State and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium Edited by Vassil Gjuzelev and Kiril Petkov @ winsrcniataaretol adr: Dr Katine Maen and. Trae ito English by Neda Calle, Del Diss, Noa The Amro Resch Center in Sf. Al sigh reserve. ‘Thi tok, prs thewo may note rpouced io any Frm tot permission trom te plate Exceptions remade for bri xcs ed in puis ‘eviews Far infrmain conta he Ameren Reseach Cetin ofan Sine Otc, Glin Sith 20, Depurinet of Css, Corel Unies Ic, NY 1853 othe Ameren Research Center in Sf, 57 Vial Poesy St, 1510 So, Bula Prien Sf, Bulg by Aa Print i Jacket and covers design © by Dita Kelbecey, 2011 eta: al. Dumb Oaks Calton, nv No. 38.106 493 {Dumbarton Oaks Ca Seals Colltio, Washington,DC sey s Apa erCONTENTS: Prerace List oF Anmacviions Conravrons| Vass. Grze.ey Mein ao Byzavrse Sr Bani THE NOETEESI AND “wenn CesTons:AHistemixcaanicat INTRODUCTION. Groncs Bazaar Rruigous Asrcrs oF Masava. Stare Ino vt Eunoreas Socrazast deta 31 Petar Avcniov “The Byzars 4s Inacne BY a MEDEVAL BELGARANS ene 7 Masro Marwor “Te Recanionswerwars re Orton Conoutnons ste Bata Sars 1H 13705-13805: Trea ASPECTS. Yombases Yonexove Byrne Fommsses Tone Soum oF rae Hens Moonta He Laer (oF Cony Fos roe Last Duca ote Son CesT 93 Mavesa Kasaxenors “Tue Founoanon or Toe Butcann SATE BULEARN Mena Hisomtocan ee rismeieeaallD Lau ¥Simonore ‘Tue "Avan Comune” visis Tat Statnanooy: Sv¥@oUSM OF THE MALE Aussocaane Duss BUAnis, NAT-TID COSTER nnvor Nnorov ‘Tue Pecernon oF 1H BuLGARns Past 18 ‘te Cour of PRes.av AROLND 900 AD vas Bruasiy Sr. Pen (927-969), Tsa8 oF me BULGARIAN Rosse Kastor Parnowaae aN Monastic Grocraran 2's Buvoama 1s Lare Noe ax0 Test Cen Vass TingoveZawore Tae Du Cance CataLocue una Tuer ‘Tue Fast Two Cavronis oF i Ancimstoenc oF Onn. Crm Porunexov ‘Waar Do We Kwow Anour mie Anmowe SLas 1 THe MiDoLt Aces? Scr worse Biuocaarty ox wi 137 3 19 209 27 253 261 290 Pacrsce ‘This collection presents thineen studies dedicated to the history of ‘medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium from the sith to the fifteenth centuries. ‘The explorations revolve around issues of erica import forthe functioning ofthe church and stat in medieval Bulgari, and thir intimate linkages to similar phenomena in Byzantium. Most ofthe essays have already appeared ‘in Bulgarian publications. The collection sequins English-speaking experts and students in the field witha sample ofthe directions that Bulgarian ‘medieval scholarship has taken nthe lst twenty year. The hstoriographical overview atthe begining andthe annotated bibliography atthe end ofthe ‘volume further introduc the reader to that academic aition by highlighting ts major phases and achievements On behalf ofthe contributors andthe editors ofthis collection, we should like to expres our gratitude to Charles Denver Graninger, Director ofthe ‘American Research Cntr in Sofa (ARCS), for is encouragement and kind assistance, and for the Center's consistent moral and nancial suppor. The ‘America for Bulgaria Foundation ha been mest generous with extending subvention without whch tis pblcation would not have been posible Finally, we would like otha Todor Petey, Director ofthe US Office OFAARCS, for his conceiving the iea fr his volume and puting together the Plan for its execution, Iris ourhonorto dedicat thi volume othe 2nd International Congress ‘of Byzantine Studies in Sofia, perhaps the mos! important scholarly event fo take place in Bulgaria over the past cetury The Editors ‘Vassil Gjuzele and Kiril Petkow‘unnoticed Obviously, in Byzantium the Amin ethnic costume Wa soy satire wom by servant, rather than by thet Romanized masters" ‘As Ihave shown elsewhere, due tothe symbolism that was encoded ‘of it, dress drew a clear demarcation line between the people of high seca status and the commonality, the military andthe civilians, the clergy and the laymen. In Byzantium, dess also dew a demarcation line between the foreigners and the representatives ofthe minorities, on he one hand, andthe Greek-speaking populace of the Byzantine cites, onthe othe." AS forthe Byzantine cout costume, in Constantinople it was seen asa sgn ofits wearer's formal belonging to Byzantine court hierarchy. Probably the twobasicypes of male clthing, i, the formal Byzantine ‘court costume and the eaftan-and-concal-hat aire whose main accessory was ‘he long studded bel, remained in parallel sen Bulgaria atleast until the etly 1000s. That pall use of to diferent types of men’s attire may have beso reflection ofthe simmering cont between the representatives of two va ‘delogis: the pro- andthe ant-Byzantine factions, atthe Bulgarian court. ‘is alo possible thatthe same people may have oped forthe "Avarstyle”atire ‘none occasion and 2 skaramangion and chlamys on another, in ode to underscore the ideological symbolism oftheir ations In that case, the daly in the Bulgarian aristocracy’s manner of dressing tested to the ambivale nature ofthe Byzantine Bulgarian relations, in which the corm allegiance to Byzantine Christianity and civilization cold not eliminate te old military antagonism beeen the ruling elites ofthe two nations, Soja ee. Tas 3 "Ganon. “Th reo Armenian negation inthe Byte 12-1 See above ate 2 186 ‘Tue PERCEPTION oF THE Buvcantan Past wv rue. Count OF Prrstav anovp 900 AD. Angel Niktow Ins Hexomeron compile sound the Beximing of hth cent and edie tothe Baga Princ Synen 9387) he Etrch aped part Bsil th Grea’ Hera ad present the Bln tion Shoutte excerpt power of te epee ofthe ring dant inthe following wa: Tn many counties ules emperors rites, ed kings ak ower. by righ of birt aceoring tthe lor of progeny. aK. The son ‘places the fue andthe bt replace his bros ws atthe ine Gf Davi aswel He was heist fis fay rae Jes a is fay Sentinel ght wnt gn Zaabbl was th sane with th Prins wih he Lyn be re, ing wit ra a Dar tr fly ep aig ih the yan ie ay aed ren ann ah rl Gh ei fo Ge ‘ih amt Cross when th mpi ows 8 hp ely one fami Onin Stns same the Balgin res ascended the oe Spano tithe son eed bs itr nde bre suede is ether We arth ithe same withthe Ca re’ wor ws de in tn he Bases ‘Al eamation 5 tt Oe aes 681973 Asn Da exam Ram 12S) Ane, a Hameo 28, 25,108 Ue‘As is evident fom the tet John the Exarch prefered to present he Bulgarian a following polis adios that dated back to God's chosen, ing of Juda, Davy and othe ancient kingdoms of Lydia and Pea without even mentioning Byzantium.” Some scholars have suggested tha the alleged Bulgarian pace of passing the right rule wii the ring family ot only fom father to soa bat ao fom brter 1 bose, shoul be atbied oa "new pict of sucesin,” set oth at the assembly hein $93, which endorsed the acesion othe trae of Symneon (893-927) afer ‘he dstronement of his oer brother VidmirRasate(889-893)¢ I woud argc that John the Exarch’s real purpose was 10 demonstrate the affinity between the Bulgarian politica rate of succession tothe throe and the Aynastictadns of prominent ancient peoples, techy emphasizing the lepitimacy of his master asa ruler ofthe Bulgarians inthe context ofthe strained lations between Bulgaria and Byzantium nthe Inte ninth ad he ‘ly tnt eeturis” een rere ena eee Seer necepiomrarions ‘rete nena coment aoe he Cua ‘ary te wil of Gol depeting he pss i fi npr: Sn Ko a eee aetna mec eee aeee tart renee Seen Aaa me neuetyor a mn rnin “fh nnapeen.-apoaere cop tanec wn Tagua Gaaraens 6 Se Te a ee Se recrereeicenteconeenaaa 156 soimthe xarc’s maifsshs ambition presen the yma covimity of Balaran rsa the Ssenance of pee oer Of Stres within he ring fly «common of ase polis [Stow In it respesthe roms ypiedexanpe ote profound ‘ologl erest in word histo shanti of he men 6 eters ‘Seta the rye cou in Pry. Ina eke nh coletve (ence he hsery of pple te ir of he metas Set rd tne syntulced Gn ne tesoed it of eBags fut a cpr sto conmaniy nis own sons, a ad ‘Store Morover te bist lenin the pone of ths Ble ‘dents decedas of power cit rc desea of pol {Dillon whch hd cone ip beng cme freebie of Dane Bulgari nth ses,C Baton te tal es, the Poo Dafne radon of sta opaton fs ogasing int treater be Crs th coy desing Savizaton™ In one of his eps to Taar Symon, the paiach Nicholas Mysos (901-907, 912925) nates “God, who has ven toca ation its limis,s0 fas He given to each is honors an ppliations. Those who have kept the nor given to them by Him have endured. Bur hose who have et at ovat it were he divine gifs and hors, and have persis in trying 1 et Something more on heir own acon, tse although they have appeared for A shor while to advance and increase, yetae ite have bess depived of Tian wis was Sonn er 1 tl re wd ight SLE esac amememe ue ch Gorm cm eg 9-8 sate tera come cy enh femelle cen orgie ‘ vk you this and please do tel fa Ses Ree te omni car Preieereternecnis Stason pane eneaymeemnen n™ (Struma = 219.1805 Pima neha gery te i080 TPE Magara pane Hom, 5 (7016 19)owever, Nicholas Mystks oly once revealed his understanding of ths place assigned by God tothe Bulgarians. Son afer he ching suflered by the Byzantine troops on 2 Ags 91 at chil and eae Bessible Bulgarian offensive against Constantinople the Patriarch reminte Someon about the previous fe segs ofthe imperil capil oomnsg ‘pecially onthe fur ofthe Avars “Once upon a ine the Pesan ance ame here and encamped, and burned and wrecked buildings, a= you me, thresteingto do, But they were estroyed and arenow nothing bta memos hile the Roman Empire stands firm on its own fet. Before tha, he Ave tribes, of whom you were the offshoot (I mesn no disespet), and snes and runaways, or long assailed tis great City that has as her Commanders (Chief our Lady and Mistress of us al, up othe very walls; yet they too were destroyed, and not a vestige ofthat ace survives, while she, ur City, ses {nthe imperial glory that was her lot fom the beginning, "" Although in ths ease Nicholas Mystkos alludes to the Bulgarian Participation in the Avar troops that besieged Constantinople in 626 itt ‘vious thatthe patriarch also knew Patriarch Nicephorus chronicle, where the establishment ofthe so called “Great Bulgaria” iasociated with srevall ‘agains the domination of the Ava — information which is not corroborated by other historical sources" “Reminding” Symeon abou the slave origins of ‘the Bulgarian, the patriarch in effect questioned hs legitimacy, ss the very emergence ofthe Bulgarian people was due to an lawl act of rebllon against its forme masters. Therefore, fom Nicholas point of view, Symeon'’s «rive for imperil power over the Romans was doomed to flare not onl “Sich Paiath of Constninole Ltrs 848-70, * Nichols Pariah of Const Ls 30-970 * Nikephors, Patriarch of Consannoge Sor Hit Tex aston and comme) by C Mango, Washing, D195 "Nikephoos, Patric f Contain. Stor Hy "A umber of onempray hls eee hat hit pn Patch Nl st ‘dtr Ava we sal nd Wester Turks Haenten, nape ya 2 pas «somipe Broa Epon + Kamina Maca 1997; ee etme ann ‘Hemopan Cope 184,39 2 Gallen laredcon othe sry oe ‘Peoples loge ond Sue Formato i eel cod Ear Mod a! (he Male Ent Wiebaen 19522005 160 because of the provident mission of Byzantium as the ony indestructible ‘empire, created by God on eat,” but aso because of the historically predetermined lw stats ofthe Bulgarian poopie “The Patriarch’ ideas are indicative ofthe tational Byzantine disregard forthe Bulgarians, whose eal history sermed deprived of any glamour and worthiness. In contrast othe emperors from the Macedonian dynasty, who claimed tobe descendants of the ancient imperil house ofthe Arse, the Bulgarian rulers were alvays perceived by Constantinople as newcomers and intruder" leaders of a “newlyemerged” and “abominable” nation™ cof barbarians and vagabond, who, ar heir conversion, woud inevitably adopt the lifestyle of the Byzantines and submit to the sovecigmtyof the Romans This view is vice in the oration given by Emperor Nicephoris 1M Phocas (963-969) in 965 before the envoys ofthe Bulgarian tar Peter (927-969), who had come to receive te annual bute pid wo Bulgaria by the ‘empire Stating that it was cisgac forthe Romans to pay tribute lik slaves ‘0 the particularly wretched and abominable Sethian people; the emperot CE Nich [Paar Cancale eter, 28 1-11, 8 "CE ThedoeDaphopets.Creponance eet dip) Darou et ‘Weserink Pas 97651, 3 tivog aA) "sii tat Tepes Confer dec oe gan wing egress "ie “tal ad ncn tbe “al we” “a sd aware tl Careers Wl Lip, 86, 356-8 The Choe of at © de Bae Te "hha Confessor yamine an ear Eater ery 0 24643, Tae io ‘oe mare cops oem: Burpee Te Facapar « Cogues Iprcpuanper Romans YS ‘Tionono 200,235, Hes as ym sas Ym ere ‘texas, acannon pear pa atone ‘pooner eich ensue argo Mana! Kes Sed Bao 7 aj 2008, 7-18. "Lon inpetns Tate, XVIL 6 (6,17 0D “Sch he a the Tuk oar sma tBu, te cel ites igh he i sone th Crs ath adhe cor ea clo the Roma fag wits ens ssa dt a wy “tant Des fron ei 6 os «225 exer Ex neve we UGE {the Deacon The Bsn Mey Bx tte 161tress his fhe withthe following words: “Did you unawares beget me asaslave? Shall the revered emperor ofthe Roma, be reduced. peying ‘ebute fo a most wretched and abominable people?" Then the Bulgarian ‘envoys were beaten up andthe emperor ent warn to Petr, "so that you ‘may lear, oh you wh ar thie a slave though your acest o proclaim the rulers ofthe Romans s your masters, and not demand but of them asf they were slaves" Conversely, by the end of the ninth century, the Bulgarians firmly believed in their historical rights oer the lands conquered by thei ancestors in the Balkan Peninsula. As the Persian historian AI-Tabar noted, when the Byzantines were defeated in 896 and Symeoa's troops were approaching the walls of Constantinople the Bulgarian ruler (the sro the Slavs) adresed the envoys sent by Emperoc Leo VI with an afer of peace, saying, “This county is my ancestors realm and Iwill nt reteat until one of us bas diated the ater"? Thre decades ater, ina eter o Romanus Lecspenus, Symeononee agin asseredhis historia ighttorulethe Byzantine erstanes ‘conquered by the Bulgarians inthe Balkan Peninsula, wring, “you argue in your leter to us that Dorostolon [modem Silt] and the other places ‘mentioned in you leer were under the rl of the previous emperors, nd ‘ow that you ral them, you say should not be a butden fr us as we should bused oit.°™ ‘The Bulgarian state tition andthe tenacity ofthe historic! memory ofthe power and ancient orsias of the Bulgin people, cultivated by the gan ancestors of Prince Bri-Michtel (852-889; + 907) under whoe the Tanton sd entatos by ACM. Tad Slane asic 6 Deans dS Math. Dmborion ts Sax A 203) Ca 1 Sais Byam Wa agit Cts an Emp Polo Byzantine Sm 29 2010 13. Lens Dicon Ciltnss Hatin ir, 622-3 YOu nee al 06": Th sry of the Dean, ‘Lene Dicot Canes Haart hi, 27-9 (is wae, abso dv goybvr,ornas ois aaa yuna avapro x NORTON texans ga The Hiro Lo the Draco A asl Byam te drs 2) La date Naadoe 87-99. Bs 1550-2 CEM Aneto. Barna cpeonneoma dunn, Cos oe Theor Depbnpats Corependan, S61, 68 162 country converted, and his thid Son Symean, were to powerful to simply fo ive way 9 casily ote Romay- Byzantine concep of world history. ‘The Proto-Bulgarian lapidary iscrpions and the living oral history and legendary tradition were undoubiedly standard reference points i the work ofthe men of ees in Pret. ‘Conclusive evidence for this isthe fact that the only known copy of the Name Lis ofthe Bulgarian Kans shor historical cord containing the aames and families of some early Bulgarian rues, was included a an ‘addendum to the Slavonic transition of the hibial Books of Kings fund in an Old Bulgarian chrooogaph tat was compiled toward the beginning ofthe tenth century. now known only in late Russian revisions Keeping i ‘minha The Name List of he Bulgarian Khan snot only ist of rats, but, ‘dso short chronicle wit profound poli meaning itis easy o explain inthe context ofthe ideological ques of Syneon and he writers around hin why there was such a interest in his text rest tthe beginning ofthe tenth century. Placed asi was, the list of the rulers ofthe House of Doulo, the ist dynasty of Danubian Bulgaria, related the begining ofthe Bulgarian state tradition, and hence the emergence ofthe Bulgarians as nation, to the Seer oe ee ee See raen eae Sea eee Se =o poses ean cree ae prea ee soem pa eee Seo eee es Seema ee ieee Secreta ears Siar perce aa ME Katina. Hoenn a Gnarapeue same” — wan ae avets around the incursion of King Nebuchadnezzar in Jude, the conquest tf Jerusalem (S87 BCE), andthe Babylocian captivity.” We should ot forget tat lists of rulers and. genenlogies were extremely popular in early medieval Europe.” Genealogies of barbarian Kings were used as «powerful ideological means of boosting the rule's ‘harsina aswell a firming the dynastic tations, which strengthened the bond between the royal power and the nation." A typical example of the insertion of pagan clement in the oficial dynastic ideology i the fsevealogy of Syineon’s eminent conterporay, the Anglo-Saxon King of Wessex Aled the Great (871-99), whose ancestors ineluded none ater than the Norse god Odin It would be appropriate inthis context 1 reel he long-standing hypothesis according which in esons o Bor Mica’ request 0 ‘ecvive Chistian “secular lav" Pope Nicholas I sent 0 Pliska a opy ‘ofthe Laws ofthe Langobard Kgs IF his concctueis correc, Prince Souvermpm 0) Cg den Bape spy o SSOAW mem psa rn Oa rom recht ft oe 38 a oe "(eamorey sare Tasend aw biotacenl Seto epee, anon 190, 6A Sure wing mtry a King Ale King Aled yen “De de aloe Sen eoptinten Vang sce Kn Ad de Gres Sei Bronte 4097, 9-2 Crna Ce ‘rocco een Ape une ene 38 > Phe" a Epa Moree rm Hira Ete 6 {ipa Car eb ep cap IN os %M,Cam. Gc Qed La ern ch en ME teat, 11-2 Dr a Pc ee yee 164 ris might have seen the list of rulers included inthe preface of King Rothar's dictum of 643, the fist Langobaed writen lw. The similarity tetween that list and The Name List of the Bulgarian Khane is obvious otha listed sixteen kings who had ruled before him, giving the name of the family cach one belonged o; the only ral mentioned twice is Alboin, the one who brought his people oly “withthe help of God” The comparison betwen the lists of Bulgarian and Langobard rulers suggests that the ruling elites ofthese two “barbarian societies," which bul thei tates in the terres ofthe former Roman Empite, shared a strong urge to enphasize their own, non-Roman politica traditions and ranlain a non-Roman polities iden Inthe second hal ofthe ninth century, the Bulgarians were faced with the need to reconil their pagan pst wih their new Christian identity. IF in 86 Prince Boris-Mihse’ ltrs to Pope Nicholas only alluded 1 bis Aes to have prayers to Christ on behalf of his pagan ancestors,” several ‘scades later his son Symean had The Name List ofthe Bulgarian Khans ‘ppened tothe Old Bulgarian translation of the sacred txt ofthe Bible ‘which shows that he ha already shaken off the historical insecurities and that deep sete fling of uncertainty which had woubled his father The curent sate of resoarch on the translated and original works fof Old Bulgarian literature allows us to reconsider some common histriographical conceptions. Summarized by Robert Browning, the Prota-Bulgarins’pereeption oftheir own past Was too confused to find “Gongs a1 Sens sono pti ely B: Pat ‘rts ef Meters & ae pte Coat” a Catteni Kamer 1 Sc ran 1 (1967 2008. CLW- ina Tense eng inde ie tn nro Be See of eer! Po Tia London 97,72 Ntdetan Rec sven Germania Htrn Lege Hanover 1868 1-2. ‘Abou hit in geese Dail ot "Huron "lee Rite od Pola es inLombu aly IW. Poe, itt Rea sas Dimon Te Cocoon Communes, 30. {to Leen Btn Kl 98 20-3 Nc Ppa pap. 9 cap LXXAVI, 36 1-1 CER Salon ‘kon Brat Coron alert: A Cie Stay of be npc of ‘Ca ety Snr end oan My 968, aan adequate embodiment in comprebensive writings ad is reflected, apa, {rom a few Greek inseriptions, only inthe mysterious Name List of the Bulgarian Khans. Browing states, “The tations embodied in the Lae ‘ave cerily been tampered within way dificult determin, but they have not been Christianized, not even by the kind of banal chronological linking which would have been so easy... The Bulgarians in fac took ner ‘he Byzantine picture of the pst ready-made and in close dtl However, Browning overlooks the fact that The Name List of the Bulgarien Khans i extant in an Old Bulgarian translation and that hie ‘translation musthave been made inthe ine of Symcon.” Whatever Broing ‘might have meant by “Chrisanized,”the fact that he is of rulers appeared 5 an appendix to a text describing biblical evens should be consiued as 8 aspect of literary activity aimed at rethinking the mos distant Bulgarian past.” That no atempt was made o correlate the dts ofthe Prot-Bulgaan ‘alendar tothe year ofthe eration ofthe worl, the indict, o he reigns of ‘he respective emperors, provides additional support fer the opinion tht The ‘Name List of the Bulgarian Khan, as we know it ods, appeared around the tum ofthe ninth century. As canbe seen frm the well-known marginal ‘ote of Tudor Doksoy from 907, at that ime the Proto-Bulgarian calendar ‘vas sil familiar and probably sill in use in Preslv, Alignment between the 1 Browsing. Byam and Bra 4 Comparative Sty crs the Ear Meda Promer Beil Los Angee 197, UL Ayes. Moyen py cpeduoctomane scapes woman uepnyp Ce ‘eo 3 As Anoaet Gags argues about The Nae List of he ro Kae “the way eating av ler pga ent toe nguag af he ten Chan ct as wall athe way oaneing te et int the Od Testes ook oth Kgs ‘ding sae onmens nh yt amt dense hi se igi pla owe of ruling atin nh alan polly” (ret. ope. 3 A. Tope K.Heocrpyen.Omcome canons promced Micon Con to tswomes Oat acaer ca ome tne Temas 1 oymnue-sponcmatnis, Moot 18832 A. Vl. Dior ee sin? ‘desa hanave St 1954, 67 See i: Kubert Kenran ‘ou mayo weqnopoe Tya0p eens pence Cmaps neo ‘mpu 1 098010611 BM Kabtacawonn, Busan sparen uompuo 101%. Tensnsntipmnreraran pope T0p fears mgmusp8» seta pune” Tce “pena 592) 2580, 166 Proto- Bulgarian system of chronology andthe systems wed in the Chistian ‘word was hardly 8 mater of interest forthe Old Bulgarian men of leer ‘working during Symeon's Golden Age: Omurag's Chala nsergtion fom {$22 testes toa practice of pal dating of evens “the Bulgarian way" end ‘the Greek way The use ofthe Proto Bularan chronological system half ‘century alerthe conversion demonstrates respect forthe Bulgarian atonal ‘ditions, which did not run counter to Christan peepions and religious ‘The Bulgarian Apocrypha Chri eas wines to the fact that, even inthe eleventh century te Bulgarians ada comparatively vivid memory of Aspruh (poe Ts” the founder oftheir tate, which supzests thatthe ‘Byzantine concept of word history was hardly adopted “eadj-made and in lose detail."as Browning argues, Furthermore, when Constantine of Presay compile his Histories he was inspired by his interest and admiration forthe Bulgstan pst and made sue to include in his work information about th death emperor Nicer that ‘secured during the emperor's ampaignapalast Bulgaria ("he was ile in ‘Bulgaria on 26 June") The writer had undoubtedly st hint the goal of | ‘making the Bulgarian peopl nd ther ste part ofthe history ofthe world {eis quite impressive that the fs bishop of Preslay considered it necessary ‘o mention a historical event that was 3 potent symbol ofthe fre cach besween pagan Bulgaria andthe Byzantine empire atthe ine of Khan Krum, the founder ofthe dynasty to which Boris Michal and Symeon belonged Presla writers fom the Ite ninth and thecal tenth century adopted ‘careful approach when deciding which Byzatine works on word history (shoe chronicles excepted since they were een nothing more than ordinary ‘rs iss) to tant into OM Bulgarian. is quite signiScan that it was John Malaas archaic chronicle, relating the event from the eration ofthe Beacon. pte ec Cot 192,26 (57, “8, Tema, A. Mier Hemp emueimeams sca ne tomer °MKatnaemens, Bape peiioemmascnapuome 1. 16‘work tothe reign of Emperor Justinian 1 (527-865), that they tana, Viadinie Istria, who published the translation, argued that afer they acquired alphabet, the South Slavs naturally developed an interest incelating the history of Byzantium. In view of this interest, the author describes the ‘hoice of Jn Malas as inappropriate and points out that Mlalas’ chronicle is ahistory of atguity ater than a proper history of Byzantun.the evens from the Byzantine history are related init 109 tersely in comparison with ancient Greek history, which sintrspersd wih various fabulous tales™* ‘One can explain the Russian scholar's bewiMermeat in view of his presumption that in the eat tenth century the Bulgarians hada desire o know the history of Byzantium. However, the chice to translate John Mas” chronicle rather testifies to the Bulgarians’ interest in Greek and Roman ntguiy, sein the coatext and bearing direst connection the sacred events ‘of iblicl history. In his work, Sohn Malalas united, though quite eclectic, the fabulous tales derived ffom ancient mythology and historiography with ‘Christian moral admonition, “worecastthe ancient history inabibial mould ™ ‘With the translation of Malla, Bulgarian society recived the opportunity to appreciate the conity of the historical process uninfuenced by the ‘ological modes characteristic of later works of Byzantine historiography” [As we have see, dynastic suecesson was topical issue in Inte tenth- century Presa: Hence, John Malas’ work ust have dawn the tention of the Bulgarian men of leters with the evidence adduced in it bout kings and royal dynasties that ruled a number of ancient ~and not so ancient peoples * Tees wae pb Vin stn i prs ad feet pert eres [67 an 9 and wa ner eral wit one aos by Mar Chere: expen pon Hoe Masane «coca meni epic eM ‘epson 8 Hepa, porns ne yess ea pO APT depen Moves 1998 0: Hexpen pon Fopus Anaya ¢ pane cneopycno mpc. 3 Te sporpen 22 8 “©11 Eomoon Cae madam Cpenonnons emopat Co 198 28, Kainarces op 1K 6 Ayes Tyee. 8 “i sold be sed at tn Maa’ wek interes he istry fhe cen rch ple adhe Roman Repsc was ar oh te hat mma tbs om {Ceuta pata panaton (Bynes deme npn + Sponope I-A Tee Sec Bede 29) Mancha 199, 2. 168 Ta Pacer Bas Ps Ca Pas 0 909 AD ‘Thus, the chronicle became « source of historical precedents that Symeon and his courtiers could use justi thei lis in ther negotiations with ‘Byzantium Such apuments matted inthe diplomatic relations between foreign rulers and the Byzantine Empire nthe coespondence between the ‘ByzamtineemperorBasillandth Frankish emperor Lous in 871, forexample according tothe Byzantine emperor, thie “bases” was ito scribe only the rulers in Constantinople. In his answer Lous Il poate ou, among other things, thatthe rulers of ost ations had bore tha tle and urged Basil 10 ‘satey himself hat hs i indeod so by looking at historical writings.” Against ‘hat background ti ery kel tht when Syneon demanded that the regents ‘of Emperor Constantine VI, till a minora the tine, recognize his new ile “Basies (ofthe Bulgarians)" in 913 an iterestng episode inthe relations tetween the Byzantine Empire and is exer neighbors, elated in Malas” ‘hroicle, was on the mind of Preis itera cording tthe chronicler, in $22 te Laan ruler Zt, who util then bad been unde the supremacy of the Persians, came to Constantinople, was ranted the ile sar” "Bacviets [AaGin") by Emperor fsi 1 (S18-577, converted to Christianity, married 2 ‘Byzantine woman, and then retuned to his cour The episode in Malalas established a dest ~and tus leptimizing~ precedent for Symeon’s sim. ‘The fith book of Malalas' chronicle, discussing the Trojan War, also ‘contains a reference tothe Bulgarian that must have been highly appreciated ‘in Presa in view ofthe eagerness of Syneon's iter to assert the ancient Abie ef hina agement a Symons pom coma in nr ‘Acro emer ena 1410 pice ath ‘paar ‘ptvararhe crete we his terse Rosanss Lecapen, ‘Sieve ned sage foe tof be Byte historian Men)‘rips of the Bulgarian nation, Ascoring to Malas, “Achilles lt with the Atria, bringing his own army of 3,000 ofthe men known then at “Myrmidoos but known now as Bulga Its worth noting tha the Ot Bulgarian translation of he chronicle rendered the passage 25 "Bulgar and Huns" As Malas uses the combination "Huns and Bulgars”clehere ‘in the chronicle its key thatthe translation refs more eat the original Byzantine Greck text, now known oaly though more recent and incomplete copies” The evidence cited shows tata early a the begining ‘ofthe tenth century the Bulgarians were falar withthe concept of thet Hun descent, which was crrent among the Byzantine writers" This concep tallied with he genealogical legend in The Name List ofthe Bulgarian Khans shout the descent ofthe House of Doula from the myerios Aitabol, most fiequently identified by moder researcher a Al (although he precise interpretation ofthis legend in Presi is ot known)-As to why Malas identified the Myrmidons with the Bulganans (fined in a number of [Byzantine sures a8 “Seythian people), the explanation ean undoubtedly ‘be found inthe context of he ancient concept ~ known fo some Byzantine Slam Mal, 99-21 Cal dpe peck av Ragan 6 ane AMAR ‘yoy Taow expan Soy Anoptouy Megubéne sore Yow BACH Booty") Pc Chrno thn Mab Aamo Eee Mees nd Scat Mela 48 The eso" Bulg as sored {oie wok of we he Byraine wer: (C Moats. Byamntue, De Syenmtngchen Ql der ach ter Tre BS 2. Brin 188 27 ere fira ma spo Ha Masai emoncs Heme ‘nse eae on Hanuman Howpeceic once. 16 Ba Smead onde, 9 (910, 6 3-8 an Ml, 42-4 ‘Foreampe Ashman Leni ad ufone clin th he wes nw es] ie Blas Haseena itr ote cei, Gees ree ope es penne ane Pesnd Bem, 20 (48% 4 12) un geese yes ha ps ae nero meee tie when the Dep ad rend sted Teal Anreon Opa (rsapenamanopotoom Co 98, 3 “Tora avey ofthe oror Marc Byomnonrci, 24 for arevion of diftaetepiionssce M Macon Huy a Gnszaperme ne (thos mse) Cope 198 18-7 Mores, Beto, 28; Hen, mrs nrc ame mee 170 ters a8 well~of Achille’ Scythian descent” ‘Te abservatons presented inthis paper ber evidence that he Bulgarian roof eters ofthe ate ith and teary eth centuries tok considerable Inerest in word soy. Nataly, they lacked the necessary knowledge nd probably di ot el the urge o crete gal historical works similar to the Byzantine conics, Ther ambition was lend credence 0 the Scien ongins ofthe Bulgarian nation and yan te tenacity of is tale and pla aditins. Te preservation of those watons consolidated the tery ofthe ruler and enabled Christian Bulgaria ~ thanks to te high degree of spiitval and clara atoomy acquired with the adoption of the Slavonic alphabet - to sbore op sealogcally the pole independence fined by the pagan Kian in th couse oftheir wars against Byzantium. ‘That was why in bis lever to Nicholas Mysto, TsrSymeon remarked with disguised pride, “where ou feretahrs and fathers labored, we xy the frit oftheir abors™| Fn co Can rim 10.1 he ay of te De tga ac Aen on Poe, wn 4 Sen, fn 3 {EAA cr cy Nats wh bens iy TOME Aaest ehh co ata npr, hen wet ne Teeny no Hen Mes EL 20-1 3°39. ‘Nicht Comsinoge Lti28 77H m 4