|
Post by insomniac on Feb 9, 2009 2:54:32 GMT -5
There is a discontinuity during the Dark Ages, there is little if no mentioning of us at all. Could the Dark Ages be the reason why we aren't mentioned? The period when Roman empire declined and bulgars, slavs & avars invasion of Balkans?
Here is the timeline: Early References - In the 2nd century BC, the History of the World written by Polybius, mentions a city named Arbon in present day central Albania. The people who lived there were called Arbanios and Arbanitai.
- In the 1st century AD, Pliny mentions an Illyrian tribe named Olbonenses.
- In the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy, the geographer and astronomer from Alexandria, drafted a map of remarkable significance for the history of Illyria. This map shows the city of Albanopolis (located south of Durrës). Ptolemy also mentions the Illyrian tribe named Albanoi, who lived around this city. . . . .
- 1000 - 1018 : Anonymous: Fragment on the Origins of Nations (Bulgarian Text) Original Bulgarian Text: What is possibly the earliest written reference to the Albanians is that to be found in an old Bulgarian text compiled around the beginning of the eleventh century. It was discovered in a Serbian manuscript dated 1628 and was first published in 1934 by Radoslav Grujic. This fragment of a legend from the time of Tsar Samuel endeavours, in a catechismal 'question and answer' form, to explain the origins of peoples and languages. It divides the world into seventy-two languages and three religious categories: Orthodox, half-believers (i.e. non-Orthodox Christians) and non-believers. Though the Serbs go unmentioned, the Albanians, still a small conglomeration of nomadic mountain tribes at this time, find their place among the nations of half-believers. If we accept the dating of Grujic, which is based primarily upon the contents of the text as a whole, this would be the earliest written document referring to the Albanians as a people or language group. It can be seen that there are various languages on earth. Of them, there are five Orthodox languages: Bulgarian, Greek, Syrian, Iberian (Georgian) and Russian. Three of these have Orthodox alphabets: Greek, Bulgarian and Iberian. There are twelve languages of half-believers: Alamanians, Franks, Magyars (Hungarians), Indians, Jacobites, Armenians, Saxons, Lechs (Poles), Arbanasi (Albanians), Croatians, Hizi, Germans.
so overall we were mentioned, 2BC, 1AD, 2AD, 1000-1018 ,1038, 1042, 1078, 1154, 1257, 1267, 1308, 1322, 1328, 1332, 1336, 1477, 1497, 1510, 1515, 1521, 1570, 1575, 1579, 1591, 1610, 1614, 1641, 1660, 1662, 1670, 1705--till today
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Feb 11, 2009 15:22:27 GMT -5
I have a pdf with some articles about the "Mediaeval Albanians" as the title of the international symposium is. As I've understood here in the forum Albos' knowledge about their history has its roots in albanian.com style pages and at the most Wikipedia. With only few tiny exceptions... I suppose its due to the low development of albanian historiography by Albos...
The symposium was held in Athens(1998) and many serious historians participated in it. Many of the articles are not written in English(French and Italian). I'll quote the names and the subject that they analysed during that symposium. The exact title o fthe symposium was this:
NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION INSTITUTE FOR BYZANTINE RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM 5 THE MEDIAEVAL ALBANIANS ATHENS 1998
-Alain DUCELLIER, Les Albanais dans l'empire byzantin: de la communauté à l'expansion 17-45 -Khristo FRASHERI, Les Albanais et Byzance aux VIe-XIe siècles 47-57 -Pellumb XHUFI, La "Debizantinizzazione" dell'Arbanon 59-77
-Helen SARADI, Aspects of early byzantine urbanism in Albania 81-130 -Marie SPIRO, Vergil in Albania: an early byzantine mosaic pavement at Arapaj 131-168 -Eleonora KOUNTOURA, The presence of the province of Epirus Nova in the so-called Notitia of the Iconoclasts 169-176 -Constantin G. PITSAKIS, Questions "albanaises" de droit matrimonial dans les sources juridiques byzantines 177-194 -Sima CIRKOVIC, Tradition interchanged: Albanians in the Serbian, Serbs in the albanian late medieval texts 195-208 -Barisa KREKIC, Albanians in the Adriatic cities: observations on some ragusan, Venetian and dalmatian sources for the history of the Albanians in the late middle ages 209-233 -Maria DOUROU-ELIOPOULOU, Les "Albanais" dans la seconde moitié du XHIème siècle d'après les documents angevins 235-240 -Nikos OIKONOMIDÈS, Andronic II Paléologue et la ville de Kroia 241-247 -Charalambos GASPARIS, Il patto di Carlo I Tocco con il Comune di Genova (1389-1390) Una conseguenza delle incursioni albanesi? 249-259 -Alexander Karl ROZMAN, Sources concerning the conflict between Balsha and Venice (1396-1421) 261-270 -Spiros N. ASONITIS, Relations between the Venetian Regimen Corphoy and the Albanians of Epirus (14th-15th centuries) 271-291 -Era L. VRANOUSSI, Deux documents byzantins inédits sur la présence des Albanais dans le Péloponnèse au XVe siècle 293-305 -Oliver Jens SCHMITT, Sources vénitiennes pour l'histoire des cités albanaises au 15e siècle 307-323 -Laura BALLETTO, Schiavi albanesi a Genova nel XV secolo 325-348 -Irène BELDICEANU-STEINHERR, L'exil à Trébizonde d'une quarantaine de combattants albanais à la fin du XVe siècle 349-369 -Gilles VEINSTEIN, Une source ottomane de l'histoire albanaise: le registre des kadi d'Avlonya (Vlorë), 1567-1568 371-384
I'll post one article now, if you want I can post more in a new thread.
ELEONORA KOUNTOURA THE PRESENCE OF THE PROVINCE OF EPIRUS NOVA IN THE SO-CALLED NOTITIA OF THE ICONOCLASTS
169
The Notitia No. 3 of the Darrouzès edition acquired the name "of the iconoclasts"1, because for the first time, as far as we know, it shows Illyricum along with all its metropolitanates and bishoprics as being systematically incorporated in the Constantinopolitan ecclesiastical hierarchy2. However, it is later than Notitia 2, in which we also have some entries from Illyricum3. We know that its annexation to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was effected by the iconoclast Emperor Leo III, very probably in 7324. So, we could date Notitia 2 after 732. About twenty years later, in 754, a Council was convened to give official sanction to the iconoclastic policy. It is reasonable to think that the ecclesiastical hierarchy as expressed through a certain Notitia (Notitia 1?), was no longer valid, because the Patriarchate of Constantinople had expanded its jurisdiction into new metropolitanates. On the other hand, it is known that the Emperor Leo III had been preparing a council since 7305. Thus, the drawing up of Notitia 2 could be placed within Leo Ill's efforts to convoke an iconoclastic council. Notitia 2 with its unsettled form could cover the
1. G.I. KONIDARES, Αί μητροπόλεις και αρχιεπίσκοποι του οικουμενικού πατριαρχείου και ή «τάξις» αυτών, Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie, Athens 1934, 23; ELEONORA KOUNTOURA-GALAKE, Ή «εικονοκλαστική» Notitia 3 και το λατινικό πρότυπο της, Σύμμεικτα 10 (1996), 45-46. 2. J. DARROUZÈS, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Texte critique, introduction et notes, Paris 1981, 20 (= DARROUZÈS, Notitiae). See also P. YANNOPOULOS, Métropoles du Péloponnèse mésobyzantin: un souvenir des invasions avaro-slaves, Byzantion 63 (1993), 396 and note 22. 3. DARROUZÈS, Notitiae, 19, dates it in the eighth century. 4. M.A. ANASTOS, The Transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 732-33, Studi bizantini e neoellenici 9 (1957), 14-31 (= Studies in Byzantine Intellectual History, Variorum Reprints, London 1979, no. 9). For the different dates proposed on this matter see ILSE ROCHOW, Byzanz im 8. Jahrhundert in der Sicht des Theophanes: quellenkritisch-historischer Kommentar zu den Jahren 715-813, Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 57, Berlin 1991, 113 (- Rochow, Theophanes). 5. J. GOUILLARD, Aux origines de l'iconoclasme: le témoignage de Grégoire II, Travaux et Mémoires 3 (1968), 293.
170
neccesities of this council. We don't know how accidental the omission of the patriarchates is at the beginning of Notitia 3, which could be ascribed to the absence of representatives from Rome and the Eastern Patriarchates at the Council of 7546. Notitia 3 in its systematic form was probably composed after 754 and arranged according to the general policy of Constantine V7. Since 1878, when Carl de Boor discovered Notitia 3 in the manuscript Parisinus Gr. 1555 A8, this Notitia Episcopatuum, dubbed "of the iconoclasts", has given rise to debate among scholars about the time of its composition and about the interpretation of the unusual place-names of Illyricum included in it. These unusual place-names in the old province of Illyricum, later called Albania (a name which of course does not appear in this Notitia) are the topic of the present paper. The ancient province of Praevalitana, which covered the northern part of modern Albania, is not mentioned in the iconoclastic Notitia, probably because the writer knew full well that this territory had not belonged to the Byzantine Empire for a long time9. Thus, I shall focus on the eight bishoprics of the province of Epirus Nova, with Dyrrachion as a metropolitan see, covering the major part of the area under examination. The ms. Parisinus Gr. 1555 A offers the following names: Θάμνης, Σκάμπης, Λυκηνίδου, Βύλης, Άτράδου, ΑύΑωνίας and Aκροκεραυνίας. With these, we shall examine the name Βυθιπότου (= Βουθρωτου), the bishopric of the metropolis of Nicopolis. The origin of the strange names of these bishoprics is unknown, as we do not know whether the author of the Notitia based his text on Registers of Councils or on other official texts of the archdiocese of Thessalonica10,
6. THEOPHANES, 427; Vita Stephani Junioris, ed. Marie-France Auzépy, La vie d'Etienne le jeune par Etienne le Diacre: introduction, édition et traduction, Birmingham 1997, 123, Ilio. See ROCHOW, Theophanes, 170. 7. ELEONORA KOUNTOURA-GALAKE, Συμβολή στην μελέτη τής βυζαντινής εκκλησιαστικής Ιεραρχίας κατά την περίοδο τής πρώτης εικονομαχίας, (Πρόδρομη ανακοίνωση), Βυζαντιακά 14 (1994), 70. 8. C. DE BOOR, Nachträge zu den Notitiae Episcopatuum, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 12 (1891), 302. 9. Since the second half of the 5th century this territory had already been occupied by the Ostrogoths; see E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. 2, Paris 1949, 12-15; H. WOLFRAM, Geschichte der Goten von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, Munich 1979, 324-326. 10. C. PIETRI, La géographie de l'Illyricum ecclésiastique et ses relations avec l'Église de Rome (Ve-Vie siècles), Villes et peuplement dans l'Illyricum protobyzantin, Actes du colloque organisé par l'École française de Rome, Rome 1984 (=Villes et peuplement), 30-31, 36, 53, 54; KOUNTOURA-GALAKE, Λατινικό πρότυπο, 46-47.
171
to which the Church of Rome had traditionally assigned control of Illyricum as a whole11. Furthermore, although the Synecdemos of Hierocles shows affinities with our Notitia, it cannot be its sole source12. If we compare the names of the cities of the Synecdemos and those of the bishoprics (see Table 1) we will notice two serious differences. The first concerns the number of the entries in each text. In the Synecdemos there are ten place-names for the province of Epirus Nova while in the "iconoclastic" Notitia there are eight names of bishoprics. Four of the ten toponyms in the Synecdemos do not occur in the catalogue of the bishoprics ( 'Απολλωνία, Πουλχεριόπολις, Λιστρών and Σκέπτων or Σκεύπτων). There are also three names of bishoprics which are missing from the list in the Synecdemos: Θάμνης, Άτράδου, Άκροκεραυνίας. It is apparent that we have two entirely different catalogues, quantitively speaking. The second, and, I think, the most significant difference is a linguistic one. The way in which the strange names of the bishoprics are written in Notitia 3 betrays the existence in the background of a Latin model, which the author had consulted for the bishoprics not only of the province of Nova Epirus, but also of the whole of Illyricum13. The most characteristic example, showing clearly the existence of a Latin model, is the bishopric of Βύλης; the place-name Βουλλίς or Βούλλις is transcribed as "Bulis" in Latin, as the Greek syllable "ou" is often transliterated into "u"14. Thus, the Latin name Bulis is clearly discernible, with the simple transcription of the Latin letter "u" with the Greek upsilon (Table 2, line 1). Another good example is the type Λυκηνίδου15 for
11. See G.I. THEOCHARIDES, 'Ιστορία τής Μακεδονίας κατά τους Μέσους Χρόνους, Thessaloniki 1980, 103. 12. Ε. HONIGMANN, Le Synecdemos d'Hiéroclès et l'opuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre, Bruxelles 1939, 3-5. Furthermore this does not correspond to Constantine Porphyrogenitus' treatise De Thematibus (93, ed. A. Pertusi, Costantino Poriirogenito De Thematibus, Vatican 1952, repr. Modena 1976), which simply reproduces the Synecdemos. For a different view, see V. PoPOVic, Byzantins, Slaves et autochthones dans les provinces de Prévalitane et Nouvelle Épire, Villes et peuplement, 213. 13. See KOUNTOURA-GALAKE, Λατινικό πρότυπο, 45-73. As a small number of inscriptions shows clearly, Latin was a living language in this area during the seventh century; see POPOVIC, Byzantins, Slaves, 210. 14. See, for example, G. ZACOS - A. VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, Basel 1972, nos. 391, 383, 384, but also into "ou" as in no 453. 15. The last edition by DARROUZÈS, (Notitia, 3, 303) has wrongly the form Λυκινίδου. Cf. HONIGMANN, Synecdemos, 4. See also ANGELIKI DELIKARI, Der Hl. Klemens und die Frage des Bistums von Velitza. Identifizierung, Bischofsliste (bis 1767) und Titularbischöfe, Thessaloniki 1997, 79.
172
Lychnidus, the ancient name of the modern Ochrid. This awkward form most probably arises from the fact that the Latin uncial letter Ή " was transcribed with the Greek eta (H)1^. Such transcriptions occur on Byzantine lead seals of the end of the sixth and the seventh centuries17. The first bishopric of the metropolis of Dyrrachion is mentioned in the Notitia with the curious form Θάμνης, which is a hapax. Perhaps we have here a corruption in the name of one of the unknown and unidentified fortresses mentioned by Procopius18, but this name is plainly connected with Epidamnos, the ancient name of Dyrrachion, still being used by Procopius. Although the historian of the sixth century confesses that in his days Epidamnos was called Dyrrachion19, in his "De bellis" he uses mainly the name Epidamnos20, imitating Thucydides, while he uses only once the name Dyrrachion in his "De aedificiis"21. In the Acts of the Councils the bishops of the city sign with the name Dyrrachion22. We do not know why the compiler of Notitia 3 chose this name for the first bishopric of Dyrrachion. There is an ancient tradition according to which Epidamnos and Dyrrachion were two different sites23. There is also another tradition for the etymology of Epidamnos connected with the roman damnum (=loss), which led to the alteration of the placename to Dyrrachion24. Thus, for the use of the place-name Θάμνης in the "icono-
16. E. THOMSON, A Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, London 1901, repr. Chicago 1966, 188, 191; KOUNTOURA-GALAKE, Λατινικό πρότυπο, 59. 17. The confusion of the transliteration of the letter "h" is quite apparent in the bilingual lead seals. See the strange ligature for the letters "ch" on Ioannu scholariu's lead seal in Zacos' collection: ZACOS - VEGLERY, Seals, no. 2887; see also the confusion in the same letters in another lead seal: Νικολάου stholasticu (ZACOS - VEGLERY, Seals, 436). It is interesting to observe the way in which the letter "h" is transliterated in the following lead seals: Teotoce boqti Maria patricia (ZACOS - VEGLERY, Seals, 2899), Theotoce voethi ioannqi cubiculario imperiali spathario et magistro Buzacrmae (ZACOS - VEGLERY, Seals, 2885; J. NESBITT - N. OiKONOMlDES, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art. Italy, North of the Balkans, North of the Black Sea, Washington D.C 1991, 1.6.1). 18. PROCOPIUS, De Aedificiis, IV 4, 116-117, ed. J. Haury -G. Wirth, Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, IV, De Aedificiis libri IV, Leipzig 1964. 19. PROCOPIUS, De Bellis, III 1, 16; III 11, 8, ed. J. Haury -G. Wirth, Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, I-II, De Bellis libri I-VIII, Leipzig 1905, reed. 1962. 20. PROCOPIUS, De Bellis, V 2, 24, 26, 28; V 7, 27; VII 13, 19, 21; VII 18, 1; VII, 29, 1; VII 33, 12. 21. PROCOPIUS, De Aedificiis, IV 4, 116. 22. M. LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, Paris 1740, repr. Graz 1958, 240-247. 23. Δυρράχιον, ί\ν Έπίδαμνόν τίνες είναι νομίζουσι: Appianus, II, 39. 24. Ή τής Έπιδάμνου πρόσρησις ζημιώδη δήλωσιν èv xf\ των Λατίνων γλώσση έχουσα δυσοιώνιστός σφισιν ες το περαιούσθαι ες αυτήν εδοξεν είναι: Dio Cassius, 41, 49. Cf.
173
clastic" Notitia, we may wonder if we have here a reminiscence of these ancient traditions of Roman history. One may also hypothesise that the compiler, thinking that Epidamnos was composed of two words (the preposition επί and the main place-name "damne"), omitted the first (επί) and transcribed the second as Θάμνης. In fact, the Latin letter "d" is often written as theta, in the "iconoclastic" Notitia, as in the case of Κύδνας for the bishopric of Κύθνος (Table 2 line 3). Perhaps our compiler's model contained a type similar to the Synecdemos and to other texts, where Dyrrachion is mentioned as Δυράχιν q ποτέ Έπίδαμνος25, a phrase encountered only in one Itinerarium26. In the ms., in the fifth position there is a gap, after which five letters are easily visible; they are the letters νθι and the abbreviation ας, it would seem that this entry concerns the place-name Amantia which appears in the ms. as Άμανθίας. It is difficult to explain why the compiler chose to write the place-name with the letter θ instead of t. It may be that this bishopric in the original text was written with "th", transliterating from the form Amanteia27< Amanthia, or with "d" (see the Table 2) and was transliterated by the compiler as θ, as we have already seen in the case of Θάμνης. 'Ακροκεραύνια corresponds to the district of the coastal Keraunia mountains in the north of Epirus, a peninsula with which Italy had communication, as the Itinerarium Maritimum reveals28, while according to a later description of this area, Keraunia divided the two provinces of Epirus Nova and Vetus29. Consequently, this is not a bishopric of the metropolis of Dyrrachion as presented in the "iconoclastic" Notitia. How can we explain this unusual entry? It is possible that the name of the territory was given to the bishopric, thereby indicating that all this territory was
Epidamnum colonia propter inauspicatum nomen a Romanis Dyrrachium appellata: Pliny, Naturalis Historia, III, 145. 25. Synecdemos, 653. 26. In GUIDONIS, Geographica (eh. 113, p. 137, 25, ed. J. Sehnetz, Itineraria Romana, Leipzig 1940, repr. Stuttgart 1990) we read the form Epidaurus, quae nunc Dirachium, confusing Epidamnos with Epitaura. Cf. Claudii Ptolemaei geographia. E codicibus recognovit, prolegomenis, annotatione, indicibus, tabulus instruxit, C. Mόller, vol. 1, pars II, Paris 1901, 492. 27. PROCOPIUS, De Aedificiis, IV 4, 117, has the form Άμαντεία. 28. Itinerarium Maritimum (ed. K. Miler, Itineraria Romana. Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana, Stuttgart 1916, repr. Rome 1964, LXVII, 489 = Miler, Itineraria Romana). See Ρ. SOUSTAL, Nikopolis und Kephallenia, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 3, Wien 1981 (= TIB 3), 95. 29. NlCEPHORUS GREGORAS (Bonn) I, 110.
174
under the jurisdiction of the same bishop30. On the other hand, ancient Itineraria mention Acroceauriorfi1, Acroceraunia^, Acroceraunium33 amongst other known and uknown place-names. From this observation we could suppose that the compiler of the Notitia had consulted a Latin Itinerarium, such as the Itinerarium Antonini or the Ravennatis Anonymi Geographica, where Acroceraunia is referred to neither as a district nor as a mountain, but as one of the ordinary stations of the Itinerarium. If we accept this hypothesis, we may extend our inquiry to the unidentified, as far as I know, bishopric of Άτράδου, mentioned on this occasion only. In the Itinerarium Antonini, written in the fourth century with later additions, Hydrunto, i.e., Otranto and Avion are referred to in close succession34, in the same order as in the "iconoclastic" Notitia, i.e., first Ατράδου followed by ΑύΑωνίας. If we bear in mind the similarity of the letters "A" and "U" in Latin cursive script and in mixed uncial script35, it would be not unreasonable to suggest that in the name of the bishopric Άτράδου we have an alternate form for "Hydrunto". But of course this is speculation. To close, I would like to examine the peculiar form Βυθιπότου36, which I think is a transcription of Βουθρωτοϋ, in spite of the fact that this bishopric did not belong to the province of Epirus Nova, but to the province of Epirus Vetus37.1 think that it is necessary to analyse this peculiar place-
30. In this way we could give an explanation to the later expression ό ΓΑαβινίτζης ήτοι Άκροκεραυνίας which is found in Notitia 10. 617. The confusion seems to start with the curious entry in the iconoclastic Notitia. Cf. A. DUCELLIER, La façade maritime de l'Albanie au moyen âge. Durazzo et Valona du Xle au XVe siècle, Institute for Balkan Studies 177, Thessaloniki 1981, 22. For this later expression see FLORENTIA EVANGELATOU-NOTARA, Συμβολή σχήν 'Ιστορία χής επισκοπής Γλαβινίχσας, 'Ηπειρωτικά χρονικά 28 (1986/87), 33-36; DELIKARI, Der Hl. Riemens, 61-62. 31. Ravennatis Anonymi, Cosmographia, ed. J. Schnetz, Itineraria Romana, Leipzig 1940, eh. 13, p. 94, 35. 32. Itinerarium Antonini, ed. Miler, Itineraria Romana, LXIII, 324. 33. GUIDONIS, Geographica, eh. 112, p. 137, 20. 34. Item ab Hydrunto Aulonam stadia mille: Itinerarium Antonini, LXIII, 329; cf. Ravennatis Anonymi, Cosmographia, eh. 12, p. 92. 35. THOMSON, Palaeography, 214. For other misunderstandings of the letter "A" in the entries of Illyricum, see KOUNTOURA-GALAKE, Λαχινικο πρόχυπο, 50, 58-59. 36. It is interesting that in Notitia 3. 298, we have two entries under the name Bouthroton. The first is the bishopric of Nicopolis with the form Βυθιπότου and the second is the bishopric of Rhegion with the name Βοθράτου (Notitia 3. 635). It is not known why the compiler detached the bishopric of Bouthroton from the metropolis of Rhegion, if, of course, this entry concerns Bouthroton. In my opinion Βοθράτου does not concern the bishopric of Nicopolis. 37. TIB 3, 132.
175
name in order to discover the possible origin of its every syllable. It is obvious that the first syllable "Bu" derives from the Latin "Bu", as we have already seen in the aforementioned case of Βουλλίς- Bullis. The second syllable "θι" comes from the transcription of the Latin "TH" by the Greek "θι"38. The compiler, as we see in the Table 2 in the cases of Θιβαιδου and Θιελπούσης, transcribes the ligature of the Latin letters "th", either as "θι", or as "ti" (Table 2 πορτίνου = πορθμού), or as theta. As for the presence of "Π" instead of "p", we note that this phenomenon occurs in a large number of bishoprics of ancient Illyricum39. We assume that in the original text, the Latin one, a confusion occurred between the Greek capital letter "P" and the Latin "P"; so, in the Notitia we have the curious types, some of which appear in the Table 3. These examples allow the hypothesis that in the original Latin text from which the compiler took his information, an "R" may have been confused with a "P". In that case, the Latin ms. Would have been written in a mixed uncial script, with elements of Latin majuscule script, very common during the seventh century40. Besides, in that period there are many codices, official documents41, and lead seals written in mixed Graeco-Latin characters42. To sum up, for the metropolitanates and the bishoprics of the province of Epirus Nova and Illyricum as a whole, the "iconoclastic" Notitia was based on a Latin text. The compiler tried to transliterate into Greek placenames unknown to him. As there are similarities between the Itineraria and the "iconoclastic" Notitia we could presume that this Latin model could be related to this kind of text.
38. See above, n. 17. 39. KOUNTOURA-GALAKE, Λατινικό πρότυπο, 63. The inscription on the lead seal Nóvvou chaptoulapiu (ZACOS - VEGLERY, Seals, 2992) is revealing on this matter. See also ZACOS - VEGLERY, Seals, 331 40. THOMSON, Palaeography, 188-191. 41. Cf. KOUNTOURA-GALAKE, Λατινικό πρότυπο, 63-64. 42. Apart from the aforementioned examples of mixed lead seals in n. 17, a lot of mixed lead seals have been published; see, for example, ZACOS - VEGLERY, Seals, 524, 528, 556, 581, 583,__
And for those who at least know to read Greek.
TABLE l SYNECDEMOS Δυρράχιον Σκάμπα 'Απολλωνία Βουλλίς Άμαντία Πουλχεριόπολις Αυλών Αυλίνιδος (=Λυχνιδός) Αισχρών (Σκεύπχων)
ΝΟΤΙΤΙΑ 3 Δυρράχιον μητρόπολις ό Θάμνης ό Σκάμπης ό Λυκηνίδου ό (Άμα)νθίας ό Βύλης ό Άχράδου ό Αυλωνίας ό Άκροκεραυνίας
|
|