8/14/2019 The term and its derivatives in Byzantine sources

1/3

The term and its derivatives in Byzantinesources

Posted by admin in Medieval Macedonian History , medieval writers

A quite interesting research over the term and its derivatives in Byzantineera, comes from Professor Ioannes Tarnanides in his book entitled . Professor Tarnanides begins with the ancient Macedoniansand dwells particularly on the Macedonians of the Byzantine era who were forced toaccept the Slavs in question in their territory. From his invenstigation of contemporary historical sources, he draws on his own words:

a) The two terms, (noun, Translation: a Macedonian, plural ) and (adjective - Macedonian) do not always havethe same significance: they coincide only to the extend that they refer to ageographical concept.

b) The term o is used exclusively to characterise forces or armiescoming from the Byzantine Theme , that is, the administrative or militarydistrict, of Macedonia . Since the theme of Macedonia was not a fixed entity alwayscontained within geographical boundaries, a military unit coming from a specificplace, could be described as Macedonian at one historical moment or another. This,consequently could mean that the leaders of these troops could at one time bedesignated Macedonian generals and at other times not. This usage derives from thefact that the meaning of the term was purely geographical, dependent upon theadministrative district- the theme - that bore the name at any given time.

c) The term also was to a considerable extend used in its geographicalsense, when it designated a Byzantine inhabitant of Macedonia . Since, however, itcould at the same time have other, non-geographical, connotations (racial, family,

etc.). it does not appear blindly to follow the successive administrate changes effectedby the central authority.

It is characteristic that those who from time to time are designated as are always members of Byzantine society or the Byzantine army, speaking thesame language and apparently following the same failh, and that they neverappear to turn, as the head of a certain group, against ihe Byzantine state .

d) In this sense, the term could be applied lo a person who was not of Macedonian descent. The characteristic example here is that of the EmperorBasil I, who is clearly described as being descended from the Armenian nation :

This however, did not stop the Byzantines from calling him a Macedonian.

8/14/2019 The term and its derivatives in Byzantine sources

2/3

e) This category does not appear to include the more recent immigrants toMacedonia, evidently because they retained their own ethnic particularity(language, religion, culture, etc.) and, more important still, their independencefrom the Byzantine rule. Thus, for example, in no case could any Bulgars, Slavsor Turks who were known to have settled in the region after a certain period

(and who, indeed, became the permanent residents) ever be described as .

An interesting case of this refusal to use the term , as a descriptor for local,generally Slav, rulers, is that of Tsar Samuel. Samuel who came from the WesternMacedonian district of Ochrid and who brought all Macedonia under his rule in thelate 10th centure and early 11th century, was never called , either by theByzantines or by local Slavo-Bulgarian sources. This fact would be exceplionallyilluminating if his Armenian descent could be proven which would make his casecongruous with that of the Emperor Basil I, also of Armenian origin. This wouldmake it absolutely clear that the one, was called, perfectly naturally, a Macedonianbecause he accepted without inhibition ot reaction the capacity of a Byzantine citizenand Byzantine subject, while the other was denied this honour by Byzantine writersand Byzantine public opinion because his distinction was based on rebellion againstthe Byzantine authorities. The fact that the city of Ochrid was not at that particularmoment part of the Theme of Macedonia would of course, have been no obstacle tothis, for two reasons: firstly, because Ochrid had been part of Macedonia n the pastand most of Samuels dominions lay within the historical territory of Macedonia andsecondly because the designation Macedonian did not always, as we have notedappear faithfully to echo the formal and practical administrative changes and divisionsof the broader Balkan region effected by the Byzantine authorities. When, that is, theemperor Alexios (according to Choniates) calls Bryennius a , since he camefrom the blessed and all-powerful Macedonian city of Orestiada, it is difficult toimagine that any temporary administrative change could alter this. That Orestiadacould, that is, cease to be a Macedonian city or its inhabitants be . Evenless could the scion of a famous Macedonian family, such as the Gomostementioned by Georgios Monachos (who does not of course specify where they camefrom) cease to be called a , just because an administrative shit in the Themeof Macedonia might leave him outside its borders.

From the existing literature it is possible to conclude with certainty that the privilegeof designating a region as Macedonia and its inhabitants as Macedonians always lay

with the Byzantine side. For this reason, no foreign - and especially no Slavic source -has ever arbitrarily attributed the appellation Macedonian to any region or anyperson outside Byzantium.

f) The designation , with the added information that the person in questionwas of the race of the Macedonians or came from a well-known Macedonian family(Gomostes) or was related to some Macedonian personality (Bryennius) isencountered sporadically throughout the Byzantine period. This means that theByzantines were aware of the particular presence of the Macedonians in the specificgeographical area in the past and kept the memory of their continuity and successionalive in the context of the new Romeo-Christian family. And

8/14/2019 The term and its derivatives in Byzantine sources

3/3

g) It is evident that on many occasions the Byzantine use of the term the race ol theMacedonians is deliberately intended to set them apart from other peoplessurrounding them or living in their midst and these populations that are identified asnon-Macedonians, who in their majority co-exist with the Greeks in the region , are inthe main Slavs.

This means that the Macedonians, who were the recipients of Slav migrations andwho, after attempting to repulse the incomers for a period, eventually accepted andco-habited with them, were none other than the Byzantine citizens and subjects of theregion in question. Citizens and subjects who no longer always bore the name of Macedonians or were necessarily of Macedonian origin. They might have come, andas we have seen did indeed come, from various parts of the Byzantine empire and inorder to serve some specific purpose were rhetorically or selectively designatedMacedonians, collectively and indepedently of their particular racial origin solelybecause they were Byzantine subjects and lived in the Byzantine administrativedistrict called Macedonia or the geographical region of the historical kingdom of Macedonia.

All the historic evidence goes to prove the the Slavs never encountered anypeople who were distinctively and unambiguously Macedonians, whether bydescent or by name or by conscience. The little intermingling there was betweengroups, was with with Byzantine, and ex facie presumably Greek, inhabitants of the region.

Another consequence of this fact - that is - the Byzantine impact on or evolution of the significance of the term Macedonian, which by this time meant any Byzantineinhabitant of the theme of Macedonia or of historic Macedonia - is the present dayinsistence of the Greeks who live in that region on calling themselves Macedoniansand the persistence of their local Macedonian conscience, as part of their broaderHellenism. The reaction of these contemporary - and by Byzantine tradition -Macedonians to the improper and unhistorical use of this national appelation bythe Slavs of the region, those who in all likehood are the descedants of theSclavini of Macedonia is thus wholly explicable.

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2009/04/28/term-macedonas-and-its-derivatives-in-byzantine-sources/