Slověne = Словѣне, 2020, том 9, № 1

The Journal is published

by Institute for Slavic Studies

of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Журнал издается
Институтом славяноведения
Российской академии наук

ИНСТИТУТ

СЛАВЯНОВЕДЕНИЯ

Institute for Slavic Studies

of the Russian Academy 

of Sciences

Институт славяноведения
Российской академии 
наук

Slověne = Словѣне

International Journal

of Slavic Studies

Международный
славистический журнал

I. Hristova-Shomova, A. Nikolov 

(Bulgaria); M. Mihaljević, M. Kapović 

(Croatia); V. Čermák (Czech 

Republic); R. Marti, B. Wiemer 

(Germany); A. Zoltán (Hungary); 
M. Garzaniti (Italy); J. Schaeken 

(Netherlands); E. I. Kislova, 

R. N. Krivko, S. L. Nikolaev, 

M. M. Makartsev, P. R. Minlos, 

A. M. Moldovan, D. G. Polonski, 

T. V. Rozhdestvenskaia, 

A. D. Shmelev, A. A. Turilov, 
B. A. Uspenskij, Rev. Michael 

Zheltov (Russia); J. Grković-Major, 

T. Subotin-Golubović (Serbia); 

R. Romanchuk, A. Timberlake, 
W. Veder, A. Zholkovsky (USA)

А. Николов, И. Христова-Шомова (Болгария); А. Золтан (Венгрия); 
Б. Вимер, Р. Марти (Германия); 
М. Гардзанити (Италия); Й. Схакен 
(Нидерланды); свящ. Михаил Желтов, 
Е. И. Кислова, Р. Н. Кривко, М. М. Макарцев, Ф. Р. Минлос, А. М. Молдован, 
С. Л. Николаев, Д. Г. Полонский, 
Т. Вс. Рождественская, А. А. Турилов, 
Б. А. Успенский, А. Д. Шмелев (Россия); Я. Грекович-Мейджор, Т. Суботин-Голубович (Сербия); А. Жолковский, Р. Романчук, А. Тимберлейк, 
У. Федер (США); М. Михалевич, 
М. Капович (Хорватия); В. Чермак 
(Чехия)

Editor-in-Chief

F. B. Uspenskij

The Editorial Board

Главный редактор

Ф. Б. Успенский

Редакционная коллегия

Moscow
2020
Москва

Institute for Slavic Studies
of the Russian Academy 
of Sciences

Институт славяноведения
Российской академии 
наук

Vol. 9

№ 1

International Journal
of Slavic Studies
Международный
славистический журнал

Moscow
2020
Москва

Slověne
СловЭне
Slověne
СловЭне
Slověne

Все материалы журнала доступны по лицензии 
Creative Commons “Attribution-NoDerivatives” 
4.0 Всемирная / Journal content is licensed under a 
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

p-ISSN 2304 - 0785
e-ISSN 2305-6754
DOI 10.31168/2305-6754

Сайт / Website:   
http://slovene.ru/  
Журнал включен в перечень
E-mail: 
 
editorial@slovene.ru 
рецензируемых научных изданий ВАК  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Минобрнауки РФ

Included in / Журнал включен в:

Scopus 
 
 
 
 
https://www.scopus.com/
Web of Science. Emerging Sources Citation Index  
http://wokinfo.com/
Российский индекс научного цитирования  
http://elibrary.ru
Russian Science Citation Index

Academic Editors
Научная редакция

F. B. Uspenskij (Editor-in-Chief), 
Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the RAS, 
Moscow

Ф. Б. Успенский (главный редактор), 
Институт русского языка им. В. В. Виноградова 
РАН, Москва
E. I. Kislova, Lomonosov Moscow State University
Е. И. Кислова, Московский государ ственный 
университет им. М. В. Ломоносова
R. N. Krivko, University of Vienna
Р. Н. Кривко, Венский университет
R. Marti, Saarland University, Saarbrücken
Р. Марти, Университет земли Саар, Саарбрюкен
D. G. Polonski, Institute for Slavic Studies, Moscow
Д. Г. Полонский, Институт славяноведения РАН, 
Москва

Managing Editors
Редакторы выпуска
A. O. Burtseva, A. S. Fedotov, E. I. Kislova, 
R. N. Krivko, M. M. Makartsev, R. Marti, 
D. G. Polonski, M. N. Saenko, A. E. Soboleva 

А. О. Бурцева, Е. И. Кислова, Р. Н. Кривко, 
М. М. Макарцев, Р. Марти, Д. Г. Полонский, 
М. Н. Саенко, А. Е. Соболева, А. С. Федотов

Technical Copy Editors
Технические редакторы
A. O. Burtseva, K. V. Sarycheva, A. A. Troitskaya, 
M. S. Yakovleva
А. О. Бурцева, К. В. Сарычева, А. А. Троицкая, 
М. С. Яковлева

Russian Language Copy Editors, Proofreaders
A. O. Burtseva, E. I. Kislova, K. V. Sarycheva, 
M. S. Yakovleva

Литературные редакторы, корректоры 
(русский язык)  А. О. Бурцева, Е. И. Кислова, 
К. В. Сарычева, М. С. Яковлева

English Language Copy Editors, Proofreaders
M. A. Borun, X. Dmitrieva
Литературные редакторы, корректоры 
(английский язык)  М. А. Борун, К. Дмитриева

Layout Editor   M. N. Tolstaya 
Верстка   М. Н. Толстая

Design (2012)
Дизайн (2012)
I. N. Ermolaev
И. Н. Ермолаев

Slověne = Словѣне. International Journal of Slavic Studies. Vol. 9. № 1. — Москва: Институт 
славяноведения Российской академии наук, 2020. — 514 с.

Номер издан при поддержке Фонда инновационных научно-образовательных программ 
“Современное Естествознание”.

Supported by:
Open Journal Systems 
http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/

SHERPA/RoMEO blue journal

Свидетельство о государственной 
регистрации СМИ
ПИ № ФС 77-68309 от 30.12.2016

© Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian 
Academy of Sciences, 2020
© Authors, 2020
© Igor’ N. Ermolaev (design), 2012

|  5 

2020 №1
Slověne

Contents  /  Содержание

Статьи /  Articles

7 
S. Stoykov (Stip). From 'Nations' to 'Archontias' (I)
'Sclavinia' and 'Sclavoarchontia': Terms and Chronology

С. Стойков (Штип). От «народов» к «архонтиям» (I) «Склавиния» и «Склавоархонтия»: 
понятия и хронология

29 
В. А. Баранов (Ижевск), О. Ф. Жолобов (Казань). Лингвостатистическое 
исследование частотных слов в Словах Кирилла Туровского (по рукописи 
РНБ, F.п.I.39)

V. A. Baranov (Izhevsk), O. F. Zholobov (Kazan). Quantitative Linguistic Study of Frequency 
Words in Kirill of Turov’s Words (Based on the NLR manuscript F.п.I.39)

81 
Т. И. Афанасьева (С.-Петербург), Т. Лебер (Майнц). Женский постриг в 
Древней Руси и на Балканах

T. I. Afanasyeva (St. Petersburg), T. Leber (Mainz). The Female Tonsure and Female Monasticism in 
Old Russia and the Balkans

110 
Т. В. Анисимова (Москва). Синодальный Шестодневец третьей четверти 
XV в.

T. V. Anisimova (Moscow). The 15th-century Synodal Hexameron (Shestodnevets)

135 
А. А. Казаков (Москва). Полемика с иосифлянами в Житии Серапиона, 
архиепископа Новгородского

A. A. Kazakov (Moscow). The Сontroversy against Josephites in the Life of Serapion, Archbishop of 
Novgorod

163 
Б. А. Успенский (Москва). Загадочная форма в титуле русских царей

B. A. Uspenskij (Moscow). An Enigmatic Form in the Title of Russian Tsars

185 
А. Ф. Литвина, Ф. Б. Успенский (Москва). Подлинные и мнимые имена 
Бориса Годунова

A. F. Litvina, F. B. Uspenskij (Moscow). The True and Fake Names of Boris Godunov

232 
У. Биргегорд (Уппсала). Почему казнили Павла Негребецкого?

U. Birgegård (Uppsala). Why was Pavel Negrebetskii Executed?

261 
† Г. Ореханов, А. Андреев (Москва). Россия в поисках «исторического 
Иисуса»: Л. Толстой и Ф. Достоевский vs Д. Ф.  Штраус

† G. Orekhanov, A. Andreev (Moscow). Russia's Quest for the “Historical Jesus”: Tolstoy and 
Dostoevsky vs. Strauss

292 
П. Калета (Брно). Чешский полонофил Эдвард Елинек и тема России в его 
творчестве

P. Kaleta (Brno). The Czech Polonophile Edvard Jelínek and the Topic of Russia in his Work

322 
В. В. Филичева (С.-Петербург). Полемика Ф. Сологуба с реализмом (Ф. 
Сологуб и А. П. Чехов)

V. V. Filicheva (St. Petersburg). Polemics of F. Sologub with Realism (F. Sologub and A. P. Chekhov)

|

Slověne
2020 №1

340 
О. Е. Пекелис (Москва). Об одном случае прагматикализации в русском 
языке: микродиахроническое исследование частицы же в составе вопроса

O. E. Pekelis (Moscow). A Case of Pragmaticalization in Russian: Micro-diachronic Analysis of the 
Particle že in Questions

362 
Л. Ясаи (Будапешт). О необходимости разноаспектного изучения видового 
противопоставления

L. Jászay (Budapest). On the Necessity of a Multiple-viewpoint Analysis of Aspectual Opposition

381 
D. V. Konior (St. Petersburg). Patterns and Mechanisms of Lexical Changes in the 
Languages of Symbiotic Communities: Kinship Terminology in Karashevo (Banat, 
Romania)

Д. В. Конёр (С.-Петербург). Паттерны и механизмы лексических изменений в языках 
симбиотических сообществ: термины родства в Карашево (Банат, Румыния)

Заметки / Notes

412 
А. Ю. Виноградов, А. А. Гиппиус (Москва), Н. А. Кизюкевич (Гродно). 
Надпись на плинфе из Гродно (Пс 46: 5) в контексте византийско-русских 
эпиграфических связей

A. Yu. Vinogradov, A. A. Gippius (Moscow), N. A. Kiziukevich (Grodno). The Inscription on a 
Brick from Grodno (Ps 46: 5) in the Context of Byzantine-Russian Epigraphic Links 

Публикации / Publications

423 
А. С. Лысцова (Екатеринбург), И. А. Поляков (C.-Петербург). «Реестры» 
книг частных библиотек первой половины XVIII в. из материалов 
конфискационной комиссии Елизаветы Петровны (1742–1743 гг.)

A. S. Lystsova (Yekaterinburg), I. A. Poliakov (St. Petersburg). Catalogues of Private Libraries 
from the First Half of the 18th Century: Materials from Empress Elizabeth’s Confiscation Commission 
(1742–1743) 

Рецензии /  Reviews

475 
М. А. Бобрик (Москва). Ettore Gherbezza, Dizionario di italianismi in russо

[Рец.: Gherbezza E. Dizionario di italianismi in russo (= Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Fonti 
e studi. 32). Milano: Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Centro Ambrosiano, 2019, 377 pp.]

M. A. Bobrik (Moscow). [Rev. of: Gherbezza E. Dizionario di italianismi in russo (= Biblioteca 
Ambrosiana. Fonti e studi. 32). Milano: Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Centro Ambrosiano, 2019, 377 pp.]

488 
Д. Г. Полонский (Москва). О рукописях собрания Радослава Груича в Музее 
Сербской Православной Церкви в Белграде

[Рец.: Мошин В. А., Васиљев Љ., Богдановић Д., Гроздановић-Пајић М. Рукописи 
Музеја Српске православне цркве: Збирка Радослава М. Грујића, Књ. 1: 
Археографски опис, Свеска 1, Београд: Retro print, 2017, 270 стр., илл. (= Опис 
jужнословенских ћирилских рукописа. 7)]

D. G. Polonski (Moscow). The Manuscripts from the Radoslav M. Grujić Collection in the Museum 
of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade 
[Rev. of: Mošin V.A., Vasiljev Lj., Bogdanović D., Grozdanović-Pajić M. Manuscripts of 
the Museum of the Serbian Оrthodox Church: Collection of Radoslav M. Grujić, Book 1: 
Archeographic description, Vol. 1. Belgrade: Retro print, 2017, 270 pp., illustr. (= Description of 
South Slavic Cyrillic manuscripts. 7) — (in Serbian)]

№1   Slověne

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative 
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

От «народов» к 
«архонтиям» (I) 
«Склавиния» и 
«Склавоархонтия»: 
понятия и 
хронология

From ‘Nations’ to 
‘Archontias’ (I)
‘Sclavinia’ and 
‘Sclavoarchontia’: 
Terms and 
Chronology

Stoyko Stoykov

University Goce Delcev
Stip, North Macedonia

Стойко Стойков

Университет Гоце Делчева
Штип, Северная Македония

Abstract
This article deals with the terms ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’, which are 
used in historiography in diff erent and even contradictory ways, and aims to 
clarify a highly complicated topic, investigating the ways these terms were 
used by contemporaries, trying to defi ne diff erences between them and connecting their use with the political changes of the time. Topics discussed include the chronology of the terms’ usage, diff erent ways in which they were 
being used, relations of ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’ with the Empire, their 
appearance and disappearance and the political processes connected with it, as 
well as the analysis of the existing interpretations. The fi rst part mostly discusses chronology and some existing hypotheses. The second (and the main) 
part analyses the way these terms were used and tries to defi ne them.
The hypothesis presented connects these terms with the re-establishing of 
imperial authority in the Balkans, marked in the sources by replacing the term 

Citation: Stoykov S. (2020) From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (I) ‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’: Terms and 
Chronology.  Slověne, Vol. 9, № 1, p. 7–28.
Цитирование: Стойков С. От «народов» к «архонтиям» (I) «Склавиния» и «Склавоархонтия»: 
понятия и хронология // Slověne. 2020. Vol. 9, № 1. C. 7–28.
DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.1 

Статьи
Articles

|

Slověne
2020 №1

From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (I)
‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’: Terms and Chronology

‘Slavic nations’, which had been used until the late 8 century to denote the independent Balkan Slavic societies and their lands. The Empire lacked the capacity for direct subjugation of the independent Slavic communities and was 
forced to rely on complicated measures including colonization and ensuring 
Slav cooperation in the process. In the themes where the Empire had enough 
power, Slavic communities were organized as ‘Sclavoarchontias’, who received 
archons from the strategos, paid collective tribute and served as symahoi, but 
kept some inner autonomy. The Empire also tended to ensure the cooperation 
of Slavic communities around themes by granting titles and subsidies to some 
powerful Slavic leaders, which led to the creation of client states known as 
‘Sclavinias’. They were not part of the thematic system, they had their native 
and hereditary leaders recognized and affirmed by the emperor by titles and 
seals and act as imperial allies. A prototype of both had appeared at the end of 
the 7th c., but only when relations of such types had multiplied after Stauracius’ expedition in 783, corresponding generic terms appeared and became 
regular.

Keywords

Sclavinia, Sclavoarchontia, Slavic archontia, Slavic nations, Byzantium, imperial 
administrative system, subjugation, conquest of the Balkans

Резюме

В статье рассматриваются термины «Склавиния» и «Склавоархонтия», которые употребляются в исторических источниках весьма различными, порой противоречивыми способами; предпринята попытка определить, как 
эти термины использовались современниками, в чем заключалось различие в их значении и насколько употребление того или другого наименования было связано с изменением политической ситуации. Соответственно, в 
задачу исследования входит описание появления и исчезновения этих терминов и относительной хронологии их бытования, учитывающее изменяющиеся во времени отношения с Империей тех, кто обозначался как 
«Sclavinias» и «Sclavoarchontias». Кроме того, в первой части работы предложен анализ существующих в науке интерпретаций соответствующих 
обозначений.

Мы полагаем, что появление терминов «Склавиния» и «Склавоархон
тия» связано с восстановлением имперской власти на Балканах; они призваны были заменить использовавшийся до конца VIII в. термин «славянские народы», обозначавший независимые славянские общины и их земли. 
Не имея возможности немедленно подчинить эти общины, Империя была 
вынуждена принять ряд сложных мер, причем процесс колонизация предполагал, по-видимому, некое добровольное сотрудничество славян. Там, 
где у Империи было достаточно сил, славянские общины были организованы в «Склавоархонтии», платившие коллективную дань, но сохранявшие 
некоторую внутреннюю автономию. С другой стороны, Империя стремилась добиться сотрудничества, предоставляя некоторым влиятельным славянским лидерам титулы и субсидии, что приводило к созданию зависимых княжеств, известных как «Склавинии». Последние не входили в систему фем, при этом их местные и наследственные лидеры были признаны 

|  9 

2020 №1
Slověne

Stoyko Stoykov

и утверждены императором и выступали в качестве союзников Империи. 
Проообраз таких двух типов отношений зародился в конце VII в., но термины «Склавиния» и «Склавоархонтия» появились и стали регулярно использоваться лишь в ту пору, когда после экспедиции Ставракия в 783 г. обе 
упомянутые выше политические модели стали активно тиражироваться.

Ключевые слова

Склавиния, Склавоархонтия, славянская архонтия, славянские народы, 
Византия, имперская административная система, подчинение, завоевание 
Балкан

If there is anything accepted without argument about the term ‘Sclavinia’ in 
historiography, it is that this term is crucial for understanding the Balkan reality in the 7–9 centuries.1 The discussion about this term had lasted for more 
than a century and reached a loose consensus by the end of the last millennium. The consensus was that ‘Sclavinia’ had been the name for Slavic tribal 
(or) territorial independent polities that could even be understood as pre-state 
formations.2 In 2007 the consensus was challenged with the following thesis: 
the term had not been used before the 9 century, and “the substantive Sklavinia 

1 “The term ‘sclavinia’ […] indicates a central concept in the early mediaeval history of 

the Balkans” [Ostrogorsky 1963: 3];“Keyword for understanding this situation is the 
term ‘sklavinia’.” [Chrysos 2007: 124]

2
“[R]egions occupied by the Slavs over which Byzantium had lost all control but which 
did not possess any other administrative system that might have replaced the earlier 
Byzantine one” [Niederle 1908: 421; Ostrogorsky 1959: 6; Idem 1963: 3]; “nominally 
Byzantine territories settled by Slavs” [Vlasto 1970: 156]; “region inhabited by Slavs 
under chieftains over whom the administrative control of the Empire was more 
theoretical than real” [Charanis 1970: 11]; “Sclavinias were the ancestral forms of earlyfeudal states” [Литаврин 1984: 199]; “political communities organized on a territorial 
basis”, or possibly “high (authentically proto-state) form of permanent militarypolitical societies” [Idem 1985: 27, 28]; [Литаврин, Иванова 1985: 85]; [Антолјак 
1985: 121, 123]; [Иванова 1987: 57, 59]; “tribes of independent, pagan Slavs, whose 
lands the Byzantine called “Slavinias” [Treadgold 1988: 19]; “non-subordinated to 
Empire, based on their own political units—Sclavinias” [Иванова 1988: 10]; “Region 
occupied by the Sclavenoi” [TODoB 3: 1910]; “Slav […] independent communities” 
[Obolensky 1994: 31, 32]; “autonomous gentile (often without fixed territorial 
boundaries) in (small) tribal groups organized Slav communities inside and outside […] 
the imperial territory” [Koder 1995: 1988]; “territory controlled by a named sub-group 
of Slavs” [Lunt 1995: 338]; “small Slav tribal units” [Whittow 1996: 275]; “Sklaviniai, 
the regions of the Slavs”, “the independent Sklaviniai of the Balkans […] the main 
opponents of Byzantine rule in the area” [Haldon 1997: 56 (f. 45)]; “areas of Slavonic 
settlement”, “territories previously occupied by Slavonic tribes” [Mango, Scott 1997: 
484, f. 1, 669 (f. 2)]; “The term ‘Sclavenia’ […] seems to mean a Slav tribal territory 
independent of imperial rule” [Barford 2001: 73]; “territory which had been imperial 
and to which the Empire still felt it had title, but which had been occupied by Slavs 
to the extent that imperial administration had ceased to function… When […] a state 
emerged on such territory […] then Byzantine sources replaced the term ‘Sklavinia’ with 
the state name” [Fine 2006: 40, 41].

|

Slověne
2020 №1

From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (I)
‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’: Terms and Chronology

applied not to independent lands of Slavs, but rather the opposite, to areas 
with Slavic population under imperial sovereignty” [Chrysos 2007, 132–135]. 
This was followed by the debate between Florin Curta and Andreas Gkoutzioukostas [Curta 2011a; Gkoutzioukostas 2015; Curta 2016; Gkoutzioukostas 
2017; Curta 2018], concentrated around the use of the term in the 6–8 centuries. Even though this challenge did not change the dominant opinion,3 it 
reopened the discussion about the term ‘Sclavinia’.

In the last decades, scientific interest was also focusing around the term 

‘Slavic archontia’ (or ‘Sclavoarchontia’) and some serious progress has been 
made in this direction [Науменко 2008; Цветковић 2016].

However, we are still far from consensus on the exact meaning of ‘Sclav
inia’ and ‘Slavic archontia’.4 It is no wonder that the two categories are often 
mixed together in historical works—both were Slavic units led by an archon. 
Depending on the interpretation of the term ‘Sclavinia’, ‘Sclavoarchontia’ gets 
interpreted differently—either considered to be the last stage of dying independent ‘Sclavinias’, or actually as having the same meaning that the first term.

This article aims to clarify the meaning of these terms and their use in the 

sources, as well as the reality behind them, being fully aware that the limited 
information we possess makes all possible conclusions arbitrary, and that even 
the most accurate definition could never match the complexity of real life.

Re-examination of the Chronological Framework
‘Sclavinia’ is often understood as the term labelling “Slavic lands in general or 
any one of them”;5 therefore, it is expected that the term could be found in the 
sources from the beginning of the appearance of Slavs. It needs to be pointed 
out, however, that ‘Sclavinia’ was not used consistently for every Slavic society or land, and that, despite the fact that the terms like ‘Sclavinia’ could be 
created easily, a toponym was not derived from every ethnonym (for example, 
there is no ‘Antia’). Still, in the past, this seemed to be correct about the term 

3
“[A] Slavic tribal territory independent of imperial rule, with their own political 
structures” [Kobylinski 2008: 543]; “any region in the Balkans settled by Slavs out 
of imperial control” [Fine 2008: 332]; “the regions settled by the Slavs (Sklaviniai)” 
[Louth 2008a: 126; Idem 2008b: 231]; “independent duchies” [Аџиевски 2009: 822]; 
“more or less independent but loosely organized barbarian polity beyond the borders 
of the Empire” [Кодер 2011: 102; Curta 2011b 119]; “proto-state formations” [Živković 
2013: 19, 20; Bulić 2013: 184; Vedriš 2015: 583, 585]; “territory inhabited by the Slavs 
[…] the Slavic landscape” [Malinovská 2015: 1, 2]; “single or multi-tribal territorial 
entities” [Hupchick 2017: 12].

4
The question whether ‘Sclavinias’ and ‘Sclavoarchontias’ were inside or outside of themes 
could be used as illustration. Both possibilities are assumed for both terms (for ‘Slavic 
archontias’ cf.: [Науменко 2008: 189]; for ‘Sclavinias’: [Koder 1995: 1988; Curta 2019: 310].

5
“‘Sclavinia’ was a generic term for all Slavic regions” [Karbic et al. 2006: 38 (f. 2); 
similarly: Ostrogorsky 1963: 3; Щавелева 2004: 366 (f. 6)]; “Sclavinia […] refers to every 
one of numerous regions throughout the Balkans where the Slavs were” [Fine 2008: 332].

|  11 

2020 №1
Slověne

Stoyko Stoykov

‘Sclavinia’ from the 6 century onward. The use of ‘Sclavinia’ in Theophylact 
Simocatta’s History, in Miracula of Saint Demetrius and in the Chronography 
of Theophanes the Confessor served as a proof of this.

However, after the critical edition of Miracula by Lemerle was published, 

it became clear that the word ‘Sclavinia’ did not exist in the original work [Miracula 1979: 130, 134 (14)]. The Chronography was written at the beginning 
of the 9 century.6 Thus, the History of Theophylact Simocatta becomes the 
only known source written between the 6 and the 8 centuries in which we find 
the word Σκλαυηνία, and, furthermore, it only appears there once.

Writing in 630 AD, Theophylact Simocatta mentions one planned Byzan
tine campaign in 602 north of the Danube against τῆς Σκλαυηνίας πληθύος 
[Simocattae 1834, VIII, 5, 9, 10 p. 323]. Its interpretation as a noun or adjective gives us two different meanings: “the multitude of ‘Sclavinia’” or “Slavic 
multitude”. Discussions conducted on this issue have not come to a consensus 
[Chrysos 2007: 124–126: Curta 2011a: Gkoutzioukostas 2015; Curta 2016: 
Gkoutzioukostas 2017].

The main weakness of the adjective thesis is that this otherwise linguis
tically acceptable possibility is, at the same time, unique: no other Byzantine 
author has used σκλαυηνία as an adjective [Curta 2011a: 89; Curta 2016: 2; 
cf.: Gkoutzioukostas 2015: 644 (f. 63)]. A similar problem, however, appears 
in the interpretation of ‘Sclavinia’ as a noun: it would be the only known case 
in sources in the 6 and the 7 centuries, and also the only case within Theophylact’s History, and the only case Theophylact created a geographical term from 
the contemporary ethnonym. The offered explanation that the reason was 
clarification and avoiding monotony and repetition [Curta 2011a: 91, 93, Idem 
2016: 9] is not satisfactory [Стојков 2018: 19–26]. An unexplained term used 
only once cannot by itself serve for clarification, neither to avoid repetition.

None of the predecessors or contemporaries of Theophylact have used the 

term ‘Sclavinia’, but it appeared that no one has borrowed it from him either. 
Patriarch Nicephorus, who created his history as a continuation of the work of 
Theophylact, did not use ‘Sclavinia’ at all [Mango 1990: 7; Neville 2018: 72]. 
Theophanes the Confessor, who in the second decade of the 9 century has used 
‘Sclavinia’ five times, and who had based his narrative about the time of Emperor Maurice on Theophylact, did not use ‘Sclavinia’ at the point where Theophylact did,7 nor did he use it in the section based on Theophylact. The first 

6
For the time when the Chronography was written see (started in 807, and finished 
between 813–815): [Рајковић 1955: 217 (810–815); Turtledove 1982: viii–ix; 
Treadgold 2013: 35, 39]. For the authorship of the Chronography and sources used see: 
[Treadgold 2011; Idem 2013: 44–49; Kompa 2015].

7
Of course, this may be due to the summary way in which this passage is transmitted, but 
that does not change the fact: in the section based on Theophylact Theophanes did not 
use ‘Sclavinia’ at all [Theophanes 1883: 284 (6–25)].

|

Slověne
2020 №1

From ‘Nations’ to ‘Archontias’ (I)
‘Sclavinia’ and ‘Sclavoarchontia’: Terms and Chronology

use of the word in Theophanes’ work considers the events of 658. Thus, we do 
not have any indications that either Theophylact himself had taken ‘Sclavinia’ 
from someone else, or that anyone borrowed it from him! This, along with the 
fact that σκλαυινία had never been used as an adjective in Byzantium, could 
lead to a third possibility: namely, that the word σκλαυινία did not even exist 
in the original text by Theophylact, but τῆς Σκλαυηνίας πληθύος appeared as 
a result of a modification of the original phrase “a multitude of Slavs” (which 
we find seven times in Theophylact’s History) performed by one of the copyists 
in the earliest surviving manuscript from the 10 century, from which all others 
originated.8 At the beginning of the 10th century, Leo the Wise expressed the 
idea that the Slavs had “their own country” (τῇ ἰδία χώρᾳ) when they lived 
“across the Danube”, but not after moving to the Balkans, and such an attitude 
could be reflected by his contemporaries in the earliest copy of  Theophylact’s 
History [Leo VI 2010, 470, 443, C. 18 & 93].

In any case, the only appearance of the word ‘Sclavinia’ in Theophylact’s 

work cannot by itself be used as an argument that the term ‘Sclavinia’ was 
already common in the 6 and the 7 centuries—alone, it could be no more than 
an exception that proves the rule.

‘Sclavinia’ from Theophylact to Theophanes
We do not find the term ‘Sclavinia’ in any other Byzantine source from the 
7 and the 8 centuries, including the second collection of Miracula and the 
history of Patriarch Nicephorus, which speak of Slavs many times. Of course, 
this is not a sufficient proof that the term was not in use—preserved sources 
are few and do not represent the whole corpus that once existed. One possible 
argument to suggest that the term was in use in the 7 and the 8 centuries is 
that we find it used five times in Theophanes Confessor’s Chronography, for 
events in 658, 689/690, 758 and 810.9 This fact could be interpreted in three 

8
As was already suggested [Stojkov 2016: 1, 2], four of the five preserved manuscripts 
originated from the same manuscript from the mid-10th century Vaticanus Graecus 
977 [Иванов 1995: 13; Olajos 1979: 261, 264; Neville 2018: 48]. Neville dated this 
text to the 12th century, but corrected herself on p. 73. If the term had been added to 
the earliest manuscript as simple mistake or modification, it was further transmitted 
to others. A similar case can be seen with the modification in one of Miracula’s 
manuscripts from the 10th century (Vaticanus Graecus 797), where in one place, 
instead of Σκλαβηνῶν, we find Σκλαβηνιῶν [Miracula 1979: 130, 134 (14); Curta 2011a: 
88]. We have a time match with the earliest manuscript of the History of Theophylact; 
both are found at just one place in the texts, in both cases it was used in relation to Slavs 
who were somehow connected or allied to the Avars and who would have been used for 
a great attack on Byzantium. Of course, this is a possibility that cannot be proven or 
excluded for now.

9
Once for Constans’ expedition in 658, twice for the campaign of Justinian II in Thrace 
and Thessalonica (689), once for the campaign of Constantine V in 758 and once for 
the settlement of colonists in the Sclavinias by Nicephorus in 810 [Theophanes 1883: 
347 (6–7), 364 (5–9, 11–18), 430(21–22), 486 (17–22)].