES
TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS AND MOST REVEREND CARDINAL PERRON, ARCHBISHOP OF SENS, PRIMATE OF GERMANY, ALMONER TO THE MOST CHRISTIAN KING OF FRANCE AND NAVARRE, FREDERIC MOREL, ROYAL PROFESSOR, SENDS GREETINGS.Most illustrious Cardinal, this *commentarius* (commentary) on the *themata*, or administrative prefectures of the eastern part of the Roman Empire, of Constantine Porphyrogenitus—*holoporphyrōn antaxios pollōn* (all-purple, worthy of many)—hitherto desired and sought with all prayers by those *historiarchaiologophilos* (lovers of the history of the archives) who are students of Roman lore; now, if less than perfect, *holoscherēs* (complete), at least as much as it was found recently by me, with Mercury as my propitious guide, in the single ancient manuscript codex of the Royal Library, transcribed, revised, edited in the language of both emperors, and illustrated with notes, it desires to come forth and appear under the excellent brightness of your celestial genius and the splendor of your purple. And why, indeed, should an emperor *philomousotatos kai theosebestatos* (most music-loving and most god-fearing), born in the Porphyra palace and immediately vested in purple, not seek the honor and protection of your cardinalitial purple? C Nay, why should the Emperor Porphyrogenitus, whose majesty is decorated more by his *philologia* (love of learning) and *architektonikē* (architectonic) science—which he magnified in so many royal volumes—than by his purple cloak, not desire this offspring of the royal muses to be included in your ethereal Minerva’s *peplos*, that is, *egkyklopaideias* (encyclopedia), the circle of sciences and virtues? Especially since it was the same vow for this prince as for Alexander the Great: *tais peri ta arista empeiriais mallon ē tais dynamei diapherein* (to excel more in experience concerning the best things than in forces). Hence, with the best of cares for the safety of the fatherland, he always exercised his mind and his pen, the best teacher of speaking, for he wrote a gem-like book for his Roman son, who succeeded to the paternal kingdom, and who took as his wife Berta, daughter of Hugh, King of Italy, later called Eudoxia, in which book the sum of the entire Greek empire was described, all covenants of allies, and the strengths of enemies; which the Venetians, *philokaloi* (lovers of beauty), as Egnatius relates, diligently preserve in their library. He also knew, in the Roman manner, how to spare the subject and war down the proud. And as he cultivated justice above all and broke the silence of the laws, so he enjoyed and possessed most happily the *Hesychia*, or quiet born of it, as it is celebrated by Pindar, *philophrōn Dikas thygatēr* (kind daughter of Justice), having experienced also how truly Pausanias said, *to ek Theou eumenes epi panti ergazesthai rhastōnen* (the favor of God makes ease in every work). There is no reason, therefore, for me to doubt that the *politikon syngramma* (political treatise) of such an Emperor might be *katathymion* (to your heart’s content), grateful, and acceptable; whose divine genius...
A in the most happy auspices of Henry IV, the most Christian, most invincible, and most clement King, has now, if at any time in any age, established for the French language a living honor and grace. May that generous power—a lover of wisdom and a benefactor—long endure. May God grant to you, most illustrious Cardinal—who have earned the best merits from the Christian Republic, from your fatherland, and from letters—the fruits you desire. Farewell for a long time, most holy High Priest. Paris, Ides of June, A.D. 1609.
PREFACE OF MEURSIUS TO THE BOOK ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EMPIRE
Kind Reader, I shall address you here at the threshold, but in few words. Accept Constantine, and for this favor, if you do not render gratitude, at least render goodwill. I ask for nothing more than this; nor is there anything easier for you to give. You should know, however, where I obtained it. Four years ago, I transcribed it from a manuscript which is in the Palatine Library and is said to have once belonged to Joannes Baptista Egnatius. But I should not here conceal how much, on this very account, I owe to that most distinguished man, Georg Lingelsheim, councillor to the most serene Elector, who, because he is excellently disposed toward letters and all learned men, and toward myself privately, procured for me from his prince the favor of handling that entire well-stocked library at my discretion. Moreover, the kindness of that most distinguished man Janus Gruterus, its prefect, was added to this, through whom the library was opened to me for daily access. By this kindness, both have so bound me to themselves that I have thought it necessary to declare it here publicly. I therefore offer the greatest thanks I can; and you, too, may offer yours, if indeed I have earned any gratitude from you through the edition of this work. I wanted you not to be ignorant of this. Farewell, and whoever you are, contemplate eternity.
FROM BANDURI'S PREFACE TO HIS ORIENTAL EMPIRE
The first part, in which is contained the division of the provinces of the Roman Empire into *themata*, as well as the provinces and cities once subject to the Constantinopolitan Emperor, comprises Constantine Porphyrogenitus' one book on the *themata* of the East and another on the *themata* of the West, as well as Hierocles the Grammarian's *Synecdemus*. Porphyrogenitus describes the *themata* in these two books in such a way (for anciently, indeed, *thema* meant the same as legion; later, the provinces in which the legions were stationed in garrisons were called *themata*) that he commemorates the lands in which they were stationed—and consequently the peoples to whom they partly owed their names—by inserting various antiquities and narratives. The former book, on the East—that is, on Asia both Minor and Greater—and the latter on the West—that is, on the provinces in Europe, Thrace, Macedonia, Hellas, the Peloponnese, and several other places subject to the Constantinopolitan Empire—comprise the *themata*. Vulcanius first brought the former to the public domain from his library, illustrated with a Latin version and brief notes, at Leiden, by Franciscus Raphelengius, A.D. 1588, in 8vo. The same book appeared a second time with various readings, emendations, and supplements from the Royal manuscript, by the study and work of Fredericus Morellus, in the works of Constantine edited in the same place, from the Elzevir press, A.D. 1617, in 8vo. The latter book of Porphyrogenitus, however—namely, on the *themata* of the West—the same Morellus first edited from a manuscript in the Royal library with a Latin interpretation and notes, in the works of Constantine, in the aforementioned place. We, however, again present both of these books of Porphyrogenitus, which are absolutely necessary for illustrating Byzantine affairs, having compared them with the Royal vellum manuscript no. 2451, written about five hundred years ago, emended and illustrated here with our Latin interpretation and observations, hoping that some light will thereby accrue to both historians and geographers.
In the second part, one finds primarily the book of Constantine Porphyrogenitus to his son Romanus; which is entitled by Meursius *De administrando imperio*. In this work, while Porphyrogenitus prescribes the method of prudently administering the empire, he describes the lands, origins, customs, and deeds of very many nations that were formidable to the Constantinopolitan Empire—the Patzinaks, Russians, Bulgarians, Turks, Saracens, Dalmatians, Croatians, Slavs, Franks, Italians, and others—such that he has explained therein the summary of the whole empire, the alliances of all allies, and the strengths, plans, and councils of enemies; and so the subject matter of this work is both historical and political, as Constantine himself teaches in the prologue. This work first appeared in Greek and Latin, translated by Jo. Meursius and with his brief notes, at Leiden, by the types of Jo. Balduinus, at the expense of Lud. Elzevirius, A.D. 1617, in 8vo. But the task I myself performed for Constantine in this new edition, although it may be plain to one who compares both editions, I shall briefly explain. First, I compared the Greek text with an excellent Royal vellum manuscript, no. 2661, which they say was written about five hundred years ago. We removed the innumerable errors with which the Meursian edition was infested everywhere; we repaired from the same Royal manuscript the corrupt and mutilated passages, which were very numerous in the edited Greek text. Furthermore, chapters 23 on Iberia and 24 on Hispania, which Meursius, as he himself says in the notes, had left without a Latin interpretation because they were too corrupt, I have rendered into Latin. Finally, we have emended the translation of the whole book in many places, expanded it, and illustrated the whole work with observations. How much this *opus* of Porphyrogenitus—in which there are very many things either unknown to historians and geographers or passed over by them in silence—is to be valued, no one even moderately learned is ignorant.
MONITUM.
A new review of the second part of the work *De thematibus* was published in Tübingen in the year 1847 under this title: *Constantinus Porphyrogenitus de provinciis regni Byzantini. Liber secundus. Europa. Accedit appendix aliorum libellorum, cum civilium, tum ecclesiasticorum, veterem geographiam cum media, imprimis Byzantina, illustrantium.* Edited with new care and preceded by a critical letter by Theophilus Luc. Fridericus Tafel, Doctor of Philosophy and Letters, Professor Ordinary at the Royal University of Tübingen, member of the Munich Academy, and associate of the Geographical Society of Frankfurt. Tübingen, at the bookstore of Henricus Laupp, MDCCCXLVII, 4°. We here present the preface prefixed to the booklet, which illustrates Constantine’s work excellently. We have already derived observations from the same author for our own use in the previous volume, where the Byzantine-Cretan *Stadiodromicon* is discussed (col. 1251).
Constantine’s little work on the *themata* (provinces of the Byzantine empire) has two parts, the second of which (Europe) we are publishing with new care. The title of the work is: *Of the most wise Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus concerning the themata that belong to the Roman Empire, whence they received their names, and what the appellations of these signify, and that some of them are ancient, while others acquired their new appellation.*
A preface follows, in which the emperor promises that he will explain whence the denomination of [the word] *thema* should be derived; regarding which promise we see that he has not stood by it. For he narrates nothing else except this: that the legions of the Romans from Julius Caesar down to Theodosius and the remaining Christian emperors drew their names from nations or elsewhere, examples of which are provided; and that in that age the emperors themselves administered the concern of war. That these things were changed from the time of the Emperor Heraclius. At that time the borders of the empire began to fail; hence, the provinces themselves were contracted, and Greek names were chosen for Latin ones through affectation; and that *thema* descends from the word B *thesis*.
The argument of the preface is nothing else. For whither does the force and sense of *thema* tend (a legion and its headquarters, i.e., a province), if not what we are taught by the emperor himself? Truly, however, the Constantinopolitan emperors, the Byzantines after Theodosius, (not the Latins), used the Greek language by their own right—a practice that Lydus Laurentius, a Greek writer contemporary with the Emperor Justinian I, carelessly or through adulation disapproves of in his book *De magistratibus* III, 68; yet they did not abandon the more ancient custom, and for the most part, they drew the names of their legions from the provinces, whence the soldiers were collected, rightly following the usage of their own age, not a former one. But why say more? The orthodox emperor criticizes Heraclius, one of his predecessors, who was most deserving of the eastern kingdom, but less orthodox. Of the argument of the book itself, which we expected, there is neither a trace nor a vestige. A second sloth of the writer consists in the fact that he did not impose a peculiar title on his first part (concerning the East or Asia), [though] he did so for the second. Finally, those things which are told concerning the extent of the provinces cut off by the barbarians are not entirely correct. The Byzantine emperors changed the borders and names of the provinces according to the state of the times, not only moved by the events of wars. And that great tract between Cilicia and A Rhodes, exposed to enemies, is it circumscribed by no more than one *thema*? And Hierocles himself, contemporary with Justinian I, distinguishes Asia Minor, not yet cut off by the barbarians, into far more provinces than our purple-born writer. What of the fact that in the time of the Emperor Manuel, almost all of Thrace seems to be comprised in one *thema*? Moreover, the first book itself, a few things excepted, fares much better than the second; a fact which all our treatment will place in the clearest light.
The first book, the East or Asia. Seventeen provinces or *themata* are enumerated in as many chapters. 1. Anatolicum. 2. Armeniacum. 3. Thracesiorum. 4. Opsicium. 5. Optimatum. 6. Bucellariorum. 7. Paphlagonia. 8. Chaldia. 9. Mesopotamia. 10. Colonia. 11. Sebastia. 12. Lycandus. 13. Seleucia. 14. Cibyrraeotarum. 15. Cyprus. 16. Samus. 17. The Aegean Sea.
Now, concerning these chapters and their subject matter, which is illustrated in many ways in the book *De administr. imp.*, chap. 50, it seems that certain things must be explained and noted for the sake of comparison alone, to be established between the first and second parts.
The first *thema*, Anatolicum. It is so called, the emperor says, with respect to Europe and Byzantium; with respect to Mesopotamia, Syria, etc., it is designated as the western middle (τὸ δυτικὸν μέσον) and Asia Minor. It has its beginning (so Constantine) from the small town of Synnada, and in length it extends as far as the mountains of Isauria; in width, on the left it touches the *thema* of the Bucellarii and Cappadocia, on the right Isauria and the beginning of the *thema* of the Cibyrraeotae. It comprises five ancient provinces, which are: Phrygia Salutaris, Lycaonia, Isauria, Pamphylia, Pisidia. Then some good things are interspersed concerning the government and borders of this *thema* before Arcadius, likewise under him; hence after Maurice, in the time of the Saracens. Some things are added concerning the age of the Persians and the Macedonians.
C ... D Second *thema*, Armeniacum. The denomination is improper, nor is it older than the Emperor Heraclius and his successors. It corresponds to the Cappadocia of the ancients, i.e., the greater and the lesser. In the age of Justinian I or another emperor, Cappadocia began to be tripartite; and the upper part was called Parva, the middle Charsianum, the maritime Armeniacum (on account of the proximity of Armenia). Various matters are interpolated there concerning the history of ancient Cappadocia. Hence, the more important cities of all Cappadocia and the names of certain noble Cappadocians are mentioned.
PREFACES OF VARIOUS MATTERS
The third theme, the Thracesians. Formerly it was called Asia Minor. It took its modern name from the Thracians of European Mysia, who were transferred there. It includes the ancient Lydians, Maeonians, Carians, and Ionians. At the end, the names of the twenty-one cities of this Asia (the Thracesians) are provided, and no more.
The fourth theme, Opsicium (the Obsequium). The Latin term signifies those who go before the emperor out of a need for order and for the sake of honor, or to prepare roads and lodgings for him. Hence, the chief magistrate of that province is not called *strategos* (pretor), but merely count. This region includes the Bithynians, Phrygians, and Dardani (Trojans). Ten of the more illustrious cities are enumerated, and no more. Furthermore, the boundaries of the four parts of the province are distinguished not carelessly, as is done elsewhere. Concerning the Opsicium, see in all cases Du Cange, s.v.
The fifth theme, the Optimati. The author says it is a theme of the lowest order, and its president is called only *domestikos*; compare them with Du Cange, s.v. It includes the Bithynians, Tarsiatae, and Thyni. Five of the more celebrated cities are enumerated. The river Sangarius is also mentioned, along with the Justinianic bridge.
The sixth theme, the Bucellarii, i.e., of the Bucellarium. Neither does this province have its name from any certain race, but from the *bucellarii*, i.e., those who transported rations to the soldiers; compare also Du Cange, s.v. The boundaries of the province are described, and five of the more important cities are enumerated. The inhabitants are the Galatians, Mariandyni, and Bithynians.
The seventh theme, Paphlagonia. Concerning the antiquity and ill-repute of the ancient Paphlagonians. Six interior cities and four maritime ones are enumerated.
The eighth theme, Chaldia. Trapezus is the metropolis. The interiors are the beginnings of Lesser Armenia. The names of three other cities are given, e.g., Celtzene, etc.
The ninth theme, Mesopotamia. A small region, of a more recent name, rather a *clisura* in name than a prefecture. It looks to the age of the Emperor Leo.
The tenth theme, Colonia. A small region with a fortress, from which it takes its name. It is the beginning of Lesser Armenia. The boundaries are described. I note at the end that the words of the Bekker text (*Basileus-basileus*) should be read according to the Vulcanius edition: *My grandfather, the lord Basil, the one who...* etc. From this it is clearly proven that this book was indeed written by our emperor, but privately, not composed and published by public authority; this also follows from the affected use of ancient authors and the negligence he uses in the enumeration of the cities, mentioning the more important ones, not all, which is otherwise the case in the episcopal lists, and also in Hierocles, although he was a private writer.
The eleventh theme, Seleucia. This too is a part of Lesser Armenia. What follows are vulgar and trite matters concerning the etymology of Caesar.
The twelfth theme, Lycandus. This land, a part of Armenia, had obtained the place of a theme not long before, i.e., in the age of the Emperor Leo the Wise. Some things regarding the history of the city.
The thirteenth theme, Seleucia. He calls it a part of Isauria, and describes its boundaries. Next, the more important cities of Cilicia are mentioned, which could have been omitted. The region of Seleucia was alone before the *clisura*; the Emperor Romanus made it a *strategia*. The names of ten cities are enumerated, which, however, were of Cilicia rather than Isauria. B See also the briefer exposition of Leo the Wise, where our Seleucia is instead ascribed to Pamphylia. Add Hierocles.
The fourteenth theme, the Cibyrraeotae. The name of the province was taken for the ignominy of Cibyra, an ignoble town, whose citizens had more than once been rebellious against the emperors. The boundaries are very large, namely, extending from the Taurus of Cilicia as far as Miletus. Therefore, it contained part of Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Caria. In the middle of the theme is the island of Rhodes, the antiquities of which are touched upon, being more fully known from elsewhere. The principal cities of the theme, along with the boundaries of the individual regions, are enumerated not carelessly.
The fifteenth theme, the island of Cyprus. These things, with few exceptions, were taken word for word from Hierocles, who is not mentioned, and repetitiously taken from the title of the head of the chapter. Certain things are added concerning the history of the island. In the age of our author it again obeyed the Saracens: why, therefore, does the writer count it among the Byzantine provinces? The Emperor Basil, the grandfather of our Caesar, according to the Vulcanian edition, had raised Cyprus to the status of a theme; that which J. Bekker, the recent editor of the booklet, ought to have received into the text as the same thing that we read in the tenth theme.
The sixteenth theme, the island of Samos. Certain archaeological matters concerning the name of Samos. Certain illustrious men of the ancients are enumerated. The boundaries of the theme (Ephesus to Adramyttium). Smyrna is the seat of the prefect; which, as with other things, I wish he had indicated in the remaining themes as well!
The seventeenth theme, the Aegean Sea. Archaeological material concerning the term *Aigaion pelagos*. Five dialects of the Greeks. The boundaries are spacious: for the Cyclades, the greater Sporades, Mitylene (Lesbos), Chius, Lemnus, and the farther regions as far as the Cianus gulf, nearest to Constantinople, are of this theme.
Book two, the West, or Europe. Twelve provinces, or themes, are enumerated in as many chapters. 1. Thracia. 2. Macedonia. 3. Strymon. 4. Thessalonica. 5. Hellas (Greece). 6. Peloponnesus. 7. Cephalenía. 8. Nicopolis. 9. Dyrrachium. 10. Sicilia. 11. Longobardia. 12. Cherson. I shall briefly set forth the argument of these C chapters also, as of the first book, especially for the sake of establishing (as I said) the comparison of both.
The first theme, Thracia. The praise of Byzantium. The theme of Thracia was established at the time of the Bulgarian invasion. Before the age of the Romans, in which there were 53 cities, it had two kingdoms. The Bulgarians, now the masters, were dividing Thracia into smaller territories. Before the Bulgarians, Thracia was ruled by the Byzantine emperor himself, not by a pretor (*strategos*), as it is now. When the Bulgarians invaded the Byzantine kingdom. Certain things from Hierocles concerning the Dolonci, which are not found there. Archaeological material. Five Thracian eparchies follow, repeated from Hierocles with their cities (he has VI), and
A he treats them quite carelessly, nay, confusedly. In Europe he deals with Thrace along with Hierocles; then, however, besides Maximianopolis and Trajanopolis (which truly belonged there) he attributes to Rhodope the towns of Parthicopolis, Heraclea of Strymon, Serres, and Philippi—cities that are very different from Rhodope, i.e., those of ancient Macedonia. This is treated far more correctly in Hierocles, whom one should consult. He places the eparchy of Haemimontus in the third position, whereas Hierocles puts it in the fourth; otherwise, he agrees with Hierocles regarding the cities. Next follows that foolish B "Eparchy of Thrace... climate of Mestikon and Akontisma, Philippopolis, Beroe, island of Thasos, island of Samothrace." But these islands were in reality part of Rhodope or (according to Hierocles) of Macedonia Prima, where he likewise has in its proper place "climate of Mestikon and Akontisma," although that "climate of Mestikon," inserted in the midst of the city names, still seems to me to be either spurious or corrupt; for the cities of Philippi and Beroe are correctly found in Thrace (in the strict sense) in Hierocles, along with Diocletianopolis, Sebastopolis, and Diospolis. He omits the Mysia of Hierocles, while agreeing with him in the case of Scythia.
The second theme, Macedonia. It should be noted before all else that this is placed between the themes of Thrace and Strymon, C and that Thessalonica follows Strymon—that is, Macedonia in the ancient sense; which is then followed by Greece, etc., in proper order again. Therefore, according to the emperor’s sense here, the title of "Macedonia" signifies something different from the ancient one, namely, that part of Thrace which lies between the Hebrus and the Euxine Sea, not to the west of the Strymon; this, as he does elsewhere (in Asia), a man of imperial rank or his scribe should have indicated in clear words, unless he wished to be accused of laziness by his readers. What, then, does he attempt and do in their place? He produces a certain compendium of ancient Macedonia (Thessalonica of the Middle Ages), taken (I conclude) from an unabridged Stephanus of Byzantium. After this, with no transition from the preceding arguments, he transcribes Hierocles regarding the twofold Macedonia of the ancient sense, and indeed of the age of Diocletian, etc., D stupidly forcing in Maronea, Topirus, Nicopolis, Ithapolis (Neapolis?), Cereopyrgus (?), Diocletianopolis, and Sebastopolis—which are partly in Rhodope and partly in Thrace in the strict sense, where Hierocles (whom see) correctly possesses them. He also omits Larissa (Macedonian, that is). In Macedonia Secunda, he agrees with Hierocles. Now what follows? You will be astonished, nay, dumbfounded. Thessaly (in the ancient sense) follows, with the selfsame cities and islands which Hierocles has after both Macedonias. Forgetting, therefore, that the theme of Strymon should come after his second theme (Macedonia), and then Thessalonica, he proceeds drowsily to transcribe Hierocles, who in his own proper order has after the Macedonias: Thessaly, Greece with the Peloponnese and certain islands, Crete, etc. Our writer, therefore, after the cities of Thessaly, appends these words at the end: "Thus far the theme of Macedonia." Where perhaps a singular usage of speech of the Middle Ages was present to his mind, which A held Thessaly (in the ancient sense) to be a part of ancient Macedonia (Thessalonica, i.e., Thessaly of the Middle Ages).
The third theme, Strymon. A brief and almost futile chapter. He says that the theme of Strymon was joined to Macedonia; that it does not appear by the name of theme anywhere, but as a *clisura*. He says that it has Scythians (Slavs) as inhabitants, who obtained their homes in the defiles of the Strymon under Justinian Rhinotmetus. He should have said that in the earlier time (of the Macedonians and Romans) the theme of Strymon had been a part of Macedonia (i.e., *synetetakto* instead of *syntetaktai*); but that it did not have a peculiar name for the province in that age, nor even in the final centuries before the coming of the Slavs and Bulgarians, but was merely called a *clisurarchia*, that is, a region of that kind whose importance consists solely in the guarding of its own defiles; which was otherwise in the tenth century, when the title "Strategos of Strymon" appears more than once. However, as for those defiles, the order was given by the aforementioned emperor that a part of the rebellious Strymonian Slavs should be removed from the shore of the Strymonian gulf, where they had hindered trade, to more elevated and remote places, above all the Strymonian defiles. And this last is a new name, and nothing else, which deserves to be recognized, for which alone, if I am not mistaken, we are indebted to our chapter. He previously occupied himself with individual cities of this theme, as also with those of Thessalonica and Thessaly, in an inept place.
The fourth theme, Thessalonica. It is apparent that the beginning of the chapter is curtailed. For who would start an integrated and unique narrative thus: "To de nun, etc."? He should have added that it itself, like the Strymonian theme, was a part of ancient Macedonia, instead of that insane "it is a part." Archeological notices follow, known more fully and better from elsewhere.
The fifth theme, Hellas (Greece). At the beginning of the chapter, it has trivialities about the name of Greece. Indeed, he has already C occupied himself with its northern parts (Thessaly) from Hierocles, as we have seen, although he does not join Thessaly to Macedonia (ancient sense) nor add it to Greece, but rather distinguishes it from both as a unique land. He places the borders of Greece in the defiles of Thermopylae, famous for Leonidas, and separates the Peloponnese from Greece, contrary to the ancients and even to Hierocles, who joins both. Yet he himself imprudently closes his chapter thus: "And so much for Hellas according to Hierocles." He carelessly also attributes seventy-nine cities to Greece, which does not suit Greece itself (since he separates the Peloponnese from it), but rather to the Hieroclean list, where in fact this number of seventy-nine cities and islands is correctly read; and he repeats the first seven of them from Hierocles, adding out of laziness after "Amphissa" only, "and the others." Finally, it is strange that he does not also forget Euboea, nor the Cyclades, nor Aegina.
The sixth theme, Peloponnese. He had joined it with Greece in the preceding matters; but now (obeying his own age) he separates it, in order to treat it as a unique province.
A and assigns to it X cities, some (not many) of which he enumerates, calling Patras another metropolis of the peninsula, which suits the Middle Ages better, cf. Hierocles, who calls Corinth the metropolis of all Greece, Sparta that of Laconia, Elis that of Aetolia (or rather, Arcadia, in a broad sense). Hence he speaks of the names of this land, of its character, and of the Peloponnesian islands, among which those belonging to Hierocles may be found. The main points of Peloponnesian history, known well enough from elsewhere, follow. One point, which he repeats from the Middle Ages as worthy of note, is the Peloponnesian kingdom of the Slavs, beginning to take shape under the reign of Constantine Copronymus; where *eslabothe* is the same as "having been brought into servitude," not "Slavonicized," which is known later from elsewhere. Lastly, in that satirical verse, he derives the word *garasdoeides* from "Kopitarius" (Hesychius the glossographer, etc., Vienna 1840, p. 63) and from the Russian language, so that it is the same as the French *habile, droit*. Is he cunning? That is, I think that the poet seems to speak about the countenance of some nobleman displaying a servile craftiness (*eslabomenen*). Concerning the Slavonic Peloponnese, our author reports much richer information in the book *De administrando imperio*, chapter 50.
The seventh theme, Cephallenia. The editor wished for the Greek title to be spurious, I suspect because of the beginning of the narrative, where it is denied that Cephallenia is a unique theme. But the matter is far otherwise, cf. our author in *De Cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae* II, 52, where the praetor of Cephallenia (*o strategos Kephallenias*) occurs more than once. Add the same in *De adm. imp.*, chapter 50: "Know that the *strategis* of Cephallenia (sic), that is to say the islands, was of old a *tourma* of the *strategis* of Longobardia (sic). But under Leo, the Christ-loving Emperor, it became a *strategis*." Where the other diminutive name (i.e., *ta nēsia*), see that it is not opposed to the eastern theme B XVI (Samos, with other islands as far as Constantinople), which according to Hierocles is the *eparchia* of the islands. Finally, he negligently adds (*homoios de kai...*) Zacynthus, Leucas, Ithaca, and other smaller islands, and Corcyra, it is uncertain in what sense. Post-Elis, namely the islands of Cephallenia, Panormus, Zacynthus, Cythera, Strophadia, Hierocles enumerates as belonging to Greece (not Corcyra); hence our author has his own, poorly arranging them. What more? The character of our chapter should have been about this: that in ancient times Cephallenia, together with other islands, formed a part of the Peloponnese (*symperieilēpto*, for *symperieilēptai*, cf. the theme of Strymon), later of Calabria; C and lastly, in the age (of Leo the Wise) it was raised to the honor of a unique theme, and its parts, besides Cephallenia, were these islands: Zacynthus, etc. It corresponded, therefore, to the heptinsular region of that time, to the Venetian-Greek republic, protecting the British Empire.
The eighth theme, Nicopolis. The Greek inscription (*eparchia tēs palaias Ēpeirou*) is Hierocles's, with the addition of *tēs Phōkikēs, hyph' hēgemona*—which will seem insane to everyone. For what is the connection between the Phocenses and old Epirus? That Epirus indeed had a city, *Phōtikēn*, quite famous; whence I have extracted *Phōtikēs*. The twelve cities, Nicopolis is the metropolis. The last is from Hierocles. But why, contradicting his own custom, does he mention only Nicopolis and omit the other eleven? Thence he narrates at length about the name of the city of Nicopolis, and repeats the passage of Hesychius about the indictions. Now he proceeds strangely: *Mētropolis de tou thematos polis Dōdōnē*. Did old Epirus have another metropolis, Dodona? Even Hierocles acknowledges Dodona and places it after Nicopolis herself. Truly, not only about the metropolitan status, but also about the prophetic dignity of Dodona, we have nothing learned from elsewhere. Again he proceeds insipidly: *Ekeise gar ēn hē pēgē, Kastalias onoma echousa*, etc. (that is the foolish dream of *Phōtikēs*). No sane man will unravel the connection of these things (*gar*) with the preceding ones. Then he places the sources of the Achelous there (in Epirus); although the Achelous descends from the Thessalian Pindus. Dodona, however, was of Epirus, not the spring of Castalia with the Achelous. Therefore, confounding geography midway as elsewhere, he assigns to Epirus certain things which were of the Nicopolitan theme of the Byzantines, i.e., Acarnania, Aetolia (Achelous), and that of the Phocenses (Castalia). And this last (about the Phocenses) D is one thing truly new, which we learn from that insane part of the inscription of *Phōtikēs*. For now we truly seem to have the boundaries of the Nicopolitan theme of the Byzantines, namely Acarnania, Aetolia, and Phocis with Delphi, all of which in the Middle Ages were called "Little Vlachia," or among more cultured people, Arta, etc.
The ninth theme, Dyrrachium. Without preamble, the author begins almost thus with Hierocles: *Dyrrachion, ē pote Epidamnos, hypo konsiliariou, poleis ix*. Which is better found in Hierocles thus: *Eparchia neas Ēpeirou, hypo konsiliarion, poleis ix: Dyrr., ē pote*, etc. In the final parts also our author varies, having before Lychnidus that suspicious pair of words *Aphrōn kai Skoutōn*; which is in reverse order in Hierocles. Then it is read with no immediate sense: *Eparchia Dakias mesogaiou... Remesiana*, as in Hierocles; except that in the middle, next to the word *Naissos* is added: *hē patris tou megalou Kōnstantinou*. Now others follow from the same Hierocles, namely Old Epirus, Dardania, Pannonia, with only the numbers of the cities added, not their names. Behold the author's negligence! He had already held Old Epirus in the eighth theme, Nicopolis. Nor does he think this is enough. For after his Pannonia he proceeds thus: *Kai hōde men eparchias (l. eparchia) tēs neas Ēpeirou, tout' esti tou Dyrrachiou, tou palai kaloumenou Epidamnou*. Where you see that he uses Dyrrachium for New Epirus, whose metropolis it was, and yet it is not the same as New Epirus; which fits only the Byzantine usage, which loved to call New Epirus Dyrrachium, cf. the very inscription of our theme: *Ennaton thema Dyrrachion*. One may then ask, why, when he intrudes upon Mediterranean Dacia here with its cities from Hierocles, he is content to mention only the government and the number of cities of Dardania and Pannonia?
A It was a digression, because when he returned at the end to describe Mediterranean Dacia with its cities—which in reality would have suited the beginning of the little work better than the end—he could have joined Dardania with his theme of Strymon, as a northern part. But now, having returned to his senses, he undertakes the remaining themes, Sicily, Longobardia, and Cherson; regarding which, however, there is nothing in Hierocles. In the other part of the chapter, he insists on various things concerning the antiquities of Dyrrachium; concerning Constantine the Great, who partitioned the Roman empire; and finally regarding Dalmatia, which is to be ascribed to Italy, the fatherland of Diocletian, an emperor of impious memory, and which possesses very pleasant water.
The tenth theme, Sicily. In this theme, as in the other two, our author is free from the authority of Hierocles; for I believe that this writer handed down nothing regarding these matters, or that what he did hand down has perished. Therefore, he says that Sicily, before the rule of the Roman Pope, was not subject to the Byzantines, but to the Romans; later to the Byzantines, to whom all that sea obeys as far as the Pillars of Hercules. Concerning the names of Sicily, he draws from Stephanus (or rather, from Hellanicus and Timaeus). The greatness of our island and others. The Saracens, having become masters of Sicily in the last age, leave only Calabria to the Christians, whose *strategos* our author mentions, along with certain cities, whose names we read there (Rhegium, S. Cyriaca, S. Severina, Croton). But why does he call Sicily a Byzantine theme of his own age, and mention the *strategos* and the number of cities as 22? Lastly, he gives commonplaces about the tyrants Hiero and Dionysius, and likewise about Archimedes and Marcellus. B
The eleventh theme, Longobardia. That the Longobardia of Lower Italy, i.e., Calabria, is meant, is known, apart from other things, from the preceding chapter, where the old name of Calabria occurs regarding almost the same tract. Now, regarding the name of this Longobardia, there are certain etymological remarks. From there follow other insipid things concerning Buthrotum (sic), Naples, Mount Vesuvius (sic), and there the Burcanus (sic) as colonies of the Greeks. For my part, I think he meant Beneventum, not Buthrotum (which is in Epirus), or rather Hydruntum (Otrantum). And *Bésubion horos* is the mountain Vesuvius with its crater (vulcano); indeed the Greek colonies are: Cumae and Parthenope (Neapolis), etc., not that fire-vomiting mountain. C When Justinian was reigning, or indeed—as he corrects himself—Zeno, the Goths seized Naples and other cities. Narses, the conqueror of the Franks, subjects that Longobardia to the Greeks. Under the emperors Theophilus, son of Michael, and Basil, the Saracens of Africa attacked parts of Illyricum in vain, but they captured Calabria, from which, however, the Greeks, with the help of Louis, king of the Franks, expelled them. Calabria from then on was a theme of the Byzantines. D
The twelfth theme, Cherson. The beginning of this chapter also fares badly, through the fault of the writer. He ought to have said that in an earlier time the land, which in the tenth century of Christ was called Cherson, was not part of the Byzantine empire, but had its own rulers under the name of Bosporus, and that it was called Cherson from the metropolis of the same name. Now in what follows, which deals with the ancient history of Bosporus, these things serve as a negligent prelude: "The history is as follows." And immediately are read those things which are known from the epitomized Stephanus; that he used a fuller version is evident from the rest, where he brings forward testimonies of Phlegon, Strabo, and Phavorinus, which relate to the older history of the Bosporus. The Greek epigram about Chrysopolis I also think was drawn from a fuller Stephanus. It is certain that the end of the chapter is mangled, which could be patched up from our Stephanus thus: "...besieging and having dug a secret entrance, from which the diggers were about to emerge invisibly, and (delete this particle of Stephanus) Hecate Phosphorus, being light-bearing, made torches appear to the citizens at night, and having fled the siege they named the place Phosphorium."
And these things regarding both books of Constantine’s little work may suffice, these being premised so that we may use for them a firm foundation of judgment, which now seems to be called for regarding the purpose and value of the entire writing.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote two geographical works, one *On Administering the Empire*, inscribed to his son Romanus; the other *On the Themes (provinces)* of the Byzantine Empire. Now, concerning the former, it is sufficiently agreed among the learned how much it is truly to be valued: namely, that it is of great worth. It indeed has various traces of negligence, and you would seek in vain for a just order and sequence of narration in it. Rather, there are sudden notations concerning certain neighboring peoples, namely, the eastern, northern, and western, of which those especially that illuminate the north are to be praised for more than one reason. For a good part of mediaeval geography, in so far as it looks to the north, relies almost solely on Constantine’s book; whether it has come down to us complete or not, that is indeed difficult to say. It also has many things that are badly digested, namely, various kinds of notes or additions, customarily agglutinated to the preceding narration with the word *isteon*, etc., like the manner of scholiasts, the nausea of which another writer would have avoided: or a stranger, not in himself to be despised, intruded them. Furthermore, he wished to illuminate the geography of his own age, and that indeed which is foreign, less that of a more remote age; concerning which, whatever things are added, they seem to be of less moment. For the whole book looks to the state of the tenth century, not to a more remote antiquity, concerning which the emperor could scarcely produce specimens of deeper erudition, once the book of the themes was compared. Moreover, our Constantine’s book clearly bears the appearance of commentaries, reinforced by public authority: for it is dedicated to his son Romanus, collated with the inscription: "Of Constantine, in Christ eternal emperor of the Romans, to his own son Romanus, the God-crowned and Porphyrogenitus emperor." Finally, I have not yet indeed found his Greek title, from which the subject matter could be known; but the Latin…
title, namely *De administrando imperio*, although not foreign to the subject, does not correspond to the argument of the narrative itself, nor indeed to the preface: "Behold, I set forth for you a teaching, so that through the experience and knowledge gained from this, you may be instructed so as not to err concerning the best counsels and the common good. First, what nation is able to benefit the Romans and in what, and in what to harm them, [and which] and how each of these, and by what nation it can be warred upon and be subjugated; then concerning their greedy and insatiable mind, and what things they unreasonably demand to receive; then thus also concerning the difference of other nations, and the genealogy of nations and their manner of life, and the position and climate of the land inhabited by them, and descriptions of these, and measurements of distance besides these, and concerning the things that have happened at some time between the Romans and various nations, and after these things everything that [has happened] in our state, but also throughout the whole Roman empire at certain times, has been updated." He treats, as I have said, of the geography extraneous to his own age, interspersed here and there with notes and admonitions regarding the way and method that the dealings of war and peace with the more important of the neighboring nations should by all means be conducted. I see that Jo. Bapt. Egnatius has dealt more cautiously with these things in his book *De principibus Romanis* (Hancke, *De Byz. rerum scriptoribus Græcis* p. 477): "He (Constantine)... left a book to his Roman son, in which he explained the sum of the whole empire, the alliances of all its partners, the forces of its enemies, the reasons and the plans..." Therefore Egnatius, a possessor of the book, knew no other title for the work than the inscription of the epistle alone.
A Longe different in aspect and purpose is the other book, which is inscribed *De provinciis*, as now seems most necessary to explain. Editors of Byzantine history handle this little book in such a way that they generally place it in the first position, and the book they call *De administrando imperio* in the second. But what if they were to use the reverse order? Would not any reader, having perused the latter book first—which treats of the external geography of the Byzantines of the Middle Ages—upon seeing the book of the themes, hope for the internal geography of the Byzantines of the same age? This is what the very headings of the chapters indubitably suggest. But what does the book of the themes actually provide? Not the more recent geography of the kingdom itself, but the older, that is, the Justinianic, with only the novel nomenclature and division of the provinces preserved; and how troublesome this must be for the readers, I believe I have already demonstrated and proven sufficiently and abundantly in the preceding pages.
Therefore, the purpose of the book is by no means ambiguous, B if one compares Hierocles, who is transcribed word for word, and likewise Stephanus of Byzantium, from whom alone the older material seems to have been derived. The daily or common use of such a commentary can hardly be doubted. For it looks to the youth who are students of antiquity, to whom Hierocles is recommended along with similar writers. The geography of the Middle Ages is touched upon only with the tips of the lips, although it would not have been alien to the subject to compare the older state of the provinces, especially the older names, with the usage of the new age, and thus to inspire a certain life into those geographic sketches, of which we see only the borders and external lines, while we desire the interiors. This applies most of all to the second book, written with incredible idleness; or the injustice of fate has abstracted its better parts, except, as I have said, for the final chapters, where the writer was immune to the Hieroclean rehashing.
These things having been set forth, the true value of Constantine’s little book seems able to be easily weighed. That, however, which you will marvel at, can scarcely be traced to the final note, if I see correctly. For first, these chapter headings are the only relic of geography for us that exists, C although it is but a small one, by Hercules, yet not entirely to be despised; then the book itself, especially the latter part—that is, Europe—serves the function of a manuscript copy of Hierocles; finally, Constantine used Stephanus more fully, a matter regarding which, before others, one must consult Westermann in the preface, full of excellent fruit, which he prefixed to his Stephanian edition. And so much for these things. For I am by no means preparing an edition of the geographic books of Constantine, being content to have admonished certain things, whether less known or less investigated, from whence a convenient transition to the rest of this epistle seems to be established, which professes to wish to undertake the attempt of a Byzantine geography, of being finally composed at some point.
In the distinction between the West and the East D I follow Constantine, who assigns his themes of Europe to the West, and the themes of Asia to the Orient. It is obvious, you will say, and clear: for Europe is of the West, and Asia of the Orient. But let us look at another book by the same writer, namely *De cerimoniis* II, 52. There are enumerated the highest dignities of the Byzantine empire, numbering 60, valid under the reign of his father, Leo the Wise. Their classes were six: the first of the *strategi*, which had two parts, the East (τῶν ᾿Ανατολικών) and the West (τῆς Δύσεως). In the former (the East, I mean), after others, comes the *strategos* of Chaldia. And it immediately proceeds thus: "These" [so the *strategiai* are] numbered [in] the Eastern themes. But those of the West are these: the *strategos* of the Peloponnese; the *strategos* of Nicopolis; the *strategos* of the Cibyrraeots; the *strategos* of Greece... the *strategos* of Samos; the *strategos* of the Aegean Sea; the *strategos* of Dalmatia, etc. But Constantine, disturbing the well-established order, divided what was one into four commands. For he assigns to the Prefect the whole of Egypt alongside the Pentapolis of Libya and the East as far as Mesopotamia and in addition the Cilicians and the Cappadocians. In truth, how tenacious was the tenth century, or even older periods, of the primitive form which was of the fourth century. For Zosimus II, 33 (p. 98 ed. Bonn) reports plainly thus concerning Constantine: "Constantine, however, moving things that were well established, divided the one into four."
A And he surrendered the Armenians and the entire coastline from Pamphylia to Trebizond and the forts along the Phasis; for the same, he also entrusted Thrace and Mysia, defined as far as Haemus, Rhodope, and the city of Doberus, and indeed Cyprus and the Cyclades islands, apart from Lemnos, Imbros, and Samothrace. To another, he gave the Macedonians and Thessalians and the Cretans and Hellas and the islands around it and both Epirus, and in addition to these, the Illyrians and the Dacians and the Triballians and the Paeonians as far as Valeria, and in addition to these, Upper Mysia.
(a) Theodoric... sends one part of his force against Philippi, and was besieging Adrianople with every engine of war. Those who were sent against Philippi... he resettles them in Philippi itself (and this is one of the Macedonian cities), then again from there to Adrianople...
B Names of cities. Stephanus Byzantinus: Bisanthe, a city of Macedonia in Thrace, Hellenic, a colony of the Samians. Cedrenus vol. II, p. 604, ed. Bonn.: ... The Pechenegs... turned their entire assault against Macedonia... they were overrunning the rural districts in Macedonia... Having learned of this, Bryennius and Michael... come to Charioupolis... returning very near to Charioupolis, etc. Luitprand, Legatio ad Nicephorum Phocam (Muratori *Scriptt. rerum Ital.* vol. II, p. 485; *Patrol. Lat.* tom. CXXXVI, col. 927 C): *Not far from Constantinople in Macedonia.* Menologium Basilianum at Sept. 1 (Vol. I, p. 6): "From Adrianople of Macedonia." Likewise, Menologium at Oct. 31 (ibid. p. 158): "Of Odyssoupolis... a region of Macedonia." Menologium at Apr. 24 (vol. III, p. 68): "Of the city of Dorostolum in Cappadocia." Where the Latin interpreter correctly has it so, *in Macedonia*. The same Menologium at Apr. 28 (p. 75): "Of Dorostolum of Macedonia." C Nevertheless, Ibidem at July 28 (vol. III, p. 172), it is said more purely, "Dorostolum of Mysia in Thrace." Stephanus Byzantinus: Philippopolis, a city of Macedonia, a foundation of Philip of Amyntas in the Hebrus. Cinnamus V, 2 (p. 203 ed. Bonn.): "The Emperor (Manuel Comn.) was advancing against the Macedonian city of Philippi, settling affairs towards the Serbian side." Ibidem V, 5: "Against Philippi." Where, as before, led by the context, Philippopolis is signified. Theophanes p. 772 ed. Bonn. (ad a. 812): "The Bulgarians... gained more power over Thrace and Macedonia. Then, also having abandoned Anchialus and Beroe, the Christians fled... Nictian and the castle of Probatum... Likewise also the settlers living in Philippopolis and Philippi and the Strymon returned (a)." And to whate… D …Varangians. A band of soldiers. The common dialect calls them Varangians themselves. Idem: "Against both the Franks and the Varangians." p.: "With the Varangians and Franks." (Franks and Macedonians Varangians). Triballians and Serbians. For Celts and Germans and the Gallic nation... Brittians and Britons, etc. "By the banks of the Ister and the streams of the Danube." "From the Zephyrus and the west." "The parts towards the south and the regions towards the south." The Celtic and axe-bearing nation. The Celtic axe-bearing nation. "Of the Triballians... to the King of Serbia, they were already called Celts and Galatians." X, 7: "Galatians and Celts." VIII, 5, 5: "Africa and Libya." Galatia... and Celtic land. XIV, 8: "Of the Celtic and Gallic chasms." XIV, 7: "Of the Massalians and Bogomils." VIII, 14: "Towards the south and the south wind." Galatians of the Celts. Triballians and Serbians. Bonn.: "Those Serbians and Triballians." Celts and Celtogalatians... Mauritania and Mauru... [alt-version omitted]
A small town of Macedonia, named Nice, he settles there with his wife and children; regarding which Nice (Nicaea), see also Anna Comnena, book vi, 11 (vol. I, p. 387 ed. Bonn.): "Between the Bulgarians and little Nicaea." In the same book (p. 208 ed. Paris.): "The aforementioned little Nicaea."
The Macedonia of the Middle Ages, situated between the Euxine Sea and the Rhodope Mountains. — Having enumerated the names of certain cities, we will roam through the land itself, using as our guide the Byzantine history of nearly eight hundred years, whose annals seem capable of providing us with words in convenient order.
B We do not linger over the writers of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, as they are indeed tenacious of the ancient geographical diction, which at that time had not yet truly changed. I see that the seventh century (of the Emperor Heraclius) also changed almost nothing, an undeniable testimony of which is provided by Theophylact Simocatta—a man read by few, as I know, yet one who should be read by many, a man of no little authority in my view, both for other reasons and for the fact that his life witnessed the Avar wars, or the beginning of the near ruin of Byzantium; after which followed a crowd of other centuries, to wit, the Bulgarian one, which affected the whole state of the republic (what else?) not lightly, the daily use of speech of which inconvenience I also think was not entirely free. Are the Byzantines then already forging new things in geographical matters? Not yet, I say, although they were near. For Simocatta, who wrote during the reign of Heraclius (a. 612–640), holds no other habit of geographical speech than his predecessors, having Scythians and Mysians (I, 8; vi, 10), Illyricum (I, 4), Gepids (vi, 10; vii, 3), Lombards (ibid.), Mysia Thracica (vi, 13), Dardania (vi, 5), Antes (so it should be read for *Artas*, viii, 5), Thrace (vi, 5). The names of cities, lands, and peoples are the same as those read in itineraries and other contemporary writers. The cities are generally: Singidon (I, 4; vii, 41—in which latter place there are good things on the location of Singidon); Viminacium, Augusta (I, 4; viii, 2); Ratiaria (for *Ratiaria*), Bononia, Acys, Dorostolum, Saldapa, Pannasa, Marcianopolis, Tropeum (I, 8; ii, 11; vii, 12); Heraclea (Perinthus) (I, 11; vi, 1, 5); Mesembria (Μεσημβρία, not μεσημβρία, ii, 12); D Apperia (for *Appiaria*), Astica, Calvomontium, Libidurgum (ii, 15, 16, 17; vii, 7); Philippopolis, Diocletianopolis, Beroea (ii, 16, 17); Sirmium (I, 3); (not Slavonic. Stephanus of Byzantium already has Celtogalatae sub v. *Boior*).
And these things thus far. Therefore, in Theophanes we have only Philippopolis, not also Philippi of ancient Macedonia. For all that which Theophanes narrates concerns only that part of Thrace which was situated between Philippopolis, Nicaea, and Anchialus ("abandoning also Anchialus and Beroea, the Christians fled... Nicaea, and the fortress of Probaton, and certain other fortifications... and the settlers (incolae) living in Philippopolis, seizing a pretext, fleeing into their own [lands]"). For into that part of Thrace, Nice, that... [here occurs significant ellipsis]...Mirsum (as it is read) vi, 4; Sabuleti canales (as I read) vi, 5, cf. ii, 11, where it is wrongly *Sabulum et Manavaton*; Saldapa, Acys, Scupius near Odyssus vii, 2; Pistum, Zaldapa, Iatrum, Latarcium, Novae vii, 2, 7; Theodoropolis vii, 3; Nova viii, 4; remnants of the Getae near Odyssus vii, 2; Curisca vii, 2 (Carisca vii, 6); Asima vii, 3 (Asema vii, 6); Constantiola vii, 10; Drizipera vii, 45; Pannonia vii, 7; Tomea (Tomis s. Tomeus vii, 3) vii, 13; Nicopolis, Zicidiba, Iatrus vii, 13; Iatrus river vii, 44; Via Traiani viii, 4; Palastolum viii, 5, 6; Cataracta Dardaniae viii, 5.
Such is the geographical usage of Theophylact regarding Europe, then not yet changed by the vicissitudes of events; which is otherwise in the writers of the middle and latest Greek period, who imposed old names on things through affectation, where everything had been changed long before.
Even Georgius Pisida, who lived around the year 630, preserves the ancient usage. For in the *Bellum Avaricum*, verse 175 (ed. Bonn. p. 54) he has *tēs Thrakēs holēn* regarding all the land situated between the Ister and Constantinople; nor is *ta Thrakēs nephē* in the *Heraclias* ii, 71 (p. 81) otherwise.
I see all these things changed at the end of the same (seventh) century and the beginning of the eighth, as far as it can be understood from published books.
Let Stephen of Byzantium lead the march of these writers—not indeed the complete one, whom we no longer possess (but Stephen lived under Emperor Justinian I, in the sixth century), but the epitomized one, namely by Hermolaus the grammarian, who inscribed his epitome under Justinian II Rhinotmetus (a. 685–695, 705–711), cf. Westermann's preface p. v, vi. Therefore we establish that the following words of Stephen were written at the beginning of the eighth century: "Bisanthe, a city of Macedonia along Thrace, Hellenic... Philippopolis, a city of Macedonia." That he could hardly have written this in the complete Stephen, the testimonies of Theophylact Simocatta, from one century later, mentioned above, have sufficiently persuaded me. He wrote those things even less—which we have in the epitome: "Oreos, a city of Euboea. But Euboea is a most illustrious island of Greece, called Euripos." Euboea was called Euripus in the Middle Ages, not in the sixth century.
Theophanes, who lived a. 752–618 [sic]. He has these things at year 750 (Constantine Copronymus a. 17): the emperor had transported a large part of the citizens, as a military colony, to repel the Bulgarians, according to Cedrenus t. II, p. 37 ("for he ordered the Christians from every theme to be resettled to the Sclavinias"). Therefore, they were returning to their own homelands, remote and immune from the Bulgarians, such as Philippi of ancient Macedonia. Therefore, will the Strymonian province also, mentioned by Theophanes or his scribe, be excluded? Entirely. Having read Philippi, he was thinking of the Strymon, whose city was then Philippi. But the Bulgarians were not infesting the Strymonian province then, but Haemus alone. Therefore, the Strymon seems suspicious.
D Alexander, but the western parts as those of the great Constantine, were written in the original language; Pontanus, the former editor of Cantacuzenus, took care to convert them from the common tongue into the pure; he was wrong. The medieval Greek should have been kept, but an interpretation of the ancient idiom added.
(y) "The King of the Greeks calls himself with pride and arrogance the angel of God and the source of our faith and the Roman Emperor."
A of Christ or had converted Nicetas, or someone else. The Rhipaean mountains, with Boreas mentioned in the same place, look to mythical or poetic geography, not historical; compare Strabo VII, 3, 6, p. 393, ed. Cas. They signify the heights of Rhodope and Haemus. Having crossed these, Nicetas arrives at the shores of the Euxine Pontus, where Tomi is, a most noble city, whose reading ought by no means to be changed to Stobi. For it was the first of the fifteen of (Lesser) Scythia; compare Hierocles (p. 11 of this commentary), famous for the exile of Ovidius Naso. From there, one went to the neighboring town of Scopi, situated between Axiopolis of the Ister and Marcianopolis. However, another will think of the Scupium of Procopius situated near Sardica, which is not entirely to be blamed. For this Scupium was a place in the territory of Remesiana, from whence our Nicetas is said to have originated. But one thinks most poorly of Scopia (Scupi) by universal consensus. For this Scopia was not near the fatherland of our Nicetas, i.e., Dardania, but it was the metropolis of Dardania itself; compare Hierocles, p. 13 of this commentary: c. xv. "Province of Dardania, the 5 cities: Scupi the metropolis, etc." Therefore, having left Philippi, he headed east, then west, where his fatherland and episcopal seat, Remesiana, were.
B Such things regarding the names of Thrace and Macedonia, in the colonies, compare those things that I demonstrated above regarding the undoubted colonies of the Macedonians themselves. For the ancients, when they imposed the names of their own seats upon foreign places, did not do so doing anything else, but in fact transferring their own citizens there for some reason; which becomes no less clear from the entire history of the Macedonians than from that of the Romans, the stocks of whom, as elsewhere, were in no way dissimilar (v). I have investigated the ancient age, showing the ancient colonies of the Macedonians there both from history itself, and from the large availability of names. And now it seems that one must descend to the annals of the Byzantines themselves, which agree in a surprising way with the tradition of the ancients. The Byzantine emperors possessed not only the inheritance, but also the very name of the Macedonian empire, whether they themselves were of such an opinion, or whether they had acquired it from the Orientals. The Orientals certainly, and I think the Byzantines themselves, honored the Roman empire as a successor in the paternal house of Alexander the Great; the witness to which affair is Codinus (De officiis aulae Byzantinae, cap. 6, ed. Bonn, p. 55): "And since Alexander was the king of the Macedonians, and Macedonia is found under the hand of the Roman emperor, the eastern nations give honor to the emperor as the successor of the paternal house." These things were written in the 15th century. I ascend to the 14th century. Cantacuzenus I, 14 (Opp. ed. Bonn, tom. I, p. 94): "In the name of God the merciful and compassionate. May God make long-lived... the days of the reign of the great, the beneficent, the foundation of the faith... of the Christians... the sword of the Macedonians, of Samson, of the King of the Greeks, of the King of the Bulgarians, of the Asanii, of the Vlachs, of the Russians and of the Alans, of the honor of the dogma of the Iberians and of the Syrians... Angelus Comnenus Palaeologus Cantacuzenus, etc." (π). Did the sultan of Egypt, a Mohammedan, write these things to the Byzantine Emperor in 1348, whence was he taught about this formula of address? By the Greeks themselves, of course, whose emperors are to be supposed to have written thus plainly or similarly about themselves to the princes of outsiders, having compared the Anonymus of Canisius (Basnage, Thes. monumentorum, etc., vol. I, p. 510): "Isaacius, by God appointed most holy emperor, most excellent, sublime moderator of the Romans, angel of the whole world, heir of the crown of the great Constantine, to his beloved brother of his empire, the greatest prince of Germany, his grace, fraternal and pure love." These things Isaacius Angelus, emperor of the Greeks, wrote in 1189 to Frederick I, the Swabian, with a certain contemporary, Dietbald, rightly noting that arrogance of the Greeks which was hardly angelic (Wilken, Kreuzz. vol. IV, p. 72, not. 47); the words of which bishop (γ) I see Wilken (l. c.) did not understand. For Isaacius, from the C race of the Byzantine Angeli, called himself the angel of the whole world: which arrogance of speaking (s) I would not wish to be granted even to monks, although I see that such things, like so many others, happened by custom in Byzantium, compare Eustathius, edited by me (Opusc. p. 240, 50, etc.), who calls monks, in the places cited, terrestrial angels. In other respects, however, the Macedonian title of the Byzantine emperors seems in truth to present a certain appearance of old-fashioned right, namely, geographical. Above we read that the names of the Thracian colonies, with Philip I the Macedonian founding them, were not to be doubted; we also had the names of the Thracian places, which bore witness to us of an original Macedonian rule of the lands there. From this memory and tradition of further antiquity, I truly think it came about that that part of Thrace at the beginning of the middle, as they say, age, or long before, was claimed by the emperors of the Turks, compare the "New Description of a Journey from Germany to Constantinople" of my countryman Schweigger, Nuremberg 1608, p. 143.
B is (emperor) is, Macedonians (Byzantine military) to be hard in war. Where the year of Christ 919 is signified, or the reign of Romanus Lecapenus. I have touched upon the Byzantine military in the Thessalonian region, p. 513 sqq.; would that a more diligent exposition of it might at last be attempted by more learned men! I proceed in the exposition of the Bulgarian Vlachs, sitting between the Danube and the Propontis. The Bulgarians, when in the end of the seventh century they occupied those lands, had inhabitants who were predominantly Thraco-Latins and Slavs, to whom the victors, though fewer in number, gave their own name. At that time (7th–11th centuries) whether the conquered grew together among themselves and with the victors, or whether each held to their own stock and origin, truly seems difficult to say. With liberty recovered, which it is certain happened after the year 1185, nothing is more frequent in Byzantine annals than our Vlachs, especially in Nicetas, whereas the name of the Bulgarians, the former masters, is heard much more rarely; whence you will judge that these nations were at that time most numerous and powerful. Those inhabiting Mount Haemus in particular (Nicetas p. 482, 676 ed. Bonn.), vexed by the Greeks, rebelled (Nic. p. 482 sqq.), yet were put to flight several times (Nic. ibid. p. 487, 515). Their name is accustomed to occur for Bulgarians (Nic. p. 490, 516, 568, 572, 573, 589, 616, 617, 820, 832, 833). Elsewhere in the same author they are mentioned with the Mysians, Scythians, and Cumans, or with the Cumans and Bulgarians (Nic. p. 485, 520, 569, 811, 837, al.). Nicetas does not omit their language on page 617. From them the Bulgarians had learned a hatred for the Greeks (Nic. p. 831). And their most famous leaders, John (Iwan, Ibancus), Asan, and Chrysus, were not Bulgarians, but Vlachs, see Nicetas in more than one place. Finally, the inhabitants of the region also between Constantinople and Bizye, formerly the royal seat of the Asti, were Vlachs, according to George Pachymeres in *Andronicus Palaeologus*, 1, 37 (Opp. ed. Bonn. vol. II, p. 106). But enough of this. For we are not writing so much an ethnography of those lands as a geography, as far as the names and boundaries of the provinces look.
Third thema, Strymon. I shall now study brevity, less because of the weariness of writing than because of a lack of sources, to which, however, the Arab Edrisius now accedes, along with certain Latin pacts concerning the Greek kingdom between the years of Christ 1199 and 1204; but I see that much has been anticipated in the preceding sections. I seek the northern boundaries of this province between the Hebrus and the Strymon, although I do not see it signified by the clear words of the writers. Those rivers face east and west with the south, although this is contradicted, as it seems, by the chronicle of the Spaniard Muntaner (cap. 230, cf. capp. 224, 228) from the version of B. Buchon: *La cité de Christoble (Cavala?) qui est à l'entrée du royaume de Salonique*. I think the northern boundaries of the province were different according to the times, sometimes broader, sometimes narrower. In the 12th century, when the so-called crusading expeditions were flourishing, I suppose they did not exceed the city Kostendil (Justinian Prima, the imperial homeland of Justinian), situated near the source of the Strymon, comparing the narrative of Ansbert concerning Frederick I, the Swabian, according to the Prague codex (Wilken, *Kreuzzüge*, vol. IV, p. 104): Frederick, advocate of Berge (staying at Philippopolis), invaded the opulent region called Flachia, not far distant from Thessalonica, etc., where the province of Thessalonica is meant. — The Strymónian strategi are rarely mentioned, cf. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, *De cerimoniis aulae Byz.* II, 52. Add John Cumeniatas in his *Narratio Thessalonicensis* cap. 20: *Ὑπὸ τὸν στρατηγὸν Στρυμόνος*. Cap. 59: *Τὸν στρατηγὸν Στρυμόνος* (in Theophanes Continuatus p. 514, 569 ed. Bonn.). I have set forth most of the cities of this theme with part of the countryside in my *Via Egnatia Comment.* II, p. 9–57. But let certain things now be added from Edrisi, full of good fruit. They concern the Thessalonian and Strymonian theme. The most famous Arab therefore has a place in upper Macedonia (Dardania) on p. 31, 52, 35 of this commentary, Cortos, that is, the city of Corita of that privilege which Alexius III gave to the Venetians in the year 1199. In the same place he mentions the city of Rhagoria (i.e., Zagoria of the same privilege): and in the same place the city of Drama, above Philippi, occurs (the Arab wrongly calls it Rahna). He calls Heraclea of Lyncus (Pelagonia) Tatili, for which read Butili, the royal seat of the Bulgarians (Bitola), cf. Cedrenus ed. Bonn. t. II, p. 460. In the same place Budiana (Vodina) is read. Then on page 32 the city Malsuda occurs (rather Malsuba, of the cited privilege Matesovo). And on page 36, the Arab has Platamon as a city, the river of the city of Lycostomium (the Peneus), Citrum, Thessalonica, Rendina, Christopolis (twice), distinguishing it from Chrysopolis; Cavala, which he calls Calam, duly separating it from both (Christ. and Chrys.) as we do (Thessalonica p. 501). Near Philippi he mentions *avium Macropotamos* (i.e., Mavropotamos). Finally, he seems to recognize a certain Rhusium, opposite the island of Thasos, on p. 33; whence it appears to be true what a certain Greek marginal note says to Ptolemy's *Geog.* II, 44.
Fourth thema, Thessalonica. We have seen its boundaries for a time. They were the Strymon from the east, the Peneus from the west with the south, and indeed for the greater part of the age do not omit it; for this part also was his. Toward the north, I think it rarely passed the middle riverbed of the Axius, or even the valley of the Tzerna (Erigon), certainly not before Manuel Comnenus of the second part of the 12th century. You have its strategi in the book and chapter of Porphyrogenitus cited. I have treated this theme more fully in my *Thessalonica*, which consult.
Fifth thema, Hellas. In describing the boundaries of the Byzantine provinces, if you follow the limits of the major metropolises (nor do I see why you should always use another way), the circumference of this theme will be able to be defined with easy work. We will have the boundaries of Greece [index: entries preserved]